The Washington times., 1922-07-16

~INCE the Reform Act the
- power Of the House Of Lords
~ has been limited TO that Of a
revising and suspending chamber.
The Parliament Act has yet fur
ther curtailed its authority. and
now IT Is not as powerful as the
American. French and Italian Sen.
ates, or even the legislative coun.
ellis Of our self.governing colonies.
But 1t is still Almighty force in the
British constitution. and the man
who is elevated to a seat in 1t is
called to a great responsibility.
"The King Of England" said Dis
raeli, may make peers, but he can
not make a House Of Lords. The
order of men of whom such an as
sembly is formed is the creation OF
the ages"
We talk of the House Of Lords as
n 1t were purely an hereditary
body. 1t has never been so-never
at least since It took it's present
form as a second chamber. Always
It has been within the right of the
crown to summon a peer to sit in
Parliament without incurring any
obligat ton to extend the privilege
to his descendants. And for many
years it has been within the right
OF the first servant of the people.
the prime minister, to call upon the
king to create peers at his recon-
mendation. Thus, the House OF
Lords is, and nearly always has
been. partly. although indirectly. a
representative chamber.
This is just where it's strength
rs well as its weakness lies. It's
strength in SO far as It eliminates
the worst peril of the hereditary
principle, whereby a father marked
for eminence in legislative assem-
bly, may be followed by a son who
has no capacity for anything
higher than the management Of a
racing stud.
It's weakness in the degree in
which it opens the doors Of tho
House of Lords to the abuses
which have cheapened knightage
and degraded baronetage-to the
purchase Of rank, whether by gold
or influence.
The right Of the prime minister
to recommend the creation Of peers
assumes that in one way or other
they are representative Of the ma
: ton. charged with the duty Of car
rying into an ancient chamber tho
atmosphere of modern life. But
what in reality are they?
INTELLECT AND LORDS.
There are many. Some prime
ministers have exercised their
right Of creating peers very spar
ingly. Peel recommended the crea-
tion Of only seven peerages in
five years. But hardly any Of his
successors have been so jealous in
the bestowal of such honors. most
OF them having recommended the
creation Of at least as many peer
ages every year. Since 1926 more
than 500 peers have been created.
A crowd. almost a mob. Who have
they been. and how have they
borne themselves?
Since the House Of Lords has
become a chamber Of review, the
last and highest court of national
appeal, It might fairly be expected
that the created peers would be.
above all things. persons dis
tinguished by intellect and ATTAIN
ments. and it would be unfair to
deny that some proportion Of the
800 belong to that category.
In days past there have been
Macaulay, Lytton, T nyson.
Leighton, Playfair, Kelvin and Lis
ter. But what shall we say OF
the intellect Of a house which at
tne SdInc llIIlc, lIOul OiiC SouoS VI
other, closed It's doors to John Stu
art Mil, to Carlyle, to Darwin, to
Herbert Spencer, to Walter Scott.
TO Charles Reade, and to Russell
Wallace?
And now, in our own day, can
any assembly pretend to be repre-
sentative Of the intellect of the ma
ton which, while 1t includes (and
properly includes) among its Great
cd peers litteratepys like Morley.
statesmen like Haldane, lawyers
like Carson, Buckmaster and Birk-
enhead, does not include Thomas
Hardy, Rudyard Kipling. Oliver
Lodge, Frederic Harrison, Arthur
Pinero, Bernard Shaw and others
in literature, in science, in learn.
ing, in medicine. and In commerce?
= Some effort has lately been made
TO permeate the air of the House
of Lords with the spirit Of modern
life by the granting Of peerages
10 leading representatives Of the
press, but hardly any experiment
could have been less successful.
- -sI