IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 58, 12 March 1904, Page 3

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

AIUIY ESTIMATES DEBATE. LONDON, March 10. Speaking in the House of Commons on the Army Estimates, the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour, in reply to Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, said the speech just delivered did not raise Sir 11. CumpbeU-Banner-mun in his estimation, either as a statesman or a War Office reformer. The statement that the war in South Africa was undertaken in a spirit of conquest and adventure, was a total misrepresentation. The Boer Party in South Africa would interpret the speech to mean that as soon us Sir Henry Caniphell-I'.annernmn ami his friends came into power they would reduce the garrison to a point that the colonies would lie able to pay. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman interjected : "I referred to the necessity which the Government alleged of maintaining 21,500 men in South Africa as a fruit of the Government's policy." Mr Balfour continued that the words would he interpreted to mean that the instant the Radicals were in ollice vigour in South African administration would be diminished, and the hopes of those who were desirous of seeing the results of the war reversed would have the chance they were now denied. Sir H. Canipbell-Bannerman protested that he did not say a word to justify such an interpretation. Mr Balfour did not question the excellence of Sir Henry CampbellBannerman's motives, but deprecated his unguarded languuge. He added that in reference to the general army expenditure the Government was intent upon a system adequate to the great responsibility the Government or its immediate successors might have to meet. He concluded by declaring that the whole trend of circumstances in the Far East tended to make Britain a watchful power. The Government's majority on the motion to go into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates was 1 102. THE GENERAL ELECTION. (Received March 11, 9.07 p.m.) LONDON', March 11. The newspapers consider the tenor of Mr Balfour's speeches this week indicates that there will be no earlygeneral election till the new army scheme is launched. MINISTERIAL RESIGNATIONS. SCENE IN THE HOUSE OK PEEKS. (Received March 12, 0.3."i a.m.) LON'IION, March 11. In the House of Lords Lord lit sebery, referring to the discussion in the House of Commons on the Bth on the question of the resignation of Ministers, asked if Mr Balfour's use of the word " calumny " then had reference to his comments on Lord George Hamilton's Ealing speech. The Marquis of Lansdowne said the second document referred to by Mr Balfour was a conlidcntial memorandum expressing a hope that Ministers would not dissent from his pamphlet on Free Trade. Lord George Hamilton had misunderstood the purport of this memorandum, which Lord Uosebery had described as a pamphlet containing an alternative policy. The Marquis added that Lord Rosebery's speech practically charged Mr Balfour with being wanting in good faith and with attempting to trick his colleagues, Parliament, and the country. It was not surprising that Mr Balfour should resent that with warmth. Mr Balfour had authorised him to say that he did not intend to impute to Lord Rosebery a deliberate attempt to misrepresent, but still he regarded the charge itself as cuiumniouH. Lord Rosebery then moved the adjournment of the House and angrily declared that I here was nothing in his speech that deserved the epithet " calumny." It was no answer to saythat Lord George Hamilton's statement was inaccurate. He himself, however, would withdraw the word "pamphlet." The misunderstanding was not worthy of the stigma of a calumny. Lord Rosebery added : "I am unable to understand how anyone, least of all the Prime Minister, can be so thin-skin-ned as to resent tne statements I made. He calls them calumnious. You may say it is only 'pretty Fanny's way'—the express-ions of u gentleman speaking under great heat and provocation. I Kay if a. man cannot curb his tongue better than that 'Pretty Fanny' should not be First Lord of the Treasury." The House listened to the speech with surprise, and in silence. Earl Spencer supported Lord Uosebery, inasmuch as the word "calumny" had not been withdrawn. The motion for adjournment was negatived.