THE BACKWOODSMEN OF THE LORDS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 267, 18 December 1909, Page 3

THE BACKWOODSMEN OF THE LORDS.

The following interesting article from the pen of Mr. T. P. OConnor, M.P., appeared whilst the fate of the Budget was awaiting decision in the House of Lords:— Like the immortal word mugwump, the term "backwoodsman" has been created by a peculiar political crisis, and may enter permanently into the political vocabulary of England. It is applied to the members of the House of Lords who rarely, if ever, attend the sittings of that august body, and who, nevertheless, 1 , retain their political rights, and at any moment, therefore, may revolutionise a Parliamentary situation. The origin of the term is the dread felt—not by one political party alone—that the House of Lords may resort'to the extreme and perilous course of rejecting the Budget Bill, and may do so not because its responsible and experienced leaders tmnk that tne wisest policy, but because they may be overj ruled and outvoted by a sudden incursion of the peers who are usually conspicuous by their absence.

Nothing, indeed, is more startling amid the startling things in that extraordinary assembly than the smallnoss ot the normal attendance at its sittings. The number of peers is something like six hundred. Of these not more laan sixty put in a regular appearance, hivrn sixty is an exaggeration in anything but important sittings.

FEW LORDS ATTEND MEEXiNUS. Ordinarily the House of Lords consists of some ten to twenty members. One of the peculiarities of the assembly is that, unlike the House of Commons and 1 most legislative assemblies in the world, I it has no Standing Orders—no rules which limit and control the acts of its members. The Lord Chancellor, who is supposed to exercise the same privileges and powers as the Speaker'of the House of Commons, and who is certainly the presiding ofheer, in reality has little or no control of the proceedings of the House of Lords. Indeed, the old fiction is kept up that tfye Lord Chancellor is not a member or the assembly at all. He sits, as everybody knows, on something like an enlarged palliase of a bed which is known as the woolsack. It is a huge, square, low couch stuffed with wool, and when a young barrister is smarting on life and people wish to promise him a brilliant career they talk of him as reaching the woolsack. This means that he may get to the highest position in the legal profession;' for the Lord Chancellor is at once the highest judge of the country, and at the same time the presidium officer of the House of Lords.

But by a perpetuation of the old tradition and fiction the woolsack is outside the floor of the House of Lords, and the Lord Chancellor, whenever he addresses the assembly, lias to move a step or two in front of the woolsack, so as to place himself within the frontier of the chamber itself.

LORD CHANCELLOR WITHOUT: J POWER. The Lord Chancellor, then, being but a distinguished stranger, has no control of the assembly. He cannot call a peer to order; he cannot even name the peer who should address the House. Several peers, when a debate of any interest is proceeding, jump to their feet simultaneously, like so many jacks-in-thc* box, and whichever ha's the strongest voice or greatest tenacity proceeds to speak. If one peer be not left in possession and there seems no way of otherwise choosing between the two, a vote is taken, and the peers decide by a majority who shall speak. 1 'Often the House of Lords consists of only three members, and for the time being these three members have the plenary power of the whole House. One peer solemnly seats himself on the wools&ck—he need not be the Lord Chancellor; indeed, on such occasions he is usually one of the youngest members of the House—two other occupy seats and he solemnly puts to his audience of two the question whether a Bill shall pass or not.

THREE MEN OFTEN DECIDE. I should add that this is done usually towards the end of the Parliamentary session, when everybody wants to get away; and when, accordingly, all business is rushed through at breakneck i pace. Every Bill has to be r«ad three I times in the House of Lords as weil as in the House of Commons, and these j three peers are usually chosen to slop up late o' nights when the House elf Commons has the late sittings at the close of the session.

The moment the Bill is passed through all its stages in the House of Commons these three peers rush oif to the House of Lords; and there, in the magnificent distances of the spacious chamber, they, like ghosts, murmuring inaudible words, go through the ceremony of giving the Bill a first reading, and thus get through one of the necessary stages for parsing the measure into law.

TURN OUT FOR THEMSELVES. The smallness of the average attendance is brought into relief by the fact that during the last fifty years there were only ten occasions on which the ' attendance was more than two hundred. Five of these occasions—that is to say, half the whole number—were when marriage with a deceased wife's sister was under discussion. •For some reason or other that question excited the keenest interest of their lordships; and sp they turned up. Perhaps the interest was partly due to the fact that the present King' took a prominent interest in the question, and always supported the change of the law which legalised such marriages by vote and petition. The other occasions were also peculiar and characteristic. When Gladstone sought to give religious equality to Ireland by disestablishing the Anglican State Church there; 192 peers' voted against disestablishment, and 97 only in its favor, VOTE IN ARMY CHANGES. When Gladstone again sought to abolish the infamous system undsr which in old days promotion of-officer*' in the army was obtained by a money payment, 102 voted for the retention of the abuse and only 82 for its abolition. When it was proposed to lower the voting qualification in the rural districts in England so that the agricultural laborers might no longer be excluded, as they were, from any voice or vote in the government of their country, 200 voted against the reform and 146 voted for it.

