heiieu of Kevteaf, 119106. 



Leading Articles. 



281 



WHAT TO DO WITH THE HOUSE OF 

 LORDS. 



Whom the Peers Represent. 

 Mr. Frederick Harrison in the Positivist Review 

 presents a sobering survey of the position of the 

 Upper House. He bids the nation remember the 

 strength of the House of Lords. From the first Re- 

 form Act of 1832 down to the third of 1885, the 

 Peers were neither strong nor respected — 



But the formation of a genuine democratic constituency 

 by the legislation of 1885 altered all tliis. It wa8 seen that 

 the Lower House was, or would lie, fallen under the in- 

 fluence of the Labour masses, and that Labour was being 

 rapidly colourtd by a more or less indefinite Socialism. 

 When an eminent Whig aristocrat had gaily declared, " We 

 are all Socialists now !" the whole of the capitalists and 

 trading class began to distrust the House of Commons a^ 

 a p.alladium of property, religion, and order; and they 

 turned to the House of Lords as the last stronghold of our 

 ancient social institutions and the rights of property, whe- 

 ther inherited or acciuired in business. For a whole gene- 

 ration the House of Peers has become the real, but un- 

 official Legislature of the Empire. Bills are debated in the 

 Commons: but no measure of Reform, vitally affecting 

 society or property, could pass unless it be approved by 

 the Lords. 



THE CHAJIPION OF THE CLASSES. 



Mr. Harrison derides tYie obsolete cry that the 

 Peers represent nothing but themselves. He says: — 



The exact contrary is the truth. To-day they represent 

 the preponderant power of all the rich, educated, and 

 trained classes, the learned professions, the tradesmen, the 

 owners of property real and personal, the titled orders 

 down to the catlets of a city knight. And to these they 

 add the interests of the Clergy, the Universities, official 

 societies, the Army and Navy, and the miscellaneous classes 

 whose capital is invested in the Empire, in agriculture, 

 food, and drink. Of course, they only represent all these 

 widespread interests in silent, secret, irregular and obscure 

 ways. They could hardly maintain their cause in any 

 formal and direct conflict. All that they could do would 

 be by indirect means, obstr iction, jirncrastination, and 

 false issues to stave off any fundamental change in any of 

 the great social institutions, material or moral. 



THE LAST nULWAEK OF CAPITALISM. 



Mr. Harrison refers to the gain in prestige and 

 popularity of the Crown during the seventy years of 

 ■ Victoria and Edward, and thinks — though the in- 

 : ference is somewhat questionnlile — that the Peers as 

 f a sort of Society bodyguard of the Crown have also 

 i. gained not a little in popular interest. Mr. Harrison 

 t is careful to say that he does not accept the claim of 

 the Lords to be the ultimate power in legislation. 

 He only deprecates " the ignorant babble of the de- 

 mocrats who say, Leave the I ords to us. " He ex- 

 pects that the Lords will defy the Commons on some 

 definite point whereon consi(!<-rable sections of the 

 Liberal Party are disheartened and divided : — 



*■ They silently represent immense forces of Wealth, Tra- 

 dition, Experience. Self-interest. .Vll ciuestions and parties 

 here, as elsewhere, are becoming fused in the great an- 

 taffonisni of Conservative Capitalism against Democratic 

 Tiabour. Now the Lords, however olisolete their special 

 privileges have become, are now the last bulwark of the 

 former, whilst the Commons are, in only modified degrees. 

 the representatives of the latter. 



Mr. Harrison presents a rather gloomy outlook. 

 He says : — 



By the law of the Constitution, the Ix)rds may claim to 

 ,: reject any Bill that is not plainly desired by the nation. 



If led with skill and courage, they may force on a new 

 Dissolution— possibly even a second. A dissolution is a 

 cruel tax on the Commons, but only a pleasant holiday to 

 the Lords. Drained by election expenses and jealousies, 

 torn asunder by Catholics. Dissenters. Irishmen, Home 

 Rulers, pro-Boers. pro-Bengalees, Socialists, Trade Unionists, 

 Imperialist Liberals, disappointed Radicals, and all the 

 heart-burnings of a huge composite majority, the national 

 verdict of 1906 might be doubtful in 1907-8-9. There, "like 

 a cormorant." the Spirit of Evil sits, ever on the watch. 

 And before the nation knew it. the food of the People might 

 be taxed to fill the pockets of an organised conspiracy of 

 capitalists. 



A CONSERVATIVE " EEPOEM." 



Sir Hertiert Maxwell in the NineteeiiUi Century 

 calls attention to the new responsibilities flung upon 

 the House of Ix)rds by the appointment of Standing 

 Committees to save the time of the House of Com- 

 mons. The hours at which these Standing Commit- 

 tees meet will invohe the whole working day of the 

 mennber of Parliament being absorbed, leaving. Sir 

 Herbert fears, this important committee work to 

 members of leisure, therefore of pleasure, to Labour 

 and Irish Ms. P. This forms a preamble to Sir Her- 

 bert's main purpose, which is to propose a reform 

 of the Upper House. He quotes Oliver Cromwell in 

 favour of a Second Chamber as needful " to pre- 

 vent tumultary and popular spirits." He regrets that 

 the history of last century, being mostly written by 

 Liberals, has not dealt fairly by the House of Lords. 

 He agrees with the late W. H. Smith that reform 

 m.-st come from the Conservative Party and from 

 the Peers themsehes. The reform he advocates he 

 sums up in three points: (i) Reduce the number of 

 Peers in Parliament to two-fifths of the number of 

 the House of Commons, the actual proportion at the 

 accession of George IIL This would now mean an 

 Upiser House of 268 Peers. (2) Let these 268 be 

 elected at each new Parliament by the 600 and more 

 who are now Peers. (3) Xo more hereditary peer- 

 ages ; the existing hereditary titles to continue to de- 

 scend until they expire in the course of nature, only 

 life peerages to be created henceforth. 



As the present Peers are overwhelmingly Conserva 

 live, the " reform " advocated by Sir Herbert would 

 presumably result in practically no Liberal Peers 

 being elected ! A concentrated committee of Tory 

 Peers is hardly the kind of Second Chamber the 

 country is likely to approve. 



Ill ,1 lecent nuniU-r 1 t i' .isioiial Papers Mr. J. 

 Cuthliert Hadden, who writes on Woman and Music, 

 tries to explain why we ha\e had as yet no female 

 Bach, or Beethoven, or Wagner. He thinks it is 

 due in a great measure to inadequate training: — 



Take the typical illustration of Mendelssohn and hia sister 

 Fanny. The Mendelssohn biographers are unanimous in 

 their testimony that the lady had the finer musical organi- 

 sation, and in her early years offered the greater musical 

 promise. But what happened? The training of brother and 

 sister gradually diverged — stopped short, in fact, with the 

 girl, while the hoy was encouraged and assisted by every 

 available means. 



