IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

Otago Witness, Issue 2604, 10 February 1904, Page 15

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

LONDON, February 2. Their Majesties opeaicd Parliament amid much splendour.

The Speech from the Throne declared that foreign relations were satisfactory ; that Japanese and Russian negotiations ■were being watched wit-h concern, and that the Government would gladly afford «,ny assistance that could usefully be rendered towards arriving at a pacific solution. Ministers wei-e gratified at the Commonwealth and New Zeaiana giving effect to the Naval Agreement, and with New Zealand sanctioning a preferential tariff.

Mr Balfour, who was not present at the opening of Parliament owing to his illness, passed a fair night. There are no complications. The Standard (C.) says that as the Government is refraining, it is probable that a private member will introduce the Irish-Catholic University Bill, and if the Nationalists are favourable thereto Mr Balfour will give facilities 'for dealing with the measure, but will not expect his followers to support the measure as a test of party loyalty.

The moderates on both sides are striving to secure a compromise en the .English education question, to allow of specific religious instruction before or after the hours devoted to secular instruction.

February 3

The King, in his Speech in opening Parliament, expressed gratification at the Anglo-French and Anglo-Italian Arbitration Treaties and the Alaskan boundary settlement. The Porte, after a regrettable delay, had accepted a revised scheme for reforms in Macedonia. He trusted it would be applied during the winter respite. He hoped the political mission to Thibet, undertaken with the concurrence of China, would peacefully secure the renewal rf the convention of 1890 relating to Sikliim and Thibet, and remove a constant source of friction on the frontier. The insufficiency of the supply of raw material whereon England's great cotton industry depended inspired him with deep concern. He trusted the efforts in various parts of the Empire to increase the cultivation of the plant would be attended 'by a large measure of success. The burden due to naval and military defence was undoubtedly serious, but the possibility oi diminishing it •was being carefully considered in connection with army and War Office reform- Among the measures promised are alien immigration, licensing, Sccttish education, Irish labourers, Irish ■workers' housing, workmen's compensation, shop hours, sea fisheries, and the abolition, after the termination of the present Parliament, of the necessity for xe-election of members of the House of Commons accepting Ministerial ofhee.

The King's voice was clear and distinct.

The House of Lords agreed to the Address-in-Reply.

The Duke of Devonshire sat below the gangway in the House of Lords, and Mr Chamberlain, Lord George Hamilton, and Mr Ritchie below the gangway in the House cf Commons, Mr Chamberlain ■occupying the seat Mr John Bright took after "the Home Rule split in 1886.

The British Cotton-growers' Association in Lancashire thanked Mr Balfour for King Edward's mention of the shortness of cotton.

Mr John,Morley's amendment to the Address-in-Reply, which will not be moved until Mr Balfour has recovered, sets forth that the conflicting declarations of Ministers impair the effective •deliberation of Parliament, declares that the removal of Protective duties has conduced to a vast extension in trade, commerce, and public welfare, and believes that while social improvements are urgent any return to Protection (particularly in regard to food) would be deeply injurious to the national strength, contentment, and well-being. Mr Balfour is progressing favourably, and is expected to resume duty next "week.

Earl Fitzwilliam (U.) moved and Lord Hylton seconded the Addreas-in-Reply in the House of Lords. The Marquis of Lansdowne, replying to Earl Spencer's criticisms, denied that Great Britain had in any way actively intervened in the grave quarrel in the Far East, although she was intimately concerned in the preservation of peace. Her good offices, however, had not been invited. The Government's authorised fiscal policy ■was one of negotiation and retaliation, but they were at present not prepared to deal with the question of an extension of policy such as Mr Chamberlain proposed. In the Commons Sir H. CampbeilBannerman reserved his fiscal criticisms in detail "until Mr John Morley introduces his amendment to the Address-in-Reply. Mr Ausien Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer, replied that the question before the country was not the production of a plan, but whether there should be a reformed tariff. The Government asked the House to accept the principle that Britain's fiscal policy needed absolute reform.

The Attorney-general explained the reasons why, with the materials before W™, ha had advised the Government to

refrain from prosecuting Whiitaker Wright. The Treasury had now declined to bear the costs of the prosecutirn. He was in favour of legislation which would punish the officials of a company issuing statements knowing them to be untrue.

