Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

the duty cast upon it by the constitution-the duty which the country expected it to perform. The action of the second chamber was received in England with thankfulness, and in Ireland with tranquillity out of Ulster, in Ulster with rapturous rejoicings. Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues failed absolutely and entirely to stir up against the Peers any semblance of popular indignation. Nay more,-by their refusal to appeal from the Peers to the people they gave the strongest testimony it was in their power to give that even in the estimation of their own party managers the Lords and the electorate were on the same side.

It is unnecessary to recall the circumstances of the session of 1893. They are fresh in the minds of us all. Statesmen who before the general election had declined to acquaint the electors even with the main outlines of their plan had forced through the House of Commons a measure which, whilst it established a separate Parliament and Government in Ireland, actually retained at Westminster eighty Irish representatives. Ireland was to govern itself independent of English and Scottish control, whilst at the same time that country was to send a large delegation of Irish members to England to choose the Executive Government of Great Britain, to pass laws for Great Britain, and to tax Englishmen and Scotchmen! By far the greater number of the clauses of this astounding measure were passed by the House of Commons without debate. A large majority of English members, and a majority of British members, opposed the Bill throughout. Yet but for the House of Lords this insane project would have become law. On the invitation of the Duke of Devonshire and of Lord Salisbury the Peers threw out the Bill, not merely on the ground of its injustice and its grotesque absurdity, but also on the ground that the electorate had expressed no opinion in its favour, and that the people ought to be frankly consulted before such sweeping changes were made in their constitution. In short, the opposition to Mr. Gladstone's Bill was rested by the House of Lords upon the elementary principles of popular government, once dear to the Liberal party. But latter-day Liberal' statesmen, if there is one thing they dread more than another, dread the necessity of submitting their draft constitutions to the people.

It has been far too little noticed in the discussion which

Lord Rosebery's speeches have evoked that the attitude of his Ministry, as of that of Mr. Gladstone, has been hardly less hostile to the liberties of the House of Commons than

to those of the House of Lords. It is with a feeling of wonder, almost with a feeling of amusement, that we find Lord Rosebery and his colleagues posing as the assertors of the rights and powers of the Commons House of Parliament against the encroachments of the Peers. No previous Government has ever treated with such little respect the most valued rights of the Commons. If it is at the present moment attacking the Peers it is not till it has first trampled upon the Commons.

When the representatives of the people surrender at the command of the Executive Government of the day their right to debate great measures of the first constitutional importance, they lower to an untold degree the high reputation of the House of Commons. If in the last few years the functions of the House of Lords have appeared of greater importance than at some other periods, it is not because the character of that assembly has changed, as Lord Rosebery imagines, but because of the discredit into which the House of Commons has fallen, and the increasing distrust with which men regard its action. In the short life of the present Parliament the House of Commons has on two occasions caused Englishmen to blush-once when it humbly accepted the position of a chamber at the orders of the Executive Government, willing to register its decrees without debate; once when the representatives of the people actually came into personal conflict on the floor of the House of Commons.

It requires no resolution' of the House of Commons to constitute the people's chamber the predominant' branch of the legislature. The facts of the case, the conditions of the age in which we live, make it so, notwithstanding that in ancient constitutional theory the two Houses may have been of equal authority. It is for this reason that whatever interest may attach to the present position of the House of Lords, or to future modifications of its constitution, or to any rearrangement between the Houses of their proper functions, infinitely greater importance must always attach to the maintenance of the high character and the reputation of the House of Commons itself. If of late the energies of that House have not been directed to high ends under the guidance of patriotic statesmanship, if its existence is now to be prolonged in the sole interest of party electioneering, far more is being done to weaken its authority with the public, and therefore indirectly to increase relatively the respect of the public for the other branch of the legislature, than can

be redressed by half a dozen resolutions of the House of Commons reciting its own 'predominance.' The truth is, that in spite of Lord Rosebery's 'resolution,' and in spite of all the present talk about the House of Lords, the real question of the day which concerns Englishmen is the character, the conduct, and the independence of the House of Commons.

Let us return to the Bradford speech. The Prime Minister assured the country that he was proposing a greater measure than the Reform Act of 1832.

'You have to deal with a question of the revision of the entire constitution. You have to deal with two out of the three estates of the realm. You have to deal with a Council which has survived many centuries and many storms, and which has existed up till now, partly from the disinclination of the English people to constitutional change, and partly also owing, perhaps, to the personal popularity and ability of some of its members. This is a great thing to undertake. . . . You are entering upon a great campaign, and if you give the seal of your consent to an entrance upon that campaign it will not be an affair of rose water. You must be prepared to take off your waistcoats, not merely your coats. You must be prepared to gird up your loins, and if you once put your hands to the plough you must take a solemn resolution that you will not look back. Well, gentlemen, to some great issues like this, to some grievances, there is an obvious remedy. The misfortune of this grievance and this issue is that the remedy is not obvious within the limits of the constitution. You can only deal with the House of Lords, with the powers of the House of Lords, by a Bill passed through both Houses. Anything but that is, constitutionally speaking, a revolution-is overriding the Chamber of Parliament against its own will, without legislation passed by its own

consent.'

