Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

493

THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

"NOTHING in the history of our constitution," says Sir Erskine May, "is more remarkable than the permanence of every institution forming part of the Government of the country, while undergoing continual and often extraordinary changes in its powers, privileges, and influence." Again: "No institution has undergone greater changes than the House of Lords." "In its numbers, its composition and its influence, it is difficult to recognize its identity with the 'Great Council' of a former age. But the changes which it has undergone have served to bring this great institution into harmony with other parts of the constitution, and with the social condition of the people." The Reform Bill of 1832 affected the Peers almost as much as it did the Commons. The Reform Bill of 1867 has transferred the chief control of the elections from one class to another; and when the Ballot has been in use a few years, we shall bably find the House of Commons greatly affected by the transfer of power already made from the middle class to the rapidly organizing wages class. But no recent change has been made in the House of Lords. That some improvement in that august assembly is deemed necessary and is near at hand is evident: the press and the magazines have the subject in hand; a conference has been held on this most important matter, which failed because while very few men are satisfied with the present constitution and position of the Upper Chamber, still fewer wish to hand over the entire government of the country to the House of Commons.

pro

Not only has Mr. Bright said "that such an institution must in the course of time require essential modification," but Mr. Arthur Helps, who perhaps knows as much as any man of "the hidden life" that goes to make up Government, has in his most interesting, useful, and admirable Thoughts on Government, said, "I confess, that I think it is impossible, or, at least, that it would be very unwise, if

[ocr errors]

it were possible, to maintain the House of Lords as a second Chamber for Great Britain, without considerable modifications in the constitution of that legislative body'; while Lord Granville said at Manchester, in the autumn of last year, "Without dwelling upon the extremely difficult task, even if you wish it, of abolish ing the House of Lords, I must say that until better-digested plans for its abolition are put forward, I for one strongly and vehemently protest." And in the same speech, alluding to the opposition of the Conservative majority to most Liberal measures, he speaks of his opponents as in most cases.. "much too statesmanlike to use the House of Lords as an instrument of obstruction, using it as an instrument which they would break if they carried its use too far." And Lord Derby said at Liverpool, "As to the House of Lords, I am very far from saying that it is perfect, or that we could not do something to improve and strengthen it. . . While I should object to an unlimited creation of peerages for life, I see no harm, and some advantage, in a limited nun. of peerages of that class."

When the leader of the Radical party and the most thoughtful essayist of the day are found advocating modifications in a great institution like the House of Lords, and when the leader of each of the two great parties which compose that institution, devotes a considerable portion of a speech to the question upon which the active politician and the thoughtful writer say modification is essential, we may safely conclude that action of some kind will not be long postponed.

The Peers of Great Britain can bear comparison with the members of any legislative assembly in the world. We are proud of our House of Commons, and not without reason; for, although many candidates pay heavily-within legal limits-for admission into the House, not a breath of scandal has been heard, in recent days, as to payment,

bribery, or corruption within the House itself, or connected with its public business.1 We have purged the country from the open and wholesale purchase and sale of boroughs and counties, and have happily arrived at a state of affairs exactly opposite to that of a century or less past, when "representatives holding their seats by a general system of corruption could scarcely fail to be themselves corrupt."

Some few members may hardly be thought worthy, in public estimation, of a seat, but some constituency judges them to be fit and proper men; and, take the House all in all-not forgetting that there are a few men who would add greatly to the strength of the House, who cannot now obtain seats, and not forgetting that a redistribution of seats, a considerable reduction in the cost of elections, and the payment of such costs by the electors, are greatly to be desired-yet take the House all in all, we may happily say that for common sense, political prudence, and sterling honesty, our House of Commons is second to no representative body in the world. While maintaining this position, I also maintain that in spite of the disadvantages under which an hereditary legislative assembly must labour, our House of Lords can in every personal and individual particular stand comparison with the House of Commons. I believe that in whatever point of view we regard the Peers of this realm, we may regard them with honest pride and patriotic satisfaction. It is not for me to mention individual names. I have neither knowledge enough, nor desire to do so; I should insert names that might weaken my argument, I should omit others that would strengthen it. But let any person of ordinary observation follow the debates, keep himself fairly acquainted with current literature, move about the United Kingdom, and go through life with his eyes and ears open, and I

