"FULL STEAM AHEAD."

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 262, 27 March 1911, Page 5

"FULL STEAM AHEAD."

REFORM OF THE LORDS. THE GOVERNMENT'S DETERMINATION. v Cable.—l're-v* A.w>^lation,—C'pyright Received 20, 5.5 p.m. London, March 25. The Right; Hon. Lewis Harcourt, Secretary of State for the Colonies, speaking at Rossendale, declared that by Monday week" the Parliamentary Bill would be "full steam ahead,'' and would find its way to the Statute Book this summer. The Government was determined to carry it through, believing they had a mandate from the public. The Bill was a means to an end, which was the passage of measures for the benefit of the democracy. WHAT THE UNIONISTS WANT. LOWERING THE BALANCE OF PARTIES. Received 2G, 5.5 p.m. London, March 25. Mr. Austen Chamberlain, at Birmingham, declared that the Unionists were willing to admit new elements, which must be introduced to lower the balance of parties, which were now too unequal. Men should sit not merely by right of great services already rendered, but by riglit of election. THE PEERS AND THE VETO BILL. The Times last month gave prominence to the following letter on "The Constitutional Question," signed "Privy Councillor," which put weightily the reasons why the Lords should not reject the Veto Bill when passed by the new House of Commons, or should be over-ridden by a special creation of Peers if they do:— "It seems probable that within the next few weeks the Parliament Bill wili be passed by the House of Commons. It is difficult to conceive that the Housn of Lords, which has in recfent years again and again declared its readiness to accept measures, even though it disapproves them, which come to it after a special reference to the judgment W the people, should so far depart from the fundamental principles of its policy as to reject the Bill on its second presentation. But, to judge from recent speeches, it seems that some at least of the leading members of the Conserva i tive party would have the House of Lords adopt that course, and one or two have asserted that, if it did so, a special creation of Peers to over-ride the present majority in that House would be unconstitutional. THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY. "On this point the whole weight of authority ,is the other way. And since it is of importance that men should not form conclusions on this grave matter without taking into account the opinions of constitutional historians and jurists, I would ask leave to quote four relevant passages from writers of acknowledged weight. They clearly show that when the House of Lords rejects a Bill of fundamental importance passed by the Commons after endorsement by the people, a special creation of Peers is the one method which is prescribed by the constitution for ending the eonflct." The first quotation given by the writer is from Professor Dicey's "Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution" (p. 42C); the second is from Bagelot's "English Constitution" (p. 89); the third from Lecky's "History of England in tile Eighteenth Century'' (Vol. 1, p. 185); and the fourth from Erskine May's "Constitutional History of England." All are to the effect that the creation of new Peers to swamp a hostile House of Lords is a perfectly legitimate measure in case of urgency. The passage cited from Erskine May (Vol. 1, p. 314) runs:— "It must not be forgotten that, al-i though Parliament is said to be dissolved, a dissolution extends, in fact, no further than to the Commons. The peers are not affected by it, no change can take place in the constitution of their body; except as to a small number of Scotch representatives. So far, therefore, as the House of Lords is concerned, a creation of Peers by the Crown on extraordinary occasions, is the only equivalent which the Constitution has provided for the change and renovation of the House of Commons by a dissolution. In no other way can the opinions of the House of Lords be brought into harmony with those of the people. . . . Statesmen of all parties would condemn such a measure, except in cases of grave and perilous necessity; but should the emergency be such as to demand it, it cannot be pronouced unconstitutional." IS THE CRISIS PERILOUS? The writer concludes:— I "Whether the present House of Commons does or does not represent the mind of the nation with respect to the Parliament Bill may be a subject for discussion. Whether the crisis which is invited so lightheartedly by the friends of the House of Lords would bo perilous or not may be a matter of opinion. But if it be held that, after a general election fought mainly on the issue, the House of Commons must be taken to represent the mind of the nation with respect to the Parliament Bill, and if it be held that the rejection of the Bill bv the Lords • would create a situation of profound i gravity, then, on the further question whether a creation of Peers would or would not be the constitutional means of resolving the deadlock, there can be '.io doubt for argument."