THE VETO BILL.

Greymouth Evening Star, 23 February 1911, Page 6

THE VETO BILL.

SECOND READING PROPOSED. "A CHAMBER OF RICH MEN." [per press association—copyright.] LONDON, Feb. 22. On rising to propose the first reading of the Bill, Mr Asquith received an ovation. In the course of his speech, he said it was admitted that the House of Lords must yield to the will of the electorate. Their rejection of the Budget of 1909 was the most stupendous blunder that had ever been perpetrated by the Lords. By their 'action on that occasion they committed political suicide. Mr Asquith characterised tho assertion that the Government wished to rule by a despotic single chamber as an unsubstantial nightmare. There were, he said, conceivable conditions in which the referendum might be employed as a possible expedient in dealing with exceptional cases, but if it were to be regarded as a regular part of the Constitution, it it would.reduce the elections to a. sham and. would degrade the House of Commons to the level of a talking club. The referendum, he declared, was more revolutionary than the Veto Bill. Mr Balfour (Leader of the Unionists) declared that a general election was not a decision upon one issue, whereas the referendum was. The government had last week claimed that the election had given a decision against preference and tariff reform, and by what miracle could the same veto decide the details concerning the House of Lords. He hoped that the controversy would proceed without controversial violence, which was not desirable this year, but he would not assent to an agreement imposing a Constitutional change which the people did not desire. They certainly desired „ a change, but they did not desire a revolutionary change at the bidding of the Irish minority. He asked were some of the issues so great that compromise was impossible. A purely elective second chamber, he declared, was inconsistent with the predominance of the House of Commons. Unless the Government wished to destroy the predominance of the House of Commons; he urged, it would be folly to throw aside the whole hereditary principle. Mr Ramsay MacDonald (chairman of the Labour'Party) said that he recognised with regret that a majority cf the people insisted upon a second chamber composed of rich men, who were able to spend money to ( contest

enormous constituencies. This was going from the frying pan into the fire. He wouid object less to the present system, which had an aesthetic and picturesque value. The Labour Party objected to the preamble of the Veto Bill, but he would rather that it should accept that than forego reform. Mr Corey intimated that though he sympathised with the Bill he would vote against it unless it was made clear that it was not to be used to carry Home Rule. NEW YORK, February 22. The Senates Committee, which is considering the reciprocity agreement, learned that President Taft had not consulted any of the interest affected. This disclosure is likely to afford ground for retarding the progress of the bill. PRESS COMMENTS. The Times, in commenting on the Veto Bill, says that there was nothing in Mr Asquith's speech to indicate a disposition to listen to modification. Balfour, impressed by this uncompromising attitude, seemed resigned to a bitter contest. The Daily Mail declares that the driving; power is not that of the Liberals, but that of the Nationalists and Laborites. If the Cabinet's aim is some strong dual chamber, and no single chamber autocracy, then the Unionists are at one with Mr Asquith and it is only necessary to consider details, but. this would involve vital modifications in the Bill. The Daily News says that judging by Mr Balfour's remarks the Opposition to the 81l will be one of shadows and phantoms. The Marquis of Lansdown has announced that the Unionists will bring in a bill at an early date to amend the constitution of the House of Lords.