The Dominion. THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 1911. THE LATEST SENSATION.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1089, 30 March 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 1911. THE LATEST SENSATION.

The Marquis of Lassdowne has provided a sensation for the disputants over the question of the best means of converting the House of Lords into a Chamber calculated to meet with the approval and hold the Confidence of the British people. So far the aggression has been entirely on the side of the Government and its allies. The Peers and their supporters have admitted the necessity for reform, and have professed their willingness to reform from within. Proposals to this effect have been put forward, but the Government has insisted on its Bill abolishing the so-called veto of the Lords, and will rest content with nothing short of this. Mr. Asquith has definitely declared that the Bill must go through and the threat has been,held over the Peers that if they reject the measure their objections will be overcome by one of two methods. Either there will be another dissolution and appeal to the country—which no one desires—or the King will be asked to appoint a sufficient number of new Peers to outvote the opponents of the Parliament Bill in the Upper Chamber. It is in connection with this latter course of procedure that Lord Lansdowne' has tabled the first really aggressive step on behalf .of tho Lords—a step which the cable news tells us has created a sensation. It is simply a proposal to limit the power Of tho King in the matter Of the creation of Peers; and presumably thatlimitation would be of such a nature as to preyqnt the Government from putting into- effect its threat to swamp the House of Lords with newly-created Peers pledged to support the Parliament Bill. Of course there is no possibility 6f such a measure being passed by the House of Commons under existing conditions. What, then lies behind the astonishing action of the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords 'I '■ "

When the last mail left England the papers Were hotly engaged in discussing the possible line 3of action | in'respect of the Parliament Bill; , and the party, leaders of both sides j were also making speeches on the ; same subject. ' The attitude of the j Government was one of supreme'con- ! fidcnoe. Ministers professed to have no doubt at all: that the Bill would : go through the Commons, and 'an almost equal confidence that the Lords would be very chary of rejecting it. . The Unionists were not in the same-happy state of unanimity. It had just been announced by ; The Times that Loud Lansdowne would not proceed with his reform proposals at once; but that they would be held in abeyance for the lime being. This announcement, though contradicted by some of the other journals; aroused uneasiness amongst the Unionist supporters on the ground that if the proposals were not pressed, on with, doubts might be engendered as to the genuineness of the professed willingness of the Lords to reform their constitution from within. The Times, discussing the matter on February 13, ■saidi ■'■ - The'scheme brought forward 'by the Unionist Peers in the. form of resolutions just before the elections was an earnest of goodwill. If those resolutions wero now reduced to a Bill and passed through the Houso of Lords while tlie Parliament ' Bill is going through the Commons, the country would 'have an assurance that the Peers are in earnest aiid an opportunity of Considering their proposals at leisure without the distraction Of a general election. Then when Easter was reached the materials 'for a complete settlement would be before us jointly contributed by- the two Housss. These, counsels, however, have been ignored, the Unionist ■ Reform Bill has bccii held over until after Easter, ancl Lord Lansdowne has given notice of his now proposal to limit the creation of new Peers. A verywide field of speculation is opened up by this latest move in what must bo properly,, recognised as a great constitutional struggle.. It will probably be suggested that the object of the step taken is to gain time in order to carry the question over the Coronation, when interest in the subject may be expected to be less keen. It may be an attempt to force the hands of the Government in the direction of semiring a disclosure of its intentions regarding the creation of new Peers. Or it may even be suggested that the object of this latest step is not unassociated with his Majesty's' own views on the subject, although we think this most unlikely. Whatever view may be adopted, however, it is difficult to see what real gain can be derived by the Unionist Peers from the bold course taken. It is not likely to check the course of the Parliament' Sill in the slightest, and- it does not strike one as being a proposal calculated to make any appeal to public sentiment, unless, which is just possible, it may be put forward as being associated in some way with an amended scheme .of reform.' In 1717 a Bill to limit the-Royal Prerogative in the matter of the creation of Peers was introduced by'the Stanhope Ministry and carried in the House of Lords by a .large majority. .This measure provided that the existing number of Peers should not be increased by moro, than six; new creations beyond that number were only to be made in case of .extinction of existing Peerages. This measure was strenuously opposed in the Commons by Walpolb mainly on the ground that Peerages should not be restricted to the families of those already holding them, plus tho few additional which might from time to time be created as vacancies occurred. "There would be no arriving at honour," he cpntended, if the Bill passed, "but through the windingsheet of an old decrepit lord or the grave of an extinct noble family." Walpole's speech on. that occasion created a great stir and was responsible for the rejection of ' the Bill, which was thrown out by 92 votes. Lord Lansdowne's Bill to limit the Royal prerogative, should his proposal ever come before the House of Commons in that concrete form, will, under the _ conditions at present existing in the politics of Great Britain, meet with a similar fate to its predecessor of 1717, but whether it will serve the purpoEe ; which it assuredly masks the future 1 must be left to reveal.