IMPERIAL POLITICS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15142, 13 May 1911, Page 7

IMPERIAL POLITICS.

REFORM OF THE LORDS. MR BALFOUR'S VIEWS. Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, May 11. Speaking at a great gathering at the Primrcse League in the Albert Hall, Mr Balfour said he heartily supported Lord Laasdowne's reforms, which had gone as far as it was right or possible to go in the direction of a change in the Lords' Constitution. He warned them not to bo change the House of Lords that it would overshadow the Commons.

May 12. (Received May 12, at 10.30 p.m.) Mr Balfour, speaking in the Albert Hall, said they must have a strong and effective Second Chamher,, able to carry out the great and dutiful, not the pitiful and beggarly modicum of responsibility given by the Parliament Bill. The Government proposed to indefinitely postpone the admittedly necessary Teform of the House of. Lords, and insisted that they should meanwhile be governed by one Chamber alone. He called that grcss, palpable, and almost criminal inconsistency. Tihe Labour party was consistent, as it constantly declared that it could seo no object in having a Seoond Chamber. It could vote on this bill with a clear conscience,' as the bill gave them a singleChamber Government. The position of the Labour party was unassailable, but he could not imagine inconsistency greater than that of the Government in saying that the future Constitution must be bicameral, yet the Parliament framing it might be a single-Chamber Cowtitution. The only explanation of such humiliating straits was that able men were driven thereto by the necessity of keeping a majority in the House of Commons. (Received May 12, at 10.55 p.m.) Continuing, M-r Balfour eaid there might have been reforms in the Second Chamber and a change of relations between the 'two Houses, but never the absurdity of suggesting a transfer to a single Chamber elected on a different issue. Whether what the Government proposed was Home Rule on the Gladstonian or some other unknown, model, it. ought never to be passed by a single Chamber alone, but either subjected to revision by two dependent, and legally coequal Chambers or referred to a people as a whole,—(Cheers.) The true solution of the constitutional question was, firstly, a change in the constitution of the Second Chamber, not an alteration in its powers; at all events, not the fundamental alteration in its powers proposed by the Parliament Bill. Secondly, deadlocks should bo met by conferences for conciliation and joint sittings. Thirdly, matters of grave importance and special issues should be decided by the referendum. —(CheeTs.) Nothing could be more entertaining or pathetic than to s;o opponents who had been talking about democracy throughout their lives struggling to show that an appeal to the people on a specific issne wa6 ths woTst service renderable to the democracy. Mr Balfour concluded by claiming that the Unionists v were the only true democratic party in the State.

SPEECH BY MR ASQUITH. LONDON. May 12.

(Receivod May 12, at 10.30 p.m.)

In the course of a speech at Manchester Mr Asqnitfa said it had. been claimed that if Homo Rule were relinquished the Government would have no difficulty in seeming assent to the Parliament Bill. This was an inversion of the real facts. There would have been no Parliament Bill but for Home Rule.