The Dominion MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 1911. THE PARLIAMENT BILL.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1026, 16 January 1911, Page 4

The Dominion MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 1911. THE PARLIAMENT BILL.

It would appear from a'cable message in another column that a new and unexpected, trouble is looming up for the British Government in its attack upon the House of Lords. Mr. Barnes, who is able tp speak for the Labour party in Parliament, has declared that "tho gravost danger facing tho Government *ia passing tho 'Veto' Bill lies : in the unnecessary preamble, which is intended to conciliate a certain section of the Cabinet. . Labour members," he adds, "will vote against it." The preamble, it will be remembered, declares that "it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis," that _ "such substitution _ cannot be immediately brought into .operation," and that "provision will require hereafter to be made by Parliament in a measure affecting such substitution for- limiting and defining the powers of ihe new Second Chamber," The Labour party, of'course, is frankly in favour of single-chamber government, and it is accordingly opposed to any suggestion' that the necessity for a Second Chamber should be given, even an abstract approval. It is very significant, and it must be very embarrassing to tho professing Liberals, that the Labour party, by demanding the excision of the idle preamble, should practically affirm that the operative clauses of tho Bill do establish single-chamber govern- ' ment. Although the testimony of the Labour party to the correctness of their description of the Bill will not greatly help the Unionists—since the fact about the character of the Bill is already established—yet such moral force as the Government's position may contain must be greatly weakened by the fact that tho Government depends upon allies who are opposed to a real Second Chamber altogether. ■. '• ■' '' '

The "section, of tho Cabinet" referred to by Mit. Barnes comprises those Ministers who share Silt Edwaud Gbey's remarkable opinion that if the Liberals confined themselves to the abolition of the "Veto" and left House of Lords' reform out in tho cold, tho.v would bo "marching to death, disaster and damnation." That these .Ministers arc able. to throw themselves into the fray on behalf of tho Parliament Bill must moan that tho Prime Minister has satisfied them of tho practicability of a satisfactory reform of the Honso of Lords subsequent to the destruction of the powers and functions of the existing' House. But if it has any definite plan, or any genuine intention as suggested in "the preamble, the Government has contrivocl to keep its secret hidden from every eye. Tho' probability is that the Government has no real plan at all, but has merely adopted Bright's schcme and tacked at the head of it a passport in the shape of a promise to do something which it may or may not be ablo to do. For tho Bill is simply an adaptation of the scheme suggested by Bright when the House of Lords rejected a Franchise Bill in 1884. Bright argued that just as the "veto" of the Crown had been abandoned, so the "veto" of tho House of Lords should bo destroyed; and he contended that just as the Crown's dignity had remained unimpaired, so' the dignity and usefulness of tho • peerage and tho House of Lords would suffer no injury., "Tho proposition that I should make," no said, "would bo this—that the House of Lords should have, unimpaired; all the power they havo now with regard to any Bill that has passed tho House of Commons for the first time during the session in which the Lords are called upon to deal with it. That is, in the case of this Bill they would be at liberty to amend it, and send it back to tho Commons. If the Commons did not like the amendments, and would not accopt them, the Bill would go back to the Lords, and if the Lords chose they might reject it. But in a sccond session, if practically tho samo Bill was sent up to the Lords, they would then also havo a right to debate and to amend; but when tho Bill came clown _ to the House of Cimmons in this second session, and the Commons would not agree to the amendments of the Lords, then the Lbrds should bo bound to accept tho Bill." Ho believed, ho said, that under this plan "tho two Houses would with far greater, probably sufficiently great, harmony, and the content and the tranquillity of the nation would bb greatly promoted." Of course Bright began with a false analogy; a single despot who can destroy the work of tho two Houses and so destroy the power of those Houses and o£ the people as well in no way resembles a Sccond Chamber which, at, the very most, can oilly invoke tho judgment of the people. The difference is not ono of degree, but a difference in kind; and thore is therefore no resemblance whatever between tho two acts of destroying the Royal "veto" and of destroying tho "voto" of tho Sccond Chamber.

Here, then, is the-difficulty of the Government's position. As a matter of party, tactics, and to satisfy the

angry factions upon which the Liboral party has in late years unfortunately allowed itself to depend, the Government adopted the machinery of Bright although recognising, in the very act of taking it up, its gross unwisdom. For the statements of Sir Edward Ores:, and the very "preamble" itself, are direct condemnations of the rough and dangerous crowbar that Bright, in one of his lapses from wisdom, proposed to thrust into the Constitution. To do justice to the great Liberal loader, he was not dogmatic about his plan. Etc thought it the best one, but he invited suggestions for alternative methods of dealing with deadlocks. Mr. Asquitii, howover, did not trouble to think of any other plan. ' He merely amended Bright.'s by giving .the House . of Lords a little, larger power of delay, and tacked it. on to a preamble that implicitly condemns the Bill. What most people at a di'staiicc from the scene will find rather perplexing is the topsy-turvy procedure contemplated by the Bill. If the Government really had a sound plan for a new Second Chamber, it should certainly have brought it forward and fought its' battles upon it.; It would have had the sympathy of the' vast bulk of the people, and would ; have been in the very strongest position for fighting. Unhappily, for the Government and for Britain,' Mr. Redmond has his. own ideas about it, and will not wait. He has ordered a certain line of action, and the Government has had to do his bidding. But it need not bo taken for granted that the Government will pass its Bill into law.