A Blow to the Lords

These cool autumn days, Harold Wilson is a Prime Minister in search of a scapegoat. His standing has suffered a steady erosion, as illustrated last week by the loss of two historically safe Labor seats in three by-elections. His Foreign Secretary, George Brown, has proved a recurring source of embarrassment, as he did again by rudely accusing Sunday Times Publisher Lord Thomson of "great disservice to the country." Common Market entry seems as distant as ever; Charles de Gaulle has just hinted that he will veto Britain once more. No wonder Wilson was looking for a political diversion. Last week he found it in a surprising place: the House of Lords. In the Queen's Speech opening Parliament, he let it be known that he intends to reduce the powers of the peers and do away with the Lords' "hereditary basis."

In hitting at the Lords, Wilson took on one of Britain's most venerable institutions. It was the Lords, of course, that laid the basis for British democracy by forcing King John to accept Magna Carta in 1215. In the 14th century the Lords began to share their parliamentary power with the Commons, but it nonetheless managed to remain the dominant house until the 19th century. Three times in the 20th century British governments have significantly changed the Lords. Its power to delay legislation passed by the House of Commons was cut to two years in 1911 and cut again in 1949 to a single year. In 1958 the Tories created life peerages, permitting men and women of proved experience and distinction in such fields as science and education to be named peers without the privilege of passing on their titles.

The Best Cut. Today the House of Lords has a membership of 1,045, twice the number in 1911. Its hereditary peers number 865. Twenty-six bishops of the Church of England sit as lords spiritual, and 154 life peers have been created under the 1958 act. In a title-conscious country, the Lords enjoy high prestige. Their most important perquisite is the right to sit in the elaborately Gothic House of Lords, where everything from special parking spaces out front to toilets marked "Peers" smacks of privilege. And, as Anthony Sampson notes in his Anatomy of Britain Today: "A Lord finds it easier to get servants, to run up credit, to get the best cuts of beef, to book tables at restaurants and sleepers on trains."

Defenders of the role of the Lords in British political life make some persuasive arguments. Being politically independent, the peers can take a broader view on public policy than M.P.s. The Lords bring to their debates an often useful authority in education, culture and travel. Moreover, they have more leisure to examine important public questions at searching length, as they did with the Homosexuality Act and this year's Abortion bill.

Instant or Gradual? Harold Wilson went on record only a year ago as seeing no need for a reform of the Lords, and he was purposely vague last week about precise intentions for reform. He almost certainly will try to cut the Lords' delaying powers to a mere six months. He could assault the hereditary principle by a variety of means, including drastic instant denial of a seat to all hereditary peers. The House of Lords itself would remain, but might be limited in makeup to some 300 peers. Indicating that he meant business, Wilson at week's end appointed an interparty committee on reform of the Lords that will begin deliberating this week.

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