CHAPTER XI

THE PROPOSED REFORM OF THE HOUSE

OF LORDS

REFERENCES: Spalding's House of Lords, 133-255; Pike's Constitutional History of the House of Lords; Macpherson's Baronage and the Senate, 59-370; Dickinson's Development of Parliament during the Nineteenth Century, 1-97, and 125-183; Courtney's Working Constitution of the United Kingdom, 118-120; Subjects of the Day, No. 4, 74-117; Houfe's Question of the Houses; Rose's Rise of Democracy; Bagehot's English Constitution, 157-197; Drifting towards the Breakers, by A Sussex Peer.

See also pamphlets and magazine articles mentioned in bibliographical note at the close of this volume.

THE

`HE abolition or reconstruction of the House of Lords is a live question at the present time in England.1 There are some who see no reason for the existence of what seems to them a superfluous and antiquated body and would abolish it entirely; while others, recognising the necessity of a second chamber and appreciating the past services of the lords and realising the possibility of future usefulness, would retain the Upper House, but would reconstruct it in such a way as to make it conform more nearly to modern ideas of representation. The reformers seek

1 Perhaps it might be well to remark that since 1895 the agitation in favour of the reform of the House of Lords has subsided, owing to the predominance of the Conservative party. But, as a prominent member of the House of Commons recently remarked, "it might revive as a burning question if the Liberal party came in and the House of Lords began again to throw out or spoil bills passed by the House of Commons."

Since the above note was written the Liberals have come into power and have partially resumed the agitation against the House of Lords

generally to restrict the hereditary principle, and to extend the elective in the composition of the body. There are also those in England conservative enough to believe that the House of Lords as at present constituted is a satisfactory legislative body, and that no material change should be made in its composition. The fact of the matter undoubtedly is that the House of Lords has not adapted itself to the growing democratic spirit in England to the same degree that the Crown and the Commons have. The result is that there now exists a broad chasm between that body and the masses of the English people. The sympathy of the lords has been turned in the direction of the few and

not of the many. It is this fact that has caused Spalding to characterise the Upper Chamber in his forcible way as "the one stagnant and unprogressive branch of the legislature." 1

The prophecy of Walter Bagehot made a generation ago has been fulfilled in large part. Speaking of the possibility of the reform of the House of Lords, Mr. Bagehot remarked: "The danger of the House of Commons is, perhaps, that it will be reformed too rashly; the danger of the House of Lords certainly is, that it may never be reformed. Nobody asks that it should be so; it is quite safe against rough destruction, but it is not safe against inward decay. It may lose its veto as the Crown has lost its veto. If most of its members neglect their duties, if all its members continue to be of one class, and that not quite the best; if its doors are shut against genius that cannot found a family, and ability which has not five thousand a 1 "House of Lords," p. 5.

no one

year, its power will be less year by year, and at last be gone, as so much kingly power is gone knows how. Its danger is not in assassination, but atrophy; not abolition, but decline." 1

The cry for the reform of the House of Lords became more distinct after 1832. In 1834 it was proposed to relieve "the archbishops and bishops of the Established Church from their legislative and judicial duties." This suggestion came from the ranks of the dissenters, however, and was aimed at the Established Church rather than at the House of Lords. In 1835 the peers opposed measures passed by the Commons. and a storm of popular indignation arose forthwith. The peers themselves were fearful as to the existence of their legislative chamber. Many of them thought that it would be swept away by the rising tide of democracy. The Duke of Richmond declared that he "thought the House of Lords was nearly done for;" Lord Lyndhurst saw "no chance of their surviving ten years; " and Lord Abercromby thought it impossible that "any body of men should recover from the state of contempt into which they have fallen."

In 1867 their opposition to the Act to extend the franchise again aroused the ire of the democracy; and again in 1884, when the lords refused to pass the Franchise Bill, Mr. Gladstone became indignant enough to quote Shakespeare, and John Morley declared that the time had come to " 'mend or end" the Upper Chamber.

In 1870,2 an attempt was made to provide for the

1 "English Constitution," pp. 196-197.

2 Pike, "House of Lords," p. 382.

gradual elimination of the bishops from the House of Lords. It was proposed that those bishops then in the House should remain, but that none consecrated in the future should sit in the Upper Chamber. Such a reform will doubtless come about in the fulness of time, and will allow the bishops to attend to diocesan rather than legislative duties.

Reform advocated by Lords themselves.

These expressions of opinion are by no means isolated. The most striking fact in connection with the present agitation is the unanimity with which some form of reconstruction is advocated. We are not surprised to find that many members of the Radical wing of the Liberal party are in favor of reconstructing or, in some cases, of abolishing the House of Lords; but the fact that so many members of the House itself advocate some sort of reform comes in the nature of a surprise to those who have not followed with some care the drift of current English politics. That Henry Labouchere and Sir Charles Dilke should not be satisfied with the present status of the Upper Chamber is not strange; but the American who takes only a casual interest in English politics will be surprised to find that Lord Rosebery has evolved an elaborate and somewhat radical plan for the reconstruction of the House of which he is a member, and his surprise will be greater when he knows that Lord Salisbury, a former leader of the Conservative party, took steps - short ones, it is true-looking to the same end. Nor are these two great leaders alone in their position on the reform question. The House of Lords has debated the matter with earnestness and fervour on more