REFORM OF THE LORDS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume 9167, Issue 9167, 16 March 1910, Page 5

REFORM OF THE LORDS.

LORD ROSEBERY'S RESOLUTIONS,

DEBATE IN UPPER HOUSE.

(By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) (Per Press Association.) LONDON, March 15. The House of Lords was thronged yesterday by a brilliant gathering, tho Prince and Princess of Wales being among those present. The Earl of Rosebery, in moving that the House go into committee on his resolutions—

1. That a strong and efficient Second Chamber is an intcrgal part of the Constitution, and is necessary for the well-being of the State and the balance of Parliament;

2. That such a Chamber can best bo obtained by reform and reconstruction of the House of Lords;

3. That a necessary preliminary to such reconstruction is the acceptance of the principle that possession of a peerage no longer of itself gives the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords

contended that it would be hopeless to imagine that the Government's veto resolutions, if passed in 1910, would be followed by reform in 1911. The Liberals would say to Mr Asquith: "We recognise your good intention; but we do not mean to have anything to do with that. You have deprived the House of Lords of its privilege and power in a single session of Parliament. What more do we want?" Mr Asquith's proposal resembled the ham-stringing of a valuable horse rather than entering for the Derby.

Lord Rosebcry concluded a closefy reasoned and earnest speech against the Government's proposal for complete domination by the Commons by setting up a sham and impotent Second Chamber, mentioning the lessons taught by the French revolution of the danger of withholding concessions until too late. Ho was convinced the House would rise to the height of a great occasion, and earn the gratitude of unborn generations.

Viscount Morley urged the House to wait and hoar what the Government's proposals were. He said Lord Rosebery had failed to touch the emergency confronting them. What was needed was an effective means of settling differences between the two Houses.

Lord Northcote approved of the resolutions, but considered the details of the proposals contained in them required careful examination.

Tho debate was adjourned

AN ELECTIVE SECOND CHAMBER

LORD ROSEBERY'S VIEWS,

Received March 16, 8.45 a.m.

LONDON, March 15,

During his speech in "the House of Lords, Lord Rosebery referred to Sir G. Reid, High Commissioner for Australia, as a man of infinite ability, popularity, and geniality. No better choice for the position could possibly have been made. He asked: How could Sir George Reid possibly justify to tho Australians the abolition of the Second Chamber in Great Britain when Australia took care to secure a strong and efficient Senate upon tho institution of the federation in 1900? The Colonics, he added, had always taken care to secure a strong Second Chamber.

There is much comment in the newspapers on Lord Rosebery's statement that he deprecated tho elections of peers by popular vote. This would only give a feeling that the House of Lords was an understudy of the House of Commons, and would multiply the horrors of a general election, but the Lords would derive dignity by association with Corporations and County Councils formed into elective bodies upon the French basis. The representation provided in this way should form no inconsiderable proportion of the Upper House.

REFORM FROM WITHIN

SIR EDWARD GREY'S OBJECTION

Received March 16, 9.40 a.m. LONDON, March 15. Sir Edward Grey, in a speech at a Liberal banquet in the City, said that if the reform of the House of Lords was left to the other side, the Liberals would bo courting disaster, death, and damnation. The solution must be an elective chamber, elected not necessarily simultaneously with the Commons and not over the same area. The Government would rc-impose the Budget taxes. By that they stood or fell.