THE VETO BILL

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10172, 23 February 1911, Page 5

THE VETO BILL

CABLE NEWS

United Press Association — By 'Electric Telegraph — Copyright.

INTRODUCED IN THE COMMONS.

"INTOLERABLE ACTION."

(Received February 22, 9 a.m.)

LONDON, February 21

In the House of Commons, Mr Asquith (Prime Minister) moved the Veto Bill, dealing with the powers of the House of Lords. He said the question with which the measure dealt had been specifically submitted to the people. The present situation was the result of the House of Lords' intolerable action in placing finance, equally with legislation, at the mercy of an irresponsible and increasingly partisan authority. The country had twice demanded the present remedy for the present evils. Mr Balfour (Leader of the Opposition) argued in favour of conciliatory agreement in order to effect admittedly necessary changes in the composition of the House of Lords.

MR ASQUITH'S SPEECH

A STUMENDOUS BLUNDER

(Received Last Night, 10.15 o'clock.) LONDON, February 22. The Right Hon. H. H. Asquith received an ovation on introducing the Veto Bill. . He said it was admitted that the.Lords must yield to the will of,the electors. The rejection of the of 1909 was the most stupendous blunder ever perperated. The Lords had committed political suicide. The assertion that the Government wished to rule i: by a despotic single chamber was an unsubstantial nightmare. There were conceivable conditions in which the referendum would be possible and expedient in dealing with exceptional cases; but if it" was regarded as a regular part of the constitution, it would reduce the elections to a sham parade, and degrade the House of Commons to the level of a talking club. The referendum was more revolutionary than the Veto Bill.

MR BALFOUR IN REPLY,

The Right Hon. A. J. Balfour, Leader of the 4 Opposition, declared that the general election was not a decision upon one issue, whereas the referendum was. The Government had last week claimed the election as a decision against preference and tariff reform. By ;what miracle, he asked, could the same vote decideHhe details concerning the House of Lords? He hoped that the controversy would proceed without controversial violence, which was desirable this year, but he would not assent to an agreement imposing a constitutional change, which the people did not desire. They desired a change, but did not desire a revolutionary change at the bidding of an Irish minority. There were some issues so great that compromise was impossible. A purely elective second chamber was inconsistent with the predominance of the Commons;- Un r less the Government wished to destroythat predominance, it would be a folly to throw wholly aside the hereditary principle.

; THE LABOUR PARTY. Mr Ramsay Mac Donald, Leader of the. Labour Party, said he .recognised -nth regret that the majority of the • -ople insisted on a second chamber composed of Irishmen, who\<would be able to spend money to contest enormous constituencies. This was going from the frying pan into the fire. He would object less to the present system, which had an aesthetic and picturesque yalue. The Labour Party objected to the preamble of the Bill, but would rather accept it than forego reform. A LIBERAL OPPONENT. Sir Clifford Cory, Liberal M.P. for Cornwall, intimated that though he sympathised with the Bill, he would rote against it unless it was made quite clear that it would not be used to carry Home Rule.