Mr. Balfour in reply pointed out that the proposal would
place everything in the State at the mercy of the House of Commons, including the people, to whom no appeal would be allowed. [Mr. Balfour here was unconsciously using the very argument used by the Independents against the Long Parlia- ment after that Assembly had abolished the House of Lords and had become supreme ; they, too, objected to being entirely at the mercy of an unlimited and uncontrolled House of Commons.] On the necessity for maintaining the Re- ferendum powers of the House of Lords—the only powers they now claim in the case of a serious dispute with the Commons—Mr. Balfour was most emphatic. "I say that the existence of some constitutional machinery by which the con- stituencies shall be again asked to reconsider their position is not only expedient, but is an absolute vital necessity of any healthy community." It was the power possessed by the Lords of delaying legislation till a nearly general consent was reached that saved us from reaction. We never barked back to old law because the House of Lords prevented our accepting measures before public opinion was ripe for them.
Previous page
