REFORMING THE LORDS
By LORD RAILSHAM WHEN Bagehot wrote about the Constitution a century ago he defended the House of Lords on the ground that those who inherited large landed estates afforded the best counterpoise to the prevalent worship of money in the Commons. He believed that the 'swamping' power of the Crown provided the best possible safeguard against a misuse of powers. • Unhappily, the second proposition proved too wise to in- fluence the leadership of the Lords in 1909. Today we can only marvel at the short space of time which separates us from the social assumptions of the first.
As it then existed, there was nothing anomalous in inherit- ance of a seat in Parliament by primogeniture. The immemorial social custom of English country families was to concentrate landed estate under the management of a single 'heir.' Pro- vision for the rest of the family was carved out of rents and profits in the form of dowers, jointures, or rent.charges. The core of the estate with its appurtenant mansion was not divided' and passed generation after generation to eldest son after eldest son. Some of the important patrimonies devolving in this way were relatively so large that it would have almost been anomalous if they had not entitled the holder to a seat in the Lords House of Parliament.
Today we view this sunlit scene on the other side of a social revolution. Death duties have rendered the permanent devolu- tion of large estates impossible, and other factors have made it extremely difficult even to remain in occupation of the mansion. Contemporary social practice tends to divide what remains after a payment of tax equally amongst the children of a marriage and to make provision for the surviving widow, if any, by a bequest of a specific legacy, usually free of duty. In the result an 'heir' has no specially significant position, and the 'estate,' often shorn of its mansion, ceases before long to be more than a heterogeneous collection of stocks, shares, real estate and other more or less marketable securities. The hereditary system has, in effect, been abolished almost every- where except in relation to the inheritance of a seat in the House of Lords. All this, at first sight, has little enough to do with Lords reform. But in practice this change in social procedure and economic fact is at the heart of the matter. For the fact is that inheritance no longer provides an adequate source of recruit- ment to the Upper House. It is not that in a suitable social context the principle of primogeniture is objectionable in theory. It is not even that a few heirs with political aspirations object, like Mr. Benn at present, or Lord Selborne in 1894, to compulsory relegation to what is called, only out of deference to tradition, the Upper House. It is that the majority, less articulately, but more effectively, have voted for abolition, as the saying is 'with their feet,' by simply neglecting to perform their hereditary responsibilities.
The result has been, as Lord Samuel has pointed out, that successive governments have been compelled to resort to creation on an increasing scale as a means of getting enough peers to do the necessary work. In theory, this has led to a startling increase in the number of peers; the net gain, the more significant because it is coupled with inadequate attendance, being, according to Lord Samuel, no fewer than 223 peers in the last twenty years. tised as a 'brand new rationalised Senate.' But Life Peers, to include women: subsistence allowances and expenses: and free- dom of choice. and perhaps some restriction of inheritance by .heirs are in fact necessities, all more or less urgent, if the House of Lords is to perform its necessary work.
There are some members of the Labour Party who express. and perhaps feel, anxiety lest a rationalisation of its composi- tion would lead to a revived demand for additional powers. Reforms of this nature could hardly lead to the creation of a body so free from anomalies that it would be tempted to forget its obligation of deference to the elected chamber. If it were attempted to use such a body as the instrument of reaction. Bagehot's remedy, the creation of new peers. could hardly fail to be effective.
Previous page
