POWER OF LORDS

Taranaki Daily News, 21 December 1933, Page 5

POWER OF LORDS

BILL PROPOSES REFORMS

LORD SALISBURY’S ARGUMENT

REDUCTION IN MEMBERSHIP

LABOUR MEMBER PROTESTS

CONSERVATIVE DOMINANCE

By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright London, Dec. 19.

In the House of Lords Lord Salisbury moved a private Bill for the reform of the House of Lords by reducing its membership and by strengthening its powers .to impose delay on legislation. The Bill is based on the proposals submitted by a small committee and is designed to secure Britain against any sudden subversive changes. The measure proposes that the heredity element should be reduced to 150 peers with 150 added from outside, plus peers of Blood Royal and members of the Episcopal Bench on a reduced scale and a number of law lords, a total membership of about 320.

Lord Hailsham, Minister of War, said he would vote for the Bill’s introduction, but the Government had not considered the subject and he would not express an opinion on the measure. Leave to introduce the Bill was given by 84 votes to 35. Lord Salisbury, citing the speeches of the Labour leader, Sir Stafford Cripps, on the party’s intentions, said: “We should be insane if we did not take precautions to prevent the country, unknowingly and not dreaming of the consequences, being exposed to a Labour Government.” He was never able to understand, said Lord Salisbury, the attacks on the hereditary principle, which permeated the whole of their society. “We will not fight for our rights but our obligations,” he added. “It would be contemptible to suggest that we are fighting for privileges; we are here because we believe that we can render a service to the country. If it does not want us let us go home.” The reform of- the Lords, he said, had been an issue for half a century. At the moment the dangers of Labour successes very demonstrably formidable and the Conservatives and Liberals alike were determined to resist. Therefore it seemed a hopeful moment to submit the Bill to strengthen the constitution and the powers of the Lords. Lord Ponsonby (Labour) moved the rejection of the Bill on the ground that its intention was to consolidate the Conservative dominance of the Upper House. It would attempt to use the Government’s passing majority to gerrymander the Constitution in favour of the Tory Party, he said. Lord Reading agreed that the Bill would not only increase the power of the Lords but would also give it a dominant Conservative majority. “We should be taken back to the bad old days before 1911 which we thought were disposed of once and for all,” he said. Lord Astor, while favouring the reform of the Lords, thought that Lord Salisbury’s Bill would maintain all the disadvantages of the present’ constitution. He would prefer a nominated to an' hereditary House. Lord Dickenson said the Lords should not be empowered to override the Commons.