The
really moderating power in a democratic constitution must act in and
through the democratic House.
That there should be, in every polity, a centre of resistance to the
predominant power in the Constitution- and in a democratic
constitution, therefore, a nucleus of resistance to the democracy- I
have already maintained; and I regard it as a fundamental maxim of
government. If any people, who possess a democratic representation,
are, from their historical antecedents, more willing to tolerate
such a centre of resistance in the form of a Second Chamber or House
of Lords than in any other shape, this constitutes a stronger reason
for having it in that shape. But it does not appear to me the best
shape in itself, nor by any means the most efficacious for its object.
If there are two Houses, one considered to represent the people, the
other to represent only a class, or not to be representative at all, I
cannot think that where democracy is the ruling power in society the
Second House would have any real ability to resist even the
aberrations of the first. It might be suffered to exist in deference
to habit and association, but not as an effective check. If it
exercised an independent will, it would be required to do so in the
same general spirit as the other House; to be equally democratic
with it, and to content itself with correcting the accidental
oversights of the more popular branch of the legislature, or competing
with it in popular measures.
Pages:
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277