Lbe THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR.") SIR,— Perhaps you will allow
a temporary exile, but a constant reader, to say why he welcomed Mr. H. Hobhouse's letter in your correspondence. Though a supporter of the Government, I could not support the proposal to limit the powers of the House of Lords by forcing them to pass a Bill when sent up to them a second time in a single Parliament, at any rate without a Referendum. I should I:prefer the Referendum as being less expensive for individual Members and more precise as a means of ascertaining the views of the country than a fresh election. But the present proposal is only a disguised single Chamber. At this moment, however, to surrender the unwritten law that the House Of Lords should not interfere with finance is not only to give up advantages slowly won during more than two centuries, but to give a fresh lease of life to an unreformed House. It seems impossible, Sir, that you will carry the country with you. And, remembering what the Spectator was to me in the days of Thomas Hughes and many others of his opinion, I shudder to think what thoughtful Liberalism will be when the Spectator has finally identified itself with such reaction.— Augenklinik, Wiesbaden.
Previous page
