The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1910. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE LORDS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2733, 11 February 1910, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1910. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE LORDS.

Those who have followed the trend of events in England during the last few weeks will be quite prepared to learn from Mr Lloyd-George that the first important business for the new Parliament will concern the future of the House of Lords. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just returned from an interview with the Prime Minister in the South of France and presumably his latest announcement is the direct result of that conference. The members of Mr Asquith’s Cabinet have not always been a happy family; and there have been several occasions when the Prime Minister lias found it necessary to disassociate himself from expressions of opinion by the more impulsive of his colleagues, but in this case the decision to first attack the Lords in all probability represents the unanimous wish of the Cabinet. In our view, this is the wisest step the Government could have taken. The alternative was to reinstate the budget and once more place upon the Lords the responsibility of blocking the financial proposals of the Commons. The result, however, of such an attack might prove as unwelcome as it is unexpected. Even when supported by an overwhelming majority Mr Lloyd-George had to step very warily when seeking to pass the Budget in the last Parliament, and it was only after months of hard lighting, .with liberal applications of the closure and many concessions to the Opposition, that the measure safely emerged from the tumult of division lists. With tile condition of parties as they' are it is exceedingly problematical whether the budget could bo passed through the Commons. Undoubtedly it would prove a hard and sustained fight, and almost certainly the Lords, after witnessing with something akin to delight, the close divisions in the Commons, would reject the measure. This, in its turn, would involve another appeal to the country, and after the experience of the last few weeks, we should imagine that Mr Asquith would be extremely disinclined to again test his fate at the polls. In deciding to first attack the Lords, Mr Asquith has in all probability got nearer, to the popular wish than lie could have by following any other course. The issue will depend very largely upon the methods of attack. Almost indissolubly allied with the question is that of Home Rule. The Irish party r are pledged to support the Government on the Imrds question, but they will only do that if reform of the Upper Chamber is sufficiently drastic to make it impossible for the Peers to block the -passage of a Bill granting self-government to Ireland. This means abolition of the Lords’ veto. On the other hand, the whole of the Unionists, and a section of Air Asquith’s own party, are likely to go solid against any proposal which will, m the ultimate, spell Home Rule for Ireland. Should the Prime Alinister submit a scheme for reform of a moderate nature, limiting the number of the peers and checking the method of their appointment, he would alienate the Nationalist vote, a section of his own party, anti probably the Laborites, but, in return, he might he able to claim the support of the Unionists, who are themselves pledged to a reform of the Upper Chamber. Such a compromise may be unlikely and would probably prove distasteful to Mr Asquith, but it may turn out to be the only basis upon which the Lords’ position can be successfully’ challenged. As indicated previously, the retention of -power as the outcome of the polls is merely the beginning of Air Asquith’s political troubles; and it will require exceptional diplomacy' on his t>art to achieve anything of a practical nature with his new Parliament. The signs are that he will be led by the more ardent members of his party to charge the Lords in a quixotic spirit and, demanding in the name of reform something that is really equivalent to extinction, will precipitate another dissolution.

cliture that must bo incurred in order to replace the present hospital with a structure better suited to its purpose, and situated in a more befitting situation—on tho hills instead of on a river bank. The need for a better hospital for this district is generally acknowledged, but it may l>e worth while, in order to show the inadequacy of the present institution, to point out that it has to serve for a population of over 16,000 people, and contains only 63 beds. Eight of these, being in the isolation ward, are only available for infectious diseases, ft is no wonder that the institution is almost chronically overcrowded. The hospital, as we have said, is primrily intended for the poor, and the poor it is who mostly use it. The returns for last year show that only one-sixth of the maintenance of the patientg is met by the payments of the patients themselves. To put it another way, only one patient in six pays for his maintenance. That the hospital fulfils its proper function, is thus evident, and that it does so right well is generally recognised. Indeed, the excellent management of the institution is almost proverbial. The soundness of its claims on the public may thus be said to be admitted. It is, however, contended by a correspondent whose letter appears elsewhere in this issue, that those claims are already fully met, by means of existing machinery, 'and that this machinery gives the trustees ample power to obtain the necessary funds—from the ratepayers and taxpayers. That is so, but it is open to serious question whether it is desirable to always look to rates and taxes for the means of supporting charitable institutions. The spirit engendered by so doing is far more likely to ‘‘sap and dry up the fountains of true benevolence and charity”—to quote our correspondent—than is an appeal to the people to give their pounds, shillings, or pence, according to their means, to help the Gisborne Hospital. However, the objections urged against Hospital Saturday need not seriously discourage the promoters of that admirable movement. It is seldom that a “deserving object” is commended to the public without some one or other suggesting that some other object is more deserving, and it is to be hoped that the claims of the one to he presented to the public of Gisborne to-morrow will he widely and generously recognised.