LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE BREAKDOWN OF THE CONSTITUTION. CVO THE EDITOR Of THE "BramAron."] SIR,—Can you spare a non-party looker-on a small space for his appreciation of the weighty article with the above very appropriate heading in your issue of July 25th, and his hope that it may receive a quarter of the attention it so amply deserves P The article is full of sound political and Constitu- tional thought. For instance : " It is a special duty of the Second House to check impetuosity?' The graver the matter, the more urgent the duty of fulfilling this function. Again : " This Bill has never been considered by the country at all." Perfectly true ; perhaps it will be now, with the added light of the grave and admirable speeches of this debate. But the Lords have stopped short with speeches, and have not given the country the opportunity of profiting by them. What this country and the Empire want is a Second Chamber with sufficient backbone to give this opportunity. This pension measure is closely connected with the existing Poor Law, and ought, undoubtedly, to have awaited the Report of the Royal Com. mission on the subject. There is one grave distinction between the existing Poor Law and this new one. Pensioners under the existing law are disfranchised ; under this new one they will be taskmasters of Parliamentary candidates and Members. Somewhat confused by the contradiction between the matter of the speeches and the announce- ments of intended votes by the speakers, I turned to Lord Lansdowne's speech, expecting to find there—as reported in the Times—some explanation of the contradiction. To my surprise, the real practical question before the House was not touched upon. Allow me to add the expression of a hope that your article is mistaken as to Lord Lansdowne having "indicated that the House of Lords had better accept the Old-Age Pensions Bill," as a means of strengthening them to reject the Licensing Bill. Robbery supported by Bishops is bad enough, but it is difficult to conceive Lord Lansdowne's putting forward opposition to that Licensing Bill as a reason for not fulfilling the function of the Second Chamber on such a grave and far-reaching measure as this Pensions Bill.—I am,
Previous page
