The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1911. THE BRITISH POLITICAL CRISIS

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1165, 28 June 1911, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1911. THE BRITISH POLITICAL CRISIS

THE BRITISH POLITICAL CRISIS

This week is to see either a part or the whole of the last round in the long fight- over the "Veto" Bill, which is now in the crucial Committee stage in the House of Lords. Although the last month of the discussion prior to the Coronation completed the clearing-up of most of the essential points of the controversy, it failed to clear up the most interesting and the most vital point of all, namely, the policy that would be followed by the House' of Lords. Upon this point the Unionist party is split into many contending parties. There is a section which is for the simple rejection of the Bill; the Spectator has been lighting for the passage of the Bill as the least of the national evils presented by the Government's unhappy servitude to Mr. Redmond; and between these extremes there are many intermediate policies of which the most important, since it is the one that Lord Laxsdowne, as indicated by the cable message, published this morning, favours, namely, the acceptance of the Bill safeguarded by the reservation of Home Rule and certain other special issues as matters that a joint committee may refer to the people, through a referendum. The Spectator now exercises a very great influence upon the Conservative party, and its counsel to take a "long _ view" is bound to have some weight. Its argument can bo stated very briefly: The position is bad at the best. The Government is determined—its life depends upon—the passage of the Parliament Bill unamended, and will not hesitate to advise the King to create sufficient Peers to pass the Bill. The King cannot reject that advice unless Mr. Balfour is willing to take office, and the Spectator says Mr. Balfour cannot take office, since he could not retain it, and would probably be defeated on an appeal to the country. Therefore, the argument runs, the immediate rejection of the Bill, or any vital amendment of it, will mean the ultimate passage of the Bill altogether with a doctored House of Lords; so that the wise course is the acceptance of the Bill, in the hope, so to speak, of a blessed resurrection of Unionist power. But the full development and justification of this tactic requires so many questionable assumptions—as that the Liberals will bo glad to accept Lord Lansdowne's reform scheme—that it will probably not carry the Unionist party, much as it may impress a large section o£ that party.

Clause 2 of the Bill provides that what the House of Commons says three years running shall on the third occasion become law whatever the Lords say, one effect of which is that only "Bills introduced in the first two years of any Parliament shall have the privilege of automatic passage by the sheer weight of the Government's majority in the Commons. The Government has claimed that this is a special virtue in its measure, arguing that a Parliament fresh from tho hustings is the living breath of the popular will. This is an untenable argument on the face of it. Governments can and do spring surprises in the very first session after an election* We have •the Australian Referenda as an evidence that in next to no time a Government can propose'a measure hopelessly out of touch with popular opinion. We have also the fact that the Education Act of 1902, introduced by the. Unionists within two years of an election, was denounced by the Liberals as being contrary to the will of the people. Faced with this case, and others, actual and possible and probable, of exactly the same kind, Mr. Asquith could only reply that the election of 1900 was fought only on.the war iss-je. This may or may not be true as to facts, but the point does net matter. As the London Tablet puts it; "It is enough to point out that in every election there will bo some issue which throws the 1 others into the shadow. At one time it is the question of Chinese labour and another the fear of dearer bread —and whatever it be, on Mr. Asquith's own reasoning, it is sufficient to get rid of the presumption on which the justification of the Veto Bill depends, that Parliament in the first years of its term on all questions rightly represents the will of the constituencies." The fact is, of

course, that there is no theoretical defence for the Veto Bill afc all; the defcnce breaks down at every point. That there should bo in the House

of Lords a permanent majority of ono colour is wrong, and wrong less because it menaces some Liberal measures than because it is no safeguard against bad, demagogic Unionist Bills. In other'words, the House of Lords as at present constituted is more potent tor harm as an open gateway for bad Unionist Bills than as a possible stone wall against bad Liberal Bills. But reform cannot

consist of rendering the House utterly powerless against bad Bills of whatever parentage. The true case against the Bill is simply the case against Single-Chamber government, the evil of which even Me. Asquith admits, greatly as the _ admission damages iris. present tactics. If the Bill is amended so as to

