MR. BALFOUR'S QUESTION.
IN his speech at Bradford on Wednesday Mr. Balfour, taking for granted that even his opponents admitted the necessity of a Second House of Legislature, as they themselves had proposed one for the Irish Parliament which they had desired to see in Dublin, put it to his audience what sort of Second House, if they were not con- tented with the one they had, they would wish to have in its place. Would you have it, he said, weaker than the present House of Lords, or stronger ? To that question there were cries from some parts of the audience of " weaker," and from other parts of it of " stronger," of which vacilla- tion he skilfully availed himself, remarking at once that the antagonists of the House of Lords as it is, have not yet made up their minds in which direction they desire to see it reformed. He reminded them that the present Chancellor of the Duchy, Mr. Bryce, had remarked that the very object of having a Second House of Legislature is to get a different opinion on political matters from that of the representatives of the people. What is needed is some check or criticisms on the opinion of the representatives of the people, not to get a dupli- cate of that opinion, which would be of no use, and therefore it is most essential to know what the character of the difference should be. Should it be a difference so strongly held and so weighty in relation to the class of persons by whom it is held, that a conflict between the two Houses would be very formidable, or should it be a difference so doubtfully held, and taking so little of real authority from the character of the class of persons by whom it is held, that it would hardly make any fight at all when confronted with the opinion of the people's representatives? But Mr. Balfour did not go on to answer his own question. When he had embarrassed his Gladstonian critics by showing them the difficulty, he simply availed himself of that embarrassment to impress on them that as they are as yet quite unprepared to suggest any substitute of their own for the present House of Lords, they would be wise in deferring their attack upon it till they have got their minds clear as to what they want. But we do not think that Unionists should leave the question unanswered. It is a question of great moment, and one which can hardly be ignored, in case the popu- lar agitation against the House of Peers is pushed forward. We ourselves think that a clear answer to the question can be given, and that it is most important for the public to consider how far that answer is or is not sound.
We should reply that what is wanted in a Second House of Legislature is an opinion of what Bacon called " dry light" not merely on the merits of the political questions at issue between the two Houses, but on the extent and tenacity of the convictions with which the opinion of the popular House is held, and the prospect of changing it by a little further discussion and delay. What is needed in the Second House of Legislature is certainly not a very obstinate and contentious criticism on the views of the popular House, but rather a calm and reasonable survey of the dangers and difficulties of the popular view, without any disposition to fight for the sake of fighting, in case it shall be perfectly clear that the people are determined to make the legislative experiment for which they have voted. What you want in the Second House is an opinion of a calmer and more discreet character intellectually, but less tenacious and self-opinionated than that which we expect to get, and almost always do get, from the popular House, an opinion which is more or less the opinion of experts, but which has a good deal more caution and reserve in it than the opinion of experts usually has ; an opinion from men who will shrink from insisting on their own judg- ment where it is seen that the effect of so insisting will only be an enhanced popular irritation, and no prospect at all of a genuine reconsideration.
Now, how far do we get, and how far do we fail to get, such an opinion as this from the present House of Lords ? We get a great deal too much contentiousness in general bias, a great deal too little antecedent disposition to agree with the House of Commons on all points on which agreement cannot possibly be very important or very dangerous ; we get, in fact, an opinion which gives rise to too much irri- tation on small points, though we get quite sufficient pliancy on larger points on which it is evident that the public mind is made up. Take the discussions, for instance, on the Parish Councils Bill. Surely it was evident enough that the Lords made, in the first instance, a vast number of needless alterations of a kind certain to vex the House of Commons without convincing or seriously shaking its judgment, alterations which they had afterwards to waive ; and obviously these irritating alterations needlessly • en- dangered the accord between the two Houses, which the sense and moderation of the Duke of Devonshire afterwards restored. Now we think it quite obvious that this excess of disputatiousness was due chiefly to the far too powerful representation of a single class,—the landowners' class,— which the House of Lords contains. Lord Salisbury felt that he had a large and enthusiastic audience for all his " flouts and jeers " at what the Commons had done ; • and that large and enthusiastic audience encouraged him, as it will encourage every born orator, to say what it is often very- imprudent to say, and very fatal to the interests of that wise spirit of give-and-take which should prevail between the two Houses, to say. The House of Lords, as at present constituted, is not at all an assembly of experts. It con- sists of a fair number of experts reinforced by a class-mob, who sympathise with everything that is said on one side, and with hardly anything that is said on the other side. We should say, then, that what is wanted is a House of Lords con- sisting chiefly of the statesmen on both sides of the House, and of the Peers remarkable for their eminence, literary or military or naval or diplomatic or financial, and of none others. There should be no mob of landlords and aristo- crats and racing men, who can by no possibility be called political experts, to cheer scoffs at the House of Commons. Supposing the Queen's writs were issued to all the eminent men on either side of the House, and all who had served her Majesty, whether in political or civil offices, in fact,-to all who had been held worthy to administer high functions in the State, we should get a body of real critics, but not of angry partisans, for even the Conservative politicians• would know too well the force of what had been said on the other side, to wish to exasperate the. differences between the two sides of the House ; and we should also • get a body probably almost too desirous of compromise, rather than too obstinate in pressing its criticisms on the House of Commons. Our answer to Mr. Balfour's question, then, would be, that we desire a Second House of Legisla- ture that is much weaker than the House of Commons in respect of its origin, but intellectually soberer and stronger, a House which would be well aware that its strength lay wholly in its impartiality and detachment of• view, and which would therefore realise that it was bound to be conciliatory in form, clear and consistent in sub- stance, and keen in its observation of the various signs of the times, so as not to commit itself rashly to a. hopeless and irritating struggle. With such a House of Lords, we should, we think, find that we had a. body of critics who would command. the respect of the House of Commons and the favourable attention even of the people at large.
Previous page
