FUTURE OF THE LORDS

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15252, 15 March 1913, Page 7

FUTURE OF THE LORDS

LIBERALS' REFORM POLICY. HEREDITARY SYSTEM TO GO. NO ABSOLUTE VETO. MR. LONG'S AMENDMENT DEFEATED. i By Telegraph.— Association.—Copyright i London, March 13. ; The debate on the amendment to the Address-in-Reply, moved by Mr. Walter Long (Unionist), in reference [ to the question of the reform- of the House of Lords, was concluded in the House of Commons to-day. Mr. Bonar, Law (Leader of the Opposition) denounced the impropriety of passing great measures without reference to the electors. Mr. Herbert Samuel (PostmasterGeneral) replied that it was the Government's duty not to leave the reform of the House of Lords to the Unionists, who would only provide a colourable reform with restoration of the veto. The Government, he said, would be blind if it did not anticipate that policy in the present Parliament. The new second chamber would not contain a vestige of the hereditary principle, . and under no circumstances would the absolute veto be restored. Subsequently the Prime Minister informed Mr. L. W. Lawsori (Unionist member for Mile End), that a committee of the Cabinet was considering the question of the reform of the Lords. Mr. Long's amendment " That this House is of opinion 7 that it is improper to proceed with Home Rule for Ireland or the disestablishment "of the Church in Wales while the House of Lords is not reformed and without reference to the electors," was defeated by 232 to 169. N PROVISIONS OF THE VETO ACT. Tho preamble of the Parliament (Veto) Act, which was passed in 1911, sets forth: . "Whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for regulating the relations between the two Houses of Parliament: And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a - popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation: And whereas provision will require hereafter to be made by Parliament in a measure effecting such substitution for limiting and defining the powers of the new Second Chamber, but it is expedient to make such provision as in this Act appears for restricting tho existing . powers of the House of Lords." Under the provisions of the Act, * the Lords may reject any Bill (other than a Money Bill) in throe successive sessions after the measure has been passed by the House of Commons. After the third rejection the Bill may. be presented to the King and become law on the Royal Assent beincf given, notwithstanding that the Lords have not agreed to the Bill. This provision is subjeot to the stipulation that not less than two years shall have elapsed from the date of the Bill first passing its second reading in the House of Commons, and the date on which it passes that chain-' ber for the third time. The Lords thus have the power to delay the passage of Bills. for not more than two years. The Lords', power of veto in regard to Money Bijls is entirely removed by the Act.' -If any such Bill, after being passed by the House of Commons and being sent to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of a session, is not passed without amendment • by the Lords within one month, the Bill may become law on receiving the Royal. Assent.