The Press. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1874.

Press, Volume XXII, Issue 2704, 8 April 1874, Page 2

The Press. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1874.

When writing some while ago on the relations between the two Houses of the Legislature, we doubted the possibility of any such assumption of power on the part of the Upper House as some colonial politicians seemed to dread. That the government of the country could ever pass into the hands of nominees appears to us the most extravagant of fancies. Of course two Houses cannot exercise a concurrent and co-ordinate jurisdiction. One of the two must give way ; and the one to give way must be tbe one least allied to and ; representative of the people—that is, the so-called Upper House. "We argued that the submission df tbfe CJpper House might be counted upon with certainty on. any question on which the people were in earnest. If it showed a tendency to run decidedly counter to the other House, we maintained that the reason was to be found in the political circumstances of the moment. The representative chamber must for the time have lost its character. It must have ceased to express the popular will. It must have fallen into a state of demoralisation, from want of .effective guidance or through the prevalence of intrigue, so that its decisiona.no longer command respect: or the measures it passes must be such as are at best, matters of indifference to the public. In support of this view, we referred to the history of the last __ipeiwl Parliament, under the Premiership of Mr Gladstone, and to the widely different action of the Victorian Legislative Council with regard to the Education and Electoral Bills.

Our opinion is confirmed, so far as relates to English affairs, by Mr Gladstone himself. It may be remembered that during the last Parliamentary session at Westminster the House of Lords became unmanageable, and ventured upon extraordinary liberties. It (bad been otaiplianfcjenough in previous years. No Minister ever carried bis through an Assembly in ft mere raiak_9 mULOft?

than Mr GrJ__stone/%fced his Irish Bills and through <$*c Hduse of Lords. Bfe knew he had -the people with"hinv and he would brook no opposition. But in the late session the position was reversed. Tlie Lords had then gained the upper hand. They treated Mr Gladstone and his Government with studied disregard. Elaborate, Ministerial Bills, which had been the objects of weeks of anxious care in the House of Commons, were rejected directly they reached the House of Lords with scarcely the show of a debate. Even that most important measure the Judicature Bill, the Lords, though they condescended to pass it, yet insisted on amending in accordance with some pretence of privilege, which the better opinion of the Commons declared unfounded, but to which Ministers hastened to make full and humiliating concessions.

Mr Gladstone, in his address to his , constituents, referred to the aggressive | action of the House of Lords as encouraged by, and as a proof of the weakneßs of the Government. He recounted the events of the session—the defeat of the Government upon the Irish University Bill, his resignation, the failure of the Opposition to form an Administration, and his resumption of office. The effect of these changes was to place the Government at a disadvantage and to diminish its strength. "Of this diminution of "strength," he continued, " we were "painfully and sensibly reminded " during the session by the summary "and rapid dismissal, in the House of " Lords, of measures which had cost " much time and labour in the House "of Commons." But remembering how "in the years 1868 and 1870, "when the mind of the country was " unambiguously expressed the House "of Lords, much to its honour, "deferred to that expression upon " matters of great moment;" the Goverment did not doubt it would have still followed the same course, if only the indications of public opinion had " continued to be in harmony with the " powerful and authentic but now "more remote judgment of 1868." The reason, then, why the House of Lords had assumed so differerjtran attitude was, in Mr Gladstone's opinion, simply its conviction that his Government had ceased to possess the confidence of the country. In this state of things he thought it necessary to to make a fresh appeal to the people. Arid he looked to the result, whatever it might be, as a certain remedy for the unsatisfactory relations between the Houses. When once the wilL of the nation had been declared," the Govern - " ment of the day would be armed with " its just means of authority both " within and without the Legislature," and " the House of Commons would " be reinstated in its full possession of " constitutional authority." Tbe above account is imperfect. As leader of the Liberals Mr Gladstone naturally preferrednot to dwell on the disruption of the party to which he owed his downfall. The truth is, however, that the weakness of the Government was due, not so much to their temporary retirement from office as to the disorganisation of their followers. But what we want to call attention to is how entirely Mr Gladstone's experience leads him to believe that the House of Lords, will never set itself against the will of the people. We pointed but just the same thing in the "Victorian Parliament. The majority of the Legislative Council passed the Education Act, sorely against their inclination, because they knew the people were determined that it should be passed. They threw out the Electoral Bill, because they knew the people did not care whether it was passed or not. And so it will, always be. The popular branch of the Legislature must be the main governing body. If s the more select, or nominated, Chamber acquires a momentary predominance, it can be only because the Lower House is not true to itself and its position. Thus the check imposed by the Upper House will in most cases be well timed, and for the public interest. The people's House will govern so long as it speaks with the voice of the people. When it fails to do so, why should we object to its being over-ruled.