The Daily News. THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1911. WHO SHALL RULE?

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 10, 6 July 1911, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1911. WHO SHALL RULE?

The British Government has set for itself a task that no previous Government has ever attempted—to democratise Britain. The Parliament Bill, known throughout the world as "The Veto Bill," is a measure that will, if it passes, effectively dispose of the Lords' power of blocking legislation intended for the betterment of the people. The people are the employers of half of Parliament. As far as the other half (the LordsJ is concerned the people have no power over them. On the contrary, the peers have power over the people because they can practically annihilate any measures framed for their good by the people's representatives. The peers, secure in their hereditary rights, and their class cohesion, have shown a destructive antagonism to progress, and they have been more or less successfully fought by a Ministry that lias the brains and determination to use every constitutional means to achieve an end. The peers, sore at the remit of that famous Budget which was fought through at the point of the bayonet, and- which made a little inroad on their huge incomes by way of taxation, are apparently less conciliatory now than ever. They are practically massed against the intrusion of' the people's representatives on their special privileges in regard to their power of veto. The "Money Bill" clause is the one regarded with the greatest seriousness by the Uuionists, and provides, shortly, that if a Money Bill is not passed by the House of Lords it may, despite this, ultimately become law with the King's consent. A Money Bill is, of course, the most important measure that can come before a Parliament, because without it there can be no supply, and therefore no legislation involving expenditure. Although the Money Bill clause explains succinctly what a Money Bill is, the Lords see hope in a quibble and an explanatory commission on the point, The Lords' refusal to accept their loss of the greatest power they can possibly wield suggested to the Government the only reprisal the creation of new voting material in the House of Lords. It is an extraordinary position, for the Government is forced into enlarging the very Chamber it is ranged against with 500 peers who, it is assumed, will be tame enough to vote for their creators. It is a drastic and rather ludicrous way of effecting a Teform, but Mr. Asquith, having no other means of forcing the peers into line with Liberal thought, it is hoped, will, with the help of the King, effect his purpose in this way. Naturally, the people of Britain do not desire a further supply of hereditary rulers, except to effect the one purpose, of minimising the power of the hereditary Chamber bv having the Tory Lords outvoted. The people will effect their immediate purpose, if the King consents, but there is no guarantee that the 500 "mushrooms" will not rapidly become the bluest of blue Tories. That is to say, it is unlikely that they will be dutiful to their creators at all times and occasions. It has been promised that the House of Lords, which will be so greatly enlarged, will—should the King consent to the additions—be "re-model-led." With its power of veto gone, especially in regard to the withholding of "supply," its chief weapon against the people would disappear. It is impossible, however, to predict what it might become, merely regarded as a voting machine, and for the immediate purposes of the Liberal Party this is the light in which it is regarded. It has been suggested that there is a precedent for the refusal by the House of Lords to accept new peers, but it is probable that a Government which has up to now met every antagonistic movement with a clever counter-stroke may devise means for effecting its purpose. In the meantime, the success or failure of the Government in an endeavor to achieve its end is a vital matter to Britain and the Empire, for the King is placed in a position of the utmost delicacy. The temper of the British people is such that, having seen a comparative Eden ahead, men will not stand in the way of reaching it. Tn the crisis all eyes are turned on King George V„ in whose hands the destiny of Parliament lies and who will determine whether the peers j of the realm are In rule the people or be ruled bv them.

THE MARITIME RTRTKE. The maritime strike, which threatened to develop into one of the greatest strikes in the world's history, with far-reaching possibilities, looks as if it is near its end. The strikers were prepared to take drastic action to achieve their ends, and, as we have seen in the cables of late, they had the support, active and inactive, of thousands of men engaged in the carriage of goods on land. As to the history of the dispute, it may be recalled

