IMPERIAL POLITICS

Otago Witness, Issue 2923, 23 March 1910, Page 30

IMPERIAL POLITICS

PASSAGE OF THE BUDGET. LONDON, March 14. In reply to Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr Asquith said the Government could give no undertaking, but it intended to pass the Budget before the spring recess. This intention, however, was contingent on anything that might happen elsewhere. REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS. LORD ROSEBERY'S PROPOSALS. LONDON, March 15. The House of Lords was thronged yesterday. Amongst those present were the Prince and Princess of Wales. Lord Rosebery moved that the House go into committee on the following resolutions:—" (1) That a strong and effurent Second' Chamber as an integral part of the Constitution is necessary for the well-being of the State and the balance of Parliament; (2) that such a Chamber can best be obtained by a. reform and reconstruction of the House of Lords ; (3) that a necessary preliminary to such reconstruction is an acceptance of the principle that the possession of a peerage no longer of itself gives a right to sit or vote in the House of Lords." He contended that it was hopeless to imagine that the Government's veto resolutions, if passed in 1910, would be followed by reform in 1911. The Liberals would' say to Mr Asquith: "We recognise your good intention, but we do not mean to have anything to do with that. You deprived the House of Lords of its privilege and power in a single session of Parliament, and what more do we want?" Mr Aequith's proposal resembled hamstringing a valuable horse -and then entering it for the Derby. Lord Rosebery concluded a closely-reasoned and earnest speech against the Government's proposal for complete domination by the House of Commons by setting up a sham and impotent Second Chamber, with mention of the lessons of the French Revolution and the danger of withholding concessions until too late. He said he was convinced that the House would rise to the height on this great occasion and earn the gratitude of unborn generations. Lord Morley urged the House to wait and hear the Government's proposals. He said that Lord Rosebery had failed to touch on the emergency confronting them. What was needed was effective means of settling differences between the two Houses. Lord Northeote approved of the resolutions, but said the details required careful examination. The debate was adjourned. In the course of his speech on. the question of the reform of the House of Lords Lord Rosebery. referred to Sir G. H. Reid. the High Commissioner for Australia, as a man of infinite ability, popularity, and geniality. No better choice for the position could possiblv have been made. He asked: How could Sir George Reid possibly justify to Australians the abolition of a Second Chamber ;n Great Britain wben Australia, on the institution of Federation in 1900. took care to • secure a stromr and efficient Senate? The colonies had always taken care to secure a strong Second Chamber. March 16. The Primate, in supporting Lord Rosebery's resolutions, declared -that the Go; vernment's proposed sweeping departure from immemorial usage was not justified. He urged a common-sense readjustment. The Marquis of Salisbury supported the resolutions, adding that there must be a process of selection, giving some personal guarantee of the fitness of the Peer to perform legislative functions. Lord Newton said he was now in favour of Lord Rosebery's view to admit the election of Peers from, outside. March 17. Lord Curzon emphasised' the feeling of respect wherewith the House of Lords was viewed in the colonies as a benign House where the colonies' case could be stated with experience, regarded sympathetically, and judged with authority. How much more would this be the case in an ancient audi aristocratic country like India, throughout which the House of Lords was regarded with enormous veneration and respect? He added that one-fourth of the members of the House sat as the result of their- own honourable exertions. He had no sympathy for a popularly-elected Second Chamber, but he favoured rooting the House deeper "in democracy. Lord Burghclere, in also supporting the resolutions, advocated a limit of the veto. Lord Cromer said the House of Lords should retain its powers intact. Lord Halsburv severely criticised Lord Rosebery's resolutions, but said he was willing that they should go to a committee.

