The Evening Star MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 3012, 14 October 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1872.

The advantage or disadvantage of having an Upper Chamber in the Legislature is a matter that in England has latterly attracted much interest ; the House of Lords having, on two recent occasions, with questionable judgment, forced the question prominently into notice, in a manner calculated to provoke irritation. Not long ago their Lordships throw out the Bill for abolishing purchase in the army, which rejection, however, was quickly overridden by the issue of a Royal warrant. On a more recent occasion, they placed themselves in opposition to the express will of the nation, by an attempted mutilation of the Ballot Bill. The insidious qualification sought to be introduced was a clause making secret voting optional ; an arrangment that would evidently have rendered the Bill a nullity, as wherever it was practicable to bribe or intimidate, it would be equally possible to coerce into voting openly, and so to ensure the vote being given as dictated. The ill-judged action thus taken by the Lords lias induced the people to ask themselves, “ What is the use of a Second Chamber at all ?” and we observe symptoms of their beginning to doubt the sufficiency of the stereotyped answer, “That it is a wholesome check upon hasty legislation.” This phrase has been used until threadbare, but those who reiterate it most confidently would perhaps find some difficulty in quoting an instance where any bad measure passed by the Commons has been rejected by the Lords, though there are but too frequent examples of their passing bad measures and rejecting good ones. A case in point is supplied by what is known as “The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill” a measure directed against the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, by imposing penalties on anyone assuming territorial titles except conferred by the Sovereign. This law was passed at a time of great excitement, occasioned by what was called the Papal aggression, and proved such a complete failure that no attempt was ever made to put it in operation. It, however, was accepted by the Lords without demur, and affords one among many instances where that Chamber certainly has not acted “ as a wholesome check upon hasty legislation.” But examples of an opposite kind, where the irresponsible branch of the Legislature has repeatedly thrown out beneficial enactments, whose merit it has ultimately been compelled to admit by passing, are still move numerous. Among them may be instanced the law for abolishing the punishment of death for trivial thefts, the celebrated Reform Bill of 1831, repeated Bills for restoring civil rights to the Jews, and for the admission of dissenters to the Universities. With the members of the Upper House the question too often

appears to be how far they dare go j how far it is safe to try the temper of the people. Accordingly wc have seen measures that were urgently required by the country rejected by them time after time, until at length the people lost all patience, and in exasperation demanded that the Bills should become law. Then we have seen the Upper House—their hatred apparently overpowered by fear—accord their sanction with a haste that was almost ludicrous. So far, therefore, from exercising any intelli(••ent supervisional influence on the national councils, or preserving a general openness to conviction, it is maintained bv many that experience tends to show* that the Lords only give way when the anger and indignation aroused by their obstructiveness render thwarting the popular will any longer too dangerous. The evil effects of such a system are very obvious. When measures of salutary reform are required, it is nob enough to demonstrate their necessity. Their adoption is hopeless until* a passionate feeling of resentment has been evoked, and thus the national policy, instead of being guided by deliberate reflection, bocomes dependent upon popular excitement. Besides this, we have to consider the almost wanton waste of time of the Representative Chamber, in being Compelled constantly to repass Bills rejected by the Lords. In consequence of this, not only have the most important measures been retarded, but a vast mass of urgent legislation has been prevented or delayed, and intolerable privation thereby inflicted upon large classes affected. Finally, in addition to the many beneficial measures rejected or mutilated by the irresponsible branch of the legislature, we have to bear in mind the still more numerous reforms that would have been brought forward in the Lower House and probably carried, had not the certainty of their rejection by the Upper Chamber been clearly foreseen, and the attempt to introduce them rendered hopeless. When, therefore, these facts are taken into consideration, we can hardly feel surprise that the people at Home are beginning to agitate either for the abolition of the Upper Chamber, or at least for some means of bringing it more into conformity with the national feelings and desires-