OVER THE SECOND HURDLE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 81, 7 April 1910, Page 6

OVER THE SECOND HURDLE.

In sporting parlance Mr. Asquith may be said to have successfully negotiated his second hurdle. On Monday he carried, by a majority of 106, his resolu- [ tion that the House of Commons should go into committee in order to consider tho relations between the two Houses, J and tho duration of Parliament. Oil Wednesday, as the cable informs us today, he secured a majority of 84 in favour of his proposals for the limitation of the time to be allowed for the proceedings in committee. These proposals are certainly drastic, though, so far as today's report Bhows, the Unionists have professed moro indignation over the Premier's refusal to show his full hand at this stage than over the | limits which are to bo set to their eloj quence lr committee. The first resolution, which affirms that "it is expedient that the House of Lords should be disabled by law from rejecting or | amending Money Bills," must bo disj posed of by half-past ten o'clock to-, night, which means that only two full Parliamentary days are being allowed to it. Brief as the resolution is, it raises a question of immense importance, and the definition of Money Bill, which' is a necessary part of it, is a problem of immense difficulty. To attempt to dispose finally of such a resolution in two days, even after all tha general discussion that has already taken place, would, of course, be abaurd ; but Mr. Asquith point* out that a resolution is not a Bill, and tnat full opportunities will be allowed for detailed discussion when the Bill itself comes along. The cecond resolution will be put to the vote at half-past seven on the night of the 14th, and the third three hours later. Threv hour* may well suffice for the debate on the proposal to reduce the term of Parliament to five year*, which is not a matter for violent controversy, and may be expected to Teceive a good dea' of support on the Opposition Benches. But tour-and-a-half days is not a very liberal allowance for the second resolution, which deals wiik the complicated question of limiting the destructive powers of the Lords with regard to measures passed by the Commons in three successive sessions. Mr. Asquith's plausible suggestion that if "similar lesolutions" were disposed of by the House of Lords in four days and a half, the eight days and a half to be allotted to the discussion by the Lower House should be welcomed as a gener ous allowance, overlooks the fact that in dealing with Lord Roseb«ry'i motion their Lordships were engaged in a debate which was largely academical, while the programme of the Government means war to the knife, not merely between the two parties and the two Houses, but also between the two principles of democracy and heredity. The details which are supplied fo ur of the debate op tho guillotine ici>olution ;ire t-xreedingly scanty, but some corn pon Nat ion U afforded by a more interesting and lopresentativc selection of opinions of the press ,ihta it» *>• Accustomed to rt«lv#. Tiw

Daily Telegraph is credited with the statement that the Government is considering the appointment oi a Royal Commission on Tariff Reform. Sir Robert Peel'? conversion to Pieetrade would be entirely eclipsed by the attempt of Mr. Asquith to coquette with Protection at this time of day. It will be wise to await corroboration of the Daily Telegraph's amazing announcement before accepting it. The Morning Leader replies with spirit to the "stinging rebuke" administered by Mr. Alfred Lyttelton to Air. Churchill by declaring that the speech "shows that the obvious policy of the Opposition is to embroil the Government with the Crown," and that "the Opposition is frantically beating up an agitation of sham loyalty on behalf of the King." Neither party appears to be above reproach in this matter, and we should be thankful to see the leaders combining lo protect from party strife an institution which should be kept clear of it as rigidly as the judicial bench. The Daily News declares that "the probability is that the King will do pretty well what King William IV. did in 1832." That is fair argument, even if it is not accurate prophecy. On the advice of his Ministers the King might carry the Finance Bill by the creation of new Peers, just as the Reform Bill was carried by a similar threat in 1832. But tho language of Mr. Churchill and Mr. Lloyd-George has gone further than this, and inevitably provokes analogous improprieties by way of retort.