:OMPA.NY-MONGERING PEERS AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR-1 IR,—In your characteristically temperate but truly admirable rticle in the Spectator of August 20th, on "The Company promoter and the Public," you make some pointed remarks n "Peers and prospectuses," which it, is to be hoped will ,ach those estimable and thrifty persons in the country run whom men of the Jabez Balfour type have ever secured he largest number of victims. I sincerely wish the following ntence from your article could be copied into every little ,eal journal in the Kingdom :—" If one receives a prospectus f a company with the name of a Peer on the front page ho has never been heard of in connection either with nsiness or science, one may be reasonably sure that he is decoy-duck, and that the company is one to be avoided." at, Sir, what of those Peers who receive thousands of `Junds from company promoters presumably as the market- rice of their titles on mendacious prospectuses ? We ear intermittently of "Reform of the House of Lords?' t seems to me that if Mr. Hooley's " revelations " are sub- lecniently borne out, Lord Roaebery or some other Reformer as here an opportunity to play the role of the true Conser- alive—
"Who lops away the mouldered bough."
eople living amidst the hubbub and bustle of London can are no idea how deeply these recent financial exposures are ffecting the minds of that quiet, law-abiding, thrifty, and t the core Puritan, class of our rural population,—the "real eart of England." And I, for one, would like to utter my ranting, that the recurrence of similar revelations as to company-promoting Peers" will do more to shake the con- Ration of the House of Lords than years of Radical agita- O. What of the proud old saying—Noblesse oblige 1—I
Previous page
