New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1909-12-02
THE FrTrRE OF TIE PEERS.


The British House of Lords has exer-
cised its power of suspensOry veto on
the Commons finance bill 10y one of the
largest majOrities on record. The vote
against the licensing bill at the last ses-
sion was 96 ayes 10 272 noes. In 1893
the vote against Home Rule was IL ayes
TO 40 noes. This weeks vote against
Mr.. Lloyd-George's new system of ma
tiOnal finance was - ayes TO $50 noes.
And now there are remarks about the
die being cast and the impending abOli-
ton Of the obstructive upper chamber
remarks which are probably more nu-
merOus in this country Il an in the
United Kingdom itself. where the real
situation is better understood. The grave
importance of the case is not 10 be iG-
nOred. The greatest constitutional crisis
since 1882 is involved. But II would he
injudicious 10 assume too confidently
that. with the advantage Of the tactical
blunder which many think the peers
have made, the Liberals are sure Of win
ming the impending general election. AZ
any rate by a majority sufficiently great
10 warrant them in attempting extreme
measures; and II would certainly be
rash 10 imagine that because Lord Lans-
dOwne's resolution prevailed the British
nation is going 10 abolish the House Of
Lords and commit its legislative, indeed
all its governmental. affairs 10 single
chamber
For il Is a paradox Of the present sit
ration that in the very act Gf--as some
q,
ence the House of Lords has demon
strated the advantage Of its continued OK
istence. In reassertinC its ancient privi-
lege in defiance of the will Of the major
ity OF the Commons il has incurred a
storm OF wrath and threats OF war
without quarter" yet AZ the same time
il has cOnvincinCly exhibited its utility.
While IL has brought upon itself the
menace Of destruction. II has shown that
its destruction would be a grave loss 10
British public life
For whatever may be thought Of the
outcome Of the Lords debate upon the
finance bill. only one opinion is expressed
concerning its quality. There are as able
men in the Commons as in the Lords.
but there are not so many Of them. The
array OF constitutional debaters Of high
class in the "Gilded chamber is i'm
pressive. Such peers as ROSebery. Gro
mer. Morley. Lansdowne. CurzOn.
Miner, AshbOurne, Avebury.. Loreburn,
Halsbury. RevelstOke, St Aldwyn who
did not speak, James of Hereford and
Balfour Of Burleigh are the flower Of
contemporary British craftsmanship. Not
only in the technical sense Of social and
political rank. but also in the larger and
truer sense Of intellectual moral and
patriotic elevation, they are indeed peers
OF the realm.
II Is out Of the question that such men
should Ice banished from British public
life. Daniel Webster once protested that
the Wing party must not re destroyed.
because then there would be no party
for him 10 belong 10. So. more pertinent
~. il VIII he held in the United Kingdom
that the continued existence Of the
House Of Lords is necessary. in order
that these men may have a place in
which 10 serve the nation. That is not
to say that the House Of Lords must al
ways exist in precisely It's present form.
with all its confessed anomalies and
anachronisms II is to say that some
provision must be made for the retention
i'm British public life Of scores Of states
men Of the highest rank. who have been
made peers because Of their exceptional
abilities and services. The British ma
ton may some day exclude from its leg
islature a mob Of titled nObodies. but il
will not deprive itself Of the services OF
able and faithful servants. The purely
hereditary principle may in time he
abandoned: the constitutional principle
of a second chamber will doubtless be
preserved.