Over the last week at the Times Online, a spirited mini-debate is taking place over the House of Lords. This is after a story came out at the end of January regarding four Lords who had apparently taken money in exchange for influencing legislation. (The peers who have come under particular question are Lord Snape, Lord Taylor, Lord Truscott, and Lord Moonie -- collectively referred to as the "Harry Potter four".)

Rachel Sylvester gives a passionate defense of the House of Lords, arguing that changing the Lords into an elected upper house would destroy the deliberative cautiousness and experience that the Lords bring to UK legislation. Her argument is in response to an editorial run also in the Times taking the opposite tack. What is most striking about these editorials is not the editorials themselves, but the comments. One commenter writes: "The answer is to undo recent reforms and bring back the hereditary peers. They are above petty politics and can vote for what they think is right rather than what the party, or the highest bidder, thinks is right." Another exlaims: "For God's sake, take a look at the (elected) US senate. It is mired in institutional corruption and makes the House of Lords look whiter than white. Democracy alone does not lead to ethical behaviour - indeed, it can provide a barrier behind which corruption thrives." To an American observer, it is striking that the defense of an institution rooted in late medieval history is something more lively than an academic debate.

Some stats: The House of Lords holds over 700 members; some are hereditary peers, some are members of the clergy, some are appointed through the political process. There has long been a complaint against a small percentage of Lords who live permanently outside of the UK, avoiding many domestic taxes (maybe the Lords isn't that different from the US Senate after all.) But, normal levels of infection aside, it is fascinating to watch this political argument within our closest national cousin.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Samantha Clark,