We regret to record that at a meeting of the
Unionist Peers held at Lansdowne House on Tuesday it was decided that the Unionist Party should vote against the second reading of the Licensing Bill, which of course meant the rejection of that measure. Only three or four ITnicinist Peers, including Lord Balfour of Burleigh, Lord Carlisle, and Lord Lytton, took the contrary view. In our opinion, Lord Balfour was in the right When he urged voting for the second reading and then amending, and pointed out, as we did last week, that, if the Commons attempted to forbid amendment on the ground of privilege, the opportunity was a good one for the Lords to assert their undoubted rights in the matter. As we have said elsewhere, however, it is now useless to regret the decision of the Lords. We are also bound to confess, though we think an injur7 has been done to what we may term the non-party position of the House of Lords, that we are to no small extent consoled by the thought that it will now be possible for the Exchequer to claim and obtain a proper consideration for a lucrative monopoly.
Previous page
