The Daily News. SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 1011. THE VETO BILL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 288, 29 April 1911, Page 4

The Daily News. SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 1011. THE VETO BILL.

The people of the Empire will probably know next month whether the House of Lords will accept a diminution of its grent powers. It is obvious that the Veto Bill, even in the House of Commons, is proceeding merely "inch by inch." It is to be noted that the Lords themselves before the present session of the Imperial Parliament, agreed to waive their right to reject or amend money Bills purely financial in character. This, therefore, made the way comparatively plain for the acceptance in the Commons of a clause which is unquestionably the most important one in the Bill. The Bill, as all students of politics are aware, was a reply and a counter to the rejection by the Lords of a revolutionary Budget. The passage of such a clause to the Statute law would deprive the hereditary House of a privilege it very rarely exercised. The fact, however, that it for once used its great privilege in respect to the Budget gave the Asquitu Government its incentive to make sure of the future. The Lords having agreed to abandonment of their unique power in relation to money Bills, it is a little curious that the Unionists should have bitterly contested the clause. There is, however, so great a determination to get the Bill on the Statute Book that obstruction, it is likely, will be ineffective, especially as the Government is obviously determined to exhaust every method known to political tactics to achieve its end. It cannot be "talked out" because of applica. lion of the closure. The Prime Minister, warily observing efforts to emasculate it, has refused to accept amendments, and so the sheaves of amendments, prepared to rob the Bill of its intended effect, fall harmless into fhe waste-paper basket. The resistance of Unionists, if in the least degree effective, would spur the Government to punitive measures by means of the rather grotesque creation of some hundreds of peers. Unionists, however, see that such an intention on the part of the Government would greatly embarnss the King, who would at once be drawn into the vortex of party political warfare. An acutely interesting question in relation to the Parliament Bill is whether the suggested payment of members can be claimed to come under the term "Money Bill." If a "Payment of Members Bill" is a money Bill within the meaning of the clause dealing with money Bills, the Lords have no power of rejection—supposing the Parliament Bill passes. If it is not a money Bill, there seems to be no doubt that the Lords will throw it out with great decision. The Lords, the Unionists in the Commons, no less than a large number of Liberals, hold now, and will probably always bold, that the introduction of the system of paying members will reduce the standard of Parliament. The arguments about the wickedness of introducing the professional politician is, of course, being used, but, on the othet

hand, the agrument that amateurism in politics is more dangerous than professionalism, may have its supporters. At any rate, payment or no payment, the fate of candidates is in the hands of the people of Britain. If Britons want a more democratic and representative Par. liament they will assuredly obtain one. We take the liberty of disbelieving that the British people are aching to sec loudtongued and ignorant demagogues at Westminster. If the class from which the British Parliament is now drawn is the class giving the best political value, the widening of the field to those who have hitherto been outsiders will not count. It is observed in New Zealand that the people select the best representatives offering, the selection vieing generally not wide. Although outsiders might believe that this country is becoming Socialistic, on no occasion has the fiery demagogue obtained the place he desired. New Zealand can never have a Parliament of extremists while its people remain sane, and payment of members in the Old Country will not-lower the standard of Parliament to the extent that the Tories prophesy. Since the British Prime Minister seems to be so confident of the passage of the Bill, it is reasonable to assume that he believes that the passage of the Parliament Bill will deprive the Lords of the power to kill the Payment of Members Bill. The Lords' rejection of the Bill would probably be the signal for further drastic reprisals. At any rate, the appearance of the complete Parliament Bill, which will remain unamended during its stormy passage in the Commons, will mark a sensational epoch in the history of the House of Lords.