THE VETO BILL.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1174, 8 July 1911, Page 5

THE VETO BILL.

AMENDMENTS CARRIED. COMMITTEE STAGE ENDS IN HOUSE OF LORDS. NEWSPAPER COMMENTS. By Telecraph—Press Association-Oopyrienl (Rce. July 7, 9.30 p.m.) London, July 7. The House of Lords yesterday terminated its consideration, of the Parliament Bill in Committee, after finally adopting both Lord Cromer's and Lord Lansdowne's amendments. On resuming tlio debate on Lord Lansdowne's amendment to Clause 2, exempting from the operation of tho Bill any Bills affecting tho existence of tho Ciown; tho Protestant Succession; Home Rule for Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or England; anything which a joint com mitteo of the two Houses regards as an issue of great gravity, upon which tho judgment of the country has been insufficiently expressed. "A Profound Mistake." Lord Weardale (Liberal) declared that the Government had made a profound mistake in not adopting tho principle of the referendum. Regarding Lord Morley's contention that the referendum would be destructive of representative Government', he had 6eeii this take many forms. Twonty-tive years ago Liberal opinion had its say, whichever quarter it came from, and it influenced Liberal action. Nowadays they had the closure, tho caucus, and group systems; hence, owing to tho altered conditions, the referendum was now indispensable. It was necessary for the security of tho State. Proceeding, Lord Weardale argued that representative Government was now tending, not to liberty, but to oligarchy. The country had accepted tho principlo of Heme Rule, but that did not imply all forms of Home Rule. The Government claimed a mandate for this Bill, but this mandate did not imply an unalterable, sacrosanct measure. The passing of the Bill would open the floodgates of faction strife, and perhaps reaction. Ho appealed to the Government to reconsider tho matter, and make a final settlement. Referendum Rejected. Lord Haldane, Secretary of for War, replied that tho referendum had been rejected systematically by democracies right through modern times. It was only used in Australia when the two Houses differed 'regarding tho Constitution. This statement was received with loud Unionist cheers. The Government, Lord Haldane concluded, would not have the referendum in any conceivable circumstances. Lord Selborne (Unionist) declared that the. referendum had come to stay. Australia's remarkable experienco had proved that it was a practical instrument of democratic government, unimpairiug the main features of representative government. Lord Lansdowno's amendment was carried, the voting being:— For the amendment 253 Against' 46 Majority for '. 207 Lord, Courtney (Liberal), Lord Weardale,' and, the Bishop of Ripon, Dr. BoydCarpenter, abstained from voting. The Archbishops were absent. The Bishop of Birmingham, Dr. Gore, voted-with the minority. A New Proposal. Lord Newton (Conservative) moved a further amendment to Clause'll exempting from tho operation of the Bill until after a general election any Bill further limiting tho legislative powers of the House of Lords. The amendment was ultimately withdrawn with a view to introducing it as a separate clause. Lord Morloy, Lord President of the Council, remarked that this was the only amendment brought forward by their Lordships which was not directly contradictodry to tho fundamental principle of the Bill, but, taken in conjunction with Lord Lansdowne's amendment the Government was unable to accept it. Lord Cromer's amendment to Clause I, providing for the appointment of a Joint Committee from both Houses to decide what is a Money Bill was ultimately adopted with Lord St. Aldwyn's addition giving the Speaker, besides his own ordinary vote, a casting vote. A POSSIBLE COMPROMISE, UNIONIST PRESS SUGGESTION. (Rcc. July 7, 9.45 p.m.) London, July 7. The Unionist newspapers state that considerable importance has been attached tc Lord Peel's speech urging the Government to give the Speaker of the House of Commons a committee to assist him in determining what constitutes a Money Bill, and not jeopardise his impartial standing by making him the sole authority in disputes between the two Houses. Lord Morley gave no unfriendly reception to Lord Newton's amendment, and this—coupled with the desire of the Unionist side to seo it presented on the report stage, when it will not be complicated by other issues—has raised hopes of its serving as a basis of compromise. "The Times" remarks that there is little doubt that if the Unionist leaders acquiesced in the' House of Commons rejecting their main amendments, the Government would accept Lord Nowton'e amendment, which, with the proposal to give the Speaker the assistance of a committee, may represent the pivot of the ultimate arrangement.