Lord Crewe and Lord Lanedowne continued the debate to-day. It is understood that the House of Lords will take the resolutions in committee next week, adopt the first two, and consider the third after Easter. The Times' parliamentary correspondent says the Ministry is in favour of a Second Chamber of 150 members. The method of electing the senators is still ander discussion, but the present intention is that half the Senate should be elected for eight years and half for four years. The newspapers interpret Lord Curzon's proposals to mean, firstly, the nomination of an undisclosed number of Peers by the Government of the day; secondly, the election of English Peers should be conducted on the same principle as the Irish #ttd Scottish Peers are chosen ; thirdly, that county councils and great corporations should be formed into electoral colleges to select 84 representatives to the Upper House. March 18. Lord Courtney discussed Lord Rosebery's resolutions from the standpoint of the divergency of the two Houses. Incidentally he criticised the House of Commons as not being a true council of the nation owing to the absence of representations. Some of the great elements were absent, just as great elements were absent from the House of Lords. He concluded by detailing his scheme for representation in the House of Lords—Capital, Labour, and Nationalists. ■ • Lord Lansdowne emphasised the fact that nobedy objected to the resolutions going to a committee inasmuch as such an attitude was equivalent to declaring that the House was perfect. He dwelt on the seriousneiss of the proposal to ask a large number of Peers to surrender their duties and privileges. He hoped that Lord Rosebery would (submit an ultimate scheme for continuity, keeping on the right side of the line between reform and revolution. The House was going into the concern with considerable goodwill, which otight not to be sacrificed. If new blood were introduced the eld traditions shoxild be retained. He would greatly regret any alteration in the name of the House —a name whereof there was no reason to be ashamed. He trusted that the reform would be carried out on an equitable and reasonable basis, not excluding the hereditary principle. The country's recent verdict was net a wholesale condemnation. The principle of reform should be simple. He remarked that one picturesque and attractive, but impractical, suggestion favoured including representatives of the oversea dominions. Surely an Imperial Parliament was one thing and the Second Chamber another. He would ask those who were familiar with the opinion of the great colonics whether the latter greatly desired to be associated with the Motherland in the every-day work of legislation. He did •not think that the dominions would pari, with their best men for the purpose of attending, nor would they be grateful for the amount of representation granted. which would necessarily be small. Lord Lansdowne concluded by reviewing the various practical methods of reform. Lord Crewe did not oppose the resolutions, but . said the primary urgent question concerned the relations between the two Houses. What was unpopular was not the hereditary principle, but- the uncontrolled' exercise of the hereditary power. He added that the House of'Commons must have a say regarding any reform of the Lords. The resolutions were then aereed to. and the House went into committee and adjourned till Monday. Tiie Times states that the Govemmcut's present plan for clectine the Second Chamber is to subdivide Britain and Ireland into 75 enormous constituencies, each returning two members (.senior) for eight years and a junior for four years. The members elected to replace the hitter will serve for the r*Ta#in\z\<* four yean?. Mr Herbert Samuel, sneaking at Basingstoke, said the hereditary principle must go. MINISTERIAL SPEECHES LONDON. March 15 In the course oi a speed) at a Liberal banquet in the city Sir Edward Grey said that if the reform of the House of Lords _ were left to the other side the Liberals would be courting disaster, death, and damnation. The solution would be an elective Chamber, not necessarily elected simultaneously with the Commons, and not on the same franchise. The Government would reimpose its Budget taxes, and by that it would stand or fall. March 19. In the course of a speech at Oxford Mr Asquith said that the general election had created a position that was unforeseen by all parties, and it was only after some hesitation that his colleagues concluded that it was their duty to remain in office. The Budget must be pressed forward with promptitude and despatch in order to set right the, uflMxampled financial confusion produced by the Lords. Rationally a properly-constituted Second Chamber was desirable, but not a Chamber overwbelminsly and undisguisably partisan. The House of Lords ' reform debate showed a desire that the ancient structure could be disguised with a coat of democratic whitewash. The Liberals' demand a Second Chamber rebuilt on a democratic basis, thus nvevpntinsr a j chronic deadlock of legislative power.

