VETO RESOLUTIONS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 75, 31 March 1910, Page 7

VETO RESOLUTIONS.

HOUSE OF COMMONS PREDOMINANCE. ''TACKING" IN FINANCIAL BILLS. PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH. By Telegraph.— Presi AMOclatlon.— Copyright. LONDON, 30th March. The House of Commons was crowded when Mr. Asquith introduced the question of the Lords' veto. Besides the Prince of Wales, many Peers followed the proceedings, and the American Ambassador (Mr. Whitelaw Reid} and other diplomatists were present. Mr. Asquith, after moving, "That this House resolve itself into a committee to consider the relations of the two ' Houses, and the duration of Parliament," | admitted that his matured judgment had brought him the conviction that j there were both room and need for a < Second Chamber — (Opposition cheers) — ' but he denied that, except in name, we ' were living under the bi-cameral system. He criticised the House of Lords for assuming the attitude of allowing Liberal measures to pass. He instanced the I Trades Disputes Bill. He quoted Lord Lansdowne (Unionist Leader in the Lords) I advising the Lords to move with' great caution, and adding that conflicts were possibly inevitable, Dut that when they , joined issue their Lordships must "choose . the ground most favourable for them- < selves." Mr. Asquith interpreted this remark of Lord Lansdowne as implying the maintenance of the powers and privi- | leges of the House of Lords. It was frankly the. restraint of a partisan) Assembly whose only consideration was that — resting as it did on a purely hereditary basis, and being in the long run devoid of authority — it must be careful not to risk its own skin. A SMALL SECOND CHAMBER. The Government desired to see ihe maintenance of the House of Commons' < predominance in legislation, but rela- ' I tively a small Second Chamber, resting ' !on a democratic, not an hereditary, I basis, might with proper safeguards usefully discharge the functions of consultation, revision, and delay. His resolutions were no final or adequate solution ' of the problem. The House of Lords.' would still retain powers which, as at present constituted, it wus still qualified j to discharge. It would remain an un- 1 representative body, able seriously to ' delay the fulfilment of the expressed , j will of the electorate. The resolutions were simply the broad basis of the Bill. Mi. Asquith went on to say that tome provision must be made against the purely speculative possibility of "tacking" in financial bill* 'Ihe Crown's creation of Peers was, in existing circumstances, the only remedy for a deadlock, and Lord Rosebcry's resolution — that the possession of a peerage per cc did not entitle the holder to sit and vote — was a fatal blow at the Royal prerogative. The right to create 1/eera hliould only be exercised in case of need, but it should then be exercised without fear. A referendum was inadmissible ; it would undermine the authority of Parliament, even if it were possible to completely segregate a particular issue. Discussing the former Royal veto, Mr. Asquith emphasised that Royalty had not suffered from its abolition. King Edward held his crown by a far securer tenure than that of the Tudora. MR BALFOUR'S REPLY. Mr. Balfour (Leader of the Opposition) attributed Mr. Asquilh's proposals, which would neither end nor mend the House of Lords, to divergence of views among the members of the Government regarding reform of the Lords. If, even with the modifications proposed, the Lords would not be ' fitted to perform their functions, why not change them? Mr. Asquith's scheme recommended that the Upper Chamber be bereft of all power. The Lords passed the Tradet Disputes Bill because, as Lord LansSowne had declared, the feeling of the community was strongly in its favour. The Lords would have preferred the Trades Disputes Bill as it was originally introduced, and so would the Government. (Opposition cheers.) The Government gave it up— why! To save their skins. (Cheers.) Cabinet Ministers had skins equally with Peers, and were as anxious to save them. It wan not «tirpri«ing that the T^oirds had resisted and delayed the measures of a revolutionary Government, but there had been no deadlock. Ministerialists were never weary of proclaiming what wonderful legislation had been patsed during the last three years. The Commons were now nuked to prevent the Lords from again rejecting Home Rule. AN ABSURD EXPERIMENT. Mr. Asquith's scheme was an absurd experiment with the Constitution. In making a denial of the Lords' right to reject a Money Bill it violated a truth of history. The "tacking" scheme would throw the responsibility on the Speaker, who thus in a sense became tho author of legislation. Mr. Lloyd-George s Budget went a good way in the direction of taxing a certain class out of existence. Was the House asked to seriouMy affirm that under those circumstances it should not commit the community? He admitted that the exercise of this safeguard ought to be rare, and it ought to be used with the utmoßt circumspection, but it would bo the height of folly for legislators to abolish the exercise of it. His opinion was held by all the great free Keif -governing States. He instanced South Africa and Australia. Mr. Asquith's proposed suspensory veto implied a Single Chamber. The position with regard to Parliament's lifetime implied living under a piebald harlequin Constitution. MR. JOHN REDMOND. Y+ John Redmond, Leader of the Irish Nationalists, heartily supported the Government, but regretted tWt the resolutions had noA been submitted during the election.* The delay would necessitate auothet election, .and might lead to a decline of enthusiasm. % DEBATE CONTINUED. , LABOUR MEMBERS DESIRE ABOLITION. (Received March 31, 10 a.m.) LONDON. 30th March. The debate on Mr. Asquith's motion was continued in the House of Commons. Mr. R. C. Munro-Fergusson (Liberal member for Leith Burghs) expressed the Moderate Liberal views, namely, that reform of the Second Chamber* should precede definition of its powers. Mr. G. N. Barnes (Labour member for the Blackfriart Division of Glasgow) urged the abolition of the House of Lords. UNIONIST AMENDMENT. NOTICE GIVEN BY SIR R. FINLAY. WILLING TO "CONSIDER PRO POSALS FOR REFORM. (Received March 31, 10.5 a.m.) LONDON, 30th Maxch. The Right Hon. Sir RoWert FinHy,.

