New-York tribune., 1906-12-13
LORDS, CommoNs AND THREE BILLS.

The British government, we are told has de-
cided to reject all the amendments made by the
| Opposition peers TO the Education bill If the
! peers persist in their amendments the bill will
! be killed. But instead of making All appeal TO
the country in q election, it is expected that
! the government will content itself with prepar-
! ing a new bill and introducing it al the next
! session. Clam0r for an immediate ending or
| mending' of the House Of Lords Will amount TO
little for the constitutional right of the peers to
amend bill is unquestonabIe and even thus
To cause the defeat of a bill which is up for the
! first time and for which there has been pop
/ ular mandate at the pols-As the peers insist,
! is the case with Mr.. BrrelIs 1t is quite within
/ the bounds of expectation that the peers will
similarly deal with the new bill next session.
unless lis terms are satisfactory 70 them, and
/ will continue doing until q general election
! indicates the will of the nation on the subject.
At the same time it is announced that the
/ House of Lords will not oppose, but will ap-
! prove, the Trades Disputes bill. which annuls
! the famous Taft Vale Judgment and puts labor
! organizations in a special class by themselves.
/ enjoying privileges and mmunites which no
/ other corporations and individuals enjoy,
/ There can be little doubt that this measure is
/ aS obnoxious 10 the peers. or 10 most of them
/ rs The Education bill. But IT, or its essential
! principle. WAS direct issue at the last general
/ election. and the polling indicated an unmis-
/ taxable popular mandate for its Enactment To
/ that mandate the peers bow. and accordingly
/ they accept bill which, in the absence Of such
/ au expression of popular VIII. they would prob
/ ably reject. Thus in rejecting one bill and ac-
cepting the other they are pursuing an entirely
consistent and logical course although it is one
! which the government will regard with extreme
disfavor.
third bill. passed by the government in the
! House Of Commons. has just been rejected by
| the peers 10 wit the bill ab0lishing plural vot-
! ing and providing for a system of "one man. one
/ vote. On this. as on the Education bill there
! has been no popular mandate and 50 the peers
| feel free 10 defeat it. Yet il is to be believed
! that they approve its principle. and would have
been glad 10 enact #. had it been complete
/ Their objection TO il that it dealt with only
! one phase of the question and Justice required
! the other phase 10 be dealt with at the same
time. "One man. one vote" is a sound prin-
ciDle. but so is that Of "One vote. one value
At present there Is the grossest inequality in
the value Of votes. those in some constituencies
having more than ten times the value of those
IN others The theory of the peers is that :
plural voting is 10 be abolished there should at
The same time be reappOrtionment of constit-
uencieS. making them approximately uniform in
population instead of having 1900 voters elect
one member in one place, while it takes 10000
10 DO 50 in another. To give one representative
10 the 1927 electors of Kilkenny City. while the
2t''GS OF Harrow have only one, certainly seems
to be at least as inequitable to give one ballot
to one electOr and two TO another Indeed. it
Is equivalent to giving seventeen or eighteen
ballots TO one eector. while another has only
one 1t is 10 be expected that the necessity of
correcting these inequalities in representation
{ VIII soon appeal with force 10 British statesmen
OF all parties. Meantime the peers do a public
service in calling attention TO il through their
rejection of the Plural Voting bill