HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM

Evening Star, Issue 19589, 22 June 1927, Page 5

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM

DEBATE ON MEASURE ABOLITION OF HEREDITARY PRINCIPLE TIME CONSIDERED INOPPORTUNE. Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, June 20. In the House' of Lords a debate on the reform of the House of Lords was initiated by Viscount Fitzalan, who mtVoduced a motion welcoming some reasonable measure of limiting and denning membership. Dealing with inherent defects in the Parliament Act, he said that he did not desire to impair the traditions or privileges of the House of Lords, but they must look facts in the face, and the Hoiise > should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the question of reform. Compared with the House of Commons, they had 720 members against 615, yet in the largest post-war Lords’ division only 268 voted personally. The time hail come when a preponderance of the hereditary principle was no longer practicable. Election in some form from outside was necessary. He suggested that portion should be elected by their Lordsliips, plus an outside elective element, also some Goverqjnent nominations. The Socialist Party, if it got tho chance, would legislate for a single Chamber, therefore he appealed to the House to show an unselfish spirit and safeguard tho country from revolutionary change The Duke of Marlborough moved ns an amendment that, in view of the failure of the scheme of reform to arouse interest, further discussion on tho point was inopportune and unprofitable. The Erfrl of Arran moved as a further amendment that, in view of the omission of so grave 'an alteration in the Constitution from the Government’s election programme, it would he contrary to parliamentary practice to introduce the measure until tho electorate had declared its views. He expressed the opinion that if there was any alteration in the hereditary principle it must be its entire abolition, otherwise it would bo a source of weakness in the reformed Chamber. —A. and N.Z. and ‘Sun’ Cable.

REAL PROBLEM TO SOLVE ,

VIEWS OF LORD CHANCELLOR

CAUTIOUS SCHEME OUTLINED,

LONDON, Juno 20. Tn tho House of Lords the Lord Chancellor (Viscount Cave.) said that there was a • real and urgent problem to solve. After consideration by Cabinet of the committee’s report the Ministry had expressed tho opinion that I arhament should he asked to accept the proposals of the Bruce Committee. The question of whether or not the Bill was a Money Bill should he decided by a joint committee of both Houses, instead of solely by the Speaker. It was possible that a Bill completely abolishing the second Chamber might be regarded as within the letter of tho Parliament 'Act. and might throw on tho Sovereign the responsibility of deciding whether or not to withhold the Royal assent. Such a Bill as the Mmistry proposed would be a safeguard. No Bill altering the constitution and powers of the House of Lords should be passed into law without the Lords assent The Ministry’s plan did not include proposals dealing with deadlocks between two Houses. It had been suggested that in such a case the provisions of the Parliament Act should not apply till the electorate hsd decided, but Mr Baldwin had said that his proposals would come wif’” - n the framework ot the Parliament *t. and such a change as that suggested might he difficult to make without first submitting it to the electorate. Besides, if it were insisted upon, it would raise the whole question of the continuance of the House or Lords in its present form. If such a vital proposal was made it would have tn be considered whether it should continue as n hereditary House or whot.ier pom© elective bodv would tnko its pla.ee. Therefore, the Government had excluded deadlocks, and also the elective element. Machinery must ho found under which the representation of the Labor Party was possible. Therefore it was proposed that the .Sovereign should act on the lines of the Bryce report, and that a limited number ol nominated members he appointed for twelve years, a third of whom would go out every fourth year. It was proposed that hereditary peers should bo called upon to select from their own ranks a fixed number of peers on tno same terms of tenure. The reformed House would consist of not more than 200 members, composed of peers of tho blood Royal, spiritual and law lords, and hereditary peers elected by their pwn order, aiid members nominated by tho Crown; the number of the last two classes to bo determined hv statute, with the exception of the Royal, law, and spiritual peers. The others would hold seats for a term to he fixed by statute, and bo eligible for reflection Those not elected would ho eligible tor election to the House of Commons A more ambitious scheme might nave more attractions, hr* ibis was a cautious step in the right direction. There mmlit be a greater danger in -standing still. If the matter was fnirlv raised and faced courageously it might avert the dagger and restore strength to tho Constitution’s fabric. Lord Haldane said that if they tried to strengthen the House or Lords against the House of Commons the Labor Party would fight the proposals to the end. Tho debate was adjourned.—A. and N.Z. and ‘Sun’ Cable.