King & Commoners

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 40, 9 August 1911, Page 5

King & Commoners

THE GUARANTEE. GOVERNMENT'S FRANK ATTITUDE. INXER HISTORY LAID BEFORE THE HOUSE. VOTE OF CENSURE FAILS. By Gable—Press Association—o»pyrigkt. Received 8, 8.40 p.m. London, August 7. The House of Commons was crowded when Mr. Asquith, replying to Mr. Balfour's questions as to when the King's guarantees were given, said that advice had been tendered when the Lords introduced amendments, but previous confidential communications had passed, about which he might speak later. Mr. Balfour, in moving the vote of censure, said that Ministers had grossly abused the Constitution and merited full condemnation. A profound feeling of disgust must arise at the manner in which the King had been dragged into a position where, through no fault of his own, his prerogative was to be abused.

Mr. Balfour was greeted, on rising, with prolonged cheering. He declared that in advising the Crown the Government had not acted in obedience to the great and overwhelming pressure of public opinion, but to further Parliamentary arrangements with the sections supporting them, and in order to prevent the people pronouncing on Home Rule. The Government had dragged the King into a position wherein the prerogative was so issued as to arouse the indignation of nearly half the people of the United Kingdom. That was a cruel position for the advisers of the King to place His Majesty in. The King was the fountain of honor, and the Government was determined that the stream from the fountain should be poisoned and corrupted. He did not question that the Government, by searching the by-ways, would have no difficulty in finding gentlemen willing to accept new honors upon the terms imposed, but these gentlemen would be but supers in a sordid drama, wherein the Ministers were the chief actors. It would be contrary to the whole spirit of constitutional Government to erect an executive authority which would manipulate either Chamber of Parliament.

Mr. Balfour instanced the United States, Canada, Australia, and South Africa, and asserted that in no cause had the executive of the Lower House been permitted to flood the Second Chamber. "Modify or reform the House of Lords if your like," said Mr. Balfour, "but don't pack it with hired voters until it becomes the supple instrument of the executive's will."

Although all the Opposition members did not agree that immediate steps were necessary, continued the Leader of the Opposition, all were determined to re* sist the Government to the uttermost. Mr. Asquith for eight months had kept secret what had passed between himself and the King, all the time masquerading as a" constitutional Minister, although he had used the prerogative as no Minister or even a king in the old days of the prerogative had dared to use it. '"When this was realised," continued Mr. Balfour, "the wise and sober opinion of the country will say that the Constitution has been mutilated and shattered, and cannot Temain in the ruined form in which Mr. Asquith left it."

THE PREMIER'S REPLY. -SECRET HISTORY UNFOLDED. CABINET'S RELATIONS WITH KING GEORGE. Received 8. 9.55 p.m. I London, August 8.

Mr. Asquith said that, as was desirable, there would be no mystery or misunderstandings over a perfectly simple and correct transaction. "At the King's strong desire," said the Premier. "I am able to disclose the communications which were hitherto confidential. The matter became urgent on April 9, 1910, when the veto resolutions were approved and the Bill introduced. King Edward was then on the Throne. A majority inside and outside the House of Commons were beginning to ask, not unnaturally, whether the elections was to be reduced to a nullity and matters again result in a futile deadlock. Accordingly, on April 14, after a careful consultation with my colleagues, we approved them and communicated with the King, who was abroad. I used these words: — " In no case would I recommend a dissolution, except on conditions securing that the judgment of the people would be carried into law." Mr. Asquith continued (hat this very plain language, which represented the deliberate policy of the Government, was so understood and accepted by friends and antagonists, and that policy was announced which he was still King Edward's Minister.

"The only observation I make, in reply to Mr. Balfour's very unhappy reference anent the new King." continued the Prime Minister, "is that within a month of King Edward's reign prematurely and most unexpectedly ending, a political truce followed for the best part of six months. An honest, continuous and wellintentioned endeavor was made by leading representatives of Both parties to arrive at a settlement. When the experiment broke down tlicv reverted to the policy of April. After the fullest consideration I thought it right to advise a dissolution, but we clearly opined that it would neither be honorable nor justifiable to go into an election blindfold. Many hard words had been used about me, but we would have been rightly accused of treachery and trickery if we had gone into dissolution without an understanding. When we came to the conclusion it was our duty to advise the King to dissolve we accompanied our advice on the 15th with tbis statement:—

'Your Ministers cannot take the responsibility of advising a dissolution unless we may understand that in the event of the policy of the Government being approved by an adequate majority in the new House, your Majesty will be ready to exercise your

constitutional powers, which may involve your Majesty's prerogative of

creating peers if needed to secure that effect shall be given to the decision of the country. Your Majesty's Ministers are fully alive to the importance of keeping the name of the King out of the sphere of electoral controversy, and they take upon themselves the entire and exclusive responsibility for the policy which they will place before th« electors. Your Majesty will doubtless agree that the intention of

the' Crown should not be made public.'

His Majesty, after discussing the matter in all its bearings with myself and Lord Crewe, felt no alternative but to assent. Accordingly, on November 18, dissolution was announced.

He challenged the Opposition to say which is the constitutional outlet now that the House of Lords insists on adding the referendum to the Parliament Bill, which the country had deliberately repudiated. The country had been fully warned of the dangers of Home Rule. "You may think the nation misled, befooled and defrauded," said Mr. Asquith, '•but at the present moment there is no alternative for the Government possible. No responsible Minister would counsel I a third dissolution. It was no good blinking the facts; the country had to face a precise situation, justifying a wholly exceptional use of the Royal prerogative." Mr. Asquith concluded by saying: "Lord Grey was accused of a breach of the Constitution and treachery to the Crown, but I am not in the least sensitive to this cheap and ill-informed vituperation. I have served three Sovereigns, and have constantly striven to uphold the dignity and just privileges of the Crown, but hold my office not only by.favor of the Crown but in the confidence of the people. We should be guilty of treason, indeed, if in the su-' preme monjent of a great struggle we were to betray the people's trust.", (Vociferous cheers.) When Mr. Asquith ended, many Liberals were waving their hats and papers. Mr. Asquith then quoted the answer ( given to Lord Wedgwood in the Commons, and continued that if he had resigned the King would have sent for the Leader of the Opposition, who would have been compelled to dissolve them. It was impossible to keep the name and authority of the King out of the arena of the electoral conflict. The King doubtless thought that this was matter which was peculiarly incumben 'inn him to be safeguarded. Continuing, the Premier said, "I never used, either publicly or privately, the word 'guarantee' or 'pledge' in regard to this matter. There was never any question of obtaining the Royal assent in' advance to a cast-iron legislative scheme which was to be rammed through Parliament. It is perfectly certain the King's consent would never have been granted to such a proposal. The Bill is approved in principle by the electorates, and therefore will bo carried into law, but it is susceptible to any reasonable amendment which is not fatal to its principles. It was my strong hope and belief that the House of Lords would be prepared, without pressure, to give substantial effect to the decisive wishes of the electors.' Only when that hope was frustrated was the King asked, and consented, to exercise his prerogative, the circumstances being far stronger than those of 1832."

The censure motion was lost by a big majority.