Here are some thoughts on the reform of England’s House of
Lords by the English political philosopher L.T. Hobhouse, first published in his
book Liberalism (1911). They are quite pertinent to the
possible reform of the Canadian Senate.
What we need, then, is
an impartial second chamber distinctly subordinate to the House of Commons, incapable
of touching finance and therefore of overthrowing a ministry, but able to
secure the submission of a measure either to the direct vote of the people or
the verdict of the second chamber – the government of the day having the choice
between alternatives. Such a chamber
might be instituted by direct popular election.
But the multiplication of
elections is not good for the working of democracy, and it would be difficult
to reconcile a directly elected house to a subordinate position. It might, therefore, as an alternative, be
elected on a proportional system by the House of Commons itself, its members
retaining their seats for two Parliaments.
To bridge over the change half of the chamber for the present Parliament
might be elected by the existing House of Lords, and their representatives
retiring at the end of this Parliament would leave the next House of Commons
and every future House of Commons with one-half of the chamber to elect. This Second Chamber would then reflect in
equal proportions the exiting and last House of Commons, and the balance
between parties should be fairly held.
This chamber would have ample power of securing reasonable amendments
and would also have good ground for exercising moderation in pressing its
views. If the public were behind the
measure it would know that in the end the House of Commons could carry in its
teeth, whether by referendum or by renewed vote of confidence at a general
election. The Commons, on their side,
would have reasons for exhibiting a conciliatory temper. They would not wish to be forced either to
postpone or to appeal. As to which
method they went to the country with a series of popular measures hung up and
awaiting their return for ratification, they would justly feel themselves in a
strong position.[1]
[1]
L.T. Hobhouse, Liberalism, intro. by
Alan P. Grimes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 125, 126.
No comments:
Post a Comment