REFORMING THE LORDS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14326, 23 March 1910, Page 7

REFORMING THE LORDS.

; THE EJIiST < STEP. *!. . .LIMITING /THE .VETO.' ' MR. ASQUITH'S RESOLUTIONS SHORTER PARLIAMENTS. ■'■"''■ ' / By Telegraph.—Press Association.—Copyright. :,'-.' ■ *■ '■,■■' ' .••■ .' ■■■• t (Received March 22, 10.45 p.m.) ■ , London, March 22. In the House of Commons to-day Mr. Asquith submitted resolutions as follows for limiting the veto of the House of Lords ; (1) It is expedient that the House of Lords should be disabled by law from rejecting or amending money Bills, these to be defined as Bills which the Speaker considers contain . only provisions dealing with the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation, also charges on the Consolidated Fund or the provision o f money by Parliament, also the supply and appropriation, control or regulation of public money, also the raising and guaranteeing of loans or matters incidental, to these subjects. . . ■ (2) It is expedient that the House of Lords' powers respecting Bills other than money. Bills be legally restricted, so that .when a Bill has passed the House of Commons three successive sessions and 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 House of Lords' consent .upon the Royal Assent, provided that at least two years shall elapse between its 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. . The third resolution limits the duration of Parliament to five years. The Daily News states that the resolutions will create profound satisfaction throughout the country, not being complicated by questions- of second chamber reform. The Times complains of the provision making the Speaker the sole judge of "tacking" resolutions, but says this is a shade less objectionable with quinquennial than with septennial parliaments. Radical lobby opinion criticises the provision whereby two years must elapse between the. first introduction and the third rejection of a Bill, considering that this would have the effect of sterilising the closing years of a parliament's existence. ,