Evening Post. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1908. THE DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 28, 3 February 1908, Page 6

Evening Post. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1908. THE DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS

—,—,—i —+ » The first tyibled. report of the King's Speech, at \'he opening of tho British Parliament, on Wednesday last was disappointing; from its baldness, being confined to ?1 mere 'list of promised measures. Tiufc it has since been proved to be as Misleading as it was bald. The omjs^ir^ of old age pensions from the list, W, which we referred at the time as th« most striking thing about it, has no foundation in fact. A Bill "for making/ 'better provision for old age" was prfljfnised, but ag the announcement was rf/srerved for the financial part of the speech, which, being addressed to the i'touse of Commons alone, was, according to , custom, reserved till the end, a 'message which presumably was detpatched before the end was reached made no mention of what is perhaps the most important item, in the whole programme. No details of the measure are given, however, and the attempt of the new leader of the Labour party to draw the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject was unsuccessful. If tho proposals of the Government will involve the imposition 'of heavier burdens on the poorer classes, 'they will, says Mr. Henderson, •be resisted by the full strength of the Labour party. In answer to this challenge, Mr. Asquith had -nothing to say, butjt ds* clear from his recent p] atf drrh speeches that the scheme is not: going to impose additional burdens upon the poor to the extent of compelling them to pay 1 on a contributory basis, for .ajl th&t they are to get in the way of pensions. Some share of the burden must, however, fall upon the poor if the scheme, like that of Now Zealand, for instance, is to be financed from the coiisolidated revenue, and it is not at all likely that the proposal of the Labour party to exempt the poor man entirely, even, as^ taxpayer, from contributing to the cost of the scheme by raising all the money through an increase of the taxation on higher incomes will be countenanced by the Government or by any considerable section of the House of Commons. The general attitude of the Government to social reform is apparently quite as Radical already as British pubhe opinion will, stand. The news which reaches us to-day, that the Liberals have lost another by-election, probably indicates the alarm of the steady-going ! elector at tho tendencies represented by the Hull Conference of the Labour Party far more than any sudden resolution on the subject of Tariff Reform. The loss of the South Herefordshire, seat, which, for twenty years had been a gift to the Unionists, until the! debacle of 1906, is not nearly so serious a matter for the Government as ' their defeat at Ashburton, but the two i together make just tho sort of argument that politicians are best ahle to appreciate, and will undoubtedly supply a very powerful stimulus to the activity of the opposition. In the debate on the Address-in-Reply, the Labour Party secured first place with their amenTlment j regretting the absence from the King's Bpeech of any promise to legislate for the benefit of the unemployed. The defeat of the amendment was, of course, a certainty; but it is remarkable that only « few more than half of the members of the House of ComI mons took the trouble to vote on. whair. I though a foreign conclusion, amounted «,to_a, BO;_confld£nce mo.twn^ Mar^

Liberals abstained from voting, while t.wenty-flve of them voted in the minority along with twenty-four Unionists The t Unionists seem* to be thoroughly convinced of the need for a more positive social poliqy than they were able to lay before the electors at the last general election, and while continuing to work the Socialist bogey for all that it is worth — and more — many of them will be glad to seize such opportunities as this to demonstrate the- breadth of their democratic sympathies. For this reason the Unemployed Bill of tho Labour Party, with which Mr. Eamsay MacDonald naturally says that thsy will bs encouraged to proceed by the result of this division, is likely to receive a far more respectful hearing from the Conservatives than they themselves would have dreamed to be possible even three ysars ago. / An ill-judged amendment by a Gow'. eminent supporter gave Mr. John M.ovley an easy and well-deserved triumfth. To the terms of Dr. Rutherford's /Inotion — "That the present condition of affairs in India demands the serious attenton of the Government" — it /would be easy tor anybody to give an Abstract assent, but, as practical men, «;ven the { Unionists were not prepared </;> concui in what was tantamount to / vote of censure on Mr. Morley's ad/nirable administration. It is a singula/ thing that though none of Sir Hen.rv' CampbellBannerman's appointments /were regarded with more distrust tliA^'i that of Mr. John Morley to the lndi/ n Office, there is no Minister! unless '.fc'be Sir Edward Grey at the Foreign /Office, who has given more unmixed Satisfaction. Mr. Morley, the doctriyjjre democrat, as his opponents regar^d him, has displayed as firm and pWtical a grasp of the thorny problems <tf Indian administration as th 6 most J'jide-bound bureaucrat could desire; and at the same time his firmness has b'Vjn accompanied by a sympathy whic^l shares the credit for the "enormouf/ and even extraordinary improvement'V claimed by him and denied by buf v few of his opponents. In Ireland an J elsewhere there is trouble ahead for 'the Government, but they may thank 'Mr. Morley for putting their Indian - a'4'.ninistratiou beyond the reach of reasonable attack.