New-York tribune., 1906-12-02
NO PARLIAMENTARY IMPASSE.

The nominal and to some extent real con-
hct between Lords and Commons over the
Education bill continues at Westminster. WIN
occasional intimations of possible resort to eX-
trcme measures. Each side seems quite conn
dent that it is IN the right The LORDS uh-
hesitatingly declare that the bill as it came 10
them from the Commons was entirely unwork-
able and the Commons with equal assurance
affirm that the bill as the Lords have now
altered it is entirely unworkable, and each
house affects to regard any recession from its
own ground as altogether out of the question
There is beyond doubt a comprehensive ana
radical difference between the bill as the Com
mons sent it TO the Lords and the bill as the
Lords are returning it To the Commons. OBJ
viousy then. if the bill is to he enacted, one
of two things must happen, Either one house
must yield to the other. or both must yield so
as to meet somewhere on the midway ground
of compromise.
There are two methods of reaching an agree
ment One is that of conference, the other Of
correspondence. The former is now rarely
practlsed. We believe it is nearly fifty years
since the last instance of it, and seeing that
1t involves, according to ancient custom, the
constructive humiliation Of the Commons, in
being required to wait upon the Lords at the
latter's pleasure, and to stand uncovered while
the Lords sit with their hats on their heads, 1t
is scarcely likely to be revived at the present
time. The other method. by correspondence
or interchange Of written messages, Is the one
preferred. and In the vast majority OF
cases 1t is effective in bringing about an agree
ment. We may assume that 1t will be applied
in the present case, and 1t is not visionary TO
expect that it will prove effective.
At any rate. there can be no jmpdSSe, no stop
ping the general processes Of government If
the Lords insist upon their amendments to the
BILL and the Commons refuse to accept them,
the bill will fail of enactment. The Commons
cannot. of course. make it law without the
concurrence of the Lords, and they cannot CO.
cree the Lords. They may talk. OF some OF
their most radical members may talk. about
lending or mending" the House Of Peers, but
the constitution of the kingdom provides no
means Of doing that without the assent and
cooperation Of the very chamber with which
it is proposed thus to deal We may dismiss
all fancies of any strenuous revolution now
as we did when the Lords blocked the passage
of the Home Rule bill. If, unfortunately, no
agreement is reached concerning the Educa-
ton BILL one of three courses Will be open 10
the government. 1t may pack" the upper
chamber by creating enough new peers TO give
that body Liberal majority. There is prece-
dent for doing so, but it is scarcely conceivable
that it will be followed at this time. The more
approve it on principle. and the more radical
members would not wish to stultify them
selves by resorting TO the very instrumentality
which they have been denouncing and OF which
they have demanded the abolition. The second
course will be to dissolve Parliament and make
direct and immediate appeal TO the country.
If In such case a strong Liberal majority were
again returned, the Lords would probably ac-
cept that fact a popular mandate for the
Commons bill and would acquiesce in it's en-
actment. But there would be much reluctance
on the part of many Liberals to adopt that
course, partly because they would not want to
subject the nation so soon to the cost and dis
turbance of another general election, and partly
because many of them would reasonably fear
they might not be reelected. The third course.
which seems the most likely to be pursued,
would be that which was chosen by Mr.. Glad
stone in his last contest with the Lords
namely, to let the controverted bill lapse into
allegiance and go on with other legislative work,
postponing the final battle to a more convenient
season