The silence of the Gladstonians as to the vote in
the Lords against Home-rule has been remarkable, but at last Mr. Sehnadhorst and the rest of the officials of the National Liberal Federation have issued a manifesto. It is a very weak production. They say the Home-rule question has been subjected for seven years to a more full discussion than has ever been given to any political proposal,—which, as regards the Bill actually before Parliament, is a direct untruth, the most important clause of that Bill never having been dis- cussed at all. The Bill, they say, was accepted by the elected Chamber as a "moderate, comprehensive, and statesmanlike measure," yet the House of Lords gave only four days to its discussion, and rejected it by a majority of ten to one. "The wishes of two million electors are to count for nothing as opposed to the wishes of four hundred Peers representing themselves alone." The "permanent" Tory majority in the House of Lords is now pitted against the popularly elected majority in the House of Commons. Mr. Gladstone had stated that if the Lords acted in this way, they would be a power between the Throne and the people, stopping the censti- tutional machine. The issue has now been raised, and the question of ending or mending the House of Lords " may " now, therefore, displace all other subjects of reform, and cry aloud for vigorous and unflinching treatment. "We for the present reject the pretension of the Peers to force a Dissolu- tion," and propose to enter upon a real era of reform. That• is very feeble, and indicates a doubt in the mind of the writers whether they can do anything to the House of Lords for rejecting Home-rule. We entertain no doubt upon the sub- ject. If the Gladstonians believe their own case, let them go to the country with the double ory of " Up with the Irish!" and " Down with the Lords !" and see what comes of it. The people of England may be very blind, but they are not so blind as not to see that the Lords have simply demanded to know the popular verdict.