LORDS AND COMMONS

Evening Star, Issue 19663, 16 September 1927, Page 12

LORDS AND COMMONS

the two houses compared. Dues the House of Lords really need rcl Another debate on tins perennial topic is to take place :u tlio Upper House, ami the Duke ot Mai 1hoi'ongh—a, very rare'speaker in 1 ar--1 lament—has given notice of a motion declaring Unit, “ in view ol the lailnre ot any scheme ol House ot Lords icI'onn to arouse interest, tins House rcrrards I'urtlicr discussion ot the ipics('ion as inopportune and nnprohtablc. This challenge gives rise to some interesting comparisons between Hie tno Houses of .Parliament, especially i « methods of debate and the reactions to public opinion, Hie i’arlianicnt; arv correspondent ot the Daily Mail. Hr the light ot recent experience it would not be nnlair to say lhafc the Lords arc interested in the humanities while the Commons are involving themselves in legalities. The -peers have talked about economy, agneultnn , cinemas, betting, money-lending, sli.ne swindlers, trees m the New 1< orcst, and a number of other ‘ Jive subjects, while the Commons have been suing a tortuous way through the legal mares of the Trade Disputes Bill. M.l’.’s, of course, may argue Hi.it this Bill is one that really toadies Ibe humanities must closely, but the in is that, owing to the mclhoils ol the Opposition, discussion m the Home o Commons is less.. concerned w, ‘ welfare of the nation than with tin advantages of a party. And that is where the real dillerencc between the debates in the two Houses is apparent to-d.iy Peers arc persons; M.P. s arc pohtiUJ ln‘the House of Commons the deleat of the Government would probably mean the resignation ol the Goveinment. In the Henso of Lonls theic m a. freedom from consequences that enables men to say exactly what they think. ’ , The House, ol Lords is mme democratic than the House of Commons, in matters of procedure. In the lathi, when several members rise at the same tune to speak, the Speaker decides; in the House of lairds, d rival contestants for oratorical honors do not give i\ay, the choice ot the next speaker is Iclt to it, vole ol the iloiiM*. The House of Lords is more creative than the House of Commons. No one is ever shouted down in the ■** f 3 , ) nse Lords. There are no ‘‘•scenes. Mr Jack Jones is not a Peer, there are no Clvdcsido barons, No one is Hying to take political advantage 01, an unconscious slip of the tongue. The House of Lords is more businesslike than the House of Commons, 1.0-ccntly ccntly Peers disposed in two and a-balt hours technical amendments to the Companies -Bill, which will ceil.iiiily occupy Ji Commons Committee ioi Inne as many days. Til Hquso ot Lonls is more creative than the House of Commons. Many of the most useful Bills ol modern times, such as the Money-lenders Bill, have originated in the enthusiasms ol individual Peers.

The House of Lords contains more pre-eminent experts than the House ol Commons. lliorc arc iJio bishops. Law? 1 Imre are llm law lords. Business? Tho names ol Lord Kylsant, Lord St. Davids, Lord Swaythling, Lord Aslilicld, and a score more occur to mind. Racing? The stewards of the Jockey Chib. .Medicine? Lord Dawson, of Penn. Cricket? Lord Harris. And. so on. There is not a department of human life that is not represented by an acknowledged authority in the House ol Lords.

Not inlrcf|iionlly lately more M.P.’s have been seen listening To debates in the House of Lords than in the J lon-o of Commons. Facts tend to prove the epigram of a Peer, who said lately that what the Lords think to-day the Commons say to-morrow, and preach on public platforms the day after.