THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 1910. THE VETO PROPOSALS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14327, 24 March 1910, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 1910. THE VETO PROPOSALS.

The "Veto proposals" of Mr. Asquith '-.have at last been placed before the House - of • Commons in the form of. resolutions. The proposals arc that the House of Lords shall " be disabled by law from rejecting or amending money. Bills," and that any Bill passed in three successive sessions .'" 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." The purpose of this, it should be noted, is fundamentally different from the aim of any, of the schemes for reforming the House, of Lords/ Under the British Constitution,' which, though unwritten, is well defined, the Lords and the Commons have equal; powers upon all legislative; - matters * excepting money Bills; money Bills may be rejected by the House of. Lords, but cannot be altered by them ; all Bills require the consent of' both Lords and Commons in order to become Acts , of Parliament. Mr. Asquith proposes that the power to reject money, Bills be taken away from tmHouse of' Lords, and that their power to reject any Bill sent up from the Commons be restricted. The effect of this would be to make a . Single Chamber system for all financial measures and an unequal Dual Chamber system for legislation generally. The term u veto" has become customarily, applied to the action of the Lords : in rejecting measures which have passed the Commons, but excepting in so far as it refers to . money Bills the term is wholly incorrect. The House of Lords considers and discusses all Parliamentary measures in much the same way as docs the House of Commons ; ordinary' disputes between the two Houses have arisen not because either exercised any " veto" against the other, but bccause they failed to agree upon the measure in question. In the case of the Budget, what may with some exactness be called " veto" was employed, - the Lords having no right to amend money Bills and making.no attempt to do so. They " vetoed" the Budget for the expressed object of. giving the electors the opportunity of deciding upon extremely V debatable and 'doubtful clauses which had been " tacked \ to "the Finance Bill, and the result of the general elections must be regarded as proof that - this reference to the electors was justifiable. Mr. Asquith's proposal to " limit the veto" of, the House .of Lords by depriving them of all power over money Bills is particularly revolutionary, because it makes the Speaker of the House of Commons the ' sole arbiter as to what constitutes a money Bill, and thus leaves the door open to the " tacking" strategy against which the Lords have always protested. . There is no apparent need for this particular proposal, excepting to facilitate " tacking," for " the Lords have always been -' scrupulous in avoiding any \ interference with money Bills, and have been guilty of no-greater offence than' the reference of one very doubtful Budget to the electors. But Mr. Asquith must placate the extremists who give hint! his majority, and is endeavouring to do so by as extensive an attack upon the power of the House of Lords as he can make with • any show of reason; : ;- j ' A - . ' * - '■ ' , '/ The second resolution, which proposes to definitely reduce the grade of the House of Lords and to deprive it of equal authority on general Bills with the House of Commons, is founded upon the demands . of the Nationalists. " That party, which' contributes a solid• cohort of about 80 votes to every Parliament, can turn Mr. Asquith ...out of office on any crucial division. .: They, have therefore to be taken into' very serious consideration in the party councils, j and as the House of Lords would refuse to pass, unamended, any Home Rule Bill calculated' to disrupt the United Kingdom or to denounce , Imperial responsibilities, the price placed by the Nationalists upon their. support is the expulsion of the House of Lords from their present place in the British Constitution. This expulsion. is being cloaked under the guise of " limiting the veto," and the course proposed by Mrv. Asquith ; would give to a bare majority in the House of Commons, sustained for two years and through three sessions, the power to pass a Home Rule Bill or any other Bill, no matter what might be done by the Second Chamber. The sweeping and revolutionary character of this . proposal may be judged by comparing -it with the American constitutional method of "limiting the veto" of Federal . Presidents and .State Governors. Although these - are t only individual officers a two-thirds majority of Congress and "State Legislatures respectively is required to carry a law over their heads, while it is proposed by Mr. Asquith that a bare majority —a,majority of-orife in a House of 670. members— carry a law in

the, United Kingdom over "the heads of the whole House of Lords. It might be proposed, with justice and reason, that a two-thirds majority of the Commons might over-ride even areformed House of.. Lords, but ; this would not suit the plans of the Nationalists, and consequently we do not' hear it suggested by Mr. Asquith. The House of Commons will presumably adopt the Prime Minis ter's resolutions, for with the Labour and / Nationalist " parties he has a nominal majority of 123; but when they are submitted to the House of• Lords they will certainly be rejected if the Government forces a decision. This would lead in due course to the resignation of the Ministry and to another : appeal .to the country, for Mr. Balfour • will certainly refuse to attempt to carry on the affairs of the . country with a Parliament m which the majority is against • him. ,Meanwhile the " Budget remains un dealt, with, financial , confusion increases, and Mr. Lloyd-George has the. dismal satisfaction of'knowing that he is - leaving to his successor a most unenviable Chancellorship and a mortgaged Exchequer.