BRITISH POLITICS

New Zealand Mail, 29 January 1902, Page 28

BRITISH POLITICS

DEFENCE OF GOVERNMENT POLICY.

LONDON, January 21. In the House of Commons, Mr F. Cawley, Liberal member for Prestwich, Lancashire, in a pro-Boer speech, moved his foreshadowed amendment to the Ad-dress-in-Reply. No Liberal leader had risen when Mr Chamberlain replied in a brilliant speech, in which he vindicated the humanity of the Government and the British generals. He twitted the Radicals with urging a vigorous prosecution of the war while approving restitution of the independence of the Boers. He hoped the supporters of Lord Rosebery's Chesterheld policy would not do the country the disservice of voting with the Opposition.

The war would long since have been ended, said the Minister, if the care of Boer women and children had not been undertaken. Excepting Miss Hobhouse, everv visitor to the concentration camps

had acknowledged the care and humanity shown to the dweilers in them. Continuing, Mr Chamberlain said that while he would not he deaf to reasonable overtures from any responsible authority. he denied that the Boers should now receive terms which General Botha refused in March. Though the same in spirit, the details must be open to modification. The credentials of the Boer representatives must be closely examined. Mr Kruger and his entourage had lost the confidence of the Boers in the field, and it was doubtful who was now able to speak in the name of aii the commandos. A solid, lasting peace required that the foe should recognise that he was beaten. Unconditional surrender did not mean extermination.

The severities shown up to the present, proceeded Mr Chamberlain, did not equal the precedents of the Canadian rebellion. Nobody had been shot for treason, and extremely light punishment had been awarded for that crime. No general confiscation of property was intended, and the people were promised equal rights and privileges. He did not believe the Boers would be permanently alienated. The Government refused to be drawn away into weakness and vacillation. It had not withdrawn the proclamation of 7th August. A very large measure of amnesty would be granted for military offences. Ordinary crimes would be punished, others wouid suffer by the withdrawal of the franchise. The claims of the colonies who had so nobly assisted the Mother Country would be heard in the final settlement, and certainly allowed, despite the protests of a small section of the Opposition. Cape Colony was pajring £200.000 a month towards the war—an enormous contribution. He concluded—“We have the confidence, affection and support of the colonies in an unprecedented degree, and mean to keep them.'"’ Mr Chamberlain’s speech was received with cheers.

Mr John Dillon, member for East Mayo, moved an amendment on Mr Cawley’s amendment, denouncing the systematic devastation of the ex-Republics and the barbarism in the concentration camps. This was negatived by 283 to 64. Fifty-seven Nationalists and four Radicals were included in the minority. ‘‘The Times” says:—"So far the Liberal attack is a sham.” The “Standard” says Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman has completely failed to reunite the Opposition.

LONDON. January 22. In the Commons, Sir Balfour said ho was disgusted with the attacks on the War Office, whose administrative performance was unequalled in the history of the Empire. He attributed the extraordinary dullness of the debate to Mr Chamberlain’s speech knocking everybody out of time. He bantered Sir \V. V. Harcourt for devoting three-fourths of his speech to proving that he was tied to Lord Rosebery’s chariot wheels. Unconditional surrender of the" Boers was only meant so far as political arrangements involving the incorporation of the ex-Ropublics were concerned. There must be surrender of some kind. Peace had been delayed because Britain refused to give independence to the Boers. He appealed to the Opposition to abstain from parade fights calculated to encourage the Boers to prolong the war in the hope that- the Government would be displaced. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said the “devastation policy” was a gigantic political blunder, and the concentration camps an offence against civilisation a military mistake and a political disaster. Ho urged a generous, magnanimous peace. _ Mr F. Cawley’s amendment was negatived by an overwhelming majority. The Nationalists, a few extreme Radicals Mr Lloyd George and Mr H. Labouchere abstained from voting. The minority included Sir H. Camp-bell-Bannerman, Sir W. V. Harcourt, Mr John Morley, Mr James Bryce and Sir H. H. Fowler. The Liberal Imperialists abstained from taking part in the debate, on the ground that Mr Chamberlain’s speech left no wide divergence of principle. Sir Edward Grey, Mr R. B. Haldane, Mr R. C. Munro-Ferguson and others did not vote. Mr H. H. Asquith was ill. Sir W. Harcourt, in the course of his speech, said it was impious to insist on unconditional .surrender. The policy of

the Government gave no promise of tt durable peace. He denounced the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the Cape Constitution. The amendment moved by Mr Lloyd George simply affirmed two contradictory propositions. Apparently a section of his party was captured by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, who stripped Mr George of all-his principles. Mr Cowley*s amendment to the Ad-dress-in-Rep!y was negatived by 333 votes to 123.

