On Monday Mr. Labouchere moved an amendment to the Address
in favour of only allowing the House of Lords to re- ject a Bill once. If the same Bill were passed by the Commons in the next Session it should become law without the consent of the Lords. As an amendment to this Mr. Lawson Walton moved that the power of the Lords to overrule the decisions of the Commons urgently demanded the attention of Parliament. On this amendment took place a debate which was for the most part both rambling and academic. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman made, however, a very able and moderate speech, and one which adds support to our view that he is going to prove a very efficient, and so popular, leader of the Liberal party, and that any one who counts on his merely performing the functions of a warming-pan will be greatly disappointed. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman took the only point on which those who are not wild with prejudice, or who have not the Jacobin craving for a single, unlimited, sovereign House, can rely,—namely, that it cannot be right that one party in the State should have such a vast pre- ponderance of nower in the Lords. As Mr. Balfour showed, there is a fallacy in this view, but it is a fallacy which a priori appeals to Englishmen, who dislike the notion of heavily handicapping one side in any game. "This standing constant want of balance between the two Houses" was, said Sir Henry, a danger to the State.
Previous page