J The country had declared itself predomi- ! nantly Liberal. The absolute veto must ' S'°The Times, commenting on the speech, said th'at Mr Asquith and his friends meant to preserve the Second Chamber as a sham and screen, that was a new democratic conception of English constitutional Government. March 20. In the course of a. speech at Manchester Mr Churchill said: "I am not frightened' by the idea of a single Chamber, and I do I not attach the importance to the ques- : tion which some 10. If a Second Chamber is established in the future it must j be based on the votes of the great musses of the wage-earning population. The Government's resolutions will be tabled on Tuesday. They will be Sir H. Campj beil-Baiinerman's, strengthened by Mr I Asquith in one or two particulars. The i debate on the resolutions will commence •j on the 29th inst. The Budget has been j .misrepresented and misunderstood in Ire* j land, but the Lords must be made to : swallow both the veto .and the Budget." j Mr Churchill said he did not believe that j Parliament would come to an untimely J end through the Budget failing. j PRESS COMMENT. ; LONDON. March 18. ' The Standard (0.), summarising Lord i Lansdowne's Second Chamber policy, coni sidera that the powers of veto should not J be weakened. The number of Peers ! would he reduced, but the whole peerage would select representatives from their own body : others would sit without eiectior by virtue of their public services.; the GoveYnment of the day would also select a number of Peers with a tenure of office long enough not to be influenced by general elections ; a-nd the principle of life peerages would be extended to cover the representation of all .schools of political thought and the great interests of the country. The Limes states that the. germ of the Government's proposals regarding the reform of the House of Lords will be found in clause 63 of the South African : Constitution Act. There is much comment in the newsI papers on Lord Rosebery's statement that j he depve C a.ted the election of Peer? by I popular vote, as such a course would only ; give a feeble understudy of the House of ! Commons, and would multiply the horrors of a general election : but the Lords | would derive dignity by association with. ] corporations and county councils, if these were formed into elective bodies upon the French basis. The representation provided, in this way should form a considerable proportion of the modified Upper House. REVENUE RETURNS. LONDON. March 16. A Treasury return shows the revenue ; receipts to "be '£j£oY?B6,OOo,' compared I with £139,383,000 for the corresponding | period of 1909. leaving £39,054,000 to be j collected in a fortnight if the Treasurer's I estimates are to be fulfilled. WELSH LIBERALS ANGRY. LONDON, March 17, In selecting Mr Oibbins (a magistrate) as their candidate the Liberals of Mid | Glamorgan have bitterly protested against ! the Master of Elibank's action in advising j them not to oppose the Labour party. | The Master of Elibank replies that the j South Wales Miners' Federation repeatj edly resolved to-abstain while Mr Thomas j and Mr Evans adhered to the general | political programme of the federation, but I whenever a vacancy occurred to contest the seat against all-comers. MR REDMOND'S PREDICTION. LONDON, March 17. Mr Redmond r speaking at Newcastle, said he was perfectly Sure that a general election would take place in a few weeks. WIDESPREAD DISSATISFACTION. LONDON, March 17. Dissatisfaction with Sir E. Grey's speech in the city is increasing. The Liberals complain that "he has disI pelled all hopes of adjusting their diffij culties with the Nationalists, while the ] declaration that the Government intends j to proceed with the reform of the House I of Lords is extremely distasteful to the ! Labour party. | The Standard (0.) states that Sir E. i Grey, Mr Haldane, Lord Wolverhampton, ; Mr M'Kenna, and Lord Crewe insist on | combining reform with a limitation of ; the Lords' power of veto. ; The British Weekly (G.) complains that ! the Government intends to spring upon J the nation a scheme for reforming the | -Lords and the introduction of the Budget J together, with the certainty of defeat I ahead, and that they are apparently : determined . not to approach the King. The enthusiasm of Nonconformists for the Government is nearly worn out. Sneaking at Newcastle, Mr .1. E. Red-mond-complained of the "rotten" policy j of the Government. He declared that I Sir E. Grey's speech in the city on Mon- : dav showed that the Government did i not propose to relax its grip upon the : Budget before the veto was settled'. March 18. Mr Redmond, speaking at an Irish j banquet in London, said the Nationalists | were anxious to prevent the failure of j the veto campaign, but they did not | intend to participate in a sham battle. i They demanded a straight fieht, not *

