THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 1910.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 75, 31 March 1910, Page 6

THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 1910.

THE GREAT DEBATE. The great debate has begun at Westminstor, on the motion of the Prime Minister, "That this Hoiwe resolve itself into committee to consider the relations of the two Houses and the duration of Parliament." Both the mover and the Leader of the Opposition appear to have been in excellent form, and to have fully deserved the flattering attentions of enthusiastic followers and crowded galleries. , Mr. Asquith's speech ! — or, at any Tate, tho cabled report of itr-opens with a frank admission of his change of view witjh regard to the necessity of a Second Chamber. Time was when he considered that one legislative Chamber was enough, but those were the "green, unknowing" daya of his youthful Radicalism. His matured judgment is that there is both room and need for a Second Chamber, and herein he is supported not only by an over- i whelming preponderance of sentiment in the Old Country, but also by the prac- ! tice and the opinion of the much freer democracies of the daughter States. Though not one of those States has sue- j ceeded in evolving a really satisfactory Second Chamber, in none of them has the idea that a single Chamber could be j safely entrusted with the whole work of Parliament received support enough to bo brought within the range of practical politics. Labour organisations all over the Empire from time to time pass resolutions favouring the total abolition of the Chamber which, when it is based upon any other principle than that of popular election, is usually less favourablo to their aims than the represents tive Chamber ; but these resolutions are generally regarded in a somewhat academic fashion even by a majority of -those who give them a nominaJ support. The Opposition, of course, cheered Mr. Asquith's declaration in favour of a Second Chamber, but their enthusiasm failed when he weat on to "deny that — except in name — we are living under a bi-cameral system." Yet this statement really admits of as little reasonable doubt as the other. , It is indeed surprising to find how many superior critics on both sides of the glob« imagine themselves to have discovered a secure refuge from the vulgar attacks upon the House of Lords in the contention that that House is just as democratic as the Commons, if not more so, because it does not reject measures, but only refers them to the people. The Lords did not reject the Budget; tkey merely, out of their superabundant faith in democracy, asked that the people might be consulted before it was proceeded with. Their treatment of the Licensing Bill, the Education Bill, and the Scottish Land Bills cannot be so plausibly reconciled with this ideal ; but the case of the Budget is quite enough. If the Lords may refer a Finance Bill or any other measure do the people at their discretion, then a Chamber which is abovo the reach of the popular vote has the power, to dictate a dissolution* of the representative Chamber when it pleases ; and as one and the same party has always an overwhelming majority in the House of Lords, this means that, despite the Septennial Act, that party can dictate a dissolution at any time, even though it may be in a hopeless minority in tha House of Commons. (The Lords, in the words of Lord Laradowne, wliich Mr. Asquith quoted, "choose tho ground most favourable to -themselves." They can refer a Bill to the people when the chances seem to be in favour of the Conservatives profiting 4>y the reference ; when, on the other hand, a Conservative Government is in office, they can and do-let every measure through, absolutely regardless of the question whether the people have con*nd it. Tbfl-*upre«e-

necessity of being "careful not to risk its own skin" is, says Mr. Asquith, the only consideration that induces the House of Lords to spare any legislation at all that a Liberal Goverm.io it pjo poses. Mr. Asquith's frankness appeared again in his admission that the resolutions which he has submitted are "no final or adequate solution/ of the problem." They will reduce the power of tho House of Lords, for mischief by making it not a better but a weaker House. In this connection it is interesting to see that Mr. Aequith attacks Lord Rosebery's reform proposals as striking a more effective blow at a necessary safeguard of democracy than at the hereditary principle. The proposal to prevent anybody from sitting and voting in the House of Lords by virtue of birth alone is democratic in its ap pearanct, and, but for the peculiar position of the Crown in tho British Constitution, would be democratic in it« tendency. Mr. Asquith points out that the only remedy for a deadlock which the Constitution provides is the power of the Crown to create new Peers. It was the threat of the exercise of this power that secured the passage/ of the great Reform Bill, but there would be no outside authority to check the pretensions of the Lords if the peerages remaining inithe gift of the Crown did not carry with them the right -to sit and vote in tho House of Lords. As this power would only be exercised by the Crown on th© advice of a Ministry holding office as the result of a popular vot«, the Koyal prerogative is in this matter a safeguard of the democracy. Mr. Balfour was as usual in his destructive criticism, and he made a neat, just, and much-appreciated point when he said that, with regard to the Trades Disputes Bill to which Mr. Asquith had referred, the Government had been actuated just as much as the Lords by a desire "to save their tkins." But Mr. Balfour was not strong on the constructive side, which must be developed if an alternative is to be found to the proposals of the Government. To say that theso proposals would result in "a piebald harlequin Constitution" is not necessarily to condemn them, unless it is at the same time shown that the result would be more grotesque, more incongruous, and more dangerous than the existing arrangement. To prove that is beyond even Mr. Balfour's dialectical powers.