BRITISH POLITICS.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9092, 11 March 1908, Page 5

BRITISH POLITICS.

THE KAISER’S LETTER. ±)ISOUSSED IK THE COMMONS. Press Association —Copyright. ” London, March 10. In the House of Commons, in the course of his reply to Mr Balfour, Mr Asquith added that it was clearly out of"'the question to lay on the table of the House any private personal correspondence. Lieut. -Col. Lockwood asked whether a communication on so highly an important question as that between the Kaiser and Lord Tweedmouth cculd in any way be regarded as private and confidential. Mr Asquith said he had nothing to add to modify or qualify it in any way. Lieut. -001. Lockwood suggested that opportunity should be given the House of discussing Lord Tweedmouth’s conduct in the matter, but Mr Asquith did not reply.

Afterwards, it was known that at Mr Balfour’s instance, Lieut.-001, Lockwood refrained from moving the adjournment of the House. LORD TWEEDMOUTH’S EXPLANATION. / In the House of Lords, Lord Tweedmouth, premising that it was understood that some members were inclined to ask questions about the extraordinary outburst in the explained that the Kaiser’s letter came by the ordinary post. Sir Edward Grey agreed that he should treat it as private and unofficial. He replied on the 20th in the same friendly informal manner. Lord Tweedmouth assured the House that he firmly believed the course adopted a good one and calculated to do what they all so much desired, namely, to do the utmost to foster a good understanding between the German Empire and Britain.

Lord Lausdowue, in a suave, discriminating speech, accepted the statement. He remarked that what had been most worthy of [attention was less the outburst than the substratum of fact whereon the outburst was founded. It appears that the letter was unsolicited, unofficial, and in a friendly tone towards Sritiau, aud resembled a verbal communication which might with propriety pass between a great Sovereign and a British Minister.

Lord Laudsowue, continuing, said he did not press for publication, since ho inferred it was not intended but such communications must never be allowed to create a diplomatic situation different from those created by official ."recorded documents, aud should occur only under very exceptional circumstances. Privacy, if intended, ought to be strictly respected, but apparently only that amount of privacy attached to this correspondence which was attached to private views at the Royal Academy. He desire to say anything to raise that public excitement or embarrassment which the occurrence must have occasioned Ministers.

Lord Rosebery, in closing the discussion, vehemently denounced the insane inference drawn from|the.;letter, and strongly censured the tendency of a section of the press—both in England and Germany—to create bad relations between the two countries and endanger peace. THE PREMIERS’ HEALTH. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman is much better. THE LICENSING BILL. Over 3000 unable to gain access to a crowded meeting of the trade in the Queen’s Hall, where the Licensing Bill was enthusiastically condemned. Lord Burton wrote that the Bill was a political fraud, temperance being the last thing it intended to promote, the real aim being to rob and crush those who perforce were political opponents. THE TIMES STILL WORRIED. Received March 11, 8.3 a.m. London JMarch 10. A statement that Britain and Germany exchanged views regarding the Kaisers’ letter or in reference to the reduction of naval armaments, is officially denied in London. Official statements published in Loudon and Berlin agree that good relations are undisturbed. The Times argues that Lord Tweedmouth did not deny its statements that the Kaiser’s letter was elaborate in character, and intended to persuade the British Admiralty that German preparations were by no means unreasonable. The letter came at a critical moment and was not calculated to. strergtheu the bands of advocates of adequate defence. People could hardly help reflecting that Government had power to publish Lord Tweedmontb’s reply, and if it did not contain anything relating to his department the publication would relieve anxiety. Tne Timas adds that opinion throughout Europe will not be satisfied till the whole corrrespoudeuce on the matter has been received. xhe Standard declared that Lord Tweedmoutb’s action in consulting Sir Edward Grey, was the only regularity in a hopelessly bungled affair. The correspondence by the Kaiser’s permission should be printed in England and Germany. The" Times says that the Kaiser ; doubtless bantered Lord Esher, but the substance of the letter was a

long and elaborate argument involving labour and time, and was intended to demonstrate that German naval preparation did not necessitate corresponding British additions.

THE NAVY ESTIMATES. GERMAN ANDJ3RITISH NAVIES. Received March 11, 8.12 a.m. London, March 10. In the debate ou,the Navy Estimates, Mr Robertson, Financial Secretary of the Admiralty, referring to the new type of ships said that the worst that could happen would be that Germany and France together iu 1910 might in the event of certain accelerations have 13 battleships.aud cruisers to our 12, but early in|l9ll they would have 12 to Britain’s 14. Mr Robertson incidentally stated that both sides of the House accepted the two-Power standard, and the Admiralty considered the new programme amply maintained that standard.

Mr Balfour emphasised that iu January 1911 we should have 8 Dreadnoughts and 4 battleships of the invincible type, against Germany’s vessels of the newest type, and by the autumn of 1911 Germany would havoA additional or IB to our 13.

Mr Balfour insisted that by the end of 1911 Germany would enjoy a dangerous superiority in Dreadnoughts, if she were able to buildjis

fast as Britain, j. ■ The vote fixing the navy personnel at 128,000 to.

Mr Murray Macdonald’s amendment in ;favour of a 8000 was negativedjwithout . a division.