1 While this is going through the press, the expenses of the successful and unsuccessful candidates for East Surrey are published: Mr. Watney's being 6,0081. 2s. 2d.; Mr. Leveson Gower's, 3,3097. 16s. 9d. And Dover-Solicitor-General, 1,9537. 14s. 10d.; and Mr. Barnett, unsuccessful, 2,6777. 11s.! These terrible charges are legal, but surely not right.

think that he will be satisfied that my proposition is fairly made out, that in every personal and individual particular the Peers can hold their own against the members of the other House. Take, then, the Peers of the Realm, take both sides of their House, regard them from a national, not merely from a party point of view, and compare them with the members of the House of Commons in the following particulars:

Take the statesmen, form an imaginary cabinet from both sides of each House; surely the Upper House does not lose by the comparison. Whether we regard actual experience, administrative capacity, power of expression, mastery of details, minuteness of observation, local knowledge, interest in the poorer classes, or whether we take their powers of management, knowledge of the law, intimacy with official life, their integrity, moral excellence, eloquence, or patriotism,1 may we not fairly say, with the two lists written down side by side, that the Peers lose nothing by the comparison? And apply the same principle to the following subjects, in every case selecting the best men in each House:-Arms, both naval and military; diplomacy; authorship; scientific, classical, mathematical, legal and artistic knowledge; philanthropy; colonial and Indian government, militia, yeomanry and volunteer command. If in some of these subjects we find the Commons beating the Lords, in others we arrive at an opposite result; and when we bear in mind that the chief motives which induce most Commoners to work at school, at college, or at the professions-the ambition to create a name, the necessity of making a livelihood or a fortune—are

1 A great debate in the House of Lords is worth attending. Nothing conveys so well the idea of England's greatness and grandeur ; the speeches, all of the highest calibre, are continued throughout the evening with an independence and power that contrasts most favourably with a great debate in the House of Commons, which consists-for the most part of one or two speeches from leaders in the early part of the evening, a number of addresses of inferior power delivered to empty benches and absent constituents during the dinner hour, wound up by one or two more speeches late at night, which tend to recall England's power, and which render the scene not inferior in interest to that in the House of Lords throughout the evening.

almost entirely wanting to the Peers, we shall estimate more fairly the credit and honour due to these honourable and favoured men, the highest in rank, and first in dignity, of the most favoured nation of the world.

If this be true, why is it that men are discussing with grave and serious mien the question of reform, the still more grave and serious question of the abolition of the House of Lords? I think it is mainly due to the different manner in which the Houses do their work; and I further think that a few simple modifications would, if made in time, restore the confidence of many that have lost some of their trust in the House of Lords, and would go far to create confidence in the minds of many of the recently enfranchised who have lately begun to take an interest in politics, and who have unfortunately commenced their political lives with a creed in which a prominent place is assigned to the belief that the House of Lords is not worthy of their confidence.

Mr. Arthur Helps proposes

1. That there should be life-peerages granted by the Crown.

2. That certain offices, when held for a certain term of years, should entitle the man who has held them to a seat in the House of Lords.

3. That no hereditary Peer should be able to take his seat in the House of Lords until he had reached the age of thirty, or had sat in the House of Commons for five years.

4. That an hereditary noble should not be obliged to take his seat in the House of Peers until ten years had elapsed from his succession to the Peerage.

Most men, not Peers, will agree with Nos. 1 and 2 and 4; but there are decided objections, as it seems to me, with all deference to Mr. Helps, to No. 3. So long as the present system endures, of a political Secretary and a political undersecretary of State, the one generally in one House, the other in the other House, it seems advantageous that the hereditary nobility-the leaders in a very few yearsshould gain official experience at as early an age as possible. It seems, too, an anomaly that a Peer should be ineligible

for an office which his younger brother, being a member of the House of Commons, might hold, and that an hereditary noble, who has probably been carefully trained with regard to the position he will occupy in life, should not be eligible, before he is thirty, to hold an office in which he would be the second in command, with a veteran of experience his immediate superior; at which age a clergyman is eligible for consecration as bishop, and the charge of a diocese. "Almost all rules are bad which tend to limit the choice of men for employments of any kind. Any rule, for instance, about excess of age is injudicious." Does not this sound principle clash with suggestion No. 3?

