THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1910. THE BRITISH ELECTIONS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9693, 18 January 1910, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1910. THE BRITISH ELECTIONS.

From the results so far to hand of the British elections, it is quite impossible to predict what will be the final end to the closing [stages of the great political contest that has been fought in Great Britain for some weeks past. The elections, probably the first British elections to do so, have created considerable general interest in the oversea Dominions of the Empire. There are various fact s that explain the interest taKen by the "colonies," but probably the chiefcause lies in the steady growth of Canada and the Australasian States, and as a consequence the increasing importance of the irrelationships with Great Britain. Modern science and invention, and commercial progress in various directions, are, also, bringing the Old Country nearer to th e "colonies" every day. Then, again, some of the issues being fought out in the present British elections are almost identically similar to questions that have figured largely in colonial politics. The number and varied nature of the important issues at stake in the contest now proceeding is both a remarkable and unfortunate feature. Land taxation, a progressive naval policy, reform of the House of Lords, tariff reform, and free trade, constitute a carious mixture, but the rejection of the Budget is, it would appear, the chief bone of contention between the opposing parties. The prospect of the j Liberals being returned to power seems fairly bright. So far the Unionists have made some gams, but it does not seem possible for them to be able to annihilate the huge majority secured by the Liberals in 1906, while the Unionists have, also, to reckon with the Labourites and Nationalists, who, owing to the

political genius of Mr Asquith, are pledged to the Liberal Party absolutely in regard to all questions save | those which are the justification of their existence. Assuming that the Liberals emerge triumphant from tbe contest now in progress, British politics will just about have become really intensely interesting, for though the Liberal Government declares stoutly that tbe House of Lords must be reformed at any cost it has not yet taken the public into its confidence as to how it proposes to effect the much needed reform. In that work of reformation there lies a whole sea of trouble,' and possibly party disaster. Referring, however, to the rejection of the Budget, recent English files to hand contain articles which show clearly how views differ as to the action of the Lords. "The Times" comment on Lord Lansdowne's motion is that "the House of Lords is not going to dictate in any way, or even to suggest to the country what its financial arrangements should be. It is asked simply to decline the responsibility of passing a measure of an extraordinary kind, without an assurance which it does not now possess that the country desires its affairs to be treated in that particular way. By giving effect to Lord Lansclowne's motion it will declare that its unwritten permanent mindate under our unwritten Constitution does not cover the emergency that has now arisen, and that it is therefore obliged to refer the matter to the ultimate authority from which both Houses of Parliament derive their powers. its attitude is therefore essentially modest and democratic, while the attitude which the Liberals ara now abusing it for nut assuming is essentially arrogant and oligarchic." The "Daily Chronicle," however, regards it as "an act of war." "The House of Lords has decided to declare war on the representative principle," it writes. "Ihat is the plain meaning of the motion for the rejection of the Budget of which Lord Lansdowne ' gave notice last evening. A hereditary Chamber responsible to nobody, representing only an aristocratic caste and territorial interests, has the supreme audacity to assaii the House of Commons in the very centre of its majesty and pride. All that is glorious in the age-long struggle for British freedom is embodied in the control which that great assembly has over the national purse. Without that control the House of Commons is ' shorn of all its pride. It becomes a tinkling brass and a sounding cymbal. Never before, since the Revolution of 1688, has that control been even questioned. Tory and Liberal »tatesmen have treated it as a cardinal principle of the Constitution, and as such inviolable. For over 300 years no Budget passed by the House of Commons has failed to be cbthed with statutory form." The "Daily ♦News" declares that "Lord Lansdowne's motion means rejection. It means that the House of Lords is doing in the twentieth century what no House of Lords has ever done in any other century. It means that the unbroken tradition of unnumbered generations and the declarations of Conservative leaders repented through 200 years down to the declaration of Mr Balfour himself only last year, are to be trodden underfoot. It means that the central principle of the Constitution, the sole control of finance by the Commons, is to become 'legal pedantry' and 'futile antiquarianism.'" Taking abroad view of the general situation, it certainly seems as though the Lords had committed political suicide by not complying with the will of the Commons in relation to matters of national finance.