HOUSE OF LORDS.

Hokitika Guardian, 24 June 1927, Page 2

HOUSE OF LORDS.

(Australian & N.Z. Cable Association.) LONDON. June 23. Lord Birkenhead said the House of Lords served no useful purpose, if it were incapable of functioning when Socialists came into power as some day ihey would, but it was as important it should function now as five to ten years hence. How could it function when there was no adequate representatives of the opposition. “Our proposals are not inconsistent with the dignit.v 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 ill the proceedings. Is it to be suggested that if they are invited they will not come often hut only once in four years, to vote for somebody who wishes to lie a peer and that can he considered an invasion of their privileges. An impartial tribunal was needed to decide what was a money bill. AYo are not asking Tor an invasion of the finance powers of the Commons. Personally [ am confident wo would carry the issue at the bar of public opinion.”

Lord Beauchamp said the Liberals would not support the proposals, designed to maintain a permanent Conservative majority in Parliament. The Act was the result of a general election, and the electorates should be given an opportunity for expressing its views oil the reform.

Lord Aston urged the gradual transformation to a nominated house. Lord Xovar said: “AVe are cutting the gordinn knot, not untying it. If reform is seriously tackled, it must be on the basis of reccrticiliating the moderates of all, parties, to the restoration of those powers without which the second Chamber is merely a useless party appendage.’ 'film debate was adjourned.

LABOUR OPPOSED. LONDON, June 22. At a joint meeting of the T.U.C. Council and Parliamentary Labour Party, it was decided to offer uncompromising hostility to the proposals of the Government to reform the House of Lords on the grounds “that they would deprive the House of ( ominous of the control of finance and ol taxation, and would perpetuate' the House of Lords as a Tory instrument.”