HOME POLITICS.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 March 1922, Page 5

HOME POLITICS.

VALUE OF COALITION. TRIBUTE TO PREMIER. A NATIONAL POLICY. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. London, March 7. Sir Arthur Balfour, speaking at the City Carlton Club, said he was emphatically of opinion that the country’s interests would be best served by the Coalition. He would remain a member of the Conservative-Unionist Party until he went to the land where parties no longer would interest him. The two-party system was admirably adapted to normal times for the Government of England. That system implied a fundamental agreement be tween the two parties upon the great social verities which lay at the base of all civilised societies, but the two-party system was not one under which we could have won the war. It was not true that the Coalition was out on one side. The points of difference between its component parties were the old differences, and they had been submerged. The way in which the Irish question had been dealt with was an admirable illustration.

Sir Arthur Balfour paid a glowing tribute to Mr. Lloyd George. No other man could have brought the nation through, its recent difficulties. They would not advance the country’s interests by abusing Mr. Lloyd George. The Irish treaty would help to make conditions in Irelai less intolerable than since the reb on. We might see Ireland happy and contented as an integral part of the Empire. All the circumstances pointed to the advisableness of continuing indefinitely the intimate and friendly co-operation, which had worked so successfully in the past He had never belonged to a Government with greater unity and eagerness to carry out a national policy without attempting to gain petty party advantages. With the problems of unemployment and the Indian and Egyptian questions this was not a time for the disintegration of parties. Lord Birkenhead, in proposing a vote of thanks, said he would not be a party to the destruction of the great Unionist Party, which was struggling against a strong contrary movement. He hoped that Unionists differing from him would realise that the differences of the moment were fleeting compared with the fundamental need for agreement on permanent matters like the unity and stability of the Empire. OPPONENTS OF THE COALITION. WHAT THE COUNTRY NEEDS. A MANIFESTO ISSUED. Received March 8, 9.10 p.ifi. London, March 7. Lords Salisbury, Carson, Finlay, Linlithgow, Northumberland and Sydenham, Sir F. Banbury, Sir W. Joynson Hicks and other representatives of the Tory Lords and Commoners have issued a manifesto justifying the opposition to the Coalition. They say the following principles are essential: Loyalty to the throne, the restoration of the effi ciency of the second chamber. It is the first duty of a civilised Government to protect lives, liberty and property and the crimes, such as arson, murder and theft, committed for the promotion of political ends must be resisted by the whole force of the State. Excessive taxation and meddlesome regulations are alike mischievous, while State interference and the multiplication of officials are a hindrance to prosperity. The hasty, grandoise schemes of the so-called reconstruction are also objectionable. Without extending our national responsibilities the country should fulfil «ts great duty of a firm’and unselfish government in territories such as India, which has long formed part of the Empire. Britain is beset with dangers which under the name of Socialism and Communism threaten the existing social system. The dangers are also due to the vacillation and errors which have defaced public administration since the armistice, ana ursurpation by executive government of the functions of Parliament—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. i