THE LORDS ON TRIAL

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 781, 2 April 1910, Page 5

THE LORDS ON TRIAL

COMMONS DEBATE. A UNIONIST AMENDMENT MOVED 81-CAMERAL SYSTEM. By Telofrraph-Frcss Assoclatlon-CoDyrißht TLti . London, March 31 ii i-L nse of Commons continued ".f? on Mr.. Asquith's motlT.this Houso resolve itself into a committee to consider the relations of &uZ£T BS ' and tho duration of No Faith in Moderate Liberalism. for M tL F W\ Sm |> th) llnionist memb <* aid tL^ alt ° n Division of Liverpool, IwW Government's view was that should prevail He.had little faith in the efficacy O f the Moderate Liberals, and in tho survivors of the Liberal of constitutional evolution.. Ho proceeded to ridicule the cry that there c?ate d TV f - a roV I Ho «S! ciated tho bemgnanWooking gentlemen Sunda'v 6 T t ' th tea meetin S« and pleasant afternoons rather than with be">g a Committee of Public Safety and Barncades. The members of the" Government were not Jacobin leaders • then- manoeuvres with parties and cauwjth o the legs moving-in different I\

for [ Wit, A, H* (Liberal » for Walthamstow) contended that relo« time f or discussion and reflection. for olfo H Ug n • OMa - (Uni ° nist member Uwvers 'W criticised the Cabinet's power ,to force Bills .through the Commons without adequate discussion. He commented on the exclusion Sociahst-Liberal,, rejected at Preston) unless they played the party game Every constitution of the colonies gave the Second Chamber the right to «£«*, but not to uutmteor amend/ a Finance Bill. It was a right that had been from what : was universally regarded aa , rule in Great Britain regulating the rolations between the two

'', ;. Mr. Blrrell in Reply. 'The Chief Secretary'for Ireland,'Mr Brn-ell 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 , the power ;of rejecting a : Government's fanancial proposals.. There'was no possibihty of a compromise with the' Lords on.the question of finance. Meanwhile a_root and branch reform of the House ot ; Lords was not immediately practicAsquith was therefore ]dstified in his ■ present proposals. Mr. Birrell added that the. Lords themselves were tampering with tho hereditary principle, and that due : warning iad been convoyed to Tory Tadpoles by the papers that there/was no chance or- tariff, reform while that principle , was,; retained. ■ ' : . . Mr. G. Wyndham (Unionist member tor. DpverjJand a' .formqpvChief. Secretary for Ireland) said ?in no country was ,a Second, Chambor- restricted, to discusswn,;. One doplorablo, effect of tno Government's proposals . would 'be' to make,.the Premier a : tyrant or putpot in the hands of Parliamentary groups, r .-.■...'■■■ ■■■■'' • '

Mr. J. Ramsay Mac Donald (Labour member for Leicester) made a vehement speech against tho Lords and in favour of a Single Chamber. Referring to Australasia, he said that whatevor. the paper constitution, one party was bound to get a predominant position m the Second Chamber. ; An, Amendment. _The Right Hon. Sir Robert Fmlay Unionist member for Edinburgh and at. Andrew's Universities, and formerly Attorney-General in the Balfour Government, moved tho following amendment to-.Mr. Asquith'e losolutions:— ,: . ■■ "That, this. House 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, how- .' ever constituted, and removing ..tho only safeguard against ■ great changes being made by the Government of the day, riot only without the consent, bnt : 'against the wishes , of a majority of ,tlie electors.". -.- , ; ■ . ■. ; In moving the amendment, Sir Robert denounced the Government for paralysing the nation's. finances; Mr.Redmond's budding' millions had been losft through tho Government's' , tactics. Tho present proposition was not justified by even a deadlock between the two Houses. 'Everybody admitted that , tho House of Lords had a legal right to rofer tho Budget to the country, which had answered against the Budget. No reform was seriously intended by thoGovernment. The Lords had a legal right to reject money Bills. '

THE IRISH NATIONALISTS. A LIBERAL APPEAL. (Rec. April 1, 10.40 p.m.) ■■•.'■'■ London, April 1. Sir Robert Finlay, ,'in a qloscly-roa-soned speech, urged that the House of Lords had never'lost the right to. reject a Money Bill. .- The Attorney-General. Replying to Sir Robert Finlay's argument that tho House of Lords was prevented by tho "Constitution from initiating or amending a Money Bill, Sir Win. Robson, Attornoy : Gcrieral, asked why should not the''Constitution'also prevent tho rejecting of a Money Bill? Ho argued that tho Lords' aoti'on in rejecting tho Budget, was lawless in a Constitutional sense. Mi , . A6quith's resolutions wore defensive, not aggressive. ■ " ■' The Attorney-General went on to say that if tho House of Lords controlled financo, tho country's fortunes would be entrusted to a Chamber representing one financial* interest. Therefore, supposing that tariff reform wore tried for a. time, the country micjht then bo unable, owing to the Lords' resistance, to got rid of ■■ food taxos. Tho Opposition might possibly win tho next election, but ultimately it would bo that, in order to ensure freedom; tho fiiianoo veto must go. Mr. Winston Churohlll. Mr. Cliurchill, Home Secretary, defended tho veto resolutions as providing adequate restraint!! on reckless sectional legislation. Ho described the amendment as insincere and a shani. The Unionists did not intend to create a fair Second Chamber. After tho veto rosoluUons, tho Government troald march

forward to the Budgot regardless of consequences. He was convinced that at the proper time they would succeed in carrying the veto resolutions and the Budget to tho steps of the Throne. Mr. Churchill adroitly appealed to the Nationalists. He hinted that they wore in favour of the Budget except certain points not connected with the quarrel between tho two Houses, and added.that unless the Budget was carried it was useless asking for assurances or expecting the country's approval of tho veto policy. Ho was convinced that they would rally round tho Government, and then tho Crown and tho Commons would co-operato in rostoring the balance of the Constitution and would restrict for ever tho Houso of liords' veto.