The sun., 1908-06-21

-
of censure made by the leader of the Oppo-
sition. The same result would follow il
an authorized spokesman Of the Ministry
should declare that the matter before the
House would be treated as Cabinet ques-
ton. In other words. the rule Is that Min
listers ought to stand or fall upon their
general policy, upon their whole record or
upon some one question that in permanent
consequence outweighs everything else;
not upon a particular act of secondary
Importance Nevertheless, in the last thirty
years there have been exceptions to this
rule Thus in 1885 an amendment TO the
address was passed expressing regret that
the Queens speech had announced no
measure for the relief of agricultural labor
ers. Under the peculiar state Of parties
then existing Lord Salisbury s Cabinet chose
to take the defeat as q vote Of want Of con-
fidence and resigned.
".
In the chapter on the present relation of
the Cabinet to- the House Of Lords our
author dwells at some length on the pro-
found change in the position of the heredi-
tary chamber which has taken place since
the reform act of 1882. In the old unre-
formed days the two houses were generally
in accord, because both we're controlled by
a territorial arstocracy. whose chief MEM
bers were peers. The land owning element
remained strong in the Commons after the
reform act OF 1882 became operative, but
IL was no longer overmastering and had to
use its authority in more popular spirit.
One result OF the reform act was to demon
strate that an hereditary body could not in
nineteenth century England be the equal
in corporate authority OF a representative
chamber. In other words. it came TO be
recognized that while the House Of Lords
might even on important issues differ in
opinion from the House Of Commons, yet
in such cases persistent desire Of the
nation as expressed in the representative
chamber must in the end prevail.
This. of course, did not mean that the
House Of Lords must submit to everything
that the Commons chose to ordain; that
it was to become a mere fifth wheel Of the
coach. On the contrary, in matters not OF
great importance or as to which the Com
mons were not thoroughly in earnest the
upper house continued to exercise its own
judgment. sometimes in cases that caused
no little friction between the chambers.
Prof. Lowell recalls, for example. that in
1880 the upper house rejected the bill to
repeal the duties on paper; in 1871 it refused
to concur in the abolition Of the purchase
Of commissions in the armv; in 1880 it re-
jected bill TO compensate evicted Irish
tenants. In all these cases the policy OF
the House Of Commons was ultimately car
ried out. and the peers recognized fully that
their action on great measures was tenta-
tive; that they must not 90 too far. and
that II public opinion should be insistent
they must at last give way. To use phrase
here quoted from Mr. Sidney Low: Tho
House OF Lords ever since the struggle
over the great reform bill has been haunted
by suspicion that II exists on sufferance.'
While, as we have said. the House Of
Lords has q will of its own in smaller qies-
tions-and exercises 1t without provoking
vehement complaint-it not unnaturally
arouses strenuous protests when it is OBJ
served that in the great party struggles
that rend the country it throws its weight
wholly on the side Of the Tories and plays
into their hands. Thus from 1892 to 1895,
and again in 1905 and since-the only
two occasions on which the Liberals have
been in Office for SCORE Of years
the House Of Lords has used its power
boldly to trammel the Government That
it has done 30 to help the Unionist party
and not simply from conservative objeo-
ton to change is demonstrated by its
treatment Of the principal measures Of 1908.
Besides the education bill. where the con-
fiiot Of opinion lay very deep. two other
Government measures that excited some
feeling came to it from the Commons. One
of them. the trades disputes bill. which
provided that trade union should not be
liable to lawsuit for any action it might
take during a strike. was on its face a most
radical measure and one to which cham
Der Of conservative temperament might
we'll object; nevertheless the Lords passed
II without amendment. The other measure
to which reference is here made. the plural
voting bill. designed to prevent man from
voting in more than one place, involved no
very profound question Of principle and
made no very far reaching change in Eng
lish institutions. but 1t was a bone OF CON-
tention between the parties because 1t
affected the chance Of election In close
districts. This bill the House Of Lords
summarily rejected. The sifted purport Of
these seeming contradictions Is that the
House Of Lords. while continuing TO express
an opinion Of its own on many matters. has
become for pivotal party questions an in
strument in the hands Of the Tory leaders.
who use il as II IL were bishop or knight
Of their own color on the ohoesboard OF
party politics.
II fs true that Cabinet never thinks Of
resigning on account Of tho hostility Of the
Lords. nor is its position directly affected
by their action. Indirectly, indeed, it may
that the Goysrprnent 10 not really Ia accord