THE quite unnecessary "reforming" of the Upper House has been the subject of much acrimonious debate.

Many members of the Commons are determined to make the Lords into an elected chamber.

Where, the sceptic might ask, is the sense in having two elected Houses? One is surely bad enough when, to judge by the sparse turnout at the general elections, at least half the electorate would no doubt agree with A N Wilson, writing in the Evening Standard, that in the Commons were to be found some of the most despicable people in Britain.

The House of Lords when it was composed mainly of hereditary peers stood as a bulwark against the self-interest, blockheadedness and plain folly of the Lower House.

Why would an elected Upper House be any less reprehensible than the Lower House already is?

The hereditary peers have no vested interests to serve, as the often ambitious and not infrequently unscrupulous members of the Commons have. The hereditary peers do not take money to ask questions in the House, nor do they need to keep a weather eye on the fickle electorate to safeguard their seats as those in the Commons must. The aristocrats remain free to act in accordance with their good sense and their consciences for the good of the realm.

Why is Tone and his odious gang so hell-bent on destroying the noble Upper House? Could it be true that what we fear we hate? Sometimes we hate others not because of what they are but because they make us aware of what we are. This philosophy is without a doubt the prime mover behind the so-called "reform of the Lords".

The Lords, when composed mainly of hereditary peers, became a magic mirror to those in the Commons which showed the poisoned dwarfs therein the true and nasty reflection of themselves.

N G Charnley, Chesterfield Road, Blackpool.