PRIME MINISTER ON THE CRISIS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1122, 9 May 1911, Page 5

PRIME MINISTER ON THE CRISIS.

MR. ASQUITH AT MANCHESTER UNIONIST UPPER HOUSE REFORMS CRITICISED. THE CABINET UNITED. By TelccraDli—Pi'ces Association—Copyrleht London, May 7. • An important speech on the constitutional crisis was delivered by tho Prime Minister on Saturday at Manchester. In opening, Mr. Asquith declared that the Government was firmly carrying out the' work that had been entrusted to it at the ' general election. Had tho party beeu. master in its own house, the primary , education .system would ore now have' rested genuinely on a national basis, and ' the evils of the licensing system have ' been removed or mitigated. He hoped '> Mr. Lloyd-George's great insurance scheme l would be canvassed, revised, and per- , fected jointly by tho loyal efforts of all men of all creeds and parties. Thrown to the Wolves. Referring to tho Veto Bill, ho declared \ i that the Unionists had abandoned their J. attitude of passive resistance to all ; change; the Tories had, in fact, thrown . tho House of Lords to the wolves. Seized ' with revolutionary fervour, they favoured • proposals for reducing tho Houso of \ Commons to the level of a debating so- . ciety. No Liberal statesman had ruled / out the possible use of the referendum \ as a conceivable instrument for solving. an otherwise insolvablo situation. But', were they going to make representation' merely gladiatorial, saying to the Com-' mons: "You are pawns on the chessboard, i and whatever you decide must return to / us for ratification or disapproval"? "If so," continued Mr. Asquith, "you j will no longer get the same men to re- \ present you; you would be destroying I representative government." The Stumbling Block,

It was tolerably certain, he added, that it would be possible to get the Parliament, Bill through the House of Lords to-mor-row without the least difficulty of any; sort, if they (the Government) would agreo that it should not apply to Home Eule for Ireland. Mr. Aso_uit'i emphatically denied that there was auy difference of opinion in the Cabinet regarding Home Rule. Ho. declared that the Land Purchase for Ireland Act and the conferring on Ireland j of tho benefits of old-age pensions and . invalidity insurance had strengthened the ', material ties between the two countries, rendering separation unthinkable. Ho concluded: '.'No Cabinet has boon; more steadily united on all great issues,"' THE REFERENDUM. AUSTRALIAN EXPERIENCE QUOTED., London, May 7. , I Mr. Asquith, in tho courso of his speech, referred incidentally to iho', re-1 suit of tho Federal referenda, and dis- ~ claimed against the making of conhovcr-, sial reference to the Commonwealth's "internal affairs. He did not pretend to say, what effects decisive majorities on tho referenda proposals might, have had in Australia, but asked whether, if a like situation occurred in England, such a rebuff would not seriously damage the prestige ■ and authority of any Government up-j holding a legislative and 'administrative ■_• system developed and perfected here on' tho basis of tin general Hues of policy' the country desired its representatives to pursue. UNIONIST REFORM SCHEME. \ LORD LANSDOWNE ON HIS BILL. \

Lord Lansdowne, Leader of the Opposition in tho Houso of Lords, on March 31,] in moving that nn address be presented to tho King asking his Majesty to waive! his prerogative, and permit the introduction of tho Unionist Reform Bill, said: —i "It is a common feature in all the, schemes of House of Lords reform, ccrtaiulv in tho schemes which have been put 'forward by our supporters, and I| think even in those, I will hardly say; schemes, but suggestions, of which wo ' have sometimes been allowed to catch an elusive glimpse, propounded by the Gov-! ernment—l think it is common to all! those suggestions that a reformed House ■ of Lords must also be a House of Lorasi very much reduced in numbers. If that te so, it follows at once that there musfcj be at that point a limitation of the Royal! prerogative. For example, no matter to J what figure the rc-eoustituted House: might bo reduced it would follow that there must bo a certain number of peers' who are at present entitled to receive writs of summons to sit and vote in this Hou«e who' would no longer bo entitled to receive that writ. It would follow, that any fresh peerages created by the Sovereign would have to be created on tho, condition that mere possession of a peer- \ ago did .not carry with it 'the right to sit and vote in this House. The Proposals Outlined. "But that is not the only point at, which our Bill will touch-the Royal pro-.! rogativo. . 1 think your Lordships will i not differ when I say that there is room ! for almost infinite variety in tho treatment of tin's problem of House of Lords reform, but those who have watched the discussions will admit that, there are certain features in any scheme which has boon at all elaborated recently which even-one will expect to find in the kind of Bill which we shall introduce. 1: think even-one will expect to find iu our Bill a proposal that (lie new House shall; contain an element consisting of poors j possessing a certain qualification, and| chosen bv vonr Lordships from amongst i the members of this House. 1 think; most people will also expect to find that' the reconstituted House would in our j view con'ain a nominated element elected i outside the Houso through machinery which will be in direct relatyn with popu- > lar opinion. Wo believe that a Houjei can be reconstituted upon the kind or lines which I have indicated in such aj manner as to produce a highly efficient' Second Chamber and also a Second Cham- ! ber in which political panties will bo' much more evenly balanced than thev i ore at. present—a condition which, I think, is regarded as indispensable by all House of Lords reformers. But I think it is obvious that no useful purpose eoulfl. be served by establishing a balance of this kind if it were to remain possible for the Crown, on the advice of Ministers of the day, deliberately to unset that balance by a large additional creation of peers, and 1 therefore submit, that on that point also it will be necessary/ for u« to make' proposals which will undoubtedly have the effect of restricting the exerciso of the Royal prerogative. I have said enough'to show that at certain points it is inevitable our Bill will in- , volvo some interference with tho Royal prerogative "