LORDS AND COMMONS.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8848, 26 June 1907, Page 2

LORDS AND COMMONS.

The Ministry’s Scheme. Conferences and Quinquennial Parliaments. Press Association. —Copyright. London, Juno 25, Outside of the party newspapers there is little interest in the debate upon the Peers Reform. Nineteen amendments have been tabled. Kincaid Smith's, which the moderate Liberals approve, declares tliat reform is desirable, but the Commons ought not to ( possess uncontrolled power over legislation. , There is no Nationalist amendment. An unexpected feature of the'debate was Sir Henry Cainpbell-Baxmerman’s announcement towards the close of his opening speech yesterday of tbepurportof his Bill which Government wilUntroduce at a moment selected at their, discretion,, with a view of .ultimately giving statutory form. Their p-,h-_y towards the Lords will bo declared in moving the resolution itself as no conflict is now going on. He quoted the resolutions of 1678 and 1860, and contended that the Commons alone is the authoritative reflex of the people’s will. He ridiculed a non-elected House presuming to express the country’s mind whenever the country lapsed into liberalism. He accused Mr Balfour of ; treachery in calling upon the Lords to ! override the Commons. (Prolonged Ministerial cheers.) The constitution knew nothing of the doctrine of a special mandate. This invention of the Lords was designed to shelter them in rejecting Bills. Their claim to force a dissolution was a usurpation of the Royal prerogative. His ultimate Bill would provide that in the event of a disagreement on any given Bill the two Houses appomt-an equal number of members to confer. If the conference is unproductive a similar or modified Bill may bo introduced in six months, unless in cases of emergency, and passed, then bo sent to the Lords. In the event of disagreement there would be another conference, and if this failed the Bill would bo reintroduced, passed swiftly, arid sent to the Lords with an intimation that unless it was accepted it

would be passed over their'heads. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) It proposed to prevent arbitrary action by an effete Government by means of quinquennial Parliaments.

fSr Balfour’s Views

Mr Balfour, in an elaborate constitutional argument, maintained that the House of Commons was the predominant partner, bat was not competent within the term of its own existence to deal with the entire interests of the State without further reference to the people, which was a trustee for posterity. “Nobody, ” ho said, “knows better |than Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman that it requires less than five years for a Government to get out of touch with the people.” He concluded by asking it Government were sincere why should it indefinitely defer the Bill foreshadowed? Mr Shackle ton wished to put an end to the House of Lords. ' Discussion in the lobbies showed that Liberals were greatly divided. Some declared that the proposals would' delay legislation. Their chief fear was that tne people at the dissolution would give a verdict in favour of leaving well alone. At the best the majority would be small, and the Lords continue in existence.

Mr Balfour, af the outset, stated that as far as his own action was concerned no defence was required as what he did had been done publicly. The course'which the House of Lords took was taken in public and people were far from agreeing with Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman’s violent epithets against that House. He thought that the amendments made in the Education Bill by the House of Lords were great improvements. ’ In the course of his speed) Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman declared against the principle of referendum.