PEERS AT HOME.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3552, 16 February 1886, Page 3

PEERS AT HOME.

(By H. W. Lucy m the English Illustrated Magazine.) The number of peers who are successful m making themselves heard m the chamber of the House of Lords might bo counted on tho fingers of both hands. By a happy good fortune these are the very men whom the public desire to hear. | Whilst the vast majority of the peers are practically inaudible m the Press gallery, I cannot call to mind any individual caso m which the public interest materially Buffers owing to the faulty acoustics of the chamber. Lord Granville and Lord Derby, it is true, can be followed throughout a speech only by painfully concontrated attention. Lord Granvillo has a slight lisp which detracts from tho clearness of his enunciation, and Lord Derby is a little thick m utterance. Aware of their defect, these two noble lords make a point of turning towards the Press gallery, maintaining their voice at a hi»h pitch. But Lord Beaconsfield made himself nB well heard m the Hoiue of Lords aa Mr Diaraeli was wont to do m the Uouto of Commons. Tho came state*

menfc holds good, with respect to Lord Iddesleigh. He has not a particularly sonorous voice, nor does he uplift it far above conversation pitch. Yet, apparently without effort, he, the first time he spoke m the Lords, overcame the difficulty which has proved insurmountable to many of hia peers. Lord Salisbury's voice fills the chamber and echoes through the passages. Lord Cranbrook is distinctly heard. So is Lord Rosebery ; and so, alas! is the Earl of Wemyss. These exceptions seem to show that perhaps after all the difficulty of which so much is heard is due rather to individual failing than to structural defects m the chamber. The House of Lords commences public business at a quarter-past four, an innovation of recent date. A few years ago public business was approached an hour later, and the change was made at the instance of the younger section of peers, who complained that they were practically shut out from debate. They hoped that by meeting an hour earlier they would get some chance of speaking. The result has not justified their ardent expectation. Matters are now very much as they were heretofore, except that the House oa the average adjourns earlier. The first principle of debate m the House of Lords is that, except under direct pressure, discussion shall be concluded m time to dres3 for eight o'clock dinner. There is no such thing m the Lords as debate m the sense that it exists m the Houae of Commons. There are some half-dozen members whose opinion _is looked for, and this given there remains only to vote. The peers have no constituents, and are freed from the necessity of periodically putting themselves en evidence. Undoubtedly the foremost man iv the House of Lords is the Marquis of Salisbury. A debater of great power, an orator of singular felicity, he has m unhounded measure that strong individuality which fascinates an assembly or a nation. He is always personally interesting, m the sense that Lord Beaconßfield was, and that Lord Randolph Churchill is, a peculiar quality lacking ulike m Mr Gladstone and Earl Granville. When either of these statesmen rise, people knew, within certain bounds, pretty much what they will say or do. When Lord Salisbury presents himself at the table of the House of Lords there is nothing certain about him except thathe will say something m a very striking mauner. Ho scorns oratorical graces, and rarely makes long speeches. Having something to say, he says it m the fewest possible words, and resumes his seat with alacrity. When addressing the House he has a way of lounging over the table and chatting m a conversational tone, as if deprecating the idea that he was making a speech. Life is too short for indulgence m set orations, and if we have anything to say let us say it m tho fewest words and get to action. Lord Salisbury doei not make me of copious notes even when delivering his most important speeches. But the barbed phraaea that drop carelessly from hi 3 lips are evidently well studied and laboriously prepared. In Lord Granville the Marquis often finds a focman worthy of his steel. Lord Granville's manner i 3 the direct opposite to that of his political adversary. Lord Salisbury is scornfully overbearing, sometimes truculent, m his manner. Lord Granville is polite, deprecating, almost apologetic. Yet ho sometimes with smiling faco and softly-inflected voice manages to say some things which for bitterness cannot be excelled by the Marquis of Salisbury. There are possibly to-day few intellectual treats of a higher character than to bo present at a controversy m the House of Lords between the two leaders.