With one more quotation from Mr. Helps' Thoughts on Government, I venture to make my suggestions: "It is always a most difficult thing for a reformer who perceives that a reform is wanted in a great institution, to lay down the exact lines upon which his reform should be constructed. He knows that so soon as he submits some particular suggestions for the reform in question, he abandons the abstract for the concrete, and often is liable to seem to be answered upon the general question, because he himself has not been able to satisfy the world as to the wisdom or prudence of the particular suggestions he offers."

I venture to propose―

1. That the quorum of the House of Lords should be raised to thirty.

Sir Erskine May says on this point: "A quorum of three-though well suited for judicial business, and not wholly out of proportion to the entire number of its members in the earlier periods of its history-has become palpably inadequate for a numerous assembly." Again: "Unless great party questions have been under discussion, the House has ordinarily the appearance of a select committee."

In almost every council, committee, company, or society, a quorum is fixed bearing some relation to the number of its members, and there seems an entire agreement as to the fact that a quorum of three Peers, out of about 460, throws ridicule upon the whole national business. Nearly every

person who discusses the reform of the House of Lords points to this as the chief blot in its constitution; hardly anybody attempts to defend it.

2. That a Speaker, with the ordinary powers of a President, should be appointed.

"The position of the Speaker of the House of Lords is somewhat anomalous, for though he is the President of a Legislative Assembly, he is invested with no more authority than any other member;" in fact he need not be a Peer at all, and therefore need not be a Member of the House. Moreover, so far as the Lord Chancellor is the President of the House of Lords, his presidency is opposed to the ideal of a President (the chief authority) in every particular. He is of the lowest rank, and often the junior Member of the lowest order of the Peerage; if not, as often, a party man, he is always a partisan, thus offending the national instinct, and opposed to the national custom, for in every other assembly, the man of the greatest weight, the highest rank, the most extended knowledge of the business to be performed, and the utmost impartiality, is placed in the chair.

3. That a Peer who omits to attend a given number of times in one Session, should forfeit his right to vote in the next Session.

[ocr errors]

I quote Sir Erskine May again "The indifference of the great body of the Peers to public business, and their scant attendance, by discouraging the efforts of the more able and ambitious men amongst them, impair the influence of the Upper House." Nothing has done so much to lower the influence of the House of Lords as this indifference; that a Bill which occupied the House of Commons for weeks should narrowly escape destruction because six Peers were opposed to it, and seven in favour, is a sample of that which provokes much sharp criticism. "It is said"-Mr. Bright is the speaker-" that the Paper Duty Abolition Bill was thrown out in the Upper House by a great majority. That is a fact with which we are all well acquainted. I was talking recently to a Peer who gave an explanation of this, which I will venture to repeat. 'If,'

he said, 'the regular House of Lords, that is to say the hundred members who during the Session really do transact the business-if they had been in the House, the Paper Duties Repeal Bill would certainly have passed. But about two hundred Members who hardly ever come there were let loose for the occasion."" The rule that I have suggested would prevent those Peers who preferred remaining in the country, running up to town occasionally, at what they may feel to be some personal sacrifice, to record their vote, and by so doing swamp the votes of those who actually do the main part of the legislative business. I think that there are very few men who wish to deprive any Peer who is willing to work for the country of a jot or tittle of the privilege which his ancestors have earned for him, of taking an active and influential share in moulding the national interests. But there is a strong feeling "growing out of" (large words these) the inattention of a large proportion of the Peers that feeling is finding forms in which to express itself, and unless it is allayed by some improvement, will "grow" into very large proportions; and if no change is made, the House of Lords may find itself damaged as clearly and as greatly as England will find herself damaged if she has to pay the claims "growing out of" certain acts which, even if legal, are open to question.

