The Waikato Times With which is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1928. THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

Waikato Times, Volume 104, Issue 17585, 14 December 1928, Page 6

The Waikato Times With which is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1928. THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

The reform of the Lords is again being discussed, but it is upon the motion of a private peer and not of the Government, so that it is unlikely that the matter will go beyond discussion. It is apparently an insoluble problem to form a House which shall represent public opinion. A peer's title is conferred in recognition sometimes of services to the State, sometimes of services to the party, but in either case it is given to men who have reached a favoured position. Such men are usually Conservative, and it is safe to say that their sons will be even more likely to be of that way. of thinking. The present proposal is that the peers shall elect 150 from their own numbers, while the Crown should nominate 150 in proportion to the parties in the House of Commons. Such a proposal would, of course, be rejected. The 150 members elected by the peers would be Conservative, and with those added in proportion to the Conservatives in the House of Commons would give them a clear majority at all times. The country is sometimes Liberal, sometimes Conservative, and may some time be Labour, and it wants a House of Lords which shall change in the same way, though not necessarily at the same time. The functions of the House of Lords are to act as a revising and moderating body, and there have been times when they carried this out, but of late they have entirely failed to do so. When the Conservatives were in power they would pass anything; when the Liberals were in power they would pass nothing. Lord ' Clarendon, who is introducing the present resolution, does not seem to realise that the hereditary principle has outlived its usefulness and is out of date. He suggests that the Crown should have the power to nominate a limited number of life peers. The truth is that there should be no nominations to anything but a life peerage. There are men who are eminently fitted to sit in the House of and take part in legislation, but there is no guarantee that their sons will be fit and there will be no willingness to entrust them with the power to do so. There are two sides to a Peerage. There is the social standing and recognition, and there is the political power of controlling legislation. It will be found necessary to distinguish between the two things. Of late years the Peerage has been prostituted, though Mr. Stanley Baldwin deserves much credit for treating the question with dignity and reserve. If, however, his predecessors had done the same it would not have greatly affected the position. The hereditary principle is inconsistent with democracy and must sooner or later give way. The Lords, however, have failed to notice this. In the Nineteenth Century, when Wellington led the House of Lords, he recognised that the will of the majority must prevail and instilled prudence into the peers. The House was not then such a swollen body and those who composed it had some feeling of responsibility. Now the peers who commonly take no part in debates turn up when some question of general interest is considered and vote as "die hards," usually in direct opposition to public opinion. It is commonly admitted that a second House is desirable, but at the same time most countries feel the difficulty of providing the second House. If nominated it becomes a refuge for party politicians rejected by the people; if elected it tends to be a copy of the lower House. It is this difficulty which makes it so regrettable that the Lords should have failed to rise to the occasion and fill the position which was waiting for them. When the political world was divided between Whigs and Tories the Lords divided in the same way, but when Liberals came the Lords all turned Tory, and their value as an independent House ceased. The problem now is how to form another, and the only method which is likely to meet general support is the appointment of life peers, and even this may be limited by

the right to sit in the House for a certain number of years only. , It would be a misfortune if the appointment of peers was to cease. It is the most effective manner of recognising services to the State, and it might be provided that some peers only sat in the House of Lords. At present the Scotch peers elect a certain number from among themselves; before the days of Home Rule the Irish peers did the same. It is not necessary that every title should carry the right to sit in the House. Baronets have long lost any such right, yet the title is valued. Men value any distinction which marks them out from their fellows. America has no peerage, but she abounds in professors and colonels. These arc of course honorary titles and carry just as much weight as the character of the man will sustain. We shall have to pursue the same course and treat a title as an honorary distinction carrying no right to legislative action. The resolution which Lord Clarendon has introduced will lead to an interesting discussion, but lo no more, and it would be an act of wisdom to refrain from mlro-

flucing the question. Mr Baldwin has studiously refrained from doing so, though he has heen urged on by party politicians who would make the world safe for their particular views. Party politicians are like horses in winkers, seeing nothing on each side of them and very little in front.