that at its meeting at Copenhagen in August last the International Transport I Workers' Federation "unanimously de-j cided," to quote the words of the de- j spatch which appeared in the Times of the following day, "on an international I shipping strike, because of the owners' refusal to discuss the proposals of the seamen's unions in Europe for the establishment of a Conciliation Board, the aate and time to be kept secret by the men's leaders." This decision, the Times' Copenhagen correspondent declared,was a triumph for the policy advocated by Mr. Havelock Wilson, of the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union of Great Britain and Ireland. The organisations affiliated to the International Transport Workers' Federation : include the Seamen's Unions of Great Britain, America, Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, Italy and Spain; and it is urged (says the Times) that, by the terms of the Copenhagen resolution, the members of these bodies are committed to a policy of organised effort, involving even the grave step of calling an international strike if that were deemed necessary and advisable, in order to secure better terms and conditions of employment for seafarers. In all there were about 40 delegates present at the conference, and they represented 324,810 members, including genr eral transport workers, seamen, dockers and railways servants. So far as British seamen are concerned, one of the cliief causes of complaint is 'said to be the practice of paying off men at any port in which it may suit the convenience of the owner or captain to change the personnel of the crew instead of at the port in which they "signed on." It is asserted that by this practice men are often stranded at a strange port, and that they have no means of redress against the owners. A further complaint is said to be the lack of proper sanitary accommodation in the forecastle, in which is included the absence of a bath for the men, and allegations are also made against the quality of the food and the character of the cooking. It is admitted that the Merchant Shipping Act of 1006 improved the scale of diet, but it is contended that there are no means of enforcing its observance, and that the men are entirely dependent in this respect upon the goodwill of the ship's "husband" ot the captain. The charge is made that, if a man insists on the improved scale of diet, he is "blacklisted," his ticket is marked, and the officials of i the Dock Workers' Union allege, that, in consequence, the man finds it very difficult, if not impossible, owing to the complete organisation of the shipowners, to get a berth in another ship. As a result of these and other forms of what the union describe as "victimisations," it is said that British seamen are being squeezed out of the mercantile service, and that their places arc being taken by Chinamen, other Asiatics, and the lowest types of Europeans.

SIR ELDON GORST. Nothing has been heard of late as to the condition of Sir Eldon Gorst, who was last week reported to be sinking, so that it is presumed ha has weathered the storm and is pulling round. As most people know this dlstingii'.sued proconsul is a New Zealander by birth, his father being the late Sir John Gorst, whom he accompanied to England when just a year old. Eldon Gorst inherited nis father's ability and early in his career took a responsible position in the Diplomatic Service. lie was appointed Controller of Direct Taxes to the Egyption Government in L 890; he was Financial Adviser to the Egyptian Government from 18D8 to 1904, and succeeded Lord Cromer as British Agent and ConsulGeneral in, Egypt in 1907. Under the guidance of "the maker of modern Egypt," as Lord Cromer was called, that country, said Lord Lansdowne, "advanced with rapid strides along the path of financial and material prosperity." Sir Eldon Gorst continued to administer justice with the firmness found so necessary by Lord Cromer, and more than once protested against the concessions granted by the Home Government. It was only last month that he reported that the British concessions had been misunderstood as a symptom of weakness, and that it was necessary that the administration should be conducted with a firmness that would leave no doubt in the minds of the Nationalists of the futility of their agitation. Sir Eldon Gorst's view is that the policy of ruling Egypt in co-operation with native Ministers is incompatible with that of encouraging the development of so-called representative institutions. "Tne principal and sufficient reason has been," he adds, "that from first to last the adoption of this policy has been attributed both by the Egyptians and by the local European colonies to weakness, to an attempt to pacify the Nationalist agitation by ill-timed concessions, and to an intentional diminution of British authority. We have to make the Egyptian understand that his Majesty's Government do not intend to allow tnemselves to be hustled into going further or faster in the direction of self-government than they consider to be in the interests of the Egyptian people as a whole. Until this elementary lesson has been thoroughly learnt, no proposals for further developing the Legislative Council can be usefully entertained. The experience of the last few years shows that the axiom tliat British policy will not be moved from the right course by agitation or violence, either from the ono'side or the other, is not easily grasped. In the past, mere words and declaration* have not proved sufficient for the purpose."