A great and memorable struggle has ended with the passage of the
Parliament Bill into law. In the calm atmosphere of retrospect we may
now look back on the various stages of this prolonged conflict, from
its inception to its completion, and further, with the whole scene
before us, we may reflect on the wider meaning and real significance of
the victory which has been gained on behalf of democracy, freedom, and
popular self-government.
In the progressive cause there can be no finality, no termination to
the combat, no truce, no rest. But we may fairly regard the conclusion
of this particular struggle as the achievement of a notable step in
advance and as the acquisition of territory that can not well be
recaptured. The admission of the Parliament Bill to the statute-book
marks an epoch and fills the hearts of those who are pursuing high
ideals in politics and sociology with great hopes for the future. The
long sequence of the events which have led up to this achievement has
not been smooth or without incident. There have been moments of
failure, of rebuff, and even of disaster. It would almost seem as if
the motive power which has carried the party of progress through the
storm and stress, and landed it in security, had been outside the
control of any one man or any set of men. Although distinguished men
have led and there have been many valiant workers in the field, a
movement that has extended over nearly a hundred years must have its
origin and energy deeper down than in any mere party policy. It is the
inevitable outcome of the steady but inexorable evolution of free
institutions among a liberty-loving people.
In order, first of all, to trace the course of the actual controversy
as it has been carried on in the House of Commons and in the country,
it is not necessary to go further back than 1883. In that year the
Lords had rejected the Franchise Bill, and it was then that Mr. Bright,
in a speech at Leeds dealing with the deadlocks between the two Houses,
sketched a plan which was really the essence and origin of the
principle adopted in the Parliament Act that has just become law. The
Lords had rejected many Liberal measures before then; attempts had been
made to get round or overcome their opposition; but not till then was
any practical method formulated for dealing with the serious and
permanent obstruction to progressive legislation. Mr. Bright himself
had condemned the peers and declared that "their arrogance and class
selfishness had long been at war with the highest interests of the
nation," and now he advocated a specific remedy, which he declared
would be obtained by "limiting the veto which the House of Lords
exercises over the proceedings of the House of Commons." The actual
plan was that a Bill rejected by the Lords should be sent up to them
again, "but when the Bill came down to the House of Commons in the
second session, and the Commons would not agree to the amendments of
the Lords, then the Lords should be bound to accept the Bill." This
method of procedure, it will be seen, was more expeditious and drastic
than the scheme in the Parliament Act.
Mr. Chamberlain joined vigorously in the campaign against the Peers.
Telling passages from his speeches are quoted to this day, such as when
he declared that "the House of Lords had never contributed one iota to
popular liberty and popular freedom, or done anything to advance the
common weal," but "had protected every abuse and sheltered every
privilege."
No further mention of the Bright scheme was made for some time. Six
years of Conservative rule (1886-1892) diverted the attention of
Liberals as a party in opposition to other matters, and the Lords
subsided, as they always have done in such periods, into an entirely
innocuous, negligible, and utterly useless adjunct of the Conservative
Government.
In the brief period between 1892-1895, the animus against the House of
Lords was kindled afresh. Several Liberal Bills were mutilated or lost,
and the rejection of the second Home Rule Bill served to fan the flames
into a dangerous blaze. The Bright plan was recalled by Lord Morley. "I
think," he said (at Newcastle on May 21, 1894), "there will have to be
some definite attempt to carry out what Mr. Bright at the Leeds
Conference of 1883 suggested, by which the power of the House of
Lords--this non-elected, this non-representative, this hereditary, this
packed Tory Chamber--by which the veto of that body shall be strictly
limited." Mr. Gladstone, too, in his last speech in the House of
Commons on the wrecking amendments which the Lords had made on the
Parish Councils Bill, dwelt on the fundamental differences between the
two Houses, and said that "a state of things had been created which
could not continue," and declared it to be "a controversy which once
raised must go forward to an issue."
