BRITISH POLITICS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 821, 2 April 1910, Page 3

BRITISH POLITICS.

London, March 31

During the veto debate in the House of Commons, Mr F. Smith, Conservative member for Walton, said that the Government’s view, whatever the House of Commons said thrice, must be right; but if the Assembly could be wrong twice, why not a third time ? The Government’s real object was not that the people's will, but that the will of the Radical caucusshould prevail. He had little faith in the efficacy of the Moderate Liberals and the survivors of the Liberal League in the Cabinet as guardians of constitutional evolution. He proceeded to ridicule the cry of danger of a revolution, but rather associated the benig-nant-looking gentleman on the opposite benches with tea meetings and pleasant Sunday afternoon gatherings than with Committees tor Public Safety and Barricades. The members of the Government were not Jacobin leaders. Their mauceuvrcs with patties and caucuses reminded him of a stage donkey, with its legs moving in different directions Mr J. A. Simons, Liberal member for Waltbamstown, contended that the restriction of the veto allowed time lor discussion and reflection.

Lord Hugh Cecil criticised the Cabinet’s power to force Bills through the House of Commons without adequate discussion. He commented on the exclusion of men like Mr Harold Cox unless they played a party game, livery constitution in the colonies gave the second Chamber the right to reject, but not to initiate or amend finance measures. It was a right copied from what was universally regarded as the rule in Britain regulating the regulations of the two Houses.

The Hon. A. Birrell, Chief Secretary for Ireland, replied that the colonies had not an historical House of Commons. Whatever the future constitution of the House of Lords might be, the people of Britain would never allow it to assert a power of rejection of the Government’s financial proposals. The possibility to compromise with the House of Lords on the question of finance was meanwhile the root and branch of the reform of the House of Lords, which was not immediately practicable. Mr Asquith was therefore justified in his present proposals. Tampering with the hereditary principle of the House of Lords was due to the warning which had been conveyed by Tory tadpoles and papers. There was not a chance of tariff reform while that principle was retained. Mr George Wyndham, Conservative member for Dover, said that in no country was the second Chamber restricted to the mere discussion of measures. The Premier was a tyrant or a puppet in the hands of the Parliamentary groups. • Mr J. Ramsay MacDonald, Socialist member for Leicester, made a vehement speech against the House of Lords and in favour of a single chamber. Referring to Australasia, he said that whatever the paper constitution might be, one party was bound to get a predominant part in the second chamber. The debate was adjourned. An academic resolution of Sir A. O. Williams, Liberal member for Merionethshire, in favour of proportional representation was adopted without division.