THE HOUSE OF LORDS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7038, 28 January 1910, Page 4

THE HOUSE OF LORDS

The gains made by the Unionists at tile polls during the last few days have been so substantial as to make it practically certain that the following behind Mr Balfour in the new House, of Commons will be the largest single party in the chamber. They will, of course, be held in check by, the Labour and Nationalist members in alliance with the official Liberals, but it seems hopeless to suppose that the business of the country can be carried on satisfactorily under those. conditions. The anticipations of Liberal England bave been capsized most thoroughly,' and it may perhaps not be very wide of the mark to prophesy that the result of the confused "appeal to the country" will be to show the necessity of making another. Under all the circumstances ii would be taking a bold liberty with experience to again ©nitertain the hopes of the last few montibs. The signs and portents of the moment point unmistakably to a period of confusion, rancour, and Teaotdon. The road of orderly progress is strongly barricaded, and while there can be no question of which side is to have ultimate victory, there is sound reason to expect that its moment of triumph will be preceded by long trials and suffering. When the Lords made their revolutionary claims to decide the life of Parliaments and to be the central force in the Constitution the first step was taken upon a journey' of which no ono could see the end. Hie way is not more clear now —indeed, it is merely made more obscure. Neither the most zealous democrat or tho most affluent plutocrat can view the situation without serious forebodings of what shall follow. The first task before the I Ministry is to destroy the pretensions of the peerage. Can they do this on their present majority? There is room for much doubt. In any case, wo should imagine an election must follow any such attempt, for the Crown would hardly dare to amend the Constitution after suoh a vote as lias been given by tho counrfcry, and the Peers would most emphatically reject any such proposals. They axe fortified in their recklessness. It must always be remembered that in attempting to deal with the Second Chamber by Aot of Parliament the Commons will enter upon an undertaking of tho utmost delicacy. Tho controversy which must rage around any such enterprise will not be what the Peers have done to Liberal Bills and Budgets, but what the Liberals are going to do with tho Peers. That difficult problem has beon at the back of the whole conflict of late years. Although it was always expected that the people of England would revolt against such an anachronism as the House of Lords,' it had always been foreseen that when the actual work of grappling with the institution came to be undertaken it would prove exceptionally embarrassing. The people might disapprove of the Lords, but they might also object to the suggested alternative. As it happens now, they have not disapproved of the Lords very emphatically. The Lords might almost take tho election as a vote of confidence in them, and an indication that many thousands of Englishmen would prefer to be governed by affluent nobodies rather than by elected representatives. Mr Asquith's project of " limiting the veto of tho Lords to a single Parliament" is a rather mysterious utterance which shows by its indefiniteness tho difficulty ho is placed in to prosecute this campaign under a Constitution which is a mass of custom rather than substantial law. There is nothing definite I or materially existent upon which a patriot fired by the wine of righteous- | ness may close his vizor, draw his j

sword, and charge. When Mr Asquith says he will " limit .the veto to a single Parliament," he will, first of all, have to set the hateful object up in statutory form in order that it may, if necessary, be subsequently cast down. Such an Act would havo to bo passed into law at tho beginning of every Parliament—unless Mr Asquith essayed the prodigious task of reducing the whole Constitution to writingjust as the Army Act, sanctioning the upkeep of the army, is passed annually. With tho "veto limited to a single Parliament," tho working method would be: That when the Lords made tho slightest attempt to use their veto unwarrantably it would be suspended, for as the authority for the veto would be contained in an Act which depended for. its life on the life of the Parliament, the dissolution and subsequent refusal of a new Parliament to pass the Veto Bill would certainly mean that it did not exist. The course of actual events would be something like this: —Government Bills of importance rejected by the Lords (tho present position exactly); the Sovereign would be advised to dissolve Parliament (the veto thus ceasing to exist). The Government again returned by the country would not pass the Lords Veto Bill until uh« _ measures at issue had beem This method would have the advantage of giving the electors an opportunity of passing an opinion upon the cause of the quarrel. Apart from that, Mr Asquith's plan looks as clumsy as it is disappointing. Apparently the hereditary principle is to be maintained in all.its insolent authority. The strength of the Lords, it would seem, is either too much for Mr Asquith, or he shrinks from a. fight a outranco. He could bring the Orown to his aid by stopping supplies until the crucial point was settled, but that would involve another election immediately. Judging by the speech of some of his colleagues that is intended. Judging by his it is not. We shall see.