But by far the most formidable, the most vigorous, the most animated,
and, at the time, apparently sincere attack was contained in a series
of speeches delivered in 1894 by Lord Rosebery, who was then in a
position of responsibility as leader of the Liberal party. If, as
subsequent events have shown, he was unmoved by the underlying
principle and cause for which his eloquent pleading stood, anyhow we
must believe he was deeply impressed by the prospect of his personal
ambition as the leader of a party being thwarted by the contemptuous
action of an irresponsible body. His words, however, stand, and have
been quoted again and again as the most effective attack against the
partizan nature of the Second Chamber:--"What I complain of in the
House of Lords is that during the tenure of one Government it is a
Second Chamber of an inexorable kind, but while another Government is
in, it is no Second Chamber at all... Therefore the result, the effect
of the House of Lords as it at present stands, is this, that in one
case it acts as a Court of Appeal, and a packed Court of Appeal,
against the Liberal party, while in the other case, the case of the
Conservative Government, it acts not as a Second Chamber at all. In the
one case we have the two Chambers under a Liberal Government, under a
Conservative Government we have a single Chamber. Therefore, I say, we
are face to face with a great difficulty, a great danger, a great peril
to the State." So vehement and repeated were Lord Rosebery's
denunciations that grave anxiety is said to have been caused in the
highest quarters.
But for the next ten years (1895-1905) the Conservatives were in
office, and again it was impossible to bring the matter to a head,
though the past was not forgotten. When the Liberals were returned in
1906 with their colossal majority, every Liberal was well aware that
before long the same trouble would inevitably arise, and that a
settlement of the question could not be long delayed. The record of the
House of Lords' activities during the last five years has been so
indelibly impressed on the public mind that only a very brief
recapitulation of events is necessary.
At the outset their action was tentative. This was shown by the
conferences and negotiations to arrive at a settlement on the Education
Bill, which was the first Liberal measure in 1906. But these broke
down, and defiance was found to be completely successful. Mr. Balfour,
the leader of the Conservative party, realized that although he was in
a small minority in the House of Commons, yet he could still control
legislation, and when he saw how effectively the destructive weapon of
the veto could be used he became bolder, and, as with all vicious
habits, increased indulgence encouraged appetite. Had Mr. Balfour
played his trump-card--the Lords' veto--with greater foresight and
restraint, it may safely be said that the House of Lords might have
continued for another generation, or, at any rate, for another decade,
with its authority unimpaired, though sooner or later it was bound to
abuse its power; but the temptation was too great, and Mr. Balfour
became reckless.
The three crucial mistakes on the part of the Opposition from the point
of view of pure tactics were: First, the destruction of the Education
Bill of 1906. In view of the historic attitude of the Lords to all
questions of religious freedom and general enlightenment, it was not
surprising that they should stand in the way of a greater equality of
opportunity for all denominations in matters of education. Six times
between 1838 and 1857 they rejected Bills for removing Jewish
disabilities; three times between 1858 and 1869 they vetoed the
abolition of Church Rates. For thirty-six years (1835-1871) the
admission of Nonconformists to the universities by the abolition of
tests was delayed by them. It was only to be expected, therefore, that
they would be deaf to the popular outcry that had been caused by the
Balfour Education Bill of 1902. But in the very first session of the
Parliament in which the Government had been returned to power by the
immense majority of 354, that they should immediately show their teeth
and claws was, from their own point of view, as events proved, a vital
error. Their second mistake was the rejection in 1908 by a body of
Peers at Lansdowne House of the Licensing Bill, which had occupied many
weeks of the time of the House of Commons. This was rightly regarded as
a gratuitous insult to the House of elected representatives. Finally,
their culminating act of folly was the rejection of the Budget in 1909.
It was an outrageous breach of acknowledged constitutional practise,
which alienated from them a large body of moderate opinion. In addition
to these three notable measures there were, of course, a number of
other Bills on land, electoral, and social reform that were either
mutilated or thrown out during this period. How could any politician in
his senses suppose that a party who possessed any degree of confidence
in the country would tamely submit to treatment such as this? While the
Lords proceeded light-heartedly with their wrecking tactics, the
Liberal Government slowly and cautiously, but with great deliberation,
took action step by step. A provocative move on the part of the Lords
was met each time by a counter-move, and thus gradually the final and
decisive phase of the dispute was reached.
After the loss of the Education Bill of 1906, the first note of warning
was sounded by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. "The resources of the
House of Commons," he declared, "are not exhausted, and I say with
conviction that a way must be found, and a way will be found, by which
the will of the people expressed through their elected representatives
in this House will be made to prevail."
The first mention of the subject in a King's Speech occurred in March,
1907, when this significant phrase was used: "Serious questions
affecting the working of our party system have arisen from unfortunate
differences between the two Houses. My Ministers have this important
subject under consideration with a view to the solution of the
difficulty."
