LORDS REFORM.

Grey River Argus, 13 December 1928, Page 5

LORDS REFORM.

PROPOSALS DEBATED. In Upper House. “HEREDITARY PRINCIPLE HARD TO DEFEND.” (Australian & N.Z. Cable Asf’n). RUGBY, December 11. Lord Clarendon, introducing in the Loi-cts lhe proposals to r-form the upper Chamber, moved, firstly that it ‘vas desirable early steps be taken to unit the number of members of the House of Lords, and make suitable provision for elective representation of the peerage, and for such other representation. or nomination, as would assure each political party a fair position in the House.

Secondly, that the following constitution of the House of Lords would fulfil these conditions, in each Par liament. There should sit and vote 150 peers, elected by a proportional representation cumulative vote by the whole body of peers; and 150 other persons nominated by the Crown *n proportion of the parties in the House of Commons. The Crown is also to have power to appoint a limited number of life peers in each Parliament. Lord Clarendon advocated that the peers not elected to sit in the House of Lords should be eligible to stand as candidates for the House of Commons. The scheme was opposed by Lord BuckmastCr (Liberal) and Lord Parmoor (Labour). Lord Parmoor objected that the 150 peers elected by the present House of Lords would be predominantly Conservative.

Viscount Cave said that the Govern ment, in view of the grave constitutional importance, considered an endeavour ought to be made to secure a measure of agreement to any proposed changes. The Government dropped t'ae proposals made by him (Cave) last, year, because they did not receive that degree of general support which would have justified the Government proceeding with them. There could be no chance of giving legislative effect to the proposals during the life of the present Parliament. Lord Clarendon said that he had not thought of improving the position of the Conservative Party. The heredi tary principle was hard to defend; nevertheless., the House had interpreted th c will of the people wisely and well.

Lord Buckmaster said he had not committed himself to suppor t any particular proposal, but reform was urgent and imperative. Thc proposal in nowise interfered with thc Parliament ary Act. any attempt to alter which was doomed to defeat. He wanted to persuade the Government that if a Labour Government was returned, it ought to be allowed to function. This could be done by resolution, allowing the Government during office to ap point members to the Lords in order that its Bills be properly presented. Ge added: “The feet of young men and women are almost at our doors and we can almost hear their quick, impatient tread. Is this House to do nothing but lie like a fallen tree bar ring the whole path of progress, or to do something ensuring sympathetic consideration of Labour measures. I believe upon thc right answer depends the welfare of the whole realm.” Lord Parmoor insisted on the maintenance of supply of the House of Commons. He was uncompromisingly opposed to the proposals which would establish a second chamber empowered to hamper the Commons, and defeat democratic measures. Thc debate was adjourned.