BRITISH POLITICS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 816, 24 February 1910, Page 3

BRITISH POLITICS.

THE KINGS SPEECH,

London, February 21

The new Parliament was opened to-day by the King. There was fine weather for the ceremony. His majesty was accompanied by Queen Alexandra and Prince and Princess Henry of Battenburg. Among the chief matters foreshadowed in the Speech from the Throne are the following :

A substantial increase in the cost of the Navy. A proposal to secure the undivided authority of the House of Commons over finance and its predominance in legislation. “ These proposals, in my Advisers opinion,” continues the Speech, “ should provide that the House of Lords should be so constituted and empowered as to exercise impartially in regard to the proposed legislation the functions of initiation, revision, and (subject to necessary safeguards) of delay.” The Speech foreshadows no new Bills. It refers to the friendly relations with foreign Powers, to South African Union, and to the Prince of Wales’s visit to South Africa to inaugurate the Parliamentary life of a great United Dominion. Referring to the financial position, the Speech says: “As the expenditure authorised by the last Parliament was not provided by taxation, there has been temporary borrowing. Arrangements must be made promptly lor dealing with the financial situation thus created.”

The Prime Minister, Mr H. H. Asquith, states that he intends 10 first introduce the Budget, then submit a resolution which will form the foundation of a Veto Bill, which will be introduced, after an extended vacation, in the middle of April. In the House of Commons, Mr P. H. Illingworth, member of Shipley devision of Yorkshire, and Mr C. E. Price, Riberal member for Edinburgh Central, moved and seconded the Address-in-Reply. Mr Balfour, Reader of the Opposition, said he heard with pleasure that a substantial increase in the cost of the Navy was proposed. He hoped that the Government would be prepared to face the situation, and to do what was necessary for the naval defence of the Empire.

The reference to the House of Rords, added Mr Balfour, was highly ambiguous. It seemed to embody two different policies forced into the framework of one ungrammatical sentence. The group system in Parliament was responsible for the difficulties in securing a direct mandate from the country. It was unreasonable that a Parliament elected for such a diversity of reasons as the present should claim a mandate to alter the Constitution-

The Prime Minister, Mr Asquith, followed. He explained that he did not intend to convey in his Albert Hall speech that the Riberal Ministry would not meet the House of Commons unless it had previously secured a guarantee regarding the exercise of the Royal prerogative. “I have,” he said, “received no such guarantees. I have not asked for them. It is Ministers’ duty to keep the Sovereign outside of party. If occasion should arise, I will not hesitate to tender such advice to the Crown as the exigencies of the situation render necessary.” Mr Asquith con-

tinned ? “To ask in advance lor an indefinite exercise of the Royal prerogative regarding a measu.e not even submitted to the House of Commons is a request which no constitutional statesman could properly make, and which no Sovereign could be expected to grant.’’ (Opposition cheers.) “ If the machinery of Government has not to come to a standstill, an Act must be passed redeeming the war loan of 1900, and twenty-one millions of Treasury Bills must be paid before the end of March. The Army and Navy, the Civil Service, and old age pensions will come to a standstill on April 1 unless supply is voted.

“ The Government proposes a short adjournment for Easter, but will dispose of the Budget and the veto resolution before the middle of April. The latter will not be submitted to the House of Lords, but will be an authority for the Government in framing the Veto Bill.”

NATIONALIST ATTACK

Mr John Redmond, Leader of the Irish Nationalists, was listened to by the House with absorbed atteutiou. He declared that the Nationalists were allied with no British party, and were prepared to accept the good Government of Ireland from any party. He added;

“ The nationalist supported the Government at the elections heart and soul, believing that Mr Asquith’s pledge regarding the abolition of the House of Lords’ veto was tantamount to a pledge to grant Home Rule. We understood the Albert Hall speech to mean that Mr Asquith would not assume the responsibility of government unless he could rely on the Royal prerogative to enable him to pass the Veto Bill this year. “ Every Minister repeated in substance that pledge. Mr LloydGeorge said , the same things at the National Liberal Club.

“It is all very fine for Mr Asquith to say that he meant something else, but it was upon the value of this pledge, in conjunction with Home Rule, that supported the Government.

“The King’s Speech is ambiguous. It suggests a scheme of altering the House of Lords’ whole constitution. That is not what we want. We want the veto limited. (Loud Nationalist and Labour cheers.)

“ It is imperative that the Government’s veto resolutions should immediately proceed. If the House of Commons approves, and the House of Lords rejects, them, the Government will then be in a position to ask the Sovereign for guarantees. If the Government are refused those guarantees, they should free themselves immediately from the responsibilities of government."

Mr Redmond continued : “ The financial crisis is a great weapon. You would throw it away directly you pass the Budget, and would then trust to luck or another election to get the Veto Bill. “We in Ireland are not going to throw away that weapon. If the Budget is passed first, the House of Commons will settle down to a humdrum discussion of the veto proposal, which it knows the Lords will reject. An election follows, and the Government will be displaced by a wearied and disheartened electorate.

“ Let Ministers give assurances that they will carry the veto this year, and the Nationalists will vote for the Budget. We are not going to pay this price for nothing. Don’t let Mr Asquith wait until he is kicked to his constituents by the Lords.” There was a dramatic silence when Mr Redmond finished. No speaker arose. Mr Barnes, chairman of the Labour party, hastily conferred with his colleagues, and then moved the adjournment of the House to enable Labour members to discuss the situation.

The House then adjourned. The result of the Labour meeting will not be disclosed until Mr Barnes speaks in the House to-day. In the House of Lords Lord Farrer moved, and Lord Saye and Sele seconded, the Address-in Reply

The Unionist Reader, Rord Ransdowne, tendered the Government his respectful admiration for disregarding extremists’ counsel regarding the House of Rords. He said he had not changed his opinion of the Budget, but if it found favour in the House of Commons the House of Rords would be prepared to expedite its passage. He expressed willingness to reform the House of Rords if it were shown to be necessary. He did not want a sham and tawdry Second Chamber. If the Government refused to co-operate in such reform, the House of Rords would, at the proper time, consider its proposals.

RORDS AND COMMONS

Rondon, Feb. 22

Rord Rosebery, speakiny in the House or Rords, deprecated any delay in reforming the Chamber. He said that throughout the election Unionist candidates broke their shins against theg Peers’ heriditary character. The Government Veto Bill would reach the House some time before midwinter. Without waiting for leisurely progress the Rords should place their own scheme of reform before the country. The real isiue was not the veto, but the constitution of the Second Chamber. In the House of Commons Mr Helaire Belloc gave notice of an amendment to the Address-iu-Reply, regretting that the King’s Speech did not contain a reference to a guarantee that the Veto Bill would become law if passed by the House of Commons.