On June 24, 1907, the matter was first definitely brought before the
House. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman moved that "in order to give effect
to the will of the people as expressed by their elected
representatives, it is necessary that the power of the other House to
alter or reject Bills passed by this House should be so restricted by
law as to secure that within the limits of a single Parliament the
final decision of the Commons shall prevail." To the evident surprize
of the Opposition he sketched a definite plan for curtailing the veto
of the House of Lords. This was followed in July by the introduction of
resolutions laying down in full detail the exact procedure. In his
statement Sir Henry made it very clear that the issue was confined to
the relations between the two Houses:--"Let me point out that the plan
which I have sketched to the House does not in the least preclude or
prejudice any proposals which may be made for the reform of the House
of Lords. The constitution and composition of the House of Lords is a
question entirely independent of my subject. My resolution has nothing
to do with the relations of the two Houses to the Crown, but only with
the relations of the two Houses to each other."
In 1908, Mr. Asquith became Prime Minister, but no further action was
taken. On the rejection of the Licensing Bill, however, he showed that
the Government were fully aware of the extreme gravity of the question,
but intended to choose their own time to deal with it. Speaking at the
National Liberal Club in December, he said: "The question I want to put
to you and to my fellow Liberals outside is this: Is this state of
things to continue? We say that it must be brought to an end, and I
invite the Liberal party to-night to treat the veto of the House of
Lords as the dominating issue in politics--the dominant issue, because
in the long run it overshadows and absorbs every other." When pressed
on the Address at the beginning of the following session by his
supporters, who were impatient for action, he explained the position of
the Government: "I repeat we have no intention to shirk or postpone the
issue we have raised.... I can give complete assurance that at the
earliest possible moment consistent with the discharge by this
Parliament of the obligations I have indicated, the issue will be
presented and submitted to the country."
The rejection of the Budget in 1909 led to a general election, in which
the Government's method of dealing with the Lords was the main issue.
The Liberals were returned again, but when the King's Speech was read
some confusion was caused by the distinct question of the relations
between the two Houses being coupled with a suggested reform of the
Second Chamber. This was a departure from the very clear and wise
policy of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and had it been persisted in it
might have broken up the ranks of the Liberal party--very varied and
different opinions being held as to the constitution of a Second
Chamber. But the stronger course was adopted, and the resolutions
subsequently introduced and passed in the House of Commons dealt only
with the veto and were to form the preliminary to the introduction of
the Bill itself.
Just as matters seemed about to result in a final settlement, King
Edward died, and a conference between the leaders of both parties was
set up to tide over the awkward interval. The conference was an
experiment doomed to failure, as the Liberals had nothing to give away
and compromise could only mean a sacrifice of principle. The House met
in November to wind up the business, and the Prime Minister announced
that an appeal would be made to the country on the single issue of the
Lords' veto, the specific proposals of the Government being placed
before the electorate. A Liberal Government was returned to power for
the third time in December, 1910, with practically the same majority as
in January. The Parliament Bill was introduced and passed in all its
stages through the House of Commons with large majorities.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives made no attempt to defend either the
action or composition of the House of Lords, but adopted an apologetic
attitude. They agreed that the Second Chamber must be reformed, and
during the second general election in 1910 some of them declared for
the Referendum as a solution of the difficulty of deadlocks between the
two Houses. But there was an entire absence of sincerity about their
proposals, which were not thought out, but obviously only superficial
expedients hurriedly grasped at by a party in distress. Their reform
scheme, introduced by Lord Lansdowne, was revolutionary, and, at the
same time, fanciful and confused. It was ridiculed by their opponents,
and received with frigid disapproval by their supporters. Still, they
acted as if they were confident that in the long run they could ward
off the final blow. They were persuaded that the Liberal Government
would neither have the courage nor the power to accomplish their
purpose. "Why waste time over abstract resolutions?" asked Mr.
Balfour. "The Liberal party," he said, "has a perfect passion for
abstract resolutions"--and again, "it is quite obvious they do not mean
business." Even when the Bill itself was introduced, they still did not
believe that its passage through the House of Lords could be forced.
The opposition to the Bill was not so much due to hatred of the actual
provisions as fear of its consequences. The prospect of a Liberal
Government being able to pass measures which for long have been part of
their program, such as Home Rule, Welsh Disestablishment, or Electoral
Reform, exasperated the party who had hitherto been secured against the
passage of measures of capital importance introduced by their
opponents. The anti-Home Rule cry and the supposed dictatorship of the
Irish Nationalist leader were utilized to the full, and were useful
when constitutional and reasoned argument failed. At the same time as
much as possible was made of the composite character of the majority
supporting the Government.