Unionist member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities, and formerly Attorney-General in the Balfour Government, Iran given notice to move from tho First Opposition Bench tho following amendment to Mr. Asquith's resolutions :—: — "That this Houso regards a rtrong, efficient Second Chamber as necessary, ud is willing to consider proposals for reform, but declines proposals for destroying the usefulness of any Second Chamber, however confitituted, and removing the only safeguard against great changes being made by the Government of the day, not only without the consent, but against the wishes of a majority of the electors." The Whips have arranged that this amendment shall be moved to-morrow, and ,that a division shall take place on Monday next. Writing under date 11th February, tho Sydney Telegraph's London correspondent remarked : — All eyes are , turned on Mr. John Redmond. For he, , with his little band of 72 Nationalists, I holds the new Parliament of 670 mem1 bers at his mercy. Those who wish to ■ belittle the Irish leader's power declare I that the new House will dissolve on the • Constitutional issue before Home Riile 1 gets a chance to lift its head. But this does not do away with Mr. Redmond's supremacy. For unless the anticipations of the ablest's organisers on both the Liberal and the Conservative sides are badly at fault, a fresh appeal to the constituencio* will repeat very closely the results which have just been achieved. In other words, a second general election this year would again give to the Irish party the control of the , situation. The position to-day is that if the Nationalists stand beside the Liberals, Mr. Asquith's task will be easy, at least in the Commons. If Mr. Redmond and his followers abstkin from voting on either side, Mr. Asquith and his Labour allies, who must on all the issues of the moment bo counted as Liberals, will still have a fighting majority. Only by voting with the Unionists will the Home -Rulers menace th& safety of the Government. . . Mr. Redmond in Ireland and Mr. Redmond in the House of Commons are two quite ! different people. When speaking to | Irish audiences he remembers their temperament, and plays to it. At West- | minster, at least in recent sessions, his bearing has been that of a man who bided his time. His tone has been temperate, his demands moderate. He has been ' content to take all that was offered, and to endeavour to keep his inflammatory legion united and ready. Now his day has come. Home Rule, I the one plank of his party, has once \ more happened into practical politics. , More than that, its advocates appear to be on tho eve of actual success. Mr. Redmond seems likely to succeed where Parnell and others failed. At first sight it is strange that Mr. Redmond should win where greater men have lost; that the Irisr. party to-day should accomplish what was denied to the Irish party in tho past; that the Unionists and the Lords should give way now after so many years of uncompromising hostility.