the sense that never before had their old position been taken up so
nakedly, so brazenly, and so uncompromisingly.

It is true that we have an excuse put before us with much suavity of
language in these debates--we are told that the House of Lords seeks
to interpret the will of the people, and it is explained that by "the
will of the people," what is meant is the persistent, sub-conscious
will, as opposed to any articulate expression of it. The right hon.
gentleman who leads the Opposition told us that what he meant by the
persistent will was the will of the people expressed continuously over
a period of thirty years. That is what he called "democracy properly
understood."

Having regard to that part of the question which concerns the issue
between the two Houses, we repudiate emphatically the claim of the
other House to what the French call _faire l'ange_--to "play the
angel," to know better than the people themselves what the people
want, to have a greater authority to speak in the name of the people
than their representatives sent to Parliament by the elaborate process
I have described. To dispute the authority of a newly elected
Parliament is something very like an incitement to violence on the
part of the other House. The noble Lord[6] laughs; but we are anxious
to convince him and his friends that we are in earnest. We go through
all the processes which the Constitution prescribes, we produce an
enormous majority, and we express the opinion of that majority, but
still the noble Lord and other noble Lords, less intelligent, but more
remote, tell us that they are not convinced. What steps do they
suggest that we should take in order to bring home to them the
earnestness of our plea? What steps do they suggest that the people
should take in order to assert their wishes? I hold entirely by what I