It was, however, when Ireland had to be struck at that the House of Lords I rose to something like an approach to its entire numbers. When Gladstone sent up his Home Rule Bill in 1893 tia fewer than 419 lords made their appearance to vote against the liberty of Ireland, and only 43 were found to vote in its favor. And, finally, even on so contentious a subject as the schools question in England, only 132 peers thought it worth while to come and vote I against the Liberals; only 52 voted for' them; the whole House consisted, on even so momentous an occasion, of 18ft* I out of 006.-

CONDITIONS MAKE ALL DOUBTFUL. This re«ord proves that the House ot Peers is a place where anything may happen in case the majority of its members should be so stirred as to think t worth their while to turn up at even one sitting. Of course, nobody knows yet whether they will or -not. For cveu the doorkeepers of the House of Lorda are unacquainted with the personal appearance of a large number of the members of the House.

i They see them so seldom tliat tney i cannot say whether they ire real peers [ or only gentlemen pretending to De . peers. There is a story of one peer being : actually refused admission by the doorkeeper. His appearance was rustic, and his manner awkward, and the doorkeeper naturally asked, "Are you a peer?" To which the peer gave the historic answer: "A peer? Of course I'm a peer. Do you think I should come to this d d place if I wasn't a peer?" On these occasions, when peers of tliis type turn up, the House of Lords is oat of the quaintest and one o? ti>e most interesting asse-jjbUcii in the world. For these peers bring out of tliei 1 * variov.s places of retreat a wh-il of a dead and gone world. They wed• a'! kinds of strange and ancient ga-r'icn',* Tb«ir hats seem to peep out .-f the ii'mtrations in Thackeray's mid - Victorian novels; their coats rewnVo those wireh used to be worn by Cojnt d-OiPay and Benjamin Disraeli when t'icv disputed the sovereignty of the wv'l of dandies in the '3o's or '4o's of (Vt lust century. Sometimes, indeed, if one were to try to find a full House of Pe"s c-ie wouid have to travel to desolate and remote regions of Africa, where a r-cer has wedded a black woman and U the father of a negro family. And som-times the

bearer of an historical name is like some ugly and terrible family ghost. i It will be seen, then, that nobody can tell what the House of Lords may or may not do; the "backwoodsmen"—as they have eome to be called-are the masters of the situ i'ion; a"d if only they like they can upset the plans ot the Conservatives !•.; mi:oh as of tinLiberal leader. The lani is the m? ijii rtion which appeals to their prejudice- anil passions?;* and the Budget of Lloyd-George is interfering with the leaders. The hind is the question of questions which appeal to them. Their hatred for Ireland is only exceeded by their hatred of anything which seems to interfere with their feudal rights over the land. And it is for these reasons, always within the bounds of possibility, taking the bit' between their teeth, tlicy may tnrov over Lansdowne and Balfour and throw out the Budget.

IRISH HOPE FOR BREAK. I need scarcely say that this is exact-' ly what the Radicals and still more the Irish Nationalists hope to see happen. The Irishmen are even more bitter' against the lords than the English Radicals, for every liberty that Ireland his won, she has won after it had been de-! feated and postponed for decades by tlir ; lords; and every liberty she hopes to* win she could get to-morrow if it were not for the certainty that the Jrlouse ot Lords w : ould throw out a Home Ru.e measure. From that tactical point of view, to.), it is most desirable that t -e House of Lords should throw out the Budget. Resolutions of an abstract character never have any influence will Englishmen; they want something concrete to really arouse them and to inflame them. And the attempt by these hereditary and irresponsible legislators to take out of the hands of Englishmen the ?ole control of the money which tnev supply in taxes, would be just cue of i'.hose co i crete wrongs which most appeal to thr English mind.

A RESULT. I cannot doubt what the result of such a struggle would be. The election might not send biek as uig a Liberal majority as that at present existing, w.-.ich, o' course, is a freak majority, but it wouid send back a big Liberal majority, in my judgment, and such a majority ought to be able to put such a rein on the present pretensions of the House of Lords as would make it impossible for them to stand between the people and the uany reforms which they want. Ireland stands €o win more in such a struggle- than any of the four nationalities. If it were not for the House of Lords the present House of Commons would give Ireland Home Rule by a majority of three hundred, and on as extensive a scale as any reasonable Irishman could expect from a British assembly.