THE VETO OF THE MOUSE OF LOESS.

Timaru Herald, Volume LV, Issue 5775, 19 September 1893, Page 4

THE VETO OF THE MOUSE OF LOESS.

In the House of Commons on August 14th, Mr Storey rose to move, " That it is desirable m the public interest and for the promotion of necessary legislation that any Bill which has twice passed this House, but has failed to pass elsewhere, should beoome law if with tbe support of the Government of the day it shall again pass through the Honee of Gammons m the same Parliament, and should reoeive the assent of the Grown." He submitted to the House that oar Constitution had lasted so long as it had because the political requirements and the temperament of the people had from time to time been met m accordance with the desires of each aucoeeriiDg generation ; acd secondly, he submitted that present circumstances made it absolutely necestary that tbere should be a further development m this direotion. The power of the Grown bad diminished, and the Grown bad become more popular than before. The House of Commons had obtained what wag the supreme power — that was the power of the purse ; they could regulate peace and war, and soon be hoped that no power outside their own walls would be able to determine as to their dissolution* Before 1832 the House could not be said m any real sense to represent the people of the country ; and until they came to " one man one vote " they would not have arrived at the end of the ohaper. While the House of Commons and the Crown had been popularised, the House of Lords had only been marked by retrogression. Tbe House had now come to represent oqly one political party, and they claimed to possess a permanent veto which the House of Commons would never allow to be possessed by a King, but which was now claimed by 400kingletb on the other Bide of the corridor. For the first time the Leader of that House had claimed to say practically when Parliament should be dissolved. The House of Lords had got to be out of harmony with the wishes and neccs eitieß of the people ; and the Grown could not then have a House which would be m harmony with tbe feelings of the people. In 1641 th» King claimed that those men who had always sat m the House of Lords should continue to sit there ; but the House of Commons made answer that they could not be allowed to establish a state of things that would be injurious to the people of England. They had popularised the Grown and the House of Commons , and it was time fchafc they should try to bring the House of Lords into line with the other institutions of the country. The House of Lords did not represent the people. The Church of England wae represented there, but other Christian Ghurohes wove not m any way represented m that assembly. Scotland and Ireland were supposed to be represented there, but it was really the fact that it was only the nobility of those countries that were represented. The House of Lords represented only one interest, and they bad uo sympathy with the changing opinions of the people, which were one day fiadical and another Conservative, therefore they had ceased to be m touch with the people or to represent their feelings and their opinions. It must be apparent to evory man m the country who considered the matter from a political point of view that the noire wHoh possessed ihe power of the purse had a Btrong weapon, but the Houso which claimed the power to say to the Houso that bad the power of the purse we decree that you should now dissolve had a far greater power, and wbb the master of the ocuntry. The general run of events had been to bring the Grown m accord with the people, and to make the Commons the real representatives of tbe people; while the general rnn of events and claims on the part of the other House had been to put themselves m antagonism with the other two powera which governed the country. It worked to delay all roforme, to produce weak and inefficient measures on the part of Liberal Miuiaters, and to keep the House of Common* spending its time m amending what it had already done. The House of Lords had never m eixty years pasted a complete and diffident measure — m had been persistent m obtruding is own ideas and prejudices m every measure the Liberal party had proposed. Take one instance, Irish municipal reform. In 1837 that house passed a Bill ; m the two following years they passed the same Bill, and yet m 1893 Irish municipal reform had not been achieved, and yet Lord Salisbury said that the Howe of Lords had never eet itself against the ascertained convictions of the people and the people's House. There was a score of other instances which might be quoted. A Bill proposing to give education to tbe common people, introduced into that House m 1807 by Mr Whitbread, wbb twice passed, but it was not until 1870 that the House of Lords was induced to consent to a Bill for this purpose. Perhaps the moit notorious case waa that of tbe Dccc.tej Wife's Sister Bill, affirmed by tbe Commons id one form or another no fewer than eighteen times, yet up to the present time the Lords, and especially tho Bishops, had not accepted this simple measure. What wae the remedy P One man said abolish the Lords. But that was easier said than done ;it was nothing less than a revolution. He was not going to run his head against that wall if he nould help it. There were three proposals for dealing with the House of Lords which be did not ask the House of Commons to support. If they attempted to Bbolish that assembly they would have a very large foroe againit them ; if they had an elective body they would have a formidable opponent to the Bouse of Commons -, and, lastly, he certainly would not make 600 peers, even if they were aii like the Member for Northampton. The hon. gentle* m»n would no doubt be all right, but if he had a son to succeed him he would go the way of all the other peers. (Laughter and Ministerial cheers.) ' The best course for dealing with the Mouse of Lords was m a constitutional way. A House of Beview had no right to be a House of Initiation ; let the peers review and amend and be content with that. (Ministerial cheers.) When a Bill had been twice thrown out by the House of Lords

I and was passed a third time by the Home of ' Dominone, it should, when it had reoeived the Koyal üßnont, become law. If the Home Bule Bill passed the House of Commons twice and was twice thrown out by the Hou9o of Lords, and was again passed by a majority of this House, it. should reoeive the royal assent. Mr Heath : What about the people ? Mr Storey : We represent tbe people. Mr Darling : Not on the Home Bule Bill. Mr Storey said if bis proposal were carried the House of Lords would know that if they rejeoted a Bill twioe their power over it would be gone, and they would, therefore, bease to use the veto and make an attempt to destroy legislation. They would try to improve it and amend it, and get it m the best form for the benefit of the people, ,Mr Snape said that for many years the nation had suffered from the delay m legislation caused by the obstructive action of the House of Lords. The Nonconformists were barred from the Universities, and, with the Jews, were prevented from giving their valuable servhei to the House of Commons by the persistent use of the veto year after yflar by the House of Lords, lhat assembly was out of touch with the people, and therefore he hoped that the House would accept the moderate resolution of his hon. friend. Mr Darling asked whether tbe objeot of the resolution was not to enable Badioal and Irish legislation to.be passed without discussion. The hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr Storey) appeared to be m favour of a single Chamber. (Mr Storey : " I terer said bo.") If he was m favour of a single Chamber, no doubt he would do everything be could to bring the House of Lords into contempt* The hon. Member wu speaking at twenty minutes to eleven o'clock, when the House was counted out, there being only 87 Members present.