THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 1910. BRITISH POLITICS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14391, 9 June 1910, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 1910. BRITISH POLITICS.

. . . - . —♦ — . ■'■■■■+;■ ■■' . With the reassembling of the British Parliament interest in British domestic politics revives. At Home the point of interest is still what it has been since the death of the wise old Sovereign made thoughtful statesmen and responsible politicians review the political situation in sober mood and realise that it was fraught with danger to the nation, which King and Peers, and Commons should. equally and unselfishly serve. That is to say, it is being widely asked whether compromise is not possible and whether the crisis cannot be ended by r mutual surrenders and mutual forbearances. That a compromise would be speedily and easily effected were the battle between the old parties, and the old parties alone, goes without saying. If Mr. Asquith were as much master of the situation as Mr. Gladstone was, and if Mr. Balfour were as much master of the situation as Mr. Disraeli was when he persuaded his party to " dish the Whigs " by enlarging the franchise, . a conference would be quickly arranged and a working solution ultimately attained. But as parties" have arisen who are not enamoured of the great Constitution revered by Whig and Tory alike, or are not convinced that in Britain at least freedom " broadens slowly down from precedent to precedent," it is difficult, at this distance, to understand how a compromise can be arrived at excepting at the ex- ! pense of an unprecedented reorganisation of party lines. The House of Lords had no quarrel with a House of Commons 'which reflected the solid interests of the State and was composed of representatives who might differ on many things but never differed upon fundamental principles of government and equity. Until the revolutionary and anticonstitutional elements began to exercise a dominating influence upon ; the ' Liberal party, the Peers had no more idea.of challenging the determinations of the Commons upoa any practical question than they had

of comparing; the patriotisms ;of the Salisburys and the Devonshires. ■. It was the gradual capture aof the Liberal I party machinery by dangerous elements and the unqualified avowal that certain revolutionary changes in the organisation of society and certain revolutionary alterations in the Constitution of the United Kingdom were to be secured by means of that capture, which induced the Peers to throw down the gauntlet and to assert constitutional rights which had been generally held in abeyance. Whether the Lords were wise in making this challenge at the time is not how the question. The fact remains that the issue has been raised in a fashion which apparently renders compromise impossible unless political ruin is to be risked and invited by the party surrendering one of the distinct principles involved. . "•. For the main constitutional question as to whether the United Kingdom should be governed by a Single Chamber or by a Dual Chamber is complicated by the socialistic, proclivities of the Labour-Radical wing, by the Home Ruje doctrine of the Nationalist phalanx, by the Freetrade dogmas of the Liberal centre, and by the Tariff Reform professions of the Unionists. It has been said —and by an ex-Liberal Premier, Lord Rosebery— if the Unionists would abandon tariff reform many Free Trade Liberals would rally to them and abjure the Socialism which they fear and the Home Rule they have little love for. It is notorious that if the Unionists would promise to give Home Rule the Nationalists would transfer their votes from Mr. Asquith to Mr. Balfour, being completely indifferent to every consideration but one. It is known and admitted that the Labour-Radicals only seek to kill the House of Lords in order that the automatic majority which they hope to secure in the Commons may be quite unchecked and may be able to pass confiscatory measures which the Liberals themselves would regard -with bitter antagonism. Confronting this inharmonious House of Commons is a House of Lords, which admittedly needs reforming, is not popular in many constituencies, and is quite undesirous of setting itself against any popular movement, but is compelled to make a stand because many mem bers of the representative Chamber have allowed their principles to be overborne by party influences and have thus enabled a small number of energetic politicians and determined partisans to obtain control of the reins of power. It is probable that none of the parties wish another general election in the near future, for matters are too complicated and the issue too doubtful. But it is much less probable that a compromise will be Arranged whatever further truce may be' definitely or ' tacitly agreed upon. For the House of Lords to yield its right to participate authoritatively in legislation would be to encourage assaults upon established institutions, while for the Asquith Administration to abandon its Veto proposals would be to drive the Nationalists and the Labour party from alliance and place itself immediately in the minority. Some way of smoothing over difficulties for the immediate future may be arranged, but what permanent compromise can be expected where the real issue lies at the foundations not only of constitutional government but of the social organisation 1