The Express.
London, England, 1867-06-12 00:00:00

A REFORMID HOUSE OF PEERS.

Observing that the change of 1832 is insignificant
by the aide of that of 1867, which will alter the aspect of
almost every question of the day, the Tines pro-
ceeds to point out the neglect of duties and
disregard of obligations manifested by the House of
Peers. In their gorgeous chamber there is nothing but
muttering and gloom, now and then enlivened by some
ignoble contention, and if things go on at this rate the
house is in • fair way to be the wealthiest, the most
highly-descended, the moat useless, and the most indolent
assembly in the world. The hereditary principle may
account for mediocrity, but is no apology for indolence.
It is not uncommon for important business to be transacted
with onlythree peers present, and the Times is not sure that
even this number is the misistam. The public would be
astonished were we to report, as we have often been
tempted to do, the precise number of peers present when
very weighty measures are discussed. Such a practice on
the part of the press would be one of the most formidable
means that could be employed to show the House of Peen
to themselves and to the country in their true colours. The
dinner hour breaks them up, and anyone who presumes to
protract the proceedings beyond that limit is looked
upon with marked disfavour. The fact that this
should be the ere precisely at that period in
our history when its services as • moderator and
conservator are most imperatively called for demands the
immediate attention of practical statesmen. Measures
should be taken, if not already too late, for the resuseite-
tion of • body which is dearer to us than to itself. We
mustere the peers from suicide, if not for their own sake,
at any rate for ours. The abolition of proxies and esta-
blishment of a quorum are indispensable steps, but by
themselves they would be by no means sufficient. If the
House of Peers is to be of any use, it shoul be made to
discharge the duties and to carry with it weight of a
senate.

The general indifference to what the House of Lords
may do, suggests to the Daily New, whether a body which
can thus be safely left out of account in a great con-
stitutional crisis really discharges any functions for the
sake of which it is worth maintaining. Not to be mis-
chievous is a poor plea for political existence. An insti-
tution for which no more can be said than this takes up
room which might be better occupied. The upper house
ban become little else than a field in which the ghosts of
great political chieftains renew in mock fight the combats
of their earthly life. The absence of any political vitality,
of any air of business, is the most remarkable feature of
all their lordly performances. Either the Rouse of Com-
mon* does not require the check or cooperation of a
second chamber, or it requires a second chamber
of a different kind from that which now exists.
The abolition of proxies and she institution of a quorum
are changes which ought at once to be made; bat some-
thing more is required. A chamber restricted to a certain
class in society, however important, could never be allowed
to exercise practically co-ordinate power with an assembly
representing every class in the nation. The creation of
life peers, selected fur a variety of qualifications, would give