IMPERIAL POLITICS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2983, 17 May 1911, Page 33

IMPERIAL POLITICS.

REFORM OF THE LORDS. LONDON, May 8. One passage in Mr Asquith's speech at Manchester is given prominence to — namely, that referring to a Second Chamber, which, he said, must be small, and would not rest on an hereditary basis, nor imust it claim to be a co-ordinate competing authority nor be predominantly onesided and partisan. Unless those conditions were satisfied the Government would be no parties to change. Lord Morley declared to-night in the House of Lords that the Government was unable to approve of any of Lord Lansdowne's proposals. May 9.

In his speech in the House of Lords on Lord Lansdowne's bill, Lord Morley sai'd that the bill was no alternative to the Parliament Bill, and nothing must obstruct the latter. He protested against the idea of' creating a new body _ until they had settled within what limits it would have to work. The Government's plans had been fully before the electors, and its policy bad withdrawn the absolute veto from the Lords. Whether the House were reformed or unreformed, the Government would proceed with the Parliament Bill till the Statute Book gave a security for the supremacy of the Commons that was unimpaired and unimpairable. Lord Lansdowne's proposals were both inadequate and illusory in many respects, and did what was unnecessary. His bill destroyed the House of Lords, and was not likely to advance the question. The Government could commit itself to no approval of any portion thereof as it had yet been presented to it. Lord Lansdowne, in the course of his speech, said he calculated that his scheme would leave the Unionists an apparent majority of 18, which was subject to fluctuation, and might disappear altogether.

The Times (O.) says that yesterday will remain a remarkable date in the country's political evolution. The constitutional question now enters on a new phase, wherein the stubborn reticence of the Government must give place to definite proposals.

The Daily News (G.) declares that Lord Lansdowne's House of Lords would be a protected House, because decisive action would always rest with the representatives of heredity. ■ Tlie press generally is surprised at the far-reaching character of Lord Lansdowne's proposals, and the Unionists still hope that the Government will accept them as a basis of compromise. The Morning Post (U.) says the proposals are the suicidal outcome of panic. The Westminster Gazette (G.) estimates the Conservative majority in the Lords under the proposed scheme at 32. May 10. At Lord Lansdowne's instance, Lord Morley agreed that the second reading of the former's bill should be taken on Monday. LORD LANSDOWNE'S SCHEME. LONDON, May 8. Lord Lansdowne, in his scheme for the reform of the Lords, proposes that 100 be elected by the hereditary Peers, 100 by the Crown —i.e., nominations through the Prime Minister—and 120 to be elected by outside constituencies; all to hold office for 12 years, and a fourth to retire every third year. In addition, provision is made for three Princes of the Blood Royal, two archbishops and five bishops to be elected by the entire Episcopal Bench, and 16 Law Lords and Appeal Judges; or a total of 546 in all. May 9. The House_of Lords was packed when Lord Lansdowne introduced his reform scheme. Amongst the members of the House of Commons present, filling the small side galleries allotted to them, besides several members of the Government, was Sir R. B. Finlay, who is regarded as the principal draftsman of the bill, which has been read a first time. Lord Lansdowne urged that reform should proceed simultaneously with a measure detailing the relations of the

two Houses. The Unionists desired a Second Chamber commanding the confidence of the country by ability, experience, and authority, and, above all, by its independence—a Chamber which might be trusted to use its powers fairly towards both the great parties, and bo in close touch with public opinion without being at the" mercy of popular caprice, a Chamber strong enough to make . a stand where there was reason to believe that the country had not had an opportunity of expressing its will clearly and deliberately. He did not claim that the proposed Chamber should have co-ordinate rights with the House of Commons. Heredity should no longer entitle a man to a seat. Thus only those would b* eligible who possessed certain statutory qualifications, which, with election by their compeers, would prove their fitness and eligibility. The schedule enumerating the qualifications included Peers who had held political office or important appointments at home or abroad, membership of the Privy Council, the diplomatic service or the Army Council, captains of the navy, and colonels on the active list.

