New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-07-21
Consideration Moved Peers.

1OnbipS' INoN'O Ft''s
Three considerations have impeled tn"
peers 70 swallow this bitter medicine
desire 10 save their ovn caste from cheap
Anire. 10 shield the King from an einbar-
rassing position and 10 prevent the imme-
date enactment Of extreme radical meas
ures such rs Home Rule and the dis
establishment of the Welsh Church. What
the ultimate effect Of the humiliation VIII
he IN the I -nionist party lies in the Jap n
tho future. That farseeins leadership
might have prevented il none DENY. Who
will be the final scspeeosts is the question.
The scene to-day in the ancient cham
her was more funeresl than hellisarent.
Many peeresses and diplomats sat in the
galleries, but there was nothing of the
festive spirit which welcomes a great de
bate The only dramatic touch was fur
nished by Lord Halsbury, whose voice,
despite his eightysix years. rang with
passion and indignation as he denounced
the passing OF the old regime.
The other Speakers were. diplomatic
rather than oratorical. Lord Morley
suavely hoped that this Parliamentary
operation would he accomplished without
further social shock, and every one under
stood that social shock meant dilution Of
the reerage by the infusion of new blood
Lord Lansdowne replied with equal susvity
that the I'nionists must oppose the bill. as
proposed BY the House Of Commons. as
long as they were free agents. Every one
INTERRUPTED this 70 mean that they would
not consider themselves free agents when
the threat Of doubling the peerage was
definitely held oyer their heads.
Nr PaIfour has summoned n meeting If
tho leaders of both houses Tor tomorrow
FOR tho purpose of considering tho question
Of future policy.
Lord Morley Opens Debate.
In opening tho debate Lord Morley reit-
Grated the hostility If the government
toward any qualification Of their original
proposals. The bill now being returned 10
the other house was, he said. 60 changed
as to hear NO resemblance 20 the original
measure passed by the House Of COM
mons. and Ia accept the bill as amended
would he . death blow 20 that house.
Criticising the amendments i'm detail. tho
governments spokesman declared that the
Oppositior. instead OF making as few
changes as they could. had made as many
"a they could SAY what i'll YOU please
Of the Parliament bill" ne exclaimed. no
body can pretend that the change from an
absolute 10 a suspensory veto is comparable
in its magnitude. its risks and possible
dangers to tho death blow dealt by Lord
I.ansdowne to the prestige authority and
responsibility of the House OF Commons"
Lord Morley pointed out that the amend
rnents took away from the House OF Com
mons the power Of deciding what was "A
money bill, and proposed TO set mp a tri-
bunal which could practically call for dis
colutton whenever IL liked But" he said,
",bo government has refused 10 make any
compromise
Despite all the Transformation which the
bill had undergone Lord Morley said that
he hoped and believed that 1t would re-
ceIve a third reading. This rejection
would involve a tremendous dislocation Of
Parliamentary business and greatly exas-
perate both Parliamentary and public
cpinion. The consequences Of Psrlia-
nent bill might be grave, but the conse-
quences Of its rejection would be far more
grave, and the government asked the
Lords to display a spirit Of wisdom and
not heroics The third reading OF the bill
would be surrender not 10 the House u
Commons but 10 the judgment Of the peo-
pie.
Lord Morley concluded
II would like TO have this inevitable
Parliamentary political operation carried
through without anything like a social
shock / do not mean a superficial shock,
but a real wide-reaching social shock
This was the only passage In Morley's
speech which could be construed into a
reference TO the possible creation OF
peers
Lord Lansdowne held that the Opposi-
ton had gone fve-sxths OF the way toward
meeting the government. They had en-
deayored TO recast the bill in such way
as 10 remove its worst objections and
safeguard the country against hasty and
ill-considered legislation. IL was said that
the opinion Of the country had changed on
the subject OF Home Rule. II that were
true. why not give the people an opportu-
nifty Of saying II they desired change
Lord Lansdowne pronounced in favor OF
passing the third reading OF the bill. say
ing that after what the peers had done
I'm passing the second reading and In the
committee stage # would make the House
ridiculous IN the eyes Of the country II
,bay refused 20 go on