BRITISH POLITICS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1058, 22 February 1911, Page 5

BRITISH POLITICS.

'■ ♦ — VETO BILL TO-DAY. LIBERAL BUDGET PROPOSALS. A MEMBER SUSPENDED. By Telcjrraph—Press Assocfatlnn-Copyrlsht. London, February 20. The Veto Bill, to bo introduced in tho House of Commons to-morrow, is identical with that of 1910, including the preamble Tho Friino Minister, Mr. Asquith, has promised a two days' debate on tho first reading. A UNIONIST JIKKTINO. (Rec. February 22, 0,15 a.m.) London, Fobruary 21. A meeting of tho Unionist party in tho House of Commons is to bo held on Thursday to discuss tho early introduction in tho llouso of Lords of a Bill to reform tho Constitution. ATTACK ON THE SPEAKER. MR. GINNELL SUSPENDED. London, February 20. The llouso of Commons 10-day discussed tho breach of privilege question raised by a letter sent by Mr. 3. C. Wedgwood, Liberal member for Nowcastle-under-Lyme, to Mr. Giunell (Independent Nationalist) denouncing tho Speaker (the Right Hon. J. W. Lowther), who, ho said, was cot a bit impartial, but a deadly enemy to land taxation. Tho letter was published in an Irish newspaper. Mr. Wedgwood withdrew his statements, and offered an amnio apology, which tho llouso accepted. Mr. Ginnell apologised to Mr. Wedgwood for publishing a personal letter, and renewed his protest mado on January 81, after tho re-election of the Speaker, regarding tho Speaker and tho lists of tho Party Whips.. The Speaker replied that tho lists wero not binding. The ITouso resolved that publication of the letter was. a gravo broach of tho privileges of the House. Mr. Asquith thereupon -moved, that Mr. Ginnell bo suspeudetri for a week for not apologising to the Speaker. • Tho motion was carried. "'-. -■ Tho Labourites nnd Nationalists voted against it. ...... (Rec. Fobruary 21, 10.10 p.m.) . ' London, February 21. ' The Houjo of Commons decided to suspend Mr. Ginnell by 311 votes to 84. BUDGET PROPOSALS. STATEMENT IN THE HOUSE. (Roc. February 21, 10.10 p.m.) London, February 21. Mr. C. E. Hobhouse, Financial Secretary to ,the Treasury, on ;, behalf •of Mr. Lloyd-George, reviewed the financial resolutions connected with,the Budget. The Government proposed .that a, portion of the amount deyotcd to-.qld age pensions... which' ~reach i12.70p.Mp, , ,should bo.'bpfh'p b^,the ratepayers. .They therefore! intended to retain half the land taxes, but tho local authorities would be relieved of expenditure on paupers to tho extent of two millions., The education authorities would ■ be ■printed 'JEl,3Bt,oop annually. Instead of depending upon tho fluctuation of the whisky, duties, provision would be m«do.,to prevent .lessors, passing the increment'tax 1 on to lessees, while license duties would bo modified in'conformity with recent judgments. ' ,' THE UNIONIST POSITION. In discussing the attitude of the Opposition on the Parliament Bill, tho Parliamentary correspondent of "The Times" wrote on January 13:—"In the House of Commons the Opposition will'devote their en6rgies;to-the;end<}avouri'to amend the would, he/premature to indicate .the character, of,any. of the amendments that'will be moved, as a good deal of consideration has yet to be given to the subject. But; :>' not unnaturally, some will'have relation to the preamble. It is understood that, although the Cabinet have not met, the Ministerial intention has already been formed of considernjr any amendment to the Parliament Bill on its merits, provided it is not dostrnctive of the principle of tho Bill. What scope this will offer to the Opposition in. the House of Commons remains to bo seen. "In tho House of Lords, if the present ntcntion of the Opposition holds good, tho first step to be taken is the introduction of a Bill embodying tho reform of the House of Lords which tho Unionist party propose. What action ' (he [ouso of Lords will afterwards take on io Government's Parliament Bill when to them is at present in doubt. There is a strong feeling in a portion of the Unionist party that, if the Government do not agree in tho Commons to io amendments'that aro desired, the fouso of Lords should • pursue •a • courte which would compel" the Government to create—if they are able to—the-500 neers. If the Government do hot so amend tho Bill, some of these Unionists are in favour of tho rejection of tho Bill by the Lords, while others consider that the purpose would be as well served if tho Bill were amended by tho Lords and the amendments adhered to. It may not be possible for some time to ascertain what the collective opinion of the majority in the House of Lords will be. Whether their dislike of tho Veto Bill will outweigh their difliko.of thc_ special creation of peers, or vice versa', is a question in which keen interest is now bring taken in Unionist circles. It is urged, on tho one hand, that, if the Government were, forced to create tho 500 poors, tho House of Lords would not only/, be ewamped. but would-havo to submit to the Veto Bill as well; but against this argument can bo eet tho possibility, that tho Government might be reluctant to press matters fo far, or might not bo able to carry out the special creation."