The Advocate. [Established 1888.] [PUBLISHED DAILY.] OLDEST ESTABLISHED PAPER AND GUARANTEED LARGEST CIRCULATION IN THE DISTRICT. THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 1910. THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

Bush Advocate, Volume XXII, Issue 16, 20 January 1910, Page 4

The Advocate. [Established 1888.] [PUBLISHED DAILY.] OLDEST ESTABLISHED PAPER AND GUARANTEED LARGEST CIRCULATION IN THE DISTRICT.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 1910. THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

CIRCULATES IN Dannevirke Mangatoro Tamaki Ngapaeruru Mangahe VVebcr Ti Tree Point Waione Wimbledon Herbertville Akitio Horoeka Oringi Kiritaki Maharahara Woodville Umutaoroa Matamau Piripiri Makotuku Ormondville Norsewood Takapau Whetukura Avvariki Otanga Kumeroa Rangitane Raumati Rua Roa S. Norsewood Tiratu Tipapakuku Mangapuaka Mangatuna Makaretu

Although the relation of the House of Lords to the House of Commons is not such a burning question in the momentous political struggle now going on as some hoped would be the case, it is fairly clear that the conntry is in measureable distance of the time when reform of the hereditary Chamber can no longer be delayed. Strange to say, the fact is almost entirely overlooked that the House of Lords—or a Committee of the Lords —-has itself within the last few months given the best and most emphatic reasons why the present House of Lords is not a competent body to revise the acts of the Commons, and a striking letter on this aspect of the question has been published by Lord Lindley. As late as in 190S a committee of twenty-four peers was appointed, with Lord Rosebery as chairman, "to consider the suggestions which have from time to time been made for increasing the efficiency of the House of Lords in matters affecting legislation, and to report as to the desirability of adopting them either in their original or in some modified form." The report of this committee was a telling indictment of the existing system, as may be seen

by the following extracts : "In the opinion of the Committee there are three main grounds for the assumption that it was advisable to modify in some respects the almost exclusively hereditary character of the House of Lords: "i. That the numbers of the House within recent years have increased so largely that some reduction for legislative purposes is expedient ;

"ii. That it is desirable to relieve from their Parliamentary duties peers to whom such work is irksome and ill-suited, but to whom it has come inevitably by inheritance ; and

"iii. That it is necessary in the interests of the House itself to eliminate by a process of selection peers whom it is inexpedient for various reasons to entrust with legislative responsibilities.

"The Committee at an early stage in their proceedings came to the conclusion that, except in the case of peers of the Blood Royal, it was un-

desirable that the possession of a peerage should of itself give the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords."

Lord Lindley goes on to remark that these phrases obviously mean that heredity has not qualified some of the Peers, that others find their work irksome, that others are ill suited to the work, and that it is inexpedient for some to be entrusted with legislative responsibilities. The Lords Committee made some very interesting suggestions for revising the composition of their House, and they calculated that only 130 of the present Peers out of 592 would be qualified to sit in the revised House of Lords. The Lords Committee wish, they say, '"by dissociating the right of legislation from the possession of a peerage, to secure a more compact, efficient, and responsible body for Parliamentary purposes." The new House of Lords, under the arrangements suggested by this revolutionary Committee of Peers, headed by Lord Rosebery, would number about 350 members—viz., three Peers of the Blood Royal, 200 representatives elected by the hereditary Peers, 130 qualified hereditary Peers, ten Spiritual Lords of Parliament, and five Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. To these must be added a possible annual increment of four peers for life, up to the number of forty, thus bringing the total number of the House \ip to something under 400. In view of these somewhat drastic recommendations, it is evident that, whatever the result of the elections may be, the demand for a change in the present constitution of the Chamber cannot be much longer ignored.