REFORM OF THE LORDS

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 11111, 8 May 1911, Page 5

REFORM OF THE LORDS

UNIONIST BILL OUTLINED. By Tdlesraph—Press Association—Gopyriahl (Rec. May 7, 5.5 p.m.) London, May 6. Lord Selborne, in a speech at Barnstaple, declared that Monday would fee the introduction of the alternative plan for the reconstruction of tho House of Lords, under which, if adopted, it never agait could bo said that both parties were not fairly represented in that House. The power of the veto would not be abolished, but provision would be made for a joint session in the event of differences on ordinary questions, and for n referendum on grave questions. PARLIAMENT BILL. THIRD READING ON THURSDAY. London, May 5. In the House of Commons, Mr. Asquith, Prime Minister, gave notice that the third reading stage of the Parliament Bill would bo taken on May 11. BRITAIN'S THREE ALTERNATIVES, SAFEGUARDING' THE SECOND CHAMBER, Iu a speech on the House of Lords question a few weeks ago, Lord Selborno said that, so far as he could see, there were throe alternatives before the country. The first, the plan of the Government, known as the Parliament Bill, was purposely contrived to deceive the people for tho time, to make them think that they wore going to retain the safeguards which the Second Chamber brought when no such safeguards would continue. This was tho proposal of a Government which, four years ago, advised the King to give a Constitution to tho Transvaal in which thero was a Second Chamber nominated by himself (Lord Selborne) and possessing all tho powers that the House of Lords had ever claimed. The second alternative was a Second Chamber elected on the same franchise as the House of Commons, his views upon which he had already indicated. He pointed to tho strain of present-day politics, and said that Ministers in the House of Commons had no longer time for their administrative work. A man like Lord Morlcy, who could not stand the strain of popular election or of the House of Commons,- could now continue his valuable servico in the House of Lords. If the Houso of Lords were elected, like the House of Commons, the samo conditions would be reproduced there, and thero would be no such refuge for such a man as Lord Morley. . The Unionist Policy, The third alternative was tho moderate reform of the House of Lords advocated by tho Unionist Part}, which had the, great advantage of .proceeding hy evolution—linking the future with the past. Four methods had been suggested for this moderate reform—(l) Indirect election; '(2) selection by hereditary peers; (3) qualification by office: (i) nomination by the Crown on the advico of the Prime Minister. Different sections of opinion in their party held different views about those various methods. For instance, in certain quarters those was a strong objection to any selection by hereditary peers. But, on the other hand, there was a very strong section of r.he party that was in favour of it. He urged that, the different sections of opinion in tho party must meet each other's views. ITc vould go much further and say that no final settlement of the question could bo eomo to by either party alone. Any settlement must bo a national, not a party, settlement, giving adequato'representation to both parties; and such a settlement could certainly be got by a conjunction of two or moro of the methods he had mentioned. He admitted that under any 'Such 'system the prevailing tendency of a reformed Houso would bo towards conservatism in a national and not iu a party sense, but equally, so whichever party ia in power, nnd ho was prepared to justify that result.

The second branch of tho policy was the machinery which must be provided to settle differences between tho Nfo Houses and to prevent deadlocks. L<Jrd Selborno proceeded to describe the Unionist plan in detail, advocating a conference between, tho two Houses in joint session in normal and' ordinary cases, and the use nf the Referendum for grave- cases. Tho joint committee of the two Houses, presided over by the Speaker,, would decide what measures wero really financial, and what wero not. The House of Lords had never exercised its right to interfere with normal finance, and did not wish to do so. It must-, however, be free to deal with proposals under -the guise of finance which introduce -great social or political changes.