CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 779, 31 March 1910, Page 5

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.

POSITION OF THE CEOWN.: \. (Eeo. March 30, 11.15. p.m.) , ■'■ ■■ ■ :■;•■■- London, March 89. . The House of Commons was crowded. Besides the Prince of Wales,, many Peers followed the proceedings, and the American Ambassador ■-(Mγ. Whitelaw Eeid) .and other diplomatists ware present. THE PRIME MINISTER. _ Mr. Asquith admitted that "his. matured judgment had brought him the conviction that there was both 'room <and- need for a ;..;Second. chcers)-but ho ..denied . that, ■ except in name, we were living under the bi-cameral system. -He .criticised,: the House of Lords, for-assuming, the attitude of allowing Liberal measures to pass. Be instanced the ..Trades ;Disputes.-Bill.- , He quoted Lord Lansdowne (Unionist Leader in the Lords), advising the Lords to move with,great caution, and adding that-con-flicts, were possibly, inevitable,, but that, .when they: joined .issue, their. Lordships must "choose the, ground' most favourable for themselves." Mr. Asquith interpreted this remark of Lord Lansdowne as implying the maintenance of the powers and , privileges ;, of - the House - of' Lords.' It was frankly, the restraint of a partisan Assembly whoso only consideration was that—resting as. it did on a. purely hereditary basis, andibeing in.the long run devoid of authority-it must be care-ful-not to risk its. own, skin. ,--.-'■;.■ ~•

The/Government,- desired' to-see tho maintenance of. the House of Commons'predominance in,legislation, but relatively a small Second resting oh a 'democratic,' v not ...an hereditary, basis, niight with proper safeguards ..usefully 'discharge, the,,functions ,pf .'.consultation, revision, and delay. .His. resolution's-were no .final or adequate .solution, of; : the problem. The House of Lords would still retain powers.'which, as at,present, constituted, it was -still.qualified;,, to ■; discharge, .It. would, remain.ian.unrepresentative, bodyy able seriously'.■ to delay- th'e fulfilment of :the expressed will. of'the electorate. The resolutions were simply the broad basis.of.,the':Bill:;"',:. . ..- ; ,Mr. Asquith: went.;on to say that.some provision . must be:, made . against ■ the : purely, speculative . possibility of. "tacking" in. financial Bills. '.The Crown's oroafdon; of Peers was,., in /existing .circumstances, the only.remedy for- a. deadlock, and .Lord, Eosebery's resolution-that, the possession. of a peerage per se did not entitle: the, holder to,sit and vote—Vas, a fatal; blow at the Eoyal..prorogative. The right to create Peeirs. should only be'exexercised in, case of. need, but it should then be exercised without fear/ ■ A referondum was inadmissible;, it !would, undermine the authority, of Parliament, even if it were possible to completely segregate a particular issue.' ~; ■■.■. . ' • Discussing the.; former -Eoyal veto, Mr. Asquith emphasised, that-Eoyalty.had not suffered from its abolition. : King Edward held his crown by;a far.securer tenure' than,that of : the Tudors. , . :.'

; MR. BALFOUR. Mr. Balfonr attributed Mr. proposals,' which would neither end nor. mend the House of .Lords, to divergence of views among, the' members f of the Goviomment 'regarding reform of the fiords. If, even with the modifications.proposed, the' Lords would not be fitted to perform their functions,' why not change. ' them ? Mr. AsquithY scheme recommended 'that the. Upper ' Chamber be, ..bereft of , all power. • : ' ' • /•:'.'• ' ■" : .'■■ : - ' The Lords passed the Trades Disputes Bill because, as Lord Lansdpwne had de r dared, "the feeling of the;community was strongly in .its favour. The Lords would have preferred the Trades Disputes Bill as it was originally introduced, ; and 60 would: the . Government. . (Opposition cheers.) The Government gave it' why? To. savo.their skins. 1 (Cheer's.) Cabinet Ministers had skins equally with Peers, and wero as anxious to save'them. ■It was not surprising that the' Lords had resisted and.delayed the measures of a revolutionary Government, but .there had been no' deadlock. ' Ministerialists were never, weary of proclaiming what, wonderful legislation had been passed during, the last three, years.' The Commons were now asked to prevent the Lords from again rejecting Homo Eule.

Mr. Asquith's" scheme was an absurd experiment with tho Constitution. In making a ; denial of the Lords' right to reject a Money Bill it violated a truth of history. The' tacking scheme would throw the responsibility on the Speaker, who thus in a sense became the author of legislation. , ' : :■ . Mr. Lloyd-George's Budget went a good way in the direction of taxing a certain class out of existence. Was the House asked to seriously affirm that under those circumstances it should not consult the community? He admitted that tho exercise of this safeguard ought to be rare and it ought to be* used with tho utmost circumspection, but it would bo tho height of folly for legislators to I abolish the exercise of it. • !■ Hia opinion was held by all tho groat free self-governing States. He instanced South Africa and" Australia. Mr. Asquith's proposed suspensory veto implied a Single Chamber. The position with regard to Parliament's lifetime implied living under a piebald harlequin Constihition. . THE IRISH LEADER. Mr. John Redmond, Leader of tho Irish Nationalists, heartily supported the Government, but regretted that tho resolutions had not been submitted during the eloction. The' delay, would necessitate another.election.and might lead to u.dcoline of enthusiasm-