4. That the House of Lords should have power to recommend that a Peer whose conduct is, in their opinion, discreditable to their order, should be degraded from the Peerage.

Any dishonourable act on the part of a Peer has an adverse influence on the whole Peerage out of all proportion to the act itself, and to the very small percentage of Peers who discredit their order. The recent acts of a few Peers on the turf have done more harm to the House of Lords than can easily be estimated. The refined sense of honour, the uprightness and integrity of well-nigh the whole of the Peers, are to some minds barely balance sufficient to weigh against the acts of the few individuals who have brought discredit on themselves and their

order. A very few cowards would bring dishonour on an entire army; still fewer bankrupt racing Peers create a prejudice against the whole body.

5. That as Sees become vacant the Bishops should be replaced in the House of Lords by lay life Peers.

That the Church loses more by the absence of the Bishops from their dioceses than the State gains by their presence in the House of Lords, is a proposition which is obtaining gradual but, I believe, sure acceptance. There are many ecclesiastical laymen whose presence in the Upper House would compensate for the absence of the Bishops, while no man can take the place of the Bishop in the diocese. I shall not further press this subject now.

6. That no Peer should be allowed to vote in the House of Lords until he had sat in that House one year, unless he had previously sat in the House of Commons.

7. That a property qualification should be necessary for all men called to an hereditary Peerage, but that the not possessing the property qualification should be no bar to promotion to a life Peerage.

A wealthy noble of proud lineage, of personal and inherited distinction, possessed of great influence, and credited with that rare gift, common-sense, to an extraordinary degree, has, in the speech from which I have already quoted, supplied argument more than sufficient to recommend this, by coupling those instinctively antagonistic words "pauper peerages."

8. That the members of the House of Lords should introduce more bills, originate more motions, altogether apart from Government bills. It is a common complaint on the part of the Lords that the Government does not introduce a sufficient number of bills in their House. Now there are many measures that even a Conservative Government could not introduce in the Upper House, as for instance the Reform Bill of 1868; and it is hardly an exaggeration to say, that there is scarcely a single bill, of first importance, brought forward by a Liberal or Liberal Radical Government, that would obtain a foothold if originated in the Upper House. The tendency of the Upper House is ConserNo. 150.-VOL. XXV.

vative; and such measures as the Irish Church and Land Bills, the Ballot, and the Abolition of University Tests, would not have passed a second reading if introduced there. But with all deference to the distinguished men who constitute the Upper House, is the fact that a Conservative Government must frequently, and a Liberal Government generally, originate important measures in the House of Commons,-sufficient reason for the small amount of work done by the Lords in the early part of the Session.1 On a recent Tuesday and Wednesday, private members of the Lower House gave notice of no less than fifty bills or motions for the Session then commencing. There are numbers of questions which members of the Upper House might, with great advantage to the nation, take up and press forward for legislation. It was recently said: "It is upon those questions which lie outside the Ministerial programme that the chief interest of the opening Session gathers." It is hardly too much to say that nearly every question of very great importance which Ministers take in hand, and bring forward for legislation, has been taken in hand for more, or fewer, years by some individual member, who has obtained at the onset but scant encouragement, but who has seen his arguments making their way, and his measure obtaining more support, until at last the Government of the day makes it a Ministerial question. This kind of work, than which none can be more important, might, I think, with advantage to the country, be more extensively engaged in by members of the Upper House, but we should gratefully remember that very many useful measures, specially in connection with religious liberty, have been originated by Peers in the Upper House. What Mr. Wilberforce did for the

1 While this is in the printer's hands, a short discussion has been held on this point in the House of Lords. Lord Salisbury proposed that bills should be introduced simultaneously into the Lords and Commons; but if, as would often be the case, the Lords came to one conclusion, and the Commons to another, would not the difficulty of coming to an agreement be far greater than when only one House has committed itself to an opinion?

K K

« VorigeDoorgaan »