A GREAT WEEK

Southland Times, Issue 16841, 18 September 1911, Page 2

A GREAT WEEK

THE END OP THE VETO CRISIS. PEERS AND PEOPLE. THE HOUSE OF LORDS SURRENDERS. (“Lyttelton Times” Correspondent.) LONDON. August 11. The great constitutional crisis has been brought to a close by the passing of the Veto Bill, practically unamended. by the House of Lords. The “diehards,” led by Lord Halsbury, talked to the last of a fight to a finish and they were reinforced by Lord Roberts, who made a powerful appeal in the “Times” for a policy of “no surrender.” “An outpost, suddenly attacked by an overwhelming forge, may not be able to save itself by resisting,” lie wrote. “But if it does its duty and resists to the utmost, it may give the main body a warning and an opportunity to rally, and the position which the enemy has rushed may soon be reoccupied. If it surrenders without firing a shot, the rest of the force will, in all probability, be surprised and routed.” One would expect Lord Roberts to fight, of course, but the nation had come to expect that the House of Lords would deem discretion the better part of valour and accept the Veto Bill without the amendments so obnoxious to the Liberals. By majorities ranging from 144 to 106 the Commons repected the Lords’ destructive amendments to the Veto Bill, and sent it back. Some minor amendments were accepted, the chief one being that the Speaker, in deciding what Is a Money Bill, Is to consult with two members to be appointed at the beginning of each session by the Committee of Selection. Mr Lloyd George said that the change was due to the Speaker not caring to assume the sole responsibility." MR ASQUITH’S TRIUMPH. By 365 to 246 votes, a majority of 119, the House of Commons rejected Mr Balfour’s vote of censure on the Government for obtaining from the King a pledge to create sufficient peers to pass the Parliament Bill Into law. Mr Asquith made a remarkable speech in the House in reply to Mr Balfour’s denunciation of • the Government s policy. The House listened with breathless Interest as the Prime Minister proceeded—with, as he said, his Majesty’s full consent —to disclose communications hitherto treated as confidential. He began by recalling the veto resolutions of April,' 1910. , passed when King Edward was on the throne. On April 14. 1910, after careful consultation with his colleagues, and previous communication with the King, Mr Asquith stated in the House of Commons that if he Government found themselves unable to give statutory effect to their policy they would resign office or recommend a dissolution. "In no case,” he added at that time, “will we recommend a dissolution except under such conditions as will secure , that in the new Parliament the judgment of the people as expressed at the election will be carried into law.” The death of King Edward, continued Mr Asquith, led to a political truce and a private conference between the leaders of the two parties. The conference broke down, and after mature consideration and having regard to the new reign, the Government advised a dissolution. It would have been neither honourable nor justifiable to go into another election ” blindfold.” Therefore, In advising the King to dissolve Parliament on November 5, 1910, the Government stated that it could not undertake the responsibility of advising a dissolution except on an understanding that, in the event of the Government policy being approved by “an adequate majority in the new House of Commons," his Majesty would be ready to exercise his constitutional powers which might involve the prerogative of creating peers if needed. The King, after carefully considering the matter in all its bearings with Mr Asquith and Lord Crewe, felt he had no alternative but to assent to the advice tendered. AN ANGRY OPPOSITION. Mr Asquith referred to the bitter vituperations of the Tory writers and speakers, who delight In referring to him as a traitor. In grave and measured tones, vibrant with emotion, he reminded the House that in his public life he had been brought into close and confidential relations with three Sovereigns. His conscience told him that among many faults he had always striven to his utmost to uphold the dignity and the just privileges of the Crown. “I hold my office,” he went on, “not only by favour of the Crown, but by the confidence of the people.” (Great cheering.) “I should be guilty indeed of treason'if in the supreme mo( merit of a great struggle I were to betray that trust.” A scene of wild enthusiasm followed Mr Asquith’s closing remarks. HOME RULE. At the end of tho debate on the vote of censure Mr Winston Churchill made a statement with respect to Home Rule. "There are no grounds for this vote of censure,” he said. “The object which we have in view is right. The measure which we put forward Is one of moderation. We have tried to the best of our ability to be guided by Constitutional usage . The remedy which we apply is one approved by , precedent and by every Constitutional authority. We have not invoked It until the last moment. What more is H,ere ? You censure us because we are going to pass Home Rule in this Parliament. So we are. Let the Opposition search the British Empire,” continued Mr Churchill. "let them go to any Parliament in the whole world where the English tongue is spoken and tho British name is honoured, and they will find that the grant of Home Rule to Ireland will be applauded as a wise measure. Censure us, then. If you will, by all means for that, if you have the power. You have not the power. We repel your censure tonight, and we are sure that the censure will be even more decisively repudiated before all these matters have passed from action into history.” THE FINAL SCENE. The final scene came in the House of Lords yesterday. The debate was characterised throughout by deadly recriminations within the ranks of Toryism—Lord Rosebery lifting up both hands and voice against Lord Halsbury, sitting hard by, and Lord Camperdown driving the Duke of Norfolk, premier Peer of the United Kingdom and Earl Marshal, headlong into the arms of the triumphant "Die-Hards” by a promise to vote with the Government and against the amendments. “If the noble Earl votes as he says.” declared the Duke to Lord Camperdown, “then whatever our private friendship. I must tell him that I should feed embarrassed if we met on the same platform.” Lord Morley left the peers no room for doubt regarding the intentions of the Government. “My lords,” said ho, ■M will reply. I will he plain beyond possibility of mistake. If we are beaten on tills Bill to-night, then His Majesty will consent to sucli a creation of peers as will safeguard tho measure against all possible combinations In tills House, and Hie creation will bo prompt.” A groat roar of cheering rose from tho usually cowed and a llent Liberal benches. “Let me read It again.” added Lord Morley, amid laughter. After which Lord Rosebery put the very obvious reasons of prudence ■Ahlch would move the peers to bow to 11 if* inevitable. There were other angry Interludes and then at last the critical vote was taken. The issue was in doubt until the counting was nearly at an end, but then a stirring in Hie Liberal ranks showed that tho Government had won. The peers had deprived themselves, under compulsion, of their power of veto by 131 voles to 114, a majority of 17. The margin was narrow indeed, but it was enough.