12 MARCH 1910, Page 3

Turning to the question of the reform of the House

of Lords, Mr. Balfour remarked that he did not advocate a change because the House of Lords was inefficient, but because it lacked strength. He did not want a better but a stronger Second Chamber,—not a repetition or rival of the House of Commons, or a House overshadowing the repre- sentative Chamber as in France and the United States. They wanted men who were not amenable either to the passing passions of the moment or to the caucus,—men who by tempera- ment, tradition, or training could not fit themselves into the party system. Such men found it hard to obtain or retain a place in the House of Commons, but they could find a place in the House of Lords, and whenever they found it they retained it. No revolution in England was permanent which took no account of the past. Innovation might be necessary, but it should be deeply based on the history of the country. Mr. Balfour scouted the notion that the Lords had resisted social reform. Those who said so did not desire social reform; they wanted political revolution, which was its worst enemy.