MR. LABbUCHERE'S MOTION.
MR. LABOUCHERE'S motion for the abolition of the House of Lords will hardly come to anything, and, indeed, is still regarded in the country as a kind of political joke ; but it is neither so impertinent, nor so useless, as many people suppose. It is not impertinent, though all Peers, and most Tories, think so, for the House of Lords claims powers of interference with the Commons which in principle involve a right of control. The Peers have repeatedly refused to pass Bills, accepted by the Commons, for remodelling the suffrage, for dis- tribution of seats, and for modifying oaths,—that is, they have asserted a right to limit the suffrage till the House ceased in its own judgment to be truly representative. Mr. Labouchere's proposal, in reality, claims no more for the Commons, and, indeed, not so much, for he only asks for an opinion, and not for a legislative act. And his motion will not be useless, for if it comes to a division, it will help a little towards the solution of that very difficult problem, the real feeling of the present electoral body towards the House of Lords. A vote of, say, ninety or a hundred representatives of towns for a motion so crude as Mr. Labouchere's would, in that light, be a very significant event, as would also a very general abstinence from voting. At present, the true feeling of electors upon the subject is almost entirely unknown, and may be found to differ very greatly from the opinion most general, either with Radical or Tory Members. The latter believe that the people are devoted to the Upper House, and would at once reject any plan for its abolition ; the former sometimes suspect that it is an object of general though latent hostility, and that a popular Minister, favoured by circumstances, could abolish the Peerage altogether. We have, since 1867, watched the records of public meetings held virtually to discuss the conduct of the Lords with some care, and believe that the true feeling of the new electorate, which differs from that of the old ten-pounders, is not repre- sented either by Mr. Labouchere or Lord Salisbury. There is much more active dislike of the Lords than Tories admit, and a much more general impression that a single Chamber could govern very well ; but the body of opinion is in favour of retaining the Lords, as a dignified institution, occasionally useful for the expression of independent opinion, and always ornamental,—and, moreover, part of the traditional Constitution. Government by " Bing, Lords, and Commons," the proper number of a jury, the justice of a Poor-law, and the natural existence of a Parish, are all, with the bulk of Englishmen, in some undefined way classed among revealed truths, not liable to blank denial. But there is also as general an opinion that the Lords, to be truly beneficial, should limit their own functions, should assume the position of the Sovereign, who only governs in theory, and should use their powers invariably to help on and facilitate Government, not to oppose or thwart it. The ideal position of the Lords, in the popular mind, is that which it always occupies if a Tory Ministry is in power, when it de- bates freely, sometimes criticises, sometimes even amends the legislation proposed by the Cabinet, but never by any chance, not even when Household Suffrage is proposed, re-' jects or seriously impairs it. That is the attitude desired for the Lords at all times. Any departure from that excites strong indignation, and would, if it occurred upon a great occasion, lead to a definite demand for a reform ensuring that this attitude should always be maintained. There is not the slightest dislike, that we can perceive, of the Peers as an Order, no wish to abolish titles or privileges, no aspiration for a formal equality—which could, of course, be easily obtained, by taxing heavily the use of titles, as we now tax the use of armorial bearings—no serious disposition to modify the hierarchical arrangement of society, which, indeed, gives to the lower electors, if we may judge from their literature, an impression of colour and variety in society which they deem pleasant. The dislike is not for "Lords," but for the claim of the Lords, when assembled in their Chamber, to act as if they were a self-existent body, with rights equal to those of the Government and the Commons together. That strikes the people as at once ridiculous and noxious, and any reform which prevented that yet left the Peers untouched in their social privileges, and with free right of addressing the country, would, we believe, be carried. It is not " abolition " the people desire, but " reform," such as the power of the Crown has undergone.
Such a reform, if once accepted by statesmen and by the Sovereign, would not be so difficult to carry con- stitutionally as is sometimes imagined. There would be no " revolution " required. All that would be needed would be an address from the Commons, backed, of course, by a large majority, praying the Sovereign "so to use her Constitutional prerogative" that a Bill might pass in amend- ment of the Bill of Rights, providing that no vote of the House of Lords should be operative without the assent of a re- sponsible Minister of the Crown. That very provision exists now in the Commons as regards motions involving increase of expenditure, and constantly hampers private Members. The Lords, who, with great judgment, dread nothing so much as a large creation of Peers, which would impair their social posi- tion, would yield, as they did in 1832, stipulating, perhaps, that the number of future Peers should be fixed—an immense addition to their social rank—or that they should be allowed, like Irish Peers, to stand for seats in the Lower House. That is believed to be an object of ambition with many of the ablest among them, and is entirely unobjection- able. The electors are at least as much entitled to choose a Percy as a Bradlaugh. If the Lords did not yield, it would, of course, be necessary to create Peers pro hac vice, choosing men pledged not only to pass the Act, but to add a clause, depriv- ing themselves of their momentary rank ; but the Lords would not force on so useless and indecorous a struggle. They are totally powerless before the Throne, and would yield, and remain thenceforth under all Governments precisely what they are now whenever a Tory Administration is in power,--digni- fied persons, with a permanent right of presenting their views to the people, and great opportunities of improving legislation, but debarred from hostile interference with the policy of the country. A peerage would be sought just as eagerly as ever, or, if Peers could sit in the Commons, even more eagerly; nothing would be changed, except that the friction which now worries Ministries and the country would be diminished, and the dam which now raises the waters of opinion to such dangerous heights would disappear. Even the Lords' veto would remain, though, as was the case when Lord Derby and Lord Beaconsfield were in power, it would be exercised only when the Cabinet thought it wise. Lord Derby carried Household Suffrage through the Lords, in the teeth of the secret opinion of every Peer in the country ; but Mr. Gladstone is called dictatorial, if he only asks the Lords not to subject Judges to an unconstitutional inquisition. The question has hardly come up yet, for the Peers have for many years been very prudently guided, and Englishmen change nothing for the sake of change ; but the vote for a Committee on the Land Act showed that the old self-restraint is giving way, and projects for the reform of the House of Lords may become part of practical politics. Mr. Labouchere's scheme will not be one of those considered, but may be valuable, nevertheless, as a rade thermometer of opinion.
Previous page
