The Dominion THURSDAY, JULY 27, 1911. THE BRITISH CRISIS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1190, 27 July 1911, Page 4

The Dominion THURSDAY, JULY 27, 1911. THE BRITISH CRISIS.

The public will observe from today's cable messages that violent and disgraceful behaviour in the House of, Commons at this critical stage in the political history of Great Britain is no monopoly of the Unionists. The Liberals have even outdone their opponents, for their preconcerted hooting of Mr. Balfour on his arrival in the House on Tuesday had even less excuse than the Unionists' shoutingdown of Mr. Asquith, and was specially disgraceful as coming from those who had professed to be' above such disorder as occurred on Monday. What really matter, however, are the facts that can be found in the midst of the uproar. These must be carefully noted. Prior to Monday's sitting the King received Mr. Balfour and Lord Lansdowne, and subsequently conferred with ' Mr. Asquith. It was then announced that Mr. Balfoue had postponed his city address. What happened at these momentous interviews can only be conjectured from the subsequent developments. That they materially altered the situation of rigid antagonism between the parties with which last week ended is obvious from the announcement by Mr. Asquith that "if tho Lords will not accept the Bill with, if (hey like, reasonable amendments, the Government will be compelled to invoke the Royal''prerogative"— and it must not be overlooked that "the Royal prerogative" may be the prerogative of dissolving Parliament as well as the prerogative of creating Peers. Mr. Balfour's speech was not tho speech of one who had been impressed by his Sovereign with the Royal desire for an end of fighting. The next event was the publication of the notes of Mr. Asquith's -undelivered speech, in which it seems to be made clear that the King has undertaken to create new Peers (being satisfied that Mr. Balfour could not carry on the' Government), and in which the spoken reference to "reasonable amendments" is expanded to indicate that the Government had been ready to accept "safeguarding amendments.''

The positio.n. 7 .thcn is that if the Lords insi.stf-'tfn' their amendments there will be a' large creation of Peers. Lord Lansdowne has issued a circular advising the Peers to desist from thoir opposition, "otherwise the creation of new Peers may overwhelm the present House and paralyse its future action." Why does Lord Lansdowke give this counsel now after his amendment of the Bill? Is it that he believed that the Liberals were bluffing," but knows now that they were riot 1 Or is it that circumstances have altered'! The first hypothesis appears to us to be untenable, since it assumes in-one of the wisest and best-seasoned of British Parliamentarians a levity of mind and rawness that even a minor politician quickly outgrows. How, then, have the circumstances changed ? It is profitless to guess, although half a- dozen possible answers suggest themselves. The whMc interest lies in the present facts and their future results. Should the Peers irsist uprn their amendments to the last letter the new Peers will be created and the Bill will pass.' Should they surrender completely, the Bill will pass and the House of Lords will rcm.v'n unchanged in personnel. There is just a chance that some minor compromise will yet be arranged, but it cannot vitally affect the Bill. The final choice lies between the Bill plus tho new Peers and the Bill without any new Peers. This presents itself to Lokd Lansdowne and the Right Hon. A, Lyttelton as a choice between impotence even to delay Home Eule on the one hand, and, on the other hand, power'to delay Home Rule and at the same time destroy the Home Rule Bill and its sponsors. Between these two alternatives, Lord Lansdowne has no hesitation in recommending the latter. He urges, that is to say, that the Lords should surrender and leave circumstances to fight the Liberals and their master Mr. Redmond. If the Unionists force tho creation of a Liberal majority in' tho House of Lords and so pro- ] vide the chance of an immediate Home Rulo Bill, there is not the least doubt that the ruin of the Liberals will swiftly follow. The ' ruin of the Liberals is, a certainty in the other case also, for with Mr. Redmond ' rough-riding the Liberal party there will soon be a Liberal split, _ a dissolution, and a Unionist triumph. Lord Lansdowxe is therefore aiming at making sure that when the Unionists return to power they will not do so only to sec a Parliament in Dublin. Mr. Asqiuth, on the other hand, naturally hopes to get a Home Rule Bill through before he is deposed. It will take him at least two years to do it, but he doubtless hopes he can hold his party together that long. It seems to be a very shadowy hope. While the advantages of surrender over being swamped arc thus obvious enough so far as the Irish question is concerned, yet surrender in itself would be a pretty complete moral suicide of the House, of Lords. There is one great fact that must overshadow all others in the eyes of all those distant observers who arc able to use their brains and who have no use for the catch-cries and stupidities of prejudice—those, for example, who are able to smile at Sir J. G. I'isdlay's rich statement at Whitfield's Tabernacle that "the name of Lloyd-George is a loved name in New Zealand." .It is this: that the Liberals embarked on their campaign with the professed object, the sole professed object, of obtaining a fair chance for Liberal "social reform," and they have obtained the "clear path" in the amended Bill. Afi amended, tho Bill fully wthhn ...tie original complaint. But to ob..

tain that satisfaction the Liberals blundered into Jin. Redmond's noose, and in orcl.T to save their lives they arc now demanding far more than they professed to desire. It is a gigantic case of false pretences.