BRITISH POLITICS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 836, 7 May 1910, Page 3

BRITISH POLITICS.

London, May 5. Several Unionist members of the House of Commons, also other persons, accuse Mr Keir Hardie, Eabour M.P. for Merthyr-Tidfil, of falsely swearing the oath of allegiance to King Kdward in order to secure a seat in the House of Commons. The question is asked whether it is possible to expel Mr Keir Hardie from the House.

[Some time ago Mr Keir Hardie referred to the possibility of the crown following the coronet into the melting-pot. Recently, speakin Wales, he declared that loyalty to the Throne was a great superstition, and was very advantageous to the ruling powers, but it mattered nothing to the working classes whether the official head of the State was King or President. In conjunction, the trade unions and the Labour party in Britain would one day become what the Labour party in Australia had become —the governing power of the nation.] In a speech at the Northumberland town at Belford, Sir Edward Grey (Secretary for Foreign Affairs and a supporter of a reformed Second Chamber) said it was not true that the Government had bargained in order to secure Irish votes for the Budget. Mr Asquith’s declaration regarding the Sovereign was perfectly consistent. The Government had said nothing committing them to give any particular advice to the King, and had only said they would bring the matter to an issue one way or another. Ministers must not ask the Sovereign to do something ; they must give him advice, for which they were responsible. If the Sovereign did not accept their advice, the Government could tender other advice, or resign.

Under no circumstances would they attempt to put the Sovereign in a position of responsibility, which was not constitutional, and which he should not occupy. Sir Edward Grey added that the speech of Mr Keir Hardie (a Eabour leader) seemed to imply a menace against the King, but that speech had nothing to do with the actions or intentions of the Eiberal Government,

[Speaking in the House of Commons last mouth, on the subject of the House of Lords’ veto proposals, Mr Asquith said : “If the Blouse of Lords does not accept the Government’s policy, our duty is to advise the Crown as to the steps needed to give that policy statutory effect during this Parliament ; and in the event of our inability to secure such effect, our duty is to resign or dissolve. In no case would we recommend dissolution except under conditions securing that the judgment of the people as expressed at the election shall be carried into law during the next Parliament.”]