REFORMING THE LORDS

Greymouth Evening Star, 20 December 1933, Page 7

REFORMING THE LORDS

CONSERVATIVE private bill ANTI-SOCIALIST PREPARATION [by CABLE —PRESS ASSN. —COPYRIGHT.] (Received December 20, 2 p.m.) LONDON, December 19. In the Hous© of Lords, Lord Salisbury moved a private bill for the reform of the Lords, by reducing the membership, and strengthening its powers to impose delay on legislation.

The Bill, based on the proposals submitted by a small committee, was designed, he said, to secure Britain, against any sudden subversive changes. The measure proposed that the hereditary element be reduced to 150 Peers, with 150 added from outside, plus Peers of the Blood Royal, members of the Episcopal Bench on a reduced scale, and a number of Law Lords, the total membership to be about 320. Lord Hailshani said he would vote for the introduction, but the Government had not considered the- subject. Leave to introduce was given by 84 to 35 votes. 1 / , Lord Salisbury, citing Sir S. Cripp’s speeches on Labour’s intentions, said: “We should be insane if we did not take precautions to prevent the country unknowingly, and not dreamipg of the consequences, being exposed to a Labour Government.’.’ He was never able to understand the attacks on the hereditary principle, which permeated the whole of our society. ‘‘We are not fighting for rights, but obligations. It would be contemptible to suggest that we are fighting for We are hero because we believe we can render service to the country. If it does not want us, let us go home.” The reform of the Lords has been in issue for half a century. At a moment, when the dangers of a Labour success were demonstrably formidable, when' Conservative and Liberals alike were determined to resist them, seems a hopeful moment to submit the bill to strengthen the constitution of the powers of the Lords. • Lord Ponsonby moved the rejection of the bill-on tile ground that its intention was to consolidate Conservative dominance in the Upper House. It was an attempt to “’use the Government’s passing majority to jerrymander the constitution in favour of the Tory Party. Lord Reading agreed that the bill would not only increase the power of the Lords, but. give it a dominant Conservative majority. “We should bq taken back to the bad old days before 1911, which we thought disposed of, once and for all.” /*' Lord Astor, while favouring the Lord’s reform, thought,.., Lord Salisbury’s bill would maintain all the disadvantages of the present constitution. He would prefer <a nominated to an hereditary House. Lord Dickenson said that the Lords should not be empowered to over-ride the Commons.