Passing of the Lords

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 42, 11 August 1911, Page 5

Passing of the Lords

THE DEBATE IN THE COMMONS. UPROARIOUS PROCEEDINGS. LORDS' AMENDMENTS REJECTED. By Cable—Press Association—Copyright. London, August 9. Lord Hugh Cecil's motion that the Lords' amendments to the Parliament Bill be discussed three months hence was defeated by 348 votes to 209. Sir Edward Carson seconded the motion, and congratulated Mr. Redmond oh bringing the great Liberal Party to its knees. Neither the Government, the Lords nor the crowd were free agents since Mr. Asquith's blackmailing letter to the King on November 15. A Ministerial uproar followed the statement, but the Speaker refused to rule the language unparliamentary.

Sir Edward Carson asked whether the King was advised of the effect of the guarantees upon Home Rule. Mr. Churchill replied that the King was acquainted with the matters in dispnte, among which Home Rule was one of the more important. The reply caused a sensation. Mr. Churchill added that it would be observed they made no secret of their intention to use the machinery of the Parliament Bill for the passage •f Home Rule and other matters. He challenged Mr. Balfour to say he would repeal the Parliament Bill. Mr. Balfour immediately rose and announced that when the Unionists returned to power they "would repeal the Bill, not without substituting reform of the House of Lords

Mr. Churchill concluded by outlining the /Government's amendments, including a new clause forbidding the extension of the life of Parliament beyond five years, also a provision enabling the Speaker to consult the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, before deciding whether a Bill was a money Bill. Messrs. Salziel, Henderson and other Radicals angrily protested against tins surrender to die-hards.

Mr. Lloyd-George explained that the proposed change was due to the Speaker not caring to assume the sole responsibility for the House of Commons.

Finally it was agreed that the Speaker should consult two members, who should be appointed each session from the panel of chairmen.

' Lord Lansdowne's amendments were rejected by 321 to 211. A committee consisting of Sir Rufus Isaacs and Messrs. Churchill, Dalziel and Henderson was appointed to draw up reasons for disagreeing with the proposed amendments. The debate was adjourned.

During the debate Mr. Bonar Law declared that Irish loyalists would never consent to Home Rule being forced upon them as part of a corrupt Parliamentary

bargain. Mr. William O'Brien said he believed that not only Home Rule but the whole constitutional cleavage would be better dealt with by less belligerent and revolutionary methods. He saw years of bitter party warfare ahead in Ireland.

IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. CENSURE MOTION CARRIED. London, August 9. Speaking to his censure motion in the House of Lords, Lord Curzon echoed the arguments advanced by Mr. Balfour. He denied that the amendments introduced by the Lords had transformed the Bill.

Lord Crewe replied for the Government and met with a warm reception, as it was his first appearance in the House since his illness. After declaring that the whole business was odious to himself, he explained that the Government looked forward to creating peers with profound reluctance. He did not pretend that as a party they were all of one mind, but, if forced, the number created would not be limited to the names of peers included on the newspaper lists.

Explaining the circumstances of the interview with the King on November 15, Lord Crewe emphasised the King's natural and legitimate reluctance to allow the use of the prerogative. Mixing the Crown in such a controversy was naturally repugnant to His Majesty.

Lord Haldane and Selborne followed Lord Crewe, and Lord Halsbury delivered a vigorous denunciation of the Government's dealing with the King.

Lord Lansdowne closed the debate, and the motion was adopted by 282 votes to 08.

LORDS AND THE GOVERNMENT. FURTHER RESISTANCE IMPROBABLE. London, August 0. The debate in the Lords on the Commons' reason for rejecting the Lords' amendments has opened. Lord Lansdowne said he was convinced that further insistence would be unprofitable and detrimental to the public interests, but he would not spare efforts to reverse the Government's action ill the future.

THE KING AND HIS PREROGATIVE. London, August 9. It is believed that Lord Crewe's statement, emphasising the reluctance of the King to consent to the use of the prerogative was made at His Majesty's special request after Lord Knollys had interviewed Lord Crewe and Mr. Asquith. It is stated that the King was desirous of correcting the impression given by Mr. Asquith's speech in the House of Commons that the Government's proposals had proceeded inevitably and smoothly from first to last.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES. London, August 9. The Supplementary Estimates contain votes of £252,000 for the payment of members, £2OOO for Dr. Mawson's expedition, and £120,000 for the Royal visit to India. FORCING THE KING. DISCUSSION IN HOUSE OF LORDS. Received 11, 12.50 a.m. London, August 10. During the censure debate Lord Lansdowne declared that if the creation of peers was odious to Lord Crewe it was equally odious to the King, and they ought not to force His Majesty's hands merely out of petulancy and vindictiveness.

Lord H&lsbury emphasised the point that he would move the rejection of the third reading of the Bill, but assumed that Lord Lansdowne would stick to his amendments. He repudiated the idea that he had entered into a campaign against Lord Lansdowne, for whom he had respect and even affection. The Archbishop of York said he would support the Bill. The policy of insisting on the amendments was distasteful to the Sovereign and against the interests of the House.

Lord St. Albyn declared that he would never vote to please the King, who was in the cruel position of having to create unlimited peers. The division to-day on the Government's amendments to the Parliament Bill make it clear the provisional order of Bills is not included in the term "public Bills."