Te Aroha AND Ohinemuri News. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 18 1909. THE REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

Te Aroha News, Volume XXVII, Issue 4505, 18 December 1909, Page 2

Te Aroha AND Ohinemuri News.

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 18 1909. THE REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

This above all—to thine own self be true, ini it must follow as the night the day } Thou emit not then be false to any man Shakespeare.

One (f the burning questions of today is the reform of the House of Lords, The action of the Lords in reject'ng the Budget until the people had had an opportunity of voting upon it was a great offence in the eyes of the Government party, although the House of Lords was quite within its right in doing so. An Upper and Lower House for the making of laws are recognised factors in the British Constitution, just as much as the Jfing is. If the Lords do not remit a very important, unusual, and constitutionally dangerous measure to the people, what is the gopd pf a second Chamber ? The duty cf the latter is to act a« a check or drag upon hasty legislation and to secure time for proper reflection. It certainly is very much safer to be governed by laws framed by two Houses of Parliament than one, and in the present unsettled state of mind of the Commons, and with the new development of a Labour Party and. a Socialist Party in England, we very much prefer two Houses to one.

But while we most decidedly are against the “ ending ” of the House of Lords, we are in favour of “ mending ’* it. The present form of Parliament, as divided into two Houses of Legislature, the Lords and the Commons, dates from the middle of the Fourteenth Century, at}4 in this twentieth century certain anomalies are apparent which are due to the lapse .of centuries. The House of Lords consists of peers who hold their seats (1) By hereditary right - (2) By Creation of the Sovereign ; (£}j fey virtue of office, e.g., the English Bishops; (4) By election for life e.g. Irish peers ; (5) By election for duration of Parliament e.g. Scottish Peers. There are about 620 Peers on the “ Roll,” The voting strength of the House of Lords is about 580. About 350 of the existing peerages have been created since 1830. For some little time there have been clamours for the “ ending or mending ” i

|of tbe House of Lords on the ground that it no longer satisfies the require ments of sreneral national utility ; that it is out of harmony with the spirit of the age. no other nation possessing such a legislative body ; that tbe nati m has no proper control over its proceedings and it is contrary to the principles of representative Government.

No doubt a good deal could be said to warrant reform, but not removal or destruction of that branch of legislature. At the forthcoming election iu England much will be said about the anomaly of a non-elective chamber being able to thwart the Commons elected by the people. Many wid emphasise the (absurdity of a Legislative Chamber made up of persons not there by merit but through the accident of birth, and something will be said about tbe Upper Chamber having degenerated into a party assembly. It is certainly desirable that the House of Lords should not be represented merely by landlords, because there is a tendency in a class to think more of its own interests than cf the nation’s interests. We fail to see why the NonConformist Churches should not send representatives to sit with bishops in the Upper House. The heads or chief representatives of the Wesleyan Metbo? (lists, the Baptists, Presbyterians, and other large religious bodies have as much moral right to sit with the Lords as the Bishops have, and we hope to see such a reform as will secure to them the legal right to do so. The presence in the House of Lords of men like the President of the Wesleyan Conference, of Dr. Clifford, and of the Congregational Union of Great Britain, could pot fail to haye a liberalising effect upon the House, Some efforts might also be made to secure for Roman Catholics in the United Kingdom adequate representation in the Upper House, although the Duke of Norfolk and other noblemen ably watch the interests of their co-religion-ists. A Legislative Chamber ought to be free from class bias and the representation of mere particular iuterests. General interests should have primary consideration.

It ought to be possible, and it certainly is desirable, that the Lords should be reformed in such a way as to preserve the Upper House as anindjspensable part of tbe British Constitution, which has done good service jn the past, and iqay do much more jn the future. The following remarks of Lord Ourzon desuve careful consideration, coming from a rn an Of such wide experience and learning and etpinput public service :

" If the Lords surrendered they would be committed to a Constitution under which one Chamber could override the other without appeal to the people. He went further. The House of Lords had no right to yield to the principle that any measure, however socialistic and subversive, must be passed if cramped within the clauses of the Finance Bill. The reason that no Finance Bill had been rejected since 1860 was that no Chancellor had submitted a Bill directly challenging the prerogatives of the House of Lords.

“ Some of us,” he added, “ will warmly welcome a constitutional struggle We hope tfiat out of the struggle will emerge a Reformed Ifouse of Lords.” Ifc might not be at this eleptiqn, bqt b® hoped that at a subsequent poll tpe country would give an unmistakable mandate that the second chamber was an essential part of the Constitution, and should continue independent, fearless, and strong.