IRISH ENVOY'S SPEECH.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1198, 5 August 1911, Page 5

IRISH ENVOY'S SPEECH.

ALLEGED INDISCRETION IN AUCKLAND. ' ATTACK IN PARLIAMENT. London, August 3. Sir E. H. Carson, a prominent Unionist, who was Attorney-General in the last Balfour Ministry, has directed attention to a speech by Mr. Eedinond, jun., published in the New Zealand papers on Juno 5, which shows that Mr. Asquith received guarantees in regard to the creation of Peers at least two months before he communicated the fact to Parliament. Sir Edward Carson 'commented on what he described as tho disgraceful use made of the fact that the lung acted on Mr. A?quith's advice, for the purpose of the collection of money.

"SECRET INFORMATION." (Rec. August 4, 9.45 p.m.) London, August 4. Mr. W. Locker-Lampson (Unionist), in referring to Mr. Redmond's New Zealand speech, said it was not such as a member of the House of Commons should make. He regretted that any member should have taken advantage of the difficulties of the King. The speech could only bo based on secret information. The Master of Elibank, Patronage Secretary to tho Treasury, in Mr. Asquith's absence, denied tho suggestion, that the Premier, or any Minister, had communicated what had transpired with tho King. Mr. John Redmond said tho object of tho question was to suggest that ho had supplied hi 9 son with the information. Ho denied that any .of the Ministers had ever communicated such information to him. MR. W. REDMOND REPLIES. MISREPORTING ALLEGED. (Rec. 'August 5, 0.42 a.m.) Sydney, August 4. • Mr. W. E<dmond, on being interviewed regarding the cable message, stated that ho made a specch at Auckland on June 2, which was subsequently criticised by tho Auckland "Herald." Mr. Redmond states that he then wrote to the "Herald" stating that ho had been incorrectly reported, and that they had put words into his mouth, which he had never' uttered, and was never likely to utter. 'Ho thought his father's statement that no such secret, information had . been given to him was sufficient answer to Mr. Locker-Lampson or his friends, who sought to make capital out of the alleged utterance of his at Auckland. ' THE CENSURE MOTION. RESULT OF THE STALWARTS' APPEAL. London, August 3. "The Times" states that the motion of ccnsuro proposed, by Mr. Balfour will afford the Ministry an opportunity of explaining and vindicating its action in regard to tho exercise of tho King's prerogative. Tho motion is tho result of tho "stalwarts'" appeal to Mr. Balfour.

Somo Opposition papers attribute the notice of the censure motion to the tenacity of the "stalwarts" breathing a new spirit into the Unionist Party; others take it as a rebuke to indiscreet Unionist zealots.

The Radical press declares that Mr. Ualfour is making capital out of the Crown. Thq motion is an effort to placate the rebels, MR. REDMOND IN AUCKLAND. THE SPEECH OF JUNE 2. In a speech at Auckland on June 2, Mr. W. A. Redmond, M.P., one of thp Irish Envoys, said:—"The King of England had joined in tho fight against the reactionary gang in the Houso of Lords, and he had promised that if need arose, would create 500 new Peers and swamp the House of Lords, to prevent a repetition of tho blunder it had made in rejecting the Budget. Not only was the King allied with the party, but his representative in Ireland, the Lord-Lieutenant, was an ardent Homo Ruler. Sir Henry Campbell-Banncrman had declared in relation to Ireland that the best Government ever known would be no substitute for self-government, and that was the position of tho party at tho present time." Definite statements that the King would support the British Government in its contest with the House of Lords by the. creation of Peers were made by tho other members of tho delegation ' at many places in New Zealand. Mr.. Hazolton, in his first speech in New Zealand, delivered in AVellington on May 3, for instance, said that the Crown was pladged to the creation of 500 Peers. MR. REDMOND'S LETTER. "NATURAL AND OBVIOUS CONCLUSION." In his letter, which was published in the Auckland "Herald" of Juno 0, Mr. Redmond actually repeated his statement regarding tlio King having given guarantees to Mr. Asquith, but explained the grounds for his opinion. We quote this portion of his letter in full as follows:— . "You misrepresent' me when you allege I dragged the name of his Majesty King George 'as a partisan' into my speech. What I conveyed to tho gathering on Friday night' was clear and definite, viz., that the Irish people have no quarrel with tho monarchy of England, as is so often charged against us by our opponents. The issue in tho present liolilicai fight in Great Britain has resolved itself into ono of tlio democracy of that country against 'the reactionary gang in the House of Lords,' and it is public properly at Home that, should the Houso of Lords reject' the Veto Bill, the Kins has given guarantees to Mr. Asquitli similar to those which compelled them to swallow tho Ore.it Reform Bill uf 163;'. I Quite asree that euch & promise on tho

pari of the King 'could only have been made to his responsible advisors.' I repeat such a promise has boon made, mid 1 stake my politiv'il reputation that never has Mr. Asriuiti 'publicly denied any 'such promise.' Before the dissolution of 'Parliament last December, Mr. Asquith stated on the floor of tho House of Commons that in ill? event of the King refusing tho guarantees sought, he (Mr. Asquith) would immediately .'Wider his resignation as Prime Minister, but should his Majesty grant tho assurances necessary to carry the will of the people into effect, lie would thereupon dissolve Parliament', and appeal oneo more to the electorate. After waiting upon the King, Mr. Asquith immediately dissolved Parliament, and 1 am sure you cannot fail to draw the natural and obvious conclusion which has been drawn, not only by the British people, but by the lnemb.vs of the Ilouse of Lords themselves. It is interesting to obsurvo that tho identical Veto Bill previously rejected by the House of Lords has now passed its second reading. A few weeks will sufliee to sliow whether my declarations in this matter are correct: or otherwise, and I am content to abide tho verdict of the pcoplo of Auckland.