REFORM OF HOUSE OF LORDS

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19678, 21 December 1933, Page 9

REFORM OF HOUSE OF LORDS

LORD SALISBURY’S NEW MEASURE OPPOSED BY LABOUR AND LIBERALS ‘Jailed Press Association—By Elleotrlc Telegraph—Copyright (Received December 20, 5.5 p.m.) RUGBY, December 19. In the House of Lords, the Marquis of Salisbury moved a Private Bill for the reform of the House of Lords. Introducing the measure Lord Salisbury stated that the members of both Houses had formed a small committee to submit proposals that would secure Britain against any sudden subversive changes, and the Bill was based on those proposals. He called attention to affairs abroad, where the old order was superceded by dictatorships bringing disruptive changes. He argued that in Britain also they must insure against the possibilities of subversive attempts to set up two methods of Government. The duty of the House of Lords was to make such changes in its constitution, as would make the country safe, and in so doing, they should go no further than was absolutely necessary. The aim of the Bill was to give the House of Lords sufficient power to prevent the country being hurried into vast changes, without time being given to consider them. *

After the measure had been criticised by Labour and Liberal Peers, Lord Hailsham, on behalf of the Government, said it was the custom to give the first reading to every Bill. He would therefore vote for the introduction of the Bill, but that did not mean the Government, or he personally supported it. As the Government had not considered the subject, he could not, on their behalf, express an opinion on the measure. Terms of the Bill. The measure proposed that the hereditary element should be reduced to 150 Peers, with 140 added from outside, plus Peers of the Blood Royal, and members of the Episcopal Bench on a reduced scale, and a number of Law Lords, the total membership to be about 320. Lord Salisbury, citing Sir Stafford Cripps’ speeches on Labour’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 the attacks on the hereditary principle, which permeated the whole of our society. “We are not fighting for rights, but obligations. It would be contemptible to suggest that we are fighting for privileges. We are here because we believe we can render service to the country. If it does not want us, let us go home. The reform of the House of Lords has been in issue for a half century. At the moment, when the dangers of Labour success are demonstrably formidable—when Conservatives and Liberals alike are determined to resist them —it seems a hopeful moment to submit the Bill to strengthen the constitution and powers of the Lords.” Lord Tonsonby moved the rejection of the Bill on the ground that its intention was to consolidate Conservative dominance in the Upper House. It was an attempt to use the Government’s majority to jerrymander the constitution it:, favour of the Tory Party. Lord Reading agreed that the Bill would not only increase the power of the House of Lords, but give it a dominant Conservative majority. “We should be taken back to the bad old days before 1911, which were thought to be disposed of once and for all.” Lord Aston, while favouring House of Lords reform, thought Lord Salisbury’s Bill would maintain all the disadvantages of the present constitution. He would prefer a nominated to a hereditary House. Lord Dickenson said the House of Lords should not be empowered to override the House of Commons. Leave to introduce the Bill was given by 84 to 35.