THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1924. LABOUR AND THE LORDS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18629, 9 February 1924, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1924. LABOUR AND THE LORDS.

The saying that ' an Englishman dearly loves a lord had currency before the emergence of a Labour party in politics. In less remote days it has been spoken with , a difference. In Britain, before the oncoming of a democracy that has been as openly desirous of levelling down as of levelling up, a fondness for flouting aristocracy became common,? and it seemed as if, once the socalled working, classes got their way, titles would become two a penny. The unexpected has happened. Labour has found a path to the chief seats in Parliament, and— wonderful by far—it has evinced a toleration, if not exactly an affection, for the nobility. It had the blessing of some peers when it went to the polls. On its platforms they openly lent support. When the crucial test of parties was past, Labour crossed to the Treasury benches with several noble lords, not in its train, but in its van. A few highly important portfolios, it was then found, had been given to them. Like the capital levy, Labour's opposition to the peerage had been frankly abandoned—on the same ground, the critics were tempted to say, quoting the words of Mr. Ramsay MacDohald, that "the time was not opportune " for any radical change. It was reported that these gifts of portfolios to lords were received with favour by the party. The view that a certain number of peers in the Cabinet was essential to tH carrying on of government was accepted without any serious demur. Since then, in conformity with the established principle that at least one Secretary of State must sit in , the House of Lords, three new peerages have been created to give Labour Ministers extra seats there. It is evident that, however violently "the dockers' K.C.," Kir. Bevin, M.P., may declaim against the word "master" as one to be banished from the dictionary, there is no such •deep-rooted objection to the cognate word " lord." It has become for the nonce an important item in Labour's vocabulary.

There can be no denying that this chain of recent events has been a reverse of Labour's characteristic attitude. Not so long ago titles were anathema to the party. There was pronounced and vehement opposition to the House of Lords, even an avowed determination' to abolish it should the opportunity come Labour's way. The English Socialists, in particular, declared themselves as pledged to achieve this end. That House was regarded as an obstacle to advanced legislation, a bulwark of class privilege and the natural enemy of the masses. A cursory reading of history would place all second chambers ia that category. The French " Senate, created by the National Assembly after the defeat of Sedan and the establishment of the Republic in 1870, was deliberately set up as the stronghold of royalist sentiment, and in spite of reforms it has maintained its highly conservative character. Although an elected body, its constitution by indirect election has removed it from immediate popular control; and, notwithstanding that it has latterly ceased to be a monarchical assembly and actually become a protection to the Republic, it has blocked many betterment measures'. It delayed for many years the full scheme of old-age pensions and the special pensions for State workers, opposed a progressive income tax, electoral reform, a weekly holiday for workers and proto forbid children's work in factories, and defeated women's suffrage. It has become a chamber comparable to the British House of Lords, in both personnel and functions, the Chamber of Deputies resembling the House of Commons. The presence of such a conservative second chamber just across the Channel. strengthened British Labour's antipathy to the Upper House in its own country, adding weight to the view that such an assembly is calculated to put the brake on the wheels of social progress. That view, doubtless, is still an essential part of Labour's outlook on political institutions, and only the exigencies of the present situation —a Government in power without a majority in Parliament—have reconciled the party to a tentative acceptance of the , existing constitutional machinery.

Labour was .represented in the important Conference oil. the Reform of the Second Chamber— usually as " the Bryce Conference »' —set up in 1917 to review the bicameral system in all its bearings. Its representatives frankly favoured Britain's adoption of a single chamber system. Had that Conference issued a formal finding— letter from its chairman, Lord Bryce, acquainted the Prime Minister with the tenor of the discussions and the conclusions of a majority of the committee—these members would doubtless have presented a minority report embodying their opinions. Those opinions were widely known. Yet it. does not follow that in Labour's own interests a Parliament of one assembly would mean any real advantage. The hurrying of advanced socialistic proposals into law, apart altogether from disadvantageous results that Labour itself would share, would probably excite such a reaction in the publio mind as to prejudice the party's popularity in the electorate. It would simply harden general opposition to Labour. Australia's experience bears out this likelihood. The Commonwealth Senate was for /years a stronghold of Labour, and it became an instrument of the party, in what was for the time practically a angle chamber system. Reaction was provoked. A Labour Premier became himself compliant in that reaction, and' to-day Labour in Commonwealth politics has suffered a, setback* A- reading o* all the tacts &a*

probably led. Mr. Ramsay "-'MacDonald to let well alone in the interests of his?; own ? party, Hand the House :of Lords remains i unaffected: save the addition,of; three members unlikely to introduce any inflammatory ' or f' disturbing element into its stately quiet. ./, Labour, for the present at least, has decided jto keep on good terms with the Lords. They, ,oh their part, ,are not likely to seek cause of quarrel with Labour. So the British 'genius for being governed adds another instance to an illustrious tradition. ■