A CROWDED HOUSE.

Colonist, Volume LII, Issue 12756, 31 March 1910, Page 2

A CROWDED HOUSE.

MJI BALFOTJR'S REPLY. (Received March .30, 11.15 p.m.) London, March *3'ol The House of Commons was crowded, the Prince of Wales, many peers, the American Ambassador, and other dipbmatists being present. Mr Asquith admitted that matured judgment had .brought to him the conviction that there was both room 1 and need for a second chamber—(Opposition cheers) — but he denied that except in name they were living under a bi-cameral system. He criticised the House of Lords in "assuming tho attitude of allowing Liberal' measures to pass • and instanced the' Trades Disputes Bill. Ho quoted Lord Lansdowne as advising the House of Lords to 'move with'great caution, adding that conflicts were possibly inevitable but they joined issue and their lordships must choose the ground most favourable to themselves. He interpreted this to Tiioan implying the -maintenance of their powers and privileges. It was frankly restraint of a- partisan assembly. Tho only consideration was that resting on a purely hereditary basis, and in tlje Jong run devoid of authority, it must be careful not to risk its own skin. The Government desired to see the maintenance of the House of Commons' predominance in legislation, but a relatively small second -chamber resting upon a -democratic, not an hereditary basis might with proper safeguards usefully discharge the functions of consultation, revision, and delay. His resolutions offered no final or adequate solution. Tho House of Lords would still retain the powers which as at present constituted it was qualified to discharge. It would remain an unrepresentative body, ahlo to seriously delay the fulfilment of the .expressed will of the electorate. The resolutions were simply a broad basis for a Bill. . (Received March 31, 0.20 a.m.) Mr Asquith went on to say that some provision must be made against the mircily speculative possibility of tacking in financial Bills. The ' Crown's creation of peers in the existing circumstances was the only remedy for the deadlock. Lord R-osebery's resolution that possession of a peerago per se should not entitle the holder to s sit and vote was a fatal blow at tho ■ Royal prerogative. The right Should • only be exercised incaseof need, but i then exercised without fear. A refer- , endum was inadmissible, as it would I uiidormine.the authority of Parliament . even if it were possible to completely segregate the particular issue. Discussing the former Royal veto, ho emphasised that royalty had not suffered from its abolition. King Edward held the crown by a far securer tenure -than, the Tudors. ' Mr Balfour attributed Mr Asquith's proposals, which neither ended nor mended the House of Lords, to the divergence of views of memI bers oj: the Government regarding re- ( form. Even with the modifications proposed, tho House of Lords would . not fill or perform its functions. Why not change them? Mr ' Asquith's ( scheme recommended a chamber be> reft of all power. The House of Lords passed the Trades Disputes Bill because, as Lord Lansdowne declared, tho feeling of the community was strongly in its favour. The House or Lords would have preferred the Trades Disputes Bill as it was originally introduced, and so' would tho Government. (Opposition cheers.) Tho Government gave it vp — why? To l save their skins. (Cheers.) Cabinet Ministers had skins equally with peers, and were as anxious to save them. It was not surprising that tho House of Lords resisted and delayed measures of, a revolutionary Government, but there head been r no deadlock. Ministerialists were' never woary of proclaiming what wonderful legislation they had passed in . the last three years. The* House -of Com- ■ mons was now askfed to prevent the House of Lords again rejecting Homo ' Rule. Mr Asquith's scheme was an " absurd experiment with the constitu--1 lion, making denial o f the Lords' right to. reject a money Bill." It violated truth and history, tacking on a scheme to throw the responsibility on tho Speaker, who thus in a sense be- [ came the author of legislation. Mr ; Lloyd .George's Budget went a good ' way in the direction' of taxing a certain class out of existence. AVas tliis House asked seriously to affirm it under those circumstances? Consult the community. He admitted that the exercise of this safeguard ought to bo rare^ and used with the utmost circumspection, but it would be tho height of folly to, abolish its exercise. His opinion was held by all the great free self-governing States, as instanco South Africa and Australia. Mr Asquith's proposed suspensory veto implied a singlo chamber. Mr Redmond heartily supported the 'Government, but regretted that the resolutions wero not submitted,-dur-ing the election. Tho delay, would necessitate another election, and might lead to a decline of enthusiasm.