The new Parliament met February 15th. The King’s speech was very brief and foreshadowed the re-introduction of the budget and proposals for giving the House of Commons undivided authority over finance and preponderance in all legislation. This speech from the throne contained the altogether unusual phrase “in the opinion of my advisers.” The motion of the Unionists to amend the King’s speech by inserting a resolution in favor of “tariff reform” was defeated by the votes of the Liberals and Laborites, the Irish Nationalists abstaining from voting. From the opening of Parliament till the 24th of March the time has been occupied with necessary routine work, but it has become evident from the attitude of Mr. Redmond and the more radical supporters of the ministry that the question of curbing the power of the Lords must take precedence of the consideration of the budget. If the Nationalists are satisfied by the action of the ministry on this question the budget will probably pass the Commons, the Irish members either voting for it or abstaining from voting.
For the present, the question of the power of the House of Lords has become paramount. It is recognized even by the Conservatives that the present situation is indefensible. The fact that the membership of the House of Lords is overwhelmingly conservative leads to what is practically a government by a single chamber when the Conservatives are in the majority in the Commons. It has been possible for Conservative ministries to put through measures, like the Education Act of 1902, which have never been submitted to the country and would probably not be approved if submitted. On the other hand when the Liberals are in power the Lords by rejecting and mutilating legislation have prevented the principal Liberal measures from becoming law. The only recourse of the Liberals would be to appeal to the country on every question of any importance. March 23d the House of Lords by a vote of 175 to 17 adopted a set of resolutions introduced by Lord Rosebery, which are likely to become the Conservative platform on the question. They are: “First, that a strong and efficient Second Chamber is not merely an integral part of the British Constitution, but is necessary to the well-being of the State and the balance of Parliament.
“Second, that a strong and efficient Second Chamber can best be obtained by the reform and reconstruction of the House of Lords.
“Third, that a necessary preliminary to such reform and reconstruction is the acceptance of the principle that the possession of a peerage should no longer itself give the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords.”
It will be noticed that this resolution is non-committal on the question of how the voting members shall be chosen. The suggestions which have found their way into print are that the Peers should choose a certain part of their own number, that county councils should elect, that learned societies should be represented, and that men who had held high posts should be voting members. It has been stated that there would be a number of life peers. The proposal is very indefinite, and furnishes no guarantee on the most necessary point, namely, that the Second Chamber must be one which will not forever defeat the measures of the Liberals when they have a majority of the Commons. It would seem that the only logical position of those who favor a strong upper house would be to have it elected from larger districts and for longer terms than the House of Commons.
The Liberals, however, have not adopted such a plan. On March 22d, Prime Minister Asquith gave notice of three resolutions which will probably for some time or until carried out constitute the platform of the Liberals and their allies. The first declares it expedient that the House of Lords be disabled by law from rejecting any money bill. The second that it is expedient that the powers of the House of Lords over other bills be restricted so that any such bill which has passed the House of Commons for three successive sessions and has been rejected by the House of Lords in each of these sessions shall become a law without the consent of the House of Lords provided that not less than two years have elapsed between the introduction of a bill and its becoming law. The third resolution proposes to limit the duration of each Parliament to five years. These proposals possess the advantage of definiteness which the Rosebery resolutions lack. They are obviously open to the charge of proposing a one-chambered government. Late dispatches seem to indicate that these resolutions have been approved by the leaders of the Nationalists and Laborites, and that at no distant day Premier Asquith will again go to the country with these propositions instead of the budget as the chief issue, for the resolutions are certain to be rejected by the Lords.
In the interval between the preparation of this article (March 28th) and its publication, it is probable that events will move rapidly in Great Britain, but the writer hopes that this and the preceding article on the budget will furnish in brief form a useful historical background for such events as may take place.
ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Officers of associations are requested to send notices of meetings to W. H. Cushing, South Framingham, Mass., as long before the date of meeting as possible.