[To THE EDITOR OF TIER "SPECTATOR. "] SIR, —May I suggest that
if the strife of our political parties is comparable to cricket, then the practical abolition of the House of Lords amounts to an expulsion of the umpire ? Such an act in cricket would, I imagine, cause a cessation of play till some substitute for the umpire had been found. But the political game, unlike cricket, is not played for the game, but for the stakes laid on the game. A dispute as to what the stakes shall be has nothing to do with the rules. If a man finds he is asked to stake something affecting life and honour on a gamble, he may, without breaking any rules, reply that some things cannot be played for, they must be fought for. Most States in their Constitution have the things that must be fought for carefully guarded against gambling proposals. Of course, when a radical alteration of the Constitution happens, this protection is withdrawn, and any stake may be proposed.
Previous page