Fabian policy. Come weal or woe, they would stand by their pledges. He did not know whether they would succeed or .whether the Irish cause would have once more to- wait. Mr T. O'Connor, in a-speech at Liverpool, said that in the fight with the Lords the Budget was the weapon which ought to be fearlessly used. A CANDID CRITIC. LONDON, March 18. Lord Curzcn, speaking at the Junior Constitutional Club and referring to the elections o.r.d the Government's position, said there bad been no greater instance of sudden catastrophe and disintegration. He remarked that the Government's tactics ware to prolong its existence, to postpone its defeat, to embarrass the finances, to produce confusion, and to put its enemies in a. false position. The country expected broad-minded and dispassionate statesmanship, and it did not expect that the Government's policy would be actuated by a spirit of the . political gambler. The country did not intend that the House of Lords should go. The Government was not exactly a Cromwell, competent to destroy one of the two Houses. It would not be by sham Robespierres that any great revolution could be carried. The Lords should follow on broad and generous lines, and he hoped that the approaching elections would return si party strong enough to carry such reforms in the Constitution as were required to pass sound measures of fiscal and social reform. "DRIFTING TO DISASTER." LONDON, March 21. Mr Percy Alden, M.P., has organised an extensively signed memorial of Liberal and Labour members urging Mr Asquith to resort to the referendum in order to avoid the disorganisation of business and the heavy expense entailed by anotheT election. Mr G. N. Barnes, speaking at Torquay, declared that submitting the Budget to the House of Commons before the House of Lords hsd finally ddsnosed of the veto resolutions meant drifting to disaster. There was no prospect of the Liberals obtaining a large majority. IRISH PARTIES DISSATISFIED. LONDON. March 20. The Irish Independents. (Mi W. O'Brien's followers) complain that the speech of the Prime Minister is merely continuing the Government's policy of mystery and evasion. Before any mutual understanding is possible the Nationalists must know what the Prime Minister really means. March 21. Mr Redmond, speaking at Liverpool, said he was profoundly dissatisfied with the situation. Continuins?, he said: "The Tories want financial chaos regularised before they return to office, but I say ' Let them stew in own juice until we know what we are tjoing to do with the Lords' veto.' The whiskv duties have brought no revenue. It is quite possible to exemot the '*small owners in Ireland from the new death duties and stamp duties and the srmll Irish breweries from the license taxes. Irish land must be exempted from valuation. Such concessions -would not affect the cba • of the Budget as a great democratic measure." He said he would be glad to reeiorooate the : conciliatory tone of Mr Ascmith's speech and to consult with the Government recrardinsr the Budget and the veto, but the Nationalists intended to stand to their pledges. MR HALDANF/S VIEWS. LONDON. March 21. Mr Ha.ldane, addreissinrr the members of the Eighty Club, denied the rumour of his probable resignation. > He said the veto must be taken first, but the Liberals would make a profound mistake if they separated the veto from the Teform of the Lords. If the Liberals failed to ■reconstitute the House of Lords upon a democratic basis the Conservatives would

do so, and then repeal the veto resolutions. The Lords' self-reform proposals appeared to contemplate depriving the Crown of the power to create additional Peers. Until now this had been the House of Commons' supreme ultimate safeguard. Mr Haldane suggested that the Second Chamber should represent great constituencies in order that no one should be able to seek election unless he was a man of mark. THE COMMONS AND THE QUES- , TION OF SUPPLY. OPINIONS BY A NEW ZEALAND AUTHORITY. (From Cue Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, March 17. The question of the attitude which, according to the press cable messages, is to be taken up by the Home Government in limiting Supply to six weeks has attracted considerable attention in New Zealand, and different opinions have been expressed as to whether it is the constitutional or the right thing to do. Yesterday I sought out an authority on the subject of parliamentary procedure, and asked him for a judgment on the issue. " It cannot, of course," he said, " be unconstitutional, because the Commons have always the right to refuse Supply. They are, however, only justified in taking such an extreme course when there is a vital principle at stake. It should not be made a mere question of embarrassing those who might be called upon to take the place of the Government in the event of the defeat of the latter. The question in the present case, then, arises : What is the vital principle that is at stake? It cannot be the Budget, upon which the last election was fought, and which the Lords and the Unionists are quite orepared to deal with if it is