CAMOUFLAGE

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 80, 25 June 1927, Page 14

CAMOUFLAGE

IDEA OF LABOUR PEERS REFORMING THE LORDS END OF THE DEBATE By Cable.—Press Association.—Copyright LONDON, Thursday. It was mere camouflage to have a few Labour peers on the front bench to make some show of fairness. If there were a Labour majority in the House of Commons comparable with the majority of the present Government the adequate representation of Labour in the House of Lords would be at least 200 peers. That utterance was made by Earl Russell, a Labour supporter, when the debate on the proposed reform of the House of Lords, was continued. What guarantee was there, he asked, that men like Messrs. J. Maxton, D. Kirkwood and G. Buchanan, Labour M.P.’s, if they were nominated would accept seats in the Upper House? The real object of the Government’s proposals was to entrench privilege. If

class-war were provoked it would be the Government who would have provoked it. Lord Thomson of Cardington assailed the Earl of Birkenhead for the personal attack he had made on Lord Parmoor. He said it was a display of “Satan rebuking sin” in the light of Lord Birkenhead’s “somersault” over Irish Home Rule.

FURTHER DEBATE Lord Birkenhead said there was no inconsistency in his actions. Once the forcible inclusion of Northern Ireland was abandoned he never said a word against Home Rule. The Marquess of Salisbury, Leader of the House, announced that the Government would support Lord Fitzala.n*s motion because it represented its views. Just as the temporal peers would be asked to select those most worthy to represent them, so would the spiritual peers. Lord Salisbury said his own impression was that the political colour of the peers might be settled by proportional representation. Lord Russell: What about the Labour peers? Lord Salisbury: I admit they would be in a difficulty. It is because of that we have come to other proposals. With regard to nomination after the reform of the House has been completed the somewhat undignified process of swamping the peers with large new creations would be impossible. ORIGINAL MOTION CARRIED

The Marquess of Readng protested that the matter should first be decided by the electorate. Was it intended that there should be a majority of hereditary peers, he asked?

Lord Salisbury: Personally, I think there must be a large majority. The Archbishop of Canterbury supported the motion. He said he agreed with the desire that the other great churches of England, Scotland and Ireland should be represented .in the House, but as there were 58 representatives of those churches it would be impossible for all of them to be represented. He woufd gladly welcome a plan therefore to meet these desires. Lord Fitzalan’s motion was carried. It was that the House would welcome a reasonable measure to limit and define the membership and deal with the inherent' defects of the Parliament Act. —A. and N.Z.