Throughout the latter part of the controversy there is little doubt
that the Conservatives would have been in a far stronger position had
they acted as a united party with a definite policy and a strong leader
ready at a moment's notice to form an alternative Government. But they
were deplorably led, they could agree on no policy, and their warmest
supporters in the Press and in the country were the first to admit that
the formation of an alternative Conservative Administration was
unthinkable. Nevertheless, there could be no rival for the leadership.
Mr. Balfour, aloof, indifferent, without enthusiasm, and without
convictions, although discredited in the country and harassed in his
attempts to save his party from Protection, remains in ability,
Parliamentary knowledge, experience and skill, head and shoulders above
his very mediocre band of colleagues in the House of Commons.
The Bill went up to the House of Lords, where Lord Morley, with the
tact and skill of an experienced statesman and the unflinching firmness
of a lifelong Liberal, conducted it through a very rough career. The
Lords' amendments were destructive of the principle, and therefore
equivalent to rejection. But even a few days before those amendments
were returned to the Commons the Conservatives refused to believe that
the passage of the Bill in its original form was guaranteed. When at
last it was brought home to them that, if necessary, the King would be
advised to create a sufficient number of Peers to insure the passage of
the Bill into law, a howl of indignation went up. Scenes of confusion
and unmannerly exhibitions of temper took place in the House of
Commons. A party of revolt was formed among the Peers, and the Prime
Minister was branded as a traitor who was guilty of treason and whose
advice to the King in the words of the vote of censure was "a gross
violation of constitutional liberty."
As a matter of fact, Mr. Asquith was adhering very strictly to the
letter and spirit of the Constitution. Lord Grey, who was confronted
with a similar problem in 1832, very truly said: "If a majority of this
House (House of Lords) is to have the power whenever they please of
opposing the declared and decided wishes both of the Crown and the
people without any means of modifying that power, then this country is
placed entirely under the influence of an uncontrollable oligarchy. I
say that if a majority of this House should have the power of acting
adversely to the Crown and the Commons, and was determined to exercise
that power without being liable to check or control, the Constitution
is completely altered, and the Government of the country is not a
limited monarchy; it is no longer, my Lords, the Crown, the Lords and
Commons, but a House of Lords--a separate oligarchy--governing
absolutely the others."
Had the Prime Minister submitted to the Lords' dictation after two
general elections, in the second of which the verdict of the country
was taken admittedly and exclusively on the actual terms of the
Parliament Bill, he would have basely betrayed the Constitution in
acknowledging by his submission that the Peers were the supreme rulers
over the Crown and over the Commons, and could without check overrule
the declared expression of the people's will. The Lord Chancellor
pointed out the danger in one sentence. "This House alone in the
Constitution is to be free of all control." No doubt the creation of
ten Peers would not have caused such a commotion as the creation of
400, but the principle is precisely the same, and it was only the
magnitude of partizan bias in the Second Chamber that made the creation
of a large number necessary in the event of there being determined
opposition. It was a most necessary and salutary lesson for the Lords
that they should be shown, in as clear and pronounced a way as
possible, that the Constitution provided a check against their attempt
at despotism, just as the marked disapproval of the electorate, as
shown, for instance, in the remarkable series of by-elections in
1903-1905, or by a reverse at a general election, is the check provided
against the arbitrary or unpopular action of any Government. The Peers
were split up into two parties, those who accepted Lord Lansdowne's
pronouncement that, as they were no longer "free agents," there was
nothing left for them but to submit to the inevitable, and those who
desired to oppose the Bill to the last and force the creation of Peers.
The view of the latter section, led by Lord Halsbury, was an expression
of the wide-spread impatience and annoyance with Mr. Balfour's weak and
vacillating leadership. All the counting of heads and the guesses as to
how each Peer would behave afforded much material for sensational press
paragraphs and rather frivolous speculation and intrigue. The action of
any Peer in any circumstance is always supposed to be of national
importance. The vision of large numbers of active Peers was a perfect
feast for the public mind, at least so the newspapers thought. But in
reality the final outcry, the violent speeches, the sectional meetings,
the vituperation and passion were quite unreal and of very little
consequence. One way or the other, the passage of the Bill was secure.
