REFORM OF THE LORDS.

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 359, 10 May 1911, Page 5

REFORM OF THE LORDS.

| THE UNIONIST PLAN. LIBERALS HOSTILE. By Telegraph. —Press Associ at ion.— Copyright London, Monday. Lord Lansdowne introduced his scheme for the reform of the House of Lords into the House to-day. He proposes that 100 members be elected by the hereditary peers, that 100 be nominated by the Crown through the Prime Minister, that 120 be elected by outside constituencies—all these to sit for a total term of 12 years, one-fourth retiring every three years —and that three Princes of the blood royal, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, five bishops elected by the entire episcopal bench, 16 Law Lords and Appeal Court Judges complete the House, making a total membership of 346. Received May 9, 10.40 p.m. London, Yesterday. The House of Lords was packed when Lord Lansdowne introduced his j reform scheme. Among members of j the House of Commons filling the j small side galleries allotted to them, j besides several members of the Go- j vernment, was Sir L. B. Finlay, who j is regarded as the principal draughtsman of the Bill, which was read a first time. Lord Landsdowne engaged that reform should proceed simultaneously with a measure dealing with the relations of the two Houses The Unionists desired a second chamber commanding the confidence of the | country by its ability, experience and j authority, and above all by its independence; a chamber which may be trusted to use its powers fairly towards both great parties, and be in close touch with public opinion, without being at the mercy of popular caprice; a chamber strong enough to make a stand where there was reason to believe the country had not had an opportunity of expressing its will clearly and deliberately. He did not claim the proposed chamber should have co-ordinate rights with the Commons and heredity should no longer entitle to a seat. Thus only those would be eligible who possessed cer- j tain statutory qualifications, which, j with their election by compeers, would prove their fitness and eligibility. The schedule enumerating the qualicfiations included peers who had held political office, or important appointments home or abroad, membership of the Privy Council, diplomatic service or Army Council and captains in the navy and colonels on the active list. The Bill proposes that Crown nominations be proportional to the strength of parties in j House of Commons. The election of 120 representatives by electoral colleges, composed of members of the House of Commons representing constituencies within each district, each college electing three to twelve, any j peer to be among the eligibles, the order of retirement to be determined, firstly, by ballot, the archbishops to sit during the tenure of their sees, Law Lords for life, elections to be in accordance with an Order-in-Council, with representation of minorities, the creating of new Peerages not to exceed five in one year and any peer, unless he be a Lord of Parliament, to be eligible for the House of Commons. Lord Lansdowne, in emphasising the gravity of the change, reminded those who possibly regarded the Bill as almost a betrayal, that some changes of the sort were almost unescapable. The Bill was in the interests of stability, unlike some institutions which had never been threatened as this hnd. He mentioned a joint sitting of the Houses, or as a last resort, a referendum, and invited Lord Movley to disclose the Government's solution of the matter. Lord Morlev admitted Lord Lansdowne had taken a bold, frank and possibly useful course. The Government did not desire to obstruct the Bill, but was unable to accept it as a solution. It retained the hereditary principle. A Bill so complicated, if submitted to a referendum, would bring the referendum into disrepute. Rceeived May 10, 8.5 a.m. London, Yesterday. Speaking in the House of Lords, Lord Morley continued the debate on Lord Lansdowne's Bill, and said there was no alternative to the Parliament Bill. Nothing must obstruct the latter. He protested against the idea of creating a new body, until they settled within what limits it would work. The Government plans had been fully before the electors. Its policy had withdrawn the absolute veto from the Lords, and, whether reformed or unreformed, the Government intend to proceed with the Parliament Bill till the Statute Book gave security to the supremacy of the Commons, unimpaired and unimpairable. Lord Lansdowne's proposals were inadequate and illusory in many respects, and did what was unneces-

saiy— destroyed the huuse of Lords. The Bill was unlikely to advance the question, and the Government could commit themselves to no approval of ! any portion thereof "as yet presented to us." I Lord Lansdowne continued his : speech, and said he calculated his | scheme would leave the ' Unionists ' with an apparent majority of eigh- ; teen, which would be subject to j fluctuations, and might disappear al- | together. j The "Times" says "Yesterday will j remain a remarkable date in our ! political evolution. The constituj tional question enters on a new phase, | wherein the stubborn reticence of the j Government must give place to defir.- [ ite proposals". | The "Daily News" declares Lord | Lansdowne's would be a protected j House, because the decisive faction i always with the hereditary i section j Received May 10, 9.50 a.m. i The press generally are surprised at thhe far-reaching character of Lord Lansdowne's proposals. The Unionists hope the Government will accept them as a basis for compromise. The "Morning Post" says the | proposals are suicidal and the out- ] come of panic. ! The "Westminster Gazette" est- | imates the Conservative majority at !32 under Lord Lansdowne's scheme.