REFORM OF THE LORDS

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 253, 4 March 1911, Page 5

REFORM OF THE LORDS

AUSTRALIA QUOTED. By Gable—Press Association—Copyright. London, March 2. The Daily News, in an article under the heading, "Some Lessons from Australia," refers to Mr. Fisher's campaign, which, it says, is a movement full of instruction to the United Kingdom. Australians are abandoning precisely the kind of constitution which the Unionists are seeking to commend. Australia, the article continues, is abandoning this kind of constitution because she considers it the stronghold of vested interests and the solidest obstacle to social justice.

THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION. A POWERFUL ARGUMENT. VETO BILL PASSES ITS SECOND READING. Received 3, 10.20 p.m. London, March 3. The Veto Bill was read a second time by 368 votes to 243. The majority included 72 Nationalists, six O'Brienites, and 38 Laborites, while 42 paired. Mr. Balfour, in the course of his closing speech, said that though a Democratic form of Government was the only possible one for a community like ours, it would be folly for any reformer of the second Chamber to start with the assumption that we had nothing to do with the heredity principle. We inherited it, so let it be our servant, and no longer our master.

The common bond of Empire was based on heredity, and in dealing with the Lords they should utilise the principle wisely, not to the extent it was now used; otherwise it was impossible to avoid a second Chamber rivalling the first. Let the constitutional check apply to Liberals and Unionists alike, only let it not be a sham party system, which tended to work out into something like a rough equality between two opposing camps, but one of immense advantage and absolutely necessary to the stability of the administration.

Mr. Balfour continued: He would rather have a bad Government in office with some sort of security of tenure, if only brief, than the buying from day to day of this or that little section by administrative concessions. The Government was not to be trusted to approach the amendment of the Constitution impartially, because it was not independent. It was coerced by the Irish; otherwise the Bill would never have appeared in its present shape. The Government proposed, after an interval without an ' efficient second Chamber; during which a great change in the constitution would be carried out, safe from the constitutional system of check and supervision, preventing aberration on the part of the representative body. "The result will probably be disastrous to the country, and certainly discreditable to yourselves. You arc doing what you are not entitled to do: using the power derived by the transfer of relatively a few votes at a general election from one side to the other, to make fundamental changes in the Constitution, openly saying you will force them upon the Upper House by coercion, as you imposed them upon the country by fraud. (Prolongued uproar, with cries of "Withdraw.") Mr. Balfour declined to withdraw, and interruptions followed the Speaker's ruling. Mr. Balfour then concluded with a few words.

FIRST SUGGESTION OF COMPROMISE. Received 3, 10.20 p.m. London, February 3. The Pall Mall Gazette, quoting Mr. Runciman's remark that it will be time to parley when the Opposition propose a second Chamber which will add to and not take away from the representative character of Parliamentary institutions, and not thwart but give effect to the will of the people, says the speech is interesting as the first responsive signal to the Unionist invitation to settle the question on an agreed basis.

THE OPPOSITION ROUSED. London, March 2. Mr. Balfour, at the close of his speech, roused the Oppesition members to excitement by declaring that the Government was setting up a single Chamber Government to enable them to pass the Home Rule Bill fraud. The Ministerialists shouted, "Withdraw!" and the Oppositionists cheered Mr. Balfour. The Speaker ruled that the word fraud was permissible when applied to a party. THE PREMIER IN REPLY. "THE COMMONS MUST PREDOMINATE." HIS IDEAL OF A SECOND CHAMBER. Received 3, 11.40 p.m. ' London, March 3. In the House of Commons, Mr. Asquith, speaking on the Veto Bill, said they now knew the Tory anxiety to reform the House of Lords was to make it, however composed, stronger against the representatives of the people. Replying to the charge of fraud in advocating the scheme, he said they did not believe that was just. He said the Bill originated in Sir H. Campbell-Banner-man's resolution of 1907, when the Liberals had a majority over all parties, and since then they had not deviated a hair's breadth. In reference to the hereditary principle, because it enslaved and fettered the Commons, they meant to carry the Bill. Constitutional checks were abundantly provided for, in his view. The Commons must predominate in legislation, and the functions of a second Chamber must be exclusively those of consultation and revision. It must be a small body, not resting on a hereditary basis, and must in composition and attitude not

be governed by partisanship or tempered by panic. Such a body wag not easily creatable. None of the Opposition's schemes satisfied the aforementioned conditions. All perpetuated the predominance of one side. The Opposition asked them to hold their hands till their vast and hitherto crude and formless change of Constitution was thought out, and meanwhile to see all legislation blocked by the veto. "It is not on such an errand that we are sent here. The electorates have plainly reiterated their command, and our paramount duty is to pass the Bill."