POWERS OF THE LORDS.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXV, Issue 13035, 31 March 1910, Page 5

POWERS OF THE LORDS.

■ TH^' 1 PREMIER’S RESOLUTIONS. ‘ /Debate do Housg of Commons. . Press Association.—Tßlograph.--Uopyright ‘ LONDON, March 30. , The Hon. 11. H. Asquith, in the course ; . tf. his speech; admitted that matured judg ment had brought to him the conviction ■Uiot; f.flpre was both room and need for: a second , cheers) —but v he denied ibat, except in name, we were livihg uiider’'d bi-cameral system. He criticised the Lords for assuming the attitude of allowing Liberal measures to pass, and instanced ■■she Trades Dispute B ; ll. He quoted Lord Larisdowne, ad vising the Lords , to move with great caution; and adding'' that conflicts were' possibly inevitable, but their lordships must- choose the ground most favourable to-: themselves. Mr Aaqfiitb interpreted this to mean the main'/tenanoe :of the Lords’ powers and privileges. It was frankly the restraint of a partisan assembly, the-Government desired* to see the,maintenance. >f the Commons’ -predominance .in legislation, but a relatively, small second chamber, resting . qp a democratic, hot hereditary basis, might, with proper safeguardsi usefully discharge the.functions of consultation, re-vision-'and de%r.'.■.■^f'hdded , ■: ■/. ■ “The House of Lords, as at .pre- ; sent .constitutedjicwas an, unrepre- ; ~ sontative body able, seriously - to delay the fulfilment of the ex- , .pressed will, of the electorates.’'

The Premier went'on to say that his resolutions were simply the broad basis ol a Bill. Some provision must be made against the purely speculative possibility of tacking in financial Bills. The Crown's

creation of .peers in the’ existing circum v stances- was the only remedy for the dead. • “ lock. The Rosebery resolution that the 1 possession of the peerage per se did not . .entitle one to.sit and vote was a fatal blow to the Royal Prerogative. The right should only be exercised in case 1 of need, but then exercised without fear. A referendum was inadmissible. It would under- ! mine the authority of Parliament, even if it", were’ possible to completely segregate the .particular issue. Discussing the former ' Royal Veto, .be emphasised that Royalty had; not suffered from its abolition. King Edivard held the Crown by a far more se-

efire tenure than did the Tudors. t/Ihe Hon. A. J. Balfour. Leader of the Opposition, attributed Mr Asquith’s proposals, which neither ended dor mbnded tpe Lords, to the divergence of the views of. the members of the Government. Re-

gairding the reform of the Lprds, even vyitb ' the modifications proposed, if The Lords 'twereiunfitted' t'o peifofnv* their fPhctiir.'s, why not change them ? Mr Asquith’s scheme recommended a Chamber bereft of all power. The Lords passed the Trades’ Disputes Bill because, as Lord Lansdowiie declared, the feeling of the community ,was strongly, in its favour. The Lords Wppjd have preferred the Trade? Disputes Bill; as originally introduced: . So would the Government. (Opposition cheers.) The . Government gave it up. / W’hyE To save their skins. (Cheers.) The Cabinet iMinisC tfire had skins equally with the Peers, and that they were as anxious, to save then . whs not surprising. Tlie Lords resistqi' and delayed the measures of a revolution ary Government, but there’ had been 'h ■deadlock. Ministerialists were never w e/ijr of proclaiming wliat wonderful legislation ■ hhd been passed during' , the last t9roo: years,. The Commons were now asken’to . prevent' the; Lords again rejecting 1 Rpie; Mr Asquith’s scheme was ’an fitturd exfjetimeht. Mr . Lloyd-George’a • Balget went a _good way in the direction oWAxing • a certain class out of Yr As. quuhia proposed suspehsory veto in/lied a single Chamber position, and a/Parliament’s lifetime implied, living umP ’a pie* u(l bald hqrliequin Constitution. v 7 Mr Redmond heartily supporte/the Gov- • ernment, but . regretted' that fie resolu- • tions were not submitted duri* the election. The delay necessitated .nqther election, and might, lefctd to a A deline in en.thpsiasm. ’ a.J’ ", inform /v. ab/Mtion. Receiyed March 3Y8.38 a.m. LONWN, March 30. Mr Munrb-Fergussp? expressed the moderate Liberal’ view? that the' reform ’ of the‘Second chamliephould precede the fixing/of definite pbyhs. 1 Mr G..N. Barnes. /ged. the abolition of '■jllrj'A, Finlay nficed that the first bhnch amendmentf.tates that the House ‘regards a strop& an< t efficient second ‘‘ chamber ,as and is willing to i l ' oqhsider propqa? ;fpr reform,, hut declipes proposals? dr destroying the usefulness of any sepd chamber, however constituted, aud? , anw ) v,ing ..thp ,qplyj /safeguard again/ great changes being made of the day, not only without tHffionaent by against the wishes rof .the mai/ity of the electors, : ; v The '‘arranged / that this -• •amendifiW shall' bo moved tplnjorrow and a otl Monday. ‘