New-York tribune., 1909-12-15
WHAT "MENDING" THE LORDS
WOULD MEAN.

WOULD MEAN.
A shrewd explanation is given by
The Spectator" of London. of the mo-
tives Of the Radical leaders of the Lib
eral party i'm pressing for entire abOli-
tion Of the House Of Lords instead of
its reformation and reorganization in
10 a modern. practical and representa-
tive upper chamber. Apart from their
desire To invest the single chamber OF
the Commons with absolute and un-
bridled authority. they perceive that
the reOrganized House of Lords would
he a much stronger body than the pres
ent. since il would contain all the best
members of the existing house. would
be freed from the burden aud weakness
caused by the presence of many un-
worthy members and would consequent
ly enjoy a far greater degree Of popu-
Lar confidence and authority. Now IL IS
house which is permitted To exist
largely on suferance and against which
appeals are frequently and impressively
made 10 the people: but then il would
exist by right and with authority no
less than that of the Commons, and its
action instead OF being merely suspen-
sive or tentative would he absolute
I'm fact the reformed House of Lords.
because Of the quality of its member
ship, would almost certainly command
more confidence and exercise more au-
ihority than the House of Commons.
And had it been reformed by the elm
inatiOn of titled nObOdies at the time of
Il.
against Mr.. Bloyd-George's innovations
would have been even more impressive
If less numerous than il was. There
are" says The Spectator" "a fair
number OF fools who have the right 10
vote in the House of Lords" Doubt
less some of them voted against the
budget. But so did majority of those
peers who are not fools but the flower
and fruit OF British craftsmanship. Had
there been nobody I'm the gilded cham
Der but those whom all men are agreed
in regarding as capable and valuable
legislators the budget would have been
rejected just the same. largely by the
votes Of those who have been promoted
for merit from the Commons 10 the
Lords and who are therefore hereditary
legislators in only a nominal sense.
They are legislators not because of what
their fathers were but because of what
they are themselves.
Cromer. CurZon, Milner, Morley, Peel,
AshbOurne, St Aldwyn, Strathcona,
Rayleigh. Weardale. Northcliffe, Lore
burn, James Of Hereford, EVersley.
Glenesk, AlVerstOne, Avebury aud many
others were only a little time ago CON-
mOners and as such commanded general
esteem and confidence as representatives
Of the British people. IL is not TO be
believed that by the simple process of
being transferred 10 the other house
they have lost their statesmanship.
their patriotism or their devotion TO the
common welfare. Nor is it 10 be con-
ceded for moment that such men as
LansdOwne. Spencer, Elgin, Balfour OF
Burleigh, Londonderry, Rosebery, Ar.
gyll. Grey. Selbourne and many others
are Incompetent, unpatriotic or un-
worthy simply because OF the accident
OF their having been born into the peer
age. A reformed House OF Lords
would consist OF such men as these and
would almost certainly contain a strong
Unionist majority. That is reason
enough for the Radical desire 10 see
that chamber abolished rather than re-
formed.
The fact that such men sit in and
dominate the House OF Lords is also,
doubtless, reason enough for the un-
willingness OF the majority Of the
British people 10 have that house de-
stroyed and for their desire ~ see il so