PEERS' DILEMMA.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1188, 25 July 1911, Page 5

PEERS' DILEMMA.

TO SURRENDER OR TO FIGHT? UNIONISTS DIVIDED. A BEWILDERING SITUATION. By Teleeraph-Press Assaciatlon-Copyrieht (Rec. July 25, 0.30 a.m.) London, July 2f. It is understood that the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, will postpone tho consideration by the House of Commons of the Peers' amendments to the Parliament Bill for a week in order to give time to secure as.-urances from the Unionists that the Bill will be passed unamended by the House of Lords on its return to that Chamber. DIVERSE POLICIES ADVOCATED. (Rec. July 27, 10.20 p.m.) London, July 24. The "Daily Mail" (Unionist) says nothing is to be gained by further opposition to the Veto Bill. The "Daily Chronicle" (Liberal) hopes that the Bill will pass without tho creation of Peers.

The Nationalist newspapers in Dublin applaud Jlr. Asquith's coup d'etat.

The Dublin "Times," and the "Irish Times" believe that the Lords should yield to force, but tho Ulster Unionist papers favour a fighting policy. London, July 23. Among the Unionist press the "Standard," "Globe," "Pall Mall Gazette," and "Sheffield Daily Telegraph" strongly urge a fighting policy. The "Graphic," "Glasgow Herald," "Western Morning News," "Liverpool Courier," and "Yorkshire Post," on the other hand, deprecate dying in the last ditch. The "Observer" (Unionist) says that a surrehder will demoralise the whole Unionist organisation of the country, and destroy all faith in its leadership and prospects. The paper states that Mr. Joseph Chamberlain advises a fight to tho end. _ The "Spectator" (Unionist) insists that it would be deplorable to force the Government to create four hundred Peers. It considers that a dissolution would mean ruin to the Unionists. DISSENTIENT UNIONISTS. A DEMONSTRATION IN PROSPECT. London, July 23. The dissentient Unionists arc organising a public dinner to tho Earl of Halsbury, ex-Lord Chancellor, on Wednesday ntsf, in recognition of his determination to insist on the Lords' amendments to the Parliament Bill as tho last safeguard of the Constitution. Lord Selborno will preside. Mr. Austin Chamberlain, Lord Hugh Cecil, Lord Willoughby De Broke, Lord Lovat, Lord Salisbury, Mr. George Wyndham, Sir Edward Carson, and other prominent Conservatives are supporting a fighting policy.

Sir Edward Carson, member for Dublin University, on behalf of the Irish Unionist members of the House, has informed Lord Lansdowno that the disgrace and ignominy of surrender will far outweigh tho temporary advantage of two years' dolay of Home Rule. APPEAL BY LORD CURZON, FUTILE RESISTANCE FOOLISH. (Eec. July 2-1, 11.20 p.m.) London, July 24. Lord Curzon, in a letter to "The Times," contravert's the assertion that unless the Unionists force the creation of Peers they will be convicted of a craven and despicable surrender. There will be no surrender in refraining from pressing resistance when resistance is futile, and a year or two hence the very men who are now shouting loudly will bo denouncing the strategy which robbed tho Unionists of the opportunity of effective resistance. Lord Curzon adds that Mr. Balfour heartily concurs in Lord Lansdowne's advice to the Peers and that the great majority of the Unionists support him. WINTER QUARTERS ADVISED, LOED CHARLES BERESFORD'S VIEW. (Rec. July 24, 10.20 p.m.) London, July 24. Admiral Lord Charles Beresford, Unionist M.P. for Portsmouth, in a letter to the newspapers, declares that Mr. Asquith's letter has temporarily demoralised tho Unionists. The forcing of the exercise of tho Royal prefogative must result in a paralysis of the party's fighting strength. Lord Charles adds that even the Duke .of Wellington, in the face of superior force, retired into winter quarters.

UNIONIST POLICY SPEECH. (Rec. July 25, 0.30 a.m.) London, July 21. Two thousand persons have applied for tickets for .Mr. Balfour's speech to his constituents at tho Cannon Street Hotel to-morrow. The declaration of the Opposition policy is eagerly awaited.

UNIONIST DISSENSIONS. The London "Daily Telegraph," in an article last month on Unionist reorganisation, says: There can be no doubt that a large amount of dissatisfaction exists both in tho party itself and outside. If any. average intelligent man be asked his opinion about the present state of affairs he will probably use such terms as "crisis," "deadlock," and "imminent revolution." It is abundantly clear that in political life we arc at the parting of the ways. The point is whether those who believe in constitutionalism, who dislike the propaganda of Socialism, whose bounden duty it is to act as a drag on tho too-precipitate action of the Radicals have over properly realised the immense importance of concerted action and the exceedingly grave nature of their responsibilities. Let us grant that the Government is not a coherent and homogeneous body. But what of the Opposition? Can we honestly say that, there are no differences amongst ourselves? Is it tho fact that a willing and loyal acquiescence in our leaders is the main characteristic of our ranks? Is it not notorious that both with regard to the Parliament Bill and the National Insurance Bill there are many varieties of programme submittal, many alternative courses of action, just as though we were merely at uii early stage of consideration and reflection instead of actually on the eve of a tremendous battle? Is Mr. Balfour receiving tho loyal devotion which ho has a right to demand from his followers? If not, how can tho Unionist party, even though they reorganise tho Whips' room, hope to win the success which their general constitutional principles deserve?