The Peers Among Socialists

Britons last week heard echoes of slogans which had been dormant for decades: "The House of Lords must be mended or ended," and "Who shall rule, the Peers or the People?"

With only minor variations, the issue which revived the slogans in 1948 was the same one which had created them in 1832 and 1911: the noble Lords were in a last-ditch fight against a reformist government, battling to save what few political teeth they still had left. But precedent was against them. Always before they had fought, and always lost.

Whose Oligarchy? The issue this time was the Labor government's Parliament Bill, already twice approved by the House of Commons. The bill would reduce the time needed for the House of Commons to enact legislation over the Lords' disapproval, from two years to nine months.

The Lords themselves were ready to accept a cutback of their delaying power to twelve months, but beyond that they would not compromise.

To the Labor government the difference between nine months and twelve seemed vital. Labor's long-heralded bill to nationalize the steel industry would not be ready for presentation to the House of Commons before next November. If the Lords could delay it only nine months, the bill could be law by the summer elections of 1950. Labor could then say to the electorate: "Look, we have done as we promised." But if the Lords could hold up steel for twelve months (or any other government measure on a similar timetable), Labor might not be able to complete its program before election.

The House of Lords was packed with aroused peers as it had not been in years. Out of its 850-odd members, normally only a tenth or less attend.* But last week 258 showed up to listen, speak and be counted. In the debate, some of them displayed a lively concern over an issue deeper than steel or immediate programs. Old Viscount Cecil of Chelwood cried that the Parliament Bill was leading straight to an "oligarchy" of the cabinet. Sweeping the chamber with a steely glare, he said: "I shall be told, perhaps, that this does not matter because the cabinet obtain their power from the electorate . . . Hitler made a precisely similar claim . . ." Vigorous Lord Salisbury thundered in agreement: "It is the rights and liberties of the British people which are at stake."

Whose Advice? When Labor Lord Addison offered a weak compromise, Lord Salisbury rejected it in anger: "Unworthy of consideration . . . the government has tried to blackmail this House." They voted -- 177-to-81 against the bill.

But it was only a question of time. Under the Constitution, the bill would become law anyway not later than December 1949. Until then, all Acts of Parliament would continue to carry the traditional preamble: "Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons . . ." But afterward, a final flick of the Parliament Bill provided, even the words "the Lords" would disappear from the preambles.

* Remarked Liberal Lord Samuel last winter: "This is undoubtedly the only institution in the world which is kept efficient by the permanent absenteeism of the great majority of its members."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.