THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES. THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1907. THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13940, 27 June 1907, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES. THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1907. THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

The resolution which the Prime Minister has submitted for discussion in the House of Commons will, when it is adopted—as, no doubt, it will be*—carry the proposals for the reform of the. House of Lords no further than they have already gone, It is purely of a declarator)' character. It will have no practical effect. If it is to be determined that the power of the Lords to alter or reject Bills that have been passed by the Commons shall be so restricted as to secure that, within the limits of a single Parliament, the final decision of the House of Commons, shall prevail, it is—as is recognised in the Prime Minister's resolution— only by legislation that this determination can be effected. And the consent of the Lords is, of course, necessary to the enactment of this legislation. That is not to suppose that the introduction of a Bill to give effect to the reform that iscontemplated by the Government would necessarily be idle. It is not to bo imagined that the House of Lords would, of set purpose, obstruct a proposa.l for the restriction of its power of veto and of amendment of Bills that are originated in the Lower House. For it is a significant circumstance that in the House of Lords itself—among that limited section of the Peers at all events who devote themselves to the performance of the legislative work which it is their duty to undertake, and the views of the other and larger section of the Peerage who neglect this duty need not be considered— the necessity for some measure of reform is now fully recognised. But it may be doubted whether the plan that is contemplated by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman is such a one as, on its merits, the House of Lords might not be justified in rejecting. It is impossible to accept without reserve the proposition that the decision of the House of Commons, however often it may be repeated within the limits of a single Parliament, absolutely reflects the will of the nation. It is notorious, indeed, that the House of Lords, in rejecting the two Home Rule Bills introduced in different Parliaments by Mr Gladstone, expressed the feeling of the country on each occasion in a way that the House of Commons, which passed both Bills, failed to do. Again, it would be absurd to suggest that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman could.claim that the overwhelming majority obtained by the- Liberals at the last general election represented a mandate, such as the House of Lords should not be suffered to ignore, in favour of the enactment of a Home Rule Bill. Yet, if the Prime Minister could persuade the House of Commons, as he might conceivably be able to do, to pass thrice in the present Parliament a measure conceding the demands of the Nationalists, which Mr Redmond has just been reiterating at New Ross, legislation on the lines of the resolution ho brought down on Monday for consideration would require that that decision should prevail without any appeal to the country on the matter. Consequently, while the House of Lords would be retained as a Chamber of revision, its effective powers would be crippled by limitations of right which would leave it at the mercy of a temporary majonb- in the House of Commons. This might no.t bo aa evil of the

magnitude of that- which is presented by the spectacle of a majority in the House of Commons being thwarted in its legislation by the House of Lords. But it must be fairly apparent that it might be mischievous and dangerous to destroy •absolutely the check which a Chamber like the House of Lords, far removed from the influence of popular passion, even though it may not be entirely unsusceptible to the pressure of party prejudice, may exercise upon the enactment of hasty legislation. The Prime Minister's proposal involves the acceptance of the risk that would be associated with the abolition of this check. But wo should hesitate to believe that the British people, who are innately conservative and who dislike sudden changes in familiar things, are quite prepared to go to this extreme without first giving a serious trial to somfc less violent expedient. Between this plan, which would placo the House of Lords wholly at the mercy v of the House of Commons, and the present system, under which a Liberal majority in the House of Commons is always liable to be baffled in its aims by the Conservative majority in tho House of Lords, there should be. some via media. It is, of coursc, clearly impossible that the House, of Lords can be maintained as it is as a permanent institution, even though the fact that it has survived for so long may have given to it a semblance of indestructibility. "It ig almost a truism," Lord Rosebcrv has said, that the House of Lords hibernates when a Conservative Government is in, and only wakens to life and action when Liberals come into office." And that is a state of aflairs which cannot bo allowed to remain indefinitely. Itmay be said that in practice the system has not worked badly, and that, as was, in 'fact, argued lately by tho Duke of Devonshire, whose illness at the present time will be> a. subject of grave concern to persons of all shades of opinion at Home, tho House of Lords has never permanently obstructed the adoption of the expressed will of tho country. But the general principle that the House of Commons must be the supremo political body is not assailable. And where, at a. general election, tho wish of the people has been proclaimed with unmistakable clearness, tho preservation of a system under which the House of Lords might even (May, without defeating, a measure of progressive legislation would bo indefensible, It is not clear, however, that reform of the composition and character of the House of Lords—if not under the scheme, sketched by Lord Newton, which is now under the consideration of a select committee, then upon some other plan—would not meet the requirements of the case: more satisfactorily thau any pi'oposal for the restriction of the Lords' power of veto would do. In tho opinion of Lord Eosebery, the thinking part of the nation,'which has a deep interest in the stability of its institutions, desires a House of Lords that will be more efficient, more elastic, less judicial, and less partisan than the present House is; and if this end could be achieved, by whatever means, it is probable that it would represent a settlement of the question more acceptable to the country as a whole than any decision involving a disturbance of the constitutional relations between tho two Houses.