The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1911-08-12
Government Leader Says Amend
ments Taken as Whole Amount
to Rejection of Bill.
In it's Modified Form the Veto
Would be a Flat Negation of
Country's Demand.
Precedents Cited in Justification
of the Use of the Royal
Prerogative.

In his memorable speech which was
interrupted in the House OF Commons
amendments the Lords had offered to
the Veto bill said:
These amendments, taken as al
whole, amount to a rejection of our
bill. What would happen if they
were to be incorporated in the
measure. When you have a Unionist
majority in both Houses the whole
thing becomes a dead letter. Matters
remain exactly as they are. Measures
of the utmost gravity and most far
reaching effect may be passed in def
ance of public opinion over the heads
of the electorate. You live, in fact,
under unchecked and undluted Single
eral government in power YOU would
have a House of Commons fettered
beyond all it's predecessors in the con-
troll of finance, and in all cases where
an irresponsible and non-representa-
tive body independent of both Houses,
should so determine every deadlock
will be settled, and settled only by a
Referendum ad hoe. In other words:
5 The bill in, it's present form is a di-
rect contradiction and fiat negation
of the decision of the country. What
then n he 1T
lar, what ought to be the attitude of
this House in the situation so created?
We tried-the Leaders on both sides
tried-to settle this controversy last
year by conference and agreement.
That attempt, unhappily, came to
nothing. Lord Lansdowne tells us
that there are some, at all events, of
the amendments which the Lords have
introduced into the BILL which in their
view are so essential, that they would
certainly not be prepared to recede
they remained free agents. I assume,
of course, that this language refers to
amendments like his own, and I have
to say in reply on behalf of the gov
ernment, and, I believe, on the ma
jority of the House of Commons, that
to such amendments we cannot and
shall not see our way to accedc. We
have therefore, come to the conclusion
and thought it courteous and right to
communicate that conclusion in ad-
vance to leaders of the opposition that
unless the House of Commons is pre-
pared to concede these essential
points there is only one constitutional
way of escape from what would 9TH
erwise be an absolute deadlock.
Resort to the Prerogative.
1t is the method of resort to the
prerogative which is recognized by the
most authoritative exponents of Con-
stitutional law and practice, by writ
ers such as Erskine May, Bagehot,
and Dicey, when, as is here the case,
the House of Commons must be pre-
dispute the deliberate decision of the
nation. But it is not necessary to rely
on the dicta of text writer's, however
eminent, for the precedent of 1882 is
what the lawyers call a case precisely
in point. AS we are accused by ig-
norant people of being responsible for
a coup d'etat," or at any rate of an
unprecedented breach in the practice
of the Constitution, think it is worth
while to go in some little detail into
the history of that transaction.
The Precedent Of 1882.
The right hon. gentleman, in his
manuscript, then deals at length with
the precedent of the Reform bill Of
1882, and points out that while the bill
was carried without it's being neces.
sary to resort to the prerogative i
was common knowledge that the meas
ure would not have been carried un
less Lord Grey had requested, and thu
ssh King had consented to the exercise tt
any extent that might be necessary o
the power of creating peers. Th
manuscript continues-Lord Grey wa
attacked as l am now for advising al
unconstitutional course. This is wha
he said in reply: