The Wanganui Chronicle "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1939. THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12398, 20 December 1909, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1939. THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

It is an old proverb that threatened rr.en live long: this is true of the House of Lords. It may bs urged that it is a survival of feudalism, but-what does that matter if in practic? it is found to be of greater'value, and of greater independence; than any other second Chamber that Has"yet been devised? A debate in. the House, of Lords rises to the., highest ;le.yel 6^ dignity and eloquence, for' is 'not the House continus lly being recruited from the ranks of those who have distinguished tbsm-. selves in law, science, literature and art? The House of Lords is a bulwark against rash, ill-considered legislation, the ona safeguard the people have against the tyranny of an unscrupulous party majority. Compare.a debate in the British House of Lords with one in the New Zealand Legislative Council : such a comparison would be ridiculous. The right of the House of Lords to amend or reject at its,discretion any measure sent up to it by'the House of Commons has never been seriously disputed. , William Ewart Gladstone, greatest of democratic, statesmen, although often, at .variance with the.. House of Lords, fully recognised its power to reject or amend any Bill,-in-cluding finance Bills. It is true that the House of Lords has very rarely exercised its unquestioned rights to deal vith Bills relating strictly tc- finance.. Consequently the crisis created by the refusal- of the Lords to approve •'.-: the • Budget formulated by Mr Lloyd George is, in a sense, a sensational departure from their, ordinary procedure. The contention of the Lords is that the ! Budget, virtually a money Bill, included among other items, a Land Bill and other innovations" in constitutional practice, the acceptance _of which would have sealed the death warrant of the House of Lords. Tho Peers further claim that the acceptance of1 the Budget would have been tantamount to shrinking from their duty, and would have amply demonstrated that they Avero tooinvertebrate to be of any use. Of course the House of "Lords is entitled to makaall the capital it can oift of the situation which it has deliberately created," and therefore it does not hesitate-to urge that by rejecting the Budget it has shown its confidence in the People, and given the electors an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the proposals of the Chancellor of the : Exchequer. To our mind, however, there is something laughable in the suggestion that the House'of Lords is fighting for the democracy against the autocracy of the Government. We are very much afiaid that this new-born zeal oh behalf of the democracy is founded on a very selfish basis and inspired by considerations far from democratic. The Lords have invited the struggle, but they do "hot go unsupported into the field of battle. They hav e some strong and powerful forces oil their Side. The bankers and merchants of the City of London, a body which rarely meddles with politics, condemn almost universally the means whereby the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes, in their opinion, to injure the commerce ' and in-cli-strics of the country by diminshing employment and reducing wages. The Law Society condemns unreservedly the land clauses as unjust in principle and calculated to caus9 dislocation of business and augment unemployment. The Society- of Auctioneers, the Surveyors Association, the Valuers' Association and other influential bodies o? businessmen all agree that Mr Lloyd George's schemes for raising revenue can only end in commercial disaster. The London builders have issued a manifesto in-which they stata that their business has been paralysed-by-the Budget": they say in their . manifesto: "Since the Budget proposals ha,ve been placed before the public no one of us has taken up any land for building purposes. Ths reason of this is tnat while we, as trade's, ara as de: irons as ever we were to do business, we are unable to entertain proposals which could result in nothing but serin us loss tho actual result is that with an mediately diminishing number of workers wa are merely completing existing contracts; and. seeing that not one of us has bought a single estate since the

Budget was introduced, the oiitlook for the winter months, so far as the worker is concerned, is grave beyond aziy pos-

sibility of.. exaggeration..

These nuinerbltg protests *all tend toendorse"the policy of the dukes, the millionaires and the large landowners. But it can scarcely be contended that the opinions expressed-by; these associations and organisations are unbiassed. .We have no patience with the pernicious -doctiine expressed ill' the phrase "prdperty; is theft,"'X and,/we deploreany tendency to unfairly exploit the capitalist. Capital, we know, is proverbially timid, and is easily transferred. But we do not think it is so> fearfully nervous as to be driven outof Great Britain by a fust and reasonable demand that it shall contribute it* fair share, and no more, towards the cost of the nation's upkeep. And that, ofter all, is all that Mr Lloyd George I-as called upon it to do. On the other hand, and while we think the House* of Lords has blundered badly, we are not among those who'would like to see that Chamber ' abolished. Under our. system of Government, a second, or revising Chamber is a constitutional necessity, an indispensable safeguard! against rash and ill-considered legislation. The end will be served, so far as the Mother Country is concerned, if theoutcome of the existing political crisis is to enhance the value of the House of Lords by some measure of reform which will curtail, and eventually abolish, the privilege of hereditary successful.