New-York tribune., 1907-07-07
THE VETO POWER.
oDcning of Transition Period IN
EngIish Constitutional History.
London, June q

ASCAAoOAAS
The debate on the veto power Of the Lords is
,or,ething more than blank cartridge firing.
The resolution moved by the Prime Minister in
.,hat IS distinctly aggressive speech is a
declaration Of Liberal policy and tactics. It
,yu be inoperative without legislation. and this
,5u be supplied by the government at its
leisure and converted into the supreme issue Of
tbe next general election. If the Prime Minister
soes not explain when the bill will be produced
and the appeal made to the country his ulterior
nurpose is not concealed The irresponsible
chamber IS 10 be brought into subjection to the
ufll Of the representative body elected by the
neople 1t is a constitutional problem to be
worked out by law, but not prematurely, since
that would be q tactical bunder The bill by
which the decision Of the Commons IS TO prevail
within the limits OF a single Parliament may
not be introduced next year nor the year after.
II may never get beyond two-line announce
rnent in the Kings speech or the first reading.
II will be whenever it comes clear and prac-
tical method of preventing deadlock between
the two Houses, such as took place over the
education and plural voting bills last year; and
the government will appeal to the country on 1t
so that there viii be the moral effect OF refer
endum. In the mean time the government Will
remain IN office for two three years, fill up
the cup and obtain much moral support as
possible from general legislative proposals It
is an ineligible and by no means revolutionary
programme.
This process differs essentially from the pro-
posals of the late Lord Salisbury. Lord Rosebery
and Lord Newton for the restoration of a bal
ance Of power in the one-sided upper house.
Their reforms are designed to restrict the hered-
ttary privileges of the Lords legislators or 10
establish order OF merit based on public SER
vice, or 10 arm the Crown with the right Of ap-
pointing life peers for England, we'll as Scot
land and Ireland. From the point OF view Of the
progressive Radicals these suggestions are highly
Objectionable because they tend to strengthen
the upper house by imparting q representative
character to Il, and at the same time do not
provide safeguards for neutrality or non-parti-
sanship. The House Of Lords reformed IN this
way would be the best second chamber in the
world; but it would remain hopelessly Conser-
vative. That is not what Liberals want. They
do not wish to reinvigorate the privileged cham
ber and to arm 1t with increased prestige and
resources for resisting and thwarting the will OF
the general electorate. They seek to limit, II
not to remove altogether. the power OF the Lords
TO obstruct Liberal measures when the country
has dismissed the Conservatives from Office.
What they consider Illogical and inequitable Is
q second chamber that registers without resist
the viii OF a Tory ministry and exercises
more or less wantonly the right OF rejecting or
impairing by amendment the work OF Liberal
government. The grievance which the Prime
Minister has clearly defined IS a partisan veto
power, by which one party Is parafyzed while
the other is protected against It.
How this grievance is to be redressed is ten |
tativeiy explained. There will be no inter-
ference with the privilege OF amending meas-
ures. If that were taken away. the Lords would |
cease TO be & legislative body and become a |
superfuous debating society. It IS the veto 1
by constitutional means counteracted. It is to (!
be transformed into @ suspenstye veto When |
the two houses disagree there will be a con- /
ference committee; II no compromise be ef- !
fected. the bill VIII be reintroduced IN the Com
mons, with discussion limited TO new matter; II i
it be rejected by the Lords there Will be an /
other conference committee. and the process VIII
be repeated a third time; and If the deadlock !
continues the measure viii be enacted by the ;
supreme will Of the lower house. The Prime ]
Minister does not consider the referendum prin-
ciple practicable nor does he discuss any sub
stitute for conference committees. The Priyy
Council contains the framework Of which use
IS ordinarily made when any new constitutional
agency is required. a court Of legislative ap-
peal might be committee OF the .Privy Council,
and possibly would include all the ministers
eX-ministers Of the Grown, with a reinforcement
OF fifteen members nominated by the Prime
Minister. 4 court Of this sort Intervening after
the suspensive veto had been exercised and the
bill been rejected a second time by the Lords
could be depended upon 10 override their OBJ
jections and to establish the supremacy OF the
elective house This is an alternative scheme
favored by prominent Liberals.
The Prime Minister has idea Of crossing
the bridge until he comes TO IL The resolution
which he has introduced is little moro than q
SlgnDoard pointing 10 the stream across which
the bridge is 10 be constructed, or at least de-
signed by legislative engineers at their leisure
The debate IN these circumstances cannot be
anything but academic, since the ways and
means Of enforcing the resolution are reserved
for ministerial convenience. Yet, smooth as
may be the phrasing with which what is essen
tiel TO the project IS left in the air. Il is evil
dent that there VIII De some contrivance for
overriding suspengive veto. The new legsla-
tive Court Of Appeal Of the Privy Council. if it
be projected, will be q bit Of mechanism for
registering the win Of the Commons whenever
there is a deadlock. Whether ministers and
ex-ninisters are official members the com
Tnittee be constituted in other way, the
fifteen members nominated by the Prime Minis
ter for the period covered by the Parliament
VIII override the veto. The official scheme Will
have the same effect. So clever a tactician as
Mr.. Balfour perceives this at once and opposes
the resolution strenuously audacious and
deliberate attempt 10 deprive the upper house
OF coordinate powers OF legislation. Labor
members are equally shrewd In their judgments
OF the matter. They assert that the govern
ment IS bent upon establishing the supremacy
OF The lower house, hut IS taking unneces-
sarily circuitous course. They prefer the moro
clrect method Of abolishtng the House Of Lords
outright Better kill the dog than try 10
muzzle him after he has bitten the government
once or twice" is their practical comment. The
conservatives are disposed 20 agree with them,
for they regard a second chamber which has
oeen deprived Of veto power little better than
a dead dog.
While the debate on this constitutional ques-
uon has been prolonged for several days and
IN IT, the proceedings seem artificial and theatri-
cal The Lords WITH snap their fingers at a
resolution devised for political campaigning. II
d Dill DC presented in the course OF two or three