THE REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF. LORDS. T, ORD ROSEBERY'S short
but interesting speech on the House of Lords made in Edinburgh on Tuesday night is timely, for the question of how to obtain a strong and prudent Second House is just now very much in the public mind. When we say this we must not be taken to give any encouragement to the notion that there is anything approaching an outburst of indignation in the country in regard to the House of Lords, such as has been seen on many previous occasions. What those who remember former agitations are struck by at the present moment is not the rising tide of popular anger, but rather the absence of any such feeling. Instead of the country being stirred to its depths, it is obviously very little moved. That this is due to any increased popularity on the part of the House of Lords we do not wish to assert. It is rather the result of the absence of any strong feeling in favour of the Educa- tion Bill. As our readers know, we most earnestly desire a compromise on that measure ; but it would be idle to pretend that the Bill is regarded with enthusiasm by any section of the country. To assert that the nation is setting its teeth and demanding "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill" is quite impossible.
At the same time, thinking people are undoubtedly beginning to consider very seriously whether it will be possible for the House of Lords to go on as at present constituted. Moderate men of all kinds recognise that in its existing shape it is not a satisfactory Second House. It has two capital defects. In the first place, it is too timid to provide a really efficient check on hasty or unjust legislation. Next, it is too much under the permanent influence of one party in the State, with the result that though the House of Lords is a cheek on Liberal legislation, it is no check whatever upon Conservative legislation. We believe we are right in saying that the House of Lords has not thrown out a Conservative measure of any importance during the last fifty years. If a Protectionist House of Commons were elected by a narrow popular majority, the House of Lords would, we may feel certain, do nothing to prevent the passage of Protectionist legislation, even if the privilege of the House of Commons to deal solely with money votes did not stand in the way. No doubt an ingenious special pleader might urge that the fact that the House of Lords only checks one party does not really matter, because it is the Liberal Party which requires to be checked, and not the Conservative. But this one-sided argument is not likely to satisfy the average Englishman. He undoubtedly feels that it is not desirable to have a Second House which gives a blank cheque to one party in the State. If, then, we are to be faced with an agitation against the House of Lords, and with proposals for Constitutional amendment, we feel sure that there will be a very general agreement in this country that any substitute for the existing Upper House must, on the one hand, be stronger than its pre- decessor, and, on the other, less likely to be at the beck and call of the leader of one of our political parties.
Last week we suggested a means by which a new Upper House might be chosen on a purely democratic basis, and so a thoroughly effective check be placed upon the House of Commons. But though so drastic a change has much to recommend it, we are well aware that it would be far from easy to carry it through this or any other House of Commons, for no popular Assembly would willingly part with so great a diminution of its powers as must result from the creation of a second elected Chamber. It remains to be considered whether it would not be possible so to amend the existing House of Lords as somewhat to increase its strength, and also to remove from it the reproach of being the instrument of one party in the State. Lord Rosebery, who has given a very great amount of thought to the whole subject, evidently thinks it is, and we are inclined to agree with him. We may note also that Lord Newton, who speaks from a thoroughly independent standpoint, is of opinion that internal reform might greatly improve the status of the *Peers as a revising Chamber,—witness his thoughtful article in the December National Review. For ourselves, we have always held that if any attempt is to be made to amend the House of Lords from inside, such amendment must, in the first place, be based upon the system adopted under the two Acts of Union in regard to the Scottish and Irish Peers. That' is, the fundamental reform must be to make the English. Peers and the Peers of the United Kingdom, who sit by hereditary right, and not because they have themselves.
been raised to the Peerage, elect a proportion of their number to sit in the reformed House. At present there are sixteen representative Scottish Peers and twenty- eight representative Irish Peers. To these we would add eighty Peers elected from the Peers of England and the United Kingdom on a system of minority voting. Secondly, all persons who had been created Peers should sit, for they may fairly be said to represent distinction and 'eminence in various walks of life. Thirdly, we would give seats to all Peers who had held office in any Administration, whether in the Cabinet or in subordinate offices. Fourthly, any Peer who had qualified by being elected as a Member of Parliament before his accession to the Peerage should be a Member of the Upper House. Fifthly, we would confer a seat on any hereditary Peer who was a Lord.
Lieutenant or had been at any time Chairman of Quarter Sessions, Chairman of a County Council, or the Lord Mayor or Lord Provost, or Mayor or Provost, of any town of more than two hundred thousand inhabitants. Sixthly, we would give a seat to any hereditary Peer who had attained to the rank of Major-General in the Army or of Rear- Admiral in the Navy, or who had held the post of Minister or Ambassador abroad, Governor-General or Governor of any self-governing Colony, Governor or High Commis- sioner of any Crown Colony of the first importance, or Governor of Madras or Bombay, or who had been sworn a member of the Privy Council. Seventhly, we would allow the Bishops to sit as now, but we would add as spiritual life Peers representatives of the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church, of the chief Nonconformist bodies, and of the Roman Catholics, both in Ireland and in England. In the case of the Nonconformist bodies, representatives would naturally be chosen from the Wesleyan Methodists, the Congregationalists, and the Baptists. Though the nominations would be made by the Crown for life, it might easily be arranged that they should be made after consultation with the repre- sentatives of the various Free Churches. A body consti- tuted in this way, and further reinforced, as Lord Newton proposes, by a body of life Peers, would, we believe, prove not only a strong revising body, but would also contain a large proportion of Liberal Peers, or, at any rate, of Peers who would not be inclined to take their orders from the Leader of the Opposition in the Commons when a Liberal Government was in office. It would certainly not be open to the taunt of being a body of inexperienced nonentities, for the majority of its Members would have served the State in some form or other.
That any attempt will be made by the present Govern- ment to reform the House of Lords on these lines is, we fear, hardly likely. But is that a reason why nothing should be done ? We do not see why the Peers should not bring the matter before the public by taking action themselves. If a Bill, carefully thought out on the lines which we have roughly indicated, were to be brought into the House of Lords, there fully discussed, and then sent down to the House of Commons, the matter would have been ventilated, and the Peers would not be liable to the accusation of being unwilling to set their own house in order. Such a Bill would propose no increase in the 'powers or privileges of the - Upper House, but would leave them exactly as they are. It would merely propose that those powers and privileges should be exercised by a body from Which all the undesirable elements had been excluded, and which would contain none but men who had either given proof of their ability to serve the State, or else had been selected by their fellows as worthy of special confidence. We sincerely hope that the leaders of the Peers may consider the scheme, and. may take means during the coming Session to introduce the appropriate legislation. It might be embarrassing, perhaps, for Lord Lansdowne to take the matter up; but why should not Lord Rosebery, who stands apart from party politics, but who yet has so great an experience of our public life, devote himself to the task we have suggested ?
We have one word to say in conclusion. In our opinion, any hereditary Peer not chosen by his fellow-Lords to sit in the new House of Lords, or not otherwise eligible for that body, gliould be allowed, if he so 'desires, to offer himself for election to the House of Commons, as can the possessor of an Irish peerage at the present moment. It would be most unfair to leave two or three hundred men in the derelict condition in which a few Scottish Peers now find themselves,—that is, of being without a seat in the House of Lords, and yet ineligible for membership of the House of Commons.
Previous page
