The Dominion. THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 1910. THE BRITISH CRISIS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 774, 24 March 1910, Page 6

The Dominion. THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 1910. THE BRITISH CRISIS.

The text of the British Government's proposals for the settlement of the relations between the House of Commons and the House of Lords dispel the last vestige of doubt, if any doubt remained, that a general election will take place in the immediate future. Thero are somo points in the. Government's quarrel with the Constitution which have been rather obscured in tho long controversy of the. past ten and. a half months, but which are essential to a clear understanding of the position and to . a realisation of the incvitableness of a new election. When the Lords decided to reject the Budget, they did not for a moment dispute the paramountcy of the House of Commons in matters purely financial. Nobody has ever contended, on behalf of the Peers, that the Upper House is competent to reject Money Bills pure and simple: it has'always been admitted that the authority -of the Commons is final'in all proposals dealing with existing taxation or with the financing of. the working of existing laws. What the Lords have claimed,- and claimed upon the authority of no less a person than Mn. Gladstone, is that the Second Chamber must preserve its right to prevent tho enactment of disputable policies under tho. cover of a Money Bill, and its right,. also, to, refer to the nation any new legislation which 'it considers unwise, undesired by the nation, and in excess of any mandate in the hands.of the Government of the day. The Government wishes to destroy both of these rights. : The resolutions brought down by Me. A'sQt/iTH divide themselves into three parts, dealing separately with Money Bills, general legislation, and the duration of Parliaments.. With the general doctrine that "it is expedient that the House of Lords should be disabled by law from rejecting or amending Money. Bills" there is no real disagreement anywhere, in theory or in practice. But the disagreement begins with, the interpretation of "Money Bills." These are. defined by the Government as ."Bills which the Speaker considers to contain only provisions, dealing with the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; also charges on the Consolidated Fund, or the : provision , of money by Parliament; also the supply and appropriation, control, or ; regulatiqn of public money; also the raising, guaranteeing, or repayment of loans l , ,or masters incidental to these subjects." " This resolution/ or any Bill ombodying its purport, will be rejected ..without hesitation by the Lords. • So far as. tlie "repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation" is concerned, the Upper House will offer no objection to tho* Government's claim, but it will certainly not commit itself to the abandonment of : its right to scrutinise the-imposition of new taxation. In Franco tho Senate cannot alter or reject proposals dealing with old taxation, but its consent is necessary to the imposition of new imposts,' and this is the practice which the Upper Houso will' doubtless, insist upon for Britain. Objection" may also reasonably bo taken to the proposal that the Speaker should have the deciding voice in the matter. Tho authority which it is proposed to confer upon him practically makes him supreme over the House of Lords, also oyer the House, of Commons' unless his decision can be set aside, by that House, in which case, it is apparent the Government would be left without any. check at all upon its designs. Suppose, for example, that a Home Rule is tacked to a Finance Bill, and that the Speaker rules it out. Is it conceivable that the Government will meekly submit to an individual when the pressure of its extreme supporters can embolden it to resist' the whole body of the-Peers? Of course it is not conceivable. And,what will the, position be then ? Simply that the Government will oyerrride the Speaker, and stand freo from any check at all. The Lords are certain to fed that the public, will understand that the first resolution amounts to the establishment of. Single Chamber government. This, also, is what is in effect proposed m tho second resolution, which prescribes that after a Bill has passed the Commons in two successive soßsiona and has been. rejected by the Lords, it may become law, in the third session whether tho Lords agree to it or not. Any Bjll embodying these resold tipns will be rejected by_ the Upper House, and the question arises: What will be the Government's next move? It is quite out of tho question that the King will consent to sign the Bill' But willhe agree to create such a body of Liberal Peers as will secure the passage of the.measure ? That, too, is • inconceivable. There is nothing for it but resignation or an immediate dissolution, since Me. Redmond ■■ has plainly stated that his support will be available only after the authority of the Peers is reduced to a nullity. In connection with the second resolution, it is worth noting that if they were asked to give details of the general Acts, apart frp.n Irish measures, the ruthless slaughter nf which necessitates tb.3 future muzzling of the Lords, the Liberals would find themselves in a quandary. They have indeed boasted at interva's, w.r since 1906 of the splendid harvest of Liberal reforms that have accomplished. It is a little absurd of any Radical to complain of reactionary ruthlcssness in an Upper House that passed the Old Age Pensions Act, the Trades Disputes Act, or the Eight Hours Act. Whatever the Government may urge to the contrary the opponents of Home Rule will, rightly or wrongly, see in'the second resolution only an attempt to obtain a clear path for Irish selfgovernment.

It is reported in Dunedin that word was received at Christchurch on Friday of tho safety of Mr. P. l'\ D'Arcy, secretary of tho Shearers' Union. TJio nqmniunicatjon waβ stated to. have, como from Mi , . 1?. Jilliß, wcieUty of several .uaiotts at OJiristcinick