LORDS LAST LINE OF DEFENCE AGAINST TYRANNY AND CHAOS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18189, 23 June 1927, Page 5

LORDS LAST LINE OF DEFENCE AGAINST TYRANNY AND CHAOS.

REFORM URGED TO SAVE HOUSE FROM WORSE. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. A.P.A. and Sydney “ Sun ” Cables. (Received June 23, 2.55 p.rp.) LONDON, June 22. In the House of Lords, on resuming the debate on the reform proposals, the Duke of Northumberland agreed that the proposals removed the worst features of the Parliament Act, defending the hereditary principle. He claimed that the Lords were more representative of the country than the House of Commons. There was no subject on which the Lords could not

produce more expert opinion than the Commons. A strong second chamber was necessary to check Socialist folly. The next Government might not offer the same terms, so it was better to seize the opportunity of reform, which permitted the Lords still to live their historical part as the last line of defence against the forces of tyranny and chaos.

Lord Parmoor said that the proposals did not constitute a second chamber on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but rendered less effective any action of the House of Commons under a Labour or Liberal Government, and wholly confirmed the principle of single-chamber government, whenever the Conservatives had a sufficient majority in that House. Furthermore, they completely eliminated the influence of the Labour Party. The whole scheme was reactionary. This was not j the way to hold back revolutionary movements. Therefore, he would support the Earl of Arran’s amendment.

Lord Birkenhead announced that it was intended to pass the Bill during the lifetime of the present Parliament. He indulged in banter at the expense of Lord Parmoor*s defence of the "good old Constitution,” instead of the Ministry’s change, and then taunted the Liberals for opposing what went little further than Mr Lloyd George's 1922 scheme.

Lord Birkenhead said that 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 ten 3'ears hence. How could it function when there was no adequate representation of the Opposition? “Our proposals are not inconsistent with the dignity of the hereditary peerage, but are expressive and illustrative of it. There are six Dukes, two Marquises, thirty-five Earls, seventeen Viscounts and ninety-eight 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 } r ears to votq* for somebody who wishes to be a peer?” An impartial tribunal was needed to decide what was a Money Bill. “We are not asking for an invasion of the finance powers of the Commons,” he said. “Personally, I am confident that we would carry the issue at the bar of public opinion.” Lord Beauchamp said that the Liberals would not support proposals designed to maintain a permanent Conservative majority. The Parliament Act was the result of the general election, and the electorate should be given an opportunity for expressing its views on reform. Lord Astor urged the gradual transformation to a nominated House. Lord Novar said: “We are cutting the Gordian knot and not untying it. If reform is seriously tackled it must be on the basis of reconciling the moderates of all parties to-the restoration of those powers without which the second Chamber is merely a useless party appendage.” The debate was adjourned.