PEERS AND POWER

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 74, 25 September 1934, Page 4

PEERS AND POWER

PARTY TACTICS

UNREFORMABLE LORDS

Tho Marquis of Salisbury's Bill for the reform of tho Houso of Lords will never become law, writes tho London correspondent of the "Sydney Morning Herald..." Like previous efforts to niako tho Chamber a stronger and more popular House, it is doomed to fail, tho reasons, on this occasion, being that tho National' Government assumes that it has no inundate to effect reform, that tho llouso of Commons would accept nothing but a Government Bill on such an important constitutional question, and that there is likely to bo neither, timo nor opportunity to frame such a Bill under present political conditions.

Reform of tho Lords has been n burning topic in. Parliamentary circles for many years, and has boon in tho back of the minds of most Englishmen for more than a generation. Both inside and outside the ranks of all parties there is agreement as to the noeessity for such changes as will maintain a balanced system of Parliamentary government. Tho trouble is that there is no unanimity concerning the nature of the proposed improvements.

FEAR OF ORIPPS,

Lord Salisbury, alarmed by the threats of the Labour Party, and of Sir Stafford Cripps in particular, to abolish the Chamber- as , soon ■ as a chance occurs, is anxious to throw up constitutional fortifications in advance. Ho argues that delay is not only dangerous, but foolish. Based upon the work of a Private Committee of Conservative Peers, his Bill resembles tho Lansdownc Bill of 1911 as regards tho constitution of tho Second Chamber and tho suggested strengthening of its powers. It proposes a Houso of 150 .hereditary poors elected as representative peers and another 150 nominated by tho Crown from tho tanks of distinguished public men. In the matter of increased powers it interposes a General Election before a Bill can bo passed into law despite the Second Chamber. And that, of course, is the crucial point, for. so drastic a change in Parliamentary procedure would not for a moment bo approved by either Liberal or Labour peers. The nation at large might also have something to say on the question. Already the rights of revision and delay en-joyed by the Houso are by no means negligible and have been so wisely applied that there is a growing feeling in favour of leaving the constitution of the Chamber as it is. There are no illusions about the risk of making perilous constitutional experiments in an age when tho very foundations of democratic institutions are trembling. On the other hand, there are those who assert that the Parliamentary system, as such, can be saved only by courageous and successful experimentation. A quarter of a century has passed since the late Lord Oxford (then Mr. Asquith) said that the reform of the House of Lords was a "debt .of honour" that brooked no , delay; yet, successive Governments .have only too complacently followed the line of "wait and see.-" Even the present Administration, so active in other directions, hesitates to tako the initiative and will not permit it to be taken by others. If it does not intend actually to kill Lord Salisbury's measure, it is at least unprepared to assist in keeping it alive. Officially, its attitude is described as "neutral"; in fact,.it is hostile, as the main body of Conservatives who are more or loss pledged to reform aYe aware. , . .

PRIME MINISTER'S PAST,

As for tho Labour viewpoint, which .is certainly . not to be disregarded nowadays, one must admit that it >was ably projected by Lord vSneU.,. ."The Bill" he said, "proposes to make Toryism safe for all eternifiy. The device might be called.by-.many names, but nobody would call it democracy, or even fair. Sir Stafford Cripps is now tho Tory bogy; in the past,,it has been Joseph Chamberlain, Keir Hafdie, and Mr. Eamsay Mac Donald, .The House of Lords is a picturesque^./'anachronism, where it is almost improper-to smile, and bad form to show. enthusiasm for public causes. The Bill is the most dangerous revolutionary measure that has been presented to any Parliament in my time. . . . The position; will be that when a Conservative Government is returned to power by: the will of the peoplej iV is the duty of all people to obey it, but when a Liberal ot Labour Government is returned it is the duty of the Conservative House of Lords to restrict, to disregard, and to defy the will of the people on the ground that when they voted they did not know what they were doing." The plea that even a reformed House would prove no real obstacle to extremism and tho violence of political revolutionaries was made by Lord Redesdale (who prides himself -on a non-party view). To his mind the House of Lords is the finest Second Chamber in tho world. If it were-^eyer to be destroyed from outside, as.it had been by Cromwell,,he believed ip!. would be quickly restored by the people themselves; but if it were reformed from within and becamo a statutory body, instead of a body -resting upon an honoured tradition, its doom .■would, bo sealed. ■'•'. .-. And so the matter, rests—an uncomfortable, dangerous, vancl (jomplicated problem which may never be solved.