THE VETO BILL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7847, 8 July 1911, Page 1

THE VETO BILL

MUTILATION OF CLAUSE 2 LORD LAXSOO WXE ’ S AMENDMENT CARRIED. By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright. LONDON, July (3. The Douse of Lords resumed the debat'd on Lord Lausdowno’s amendment to clause E of tho Parliament Bill, from tlio operation of tho Bill any Bills affecting tho existence of tho Crown; tho Protestant Succession; Homo Rule for Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or England; anything which a joint committee of tho two Houses regards as an issue of great gravity, upon which tho judgment of the country has boon insiillicicntly expressed. LORD WEARDALE URGES A REEEREXDU.Ai. Lord AVoardalo declared that tho Government had made a profound mistake) in not adopting tho principle of tho referendum. Regarding Lord Morley’s contention that tho referendum would bo destructive of representative government, ho had seen this take many forms. Twenty-live years ago Liberal opinion had its say, whichever quarter it camo from, and it influenced Liberal action. They nowadays had tho closure, the caucus, and group systems; hence, owing to tho altered conditions, the referendum was now indispensable. It was necessary for the security of tho State. Proceeding, Lord Wcardalo argued that representative government was now tending, not to liberty, but to oligarchy. The country had accepted the principal of Horae Rule, but that did not imply all forms of Homo Rule. The Government claimed a mandate for thin Bill, but this mandate did not imply an unalterable, sacrosanct measure. Tho passing of tho Bill would open tho flood-gates, of faction strife,' and perhaps reaction. Ho appealed to tho Government to reconsider the matter, and make a final settlement. GOVERNMENT WILL NOT HAVE REFERENDUM. Lord Haldane, Minister of War, replied that tho referendum had been rejected systematically by democracies right through modern times. It was only used in Australia when tho two Houses differed regardiug the Constitution. This statement was received with loud Unionist cheers. Tho Government, Lord Haldane concluded, would not have tho referendum in any conceivable circumstances. Lord Selborne declared that tho referendum had cento to stay. Australia’s remarkable experience had proved that it was a practical instruj> menb of democratic government, uuimpairing tho main features of representative government. Lord Lansdowno’s amendment was carried, tho voting being For the amendment 253 Against i 46 Majority for 207 Lords Courtney and Weardale, and tho Bishop of Ripon abstained from voting. The Archbishops were absent. Tho Bishop of Birmingham voted with tho minority.

THROUGH COMMITTEE ADDITION OF A NEW CLAUSE. (Received July 7, 9.30 p.m.) LONDON, July 7. The Parliament Bill 'lms passed through the committee stage in the House of Lords. AN AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN. Lord Newton’s amendment oxomptring from the operation of the Bill •until after the general election any Bill further limiting the legislative powers of the House of Lords, was withdrawn, with the view of introducing it as a separate clause. Lord Moriey remarked that this was the only amendment not directly contradicting the fundamental principle of tho Bill, but, taken in conjunction with Li'rd Lansdowne’s amendment, tho Government was unable to accept it. A JOINT COMMITTEE SUGGESTED. Lord Cromer proposed the amendment, of which he had given notice, for tho addition of a new clause to tho Bill appointing a joint committee of seven members of each House, whereof the Speaker of the Houso of Commons shall bo chairman, to decide what is a Money Bill and other doubtful points, the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor to select the committee in such a manner as to secure an impartial tribunal. This amendment was adopted with an addition moved by Lord St. Aldwyn (formerly Sir Michael Hicks-Benchl giving tho Speaker: of the House of

Commons a casting vote in addition to a substantive vote. UNIONIST PEESS VIEWS A COMMITTEE TO ASSIST THE SPEAKER. (Received July T, 9.43 p.m.) LONDON.' July 7. Tho Unionist newspapers state that considerable importance is attached to tho speech of Lord Pool -(who was Speaker of the ±tonso of Commoiis from ISB4 to 189.3) urging the Government to give the Speaker a committee to* assist him, and not jeopardise his impartial standing by making him tho sole authority in disputes between the two Houses. LORD NEWTON'S AMENDMENT. A POSSIBLE BASIS OF COMPROMISE. Lord Morloy’s not unfriendly reception of Lord Newton’s amendment, coupled with tho desire on the Unionist side to see it presented on tho report stage of the Bill not complicated by other issues, has raised hope of its serving as the basis for a compromise. “ The Times ” remarks that there is little doubt that if the Unionist (leaders acquiesced in. the Commons rejecting their main amendments, the Government would accept Lord Newton’s amendment, which, with the proposal to give the Speaker the assistance of a committee, represents tho pivot of an ultimate arrangement. TEXT OP CLAUSE 2. Clause 2 of tiio Parliament Bill, to which tho amendment given in the foregoing message' has been added by tho House of Lords, reads as follows: 2. (1J If any Bill other than a (Money Bill is passed by tho House of Commons in three successive sessions (whether iu tho same Parliament or not), and, having boon sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before tho end of • tho session, is rejected by tho House of Ixirds in each of those sessions, that Bill shall on its rejection for tho third time by the House of Lords, unless tho House of Commons direct to tho contrary. bo presented to his Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Loyal Assent being signified thereto, notwithstanding that tho House of Lords has not conscuted to the Bill

Provided that this provision shall not take ehect unless two years have elapsed between the date of the first introduction of the Bill in the Houso of Commons and the date on which it passes tho House of Commons for the third time.

(2) A BUI shall bo deemed to be rty jccted by tbo House of Lords if it is not passed by tho House of Lords either without amendment or with bach amendments only as may be agreed to by both. Houses. (5) A BUI shall bo deemed to be tho same Bill as a former Bill tent up to the House of Lords in tho sesfiian if, when it is sent, up to the House of Lords, it is- identical with the former Bill or contains only such alterations as aro certified by the Speaker of tho Houso of Commons to be necessary owing to tho time which has elapsed since tho date of the former BUI, or to represent amendments which have been, made by tho House of Lords in tho former Bill in the preceding session. Provided that the House of Commons may, if it think fit. on the passage of such a Bill through the House in the second or third session, suggest any farther amendments without inserting the amendments in the Bill, and any such suggested amendments shall be considered by tho House of Lords, and if agreed to by that Houso shall be treated as amendment made by tho Hnn.-.o of Lords and agreed to by the House of Commons; but tho cxerciso of this power by tho House of Commons shall not affect tho operation of this section in the event of the Bill being rejected py the Houso of Lords.