Page images
PDF
EPUB

with remarkable force. Speaking with all the weight and authority attaching to his exalted position, and presumably with a full sense of his consequent responsibility, the President of the Board of Trade said at Newcastle-on-Tyne on the 23rd of January

last:

What was the use of Liberal enterprise if the work of Liberalism was to be frustrated by a House chosen by nobody, which was representative of nobody, and which was accountable to nobody? He hoped that, now they had begun to ask that question, they would insist upon an answer. . . . The House of Lords was the refuge and hope of all the forces that stood between the people and the harvest. Legalized greed and social selfishness in every shape and form had their bodyguard in the Peers.

It is quite unnecessary to question the accuracy or good taste of Mr. Lloyd George's opinion that "legalized greed and social selfishness" are the actuating principles of the House of Lords; but, though admitting, of course, that the Peers are "chosen by nobody" in the sense that they are not elected by the people, I directly traverse the statement that they are "representative of nobody" and are "accountable to nobody." Of what elements is the House of Lords composed? There are about six hundred Peers eligible to take their seats. This body contains 172 members who have held office under the State exclusive of Household appointments, 166 who have sat in the House of Commons, 140 who are, or have been, mayors or county councillors, about forty who are members of the legal profession, and about the same number of men eminent in art, science, letters, invention, manufacture, and trade; 207 have served, or are serving, in the Army or Navy. Furthermore, it must be added that, in addition to those who have acquired merit and knowl

edge as chairmen of railway companies, and in other positions of an analogous character, the great majority have developed business habits, and have derived valuable experience of men and matters in the management of large estates and complicated affairs.

But it may be said that an analysis of the whole body of the peerage does not give an accurate indication of the capacity of the House as a legislative body. That is to some extent true. Of the Peers some must be excluded, such as princes of the blood royal, minors, and those who through age or infirmity cannot attend the sittings of the House; and there are others who, for one reason or another, are not interested in politics, and do not take part in the business of the House. A fairer estimate of the character of the House of Lords as a legislative Chamber can perhaps be obtained by an investigation of the working members of the House-of those attending and voting on occasions deemed to be of great national importance. The record division took place on the second reading of the Home Rule Bill of 1893, but an examination into the qualifications of the Peers voting on a division that took place fourteen years ago would not afford a sound criterion as to the merits or demerits of the House as it exists to-day. It would be better. therefore, to inquire into the composition of the House during the late discussion on the Education Bill. The largest division took place on the 29th of October, when 312 Peers voted. Three days were devoted to the second reading debate at the end of July, and the House was occupied with the committee and subsequent stages of the Bill from the 25th of October till the 19th of December. Altogether twentysix working days were devoted to the Bill. During the whole of that time the attendance was very large. In

cidentally it may be mentioned that the full attendance and great interest shown afford cogent argument in favor of autumn sessions. Perfectly accurate figures cannot be arrived at, but I think in estimating the number of Peers who attended the sittings of the House during the autumn session at about 380 I shall about hit the mark; and I take that number as fairly indicative of the full working strength of the House for all practical purposes. Let us look into the composition of that body in its salient features. It contained the Lord Chancellor and an ex-Lord Chancellor, an ex-Lord Chancellor of Ireland, four Lords of Appeal, and twenty-seven other Peers associated with the legal profession, including a number who have held high judicial office; seven ex-Viceroys of India and Ireland; sixteen ex-Governors of the gerat colonies, or provinces of India; fifteen other Peers who have held high positions in the diplomatic and civil services, sixtytwo ministers and ex-ministers, thirtyseven Peers who are, or have been, intimately connected with manufacture or trade, science or invention, 123 who have sat in the House of Commons, about eighty who occupy, or have occupied, the position of mayors or members of county councils, and twentyone archbishops and bishops concerning whom it must be remembered that, whatever may be thought of the principle of spiritual Peers, they do not represent the hereditary principle, and have all served a long apprenticeship in humble positions, from that of a curate upwards, which have brought them in close contact with all classes of the people.

