POLITICAL CRISIS AT HOME

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3293, 11 August 1911, Page 5

POLITICAL CRISIS AT HOME

THE PARLIAMENT BILL.

A CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

ANGRY DEBATE IN HOUSE OF COMMONS.

[UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION —COPYRIGHT. LONDON, August 9. In the House of Commons, Cord Hugh Cecil’s motion that the amendments made by the House of Lords in tne Parliament Bill be considered three months’ hence, was deleated by 348 to 209 votes. vSir Edward Carson, who seconded the motion, congratulated Mr Redmond on bringing the great Liberal party to rts knees. Neither the Government, House of Commons, House of Lords, nor the Crown were free agents, he said, since Mr Asquith’s blackmailing letter to the King on November 15th. Ministerial uproar followed this statement, but the Speaker refused to rule the language to be unparliamentary. Mr Churchill said that it would be absurd 1 to say that they made any secret of their intention to use the machinery of the Parliamentary Bill for the passage of Home Rule and other matters. He challenged Mr Balfour to say he would repeal the Parliament Bill. Mr Balfour immediately rose, and announced that when the Unionists were returned to power they would repeal the Bill, not withoutsubstituting .reform of the House of Lords. Mr Churchill concluded by outlining the Government’s amendments, including a new clause forbiding the extension of the life of a Parliament beyond five years also a provision enabling the Speaker to consult the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of Public Accounts before deciding whether the Bill was a Money Bill. Mr Dalziel. Mr Henderson, and other Radicals angrily protested against this surrender to the “Die-hards.’ ’ Mr Lloyd-George explained that the proposed change was due to the Speaker not caring to assume sole responsibility for the House of Commons. Finally it was agreed that the Speaker should consult two members who would be appointed each sessionfrom the panel of chairmen. Lord Lansdowne's amendment instituting a referendum on Home Rule was rejected by 321 to 211. A committee consisting of Sir Rufus Isaacs, Mr _ Winston Churchill, Sir Henry Dalziel, and Mr Henderson, has been appointed to draw up reasons for disagreeing with the proposed amendments by the House of Lords. The debate was adjourned.

CENSURE MOTION CARRIED. IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY. Speaking on his censure motion in the House of Lords, Lord Curzon echoed the arguments advanced l by Mr Balfour. He denied that the amendments introduced by the House of Lords had transformed the Bill. The Marquis of Crewe replied for the Government. He met with a warm reception cn his first appearance since his illness. After declaring that the whole business, was odious to himself he explained that the Government looked forward to the creating of peers with a- feeling of profound reluctance. He did not pretend that as a party they were all of one mind, but if they were forced the number created would .not be limited by the names of peers included on the newspaper lists. Explaining the circumstances of the interview’ of November 15, the Marquis of Crewe emphasised the King’s natural and legitimate reluctance to allow the use of the prerogative and the mixing of the Crown with such a controversy. Naturally his Majesty had reluctance in the matter. Lord Haldane and Lord Selborne followed the Marquis of Crewe. Lord Halsbu.ry delivered a vigorous speech in denunciation of the Govern-' ment’s dealing with the King. Lord Lansdowne’s speech closed the debate.

The motion of censure was adopted by 282 to 68. It is believed that the Marquis of Crewe’s statement emphasising the reluctance of the King to give his consent to the use of the prerogative was made at liis Majestey’s special request after Baron Kiiollyu (His Majesty’s private secretary) bad interviewed the Marquis of Crewe and Mr Asquith. . It is stated that the King was desirous of correcting the impression given by Mr AsquitlTs speech in the House of Commons, that tlie Government’s projects had proceeded' inevitably and smoothly from first to last.

THE LORDS’ AMENTMENTS.

“FURTHER. INSISTENCE UNPROFITABLE.”

The debate in tlie House of Lords on the House of Commons’ reasons for rejecting the amendments has opened. Lord Lansdowne said that he was convinced further insistence ivould be unprofitable and detrimental to the public interests, but he would not spare liis efforts to reverse tlie Government’s action in future.

“ODIOUS TO THE KING,”

THE CREATION OF PEERS.

LORD HALSBURY’S ATTITUDE. (Received August 11, 12.50 1 a.w.) LONDON, August 10. In the House of Lords during the Censure debate. Lord Lansdowne declared that if the creation of peers were odious to Lord Crewe it must be equally odious to the King, and they ought not ho force liis Majesty’s hand merely out of petulancy and vindictiveness. Lord Halshury emphasised, the fact that lie would move the rejection of the third reading of the Bill, hut said he assumed * that Lord Lansdowne

would stick to his amendments. H© repudiated the idea that he had entered on a campaign against Lord Lansdowne, for whom, he said, he had the greatest respect, and even affection. The Archbishop of York said he would support the Bill. The policy of insisting on the amendments was evidently distasteful to the Sovereign, and against the interests of the House. Viscount St. Aldwyn declared that he would never vote to place the King in the cruel position of having to create*.unlimited peers.