A DISSOLUTION AT HOME.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXIV, Issue 12941, 4 December 1909, Page 5

A DISSOLUTION AT HOME.

MR. ASQUITH'S REPLY TO THE LORDS.

PREMIER'S MOTION CARRIED IN THE COMMONS. THE KING AGREES TO EARLY DISSOLUTION.

Press Asdociation .—Telegraph .—Copyright.

LONDON, December 3.

The House of Commons was thronged from floor to ceiling with rows upon rows of eager attentive laces. Mr Asquitli's appearance was a signal for deafening Ministerial cheers, his followers rising- to do him honour. Mr Baliour, in turn, was enthusiastically acclaimed by the Unionists, his unexpected attendance after a slight chill, stimulating them to a high pitch of excitement.

Ihe debate was comparatively short. Mr Asqupith's resolution, "That the action ot tne Lords la refusing to pass into law tlie financial provision made by the Commons for the service of the year, was a breach of the constitution and a usurpation of the rights ot the Commons," was carried by 34b» to 234. Asquith. was grave and earnest. He declared that the circumstances were unparalleled in the history ot Parliament, .tie recalled with marked emphasis that the House ot Commons aione were addressed in the Speech from the Throne in February when in viced to make provision for the heavy additional expenditure due to social reform and national defence.

"Firstly, the history of the grant ol whole ways and means ior the supply aud service of the year has been intercepted and nullified by a body admittedly having no power to increase or diminish a single tax or to substitute an alternative."

Amid a storm of Liberal and Labour cheers, he remarked that

The House is unworthy of its past if it allowed another day to pass without making clear that it does not mean to brook the greatest indignity, the most arrogant

usurpation ever passed

He laid stress on the confusion, embarrassment, loss ot revenue, and the increase in the country's indebtedness that would result from tne Lords' action, and the consequent" necessity lor restoring tho borrowing powers conlerred by the Appropriation Act. Mr Asquith exjjresscd later on the hope that the iiltimate irrecoverable loss to the State would not be very great. He scouted the suggestion that the house ot Commons should stoop to the humiliation of presenting an amended Budget with tiie Lords' criticism and sanction. He contended

"Only one course is open without breaking the law or sacrificing tne constitutional, principle and that is to advise, as we have advised,

the Crown to dissolve the House

at the earliest possible moment.

His Majesty has been graciously pleased to accept that advice."

(Prolonged cheers from both sides of the House). Mr Asquith continued :

"If the Government be returned to power, itt> hrst duty will be

to re-impose all the taotes and dv-

ties recently voted."

Dwelling upon the constitution, he remarked that the great bulk of constitutional liberties and. practice rested upon custom, usage and convention, and not on the barren letter of the law. He brushed aside the argument that the Bill was not really financial, and asserted that there was not a clause therein that was not connected with the primary purposes of revenue. He emphatically protested against the novel theory that the Bill was not being rejected, but_ merely "referred to the people." If sucii a claim and precedent were admitted, no Liberal Government would be safe. The conversion of the Lords into a plebiscitary organ was one of the quaintest inventions of the day. The presumption always was that the Commons were freely chosen by the people and represented the people's will. There was no such presumption regarding the Lords. He admitted parenthetically, that the presumption in the case of the Commons ought to be strengthened by shortening the duration of a Parliament. The organ and the voice of a free people are to be found in the elected representatives of the nation.

Mr Balfour criticised the finance a", rangements for inconveniencing trade and taunted the Government on having a passion for abstract motions, which neither hurt, encouraged, nor frightened anyone, but the resolution was a gross misrepresentation. It ignored the fact that the Commons had iv the very original resolution, thereon all its claims were based, gratuitously admitted that the Houne of Lords had the right to reject the Finance Bil] though not to initiate or amend. He hoped the Lords' exercise of their right would be rare, but never abandoned. Mr Balfour concluded his speech as follows: —

"Mr Asquith has failed to give one single argument to indicate that the Lords' action was illegal. What the resolution affirmed was that their cour&e accorded with the whode theory of the second Chamber. He had no doubt whatever as to what would be the country's decision. The Lords had done their duty, and done it fearlessly." (Great cheering).

increasing its power for obstruction in the manner proposed by the late Premier. The party are bringing a candidate into the field with the sole object of strengthening the Labour Socialist forces in the House of Commons.