LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE SINGLE-CHAMBER RESOLUTIONS. (To THE EDITOR Or THE " SPECTATOZ.1
Srn,—In the interesting article on "The Single-Chamber Resolutions "in your issue of March 26th in dealing with the second of these Resolutions you state :—
" In our opinion, the simplest and best plan will be to strike out this clause and to substitute the simple provision that if within six month; from the rejection of a Bill by the Lords a dissolution of Parliament takes place, and exactly the same Bill is sent to them again within a period of six months from the assembling of the new Parliament, they shall have no right to reject that Bill."
would suggest that, however expedient such a procedure might be in other circumstances, it is entirely inappropriate to the present circumstances with which we have to deal, and that for reasons which are clearly set out in the first paragraph of the article itself. The events of recent years have demonstrated very clearly, not so much the defects of the House of Lords, but the defects of the House of Commons itself. It has to be borne in mind that what should prevail, and what ultimately must prevail, is not the will of either Lords or Commons, but the will of the people. The Commons are entitled to prevail only in so far as they do actually reflect that will. Owing to the many defects and anomalies of our present electoral system, there is no guarantee that the House of Commons shall be a faithful reflex of public opinion. As a rule it is largely out of touch with public opinion on many points, so that, as you truly observe, "it is already possible for the will of the people to be superseded." While this is so, and the composition of the House of Commons itself is the sport of chance, the adoption of your proposal on the second Resolution would, I submit, be not only undesirable but dangerous. The first reform that is called for is a reform of the House of Commons itself by adapting our electoral system to the principles of proportional representation. Until this be done it is premature to discuss the reform of the House of Lords, and the Lords might well refuse to discuss the Government Resolutions upon that ground.—I am, Sir, 15 Elyne Road, Stroud Green, N. WM. COATES.
Previous page
