THE FUTURE OF PARLIAMENT.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—I have waited for the quiet of Eastertide to express the dismay with which I read that the Government designs to abolish every vestige of the hereditary principle in the House of Lords. My only title to address you is derived from my signature. My firm conviction that any party which meddles with the composition of the House of Lords wilt "burn its fingers' (to say nothing of its boats) is not an argument kr my vieves, but is an additional reason why a loyal partisan should abhor a proposal which he believes to be unpatriotic. Nor is it worth while monotonously reiterating that if we were now building a Constitution no sane statesman would entrench the hereditary system. But with our history and our prescription it seems to me equally unsane—I waive the vulgar twin word—to enthrone the dishereditary system. Confiscation is not yet a British institution, and I am certain that the people of this country will not tolerate the wholesale disherison of the Peers. The attainder even of individuals is obsolete. Moreover, the threatened sacrilege is wanton. The Parliament Act has done exactly the right thing—drawn the sting of the veto. Even utilitarian want of sentiment could ask no more for its practical iconoclasm. It is the greatest reform since the Revolution. It is only common sense to wait and see how we get on without more political ado. Surely, if the Lords are wise, they will never give an opportunity for its being put in force, and externally legislation will go on as it has gone on all these centuries.—I am, Sir, &.c.,
GLIDSTONIAN LIBERAL.
Previous page
