THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
pro 'rus EDITOR OF T " SP iscrATott."1 SIR,—At the present time, when the fiercest heat of Radical passion is against the House of Lords, a cooling douche of logic by the late Lord Acton may be welcome:— " The more truly the House of Commons represents the real nation, the more it must fall under the influence of opinion out of doors. It has less and less a substantive and independent will of its own, and serves as a barometer to register the movement going on outside. This sort of fluctuation, which is unavoidable in the nation, has to be kept out of the State, for it would destroy its credit, its influence abroad, and its authority at home. There- fore, the more perfect the representative system, the more necessary is some other aid to stability A. 'note' of our House of Lords is constancy—the wish to carry into the future the things of the past ; the capacity to keep aloof from the strife and aims of the passing hour. As we have none of the other resources proper to unmixed governments, 9, real veto, a federa- tion of states, or a constitution above the legislature, we must treasure the one security we possess. A single assembly has an immense preponderance of authority and experience against it." There is a cheap sneer that the House of Lords is an irre- sponsible body. It is responsible to the eternal principles of truth and justice and liberty. No responsibility can be higher than this. And if this responsibility should ever be forgotten, then—and only then—will the House of Lords be dismissed as a useless sham.—I am, Sir, &c., Bath. JOHN KENT SPENDER (M.D.)
Previous page
