IMPERIAL POLITICS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 351, 31 March 1910, Page 5

IMPERIAL POLITICS.

UNFETTERING DEMOCRACY. PREMIER EXPLAINS HIS RESOLUTIONS. By C*Mt—Pr«n>s Association.—Copyright London, March 29. There was a crowded House wheu Parliament, resumed after the Easter recess. The Prince of Wales and many ambassadors were present. Mr. H. H. Asquith, the Premier, mid Mr A. J. Balfour, Leader of the Opposition, met with enthusiastic rec»j<^ons.

The Premier moved that the House resolve itself into a committee to consider the ielations of the two Houses and the duration of Parliament. He admitted he had changed his youthful opinions, and now considered two Chambers tfere expedient. He proceeded to develop along constitutional argument to prove the. limitation >■. the veto and said tihe shortening of the duration of Parliaments was tne must practical way of securing that the popular will shall not be frustrated. A referendum or joint session of the wo Houses, as was provided by the Australian constitution, was inadmifcable under the existing circumstances. He concluded by claiming that the Lords' pftoer of absolute veto must follow the • Orown's veto before the road was cleared for the advance of a full-grown ani. unfettered democracy. WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DESIRED PREDOMINANCE IN LEGISLATION. Received March 30, 11.15 p.m. London, March 30. The House of Commons was crowded. The Prince of Wales and many Peers, , the American Ambassador, and other diplomatists were among those present. Mr. Asquith admitted that matured judgment brought him the conviction both that there was room and need for a second chamber—(Opposition cheers) —but he denied that, except in name, i' we were living under a bi-cameral system. He criticised the House of Lords for assuming an attitude of allowing Liberal measures, to pass. He instanced the Trades Disputes Bill, and quoted Lord Lansdowne advising the Lords to move with great caution, adding that conflicts were possibly inevitable, but ■he joined issue with their Lordships that they must choose the ground most favorable to themselves. He interpreted, this to mean that it implied the maintenance of their powers and privileges. It was franlclv the restraint of a partisan assembly, the only consideration bein? that, resting on a purely hereditary basis, and in the long run devoid of authority, they must be careful not to risk their own skins. The Government desired to see the maintenance of the House of Commons' predominance in legislation, but a relatively small second chamber, resting on a democratic and not a hereditary 'basis, might with proper safeguards usefully discharge the functions of consultation, revision, and delay. His resolutions were no final or adequate solution of the question of the House of Lords. They would still retain powers which, as at present constituted, they -were still qualified to discharge, but it would remain a representative body unable to seriously delay the fulfilment of the expressed will of the electorate. The resolutions were simply the broad basis of the Bill. Some provisions, he admitted, must be made against the purely speculative possibility of "tacking" in connection with financial bills. The Crown's creation of Peers, in the existing circumstances, was the only remedy for a deadlock like that which had arisen. Lord Rosebery's resolution that the possession of a peerage per se should not entitle a member to srt or vote in the House of Lords was a fatal blow to the RoyaJ prerogative. The right should only he exercised in case of need, but should then be exercised •without fear. The Premier went on to say that a referendum was inadmissible. It would, lie said, undermine the authority of Parliament, even if it were possible to completely segregate a particular issue. Discussing the former Royal veto, he emphasised that Royalty had not suffered from its abolition. King Edward held the crown by a far securer tenure than that enjoyed hy the Tudors. MR. BALFOUR REPLIES.

Mr. Balfour attributed the Premier's Jnroposals, which neither, ended nor "mended the House of Lords, to a divergence in the views of members of the Government regarding the reform of the Lords. If the Loras were unfitted, to perforin their functions, why not change them? Mr. Asquith's scheme recommended a chamber bereft of all .power. The House of Lords passed the t Trades Dispute Bill because, as Lord Lansdowne declared, the feeling of the community was strongly in its favor. The Lords would have preferred the Trades Disputes Bill as originally introduced; so would have the Government. (Opposition cheers.). The Government gave it up. Why? To save their skins. (Cheers.) Cabinet Ministers had skins equally with the Peers, and were just as anxious to save them. It was not suri prising that the House of Lords resisted and delayed measures of a revolutionary Government,., ibut there had been no deadlock. Ministerialists were never , weary of proclaiming what wonderful legislation they had passed during the last three years. The House of Commons was now asked to prevent the House of Lords from again rejecting Home Rule. Mr. Asquith's scheme was an absurd experiment in constitutionmaking. The denial of the right to reject monev bills violated the truth of * history. The tacking scheme would throw the responsibility on the Speaker ' of the House, who would thus in a sense become the author of the legislation. Mr. Lloyd-George's Budsret 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 they should s not consult the community? He ad- [•:" mitted thnt the exercise of the safeA guard ought to be rare and n«ed with the utmost circumspection, but. it would foe the heieht of follv for the Lcrislatnre to abolish the exercise of the right. His opinion was held bv all the great free self-?overninp States, instancing South Africa and Australia. Mr. Asquith's promised suspensory veto implied a sinsle chamber dnrin?, a Parliament's lifetime, which implied living under "a piebald and harlequin constitution." Mr. Redmond. Leader of the Nationalises. Vnrtilv sunported the Government. Y-if regretted the resolutions were not submitted during the election, as the delay would necessitate another election, and might lead to a decline of enthusiasm.