GOVERNMENT AND HOUSE OF LORDS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 409, 19 January 1909, Page 4

GOVERNMENT AND HOUSE OF LORDS.

The brave words in which the Liberal Government at Home'declared their intention to bring to a final arbitrament their contest with the House of Lords have not been followed by brave deeds. When the hereditary. Chamber threatened to throw out .the Licensing Bill which the Government had professed to. identify with their existence, it was plainly gathered, from tho statements of the Liberal party, that if such a fate befell the measure they would not hesitate to go to the country for a mandate to!, curtail the Lords' power of veto. Tho exercise of that power by :the Lords did not commence with their opposition to the Licensing Bill. They had previously usod their prerogative by mutilating the Education Bill, and rejecting the Plural Voting Bill arid a Scottish Land Bill. Tho Government had proclaimed, in the King's Speech,-the necessity for adjusting the relations between, the two, Houses, and,after the latest, and most unkindest blow which "knocked out" the Licensing Bill, it'was fully expected that their resentment would take active'form. Up to tlie,present, however the Government have done nothing, and tho speech by Mb. Winston Chuechill at Birmingham, of which, a summary was sent to us by cable on Friday last, shows that the Government, who were previously threatening a dissolution, are now taking much less aggressive ground. Me. Churchill, who has to put the best face possible on the position of his party, is reported as saying, with an aspact of defiance that does riot cover the reality of retreat, that "tho Government would ; only dissolve Parliament at the time that was deemed by them to be most advantageous to the general interest of the progressive cause.-. . .He. challenged tho House of Lords to force a dissolution by rejecting the next Budget, if it was really their desire to secure a speedy ap.pciil to the country."

. ,It will be interesting.to learn how these mock heroics werq received by the Government's journalistic friends, who have long been troubled at their inaction. The Nation, in a specially outspoken article entitled "the Issue for Liberalism," re-j cently declared thejt not even tho important question of temperance reform was so important as tho question of the Constitution which the policy of the House of Lords had raised. In its opinion, the constitutional function of the Upper. House, ends with impartial revision, and the Chamber, has nj> right to show itself a'partisan body byipersistent'ly rejecting measures passed'by! a .Government which' the country sent injo power with an unusually large majority. No such tactics were employed towards the measures of the last Unionist Administration, though many of these wera of a most contentious nature, and The Nation strongly resents the conversion of ths. Lords into what it calls "a merp rear-giiard of the forces of Conservatism, occupying a position from which they could only be dislodged by a frontal'attack." It cloes not think, with some, that the frontkl attack should be actually delivered, without delay, but it urges that the Government should at once announce their intention to dissolve after the presentation of the next Budget. The Old Age Pensions scheme has first to be financed by Freetrade methods, and the financial; side of the rejected-licensing Billmust bo secured; by taxation of the monopoly yaluo of; the public-houses. When theso portions of the Government's policy have been safeguarded, they should introduce a Bill to deprive the Lords of their present insurmountable power of veto. If the Lords rejected tho Bill, they should appeal to the country for a mandate, making clear atithe same time that no Liberal Ministry yould retain or resume office without being entrusted by the King.with the necessary powers for securing the acceptance of such a Bill by the House of Lords, jlf the appeal succeeded, the constitutional question would be settled once for all, and, if it failed, the party would have'preserved their rospect, and would stand higher, ultimately, in the. opinion of the country than if .they continued to forfeit respect by a policy of weak inaction.

The Government, ho'jvover, have apparently chosen tho policy of inaction. Clearly they are in nd hurry to dissolve Parliament, and presumably tho remaining two years' life of pho present Parliament will bo occupied with non-contcn-tious measures which vill , not incur tho

hostility of'the Lords. A recent article in the Spectator offers what is probably the true explanation of the Government's meekness. The opinion of the country on the Licensing Act is, no doubt, more divided than the Liberal Government have admitted, and the House of Lords is not so low in popular esteem, or the Houso of Commons so firm in popular confidence, that tho country would agree to abolish or cripple the first to please the second. Tho Spectator would like to see the Houso of Lords made stronger and more independent than it is; though it regrets that it rejected the Licensing Bill in such a very summary fashion, it thinks that it might have done good service if it had rejected several other measures which it passed. The Government, in the Spectator's view, have alienated the confidence of the country, in that they have used purely for party purposes a majority received from Unionist Freetraders and independent and nonparty voters for the maintenance of Freetrade. They have even imperilled the permanence of Freetrade by financial extravagances which in all probability their successors will have to repair. For these and other reasons the Government are unwilling to risk a dissolution until the vague season which they shall deem "to be most advantageous to the general interest of tho progressive cause," or pending the improbable contingency of the House of Lords electing to forco their hand.