OPINION DIVIDED

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16374, 23 June 1927, Page 11

OPINION DIVIDED

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM PEERS DISCUSS PROPOSAL (British Official Wireless.) Kee. 2 p.m. LONDON, June 22. The House of Lords continued to-day the debate oil its own reform in the light of the recently-announced Government's proposals. These, in brief, reduce the size of Hie lit use, part of it to bo elected by the peers and part to be nominated by the rruwn, the period of service being J2 years. Lord Birkenhead .staled it was ccr tainly the intention of the (Government to pass H measure ol reform within the lifetime of the present Parliament, and to do so without imperilling the main principle of the Parliament AeX. He contended that the House of Lords could not function whilst there was no aderpiate means by which the Opposition party in it could also function. The House would never be effective when the Labor party was m power, or when it was not, unless there were on the benches Labor representatives with n considerable number of .supporters behind them.

(Elec. Tel. Copyright—United Press Assn.) (Australian and N.Z. Cable'Association.) The Duke of Northumberland agreed that the proposals removed the worst features of the Parliament Act. In defending the hereditary principle ho claimed that the House oi' Lords was more representative of the country than the House of Commons. There was no subject on which the Lords could not -produce a more expert opinion than the Commoners A strong second chamber was necessary to check the Socialist folly. The next Government might not offer the same terms, so it was better to seize the opportunity of a reform which permitted the Lords still to live an historical part as a last line of defence against the forces of tyranny and chaos. Lord Pamioor said the proposals did not constitute a second chamber on a popular instead of a hereditary basis, but rendered less effective any action of the House of Commons under a Labor or Liberal Government, and wholly confirmed the principle of a single chamber Government whenever the Conservatives had a sufficient majority in that House. Furthermore, they completely eliminated the influence of the Labor Party. The whole scheme was reactionary. This was not the way to hold back revolutionary movements; therefore he would support the Earl n Arran's amendment.

Lord Birkenhead indulged in banter at the expense of Lord Parmoor's defence of the good old constitution instead of a 'Ministry change. He then taunted the Liberals' for opposing what went a little further than Mr. Lloyd George's 1922 scheme. i Lord Birkenhead said the House of Lords served no useful purpose if it were incapable, of functioning when Socialists came into power, as some day they would, but it was as important that.it should function now as five to 10 years hence. How could it function when there was no aderpiate representation of the Opposition? "Our proposals are not inconsistent with the dignity of the hereditary peerage, but are expressive and illustrative of it," he added.

"There are six dukes, two marquises, 35 earls, 17 viscounts, and 98 barons who have not troubled to qualify themselves to participate in the proceedings. is it to be suggested that if they are invited they will not come often, but only once in four years to vote for somebody, and that that can be considered an invasion of their privileges?"

An impartial tribunal was neoaett, *u said, to decide what was a in.«ic\ mi!.

"•We are not asking lor an invasion of the finance powers ol the House of Commons. Personally. lam eontidenl that we would carry the issue at the bar of public opinion."

Lord Beauehamp said the Liberals would not support proposals designed to maintain a permanent. Conservative majority. The Parliament Act was the result, of a general election, and the electors should bo given the opportunity for expressing its views on reform. Lord Astor urged a gradual transformation to a nominated House. Lord Novar said: "We are. cutting the Gordian knot, not untying it. If the reform is seriously backed it must be on the basis of reconciling the'moderates of all parties to the restoration of those powers without winch the second Chamber is merely a useless party appendage." The debate was adjourned.