The Dominion MONDAY, APRIL 18, 1910. THE BRITISH CRISIS?

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 794, 18 April 1910, Page 6

The Dominion MONDAY, APRIL 18, 1910. THE BRITISH CRISIS?

Now that the British Prime. Minister has, definitely announced' the Government's intentions with rcspect to the House of Lords—we presume; that;.on this 'occasion, it is not necessary to suspect a' private meaning' in his wordsAthe course of events will go rapidly forward to a conclusion. If the House of Lords does not accept the "Veto" Bill, the Government will "advise tho Cro\vn is to the.steps necessary to give.that policy statutory effect during this Parliament." This- can only mean that the Government proposes the creation ; of, enough Peers to swamp the Upper House, and it is obviously, this plan ,which tkte Government has in mindi- v' Shoula? his Majesty ' refuse, to .acoede to the Government's request;: tJie/Governrtient will . resign or • not,; however; recommend dissolution unless it receives. from the King such guarantees as will secure, "that the judgment of the people as'expressed at the election shall be carried into law during the next Parliament." -That his Majesty will consent to the creation of several hundred Peers is quite incredible, so that it seems reasonably certain that the Government will shortly be out of office. Were it not' that Hhe heat and excitement have been growing more intense daily sinoe ,the . Peers laid aside the Budget, the announcement of the Prime Minister's extraordinary programme: .would not have awakened such enthusiasm , amongst his supporters. In •/•their present condition of political intoxication, the British Parliament and people are probably unable to realise exactly what, the Government's proposals amount, to, but the next few days should have a sobering effect, and it will be surprising if the heroic plan excitedly cheered in the Commons does not come to. be generally. regarded with no little doubt and misgiving. At this distance from the scene of action it is perhaps possible to see more clearly than in the heated atmosphere of Westminster, what is implied in the Government's policy. It is not necessary to have an opinion upon the Budget or Home Rule or the House of Lords—although it may be noted that nobody, not even the Peers themselves, agree that the hereditary' principle should dominate the Upper Chamber—to feel that Mr. _ Asquith's plan, if it could be carried out, would be a staggering blow to British statesmanship. The temporary leador of a temporal party which hais failed in the most signal manner to obtain the nation's approval of an ephemeral piece of policy, ho is prepared; in order to secure a free passage for such measures as he can get through while his very heterogeneous majority holds together, • to strain the .Royal prerogative beyond all precedent and change the face of the British Constitution. That is the sort of thing that cannot be'done while the Crown is the efficient custodian of the great tradition of statesmanship built up by the late Queen Victoria. Me, Asquith knows, of course, that this is so, and is all the time intent on the future of his party after the smash comeS; but many of his supporters may not know it, and multitudes of people have been reduced to such a condition of mind by Mp.. Lloyu-George's rhetoric that they do not know it, and probably would not believe it if told. Extreme cases are conceivable, no doubt, as Mr. Balfour said, when a violent wrench may, or must be, given to the Constitution, but the 'present is not one of them. Since reference has been made to the precedent of 1832, tho facts of that case are worth recalling, for they only serve to emphasise the impropriety of the course now proposed. On the rejection of tho Reform Bill by the Lords fallowing upon a dissolution taken on that issue, a third Reform Bill was introduced in the Commons, and Lord Althorp, the Leader of the House, wrote to Lord Grey, stating that he felt an insurmountable objection to overwhelming the Hpusc of Lords b.v ,thc creation of Peers, but that if it were proved that a revolution would be the consequence of not taking this step, and that not only the House of Lords, but everything else of value in the country would be "overthrown, it would bo &

very strong thing to say it ought not to be taken. He wrote to his father on December 20, 1831: —

Lord Grey is quite decided against making the number of Peers necessary to carry tho Bill. ... If the number requisite could be reduced to a moderate amount, such as 12 or perhaps 20, I bliould concur, arid so I think would Lord Grey; but to make 40, 50, or 60 would be to efTcet, a certain revolution with tho view of preventing one.

Ultimately, however, though with great reluctance, the Whigs obtained from the King the necessary guarantees. To understand the full force of this reluctance, as- shown in Lord Althorp's letters, it must be remembered, as Lord Hugh Cecil recalls in the London Times, that the country was bordering on revolution. A monster meeting of 150,000 men in Birmingham had resolved to pay no taxes if the Reform Bill wero rejected. "The country was, in fact,, within measurable distance of an appeal to force." Yet even this could scarcely overcome the Whig Leader's dislike for a special creation of Peers. "Of the creation of 12 peers or 20 he might have approved, but 50 or CO scandalised him. What would he have thought of the creation of 500?"

This view can hardly fail to be-' come the view of the bulk of the nation. At the. same time it must strike all thoughtful people in the overseas Empire, as we have observed on earlier occasions, as an unhappy circumstance that leading British statesmen should allow their party zeal to lead them into Buch excesses of language as tend to familiarise the people with the idea that the British Constitution can be overturned, thrown away, or tampered with as. if it were a trivial and unnecessary thing. The comments of tho Unionist newspapers, although extreme in tone, and not entirely just to the Liberal party, are nevertheless sound enough in ascribing the Government's tactics _ jto ■an anxiety to : placate the Nationalists. IThe non T mtroduction of the Budget, which Lord LansDOWNE;announced would not be opposed in the Lords, and which the Government ought therefore to have brought in at once, was explained as being due to the Government's unwillingness to-subiait it to an unbound, even though friendly, Upper House. ' That fine-spun . subtlety, liowevcr, cannot , have deceived anybody. The real reason for its nonintroduction was Mr. Redmond's firm announcement that ■ he : would oppose' the Budget unless he had first_received his price for support-, ing it. He has dominated the whole situation. >A Cork newspaper,' it is reported Co-day—doubtless the Cork Acccnt, Mr. O'Brien's ne,w journal —has declared that Ireland will soon, be able to judge how dearly. Mr. Redmond's weakness and Mr. Dillon's folly hayo cost her, for the Budget, it says, will.be passed:without' the necessary concessions to Ireland. Me. Redmond, however, who has kept the door closed so far against the Budget, may be trusted not to blunder in the end by delivering; his support before receiving his price in advancc. Not only Ireland's interests, but his own interests, demand, that ho shall not, go back to Ireland 'with empty hands in _ respect to the 1 Lords and with guilty'hands in'respect to the Budget. , "Mr. . Redmond has inflicted the Budget upon Ireland, and the House of Lords is as' strong as ever."{Mr.. Redmond cannot afford to have anyone say '', that. . The . Nationalists, despairing of. the Government's ability 'the power, of the'.. Second Chamber, may prefer to precipitate a dissolution d> destroying the Budget without further parley. They may agree to. a Budget that leaves Ireland untouched, but the Government tan hardly make such concessions as will indicate a Lib-eral-Nationalist alliance and- the promotion of Home Rule to the first place in Liberal policy.