MR LABOUCHERE ON HEREDITARY PEERAGES.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1414, 12 May 1886, Page 2

MR LABOUCHERE ON HEREDITARY PEERAGES.

Mr Ladouchere’s onslaught upon the system of hereditary peerages is one of tne most striking features of recent parliamentary proceedings in England, and his trenchant and just remarks will find an echo lar beyond the walls of the august Chamber within which they were uttered. He rightly argued that since the wide extension of the franchise England had become truly a democracy, and that in connection with a

democracy hereditary legislators were “an anachromism.’ 4 He pointed out that “ if the fust peer (of a family) was a clever man, clever men did not always have clever sons,” and that “ if they wished to have hereditary peers (of the right sort) they did not adopt the right plan; they ought to find the most intelligent persons in the country, take them when young (laughter), biing them up to be legislators, and when they had reached the years of maturity marry them to Girton girls, and then, perhaps, they might get some sort of result,” —a statement which was teceived with

shouts of laughter, but which, never-

theless, contained much sound sense and philosophy, Mr Labouchere went on to say that the present House of Lords sat there “ like sheep, and voted like sheep,” and 44 when a Ministry was turned out they fought for places with a salary. They were ready

to accept a place in the Government or at Court, and to perform duties which Gibbon said the noblest of Roman Emperors would not have caused the meanest patrician to do for him. One gentleman got a sum of money for looking after the Queen’s dogs, another for looking after the Queen's horses ; and another for looking after the Queen’s footmen (laughter). He had been counting up what they received from the State, and found that they received altogether 1,338,776 from the Public Treasury. They were told that the

payment of members of the House of Commons would be degrading, and would destroy their independence, yet a very small sum in division showed that these hereditary peers, notwithstanding their vast wealth, got an average of L7OO per annum for their services. But they were not satisfied with that. They had relations who, according to the “ Financial Reform Almanack,”

(“Oh, oh,”) had from 1855 up to the present date received Li 20,000,000. Honorable members oi the Opposition appeared to object to this statement. Very likely it was inaccurate, and therefore he would take off twenty millions. But surely a hundred millions was a considerable sum for 400 or 500 families to have received from the Exchequer in 30 years.” (Cheers.)JMr Labouchere also showed that there were 402 hereditary peers who sat in the Houseof Lords, and that “ these peers had fourteen million acres amongst them and Li 2,000,000 of rent, that was to say an average of 35,000 acres to each peer and an average income of L3o,ooo,” He then proceeded to deal with them thus.

severely. He said “ They had heard a great deal about the Land League in Ireland ; but could anybody imagine a more pernicious land league than that which existed in this country ? Of course being landlords they (the Leers) legislated for the landlords, and the consequence was that these landlords were the disgrace and the opprobrium of civilisation. They beat people off the land to make way for game ; there were vast tracts of lands uncultivated. Even at death they shirked paying the death duties ; the farmers had no fixture ol tenure; and the labourers were almost starving, and when they came

forward and asked for a miserable ‘ three acres and a cow ’ they were treated with contumely by these gentlemen, What could be more absurd than to suppose that any single class, when they had the power, would legislate for any class except themselves ? They might as well, in an assembly of cats and mice, imagine the cals would legislate in the interest of the mice.” We have quoted at considerable length because the speech is throughout of the raciest character, albeit the indictment, though severe, is one with which every liberal must neceessarily sympathise, and it is a significant fact that at the close of the debate on Mr Labouchere’s motion a very close division resulted, the motion which affirmed that the system of hereditary legislators is inconsistent with the principles of representative government, being only lost by 36 votes in a comparatively full House, 368 members going past the tellers. Verily the handwriting is on the wall, and hereditary peerages are clearly among the list of ancient institutions doomed to disappear before the advance of liberal though.