Proportional Representation | Page 6

by this action compelled
a dissolution of Parliament.[2]

_The demand for complete sovereignty._
These assertions of authority on the part of the House of Lords called
forth from the Commons a fresh demand for complete sovereignty--a
demand based on the ground that the House of Commons expresses the
will of the people, and that the rejection by the hereditary House of
measures desired by the nation's representatives is directly opposed to
the true principles of representative government. In consequence of the
rejection of the Education and Plural Voting Bills of 1906, Sir Henry
Campbell-Bannerman, in June 1907, moved in the House of Commons
the following resolution: "That, in order to give effect to the will of the
people as expressed by their elected representatives, it is necessary that
the power of the other House to alter or reject Bills passed by this
House, should be so restricted by law as to secure that within the limit
of a single Parliament the final decision of the Commons shall prevail."
The first clause of this resolution advances the claim already referred
to--that the House of Commons is the representative and authoritative
expression of the national will--and in support of this claim Sir Henry
Campbell-Bannerman quoted the declaration of Burke, that "the virtue,
the spirit, the essence of the House of Commons consists in its being
the express image of the nation." In the Parliament elected in January
1910, further resolutions were carried by the Commons defining more
precisely the proposed limitation of the legislative power of the Lords.
It was resolved[3] that the House of Lords should be disabled by law
from rejecting or amending a money Bill, and that any Bill other than a
money Bill which had passed the House of Commons in three
successive sessions should become law without the consent of the
House of Lords.
These resolutions were embodied in the Parliament Bill, but the
measure was not proceeded with owing to the death of King Edward,
and a conference between the leaders of the two chief parties met for
the purpose of finding a settlement of the controversy by consent. The
conference failed, and the Government at once took steps to appeal to
the country for a decision in support of its proposals. Meanwhile the
House of Lords, which had already placed on record its opinion that the
possession of a peerage should no longer confer the right to legislate,

carried resolutions outlining a scheme for a new Second Chamber, and
proposing that disputes between the two Houses should be decided by
joint sessions, or, in matters of great gravity, by means of a
Referendum. The result of the appeal to the country (Dec. 1910) was in
favour of the Government. The Parliament Bill was re-introduced, and
this measure, if passed, will mark an important step in the realisation of
the demand of the Commons for complete sovereignty.
_Complete sovereignty demands complete representation._
The Parliament Bill does not, however, contemplate the establishment
of single-chamber Government, and it would appear that complete
sovereignty is only claimed whilst the House of Lords is based upon
the hereditary principle. For the preamble of the Bill declares that "it is
intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a
Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis,"
and that "provision will require hereafter to be made by Parliament in a
measure effecting such substitution for limiting and defining the
powers of the new Second Chamber." But whatever constitutional
changes may take place, the national will must remain the final
authority in legislation, and the ultimate position of the House of
Commons in the constitution and in public esteem will depend upon the
confidence with which it can be regarded as giving expression to that
will. It cannot claim to be the sole authority for legislation without
provoking searching inquiries into the methods of election by which it
is brought into being. At a General Election the citizens are asked to
choose representatives who shall have full power to speak in their name
on all questions which may arise during the lifetime of a Parliament.
But, although invariably there are several important questions before
the country awaiting decision, the elector is usually restricted in his
choice to two candidates, and it is obvious that this limited choice
affords him a most inadequate opportunity of giving expression to his
views upon the questions placed before him. There can be no guarantee
that the decisions of representatives so chosen are always in agreement
with the wishes of those who elected them. Even in the General
Election of December 1910, when every effort was made to concentrate
public attention upon one problem--the relations between the two

Houses of Parliament--the elector in giving his vote had to consider the
probable effect of