New-York tribune., 1908-08-04
TACTICS AT WESTMINSTER.

Mr.. Asquith has skilfully completed his tao
ell ,-;c+orv on the old age pensions bill, and
that much debated and much opposed measure
is now law. The generally expected CONNECT
with the House of Lords did not occur, thanhs
nartIv TO MFR. Asquth's resolute front ana
party no doubt, to the tactics OF MI bailoO'i !
which NAV prove TO have been more judiclous
tha,, chose of the ITnionist leaders in the upper
cbamber were at first and might have been to
tho end but for his prudent admonitions. There
&c no douht that the sentiment OF the House Oh
lords was strongly against the measure hoC
only of those hereditary legislators VINO are OH
general principles opposed TO all Ihberal meas
ures hut also and even more emphaIlcail!' ol
such enlightened and representative statesmen
as Lord Cromer, Lord Rosebery ana Lord i-ahS-
dovrne The first thought of these statesmen
WAS 10 mitigate so far as possible the eFll quai-
itfes-as they Judged them-of the measure bS
amendment. since il did not seem practicable 10
1afaa+ ft outright So they made several amend
pants TO the bill and then passed il. The House
of Commons declared that the amendments were
breaches Of the Commons privileges ana re
ioote1 than, And then the House Of Lords. in
stead of insisting upon the amendments aoah-
donpd Them but with a declaration lhal id so
doing it did not waive its right to make them
and thus passed the Dill preclselH az II H''u
Dassed the Commons.
4
king bv the Commons the rate or tax ought
..1ot IN hp altered by the Lords" dates back 10
1911 and the corollary, that all bills granting
supplies ought TO begin with the Commons, Is
only seven years younger. For two and third
centuries therefore, the House Of Commons has
claimed the sole right to "direct. limit and ap-
point the levying of taxes and the approprla-
ton Of revenues and all their lends, purposes
considerations, conditions, limitations and
Qualifications" and has insisted that the Lords
have no right 10 change or alter such acts in
any way Practically from the Commons
point OF view, in all financial legislation the
House Of Peers is non-exstent, or is Il negligl,
bic quantity. and all power is vested in n single
chamber The Lords have never once we be-
lfeve conceded the validity of this claim Of the
Commons. but they have in fact Invariably
welded to II. Now and then. It is true they
have rejected money bills outright but ONLY 20
accept them when they were repassed in the
same or another form by the Commons Now
and then they have amended money bills but
only 10 acaulesce in the rejection of the amend
,nents by the Commons unless the latter house
hannpned to be iu accord with the Lords polit-
icfiy and thus WAS inclined 10 accept the
amendments though cases Of such action have
been rare ON the other hand. the Lords also
have had their way in preventing the Commons
from putting any measure through without
amendment by the simple expedent-formerS
familiar af Westinghouse making il rider
10 Il money bill The Lords long ago adopted
standing order forbidding that practice, which
Lad formerly been common. and that order has
been respected f3y- the Commons.
TIE tactics OF the two houses il the present