The bill proposes that the Grown nominations shall be proportionate to the strength of the parties in the House of Commons, and that 120 representative mem shall be elected by electoral colleges composed of members of the House of Commons representing constituencies within each district, each of the colleges electing from three to 12 members, any Peer to be among the eligibles; the order of retirement to be determined first by ballot; . archbishop® to sit during the tenure of their sees, and the Law Lords foi life; the elections to be in accordance with an Order-in-Council, with representation of minorities; the creation of new Peerages not to exceed five in one year; any Peer, unless he be - a Lord of Parliament, to be eligible for election to the House of Commons.

Lord Lansdowne, in emphasising the gravity of the change, reminded those who possibly regarded the bill as almost a betrayal that some changes of the sort were almost inescapable. This bill was in the interest of the stability of some institutions which had never been threatened as they were by this movement. He mentioned joint sittings of the Houses or as a last resort, the referendum. Lord Lansdowne invited Lord Morley to disclose the Government's solution of the matter.

Lord Morley admitted that Lord Lansdowne had taken a bold front, which wa« possibly a useful course. The Government did not desire to obstruct the bill, bub was unable to accept it as a solution, because it retained the hereditary prin ciple. The bill was so complicated that if it were submitted to a referendum it would bring the referendum into disrepute.

MR BALFOUR'S VIEWS. LONDON, May 11

Speaking at a great gathering at the Primrose League in the Albert Hall, Mr Balfour said he heartily supported Lord Lansdowne'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 so change the House of Lords that it would overshadow the Commons. May 12. Mr Balfour, speaking in the Albert Hail, said they must have a strong and effective Second Chamber, 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 reform of the House of Lords, and insisted that they should meanwhile be governed by one Chamber alone. He called that gross, palpable, and almost criminal inconsistency. The Labour party was consistent, as it constantly declared that it could see no object in having a Second Chamber. It could vote on this bill with a clear conscience, as the bill gave them a single. Chamber 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 Cowstitution. 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. Continuing, Mr Balfour said 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 ite powers; at all events, not the fundamental alteration in its powers proposed by the Parliament Bill. Secondly, deadlocks should be met by conferences for conciliation and joint sittings. Thirdly, matters of grave importance and special issues should be decided by the referendum.—(Cheers.) Nothing could be more entertaining or pathetic than to see opponents who had been talking about democracy throughout their lives struggling to show that an ap-

peal to the people on a specific issue was tha worst service renderable to the democracy. Mr Balfour concluded by claiming that the Unionists were the only true democratic party in the State.

SPEECH BY MR ASQUITH. LONDON. May 12. In the conrfln of a speech at Manchester Mr Asquith said it. had boon claimed that if Home. Rule were relinquished the Government would hrivo no difficulty in securing assent to the Parliament Bill. This was an inversion of the real facts. There would have been no Parliament Bill but for Home Rule. A BYE-ELECTION.

LONDON, May 8. The bye-election for Barnstaple resulted as follows : Baring (L.) ... , 6239 Parker- (IT.) 5751 [At the December election the polling ■was:—Soares (L.), 6047; Parker (U.), 5155.] ■ AN ELECTION PETITION. LONDON, May 8. The hea.ring of the East Nottingham election petition has commenced. There are hundreds of charges of treating, illegal payment, and 310 cases of alleged bribery under the guise of charity. The participants in the torchlight procession were also paid. [The figures at the election were: Captain Morrison (U.), 6274; D. Stewart Smith (L.), 4804.] SMALL OWNERSHIP OF LAND. LONDON, May 10. In the House of Lords Lord Camperdown's Small Ownership of Land Bill was read a second time despite Lord Carrington's opposition. THE VETO BILL. LONDON, May 10. In the House of Commons the Radicals interrupted Lord Hugh Cecil during the veto debate.

