A SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK
THE debates on the Coal Bill in the House of Lords raise some rather important questions of principle. Everyone who has followed them realises that the peers opposing the Bill, and consequently opposing the Government, consist largely of royalty-owners who feel they are being unfairly treated because the price to be paid for the royalties by the Government (being the price fixed by the impartial tribunal presided over by the Master of the Rolls) is too low. They are, in fact, fighting for their own interests. That is perfectly straightforward ; there is no disguise about it ; and some of them are men of conspicuous public spirit and integrity and character. But manifestly when the coalowning peers have stated their case the verdict should be determined mainly by disinterested members of the House. With 775 peers entitled to sit and vote there should be no sort of difficulty about that. Actually, as was shown on Wednesday peers per- sonally interested in the Coal Bill find a couple of dozen votes enough to defeat the Government—which mustered 19. • * * *
Previous page