By applying these principles Lord Rosebery shows that the House of Lords can be abolished, or a limitation put upon what has been called its right of veto, only with its own consent. Besides, as he pertinently asks, what is the use of withdrawing from the House of Lords the power of rejecting Bills, if full power is left of amending them? If, again, no power of restraining or revising legislation is left to the House of Lords, what is the use of maintaining that institution at all? Lord Rosebery had already assured his audience that he was 'a second chamber man' in principle. I am all 'for a second chamber. I am not for the uncontrolled govern'ment of a single chamber any more than I am for the ' uncontrolled government of a single man. The temptation ' of absolute power is too great for any man or any body of 'men.' And then the door is left open: If I am asked to

choose between no second chamber at all and a second 'chamber constituted as the House of Lords is, I will not 'make any choice before this assembly. But I will say that there is ground for hesitation with regard to my principle.' Lord Rosebery's predecessor in office could not have more carefully provided for a change of front.

What, then, is the proposal of the Prime Minister? It is, in the first instance, to bring the House of Commons into play.' The Government will move the House of Commons to pass a resolution declaring, in clear and peremptory terms, that the House of Commons in the partnership with the House of Lords is unmistakeably the predominant partner.' The Cabinet have to frame a resolution which will assert the privileges of the House of Com'mons as against the irresponsible control of the House ' of Lords.' That is to say, the House of Commons is to declare it a breach of its privileges for the House of Lords to reject the second reading of Bills coming to it from the Commons! This is to make a declaration contrary to fact, a proceeding which will not add fresh lustre to the House of Commons. This is not the assertion of privileges or the maintenance of rights, but an attempt to usurp authority not given to it by the constitution. The claim to be made by the House of Commons means either nothing at all, or means that the whole authority of Parliament is vested in itself.

[ocr errors]

At Glasgow Lord Rosebery enlarged still further on the subject of the House of Lords, and once more, in the most explicit language, declared that he at any rate would have no part or parcel in leaving this country to the sole disposition of a single chamber." He was, however, careful to explain that he was speaking as a man and not as a Minister,' and that he did not wish to pledge others who held a different opinion. In his view the question of a second chamber is sufficiently remote. . . . It is not, at any rate, present to our hand. What we have to deal with at present is not the formation or the reform of a second chamber, but the adjustment of the relations of the two chambers which exist, so that the will of the popular chamber shall be made plainly and manifestly predominant.' This, he repeated, is to be accomplished by the resolution of the House of Commons-a resolution which we can all combine and unite in, whether we favour a second chamber 'or not.'

The Prime Minister has reminded the country that the

question of a reformed Upper Chamber is no new question with him. To it he has devoted years of anxious study, and the main outlines of the reforms he has desired have been explained in previous years to the House of Lords itself. On March 19, 1888, he brought the subject very fully before the Peers in moving for the appointment of a select committee to take into consideration the composition of their own House of Parliament. Lord Rosebery's speech on that occasion deserves to be very carefully weighed by all who desire to preserve in our Parliamentary system an effective second chamber. It was his object, he said, to improve the House of Lords. He would remove from it elements which diminished the public respect for it. He would add other elements which seemed likely to bring it wisdom and strength. Out of the whole hereditary peerage, including the Scotch and Irish peerages, let a fixed number of peers be elected to serve in the House of Lords, as is done at present with regard to the peerages of Scotland and Ireland, introducing, however, some system of minority representation. Let Peers be created for life. Let a certain number of Lords of Parliament be chosen by the more important of the town councils and county councils, and let representatives of the larger colonies be admitted. He did not greatly fear that a deadlock would arise between an improved House of Lords and the House of Commons; and he suggested that difficulties of this sort might be provided against by requiring both chambers under certain circumstances to defer to the decision of the two combined. Lord Rosebery did not profess to have elaborated a perfect scheme, and his proposals were as definite as could reasonably be asked from a Peer in a private position who was calling for the appointment of a committee, and not promulgating a Reform Bill of his own. The criticisms made upon the existing system, and the suggestions thrown out for improving it, were in tone statesmanlike. He utterly repudiated the notion of a Parliament constituted of a single chamber, associating himself with the doctrine of Mr. John Stuart Mill, that two chambers were essential, so that neither of them may be exposed to the corrupting influence of undis'puted power even for a single year.'

Only a week after Lord Rosebery's speech at Glasgow we find Mr. Asquith at Birmingham* enforcing with some vigour his leader's observation that in advocating a reformed House

* November 21, 1894.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »