THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
[To TUB EDITOR OF SKY SPBCLATOR."
SIR,—The best thing cannot always be done, nor perhaps is it very likely to be done when, as in this case of the House of Lords, the broad and permanent interest of the nation is crossed by the narrow and temporary influence of party. Yet I cannot help thinking that, of the courses which present themselves, the best might be to take the existing list of the Privy Council, comprehending, as it does, distinction and influence of all kinds, to weed and supplement it, and transfer to it the legislative power of the Lords ; providing that vacancies for the future shall be filled alternately by Royal, which would be constitutional, nomination, and Parliamentary election. To such a House the good sense and Liberal Conser- vatism of the nation might reasonably rally. That relic of the feudal origin of the Rouse of Lords, its judicial power, would, of course, be transferred to the legal sphere. The fact must be faced that hereditary legislation has had its day. In its day it was far different from what it is now. The feudal lord was a local ruler and captain; his life was one, in its way, of public service. In the House of Lords his class influence was balanced, often overbalanced, by that of Bishops and Abbots raised from a different class. Patchwork will not be final. Leave an hereditary element in the Upper House, and the first time a popular measure is defeated by its vote the agitation will be renewed. A suspensive veto would degenerate into a form. So probably would a joint vote, since the Members of both Houses would come into it committed by their previous votes in their own House. It is only to some- thing plainly simple, commanding confidence and respect in itself, that the moral allegiance of the people can be secured. With the hereditary titles nobody proposes to interfere.—
Previous page
