THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 1906. THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13226, 11 July 1906, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 1906. THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

| The attacks niad; 1 upon the House of j Lords by members of the Bannerrnan i Administration may he no more than j a passing symptom of intense party I "feeling. For over and over again, j since the fierce agitation that carried the Reform Bill, when the opposing I peers were induced to absent themi selves, from the crucial divisions by the knowledge that any further hostile majority was to be swamped by new creations, .there has arisen in the -XJited Kingdom the cry that the Hereditary Chamber must be "ended or. mended.'.'. Yet the Twentieth Century sees, the House of Lords apparently as strongly entrenched within i the British Constitution as it has ever been, for a constant infusion of new blood has prevented it from growing decrepit and has added the lustre of famous names to the long roll of its 'historic celebrities. Nob only the army and navy, but law and science, art and industry, wealth and colonisation, have given of their great men to the chamber of hereditary legislators. To say that there are peers who disgrace their rank and drag their honour in the dust is but another way.of saying that peers are only men, and that among their hundreds are black sheep. But it is not because of the personal character of the, individual peers that antagonism to the House of Lords is periodically aroused. With very few exceptions they are, individually, respected and respectable gentlemen, whose collective existence is one of the picturesque features of British political life. It is easy to cull out titles the origins of which reflect no credit upon the nation, but the vast majority of the names are identified with great national service and give a sense of national continuity which is. of distinct social value. The demand that the constitution of the House of Lords be altered is due to a: very different cause than that the peers as individuals are generally unworthy of respect. It is when the ' Hereditary Chamber becomes a barker against the enactment of legislation strongly desired by the Representative, Chamber that politicians remember that: this is a democratic 'age, and that in a Such a legislative body as the Mouse |f Lords is an anachronism. Thereupon, they .'clamorously .attack... it and as to what : shall be;done with .the Lords rages. until the temper'of the day is exhausted or until, .as usually happens,, 'the irritating cause of the outbreak is removed. For to the average Englishman, and probably to the average peer, the House of Lords is nothing more or less than -'a brake on the wheels." Since the Reform Bill there has never been any doubt as to where the real political supremacy lay, provided public opinion was persistent in supporting the quarrel of the House of Commons. At odd times the House of Lords has done good political ''work, and these occasions are always recalled by its defenders in answering the criticism that;.'it applies the brake while , the coach is going uphill. The particularly bitter feeling of the present attack upon it is due to the fact that it passed a Balfour Education Bill which was favoured by the Anglican authorities ; 'and that it is thought to have malevolent designs upon a Bairnerman "Education Bill which is unfavourably regarded by the Anglican authorities;. Whether it will throw out the Bill or fundamentally amend it may be doubted, but the mere suggestion is enough, in these days to incite an always latent feeling against hereditary legislators. But while the present attack upon the House of Lords may be only a passing outburst, the mere fact- that its constitution is in direct opposition to all democratic dogma, not to say principle, raises the question 'whether its reform may not soon be seriously attempted. Theoretically, neither the British House of Lords nor a colonial Legislative Council can be reformed without its own consent, but we may dismiss at once, as incompatible with all human experience, any idea that a decided and | determined public feeling could not force into law another Reform Bill, whether at Home or in any selfgoverning colony. There are obvious ways by which reforms might be attempted. Of these the exclusion oi the "'Lords Spiritual,'' the Archbishops and Bishops of the Established Church, is possibly the mostpopular, for in the very nature of things every non-Anglican is against their being given a share in legislation apart altogether from his opinions upon the general, question of a non-representative chamber. Colonists know most of the " Lords Spiritual" as stubbornly opposed ' to the legalisation of marriage with a deceased wife's sister; but they take active part in much more important measures. The abolition of the hereditary principle has also been urged, the effect of which would be to ( put the House of Lords upon the same basis as those colonial chambers to which members are appointed for life. In New Zealand, where legislative councillors are appointed foi a term of years, the public has been quite dissatisfied and is ripe for a radical alteration. We have found, as would probably be found in the United Kingdom, that the system of I legislation by partisan nominees who j owe no responsibility to the public ■j is among the worst, that could be | invented. This device would hardly , ! meet with such great lavou. as would.be required to ensure the necessary public support, - A ' more

likely, though minor, reform' -is- one that has''often,'been; suggested as « means of, excluding peers; who .admittedly' do no credit to their class. that, is the reduction of the number <>» English peers ''allowed to , sifc . and election from among themselves by themselves to the vacant seats-, as is the ease with Irish and Scottish peers. Bui it must be recollected that those who denounce the House of Lords do not wish to reform it in the sense of leaving it in an improved form upon its present basis. They desire to abolish that basis. and to substitute another'; so will certainly oppose any reform which may tend to strengthen (he existing House. They would erect a representative Second Chamber, as in" France, the United States. Canada, Australia, and other democratic States ; just as we -would do in New Zealand, if we were wise. For what ever, may be said on behalf of the British House of Lords cannot be said on behalf of our own Legislative Council, which is neither historic nor famous nor picturesque. But whatever may be done with the House of Lords it is not. likely to perish hastily, not even though Mr. Lloyd George demands that it should be. " thrown on, to the scrap heap" and Mr'. Winston • Churchill denounces it as " an unsound and irresponsible Assembly."' .