THE VETO BILL

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1144, 3 June 1911, Page 7

THE VETO BILL

"KANGAROO" CLOSURE. DEBATE l.\ HOI'SE'OF CO.M.MOXS. The Uovernment began "putting on Hie screw" in earnest en April 14) when the debate on tlie Veto Bill was reniincil. The debate began by an aniendnient by -Mr. Jliteliell-Thomsou, who proposed that before a Money Bill was passed over tho heads of the Lords it should be brought back lo the Commons for further discussion. The debate in (ho lords might be of the greatest value, he pointed out, and his amendment would provide tho opportunity of considering tho views of (lie Peers. Jlr. As<[iiilli would not hear of it. It was giving (lie Lords new powers. Jlr. Baliour argued the advantages of the new proposal. Suppose, for instance, the Uorernment wore not quite sure whether the Hill should go on or not? He thought that (he amendment would not in any way impair the Commons' control over finance. Presently Jlr. Asquith moved the closure, which was carried by 217 votes to lC.i, and the amendment was defeated bv 'Jol votes to 169. Unionists Indignant. Immediately after this Jlr. Asquith moved the "kangaroo" closure. This meant that for a specified number of lines (in this case four) the chairman (Jlr. Emniott) should hnvo power to select amendments, and many amendments which were quite in order were passed over. Tho Unionists shouted their indignation at this summary method of procedure and divided on it. They were defeated by 250 votes lo 172. The first amendment selected by the Chairman was one to the eii'cct that if the Lords failed to carry a Jloney Bill tho King should take counsel with the Privy Council on the matter before tho Bill was passed into law. Jlr. Churchill was very scornful indeed about the proposal. "It means that the Sovereign would hnvo to fall back on the Privy Council, and backed up by the Privy Council resist the House of' Commons." The Privy Council, composed of distinguished persons, was in no sense representative." Lord Hugh Cecil at onco came to tho attack. He said: "It is always a matter of regret to us on this side of the House, and I think to the House as a whole, when tho Home Secretary is left in chargeof- the Bill." A "Committee of Slate." "I think it would bo well." said Mr. Kmmott, tho chairman, when the howls of protest had subsided, "when ho noble lord rises to take part in debate lis should discuss the amendment and' not indulge in personalities." "I shall abide by your ruling it it is on a point of order," replied Lord Hugh, "but if you are indicting ino as to the propriety of my own conduct, as to thai. I am the best judge." "I am dealing with the matter from the point of view ci order in debate," said Jlr. Emmctt. Tho amendment was rejected by -o< votes to 178. A proposal came from Jlr. Hope for the setting up of a "Committee of Slate, consisting of judges and high cx-oflicials, including governors-general, which was to have the power to rescrvo a- Bill for the judgment of electors if it had been insiilhciently discussed in Parliament or had been "insufficiently in the minds of tho electors at tho last general election. The discussion on this proposal was cut «hort by Mr. Asquith again'moving tho closure. It was carried by 253;' votes to 180, and,''of course, the amendment was thtn rejected. What is a Money Bill? On April 11 the House discussed tho paragraph in (he Bili defining what a Money Bill shall be. Here is the text of tho sub-section :— "A Money Bill means a Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of (he House .of Commons contain* only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects—namely, tho imposition,- repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; charges on the Consolidated Fund or tho provision of money by Parliament,':supp!y; the appropriation, control, or regulation of public money; the raising or guarantee of any lean or the repayment thereof; or matters incidental to those subjects or any of them." The Unonist contention was that (his definition of a Jloney Bill was so drawn as to allow the inclusion of legislation which was not strictly financial. Jh'. Pollock proposed as a remedy the insertion of words defining a Jloney Bill as one "which provides for tho imposition of taxation or fcr tho appropriation of revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Crown." The Prime Minister explained that what was meant by the sub-section was that a Jlftney Bill should be'a measure tho governing purpose of which was financial. "Yes," said Jlr. Balfour, "but .if tho cost of some policy is thrown on a Consolidated Villid Bill, that policy will have to be withdrawn from the consideration of the House of Ixirds." Jleasnrcs affecting rates must bo excluded from the operation of the House. Eventually Jlr. Asquith acknowledging the weight of same of the contentious brought forward, agreed to introduce words making it clear that the clause should have no relation to money raised by local authorities for local purposes, and promised to jfive consideration to an amendment which should guard against an application of (he word "loan" to private transactions. After these promises had been given the amendment was withdrawn. The Speaker's Impartiality. The second important discussion of tho day began on the motion of Jlr. Cave, (o omit tho provision that the Speaker should decide what is and what is not a Jloney Bill. "The Speaker is under the direction o- the House of Commons, and it is unfair both to tho House nf Lords and to the Speaker himself that he should bo made tho arbiter am! jtidgo between the two Houses." Jlr. Cave suggested as the tribunal a 1 Joint Committee- consisting of seven members of each House, with tho Speaker as chairman. Jlr. Asquith would not agree that this was a good suggestion ami ho was still more strongly opposed to going outside to find a tribunal. Ho emphasised the Parliamentary knowledge and experience of (ho Sneaker, and said that the question he would have to decide under the Bill was really less difficult than many of those he determined every day.

Warmly Mr. balfour pleaded with the House not. to take a step which might endanger the hard-won heritage of tlio impartiality of the Speaker. To put upon the already overburdened Chair the task of judicial functions was notliinjr short of lunacy. "I do be.? this House before, it conies finally to a decision to consider how it imperils not merely the ancient, practice of the country but also the order and dignity within those walls. The future of this House is-not «> clear and simple as it may appear. Do not let anyone think it is easy to keep this House a model for every other represent a tivo assembly throughout the world. Do not overburden the man on whom all this depends."

He suggested that a .loint Committee of both Houses should be appointed as tlio tribunal, with the Speaker as chairman with a deciding vole.

The Amendment was defeated by 25!) to 180, ami the announcement of the figures was received with Opposition cheers.