David is right in adding specifics to my general point. I have no idea what this has to do with Canadian Senators, on whom I have no opinion, but Lords have very intense duties and a great many of them fulfill their obligations, as David says, without pay except the small allowances. For wealthy lords or, no doubt, the remaining few hereditary lords, that may not be a difficulty, but for others it represents an admirable commitment to civic responsibility.

>>> David Boyd <[log in to unmask]> 5/1/2013 1:56 PM >>>
Members of the House of Lords receive absolutely no pay or salary, merely a small allowance for each day they actually attend the House.
Most of them are now Lifelong Peers only, so are there because of their merit and eminence in life; collectively, they represent a treasure house of immense and diverse expertise and they do indeed provide a necessary rein on hastily drafted ill-considered and unworkable Government proposals. Many of them, like the Bishops are cross-bench Lords with no particular political party allegiances, so they tend to speak their minds rather than follow party lines.
In the field of English Lit., the novelist Melvyn Bragg is a Life Peer, as Lord Bragg of Wigton and he appears to enjoy the place immensely.

On 1 May 2013 18:34, P <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
My goodness, they sound exactly like Canadian senators, who also are known for doing nothing.
P. M.

Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I don't know what this baron does, but it is not the case that lords do nothing; in fact, they work very hard. At this point also, very few hereditary lords are left: most are life-lords. They do not give final votes, as in the Commons, but they have a major role in reviewing, recommending, and suggesting revisions to bills. And they can delay bills for discussion. They have portfolios for specific issues, and they are on numerous boards that have more influence than seems obvious to us on this side of the Atlantic.
I found this both surprising and fascinating when I first learned it, but it is not at all the case that lords "just [are]" or that they have no duties.

>>> P <[log in to unmask]> 4/30/2013 8:19 PM >>>
It says he is a " British and American screenwriter, composer, musician, director, actor, and comedian". As a lord however he doesn't do anything.
He just is.

"Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Whoops. We are talking about the same year. Tim wrote 1927 in a place or two
>where he meant 1926. In my reply below I had looked at other sources and
>only awhile ago got to Letters V3.
>Dr. Leslie Haden-Guest was created a baron in 1950. I found it rather
>amusing to discover what the current (5th) baron, his wife and his brothers
>do for a living. No URL for this one. I'm going to make you look it up.
> Rick Parker
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:52:54 -0500, Rickard A. Parker
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:34:10 +0000, Materer, Timothy J.
>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>Is S-J accurate about the Rome incident?
>>A year earlier there was something going on.
>>At the bottom of page 253 of "The Selected Letters of Bertrand Russell: The
>>Public Years, 1914-1970" is a letter by Russell to his wife. It is dated by
>>the editor to March 20, 1926. On the next page we see that Russell wrote
>>"Eliot sending express letter about Guest's sins."
>>The editor has that statement footnoted with:
>>The letter, unfortunately is lost. Vivien Eliot had become infatuated either
>>with Dr Leslie Haden-Guest, who had gone to Russia with the Labour
>>delegation in 1920, or with his son, Stephen. But whichever Vivien thought
>>herself in love with, from Russell's reference it was probably the sins of
>>the father of which Eliot complained.
>>See also "Painted Shadow" pages 585 and 586 concerning Henry and Theresa
>>Eliot's 1926 honeymoon trip to Europe: "By 13 March Ottoline had learnt the
>>identity of Vivien's supposed lover." This was a Mr Haden-Guest.
>> Rick Parker