HOUSE OF LORDS.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 July 1922, Page 5

HOUSE OF LORDS.

PROPOSALS FOR REFORM. DANGERS IN THE SCHEME. OPPOSITION OF PEERS. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received July 19, 8.30 p.m. London, July 18. Only a hundred peers, representing the Chamber’s working authority, were present when Lord Peel submitted the Government’s House of Lords reform resolutions. They provide that the House of Lords shall be composed, in addition to peers of the blood royal, of lords spiritual and law lords, of members elected either directly or indirectly from outside hereditary peers by their fellow peers and members nominated by the Crown. The re constituted House will consist of 350 members. Another resolution provides that while the House of Lords shall not amend or reject money Bills, the decision whether a Bill is a money Bill or not shall be referred to a joint standing committee of both Houses, consisting of seven members from each House, the Speaker of the House of Commons to be chairman. The number of peers nominated by the Crown is to be fixed by Statute. Lord Peel claimed that the Coalition Government was best able to deal with the subject, because it needed what had been described as the Coalition’s “besetting sin”—the “gift of compromise.” The present membership of the House of Lords was unwieldy, and in view of the popular demand for reform an opportunity was offered to make the outlook of direct actionists and opponents of Parliamentary institutions eyen more hopeless than it was at present. The repeal of the Parliament Act and the re-opening of discord between the two Houses would immediately raise the question of a referendum, which again might weaken Parliament’s responsibility and disturb the country unnecessarily. Lord Peel claimed that the resolutions continued historic links with the past, strengthened the House by the inclusion of a popular element, and gave a chance to all citizens to find a seat in the chamber. Lord Seibourne contended that the resolutions ignored the Bryce Commission's recommendation regarding the powers of the House. He pointed out that a powerful and unscrupulous Government under the resolutions, combined with the Parliament Act. might introduce prohibition, suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, nationalise land, railways, ships and banks, abolish the whole industrial and commercial system, and establish a republic within two years. Lord Lansdowne described the scheme as half-baked and most ifiisatisfactory, and he declared it would bring a solution of the problem on nearer. Lord Willoughby de Broke said he believed the hereditary principle was the only sane principle upon which to found any sane in~titution, whether a Monarchy or a House of Lords or a pack of hounds. The debate was adjourned.—Aus.N.Z. Cable Assn.