University of Virginia Library

The House Of Lords

The late John Foster Dulles once quipped
that Her Majesty the Queen had no subjects
more loyal than the citizens of Virginia—a
testimony to the strong ties of blood
and custom that bind the Commonwealth
with Britain. The news from Westminster
last week was especially disturbing, then,
to us former colonials.

The news, of course, was that the Labor
Government proposed to reduce the powers
and change the composition of the House
of Lords. To Americans unversed in British
constitutional theory, the announcement was
particularly startling, for it was made by
the Queen in her annual address to the Lords.
It was as if a miniskirted Twiggy had wandered
by mistake into the Tudor splendor of
the scarlet and ermine-clad peers.

The proposal aroused the expected controversy.
The Conservative leader, Mr.
Heath, described it as "a suitable sop to
the Left wing" and vowed his opposition.
Yet the reduction in the Lords' power
was not the Jacobin sort of measure the
extremely traditional might have considered
it. Mr. Heath's own supporters in the House
of Lords had already conceded the need
for change. Earlier this year, Lord Harlech,
the former ambassador to the United States
and now Deputy Opposition Leader, recognized
the unfairness of "the built-in
majority for the Conservative Party" and
called for an "all-party agreement" to bring
about the reform.

Demand for reform of the House of
Lords has centered around two points.

The first is the Lords' power to delay
legislation which the Commons have passed.
Under the Parliament Acts of 1911 and
1949, the Lords retain considerable power
to frustrate the will of the elected chamber.
Through various maneuvers, the Lords can
stall legislation as much as a year and waste
the Commons' time. Under the proposed
reform, this delay would be shortened.

The second and less important point
concerns the composition of the House of
Lords. Out of 1,045 members at present,
744 are hereditary peers because their fathers
were, 121 are hereditary peers because past
Prime Ministers have made them so, and
26 are bishops of the Church of England.
It has been estimated, however, that two-thirds
of the hereditary peers attend sessions
only on ceremonial occasions, such as the
Queen's Speech. By reducing the number
of such men, the House of Lords paradoxically
could have a more influential voice
in governing since it would be more compact,
more representative, and more
informed about affairs of state.

Perhaps the most stirring aspect of the
Queen's Speech, for an American used to a
less traditional sort of government, was the
inimitably British quality of the occasion.
Her Majesty spoke the words Harold Wilson
had written, and the peers took the news
of the demise of their ancient rights
gracefully and manfully. The pomp and
circumstance were as splendid as ever,
from the dazzling costumes to the Yeoman
of the Guard searching the cellars of the
Houses of Parliament for gunpowder. Past
met present as the Queen spoke about the
technological advance of industry and the
progress of scientific research.

As the Manchester Guardian commented,
"...the twentieth century was at last shyly
but persistently knocking on the Gothic
door...The Lords themselves know well what
happened to the dodo, and whatever Mr.
Heath might say most Lords are themselves
strong for change."