THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LORDS' COMMITTEE.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR:1
SIR,—To reimport the hereditary principle into a reconstructed House of Lords would surely be to reimport the dry-rot. That principle has had its day, and will command rational respect and obedience no more. What would be the reception of an unpopular measure carried by the hereditary vote? The men of old were not so irrational. They attached political power, not to the cradle, but to the fief, and demanded in return the service most needful in those iron days, service in war. If the nation is to be saved from demagogic ascendency, and possibly revolution, something must be constructed which shall thoroughly commend itself to the rational allegiance of to-day. What it is to be it is for statesmen to decide.—I am, Sir, &c., Is Professor Goldwin Smith quite fair to the proposed reform of the Lords ? No man would vote in the reformed House merely because of the "cradle." The bulk of the Members would be men who had won high distinction in public life, and even the elected Members would be able to claim that they had been chosen by men who as citizens of the commonwealth had a claim to some share in the govern- ment of the country, but who as Peers had not the right to vote for the House of Commons. No doubt the voting Peers would constitute a small constituency with a very large representation; but, on the other band, those representatives would still have greatly inferior powers when compared with the Commons. They would not be able to impose taxa- tion of any kind on the nation, nor would they appoint the Administratiou.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
