Reform of the House of Lords
/1HE Government took the Lords by surprise on Monday by announcing the general principles of a scheme for reforming their House. It is true that the Unionist Party has long regarded itself as com- mitted to reform of the Lords. When Mr. Asquith passed the Parliament Act, he spoke of it as only the first step in the logical application of democratic treat- ment to the House of Lords. Naturally from that moment the Unionist Party held it to be its own duty to see that further changes, since there must be changes, should be along safe lines of constitutional development. On the other hand, at the last General Election Mr. Baldwin made only a casual reference to the House of Lords question. It has been suggested that the Goveniment, in suddenly producing the outlines of reform, think of their scheme as a possible issue for a General Election. We rather doubt that. If the Lords become the issue at a General Election, it is likely to be. rather the result of circumstances than a deliberate choice. We agree, however, that the question has to be tackled, and in our judgment the Government have done well to give the country certain ideas for con- sideration.
There is much that seems to us good in the Govern- ment's proposal, but something ambiguous too. There arc also omissions, one of them very serious. Briefly, the scheme is that the reformed House shall consist of 350 members instead of 740 as now ; that a " sufficient number "--the number to be fixed by Statute— of these 350 members shall be appointed on the recommendation of the Government of the day, and that the remainder shall be elected by the present hereditary Peers out of their own ranks. Peers of the Blood Royal, the Archbishops and the Bishops and the Law Lords will all sit by right. The elected hereditary Peers and the nominated Peers will serve for twelve years ; one-third to retire every fourth year and be eligible to sit again. Hereditary Peers, not chosen to sit in the House of Lords, will be eligible for the House of Commons. Most of these points arc familiar to everyone who has read the Report of the Bryce Committee of 1917.
No doubt this scheme will be altered before it becomes a Bill, and still more altered before it becomes an Act. The Government have been very wise, we think, in deciding to keep the House of Lords as a body quite unlike the House of Commons. If ever there should he an Upper House here elected either directly or indirectly, like the Senates of other countries, an intense rivalry of a sort which does not now exist would spring up between the two Houses. It might well be that the Upper House, conscious of a higher order of intelligence, would grow impatient of the House of Commons in its worst moods, and would tend to try to rule the country. It may be said that the House of Lords has that con- sciousness already, for its " full dress " debates are conducted with unapproached knowledge and efficiency. But the truth is that the House of Lords is kept from any foolish policy of self-assertion by its very nature ; just because it does not depend upon any franchise it does not pretend to reflect exactly the opinion of the people. It offers its judgment and its experience for what they arc worth—and they are frequently worth a great deal—but for many years it has not attempted to do more than act as a delaying force in doubtful issues. It astonishes us when people urge that a fully elected Upper House is the only democratic solution. Super- ficially, of course, there is point in that argument, but surely on deeper reflection it must be seen that to keep the House of Lords entirely different in character from the House of Commons, so that the popular supremacy of the House of Commons is not really threatened, is the true democratic way.
Besides, we are extremely fortunate in this country to have a class of men who by tradition give their services freely to national causes.. The members of the House of Lords who really count have all been through a regular discipline in the House of Commons, in county work, in the Services, as Governors of Dominions, States and Colonies, and so on. America would be happy if she had such a body of experienced men ready and anxious to work for the public good. Mr. Roosevelt used to say that it was one of his ideals to build up such a caste of voluntary politicians and public servants as existed in Britain. The hereditary principle is illogical to-day, no doubt, but it relates us in an interesting way to the past, and above all " it works." On the other hand, the numbers of the House of Lords are unwieldy, and in a political emergency the cooler and more experienced men may he swamped by a whipping up of the " backwoodsmen " who are seldom seen in the House of Lords except on an occasion of great public excitement. The " backwoodsmen " pour in to vote just when they would have done better to .stay away, for on such occasions they are more likely to be the prey of prejudice than the followers of reason.
As the House of Lords is constituted at present, Labour is badly treated. There are only about ten members who can be counted upon to vote for Labour. The provision that the Government of the day can nominate temporary members to build up an Opposition is good, but it will need very careful handling to make it work fairly. The Lords Spiritual and the Law Lords arc most desirable permanent members of the Upper House, but we should like to see representatives of the Free Churches added. And why should not leaders of Roman Catho- licism and Judaism be nominated ? Some of these might come to be nominated in any case by custom,_ but the matter ought not to he left to chance. Similarly, in .our judgment, regular rules ought to be laid down for the choice or election of the hereditary Peers who are to sit. No one ought to be able to say that they have been chosen capriciously. It would surely be easy enough to fix some standard of public service. Another suggestion which seems to have escaped the Government is that among nominated member; there should be a certain number representing the Dominions. Dominion members would certainly not be " reactionary," and they might even he sympathetic towards Labour.
We have written elsewhere about other points in the Government's scheme. Here we have been concerned mainly with the personnel of the future Upper House, but one thing we must say in conclusion. We deeply, regret that the Government have not mentioned the Referendum. The Referendum, or Poll of the People, is the final safeguard of democracy. It ensures that in every disputed case the will of the people shall prevail. With this safeguard in existence it would be a matter, of comparative indifference if the Parliament Act Waq left untouched. Under the Referendum the Lords need never decide against a majority in the House of Connnons. They would only secure Ahat the people should have opportunity to decide for themselves. No reform can be complete without the Referendum. time
Previous page
