The Gaurdian And Evening Star, with Which is incorporated the West Coast Times. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1927. THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

Hokitika Guardian, 29 June 1927, Page 2

The Gaurdian And Evening Star, with Which is incorporated the West Coast Times. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1927. THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

) Opinion's may differ says an exchange as to whether the present crisis in the J political fortunes of the Conservatives at Home provides a favourable oppor- «. tun it,v for reconstructing the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor has said, accurately enough, that “there is a real and urgent problem to solve.” But it is not clear why the Baldwin Cabinet' should feel compelled to take steps in this direction before its hands are free of the complications arising out of the Trade Union Bill. Moreover, as the Earl of Arran lias pointed out, there was no mention of any scheme | for the reform of the House of Lords I in the Conservative Election programme. and it may fairly he argued that Ministers should not initiate such a policy until they receive a mandate from the people. The reference made by Lord Fitzalan to the Parliament Act may serve to remind us of the long agitation against the House of Lords which culminated in the passing of this famous enactment in 1911. In this Act is is expressly stated that the .Government intends “to substitute for the House of Lords a.s it exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis.” This intention the Liberals were unable to carry into effect, but the criticism to which they then subjected the Upper House holds good to a large extent today as regards its constitution or personnel. It consists of 710 members, against Old in the Lower House, but the majority of them rarely attend, and. as Lord Fitzahm told the House, the largest division list since the war i nil tided only 26S names. But the worst defect of the House is the anomalous and arehiac hereditary principle on which it is based. Tn 1927 what is known a.s the Bryce Conference wa.s convened to consider various schemes for the reform of the Upper House, and the Lord Chancellor has informed the Lords that the Government intends to proceed on the lines indicated in the Bryce report. The Confer- 1 once discussed several alternative methods of reform—direct popular elec- 1 tion. nomination, election by local hod- 1 ies, election bv the House of Commons—and though it appeared to favour this last proposal it reached no final decision. The main impression felt by the Bryce report is that- the I hereditary principle is radically unsound. that the nomination of eminent

professional and public men to the Upper House would vastly improve it. and that both the general pubhe anti t lie* Lmvt’r House to lnivo *2;-

deal to say in the reconstruct ion < f the Revising Chainher. The i nil lienee of tliesc recommendations is seen in the new proposals. Ihe l pper House would consist of not move than 2->0 memhers. It would lie comprised of a certain number of hereditary peers elected by their own class, and a number of nominated members chosen by the Crown. All these would hold office for twelve years only, and would retire in groups by rotati >n. AA itb the lid ]> of the Lords Sniritunl and the Law Lords, the new Hoit-e would perforni the functions of a .Revising Chainher more efficiently thati the existing Upper House, ft would retain something ■ I its traditional character. and it would still play an effective part in the work of legislation and government. These proposals present several attractive features, hut they are lertain to meet, with vehement criticism from the “die hards” who, in spite of public opinion, persistently cling to the hereditary principle, and firm the Liberal and Labour parties.