IMPERIAL POLITICS.

Grey River Argus, 24 November 1910, Page 7

IMPERIAL POLITICS.

THE VETO BILL

AN ANGRY DISCUSSION,

A DRAMATIC FINALE

IBr Eiiectric Telegraph— Copyright. )

LONDON, Nov 22,

Yesterday's sitting of the House of Lords was somewhat remarkable, and it came to a sudden, dramatic and an angry close.

Lord Crewe (Secretary for the Colonies) in a moderate speech, argued that the Parliament Bill offered no risk of hurried legislation. He complained that the Unionists had unfairly described the Government's measure as a isingle-chamber proposal. Lord Crewe comended the Bill as restoring a reasonable measure of freedom to the chosen representatives of a free nation. ,

The Unionist Leader Lord Lansdowne, in securing- an adjournment until to-morrow, said he wished to emphasise that had there been a free discussion on the Bill by the Lords, and possibly some amendments, many of the Peers would have -supported its second reading", He proposed that the house should on Wednesday discuss the resolutions he was tabling- with the view of completing- the Lord's own schemes of reform, whereof the 'first part embodied Lord Rosebery's resolutions. Lord Crewe enquired whether the resolutions would be moved as an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Parliament Bill. Lord Lansdowne replied : — "All I propose is to adjourn to discuss the ire solutions. •Lord Crewe again asked the intentions of the Opposition regarding the Government's measure. NO ALTERNATIVE. Lord Salisbury, replied that it was intolerable . that the Peers ishould be restricted to "aye" or "no" If the were not allowed to submit alternative ■Qropsals in reference to the Bill after the second reading, they would do so •before th c second reading-. Lord Beauchamp (Minister of Works) remarked— "The Opposition asked for the Bill and ihen they ran away." . Lord Rosebery, in replying 'to a remary by Lord Beauchamp that the course taken by Lord Lansdowne was unprecedented, asked: Whose fault is ■ that ? He added that the Peers were chained mute under the shadow of a Constitution Conference and the bill now introduced by the Government, un der pressure, was attempting- to abolish one estate of the realm without set ■tling- anything-. The Lords did not mean to submit to the gag-. Lord Loreburn said • that thequestion had .long- been debated. The experience of five years had led them lo ■the conclusion that the Government would be unable to usefully conduce the business of the country while the present relations between the two Houses continued. Things must be settled one way or the other. A motion far the adjournment of the debate was carried. THE UNIONIST PROPOSALS Lord Lansdowne, after the adjourn■merit of this part of thel debate read his resolutions. These provide that in the case of differences arising on bii's, other 'than, money bills, a joint sitting should be held of the House of Commons and Lords, which should be reconstituted and reduced in numbers in accordance with the Lords recent resolutions.. Nevertheless in matters of great gravity, the' bill should "Se submitted to a referendum of the country. The Lords should forego the right to reject or amend purely money bills but questions of 'taxing should be 'settled by a joint committee of both houses. If' the Committee decided that the measure was not purely financial, then the Bill or provisions so considered, should! b e dealt witn forthwith by a joint sitting of both houses.

It is stated on high authority that the Government would have been willing to accept an amendment to the Par liament Bill providing for co-operation for the remainder of the present parl-ia ment. -