Lord Curzon, we are glad to see, has written a
letter substantially in favour of Lord Newton's Bill for the reform of the House of Lords. He urges the Unionist Party to make some policy of reform its own. He dismisses the plan of merely curtailing the veto of the present House as assassination in a thin disguise. The only possible methods are: (1) to defend the House of Lords as it is; (2) to reform it on lines consistent with its constitution; (3) to replace it by a new Chamber constructed on a different basis. Lord Curzon argues very strongly in favour of the second method. Selection from the existing body of Peers could be made by applying the test of public service. This would be fair to both sides ; there could be no party manipulation. In particular, the principle of life-peerages ought to be admitted on a large scale, representing such elements as the religions denominations other than the Church of England, the Labour organisations, the Indian Civil Service, and the Colonies. The Prime Minister might also have the power to recommend the appointment of a certain number of Peers in the first Session of a new Parliament. The hereditary Peer debarred from the House of Lords should certainly be free to enter the House of Commons. Lord Curzon's contribution to the die. mission is a most useful one, and illustrates the advantage of full and free debate. We sincerely trust that Lord Newton will persevere with his Bill, and will not yield to any suggestions for unduly postponing its public consideration. The earlier the day secured for the second reading the better. We wish it were possible that our proposal to make a Referendum the means for settling disputes between the Commons and a reformed House of Lords could also be debated, but we fear that this will be held to be outside the scope of Lord Newton's Bill.
Previous page
