THE PARTY GAME.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 76, 1 April 1910, Page 7

THE PARTY GAME.

HOUSE OF LORDS' VETO. MR. ASQUITH'S RESOLUTIONS. INTERESTING DISCUSSION. By Telegraph.— Press Association.— Copyright. (Received April 1, 9 a.m.) LONDON, 31st March. The House of Commons continued the debate on Mr. Asquith's motion : — "That this Houre resolve itself into a committee to consider the relations of tho two Houses, and the duration of Parliament." Mr. F. E. Smith, Unionist member for the Walton Division of Liverpool, said the Government's view was that whatever the- House of Commons said thrice must be right, but if an assembly could be wrong twice why not a third time? Th» Government's real object was not that the will of the people, but that the will of the Radical caucus, Bhoukl prevail. He had little faith in the efficacy of Moderate Liberals and the survivors of the Liberal League in the Cabinet as the guardians of constitutional evolution. He proceeded to ridiculo the cry that there was danger of a revolution. He associated the benignant-looking gentlemen opposite witii tea meetings and pleasant Sunday afternoons rather than aa a Committee of Public Safety end Barricades. The members of the Government were not Jacobin leaders ; their manoeuvres with parties and caucuses remind him of a stage donkey with the legs moving in different directions. Mr. J. A. Simon (Liberal member for Walthamstow) contended that restriction of the Lords' veto would allow time for discussion and reflection. Lord Hugh Cecil (Unionist member for Oxford University), criticised the Cabinet's power to torco Bills through the Commons without adequate discussion. He commented on the exclusion of men like Mr. Harold Cox unless they played the party game. Every constitution of the colonies gave the iSecond Chamber the right to reject, but not to initiate or amend, a Finance Bill. It was a right that had been copied from what was universally regarded as a rule in Great Britain regulating the relations between the two Houses. SPEECH BY MR. BIRRELL. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Right Hon. Augustine Birrell, replied that the colonies had not a historical House of Commons. Whatever the future constitution of the House of Lords, the people of Britain would never allow it to assert tho power of rejecting a Government's financial proposals. There was no possibility of a compromise with the Lords? on the question of finance. Meanwhile a root and branch reform of the House of Lords was not immediately practicable, and Mr. Asquith was therefore justified in his present proposals. Mr. Birrell added that the Lords were tampering with the hereditary principle, and that duo warning had been conveyed to Tory Tadpoles by the papers that there was no chance of tariff reform while that principle was retained. TYRANT OR PUPPET. The Right Hon. G. Wyndham (Unionist member for Dovei, and a former Chief Secretary for Ireland) said in no country was a Second Chamber restricted to discussion, and interposing suggested delay. One deplorable effect of that would be to make the Premier a tyrant or puppet in the hands of Parliamentary groups. A SINGLE CHAMBER. Mr. J. Ramsay Macdonald (Labour member for Leicester) made a vehement speech against the Lords and in favour of a single Chamber. Referring to Australasia, he said that whatever the paper constitution, one party was bound to get a predominant part in tho Second Chamber. The debate was adjourned. SIR R. FINLAY'S AMENDMENT. GOVERNMENT DENOUNCED. PARALYSIXG~THE NATION'S FINANCES. (Received April 1, 11 a.m.) LONDON, 31st March. In the House of Commons, the Right Hon. Sir Robert Finlay, Unionist member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew* Universities, and formerly AttorneyGeneral in the Balfour Government, moved the following amendment to Mr. Asquith's resolutions : — "l'hat this Houso regards a strong, efficient Second Chamber as necessary, and is willing to consider proposals for reform, but declines proposals for destroying the usefulness of any Second Chamber, however constituted, and removing the only safeguard against great changes being made by the Government of the day, not only without the consent, but against tho wishes of a majority of the electors." In moving the amendment, Sir Robert denounced the Government for paralysing the nation's finances. Mr. Redmond's budding millions had been lost through the Government tactics. The present proposition was not justified by even a deadlock between the two Housei" . Everybody admitted that the Houso of Lords had a legal right to refer the Budget to the country, which had answered against the Budget. No reform was seriously intended. The Lords had a legal right to reject money Bills.