In Mr. Balfour's speech on Wednesday, a sentence— omitted in
the report of the Times—appears to this effect:— "He was not going to argue as to the propriety or impropriety of attempting to modify the ancient Constitution of the country so far as the House of Lords was concerned. But he believed we could not contrive a Second Chamber more con- sonant with the liberties of this country, more qualified to promote the smooth working of the Constitution, more fitted to secure that no chance majority of this country should destroy its Constitution, and yet more incapable or less desirous of putting itself in opposition to the settled public beliefs expressed by the constituencies." Does Mr. Balfour mean by that, the House of Lords as we now have it, or a House, founded, as the House of Lords is, on the basis of hereditary claims, but claims modified by practical proofs
of political capacity and statesmanship P If he means the first, we cannot at all agree with him. A reviewing and revising Assembly should command the respect equally of both the great parties in the State, and should be just as certain, if any reactionary Government, with a momentary majority in the Commons, should attempt to reverse the general drift of popular legislation, to appeal to the nation for its deliberate judgment on such a project, as it would be to put a temporary veto on any project of Radical revolution. No one can say that the present House of Lords, is such an Assembly, though it certainly contains all the elements out of which such an Assembly could be constructed. But we have always held that Mr. Asquith was right in saying that, though the present House of Lords may be a tolerable reviewing and revising Assembly when the Radicals are in power, it is very far from a good reviewing and revising Assembly when the Conservatives are in power.
Previous page
