REFORMING THE LORDS.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXIX, Issue 10765, 13 May 1911, Page 4

REFORMING THE LORDS.

5fR BALFOUR'S VIEWS

[By "JSlectric Telegraph—Copyv.ioht.]

.' '(Pep. Press Association.) - I Received May 12. at 10.3') p.m. j Louden. May 1:?. i Mr Balfour, speakinn at the Albert • Hall-, said they must h:\ve a strong and effective second chamber, able to carry : out its groat dutiful, not pitiful, bi-j.- I early - modicum of responsibility given ; by the Parliament Bill, which the- Co- j vernment proposed indciinitely to post- : pone.' Admittedly it v.-a.s ni-'-es.v.ary to i reform -the' House of Lords, and the I Government insisted that v, e should ' meanwhile- be coverne-d by one Chamber | alone. He called that tiros-:, palpable, j and almost criminal incensisteiK-y. The Labor party -.vere <-on.sistent. "'They constantly declare tliey can s-e no object'in having a .-••ci-nd eliamb'-r, and they can vote on this Hill with a clear conscience. The Bill them a single chamber. The Government, in their -position, an- unassailable, but I cannot -imagine inconsistency jtreater than that of the Govr-rniiient in saying that the furiiro constitution must be bi-cameral, yet Parliament is framing a Bill so h> may be a single chamber constitution only. The explanation of such humiliating straits is that able men will be driven thereto by the necessity of -keeping a majority in the House , of Commons.'' Mr Asquith, at Man- ' chester, had claimed that if Home Rule were' relinquished the Government would have no difficulty in securing assent for the Parliament Bill. This was an inversion of tbe real _ facts. There would have been no Parliament Bill but for Home Rule. Received May 12, at 10.55 p;m, London, May 12. Mr Balfour continued that there might have been a reform of .the second' chamber and a change in the relations of the two Houses, but never the absurdity; of suggesting the transfer to asingle chamber elected on a different issue'of all the most fundamental, important, and invaluable elements of the Constitution. "Whether what the Government proposes is Borne Rule, oil the Gladstonian or some other unknown model,' it ought never to be passed by a single: chamber aloue, but either subjected; to revision by two independent and. legally co-equal chambers, "or referred to the people as a- whole." — (Cheers:) The true solution of the constitutional question was, firstly, a change in the Constitution of the second chamber, not an alteration of ' its powers, at all events not a. fundamental alteration of its powers as proposed by the Parliament Bill; secondly, deadlockslshould be met by conferences for : "feoncQiatiori, and joint sittings; thirdly! matters of grave importance and- in special instances by a rcferenNothing could be more entertaining and pathetic than to see their opponents, who had been talking about the'democracy throughout their Kves,rsfiugglirig to show that an appeal ' to the people on a specific issue was the worst? service renderable to the democHe concluded by claiming that the Unionists were the only true democratic party in the State.