on the contrary that the effect will be precisely the opposite. The patrons of the 670 offices will be the local caucuses, which are in many cases largely in the hands of, or influenced by, the central caucus. More than ever will organisation, political management, and wirepulling prevail as against genuine public opinion. That the system will bring working men into Parliament in increased numbers is by no means certain. It is not from their ranks that in other countries professional politicians are mainly chosen.

The Government spokesmen in the House of Lords abstain from every suggestion as to possible improvements in the constitution of either House. Their language imports that they hardly see the situation as it exists. In Lord Morley's speech introducing the Parliament Bill into the Upper House his language suggested to his hearers that he regarded himself and his colleagues as virtually the Legislature! They had received a mandate' to make laws in the shape they pleased, and their submission of bills to independent assemblies was really little better than a form. Again he professed to believe that the opponents of the Parliament Bill were the Peers only neglecting the indisputable fact that behind and supporting the Peers stands a very strong body of public opinion. The House of Lords led by Lord Lansdowne rightly read the bill a second time; but having regard to the intention of the Ministry to give entire Parliamentary Sovereignty in the future to the majority of a single Chamber, they no less wisely set themselves to consider the possibility of introducing safeguards against the abuse of its power.

Lord Lansdowne's amendment brought forward on behalf of the Unionist Party was carried by a majority of 207. The Government could rally no more than 46 supporters, including members of the Ministry, in their lobby against 253 for the amendment. Yet in the last five years of Liberal government 48 Peers have been created. The amendment proposed ran as follows, being an addition to clause 2 of the bill which enables Statutes of the Realm to be passed by the sole authority of a House of Commons majority:

(a) which affects the existence of the Crown or the Protestant succession thereto; or

(b) which establishes a National Parliament or Assembly or a National Council in Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England, with legislative powers therein; or

(c) which has been referred to the Joint Committee (of Lords and Commons, to be set up by an amendment of Lord Cromer's),

and which in their opinion raises an issue of great gravity upon which the judgment of the country has not been sufficiently ascertained,

Shall not be presented to his Majesty, nor receive the Royal Assent under the provisions of this section, unless and until it has been submitted to and approved by the electors in manner hereafter to be approved by Act of Parliament.

Any question whether a Bill comes within the meaning of pars. (a) (b) shall be decided by the Joint Committee.'

Now this proposal for the first time in our history would introduce what is generally the system in democratically governed countries-the provision of special safeguards that great and fundamental changes in the Constitution should not be made without the sanction of public opinion. That surely is a not unreasonable requirement, which only the very exceptionally high character of British Parliaments in the past, and the system of checking one authority by another, has hitherto enabled us to dispense. This amendment, however, rather suggests a future policy to be subsequently carried out, than a mere addition to the Parliament Bill. The means by which the electorate is to be consulted have yet to be created. Another amendment disabling the House of Commons from further diminishing the powers left to the House of Lords, till after a General Election has taken place, was viewed with less hostility by the Government. But it may be said that the Committee stage of the bill was finished without any kind of approach being made by the Government to meeting many of the very real objections made by Lord Lansdowne and his friends.

For the moment the deadlock seems complete. There can be very little doubt that the bill will pass; and though some modifications will probably be made in it, it will be in substance the bill giving effect to the resolutions approved by the last Parliament, which were ratified, as Ministers contend, by the last General Election. This bill having passed the new House of Commons by great majorities, and been read a second time by the House of Lords without a division, has behind it a great weight of authority. And opponents of the measure are hardly reasonable in urging at this time of day that the House of Lords should virtually reject it.

That this bill, however, is more than the opening up of future sweeping changes in our Constitution is hardly thinkable. It behoves our Statesmen to take wider views of the whole of our Parliamentary system. The Hereditary Chamber-the House of Lords-has had its day. Nevertheless we still need

a Second Chamber; and more than ever do we need an improved House of Commons. It cannot be supposed that in its ultimate developement the British Constitution will be found to have lost what was once its principal organ—an independent Legislature; and for effective legislative purposes to consist only of Ministry and Mob.

No. CCCCXXXVIII. will be published in October.

1. Valsolda and other Poems. By ANTONIO FOGAZZARO. Milan. 1898.

2. Ascensioni Umane. By ANTONIO FOGAZZARO. Milan. 1899.

3. Piccolo Mondo Antico. 1895. FOGAZZARO. Leila. 1910.

Il Santo. 1906. By ANTONIO
Milan.

4. Through Scylla and Charybdis. By G. TYRRELL. London. 1907.

5. Mediævalism. By G. TYRRELL. London.

1908.

6. L'Evangile et l'Eglise. Autour d'un petit livre. By the ABBÉ LOISY. Paris. 1903.

7. The Programme of Modernism. London. 1908. And other works.

MODERNISM is a difficult word to define, especially for

Englishmen, for it does not describe an English attitude of mind. It is not the same thing as free thought, because it acknowledges the authority and approves the existing constitution and ritual of the Roman Church, whilst claiming the right of criticism. It is only incidentally that it questions the doctrine or practice of the Church. It does not, like Protestantism, take its stand upon the Bible. It does not start from a scheme of philosophy, as the Encyclical of Pius X. assumes that it does; for criticism requires no philosophical presupposition, but takes the results of Biblical and historical research, and says to the Church, 'What do you make of these 'facts ?

* All rights reserved.

VOL, CCXIV. NO. CCCCXXXVIII.

T