MR. BRIGHT AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR:]
Sin,—In your notice last week of Mr. H. H. Fowler's address to his constituents at Wolverhampton, I find the following words : —" When Mr. Fowler asked why the House of Lords should not be reformed, Wolverhampton cheered him most lustily,—and we wish the Conservative leaders in the Peers would carefully watch the growing signs of public impatience with which their obstructive attitude towards Liberal measures is received." At the immense meeting in the Town Hall which Mr. Bright addressed during the Leeds Conference, there was no part of his speech which was more lustily and emphatically cheered than that in which he referred to the reform of the House of Lords.
Almost before the first sentence which introduced this question was concluded, the whole audience broke forth into a ringing and deafening cheer. A more unmistakable evidence of the growing impatience of the people at the obstructive attitude of the House of Lords could not be found, especially when we remem- ber that the 4,000 men and women who crowded the Victoria Hall on that occasion did not represent merely the somewhat pronounced Liberalism of the largest Yorkshire borough, but also represented the public opinion of 500 Liberal associations in all parts of the country. This fact gives additional force to your suggestion that the leaders of the Conservative Peers would do well to take notice of this significant sign of the times, for if they foolishly determine to ignore it, they will do much to bring on that conflict between the two Houses of Parliament which, as Mr. Bright said, "is full of peril to one of them, and full of humiliation to both of them."—I am, Sir, &c
Previous page
