In The Lords: Free Speech

The Chancellor would not comment on the question of an Upper House in New Zealand, but in Britain, although the House of Lords had lost some of its power, it had gained in prestige, and was still very valuable indeed. It was in its origin and formation a unique institution, but its value lay in the fact that its members have no constituents to whom they are answerable, and accordingly they can, and do, say what they like. It contains sufficient members of great standing to provide experts on almost any subject, and thus, if properly reported, can be a great factor in instructing public thought. It would still be great even if more of its power were taken away. There was much talk at Home of reforming the House of Lords, mainly in the direction of reducing its numbers. He was definitely opposed to an elected Upper Chamber and as far as he could see, why not, in the traditional manner, leave well alone?

What was essential to the House of Lords was its power of delay. He instanced the Capital Punishment Abolishment Bill, which the Lords threw out, and in the delay so caused the Government realised that public opinion was with the House of Lords and accordingly shelved the Bill. In "Money Bills" the House of Lords had no say and indeed there is no need for it.