KING AND PEERS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1089, 30 March 1911, Page 5

KING AND PEERS.

THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE. UNIONIST LEADER MOVES ITS ABOLITION. A POLITICAL SENSATION. By Telegraph-Press Association-Copyricht (Hoc. March 29, IU9 p.m.) London, March 29. A' sensation has been caused by the Marquis of Lansdowne, Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords, postponing his House of Lords Reform Bill beyond Easter, .and giving notice to move on Thursday next:— "That a humble address bo presented to his Majesty, asking his Majesty's sanction to introduce a Bill limiting the prerogatives and powers of the Crown concerning the creation and summoning of peers." Lord Lansdowne remarked that his Reform Bill, like any other for the reconstitutioil of the House of Lords, necessarily touched the Royal prerogative. Ho was satisfied, as the result of inquiries, that any such Bill required the previous sanction of the Crown.

POLITICAL CIRCLES EXCITED. SOLE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION. (Rec. March 29, 11.49 p.m.) London, March 29. , Lord Lansdowne's notice for the presentation of an address'to the King is the sole topic of discussion in political circles. The newspapers express divergent views as to what the Cabinet's probable advice to the King will be regarding the introduction of Lord Lansdowne's Bill. The "Daily - Chronicle" (Liberal) says the Ministers may perhaps advise tho Crown to consent to the introduction of the Bill, 'lest the Government should be accused of depriving tho Lords of power to discuss the question of their, own reform, and of straining the Constitution in tho Liberal interests.

REFERENDUM BILL; MEASURE INTRODUCED IN LORDS. "A MOMENTOUS DEPARTURE." (Rcc. March 29, 11.49 p.m.) London, March 29. In the House of Lords to-day Lord Balfour of Burleigh moved the second reading of his Referendum Bill. Lord Morley, Lord President of the Council, in referring to the crowded attendance, said that all realised that the House was. opening the first page of a most momentous departure in the constitutional history of the country. Nothing in .the. Veto Bill or Lord Lansdowiie's Reform Bill could produce " sitch tremendous changes as the Bill moved by Lord Balfour of. Burleigh.', It would involve the country.in a'prolongation of .conflict ; by tho -holding .of repeated referenda. Moreover, it empowered the House of Lords to.enforce a dissolution when it chose. "' "V" : -. •'. -'Lord Lansdo'wne, in. reply) sAid that wherever tho referendum had been established it had never been abolished. Tho Unionists regarded the taking of a referendum'' 'a.s quite an exceptional, measure, and a last resort when other expedients for settling persistent differences had failed.,. His advice was 'that - .LordBalfour of Burleigh''should not—pending tho- projected 'amendments grafting' a referendum oh to the Veto Bill-compel the House to now vote aye or no on the second reading of his Bill. The debate was ultimately adjourned.