brought down. The Government, however, being in a minority in regard to the Budget, seems afraid to bring it down. If, then, the vital question is that of the abolition of the House of Lords, or a reform of such a nature as would render the Second Chamber impotent to restrain hasty legislation, such an alteration of the Constitution as proposed (and the two Chambers cannot agree on the point) should be decided by the people at a general election. That is quite evident, because an alteration of the Constitution is involved. The Government in either of these two cases would not be justified in asking the Commons to refuse Supply beyond a limited time." He did not believe that the Lords would seriously consider a resolution from the House in regard to reform of the Upper Chamber. They would say : " Give us your bill." Then, supposing a bill on the lines of the Campbell-Bannerman resolution was passed by the House—i.e., a measure by which any bill passed by the House of Commons ,nust become law within the term of a single Parliament, the Lords would be quite justified in throwing it out in Order that the issue should be submitted to the people. They would clearly be within their rights in doing so, because any Ministry with a working majority would have to wait only some two or three years to achieve whatever they wished, and such measure might involve a radical alteration of the Constitution such as the electors would not approve. Therefore, such a proposal should be first submitted to the people. How those who advocated democratic principles should oppose such a proceeding, which would practically be a referendum, was beyond comprehension. My informant, however, regarded the threats of the Liberal" Government as being in the nature of a brutum fulmen. Mr Asquith, ho thought, had been allowed by the Cabinet to promulgate his present plan of campaign in order mainly to intimidate the other side, but it was inconceivable that he would resign office without making provision for- the carrying on of the civil service c- the country. That in itself would be a very serious matter, and Mr Asquith, he thought, was too astute a man not to know that if he acted on these lines it would mean that the Liberals would be sent into the wilderness for many years to come. That reform of the House of Lords was necessary all sensible men would admit, and the hereditary principle would, sooner or latter, have to go. It would not, however, go at once. The one-chamber system would be a very dangerous one, because under the unrestrained exercise of

power by a majority of the Commons you might have a tryanny as grinding as under the greatest despot that ever lived. Under the present circumstances there could be no doubt that it would be the right thing to grant supplies in the ordinary way. Indeed, if the Government attempted to precipitate a dissolution of the House in order to go to the country without making provision for the carrying on of the public services of the country, it would be quite competent for the King to dismiss them and call in other members of the House as his advisers, who would find some way of getting ove«" the difficulty until the election was over. The whole position was caused by the.tail, in the shape of the Nationalists, making strenuous efforts to wag the dog. One thing was certain : the present and proposed action of the Government was getting the financial affairs of the nation into a rather serious mess. The following are the terms of section 63 of the South African Constitution Act:— 63. If the Flo use of Assembly passes any bill and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Assembly will not agree, and if the House of Assembly in the next session again passes the bill with or without any amendments which have be'en made or agreed to by the Senate, and the Seriate rejects or fails to pas sit,' or passes it with amendments to which the House of Assembly will not agree, the GovernorGeneral may during that session convene a joint sitting of the members of the Senate and House of Assembly. The members present at any such joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon the bill at last proposed by the House of Assembly and upon amendments, if any, which have been made therein by one House of Parliament and not agreed to by the other; and any such % amendments which are affirmed by a majority of the total number of miembers of the Senate and House ii Assembly present a't suoh sitting shall be taken to have been carried, and if the bill, with the amendments, if any, is affirmed by a majority cif the •numbers of the Senate and House of Assembly present at such sitting, it 6hall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses of Parliament: Provided that, if the Senate shall reject or fail to pass any bill dealing with the appropriation of revenue or moneys for the public service, sue'h joint sitting may be convened during the same session in which the Senate so rejects or fails to pass such bill.