• [To THE EDITOR OE THE "SPECTATOR:"] observe that you
argue in your issue of November 17th that the failure to go to a division in the House of Commons against this Bill makes it impossible for the House of Lords to amend it. I venture to differ. The fact that Mr. Balfour, with all the consistency of the Vicar of Bray, still remains the leader of the Unionist Party in the House of Commons in no way compels the Peers to follow in his devious footsteps. At this very hour enemies of the House of Lords are saying that it is a mere adjunct of the Conservative Party. This alone would justify an independent line, even if there were not other and better reasons. The average voter must by this time be astonished at the number of "mandates" which he is supposed to have given at the last Election, but at all events he gave no " mandate " for tinkering at one of the root principles in British law. The suggestion that the masters gain as much as the men under the Bill is irrelevant. The broad question which it is at once the right and the duty of the House of Lords to answer is whether it is for the ultimate welfare of the whole community that classes of men, rich or poor, should be placed outside and above the ordinary law. As the present leader of the historic Con- servative Party in the House of Commons has again failed to take a comprehensive view of a position, it becomes, not less, but more incumbent on the House of Lords to supply the defect.—I am, Sir, 8/c., JAS. RALPH. West View, Marple, Cheshire.
Previous page