With this brief review before us, it must, I think, be admitted that the House of Lords includes a very large number of members who, through long and distinguished service rendered in various walks of life, have

acquired that deep knowledge of human nature, that wide experience of human affairs, and that intimate acquaintance with administrative detail which are so desirable in any legislative body. The House has no directly representative character gained at the polls, but it cannot be denied that it is, in fact, though not in theory, very fully representative of the great activities which in their various phases constitute our national life. The thesis that the House of Lords is representative of nobody cannot be maintained; nor is its position accurately described in the statement that it is accountable to nobody. The House of Lords makes no claim to enforce its views upon the people. It fully realizes the limitations of its powers; it freely acknowledges that the will of the people must prevail, and that its function is to see that the real will of the people does prevail. Far from being accountable to nobody, it is accountable to everybody, and it is acutely sensible of the fact.

The second count in the indictment is that the will of the people as expressed in the elected Chamber is overruled. That opens up two questionsthe desirability of a Second Chamber, and the extent to which public opinion is reflected in the Commons' House of Parliament and in the legislative proposals of the Cabinet.

On the first point, argument is perhaps superfluous. Unquestionably the whole consensus of educated opinion in the United Kingdom is in favor of a Second Chamber; the principle has been approved and adopted in our great self-governing colonies, in the United States, and, in fact, throughout the world wherever democratic systems obtain; the belief in the necessity of a revising Chamber in order to ensure that the permanent opinion of the people may receive adequate expression is practically universal.

Nevertheless, the opinions of two or three high authorities may be quoted. The whole controversy as to the advisability of retaining the Second Chamber was admirably stated by Lord Beaconsfield over thirty years ago:

For a century, ever since the establishment of the Government of the United States, all great authorities--American, German, French, Italianhave agreed in this, that a representative Government is impossible without a second Chamber. . . . However anxious foreign countries have been to enjoy this advantage, that anxiety has only been equalled by the difficulty which they have found in fulfilling their object. How is this second Chamber to be constituted? By nominees of the sovereign power? What influence can be exercised by a chamber of nominees? It is a proverb of general disrespect. Are they to be supplied by popular election? In what manner are they to be elected? If by the same constituency as the popular body, what claims have they, under such circumstances, to criticise or to control the decisions of that body? If they are to be elected by a more select body, qualified by a higher franchise, there immediately occurs the objection, why should the elected majority be governed by the elected minority? The United States of America were fortunate in finding a solution of this difficulty; but the United States of America has elements to deal with which never occurred before, and never probably will occur again, because they formed their illustrious Senate from the materials that were offered them by the thirty-seven Sovereign States. We, gentlemen, have the House of Lords, an Assembly which has historically developed itself in an ancient nation, and periodically adapted itself to the wants and necessities of the time.

Later, Mr. Gladstone, when introducing his second Home Rule Bill, enunciated once more a universal opinion when in advocating the institution of

[blocks in formation]

The necessity of a Second Chamber is recognized by all democratic communities, whether under a monarchical or republican form of rule, and the functions, duties, and powers appertaining to it are determined by the mere fact of its existence. A Second Chamber exactly reflecting the opinion and expressing the voice of the First Chamber would be a gross absurdity. To justify its existence, it must exercise the function of revision; it must ensure that the sober, well-considered wishes of the people prevail; it must act as the fly-wheel or governor of the legislative machine. This is the function which Second Chambers discharge throughout the world, in Republics such as France and the United States, and throughout the British Empire, under a monarchical régime. A Second Chamber always saying ditto to the First Chamber would exercise no check on ill-considered proposals, and would be merely a ridiculous fly upon the legislative wheel. Mr. Bryce

stated the case succinctly when he remarked during a former House of Lords campaign:

It is said that two Chambers do not always work harmoniously together. My observation on that is, that the object of having two Chambers is to se cure not that things shall always work smoothly between them, but that they shall frequently differ, and provide a means of correcting such errors as either may commit.

How far the present House of Lords fulfils the duties of a Second Chamber will be dealt with presently. Let us first consider the second questionnamely, the extent to which the Commons' House of Parliament reflects public opinion, and the legislative proposals of the Cabinet reflect the opinion of the Commons' House of Parliament. In order to carry on the business of the country, we are bound to assume as a working hypothesis that the majority in the elected Chamber represents the views of the constituencies and indicates their strength; and that the measures introduced by the Government are in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the elected Chamber. But even under ordinary circumstances such are the inconsistencies and anomalies of our electoral system and of our method of government by party that it must be admitted the assumption is sometimes capable of demonstration, is at other times capable of disproof, and generally is of an hypothetical character. Facts and experience compel the admission that the weight and volume of public opinion cannot always be gauged by comparison with the dimension of majorities in the House of Commons, and that that branch of the Legislature sometimes ceases to vibrate to popular sentiment and at others mirrors outbursts of popular feeling of a very transient character.