The King's Speech omitting reference to fiscal reform is construed in Germany as a sign of the Government's weakness. February 4. The debate on the Addrass-in-Rcply is proceeding. Mr John Redmond's declaration that the Nationalists, in accepting the Land Act, did not accept it as an alternative to Homo Rule, elicited the reply from Mr Wyudhani that the measure was passed exclusively as a sense of duty, and would be shortly amended, so as to make everything within the act clear. The Government was unable to iniliate a Catholic University unless there was a common agreement, and there was already a marked tendency towards such an agreement. Mr Wyndham emphatically negatived the demand for Home Rule, adding that under Home Rule Ireland would have been unable to meet the financial provisions cf the Land Act of T903. There were already 135 agreements made, embracing 3070 holdings, involving advances amounting to one million and a-half. The subject was ultimately dropped after Mr Redmond had passionately protested against the refusal to grant self-government. In the House of Commons Lord Onslow (President of the Board of Agriculture) informed a deputation that_ the Government would reintroduce the Milkblended Butter Bill.

February 5

Earl Wemyss, in the House of Lord?, gave notice cf motion in favour of a Royal Commission to inquire into the condition and prospects of trade, and ■whether any change is necessary in furtherance thereof.

In the House of Commons Mr Brodrick (Secretary of State for India) said it was not intended to annex any portion of Thibet, but only to prevent a recurrence of difficulties.

Earl Percy stated that communications had passed between Britain and Russia prior to the expedition to Thibet.

During the debate on the Address-in-Reply Earl Percy emphasised the solidarity of the Powers in securing permanent amelioration and also financial reforms terminating Turkish corruption in Macedonia. Mr Bryce said that the country would have supported Lord Lansdowne if an even stronger policy had been pursued. Austria and Russia, he declared, were only half-hearted in the matter.

In the House of Commons, Mr Lyttelton, Colonial Secretary, stated that owing to the urgency of the question the Government was unable to postpone the decision respecting the importation of Chinese for the Transvaal mines beyond the term named in the ordinance. The debate, addresses, and evidence shewed that the introduction of Asiatics was in accordance with the wishes of the people. The Government would not agree to a further referendum.

Mr W. S. Robson, in moving an amendment to the Addres-s-in-Reply, dwelt on the absence of a plan of campaign in South Africa. The blunders were due to the Ministry, not to the soldiers. Mr Wyndham, in replying, practically repeated Mr Balfour's speech at the United Club. He contended that the munitions and previsions provided sufficed for a force of 75,000 men, had that estimate been correct, but the Government and all the military advisers therein erred. The Government case rested on the report of the conrmis-

sioners.

Mr Chamberlain, in the course of a strenuous speech, quoting Sir H. Camp-bell-Bannerman's declaration made three months prior to the outbreak of war, thai military preparations were unnecessary, asked : " How could the Boers be expected to come to terms, thinking, if they refused, that we would not make preparations, or if we led the way that we would be condemned by the Opposition."

Sir H. Campbeil-Bannerman, speaking on Mr Robson's amendment, stated that on June 20, 1899, Mr Chamberlain came to his room and asked if the Opposition would join in sending 10,000 troops to the Cape. He declared that there would be no fighting, as the Government were only eugage-d in a game of bluff. He (the speaker) refused, on the ground that the responsibility for sending troops rested with the Executive.

Mr Chamberlain, in replying^said that he had no recollection of using the word " bluff," and it was unlikely that he had used it ; but he told Sir H. Camp-beil-Bannerman that there was no probability then of war, but it was desirable to impress the Boers that Great Britain was in earnest.

February G. Mr Robson's amendment was negatived by 278 to 192.

Fifty-four Nationalists voted for Mr Robson's amendment.

The Times considers Sir H. CampbellBannerman supplies conclusive justification for the delay in sending reinforcements to the Transvaal.

PARIS, February 3

The French press is pleased at King Edward's tactful comments on the Anglo-French rapprochement. Such

declaration*, it is declared, Trill assist towards tlie progressive development of enrdinl tpl.yHotis