Mr Lloyd George, member for Carnarvon, said the amendment simply affirmed two contradictory propositions. Apparently a section of his party had captured Sir Henry Campbell-Banner-man and steeped him in all the principles of that section.

LONDON, January 2-3. In the House of" Commons, Mr J. Walton’s amendment to the Address-in-Reply, that it is essential to safeguard British commercial and political interests in Persia, was withdrawn after A iscount Cranborne had explained that the Government’s policy was to maintain the status quo in Asia and preserve the integrity of Persia. It was impossible to abandon British ascendency hi the Persian Gulf and the southern provinces bordering on India. In the House of Commons, an amendment to the Address-in-Reply, moved by Captain Pine, in favour of Home Rule in local affairs for all counties of the United Kingdom, was negatived without a division.

Mr C. T. Ritchie, Home Secretary, said the proposal was subversive of the Constitution, and England and Scotland did not desire a change. If local parliaments were created, tney would refuse to confine their attention to purely local affairs, and discussion of Imperial questions in different legislatures within the Kingdom would inevitably weaken the Empire. The County Councils were working admirably, and their powers might advantageously be enlarged.

The second reading of the Deceased Wife’s Sister Bill, introduced by Mr J. Rutherford, member for the Darwen division of Lancashire, will be taken on 4th February. The Continental press comments on the amendments to the Address dealing with the war, and the fact that the more moderate idea of settlement by negotiations instead of by fighting has been abandoned.

"St. James’s Gazette” states that Lord Rosebery, in declining the leadership of the Liberal party, based his action on Sir Henry Canipbell-Bennerman’s refusal to withdraw the statement that methods of barbarism had been employed by the British in the war. Mr J. L. Wanklyn, member of the House of Commons for Bradford, will shortly more, and Mr J. C. Wason, formerly of New Zealand (member for Orkney and Shetland) will second, an amendment on the Address-in-Reply, urging prosecution of the pro-Boers for seditious utterances. The amendment quotes Mr Seddon’s utterances in offering the Eighth Contingent. LONDON, January 24. Mr Redmond moved an amendment to the Address-in-Reply complaining of the Government’s refusal of a measure of compulsory land purchase, the revival of coercion and the suppression of free speech. He declared that resistance was a duty, while rebellion was a question of expediency. Mr John P. Hayden, member for South Roscommon, in seconding the amendment, asserted that there were two thousand branches of the Land League in Ireland.

Mr G. Wyndham, Irish Secretary, in reply, said that out of two thousand and eleven cases of boycott now existing, only twenty-seven were attributable to the League. a He admitted that twentysix leagues and branches were exercising a prejudicial economic effect on an ill-considered scheme. Compulsory land purchase must defer for years the housing of the British poor. The Government intended to further all necessary agricultural and industrial projects in Ireland. LONDON, January 25. By 237 votes to 134 the House of Commons rejected Mr Redmond’s amendment to the Addrcss-in-Reply complaining of the Government’s refusal of a measure of compulsory land purchase, the revival of coercion and the suppression of free speech. t I'he minority included sixty-three Nationalists and seventy-one Radicals. The abstention of the Roseberyites from voting was a protest against- Nationalist methods, especially in regard to traitorous speeches. The Right Hon. John Atkinson, At-torney-General for Ireland, said there was no serious crime in Ireland. The Irish Land League was not proclaimed and could easily be revived under another name. Non-payment of rent and boycotting were things which were properly dealt with by magistrates instead of by juries. Mr John Morley, in a-vigorous criticism of Mr Atkinson’s speech, supported the amendment. He advocated the colonial form of self-government for Ireland.