The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1908. LORDS AND COMMONS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 78, 31 March 1908, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1908. LORDS AND COMMONS.

i a ___ For the emate that la&v ataistonoe, Far the wrong that needs resi&tance, For the future in the distance^ _j»_ the geoithat tee em* do.

In spite of the prominence that has "been given of late to Tariff Reform aaid the liquor laws at Home, the great constitutional question of the hour is still the struggle for supremacy "between the Lords and the Commons. So long as the Upper House retains its power of vetoing the measures sent up by the Lower House, it is impossible for Liberalism to make the sure and steady progress that the democratic spirit of the age demands. Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman's warning that "the resources of the constitution are not yet exhausted" does not seem to have impressed the Lords very deeply; but they may yet find that they have committed the grievous tactical error of under-rating their opponents. And it must be remembered that it is not only against the Lower House that the supporters of the hereditary principle have to defend themselves. Many of the more progressive members of the House of Lords have suggested various ways of disarming popular criticism by bringing the Upper Chamber more into harmony with public sfentiment, and reducing its power of obstruction. In the present state of public feeling at Home, all that is needed is a reasonable excuse for precipitating the inevitable conflict between the two Houses; and when the psychological moment arrives the present temper of the Liberals suggests that the nation will be inclined to adopt rather the first _ian the second of Mr. Mo-ley's arternativ-s, and will prefer to end rather than to mead the obniraous Re-1 vising Chamber.

It is interesting to observe that a leading colonial slatesman now in ___gland is taking an active part in this cont-oveisy, and has advised England to look to her colonies for an il___±ratian <rf the way in which the problems of democratic s_lf-gove_nm_nt may be solved. Mr- _?rice. the Premier of South Australia, urges the British Liberals to give up the idea of an elective Upper House, as, whatever its constitution, it might eventually dominate the House of Commons. But the political signs of the times do not suggest- that there is ranch need for Mr. Price's admonition. Mr. W. T. Stead, in the last edition of his "Peers or People?" gives it as his opinion that while there are many proposals to abolish or to improve the House of (Lords, very few leading liberals would attempt to create a senate to take its place. Sir William Harconrt and Sir Henry Campbell-Banner-man at various times expressed a strong objection to the invention of a new legislative body which might ultimately acquire more power for obstruction than the existing House of Lords possesses. Curiously enough the Conservative statesmen and political thinkers have been more inclined to regard with favour the suggestion for an elective Senate. Mr. Goldwin Smith, for example, always urged the substitution of an elective body- tor the House of lords. Two years ago a leading member of the Upper House, being interviewed hy the inevitable Mr. W. '__. Stead, suggested that a mixed Ct__n_ber would be a useful substitute for the present Upper House- and should consist of a small body of peers elected to represent their 'own class and a _a_ge majority of members chosen by the County Councils ar-T-he great cities.

One of the most practical schemes of this nature yet submitted to public notice is lord. Drmrav-n's plan f or a Second Chamber. He advocates the reduction of the British temporal peers to 180 by a system of election, with the addition of 130 elected members chosen by the County Councils, and by cities of say, 300,000 inhabitants. But a large number of Liberals who object to the idea of a second elective Chamber are inclined to replace the Lords by a nominated Upper House. This might be a comparatively small body of, say, a hundred members, nominated by Government for a term or for life, and it should be almost entirely a revising body. Such a Chamber,, owing its very existence to the Home of Commons, would never arrogate to itself the right to interpret the will of the people, and would, in fact, be entirely subsidiary to the Lower House- Another scheme is the proposal for an Upper House consisting of a certain number of hereditary peers, but with a majority of non-hereditary membars selected from representative classes by the Crown. It is believed in some quarters that "the nature and constitution of such a House would preclude it from all rivalry with the House of Commons as an exponent of the national will." But whatever form the new Upper House may take, two striking facts emerge clearly from the mass of controversial arguments — that the Upper House as at present constituted must be reformed, and that the bi-cameral system must still be maintained.

So far as the case for two legislative Houses is concerned, it is as well to remember that practically all the foremost Powers and nations in the world have adopted or retained this system. It is a significant fact that the leading advocates of a radical reconstruction of the House of Lords are just as firmly convinced that some kind of an Upper House must form an integral part of the British. Constitution, Lofd Bosebery, who is, perhaps ..mare, than.any other single -fcates-

man responsible ior the campaign against the hereditary Chamber, has admitted that he would rather accept the House of Lords as it stands to-day with all its power for evil than risk a Single Chamber Government Lord Hobhouse, one of the most distinguished Radicals that ever sat in the Upper House, though he constantly denounced the Lords for their intolerance and obstructrveness, would never concede that a single chamber was a practicable expedient. We may take it that the bi-cameral system is endorsed by the leading thinkers of both political parties. And with the limits, of such a system there is, of course, ample scope for the reform of the Upper House. Lord Eose__ry*s proposal to create life peers representing all the chief sections of the population from doctors and merchants to farmers and Nonconformists naturally did not carry conviction to the Lords themselves. Lord Dtmraven, like Lord Rasebery, would give direct representation in the Upper House not only to the hereditarypeers, but to Protestant Dissenters and Roman Catholics, and to the British Colonies. Even Lord Salisbury, in 18.5, was prepared to accept not more than fifty life peers drawn from classes not now represented in the House of Lords. It is this power of the Crown to create life-peers that offers the most satisfactory solution of the difficulty with the least possible friction or injury to the constitution as a whole. It is not likely that the Lords themselves would accept any measure sent up by the Commons that was calculated to destroy their privileges or nullify their powers of obstruction. But it has been pointed out that their opposition could be broken down by the royal refusal to issue the writ of summons to irreconcilable members; and the Crown's prerogative right to swamp the Upper House with newly-created peers is always in reserve as a last resort in case every other means of bringing the Lords to their senses should fail.