The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News,Morning News and The Echo. SATURDAY, MARCH 19, 1919. A NEW HOUSE OF LORDS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 67, 19 March 1910, Page 4

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

SATURDAY, MARCH 19, 1919. A NEW HOUSE OF LORDS.

For the-cause that lacks assistance. For the wrong that needs resistance, For the future in the-distance, And the good that we can do.

Schemes for reform of the House of Lords are much in evidence just now, : and Lord Eosebery's attempt to extract an opinion from the Peers on the question of abolishing the hereditary principle 'has been like the letting out of great waters. Lord Courtney, who has very little sympathy with the privileged classes, has suggested a plan for the representation of Capital and Labour in the Upper Souse; and in his desire to render the Revising Chamber consistently representative of all sections, of the community he would even reserve a certain number of seats for Nationalists. Lord Curzon, Conservative though lie ie, recognises the need for some change in the existing constitution of the Lords, and he would not only supersede the hereditary principle by the elective principle, but he would include a large number of life Peers nominated by each successive Government, and he would leave the selection of perhaps 20 per cent, of the members of the Upper House to tho County Councils and other public bodies. Lord Kosobery, Lord Curzon, and Lord Courtney stand for widely divergent political views, but it is noteworthy that they all appear to recognise the fact that the hereditary principle nvust go, and that the Upper House must becomo more democratic in character if the Ee■vising Cha-raber is to be preserved as an integral factor in our Constitution. But there is still an influential party in the Upper House which refuses to admit that it is necessary or desirable to revolutionize the Lords; and Lord Lansdowne stands forward as its mouth-, piece. The Leader of the Opposition in i the Upper House is not by any means inclined to concede as much as Lord Rosebery to the demand for reform. During the debate on Lord Rosebery'3 resolution, he dwelt upon the necessity for maintaining constitutional tradition?, he expressed the hope that the hereditary principle would not be rejected, and he deprecated strongly anything like revolutionary changes. This is all characteristic enough of the typical Conservative; but Lord Lansdowne was not content with merely passive obstruction. Ho carried the war into the enemy's lines by asserting that the country's verdict given at the polls was "no wholesale condemnation" of the Lords, and that therefore no radical reconstruction of the Upper House is justifiable. Here we venture to think that Lord Lansdowne has allowed his personal prejudices to got the better of his judgment. For considering that the Liberals object strongly to the Lords as at present constituted on account of their rejection of the Budget, the Nationalists object to them as a permanent obstacle to Home Rule, and the Labour party would willingly sweep the Upper House away altogether, it is difficult to see how the country could have pronounced more emphatically and conclusively in favour of reforming the Revising Chamber. However, in spite of Lord Lansflowne's rather pathetic defence of the Upper House as "a going concern with considerable goodwill which ought not to bo sacrificed," he is prepared to go much further than might have been expected to meet the popular demand for reform. A Second Chamber, he is convinced, must continue to form one of the Estates, of the Realm; and here most Liberals will agree with him. As to the constitution, he is willing to see the number of the peers reduced on some representative basis. His new Upper House would include not only newly-created life peers representing all political parties, but all noblemen who can point to distinguished careers in the public service. But Lord Lansdowne would not countenance any attempt to tamper with! the veto; and here he parts company| irrevocably with the Liberal reformers.! ifbr Mr Asquith and his colleagues, 1 though they would certainly deprecate! the Radical proposal to "end the Lords," are as fully determined as the Labour party that tho Lords shall no longer retain the right to distract the finances of the country or to thwart the will of the people. Sir Edward Grey a few days ago gave some indication of the line Government is prepared to take by suggesting that the solution of the problem would be an elective Upper House, chosen from and by the people, but based upon constituencies difl'erent from those that elect the House of Commons. The "Times," following this lead, has ventured the prediction that the Govern- i ment plan will resolve itself into an elective Second Chamber returned by ; "seventy-five enormous constituencies" in Great Britain and Ireland. But however the new Upper House may be constituted, the crucial point of the whole controversy is the restriction of its powers; and no scheme of reform will either commend itself to the majority i of the electors or enable the House of: Commons to express clearly and eli'ectually the will of the people that docs not include some expedient for thj abolition or the limitation of the right of Veto now claimed by the Lorda, I