THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 50, 23 February 1912, Page 2

THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

(By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (United Press Association.) London, 1 February 20. In the House of Commons Mr F. E. Smith quoted the Premier’® declaration, made in 1910, that tho reform of the House of Lords would bo dealt with at the earliest possible date. They understood this to mean tho present session. Ministers never warned the country that the reform of tho House of Lords Would bo postponed until the Home Rule Bill had passed. He did not believe more than a fragment of tho Government supporters would folloAV the Premier. Ono measure wherfeon the suspension of the constitutional power of the House of Lords should ‘not l)e used was Home Rule, but the whole' conspiracy was made for that purpose. ' d, Sir John Simon (Solicitof-General) said Mr Smith had not proved that the Government, in giving Homo Rule priority over the reconstitution of the House of Lords, was breaking their pledges or perpetrating injustice. He also assumed that the Government would have greater difficulty in carrying Hdme Rule in the House of Lords reformed on Liberal lines. Whatever the future composition of the House of Lords,' they would never regain their unlimited veto, nor would the proposed constitution make it more bitterly opposed 1 to Home Rule than at present. ' 1 / ' 1

Mr Bohar Law asked Will there be no method under the reform of the Chamber to enable an 'appeal to be made to the people?

Sir John Simon asked Mr Bonar Law whether, if the Unionists were returned 'to power, would they repeal tho Parliament Act?

Mr Bonar Law replied that there would be no repeal Without simultaneous reform of the House of Lords and the House of Commons,' too. Sir John Simon declared that throughout last election members of the Opposition had prophesied that if the Parliament Bill was once passed the Radical Government, if faithful to its pledges, would carry Home Rule. After prophesying the thing, they now pretended that a monstrous fraud was being perpetrated. The Oppostion further emphasised this knowledge in seeking to'graft-an ariiendment on to the Parliament 1 Bill excluding Home Rule from it's Scope. For a quarter of a century the Liberay Party had been the Home'Rule'Party. For a quarter of a century the Opposition claimed the name of “Unionists” and denounced. the Liberal!! as “Separatists.” ■; , ' ' The debate was fidjeurned I.' 1 .' |! ‘ ~ " i.. ' ■ i - i ■ i ' ri J ' * If I Ti-T ; V ’. . } ' ■*>lf.l 5, !I • I. .