BRITISH POLITICS.

Bush Advocate, Volume XXII, Issue 66, 19 March 1910, Page 5

BRITISH POLITICS.

Press Assn—By telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, March 18. In the House of Lords the debate on Lord Rosebery's resolutions regarding tlie proposed reform of the Lords was continued to-day. The resolutions are as folloAV: — 1. That a strong and efficient Second Chamber, as an integral part of the Constitution, is necessary for the Avell-being of the State and balance of Parliament. That such a Chamber can best be obtained by the reform and reconstruction of the House of Lords. 3. That a necessary preliminary to such reconstruction is the acceptance of the principle that the possession of a Peerage no longer of itself gives the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Earl of CrcAve said he Avas not opposed to the resolutions, but the primary urgent question concerned the relations of the tAVO Houses. What was unpopular Avas not the hereditary principle, but the uncontrolled exercise of hereditary poAver. He added that the House of Commons must have a say regarding any reform of the House of Lords before any resolution Avas agreed to. The House Avent into Committee and adjourned till Monday. Lord Curzon, speaking at the Junior Constitutional Club, referring to the elections and t-hc Government's position, says there is no greater instance of sudden catastrophe of disintegration. He remarked that the Government's tactics Avere intended to prolong its existence and postpone defeat, and also to embarrass the finances of the country, produce confusion, and put its enemies in a false position. The country expected broadminded and dispassionate statesmanship, but it did not expect that the Government's policy Avould be actuated by the spirit of the political gambler. The country did not intend the Lords to go. The Government Avas not exactly a Croimvell, and competent to destroy one of the tAvo Houses.. It Avill not be by sham Robespierres that any great revolution can be carried, said Lord Curzon. Reform of the Lords should be on broad and generous lines. He hoped the approaching elections Avould return a party strong enough to carry such reforms of the Constitution as Avere required to pass sound measures.

Lord Courtney discussed Lord J&osebery's resolutions from the standpoint of the divergence of the two Houses. He incidentally criticised the House of Commons as not being the true Council of the nation owing to tile absence of representations of some of the great elements who were absent . just as great elements were absent from the Lords. He concluded by detailing his scheme of representation in the Lords of Capital, Labor, and Nationalists.

Lord Lansdowne emphasised that nobody objected to going into Committee, inasmuch as such an attitude was. equivalent to declaring that the House was perfect. He dwelt on the seriousness of the proposal to ask a large number of peers to surrender their duties and privileges. He hoped Lord Rosebery would submit an ultimate scheme of continuity, keeping on the right side of the line between reform and revolution. The House was going into the concern with considerable goodwill, which ought not to be sacrificed. If new blood were introduced, the old traditions should be retained. He would greatly regret any alteration in the name of the House, a name whereof they had no reason to be. ashamed. He trusted the reform would be on an equitable and reasonable basis, not excluding the hereditary principle. The country's recent verdict was no wholesale condemnation. The principle of reform should be simple. Continuing, Lord Lansdowne said he remarked one pitcuresque, attractive .but unpractical suggestion which favored including representation from the oversea Dominions.

"Surely," said the speaker, "Imperial Parliament is one thing and the Second Chamber another." He would ask those familiar with the opinion of the great colonies whether the latter greatly desired to be associated with the Motherland in the everyday work of legislation. He did not think the oversea Dominions would part with their best men for the purpose of attending, nor would they be grateful for the amount of representation granted, which must necessarily be small. He concluded by reviewing the various practical methods of reform. The Times states that the Government's present plan for electing a Second Chamber is to subdivide Britain and Ireland into seventy-live enormous constituencies, each returning two members, senior for eight and junior for four years, members elected to replace the latter and serve the remaining four years. Mr T. P. O'Connor, in a speech at Liverpool, said that in the tight with the Lords, the Budget was a weapon which ought to be fearlessly used.

Mr Herbert Samuel, Labor, speaking at Basingstoke, said the hereditary principle must go. Mr .John Redmond, at an Irish banquet, in London, said the Nationalists were anxious to prevent the failure of the veto campaign, hut did not intend to participate in a sham battle. They demanded a straight fight and not a Fabian policy. Come weal or woe, they would stand by their pldeges. He did not know whether they would succeed or whether

the ivisii cause Avould liave to once more wait. (Received March 19, 9.45 a.m.) LONDON, March 18. The Standard, in summarising Lord LansdoAvne's Second Chamber policy, considers the powers of veto would not be weakened. The number of Peers would be reduced, but the whole .Peerage would select representatives of their own body, and others would sit without election by virtue of their public services. The Government of the day would also select a number of Peers with a tenure of office long enough not to be influenced by general elections. The principle of life Peerages would be extended to cover representation of all the schools of political thought, and the great interests of the country.