HOUSE OF LORDS

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 70, 15 December 1928, Page 9

HOUSE OF LORDS

REFORM PROPOSALS DISCUSSED IN UPPER CHAMBER AMENDMENT CARRIED [United Press Association.— By Electric Telegraph.—Copy right.) (British Official Wireless.) Rugby, December 13. Lord Clarendon's proposals for the reform of the House of Lords were again before the Upper Chamber to-day. These were embodied in the following m it was desirable that early steps should be taken to limit the number of members of the House of Lords and to make suitable provision for the elective representation of the Peerage and for such other representation or nomination as would ensure to each political party a fair position in the House. .. .. (2) That the following constitution of the House of Lords would fulfil these conditions:—ln each Parliament there should sit and vote 150 Peers elected by proportional representation of the cumulative vote by the whole body of Peers and 150 other persons nominated by the Crown in proportion to the parties in the House of Commons. The Crown should also have the power to appoint a limited number of life Peers in each Parliament.

Objection to Proposals in Present Form.

The Marquess of Reading (Lib.) said that the proposals were a very distinct advance on the proposals of the Government put before the House last year by the late Lord Chancellor, Viscount Cave. All were agreed that there must be reform of the House with the object of giving all parties a fair representation therein. Hitherto it had been impossible to devise any plan which would obtain the universal assent of their Lordships. A scheme of reform agreeable to their Lordships would also have gained the assent of the people of the country. An examination of Lord Clarendon's proposals, however, had convinced him that it was quite impossible to accept them in their present form. They must result in a predominantly Conservative membership of the House. To proceed to the election of 150 Peers by proportional representation or a cumulative vote of Peers themselves must inevitably result in a very large majority of Conservative Peers out of that 150. Lord Newton moved an amendment limiting Lord Clarendon’s proposals to the preamble, which declared the desirability of limiting the number of members of the House of Lords and making provision fo the elective representation of the Peerage and such other representation or nomination as would ensure to each political party a fair position in the House. This would eliminate Lord Clarendon’s actual proposals. Lord Clarendon accepted the amendment, and expressed a willingness also to substitute the word “reduce” for “limit.” Difficulty in Lower House. The Marquess of Salisbury, replying for the Government, said that the difficulty on this question lay rather in the House of Commons. How could the Government be identified with any special method of reform until its supporters in the Commons were able to come to some agreement? Referring to the particular proposals of Lord Clarendon, he said that he thought the Second Chamber ought on the whole to be Conservative. It was meant to be a check on careless, headstrong legislation. But the Government could not identify itself with Lord Clarendon's proposals. It must not accept a sketch until it was prepared to fill in the who!'/ picture, and in this Parliament it had not the time. Lord Newton's’ amendment was adopted by 52 votes to 8.