The Vote of Censure brought against the Government afforded the Prime
Minister a convenient opportunity of frankly taking the House into his
confidence. With the King's consent, he disclosed all the
communications, hitherto kept secret, which had passed between the
Sovereign and his Ministers. He rightly claimed that all the
transactions had been "correct, considerate, and constitutional." Mr.
Asquith's brilliant and sagacious leadership impressed even his
bitterest opponents. It only remained for the Lords not to insist on
their amendments. Unparalleled excitement attended their final
decision. The uncompromising opponents among the Unionist Peers, rather
than yield at the last moment, threw over Lord Lansdowne's leadership.
They were bent on forcing a creation of Peers, although Lord Morley
warned them of the consequences. "If we are beaten on this Bill
to-night," he declared, "then his Majesty will consent to such a
creation of Peers as will safeguard the measure against all possible
combinations in this House, and the creation will be prompt." In
numbers the "Die-hards," as they were called, were known to exceed a
hundred, and it was extremely doubtful right up to the actual moment
when the division was taken if the Government would receive the support
of a sufficient number of cross-bench Peers, Unionist Peers, and
Bishops to carry the Bill. After a heated debate, chiefly taken up by
violent recriminations between the two sections of the Opposition, the
Lords decided by a narrow majority of seventeen not to insist on their
amendments, and the Bill was passed and received the Royal assent.
Now that the smoke has cleared off the field of battle, let us state in
a few sentences what the Parliament Bill which has caused all this
uproar really is. It is by no means unnecessary to do this, as those
who take a close interest in political events are, perhaps, unaware of
the incredible ignorance which exists as to the cause and essence of
the whole controversy, especially among that class of society who read
head-lines but not articles, who never attend political meetings, but
whose strong prejudices make them active and influential. The
Parliament Bill, or rather the Act, does not even place a Liberal
Government on an equal footing with a Unionist Government. It insures
that Liberal measures, if persisted in, may become law in the course of
two years in spite of the opposition of the Second Chamber. It lays
down once and for all that finance or money Bills can not be vetoed or
amended by the House of Lords--which, after all, is only an indorsement
of what was accepted till 1909 as the constitutional practise--and it
limits the duration of Parliament to five years. The preamble of the
Bill, which is regarded with a good deal of suspicion by advanced
Radicals, indicates that the reform of the Second Chamber is to be
undertaken subsequently.
This is the bare record of the sequence of events in the Parliamentary
struggle between the two Houses, each supported by one of the two great
political parties. In the course of the controversy the real
significance of the conflict was liable to be hidden under the mass of
detail connected with constitutional law, constitutional and political
history, and Parliamentary procedure, which had to be quoted in
speeches on every platform and referred to repeatedly in debate. The
serious deadlock between the Lords and Commons was not a mere
inconvenience in the conduct of legislation, nor was it purely a
technical constitutional problem. The issue was not between the 670
members of the House of Commons and the 620 members of the House of
Lords, nor between the Liberal Government and the Tory Opposition. The
full purport of the contest is broader and far more vital; it must be
sought deeper down in the wider sphere of our social and national life.
In a word, the rising tide of democracy has broken down another
barrier, and the privileges and presumptions of the aristocracy have
received a shattering blow. This aspect of the case is worth studying.
There could be no conflict of any importance between the two Houses so
long as the Commons were practically nominees of the Lords. At the end
of the eighteenth century no fewer than 306 members of the House of
Commons were virtually returned by the influence of 160 persons,
landowners and boroughmongers, most of whom were members of the other
House. Things could work smoothly enough in these circumstances, as the
two Houses represented the same interests and the same class, and the
territorial aristocracy dominated without effort over a silent and
subservient people.
