In the House of Lords on Monday Lord Crewe moved
the second reading of the Parliament Bill. He traced the history of the veto controversy from the winter of 1906, when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's first Education Bill was lost, and proceeded to an explanation of the provisions of the present Bill. Lord Crewe pointed out that, although it did not explicitly allow for the holding of a Conference between the two Houses, in the opinion of the framers of the Bill this was a cardinal matter in relation to the whole question. The Bill provided opportunities for long delay and repeated dis- cussion, and to describe it as a measure for the establishment of a single Chamber was an absolute misnomer. "We desire to subatitute delay and revision for hurried party rejection." Lord Lansdowne criticised the action of the Government in preventing adequate discussion of the Bill, which was highly open to criticism. He pointed out the inadequacy of the safe- guards against "tacking," and the impossible position in which the Upper House would find itself at a Conference, when it knew that in case of disagreement a Bill would be passed over its head. He then announced his decision to move the adjournment, and gave notice that on Wednesday be would move some Resolutions dealing with the relations between the two Houses. After some discussion the House adjourned.
Previous page
