The introduction of the Referendum would counteract some of the disadvantages of the present system; but there is one which it would only exaggerate. It would diminish still further the importance of the debates in Parliament, as a reconciling and sobering influence, and throw the ultimate decision more and more into the hands of 'immoderate persons far from the scene ofaction.' And, in any case, from my own point of view, it would not be sufficient, by itself, to remove the disadvantages of government by a single representative House. It would ensure, no doubt, so far as machinery could do it, the prevalence of the will of the majority; and from the standpoint of a democrat that is all that is to be desired. But, for my own part, I am not a democrat, and have no desire to see the democratic theory prematurely applied in its completeness. I think that points may easily arise, and those of the utmost importance, on which it would not be desirable that the 'will of the people,' even if it had been ascertained, should be obeyed. The unity and the security of the nation appear to me to stand above any temporary expression of the national will; nor do I understand how anyone can be regarded as in any sense the friend of the people, who is so pedantically set upon their doing what they like that he does all he can to facilitate their suicide. On the contrary, I believe there may be occasions when it would be the duty of any minority, having the

power, deliberately and obstinately to thwart the 'will of the people.' Suppose, for example, that a majority composed mainly of wage-labourers should declare in favour of a universal eight-hours' day, in the face of a minority including all the political economists and the intelligent and active business managers; or suppose that a majority composed of people who have never been out of England should vote for the introduction of the democratic principle into the government of India, in the teeth of the opinion of all Indian experts; in any such case, or in cases less extreme on the same lines, even supposing the majority to have voted fairly by Referendum, I should think it essential that they should not be allowed to have what they want; and, should consider those to be the patriots and statesmen who would do their best by every means in their power to thwart and oppose the realisation of the national will.' Such examples, it may be said, are forced and improbable. I think, myself, that they may serve to suggest real possibilities. But however that may be, if we return to the point from which this whole discussion started, the tendency to a political division of the nation into the rich and the poor, it appears to me not unreasonable to anticipate that, under the government of a single representative House, economic measures might be adopted by the majority which were neither sound in themselves nor fair to the present holders of property. I do not think that the sanc

tion of such measures by a direct reference to the people would make it desirable and safe that they should pass into law; and I therefore consider it essential to retain an upper House with power not only to revise but to veto bills passed by the Commons.

It is said sometimes that on really important questions it would be impossible for any nonelected House to resist the will of the people, deliberately expressed, however disastrous the decision at which they might have arrived. I should doubt whether the popular will, except under very exceptional circumstances, is ever so rigid and final in its choice as this objection appears to presuppose. The intervention of a second chamber which had any title to respect would be in itself a modifying factor on opinion; for if there are some whom opposition confirms in their views, there are others whom it induces to reconsider them; and there are many, and these perhaps the most valuable members of the State, who would rather acquiesce in a defeat than invite a revolution. And especially would this be the case if it were recognised that the minority was a compact and powerful body, far more important for their real capacity and weight than their merely numerical inferiority might seem to suggest. Under such conditions I see no reason why a competent Upper House should not be strong enough, in a really critical case, either to override

altogether the popular decision or to compel some reasonable compromise.

The position, then, to which I am driven, as the result of these considerations, is briefly as follows. To abolish the veto of the Upper House, while leaving the representative machinery unreformed, would be an absurdity even from the democratic point of view. For the House of Commons does not and cannot fairly represent the people; and any Second Chamber, however bad, would be better than none, when the alternative is the supremacy of the majority of a body of delegates returned more or less by accident, and imbued with the unfortunate idea that they have received a mandate to carry into law a whole series of measures, not one of which has been fairly and singly presented to the electorate. On the other hand, to propose the political annihilation of the Upper House under the condition that the machinery of the Referendum should be introduced, would be at least an intelligible policy. It would not, however, be one which personally I should be prepared to accept, because I do not believe the time is ripe for an uncompromising application of the democratic ideal. I should, therefore, propose to retain the Upper House, with all its present powers, and to make it as good a House as possible.

For that if we are to have an Upper House at all it must be the House of Lords, reformed or

unreformed, appears to me to be an axiom of practical politics. I cannot imagine that it would be possible, and I certainly do not think it would be desirable, to create any sort of brand-new second chamber, whether on an electoral or any other basis. The only real question appears to be whether the House of Lords can and ought to be reformed.

Let us examine the objections that may be brought against its present constitution. The first and most fundamental of these is that it is based on the principle of heredity. That is a principle which cannot, I think, in theory be defended, though it has two great advantages: the first, that it is respected in the country; the second, that it is free from the particular defects which attach to the principle of popular election. Personally, however, I should be perfectly prepared to welcome its abolition, and the substitution of life peerages.

The second objection is, in my opinion, a more serious one-that the House of Lords is, in effect, a House of landlords. For although, as I have indicated, I do not think it has been made out that their action has been commonly dictated by the narrow spirit of a class, and although I believe the landed aristocracy to be far more generous and public-spirited than the commercial plutocracy which is thrusting them aside, yet I think it a serious evil, when questions of property are coming

N