1899.] Beform of the House of Lords. [25
servatives on such a question, and consequently held aloof from the division, in which the amendment was defeated by only 34 votes— 157 to 123.
The grievances of Wales were more summarily disposed of (Feb. 13), and although they were championed by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman on the ground that no proposed legisla- tion had followed on the reports of the royal commissions on Welsh agriculture and Sunday closing, yet the House by 194 to 144 votes endorsed Sir M. White Bidley's view that except under very special circumstances separate legislation for Wales was not desirable.
Much greater interest was aroused by Mr. Labouchere's ■effort to restrict the powers of the House of Lords. His proposal was that the Upper House should be allowed to reject a bill once ; but, if the same bill were passed unaltered by the Commons in the following session, it should become law. It was interesting to find that no definite views on this subject were held by the Radical party. Mr. Mendl (Plymouth) and Mr. Cawley (Prestunch, Lancashire) supported Mr. Labouchere ; hut Mr. Lawson Walton (Leeds, S.) desired to substitute a more general way of mending the House of Lords by declaring that the power it possessed to overrule the decisions of the Commons demanded the attention of Parliament. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman (Stirling Bwrghs) at once avowed his distinct preference for Mr. Lawson Walton's amendment over Mr. Labouchere's proposal, inasmuch as the latter had among other defects that of inviting the Queen's action which would be absolutely illegal. He wished to see the Lords' veto abolished, not so much on the grounds of party expediency, but because he regarded it as likely in some time of political excitement to bring about a constitutional crisis which could not but be dangerous to the State. He desired to maintain, as against the Lords, the rights of the representative Chamber, but at the same time he would leave the Lords a sufficient share of their ancient constitutional powers. Mr. Balfour, in reply, pointed out that the proposal would place everything in the State at the mercy of the House of Commons, including the nation, to which do appeal would be allowed. He insisted that the House of Lords had done the country great service by rejecting measures which had never been brought forward again ; and, by delaying measures, for which the country was not ripe, it had prevented violent reactions. The House of Lords was very amenable to public opinion, and would not resist any reform which should be called for by the people a second time ; but the existence of some constitutional machinery by which the constituencies could again be asked to reconsider their position was not only expedient, but an absolute essential of any healthy community. The divisions which then took place showed a somewhat curious result, for whilst Mr. Lawson Walton's amendment was negatived by 257 to 107 votes, Mr. Labouchere'a less
