American Embassy 7-9 Tudor Arghezi Bucharest, Romania November 17, 1995 Editor The Economist 25 St. Jame's Street London SW1A 1HG Dear Sir: I refer to The article Britain's Constitution in your November 4 issue. While I have lived a good part of my life in the UK, and British Parliamentary practices were one of the fields in my PhD studies as Harvard, I am an unabashed republican (small "r"), and have wondered for years why Great Britain doesn't simply give up its decrepit (and bankrupt) monarchy, adopting a presidential system as in France and Germany. But insofar as you Brits choose to continue with what Bagehot called the "ceremonial" elements of your constitution, I fail to see why The Economist would call for abandoning the House of Lords in favor of an elected Upper House -- or even a unicameral legislature. Contrary to the assertion of your writer regarding the inessentiality of a second chamber where the lower house is perfect (can there be such parliamentary perfection this side of Heaven?), it has been found that a delaying and reviewing body is a highly useful, if not strictly essential, element of government. In the United States (and some other federal countries such as Germany) it has been found that this "other chamber", representing the States or Lander, presents a wholesome balance between regional and national interests. Moreover, in the US, the "reconciliation process", in which committee representatives from the two houses meet jointly to eliminate differences between versions of similar legislation arising in the two houses, goes a long way towards satisfying the delaying function of the House of Lords, without requiring an intervening election. The British House of Lords fills another important function not present in either the German, French, or American systems: engaging the continued use of the accumulated experience of seasoned political leadership through creation of Life Lords. I have proposed an amendment to the American Constitution which would make former Presidents (and perhaps former Secretaries of State and Secretaries of Defense) ex officio Senators -- for life, or at least for the following senatorial term or two following their standing down from office, to make use of their experience, temper the adversarial nature of the Upper House, and justify the high retirement salaries paid to such officials. Such ex officio senators would serve with or without a vote -- or perhaps only with a vote on matters specific to their area of expertise -- but always with the right to express their views in senatorial debate. It would have been more in conformity with The Economist's reputation for advocating preservation of what is good, while modifying or abandoning what no longer serves a purpose, to have recommended phasing out hereditary lords. Indeed, your article points out that relatively few hereditary lords even bother to attend sessions, suggesting that the problem, if that is what it is, is resolving itself in traditional British fashion. But terminating hereditary lordships at the end of a generation time certain, would seem preferable to abolishing Lords itself. The existence of an unelected body representing experienced former political leaders of both parties from the House of Commons, and perhaps including former Lord Mayors of the major provincial towns, outstanding business and other professional leaders made life peers, so that the most successful and prominent men (and women) of their generation could be involved in the political process without having to subject themselves to the grime of politics as such. Most American observers think that we have lost the services of one of our most outstanding leaders, Colin Powell, because after reflection he decided it wasn't worth his while to subject himself to the election process -- begging money, prostrating himself before influential supporters, and subjecting himself and his family to the most intense examination by the press. In Britain, General Powell would in all probability by now have been created a Life Lord, with the nation benefitting from his wisdom and experience -- whenever an issue of sufficient importance to engage his interest in attending the House. If Lords were abolished, Britain would also be faced with the problems of having to create a new Court of Highest Review. Imbuing such a new supreme court with the prestige essential to having its decisions on the most important and sensitive legal and constitutional issues of the day will not be easy. And Britain should think twice before throwing away the accumulated authority of Lords acting as Court of Final Appeal. And perhaps two -- if as in France it were decided to have both a Court of Cassation for criminal appeals and a Court of Constitutional Appeal. This is not to say that The Economists criticisms of Lords is without justification, or that reconstituting Lords should not be undertaken. As one of republican persuasion, I would recommend terminating hereditary lordships as of a date certain (living hereditary lords being "grandfathered" for the rest of their lives). And make creation of life lords a much more broad-ranging process -- elevating, as already suggested, outstanding military, provincial, professional, media, and business leaders a bit more generously than at present. I remember the days shortly after the war (and during Suez) when America was greatly criticized for its racial problems. This of course was before the enormous influx of Africans, Orientals, and Pakistanis to England -- which, as it strikes me is undergoing social unrest every bit as uncomfortable as the U.S. was experiencing before the end of segregation. Given the evident unhappiness of ethnic minorities in the UK, I'd thus go so far as to suggest adding representatives from each major ethnic minority to the House of Lords to assure a collective ability to express ethnic views at the highest levels of British government and taking some of the sting out of the current sense of ethnic alienation. And taking into account rising Scottish interest in self-government (while avoiding the long-term risks of separatism ass per Canada), I'd suggest reserving a proportional share of the new Lords (based on population) for the Scots and Welch -- and Ulster Irish?) instead of trying to go back three hundred years to recreate a Scottish Parliament. And, while preserving the Lords Spiritual of the Established Church, I'd add Lords Spiritual from the top leadership of Non-Conformist churches to make Lords a truly representative -- if non-elected, body The flexibility of Lords to take on these new functions without so much as a change in law (other than terminating the principle of inheritance) commends some deeper thinking on the part of The Economist before pushing further the notion of abolishing Britain's Upper House. Sincerely, David Brighton Timmins, PhD (Harvard) U.S. Foreign Service Officer (ret.)