[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sia,—My words have indeed concealed my thoughts when you have understood me to mean by "the surrender, voluntary or enforced, of the independent legislative power of the Lords," that they should merely pass the Franchise Bill and then retain their old power of veto, as before. Great as is the intrinsic im- portance of the Franchise Bill, it has now become far more im- portant for the opportunity which it offers for the entire and final abolition of the Lords' veto. And I desire, as heartily as you do, that the now rising gale may be strong enough to carry that abolition speedily, and for ever. But though there is no doubt as to what will be the end of the contest on which the Lords have now entered, there are signs that the struggle may be long and bitter, not quick and easy. And, therefore, there is no inconsistency between the desire that the challenge should be accepted and fought out at once and to the end, and the wish that an enforced surrender may yet be anticipated by a voluntary, though not a temporary, surrender—a surrender once for a11—on the part of the Lords. And, when I read Mr. Bright's strong language at Manchester last Saturday, I think I was justified in interpreting his former proposal—that the Lords should be allowed a suspensory veto—as meant by him to be a temporary arrangement leading to as complete a surrender as that already made by the Crown. If, indeed, those words at Manchester are to be taken—as they most likely should be—strictly, they mean that the day for such temporary arrangement has passed by.—I am, Sir, &c., EDWARD STRACHEy.
Previous page
