Lords and Commons

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 24, 22 July 1911, Page 5

Lords and Commons

PARLIAMENT BILL READ A THIRD TIME. WITH THE LORDS' AMENDMENT. APPOINTMENT OF NEW PEERS LIKELY. By Ckble—Press Association—Copyright. London, July 20. The House of Lords was crowded with many distinguished visitors, including Indian potentates, when Lord Morley moved the third reading of the Parliament Bill. He said that though so changed it was no longer the Government Bill, its rejection would mean a tremendous dislocation of Parliamentary business and great exasperation of political opinion. The Government had the right to expect the Lords to follow the precedent of the Budget and pass a Bill approved at the general election.

Lord Lansdowne denied that the country had given a conclusive verdict on the details of the present Bill. He emphasised the fact that other questions were presented to the electors. The Lords were constitutionally right in revising the Bill and removing defects. The Lords had conceded the' Commons the right to deal with finance, but suggested what should be a money Bill. In Mr. Asquith's own language, the Lords had gone five-sixths of the way to meet the Government. The Lords' amendments were so essentially important that they would not recede therefrom as long as they remained free agents. The Government had, he concluded, all the materials for an honorable settlement.

Lord Halsbury refrained from dividing the House, understanding that the Unionist peers would insist on the retention of the amendments. The Bill was then read a third time. The Press Association states, as the result of enquiries in political quarters, that the Government has obtained the necessary permission for the appointment of as many peers as are required. The Duke of Bedford, in a speech at Woburn. said that if the Parliament Bill was returned to the Lords in its original form the Independent Unionist peers would not surrender their trust. If they surrendered, the Unionists in the country wou!<l say the House of Lords was useless. '

THE POLITICAL OPERATION. PERFORMED WITHOUT A SOCIAL SHOCK. LORD MORLEY'S ADVICE. Received 21, 9.20 p.m. London. July 21. Lord Morlev, in opening his speech on the third reading of the Parliamentary Bill, said the consequences of the Parliament Bill might be grave were it intended tliey should be grave, but the consequences of rejection were far graver. He desired to sec the inevitable Parliamentary political operation carried through without a social shock. He concluded by declaring that to pass the Bill that night and allow the real Bill to pass bye and bye was not a surrender to the Commons or the Government but to the verdict of the country. Lord Lansdowne replied that Unionists intended to prevent the Government from tampering with the Union until the country could express its view. If, as the Government contended, the country had changed its mind regarding Home Rule, why cheat it of the opportunity of saying so? The Government ought not to be able to do behind the backs of the people what they could not do in their faces. The Unionists' ultimate goal was a reasonable reconstruction of the Lords.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, after remarking that Home Rule had twice been rejected, and asking whether they could contend that a definite scheme of Home Rule was before the country at last election, uttered a grave warning against the abuse of 'temporary political power. Disaster would await the land, or the Government, or the party so led. Lord Willoughby de Brooke insisted that Lord Lansdownc's amendments were the irreducible minimum the Unionists would accept. After further speeches the Bill, as amended, was read a third time without division.

THE TIMES ON TOE SITUATION. MATERIALS OF AN HONARABLE SETTLEMENT. Received 21, 9.30 p.m. London, July 21. The Times states that Lord Lansdowne's reference to the "materials ol an honorable settlement" suggests his readiness to avoid more extreme measures and seek a more pacific issue. If the Government were resolved to carry through this constitutional outrage, there was no course open to the peers which would not involve grave evils. A charge of cowardice could in nowise be made against them when men were no longer free agents. There was no cowardice in temporary submission with a determination to right the wrong hereafter. UNIONIST LEADERS CONFERRING.

TEEIJNG OF OPPOSITION GROWING. Received 21, II p.m. London, July 21. The Unionist leaders of both Houses are conferring to-day, and the Unionist peers meet at Lord Lansdowne's house in the afternoon. The feeling among Unionists during the past twenty-four hours has hardened to a man in favor of opposing the Government's policy at whatever cost. THE CREATION OF PEERS. A GROWING BELIEF. Received 21, 11 p.m. London, July 21. The Times declare* that the Press As-

sociation's statement that the King has consented to the creation of peers represents at any rate a growing belief in political circles. WITHOUT THE CREATION OF PEERS. A MEMBER'S PREDICTION. Received 21, 9,20 p.m. London, July 21. Mr. F. D. Acland, speaking at West Somerset, declared that the Parliament Bill would pass within three weeks or a, fortnight without the creation of peers. The Lords might require a rope to assist them climbing down, but whatever the length of the lope they still had a considerable distance to drop.