DISTINCTLY BETTER.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 77, 2 April 1910, Page 5

DISTINCTLY BETTER.

« BRITISH GOVERNMENT'S POSITION. NO ARRANGEMENT WITH NATIONALISTS. MEMBERS DO NOT WANT AN ELECTION. By Telegraph.— Pres» Association.— Copyright. (Received April 2, 9.40 a.m.) LONDON, Ist April. The Westminster Gazette says :—Although no arrangement has been come to with tho Nationalists, the Government's situation is distinctly better. The proposed closure has increased the prospect of tho Government holding on for some time, and possibly sending the veto proposals to the Lords as a considered Bill. Not half a dozen members of the House of Commons want an election, and all are working to defer it to as late a date as possible, even unlil 1911." WHAT IRELAND IS MISSING. ACCORDING TO MR. O'BRIEN. THE BALANCE OF POWER. (Received Apiil 2, 10 a.m.) LONDON, Ist April. Mr. William O'Brien (Leader of the Independent Irish Parliamentary Paity) speaking at Cork, stated that Mr. Redmond (Leader of the Nationalists) was using the balance of power in the House of Commons to depnve Ireland of most splendid concessions regarding; the Budget and land purchase. Ireland, he added, should bo relieved of the whisky duties, biewery licenses, land titles, succession duties, and general revaluation. LORDS' VETO. MR. ASQUITH'S RESOLUTIONS. SIR B. FINLAY'S AMENDMENT. LONDON, Ist April. In the House of Commons, the Right Hon. Sir Robert Finlay, Unionist member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities, and formerly AttorneyGeneral in the Ballour Government/, made a closely reasoned speech in moving the following amendment to Mr. Asquith's resolutions :—: — "That this House regards a strong, efficient Second Chamber as necessary, and is willing to consider proposals for reform, but declines proposals for destroying the usefulness of any Second Chamber, however constituted, and removing the only safeguard against great changes being made by the Government ot the day, not only without the content, but against the wishes of a majority of the electors." Sir Robert Finlay urged that the House of Lords had never lost the right to reject a Money Bill. ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S 'REPLY. Replying to Sir Robert Finlay's argument that the House of Lords was prevented by the Constitution from initiating or amending a Money Bill, Sir Wm. Robson, Attorney-General, asked why should not the Constitution a.lso prevent the rejecting of a Money Bill ? He argued that the Lords' action in rejecting the Budget was lawless in a constitutional . c ense. Mr. Asquith's resolutions were defensive, not aggressive. The Attorney-General went on to say that if the House of Lords controlled finance, the country's fortunes would be entrusted to a Chamber representing one financial interest. Therefore, supposing that tariff reform were tried for a time, thi country might then be unable, owing to the Lords' resistance, to get rid of food taxes. Tho Opposition might possibly win the next election, but ultimately it would be recognised that, in order to secure freedom, the finance veto must go. MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL'S DEFENCE. Mr. Churchill, Home Secretary, defended the veto resolutions as providing adequate restraints on reckless sectional legislation. He described the amendments as insincere and a sham. The Unionists did not intend to create a fair Second Chamber. After the veto resolutions the Government would march forward to the Budget regardless of consequences. He was convinced that at the proper time they would succeed in carrying the veto resolutions and the Budget to the steps of the Throne. Mr. Churchill appealed to the Nationalista. He hinted that they were in favour of the Budget except on certain points not connected with the quarrel t»tw«?p the two- Houses, and added that unless the Budget was carried it was useless asking for assurances or expecting the country's approval of the veto policy. Ho was convinced that they would rally round tho Government, and then the Crown and the Commons would co-operate in restoring the balance "of the Constitution, and would restrict for ever the House of Lords' veto. APPLICATION OF THE GUILLOTINE. UNIONIST PRESS ON "MUZZLING." PREPARING FOR AN ELECTION. LONDON, Ist April. There was considerable surprise when, amid Ministerial cheers, Mr. Asquith, in reply to Mr. Balfour, gave notice for Tuesday of a motion to apply the guillotine to the debate, allotting five Parliamentary days for the veto resolutions in Committee. The first resolution must be disposed of at 10.30 on 7th April, the second at 7.30 on 14th April, and the third three hours later. Immediately thereafter, on tho House resuming, a proposal to agree with the report of the committee must be put without debate, and a Bill on any resolution which is agreed to shall be ordered to be introduced without debate. The Unionist newspapers declare that this muzzling is due to the Unionists' inconvenient and damaging speeches. Mr. Asquith's announcement, coupled with the intimation that when the veto re.«*)lutions are parsed, the guillotine will be similarly applied to the Budget, is widely interpreted as meaning that the Government is determined to accelerate a crisis. Foreshadowing a dissolution, many of the Liberals' and Unionists' central offices are organising meetings in the provinces with a view to early elect-ions. MODERATE LIBERALS. DO NOT BELIEVE IN RUSH. (Received April 2, 10 a.m.) LONDON. lt,t April. Moderate Liberals doubt the wisdom of lushing the resolutions and thereby justifying the Lords in contending that they had not received adequate discussion. The majority of th« . Miniaterialiate^

Nationalists, and Labourites favour machine the cribis quickly. OPPOSITION PROTESTS. IRISH SUPPORT AT CRUCIAL MOMENT. THE WHISKY TAX. IReceived April 2. i 0.40 a.m.) LONDON. l*t Apiil. Dining tho d^bato in tho Houw» of Common*, Mr. Churchill raised .•■tron^ Opposition protests by arguing that the Conservative attempt to extend the Lords' veto over finance was tantamount to a desire to reverse the great extensions of the franchise. Thero ere indications that Mr. LloydGeorge will secure Mr. Redmond's popport at the crucial moment by dropping tho whisky tax, which the Daily Chronicle argues has been proven to be unproductive. MR. LLOYD-GEORGE AND MR. DILLON., RESULTLESS INTERVIEW. (Received April 2. 10.20 a.m.) LONDON, Ist April. Mr. John Dillon and another Nationalist member had a resultless interview with Mr. Lloyd -George.