LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE REFORM OF THE LORDS.
[To ME EDITOR OF TUE " SPECTATOR."1 SIR,—Of the two alternatives proposed by Mr. John Morley, viz., that the House of Lords should be "mended or ended," I do not think that the British public is prepared to adopt the latter, thereby abolishing altogether the Second Chamber. •
I venture to propose the following as a practical proposal for " mending " the House of Lords :— 1. The number of Members of the House of Lords to be reduced to, say, 150.
2. The 150 Members to be chosen, in the first instance, from the existing Members of the House of Lords ; one-half (seventy- five) to be elected by the existing House of Lords; the other half to be nominated by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
3. All the Members so chosen, as well as those appointed to fill future vacancies, to remain Members for life, but with power to any Member to resign his position.
4. All future vacancies arising after the first constitution of the new House to be filled by the nomination of the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, the choice not being limited to Peers, but extending to all British subjects of full age.
Under such arrangement, no one would hereafter become a Member of the House of Lords by right of birth. The two great political parties would each be able to secure one-half the seats in the new House in the first instance ; while the pro- posed arrangement for filling future vacancies would allow the head of each party in turn to nominate two Members, the num- ber of such nominations being in the long-run proportionate to the periods during which the two parties respectively hold office.
As the possession of an hereditary Peerage would in future confer no political power or privilege, it might be considered desirable to abolish hereditary titles altogether ; but such abolition would not be a necessary consequence of the proposed arrangement.
The difficulty of passing any law for altering the constitution of the House of Lords lies, of course, iu the necessity of obtain- ing the consent of a majority of that House. Probably the right of the Crown to create new Peers affords the only Con- stitutional means of overcoming that difficulty. But although there are many objections to an extensive use of that power, it will be generally admitted that a fundamental reform of the constitution of the House of Lords is an occasion which will justify the creation of new Peers to such an extent as may be necessary for carrying the proposed reform.—I am, Sir, &c.,
C. ClIOLMELEY PULLER.
Previous page
