THE LORDS AND THE VETO.
[TO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."1 SIR,—Are you not in your recommendation of the policy of surrender attaching too great an importance to the
"'destruction of the House of Lords' alleged to be effected by the creation of new Peers ? "
The House of Lords was " destroyed " in much the same fashion (even apart from its absolute abolition by Act of Parliament) in Cromwell's time.
"Cromwell's new House of Lords was made up (in 1658) of various groups composed of his own relatives, nephews, lawyers, officers, and less important individuals, all ' devoted to the interests of the Protector.' " It was found, as we all know, " impossible." It is worthy of note that Haslerig, Cromwell's own comrade, refused to sit in it, and that other persons made reflections, not unworthy of the present crisis, to the effect that "it were better to leave that tyrant and his packed convention to stand upon Ms own sandy foundation."
In a similar spirit one may ask, Were it not better, has it not already proved itself better, to let the Revolutionary Cabinet " make up their packed convention,' if they can, and 'stew in the juice' of all the odium and ridicule their action, exasperating or abortive, must surely provoke " ?
The true House of Lords will not suffer much. If the nation suddenly awakes, with a newly revived sense of humour and proportion, to the true inwardness of the situation it is not the Upper House nor the existing holders of honourable titles who will be swept away in the outburst.—I am, Sir, &c., LIBERAL UNIONIST.
Previous page
