The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, MAY 22, 1911. THE PARLIAMENT BILL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7446, 22 May 1911, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, MAY 22, 1911. THE PARLIAMENT BILL

Mr Balfour’s suggestion that the British Ministry, being indisposed to accept Lord Lansdowne’s Bill for reform of tho Lords, should produce its scheme of detailed reform has been made so many times that it seoms rather odd to find tho matter considered worth cabling to this end of the earth. The suggestion has been published at least a score of times and the answer quite as often. The reply is this: That until tho power of rejection now possessed by the Peers is reduced in somo such manner as is contoihplated by the Parliament Bill it would be useless for the Commons to send a Reform Bill to their Lordships. Any measure of tho kind would be simply kicked back to its authors. When tho veto one House possesses over tho work of the other is removed then and not till then can organic change in the personnel of the second chamber ho usefully discussed, Thai is the position taken up by the Government and it is one that the rhetoric of the Conservatives' fails to weaken. Moreover the attitude ■Mr Balfour complains of is tho inevitable result of the Lords’ revolutionary attempt to exercise authority over national finance. The last appeals to the constituencies were not based upon out and dried schemes of reform, but upon the simple issue of whether the Lords wore to be the dominating authority under the Constitution. At the electtions of 1910 tho electors sustained tho protest of the 'Commons against rejection of the Budget; and this year, by an equally large majority supported the Parliament Bill. Lord Curzon, it will have been noticed, complains that insistence by Ministers upon this measure does not represent public opinion. Individual interpretation of public opinion is rarely free from traces of personal bias, and in this case it would seem that his Lordship is not conceding enough to the other side. Public opinion so far as it can ho expressed at the ballot box —never accurately, it must be admitted, under tho present system—has supported the Ministry steadily and has certainly shown no disposition to support tho programme of tho Conservatives. While the Liberals can claim with strong reason to have a special mandate to pass the Parliament Bill they could not advance a single argument to justify them in formulating schemes of reform before the veto had first been destroyed. To bring forward a Reform Bill now would be the first word in a decado of controversy; would involve elections and then more elections. Indeed its appearance ■ would give a fresh lease of life to the Conservatives and ' adroitly met would most probably lead to a change of Government. Were it not of hopes like this the demand of Mr Balfour and his friends for production of a measure of reform as distinct from the anti-Yeto Bill would not be so insistent, for there is good reason to think that tho Peers have less objection to the Parliament Bill than to reform in the sense spoken of by the Conservative and Liberal leaders. Self-preservation being the strongest of all instincts it is hard ,to believe that over six hundred peers would prefer to bo reformed out of existence rather than to retain the wide powers of suspension, revision and delay left to them by Mr Asquith’s policy. For them the present House of Lords with curtailed authority is a better bargian than Lord Lansdowno’s proposal. When the consequences of accepting the Parliament Bill are weighed against tho consequences of rejection it will be realised by their Lordships that rejection flies up and kicks the beam. It would give an opportunity to the Liberals of gaining a complete ascendancy in this and subsequent Parliaments, for tho appointment of three or four hundred new Peers is no imaginary contingency. So while they profess eagerness to bo reformed it may bo taken for granted that their Lordships will accept the Parliament Bill, protesting, of course, but inwardly thankful it is net tho medicine they asked for.