LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
ON THE QUESTION OF A SECOND CHAMBER.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—Whether there should be a Second Chamber is surely not a point worth arguing—for without a brake the political coach would be sure, at some time, to get too much " way " on and come to grief. There is at present some supposed dissatisfaction with the Second Chamber—as constituted. Probably the first cause is the fact that this body is composed for the most part of hereditary legislators—the mere accident of birth—irrespective of mental capacity—being a qualifica- tion ; and it may possibly be regarded as a defeat that the Members of the existing Upper House are drawn mainly from one class. And taking human nature at its best, it is ma- reasonable to expect such a body to be without bias. What seems to be required is, to retain the best features of the House of Lords, and add a qualifying element. Let us sup- pose the Second Chamber to consist of an equal number of Conservative and Liberal Peers of recognised ability, and a corresponding number of Members elected by and from the House of Commons. In this way we should have a Second Chamber practically representing all classes, without bias, strong enough to check over-hasty legislation, and at the same time without motive for impeding real progress.—I am, Sir, &a., [The Second Chamber would then always contain a majority of the dominant party, and would be no check at all.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
