THE LATEST MOVE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7870, 4 August 1911, Page 4

THE LATEST MOVE

The motions censuring the British Government which arc to be moved next week by Mr Balfour in the House of Commons and Lord Curzon in the House of Lords may produce interesting debates on fine points of constitutional law; they will present opportunities for verbal fireworks such as the leader of the Opposition delights in; incidentally, they will probably serve to show how hopelessly out of touch the two branches of the Legislature ate, since the motion will bo rejected by the Commons and passed by the Lords. But this kind of thing is not likely to contribute to a settlement of present difficulties. Probably the idea is, as lobby opinion suggests, to endeavour to rally the disunited Conservative forces—to humour the “stalwarts” with a sort of sham fight. Mr Balfour continues to appear very surprised and indignant because Mr Asquith proves to bo a man of his word—because he is armed with the support of the Crown without which ho plainly declared, before the last election, his Government would 1 decline to continue in office. This, Mr Balfour would persuade the House, and Lord Curzon will have no difficulty in persuading the Peers, is a violation of constitutional liberty, since it "precludes the people from pronouncing on the question of Homo Rule for Ireland.” This is merely continuing the agitation, that has failed during the past few months, to exclude the question of • Homo Rule from the operation of the powers conferred on the representative Chamber by the Parliament Bill. “Wo could get through the Bill to-morrow,” said' Mr Asquith last June, “if wo would agree that it should not apply to Home Rule,” and ho added that the moment the omnipotence of Parliament was separated in regard to different classes of subject matter, the courts of law wore introduced into a domain in which they were singularly ill-fitted to intrude. The facts are that the Liberals have been three times returned to power, and at each election it was quite well known that self-government for Ireland was an important item in the party’s programme. In a speech in the Albert Hall just prior to the first election of last year, the Prime Minister described Ireland as “the one undeniable failure of British statesmanship.” Mr Asquith said: “Speaking on behalf of my colleagues, and, I believe, of my party, the solution of the problem can bo found only in one way—by a policy which, while explicitly safeguarding the supreme and indefeasible authority of the Imperial Parliament, will set up in Ireland a system of full self-go-vernment in regard to purely Irish affairs.” The constituencies have twice expressed confidence in the Prime Minister since he delivered that direct statement of policy. Yet Mr Balfour seeks to argue the House into belief that the people are being prevented from pronouncing on the ■ question. The right of the Irish people to selfgovernment has been repeatedly affirmed by the Government, the House of Commons, and the constituencies, and under a democratic franchise the verdict would be more emphatic. Not only has Home Rule been pronounced upon by the people of Britain, but by the Empire. As for the constitutional right of the King to create peers, it is surely lato in the day to raise the issue. That point was settled in 1832, when an unwilling House of Lords was brought to terms. Under the British constitution the King is the final arbiter when political parties arrive at a deadlock. To-day, as in 1832, the sovereign is the last barrier against revolution. To realise the truth of this, it, is only necessary to imagine

what would happen if the of Commons were to pass Mr Balfour’s resolution.