The Express. — 1867-06-12 (London, England)

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 proceeds 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 resuseitetion 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 establishment 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 constitutional crisis really discharges any functions for the sake of which it is worth maintaining. Not to be mischievous is a poor plea for political existence. An institution 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 Common* 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 something 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