Such is the case under ordinary conditions, but the circumstances are at present somewhat extraordinary. At the last election, 5,632,201 votes were polled. Ignoring Irish Nationalist members and uncontested seats, and dividing opinion roughly into supporters of the Government and supporters of the Opposition, 3,133,486 votes. were cast for the former, and 2,463,606, votes for the latter-giving a majority of 669,880 votes in favor of the Government. The supporters of the Government in the country were in the proportion of about six to five. But the Government have a majority of 273, excluding Nationalists, in the House of Commons; in other words, the supporters of the Government in the House are in the proportion of nearly three to one. It is obvious, therefore, that Radical opinion in the country is vastly exaggerated, if it be estimated by reference to the Radical majority in the House of Commons.

The

The composition of that majority and the conspiring causes of its existence must be considered. The Prime Minister is supported in the House of Commons by a majority huge numerically, but being of a composite character, and even to some extent antagonistic, strategically weak and lacking in elements of permanence. party has been returned to power after a long period of "wandering in the wilderness," during which it was debarred from legislative action, but by no means from promises of legislation. Partly owing to the swing of the pendulum, partly through the Englishman's sporting desire "to give the other side a chance," partly because the Conservative party fell into a comatose condition, evincing more tenacity in clinging to power than forethought or constructive energy, the present Ministry suddenly found itself in office with a load of twenty years' promises burdening it. With the best

of intentions Liberal leaders must find considerable difficulty in meeting all their promissory notes; and the holders are reluctant to renew, being probably doubtful as to the permanent character of the Government majority. They must know that it is held together by threads of varying thickness, and at any moment events may occur severing the cord of sympathy which unites this faction or that to the main body of the party. Moreover, as all men who have glanced at party political history are well aware, once the pendulum of popular opinion begins to move against Radicalism in the ascendency, it gathers momentum rapidly, and therefore there is every probability that the present majority in the House of Commons is representative of the fleeting rather than the durable feelings of the country.

When events placed the fruits of office in the hands of the Liberal party, and the present Cabinet was formed, they appear to have been somewhat unprepared to place in concrete form the constructive or destructive legislation of which they had spoken in the abstract so long and so airily upon platforms up and down the country. It is one thing to advocate sweeping reforms in a stump speech at a public meeting; but it is quite another matter to codify those ideas into workable Acts of Parliament. In the process of crystallization the original proposals are apt to undergo many changes, with the result that the final product bears only a slight resemblance to the rough matter which has served for platform purposes. Illustrations of this unpreparedness of the Liberal party for legislation may be found in the history of the Education Bill, in the tale of Chinese labor, and in the attitude of the Liberal party towards the preferential trade arrangement suggested to this country by the self-governing colonies. The Education Bill was in

troduced to remedy a Nonconformist grievance, and Nonconformity openly rejoiced when the House of Lords rejected the Bill, because the measure as it left the House of Commons differed so widely from that on which they had fixed their hopes. As a further illustration, the extraordinary attitude of the Government towards Chinese labor, acquiesced in by their party, may be taken. The General Election was greatly influenced by the grossest misrepresentation on this point, or, as Mr. Winston Churchill would phrase it, by indulgence in "terminological inexactitudes." The Chinese coolies were said to have been enticed to South Africa under false pretences, to have been immured in that country under conditions of slavery, and to have been subjected to restrictions of their liberty, to forms of punishment, and varieties of atrocities inhuman in their character. The imaginations of the least-educated voters were inflamed by cartoons of a character unparalleled in political warfare in this country. What has happened since the Government assumed the reins? Chinese labor is still employed in the mines in South Africa; until within a few weeks past, fresh batches of coolies have been arriving. Soon after taking office, the Government announced its determination to leave this question to the decision of the representative Government about to be set up in the Transvaal, and the latest developments point to a combination between Britisher and Boer to extend the system of importation. Public opinion was deeply stirred by the denunciations of Chinese coolie labor during the late General Election, yet Chinese coolies are still employed in the Transvaal, and it seems certain that they will continue to be employed; and public opinion makes no sign. Further examples may be found in the changed attitude of the Government

« PreviousContinue »