The Speaker remarked tlia.t it was bad enough to have to apply the closure at half-past 4, and the least members could do was to listen to their opponents' arguments. The report stage of the first clause was concluded under the application of the guillotine. DISORDERLY SCENES. LONDON, May 10. The Government was questioned afresh respecting Mr E. J. Soares, who has been appointed to a post in the Treasury and received a knighthood, and the answers led to prolonged and violent scenes. The Speaker summarily stopped the wrangle, declaring: "We have had enough of these personalities."

ANOTHER APPOINTMENT CRITICISED.

LONDON, May 10. In the House of Commons, in reply to Captain P. A. Clive (U.), Mr F. D. Acland (Financial Secretary to the War Office) stated that the first holder of the new office of Mossing Adviser to the War Office, at a salary of £3OO, would bo Colonel Morgan, a retired officer. Mr Acland further explained, in reply to an additional question, that Colonel nlorgan had been invited to retire as a result of the Butler Committee of Inquiry and the finding of the Royal Commission winch was appointed at the close of tho Boer war. No corruption had been found against Colonel Morgan, who was only, guilty of undoubted culpability undec? tbt Army Regulations; but as he waa. a Ter\* able man, and better qualified than any* one else to do the work, there was n» reason why he should not be employed. Captain Clive: Are not there any others qualified for the duties who have not been found in any way culpable?—(Cheers.) Mr Acland: No; that is exactly the point.—(lronical Opposition laughter.) Colonel Morgan was an officer of exceptional ability, and it is felt that he can do the work better than anyone else. The Daily News says it fails to see why Mi' Morgan was specially selected for a

remunerative and responsible administrative post. - - .*.. THE PARLIAMENT BILL. LONDON, May 11. The. debate in the House of Commons to. the report stage of the Parliamecit Bill is concluded. - A BASELESS STATEMENT. LONDON, May 11. Mr Redmond, replying to the inquiry of a correspondent regarding; the truth oi Mr Gurney's statement that the Irish party had offered him £IOOO if he would resign his seat for North Cork' and help a Redmondite to win it, said he was surprised that the question should be seriously put, the statement was so manifestly ridiculous. He need scarcely say It was absolutely untrue. PROGRESS OF BILLS. LONDON, May 11. Mr Keir Hardie obtained leave to introduce the Right to Work Bill.. The second leading of Lord Lansdowne's Bill will terminate on Wednesday in the House of Lords, and the second reading W, the Veto Bill will begin on Monday week. COLLECTION OF THE INCOME TAX. LONDON, May 12. < In the House of Commons Sir F. G. Banbury, in Committee of Supply on the Treasury vote, moved a Teducfion in Mr Lloyd George's salary, in order to discuss the delay in the collection of the income tax. He alleged that the Government was robbing the sinking fund in order to ivoid- fresh taxation. The- Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that an official's mistake had led to the wrong, and to pirevent its repetition ihe railways of England hereafter would be assimilated with those of Scotland, and compelled to pay'the tax from January 1. Mr H. Bonar-Law said that the Government was punishing the railways for disclosing the facts. Sir E. A. Cornwall (L.) commented on thf> seriousness of income tax payers being under the rule of permanent officials. The latter appairently were assuming control of the administration. Nevertheless, the Unionist attack on the Government had failed completely. Sir F. Bambury's amendment was jejected by 214 to 149.

SHOPS BILL AMENDED. LONDON, May 12. The Standing Committee of the House of Commons introduced, despite Mr Churchill's opposition, an amendment to the Shops Bill parmitting of additional overtime in return for holidays exceeding one week but under a fortnight. PROTECTION OF POULTRY. LONDON, May 12. Lord Carrington's bill to enable the 'Board of Agriculture under the Animals' Diseases Act to protect poultry from unnecessary suffering was read a second time. THE MAGISTRACY. LONDON, May 12. The Daily Chronicle supports the memorial of the 55 Liberal M.P.'s who are asking Mr Asquith to grant a day to discuss the preponderance of Tories on rural benches, in order to emphasise their spread dissatisfaction.