IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2672, 31 May 1905, Page 49

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

LONDON, May 23. In the House of Lords, Lord Muskerry ooniplained that the Philippines and the Canary and Marshall Islands -were closed against British shipping ; also, that British ships were not allowed to participate in the coasting trade in Belgium, France,

Russia, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Brazil, and the United States.

Lord Lansdowne replied that it was extremely unfair that the British coasting trade was open to foreigners who refused to reciprocate. "If we preserved our coasting trade exclusively to ourselves," he said, "the remedy would prove disadvantageous. We should lose our foreign reshipment trade." With reference to the Marshalls, Germany freely recognised that the Convention of 1896 entitled British and German shipping in the Pacific to absolute equality of treatment. In the House of Commons, replying to Mr Soares, the Premier (Mr Balfour) stated that the last Colonial Conference resolved to reassemble automatically in 1906. He admitted he did not remember this when speaking at Edinburgh on October 3. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman insisted that Mr Balfour was pledged to consult the country twice before taking fiscal action.

Mr Balfour replied that a statement of policy was not a pledge to the Opposition. Nevertheless the Government did not intend to use its majority to commit the present Parliament to fiscal reform. He adhered to the essence of the Edinburgh speech, that any plan the Government adopted would be submitted to the country. The Government was unable to restrict discussion at the conference.

Sir H. Campbeil-Bannerman later on moved) the adjournment of the House. He cited passages from Mr Balfour's speeches at Edinburgh and Manchester, also the speech of the Duke of Marlborough, to show that the country would not be asked to decide the colonial aspect of the fiscal question until after two elections. The country understood a special conference would be called to discuss the fiscal question, if the Government returned to power. The country believed one election would) be held to approve or disapprove of the summoning of a conference, and another to approve or disapprove of the decision of the conference. The Government's sudden change of policy required explanation. When the Hon. A. Lyttelton rose to reply to fc>ir H. Campbell-Bannerman the Opposition shouted : " Balfour. We won't hear you. The tumult continued for many minutes. Mr Lyttelton, standing at the table, vainly tried to speak. Mr Balfour sat smiling calmh". The Right Hon. Mr Lowther, Deputyspeaker, who has been in the chair for ttiree weeks owing to the Speaker's illness, repeatedly appealed to the House to give Mr Lyttelton a hearing. The Opposition persistently maintained the uproar, while the Ministerialists indulged in loud protests. The Nationalists deliberately tried to increase the confusion with ironical interjections, such as " Send for the Irish police," " Send for the Horse Guards," and " Clear the House. " Mr Dillon shouted that such a disgraceful paralysis of business had not happened for 50 years. Messrs Churchill, Burns, Lloyd) George, and Lord Hugh Cecil vainly intenvened. Mr Lyttelton's attempts were always drowned by cries and groans. Mr Lowther repeatedly tried to calm the Opposition, warning them it was unusual to dictate in what order the Government shoiild speak, adding that the Opposition was forging a very dangerous weapon which would be used against it hereafter. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman declared' that it was impossible for the debate to proceed unless Mr Balfour spoke immediately. Mr Balfour took a stand and stated that he intended to wait until a full indictment was developed. Even a criminal in the dock did not exjoect to exhibit his defence until the whole case was revealed. It the precedent set that evening was followed the House would be absolutely ruined. Mr Lyttelton again vainly rose. The din vras at once renewed. After a full hour of great disorder, Mr' Lowther, under the new rule, suspended the sitting, the Opposition wildly cheering. The Daily Express declares that the ! Unionist Free Fooders believe a one-elec-I tion compact instead of two is the compromise which Mr Balfour and Mr Chamberlain have arranged.