IMPERIAL POLITICS

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 353, 2 April 1910, Page 5

IMPERIAL POLITICS

MR. ASUUITU'S MOTION

THE DEBATE CONTINUED.

RAMSAY VEHEMENT.

By table.—Press Association.—Copyright

London, March 31,

Continuing the debate on Air. Asquitii's motion, Air. i'. Sumn, Luiomsc member ior Walton, saw that in the Government's view whatever tile iiouae o: Commons said must be right, but it an assembly could be wrong twice, why not a third time? The Governments real object was not that the people's, but the Radical caucus's will should prevail. He had little faith in the eiticacy of Moderate Liberals and survivors of the Liberal League in the Cabinet as guardians of constitutional evolutions. He proceeded to ridicuie the cry that there was danger of a revolution. He associated the benignant - looking gentlemen opposite with £ea meetings and pleasant .Sunday afternoons rather than with committees of public safety and barricades. The members of the Government were not Jacobin leaders. Their manoeuvres with' parties and caucuses reminded him of a stage donkey with legs moving in different directions.

Mr. Simon (L.), member for Walthamstow, contended that the restriction of the veto allowed time for discussion and reflection.

Lord Hugh Cecil (U.) criticised the Cabinet's power to force Bills through the House of Commons without adequate discussion, and the exclusion of men like Mr. Harold Cox unlessthey played the party game. 'Every constitution of the colonies gave a Second Chamber the right to reject, hut not to initiate or amend, finance Bills. It was a right copied from what was universally regarded as the rule in Great Britain, regulating the relations of the two Houses.

Mr. Birrell replied that the colonies had not a historical House of Commons. "Whatever the future constitution of the House of Lords, the people of Great Britain would never allow it to assort the power of rejecting the Government's financial proposals. There was a possibility of a compromise with the House of Lords on the question of finance. Meanwhile a root and branch reform of the Lords was not immediately practicable. Mr. Asquith was therefore justified in his present proposals. The Lords were tampering with the hereditary principle. Due warning had been conveyed to the Tow Tadpoles and Taper? that there was no chance of tariff reform while that principle was retained.

Mr. Wyndham (U.l =aid that in no country was a Second Chamber restricted to 'discns=:on. The suggested delav would have one deplorable ecct, as it made the Premier a tvrant or a minuet in the hands of Parliamentary grouns. Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald (Labor) m.'ide a vehement speech asrainst the House of Lords and in a favor of a sincrle Chamber. Referring to' Australasia, he said that, whatever the naner constitution mia-ht be. one nartv was bound to tret a predominant part in the Second Chamber. The debate was adionrned.

Mr. A. Williams' academic resolution in favor of nronortionatp renresentation was adopted without division.

A DENUNCIATION. London, March 31. Mr. Finlay, in moving an amendment, denounced the Government for paralysing the nation's finances at Mr. Redmond's bidding. Millions had been lost through the Government's tactics. The present proposition was not even justified by a deadlock between the two Houses. Everybody admitted the Lords' legal right to refer the Budget to the country, which answered against the Budget. No reform was seriously intended. The Lords had the legal right to reject money Bills.

THE VETO. INSINCERE UNIONISTS. Received April 1, 10.10 p.m. London, April 1. Mr. Robson holds that if the Lords controlled the finance, the country's fortunes would be entrusted to a Chamber representing one financial interest, and therefore, supposing that tariff reform was tried for a time, the country might be unable, owing to the Lords' existence, to get rid of food taxes. The Opposition might possibly win the next election, but it would ultimately be recognised that in order to ensure freedom of finance the veto must go.

Mr. Winston Churchill defended the .resolutions providing adequate protection asrainst reckless sectional legislation. He described the amendment as insincere and a sham. The Unionists did not intend to create a fair Second Chamber. After the veto resolution was nas=ed the Government would march forward with the Budget, recrardless of consequences. He was convinced that at the proper time they would succeed in carrying the veto resolutions and the Budget to the steps of the throne. Mr. Churchill adroitly amoealed to the Nationalists, and hinted that thev favor the Budget except in certain noints unconnected with the quarrel between the two Houses, adding? that unless the Budget was carried it was useless asking? assurances or exnecting the country to approve the veto policy. He was convinced tliev would ral'v round the Government and that the Commons would co-operate in restoring the balance of the Constitution, restricting for ever the veto of the Lords.

■■Received April 1. 10.40 u.m.~ London. Anril 1. Mr. Finlav, M.P.. in a rloselv reasoned sopech. urged that thp Lords 'had never lost their rigM to rpipct legislation. Eeplvinjr to Mr. Finliv'c argument that the Lords were "u-evented hv the Constitution from iniHfiHnjr or amendin? n monPv Bill. Mr. Rob=on asked why should not thp Constitution also prevent rejection. The Lords' action in rejecting the Budget was lawless and unconstitutional. Tn a sense Mr. AsqurCh's resolution was defensive, not aggressive.

THE GUILLOTINE. DISSOLUTION? Received April 2. 1.20 a.m. London, April 1. Considerable surprise was shown when, amid Ministerial cheers. Mr. Asquith, in reply to Mr. Balfour, gave notice that he would move on Tuesday

a motion to guillotine the proposal allotting live Parliamentary days for veto resolution* in committee. The fir-1 resolution nui-t lie disposed of by 10.110 p.m. on 7th April, the second by I:Mi p.m. on the 14th, and the third three hours later. Immediately thereafter on the House resuming the proposal to agree with the committee will be put without debate, and the Bill introduced without debate.

Mr. Asquith's announcement, coupled with the intimation that when the veto resolutions are passed the guillotine will be similarly applied to the Budget is widely interpreted to mean that the Government is determined to accelerate a crisis. Foreshadowing dissolution. many Liberals and Unionists are organising meetings in the provinces with a view to early elections. The revenue deficiencies evoke a vehement article in The Times charging the Government with calculated mismanagement of the country's affairs, with a view to punish the country for not sanctioning parts of the Budget; also with the intention of leaving chaos to embarras political opponents.