make any Home Rule Bill a matter for direct decision by the electorate, the Government might be forced by Mr. Redmond to get its extra Peers. A Home Rule measure would then be introduced—Mr. Redmond would see to this—soon enough to secure the privilege of automatic passage before the end of 1915. But whether it would be passed after all—whether the Government would not by then have disappeared from office—is a matter past anyone's conjecture. Such an amendment to the Parliament Bill, however, would place the Government in a difficult position. The Unionists could say: "We only ask that Home Rule be referred to the people. We think the Veto Bill noxious in the extreme, but we have accepted it with this one reservation. We have obeyed you in giving; up all the real power of the Peers. They no longer possess any actual power. They havo merely, on one great issue, proclaimed the people's power as a power above even that of tho House that is above the House of Lords." Mr. Asquith might reflect that such an appeal would meet with a great popular response in due course, and that to obey Mn. Redmond to the end would bo to grant Homo Rule at the price of tho ultimate destruction of the hopes of Liberalism. It is clear that although the Committee proceedings in the House of Lords will see the end of the present crisis, there is ahead of Britain, whatever happens, some years of political storm and tempest, which will transfigure the political landscape.

NOTES OF THE DAY. The Exhibition authorities and residents of country distriels have very strong grounds of complaint at the attitude of the Railway Department in respect of the facilities afforded country people of visiting the, Exhibition. One would imagine that the Department would bo anxious to afford every assistance to an enterprise designed to foster local industries, but judging by the stand taken it Ins very little sympathy with the undertaking, and still less consideration for those of the public who live away from the city, and who would be glad to take advantage of any reasonable facilities afforded them of viewing the displays made. The attendance of city people at the Exhibition up to the present time affords an assurance that, given the opportunity, residents in the country towns who could make the journey to town and back in one day would readily seize the chance. Wellington we know is not popular with the Government, and the attitude of Ministers towards the Exhibition has been the reverse of encouraging throughout. It is a pity that Ministers cannot rise superior to party prejudices where large public interests are concerned.

No long time ever passes without some evidence of the long distance there is to travel before clear thought upon Imperial problems is at all general in New Zealand. The Sheffield Choir, the arrival of which is a source of delight to every lover of music, was accorded a public reception in Auckland on Monday, and Me. Fowlds, for the Government, delivered a speech, in the course of which he said "he looked upon the visit as an important step forward in the unification of the Empire." We do not think it necessary to dwell upon the absurdity of that observation. It may be urged in Mr. Fowlds's defence that he "had to say something," but-Mr. Fowlds is a very fluent public speaker, and could have been in no difficulty over saying something he really _ meant. We cannot escape the conclusion that he really looks upon the visit of the choir as an important step forward in Imperial unification. Which is to say, lie has r.ot even begun to think what the Empire really is.

We can sympathise with Mn. Buddo in the task he has ahead of him of pacifying the angry racing clubs who hav" been deprived of their totalisator permits. The Minister for Internal Affairs is not an authority on racing matters, and he probably had as little to do with the passing of the Gaming Act of last session as any .private member of the House who supported the measure, but for the moment he has to bear this burden of the Ministry. Perhaps, too, he is after all the member of the Ministry most suited to the task, for lie is little likely to do more than quote back at tho irate deputatiomsts the clauses of the offending statute, and voice some, of those soothing plati"nules which fall so gratefully on the cars of Buffering humanity. The deputation from the Rangitikei Racing Club which waited on Mit. Buddo yesterday presented a case of real hardship for which no provision had been made. Without any warning and without a chance of adjusting its affairs, the club is plunged into financial difficulties which will entail heavy.loss on individual members. It seems only an equitable thirg that an old-estab-lished and admirably conducted club such as this should bo afforded a, reasonable opportunity of extinguishing or reducing its liabilities before new clubs are granted licenses. The Racing Commission did a great deal of work in a comparatively short space of time, and generally speaking it appears to have done well. But while it was inevitable that hardship must follow whatever decisions it might arrive at regarding the reduction of totalisator licenses, hardship and injustice should not be confused as one and the same thing, and if injustice has been done and cannot be righted for the coming racing season, it should not be perpetuated for all time.