Evening star., 1948-06-12
Curbinq the Lords

The constitutional battle between the
British House of Lords and the Laborite-
dominated House of Commons stems pri-
marily from the Attlee governments desire
to nationalize the iron and steel industry
before the next general election in 1850. In
that sense, according to its critics, the
Labor Party-in order to achieve key
objective of its socialization programs
playing shabby politics with matter fun
damental to Britain's free way Of life.
Under the British system the House OF
Lords has the right to delay final action on
legislation enacted by the House of Com
mons-a delay that can extend for as long
as two years. Unless it Is reduced, this
right will enable the Lords to block iron
and steel naturalization until the present
Parliament expires in 1850, at which time
the Labor Party conceivably may be voted
out of office. Accordingly, in anticipation
of that possibility, the Attlee government
is pressing its proposal to cut down the
Lords delaying power to one year.
The proposal, which was introduced last
October, calls for an amendment to the
Parliament Act of 1911. It has now been
rejected twice by the House of Lords and
third and final rejection is expected. But
the Laborite House of Commons still will
have the last word. In special session OF
Parliament in the fall, it is almost certain
to force the measure through, thus making
sure that the Attlee government, 1t 1t so
wishes, can carry out the naturalization
of iron and steel before the electorate has
a chance to speak in the 1850 general
election.
Wholly apart from the merit or lack OF
merit of such naturalization, the effort to
reduce the Lords delaying power has
created deep misgivings in Britain. There
has been nothing quite like it since 1914.
What it means is that the British are con-
fronted with a "peerS-versus-the-p people"
issue, with the Labor Party attacking the
Conservatives for seeking to Illustrate the
popular will, and the Conservatives accus-
ing the Laborites of attempting constitu-
tional innovations aimed at setting up a
single-chamber government and whiting
away individual freedom.
On the face of things considering that
the Parliament Act of 1911 left the House
of Lords with little more than the power
to delay, it does not seem particularly
revolutionary to cut the delay from two
years to one But more than few Britons,
including some of Mr.. Attlee's strongest
newspaper supporters, do not like the idea.
They see it as something designed to tinker
with constitutional practice not as a mat
ter of high principle but as political
maneuver to insure the passage of ma
tionalization measure before 1950-before
the voters are heard from.
Moreover, many Britons are naturally
hesitant about further reducing what little
power is left to the House of Lords. That
body-most of whose members are there
by virtue of heredity-has served well in
the past. It includes large number of
exceptionally talented and experienced
men whose deliberations and amendments
have improved measures rushed through
Commons Even the Labor Party has
acknowledged this. Although difficult to
Judge from this distance, the curb sought
by the Attlee government has all the
earmarks Of politicking at the expense of
principle.