BRITISH POWER CLASH PITS NOBLES AGAINST ACHIEVERS.

Byline: Maureen Johnson Associated Press 

So who's better suited to make Britain's laws - the achievers of our time or the scions of rich and powerful families?

The Conservative government is on the side of the titled worthies in a new constitutional clash over the House of Lords, split unevenly between nobles who inherit their titles and people who are awarded them.

The Labor Party, renewing a pledge to purge the Lords of blue blood, says most of them are there "by birth, not merit, perhaps because 300 years ago their ancestor was the mistress of a monarch."

Their lordships, most of them elderly and male, are used to the jokes - like the one about the House of Lords being proof of life after death.

But this is serious. The left-of-center Labor Party has a huge lead in opinion polls with elections looming by early next year. And the party is determined, if it reaches power, to change the way the House of Lords does business.

"It is perhaps the oddest and least defensible part of the British constitution that hereditary peers can wield such power," Labor leader Tony Blair said in a speech Wednesday night.

Labor would eliminate all but the appointed members of the upper house of Parliament - and then make the chamber partly elected.

Prime Minister John Major, a conservative, on Thursday attacked the plan as "spiteful," "thoughtless" and "irrelevant." He said the hereditary peers are needed for the modern challenges Britain faces.

Among the 750 hereditary peers are a few grandees such as the Duke of St. Albans, who traces his ancestry to Nell Gwynn, mistress of the 17th-century king Charles II.

Others have titles stretching back anywhere from 700 years to a generation or two.

The Lords' wings have long been clipped by the elected House of Commons. They can only block bills for up to six months, and cannot hinder finance bills.

Some argue that aristocrats are as good as anyone for the job - perhaps better than aging politicians, or generous contributors to parties, who are rewarded with life peerages.

Most voters appear simply to see the Lords as a part of life. The issue scarcely figures in national elections. And as for the peers themselves, most are quite happy in the House of Lords, thank you.

"While I am not a very good attender, and not a terribly political animal, I would defend my right to take part in votes in the House of Lords," said the Duke of Grafton. "It would be fraught with difficulty to restart the upper chamber without any hereditary peers."

The 76-year-old duke is descended from Barbara Villiers, another mistress of Charles II, who fathered 15 children but none by his wife during his reign from 1660 to 1685 and scattered titles among some of the illegitimate sons.

A minority of peers say it is about time to give up the inherited right to a say in government.

"It is like saying you have some characteristic that makes you better than other people, and that is clearly nonsense," said the Earl of Selborne.

Most hereditary peers seldom turn up at Parliament, and the bulk of the work is done by 300 to 400 regulars, many of them life peers.

Labor complains that some show up just to claim their daily attendance allowance - up to 134 pounds, or $200, a day.

CAPTION(S):

PHOTO

Photo Britain's Labor Party intends to shake up the House of Lords. Associated Press