SECOND VETO RESOLUTION.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LVII, Issue LVII, 13 April 1910, Page 5

SECOND VETO RESOLUTION.

- MOVED BY MR ASQUITH.

LONDON, April 12. "It is expedient that the powers of the House of Lords respecting Bills other than Money Bills he legally restricted so that when a Bill has passed the House of Commons three successive sessions, and ' has been sent to the House of Lords at least a month before the end of the session, and rejected in each ,of the three sessions, it shall become law without • the consent of the ' House of Lords upon the Royal Assent being given, provided that at least two years shall elapse between the first introduction to the House of Commons and the date when it passes' the House of Commons for the third time.^ . • "Bills shall be treated as rejected if not passed by the House of Lords without amendment, or with only amendments agreed to by both Houses." . , , Mr Asquith, in moving his second resolution, emphasised that the absolute veto of the Lords would remain untouched, except where there was an overwhelmingly strong presumption that the House of Commons' decisions expressed the people's opinion. He admitted there were conceivable actual cases wherein the decision of the Commons might not represent' the opinion, of the people, instancing a scratch maiority banded together urder the .coercion of party exigencies for particular and transient purposes, or a crumbling majority which had lost popular favor. Therefore a Second Chamber, even such as the present House of Lords, had its uses, and ought to be allowed to exercise its powers to prevent abuse of conetitutional forms. He m explained that according to his resolution there would be two years' delay between the introduction and the final passing of a. Bill. Under the new system a Bill must precede a general election. He added that though the preamble of the Veto Bill foreshadowed a change in the Second Chamber's constitution, this would take a loi:g time, even under the most favorable circumstances. Hence the operative clauses would not travel beyond i the resolutions. , Mr Walter Long dwelt on cases, such as Home Rule, wherein had .Mr Asquith' s scheme prevailed, Bills would have been carried against the will and opinion of the people. He held that the resolution was inopportune and inadequate without reform, and, as it stood', destructive, and depriving the Lords of all useful power. Mr Barran supported the resolution conditional on-^s being preliminary to an early and drastic reconstruction oi the Lords. * ' . The "Right Hon. Herbert Samuel contended that until the Lords' powers were abridged the Government would be unable to undertake their re-constitu-iion.