Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, SATURDAY, JUNE 25, 1927 HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16376, 25 June 1927, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, SATURDAY, JUNE 25, 1927 HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM

Reform of the House of Lords could not well rest at an intermediate stage much longer. Although not made at all prominent in the Conservatives ' platform at the hist general election, silence did not mean abnndonment of the effort which the party desired to make in order to give some measure of useful stability to the House of Lords, and to prevent it being swept away altogether upon some wave of extreme radicalism placing a Government in power bent upon usurping all power in itself. With three such powerful Ministers in the House of Lords as Lords Balfour, Salisbury, and Birkenhead, and .the Lord Chancellor, Lord Cave, as its Speaker, the Government's abstention from initiative of the reform of the House must have been based upon policy rather than upon any desire to delay what it really desired to bring about. It would be obviously* better to allow the House itself to express a desire to be reformed, even if it were ur.able to indicate an altogether acceptable- method, than to attempt to impose reform upon a strong body of reluctant and -opposing Peers. This seems to be what has happened. Viscount FitzAlnn is not a Minister. Ho has had a distinguished career; in l!»2l he was Viceroy of Ireland. .No better man could havo been selected to bring forward a resolution in the House of Lords welcoming some measure of reform and defining membership. Ho was the chief Conservative whip until the formation of the coalition Government in May, 1915. There can be no doubt that his motion was not. brought forward without h:ivingfl received beforehand the approval of the Cabinet. It was an independent motion of an invitatory character, and it gave the Lord Chancellor the opportunity to give an outlino of the reform that the Government had under consideration, without absolutely committing it definitely to undue detail, while carefully affirming, that "no j bill altering the powers and constitution of th> House of Lords sho.ild be ! passed into law without the Lords' assent." Lord PitzAln.li did not c-.actly appeal to his colleagues' fears, but. ho went so far as to point out an undoubted fact that "the Sociulisj party, if it got a chance, would legislate for a single Chamber, therefore he appealed to the House to show an unselfish spirit and safeguard the country from a revolutionary change.'' The House of Lords never takes its duties very seriously. Lord Salisbury recently pointed out that it could hardly do so under present conditions ! and tho great delays in the Houso of ' Commons in sending up Ihe measures I it passed. The House consists of some "20 members. In the largest post-war division in the House only 268 voted. It must have taken a pretty sovere whip to get that number in thenplaces. One great advantage would follow the reduction of numbers, the introduction of the elective principle,

and the emancipation of young Peers, ■That the country would hare the advantage of selection of member? for the House of Commons from the most highly educated young men, of their day, "who having no career.in the House of Lords open to them', and being excluded from the House of Commons, by reason of their birth, arc driven to accept sinecure po.rts, or to lose their lives in tedious leisure or energetic sport. That the introduction of the discussion in the House of Lords was not wholly unknown or unwelcome to Ministers is confirmed by Mr. Churchill's answer to a question in the House of Commons "that discussions in the House of Lords would assist the Ministry in deciding the final form of the legislative proposals for reforming the Upper House." When further pressed by Mr. Clynes to give the, form of the legislative proposals—whether it meant resolutions of a Bill —the cautious Minister deprecated haste. "It was far too early to approach the matter in such a definite form. The Lord Chancellor's statement, embodied the Ministry's genera,! view." Facilities were not to be given, for an academic discussion, having regard to the crowded business paper'. The Opposition would, if it desired such discussion, have to avail itfcelf of a censure motion. Mr. Clynes had to get as much satisfaction as he could out of that. The views of the other two political parties were expressed by Lord Haldano for Labor, and by the Marquis of Rending for the Liberals. Both parties will oppose reform of the Parliament Act; both are against any power being retained by the House of Lords to block its own reform. Both are opposed to the suggestion that decision as to what constitutes any measure a money bill should be given to a joint committee ofj-both Houses. Labor would prefer a single Chamber and will oppose tooth and nail any power of election or otherwise being left to hereditary peers. Lord Salisbury, who leads the Government in the House of Lords, candidly announced that the Government would support Viscount Fitz Alan's motion "because it represented its views." The proposals outlined by the Lore"' Chancellor are framed so as to come within the framework of the Parliament Act, and thus avoid an appeal to the electorate, which the Marquis of Reading, for the Liberals, held to be desirnble. It was not really necessary and would be unnecessarily disturbing, in Mr. Baldwin's view. Under the proposals the Labor party are to be given representation. It may be that their principles may bo in their way in accepting What may be given to them. They may be in the same plight as Mr. De Yaiera and his supporters, who are up to their necks in the waters they desire but will not permit themselves to drink. If, as seems to be likely, the Government brings down a measure before the present Parliament expires, it will provide for a House of 250 members instead of 720. There will be a limited number of nominated members, nominate.! by the Crown. Swamping by the appointment of unlimited numbers to carry any particular Government measure will be impossible. The appointments will be for twelve years—one third to go out every fourth year. Hereditary Peers are to select their own representatives, limited as to number. Spiritual Peers are to do the same. There will also be Peers of the Roval blood and Law Lords. Peers net elected by their own order would be eligible for election to the House of Commons. How Labor members are to be appointed seems to be still very much in the air. Lord Salisbury's comment upon the question put to him appears to have been uncertain, or at all events indicated that the problem was not wholly solved. "I admit that that is a difficulty. V The Conservative mind apI'ears to have crystallised in this way: jA second (Jhamner is necessary. It should have limited powers, not capable of being disturbed at every breath of public opinion. A title should not disfranchise an able young man from serving the country in the House of Commons if he can get returned. Stability in the Constitution is, after all, of more importance than absolute perfection.