The Reform Bill of 1832 was the real beginning of the change. By its
provisions not only was the franchise extended, but fifty-six rotten
boroughs, represented by 143 members, were swept away. There was
something more in this than electoral reform. It was the first step
toward alienation between the two Houses. There was a bitter fight at
the time because the Lords foresaw that if they once lost their hold
over the Commons the eventual results might be serious for them. It was
far more convenient to have a subordinate House of nominees than an
independent House of possible antagonists. The enfranchisement and
emancipation of the people once inaugurated, however, were destined to
proceed further. The introduction of free education served more than
anything, and is still serving, to create a self-conscious democracy
fully alive to its great responsibilities, for knowledge means courage
and strength. Changes in the industrial life of the country led to
organization among the workers and the formation of trade-unions. The
extension of local government brought to the front men of ability from
all classes of society, and the franchise became further extended at
intervals. The House of Commons, now completely free and independent,
kept in close touch with the real national awakening and reflected in
its membership the changes in social development. But the House of
Lords, unlike any other institution in the country, remained unchanged
and quite unaffected by outside circumstances. Its stagnation and
immobility naturally made it increasingly hostile to democratic
advance. The number of Liberal Peers or Peers who could remain Liberal
under social pressure gradually diminished. Friction caused by
diversity of aim and interest became consequently more and more
frequent. There were times of reaction, times of stagnation, times when
the national attention was diverted by wars, but the main trend taken
by the course of events was unalterable. The aristocracy, finding that
it was losing ground, made attempts to reenforce itself with commercial
and American wealth, thereby sacrificing the last traces of its old
distinction. Money might give power of a sort--a dangerous power in its
way--but not-power to recover the loss of political domination. The
South African War and the attempt to obliterate the resentment it
caused in the country by instituting a campaign for the revival of
Protection brought about the downfall of the Tory party. The electoral
_débâcle_ of 1906 was the consequence and served as a signal of alarm
in the easy-going Conservative world. Till then many who were
accustomed to hold the reins of government in their hands, as if by
right, had not fully realized that the control was slipping from them.
The cry went up that socialism and revolution were imminent. _The
Times_ quoted _The Clarion_. Old fogies shook their heads and declared
the country would be ruined and that a catastrophe was at hand. But it
was soon found, on the contrary, that the government of the country was
in the hands of men of great ability, enlightenment, and imagination;
trade prospered, social needs were more closely attended to, and, most
important of all, peace was maintained. The House of Commons had opened
its doors to men of moderate means, and the Labor party, consisting of
working men, miners, and those with first-hand knowledge of industrial
conditions, came into existence as an organized political force.
The last six years have shown the desperate attempts of the ancient
order to strain every nerve against the inevitable, and to thwart and
destroy the projects and ambitions of those who represented the new
thought and the new life of the nation. Though apparently successful at
first, the rash action of the Chamber which still represented the
interest, privileges, and prejudices of the wealthier class and of
vested interests, only helped in the long run to hasten the day when
they were to be deprived of their most formidable weapon. They still
retain considerable power: their interests are guarded by one of the
political parties, and socially they hold undisputed sway. In an
amazing defense of the past action of the House of Lords, Lord
Lansdowne in 1906 said: "It is constantly assumed that the House of
Lords has always shown itself obstructive, reluctant, an opponent to
all useful measures for the amelioration of the condition of the people
of this island. Nothing is further from the truth. You will find that
in the past with which we are concerned the House of Lords has shown
itself not only tolerant of such measures but anxious to promote them
and to make them effectual to the best of its ability. _And that, I
believe, has been, and I am glad to think it, from time immemorial, the
attitude of what I suppose I may call the aristocracy toward the people
of this country_" The last sentence is a fair statement of their case.
The aristocracy are _not_ the people. They are by nature a superior
class which Providence or some unseen power has mercifully provided to
govern, to rule, and to dominate. They are kind, charitable, and
patronizing, and expect gratitude and subservience in return. As a
mid-Victorian writer puts it: "What one wants to see is a kind and
cordial condescension on the one side, and an equally cordial but still
respectful devotedness on the other." But these are voices from a time
that has passed.
Democracy has many a fight before it. False ideals and faulty
educational systems may handicap its progress as much as the forces
that are avowedly arrayed against it. Its achievements may be arrested
by the discord of factions breaking up its ranks. Conceivably it may
have to face a severe conflict with a middle-class plutocracy. But
whatever trials democracy has to undergo it can no longer be subjected
to constant defeat at the hands of a constitutionally organized force
of hostile aristocratic opinion. At least, it may now secure expression
in legislation for its noblest ideals and its most cherished ambitions.
A check on progressive legislation is harmful to the national welfare,
especially when there is no check on the real danger of reaction. To
devise a Second Chamber which will be a check on reaction as well as on
so-called revolution is a problem for the future. For the time being,
therefore, the best security for the country against the perils of a
reactionary regime is to allow freer play to the forces of progress,
which only tend to become revolutionary when they are resisted and
suppressed. The curtailment of the veto of the Second Chamber fulfils
this purpose. Whatever further adjustment of the Constitution may be
effected in time to come, the door can no longer be closed persistently
against the wishes of the people when they entrust the work of
legislation to a Liberal Government.