El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1910-12-12
TINE Liberal party does not desire

THE Liberal party does not desire
the reform of the house |
of lords. 1t Will be pleas
ed with nothing less than the /
practical abolition OF that body 1t |
is willing that the house of lords should /
continue in existence as a historical |
monument to the memory of the British |
that was, and that it should also serve
some slight useful purpose as check |
on the impetuosity of the commons, /
bait 1T is unwilling to continue the
lords as a coordinate branch of the law /
making power.
That is the intent of the socalled |
veto bill. which provides that any !
measure three times passed by the |
house of commons in period of not |
less than two years shall become a |
law even without the assent of the up |
per chamber. This means that a Lib
eral ma jOrity could pass an Irish home |
rule bill, pass il once, twice, thrice, and /
that then Ireland would have home
rule despite every lord in Burkes peer
age. Unless this veto bill is passed the
commons may grant Ireland home rule
a hundred times and the bill always
will die, in the house. What is true OF
home rule is equally true of nearly ev-
cry cardinal principle of the Liberal
policy, education reform, church re-
form, license reform. electoral reform,
social reform, and all the rest
Says Farce Must End.
Therefore the Liberal party decided,
in the language of Mr.. Asquith, that
there was no need of keeping up the
farce any longer. The question must be
decided. The overwhelming Conserva-
tive majority in the house of lords
makes any hope of agreement betwee.i
the upper chamber and a Liberal ma
jority in the commons absolutely i'm
possible. If the people choose to elect
Liberal majority the Liberal leaders
contend that the Liberal government
should have the power to make it's
promises effective. That power they do
! not now possess.
This is what the veto bill means. II
it is passed the house of lords will con-
tinue to exist in form as an upper
chamber of the legislature but IN fact
it will have only advisory and dilatory
powers 1t may hang up a piece OF
legislation for two years. but it cannot
do more than suggest amendments TO
It, The lords cannot bring about
dissolution on it. They may advise and
| delay-nothing more. II the house OF
| commons persists and passes the same
measure three times in a period of not
| less than two years, then the bill will
become a law.
Cuts Down Psrliament's Time.
The life of a parliament now Is limit
| ed to seven years, so that the electors
are guaranteed a chance once in seven
years to express thir opinion OF the
| government. whether there is DISCO
| luton or not In practice no parlia-
| ment ever has lived out its seven years.
| The new veto bill however, shortens
\ the life of a parliament to five years
so that in the future a general election
| must take place at least once In i've
years This provision was made to
reduce the temptation Of the commons
to abuse its practically supreme power
| in the event the veto dill becomes law.
! The Liberals were accused in the
1 campaign of inconsistency because
they refused utterly to have anything
! to do with the various reform schemes
| proposed by the opposition From a
! political standpoint the Liberals had
great justification for their refusal TO
recognize the potentiality of the word
/ reform" With Characteristic English
/ direction the Liberals preferred the
; substance rather than the shadow or
reform and they knew that the best
way to reform the house of lords in
1 fact was to let it alone and deprive 1t
| of it's power to do mischief in the way
of thwarting the will of the people.
The Liberals held that to reform
| the lords, to abolish the exclusive he
! redftary principle ana 10 TeccilSlilulc
the body on a basis making even the
! slightest concession to modern democ-
| racy would result in a tremendous in
crease in the prestige of the upper
| body. They saw that reformed house
| of lords would be able to participate
| in legislation on equal terms with the
| commons just as the senate OF the
| United States is exactly coordinate with
the house of representatives in the
| American congress
Then. as there was no reason to be-
lieve that the proposed reform" would
/ change the character, personal or polit-
ical. of the upper chamber, the day
/ when Liberal ideas might become law
would be indefinitely postponed. prob
ably beyond the day of an actual revo-
tuition. The United States senate Is IN
directly responsible and every member
of it must be reelected at least once IN
six years The house of lords, even as
| reconstructed according to the Roseber-
| nv plan, would be mostly composed OF
| hereditary peers chosen by other hered-
itary peers of bishops and other Off
| GERS sitting exofficio and of few
! persons elected in some vague manner
from the outside. 1t is possible in the
| United States to change the poIitlcai
complexion of the senate; In Great
! Britain 1t would be impossible to
change the politics of the great ma
jority of the upper chamber under the
Roseb erry-Lansdowne n TO m
| schemes.
| Is Now Discredited.
At the present time the house OF
| lords is more or less discredited and 1t
| finds ii more and more difficult with
the passing years to stop the progress
of the democratic will of the nation
| For that reason, and that reason only,
the Tories are for reform" and the
Radicals are against It.
1t must be admitted that as long as
the legislative problems OF Great Bnit-
ain were purely political the house OF
lords generally proved itself to be quite
as trustworthy as the house or COM
| mons. whose members were elected
more or less directly by the people On
the other hand it must also be admit
ted that when the legislative problems
! of Great Britain began TO take on a
social aspect. as we'll as political, the
lords proved to be too short sighted
and too narrow for their own or their
country's good 1t is the fault of the
house of lords that the house or lords
today is in danger of extinction and