A PIEBALD HOUSE.

Grey River Argus, 22 June 1927, Page 5

A PIEBALD HOUSE.

LORDS REFORM PROPOSAL. To Counter the Commons. AND ENTRENCH PRIVILEGE. ;(Aus. & N.Z. Cable Assn & Sun Cable) (Received Juno 21 at 16.30 p.m.) LONDON, June 20. In the House of Lords, a debate on the reform of the House of Lords was initiated by Lord Fitzalan, who moved a motion that the House would welcome some reasonable measure of limiting and defining the membership of the House of Lords. Dealing with the inherent defects in the Parliament Act. he said ho did not desire to impair the traditions or privileges of the House of Lords, but they must look the facts in the face, and the House of Lords should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the question of the reform of their House. Compared with the House of Commons, they had 720 members against 615. Yet in the largest post-war House of Lords division, only 268 members voted. Personally, he would like to see the House of Lords consist of a reduced number of mem bers elected by Their Lordships. The time had come when the preponderance of the hereditary principle was no longer practicable. Flection in some form from the outside was necessary. He suggested that portion of the House should bo elected by Their Lord ships, plus an outside elective element, and also some Government nominations.

The Socialist Party, he said, if it go: the chance, would legislate for a single Chamber. Therefore he appealed to the House of Lords to show an unselfish spirit ami safeguard the country from a revolutionary change. Lord Marlborough moved an amendment stating that, in view of the failure of the scheme of reform to arouse any interest, further discussion on the point moved be inopportune, and unprofitable.

Lord Arran moved a further amendment, viz., “That in view of the omission of so grave an alteration in the Constitution from the Government’s election programme, it would be con trary to Parliamentary to introduce any measure till the electorate had expressed the opinion that if there was any alteration in the hereditary principle, it must be its entire abolition Otherwise, it would be a source of weakness in a. reformed Chamber. The Lord Chancellor said that there was a real and urgent problem to solve. After consideration by the Cabinet of the Committee’s report, the Ministry had expressed the opinion that Parliament should be asked to accept the proposals of the Bryce Committee, an I Jo enact that the question of whether a Bill was a money Bill should be decided by a joint committee of both Houses, instead of solely by the Speaker. Tt was possible, he said, that a Bill completely abolishing their second chamber might be regarded as within the letter of the Parliament Act, and might throw on the Sovereign the responsibility of deciding whether or not to withhold the royal assent. Such a Bill as the Ministry proposed would be a safeguard. No Bill altering the constitution and the powers of the House of Lords should be passed into law without the House of Lords’ assent. The Ministry’s plan did not include proposals for dealing with deadlocks between the two Houses. It had been suggested that in such a case, the provisions of the Parliament Act should not apply till the electorate had decided. Mr Baldwin had said that his proposals would come within the framework of the Parliament Act, and such change as that suggested might be 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 of Lords in its present form. If such a vital pioposal were made, it would have to be considered whether it should continue as a hereditary House, or whether some elective body should take its .place. Therefore the Government had excluded deadlocks and also the elective element. Machinery must be found under which representation of the Labour Party in the House of Lords would be possible. Therefore, it was proposed that the Sovereign should act on the lines of the Bryce Report and a limited number of nominated members should be appointed for twelve years-one-third of whom would go out every fourth year. It was further proposed that the hereditary Peers be called upon to select from their own ranks a fixed number of Peers on the same terms of tenure. The reformed House would consist of not more than 250 members, composed of peers of the royal blood, lords spiritual, law lords, and hereditary peers elected by their own order, and also members nominated by the crown. The number of the last two classes be determined by statute. With the exception of the royal, law and spiritual peers, j the others would hold their seats for i a term fixable by statute, and would ■ be eligible for re-election. Those not • elected would be eligible for election to the House of Commons. A mor * ambitious scheme might have more attractions, but this was a cautious step In the right direction. There might be greater danger in standing still. If the matter were fairly raised ami faced courageously, it might avert danger and restore strength to the constitution’s fabric. Lord Haldane said that if they tried to strengthen the House of Lords against the House of Commons a the (Labour Party would fight their pro posal to the end. The debate was adjourned.