EDUCATION BILL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXII, Issue 1784, 15 June 1906, Page 3

EDUCATION BILL.

DANGER TO UNIONIST PARTY.

Bj telegraph, Press Asa’n, Copyright London, Jane 13. The Duke of Devonshire, in an address to the Unionist Freetrade Club, sa'd tbat although freetrade was safe at.preseflt, tbp Unionist party were in nowise safe, inas* nmoh as the policy of tariff reform exposed it to serious internal dartger. Mr Chamberlain's proscription of all differing from him was the moat audacious thing ever advanced. Mr Balfour bad not yet stated whether he accepted Mr Chamberlain’s version, and was in conoord with it, Mr Chamberlain predicted a general election in 1907 after the Education Bill bad been rijeoted. By whom was it to be rejected ? The Opposition in the I Commons was powerless and the rej motion | could only be by the Lords in opposition resisting the Bill, and attempts being taken to amend it, bnt it was better to, oonfinS themselves to comment, and allow the Lords to mind their own business. The Duke of Devonshire, continuing, said the House of Lords bad done well to keep their own oonneel, and not to an* nounoe their intentions nntil they Baw the Bill. If the Lords negleoted or wrecked the Bill they might precipitate an eleotion on the threefold issue of the religious question in schools, constitutional rights of the Lords, and the oonstruotive fiscal policy whioh tariffites appended to other principles of their party. He incidentally warned the Opposition tbat they were in nowise certain tbat the Bill wes so unpopular in the country as some Unionists imagined. Freetrade was no longer in daDger. Lord James of Hereford said the Lords

were not wise if they opposed the expressed wish of the electorates. It would 1 be worse if they put the spiritual peers in the van of the battle. Lord Balfour of Burleigh said the Lords’ duty was to distinguish between a settled policy and the passiog whim of constituencies.