17 JULY 1897, Page 7

THE PEERS AND THE COMPENSATION BILL.

ANTE do not suppose that Lord Londonderry and his supporters among the mineowners, Radical and Conservative, will succeed in makin,-, the Peers destroy the Compensation Bill, and with it the Unionist Govern- ment; but it seems more than likely that they will do their best to obtain that result. The Bill will come before the House of Lords next week, and there is undoubtedly need for vigilance on the. part of those who have at heart the best interests of the Unionist party. We say that we do not believe that Lord Londonderry and his friends will succeed, because, after all, the Peers, though liable to be frightened by cries of " property in danger," "terrible blow to a great industry," and so on, are sensible men, and know that it is not their business to obstruct legislation of which the country approves. Besides they are most of them men of the world, and are therefore disinclined to take too seriously the efforts of a young Peer of considerable activity, and also ability, who, finding himself without the cares of office and unoccupied directly with great affairs, is anxious to show the world that he is not idle, but can take a leading part in the solution of important political problems. The Peers, too, do not like making themselves ridiculous, and they would come very near to doing that if they upset the business of the Government at the bidding of Lord Londonderry. The Peers have lately grown very much in public esteem. It is, indeed, not too much to say that the House of Lords enjoys now more public confidence than at any other time in the Queen's reign. This is a position which the Peers naturally value, and we do not believe that they will throw it away for a whim. Still, there is always the danger that the rural Peers may be whipped up to vote by the declaration that a great industry is going to be ruined by unwise interference, and that the men who as a rule do not trouble to leave their old manors and halls for a debate in the Lords may overbear the regular attendants of the House, and may, through a mistaken view of the situation, defeat the judgment of the political Peers. The senatorial Peers have plenty of political instinct, and may be trusted to do nothing rash, nothing that will discredit the House or injure its position in the country. The rural Peers, though the majority of them, we readily admit, are by no means illiberal or prejudiced people, may conceivably be hurried into foolish and ill-considered action. If they could be given time, and be made to really understand the objects and results of the Bill, we should have no fear. If, however, they rush up to vote in force on a special amendment, such as the exclusion of the mining industry, we are not satisfied that a grave injury may not be done both to the Government and to the position of the House. We would therefore urge on these independent Peers most strongly the need for grave and careful consideration of the course to be adopted by them when they are asked, as it now seems certain they will be asked, to mutilate the Government Bill.

The first thing that the Peers have to consider is the effect on the Government of adverse action on the Bill. It the Bill is defeated by the passing of amendments which the Cabinet hold to be destructive to the Bill, it appears to us that the Government will be forced to reconsider their position. They have made the Bill the chief legislative work of the present Session, and con- sidering their Parliamentary ill - luck last year, they simply cannot afford to let it either be postponed or passed in a mutilated form. If, then, the Peers refuse to pass it in the form the Ministry consider essential, the Government must either resign and allow their opponents to dissolve, or themselves dissolve at once. But a Dissolution under such circumstances would be almost certain to mean a defeat for the Unionist Government. The country does not understand fine issues, and we venture to say that it would entirely fail to comprehend a Unionist campaign against the Lords. What the electors would say to themselves would be some- thing of this kind The House of Lords is making a bother again, and this time about a Bill that ought to be passed, for it does the fair thing by the British workman. Very well; but if the Lords have got to be taught a lesson, the proper people to teach it them are their old enemies the Radicals. It isn't sense to put Lord Salisbury and the Tories on a job like that. They mean well, but it's clear they aren't up to the mark, or they'd have managed somehow or other to stop the Peers before now. The only way is to put in the other side and see what they can do.' This might be very poor logic, but depend upon it, it would be the logic which would be meted out by the electors under the circumstances we are supposing. The ruin of the Unionist Government must follow on the destruction of a measure such as the Work- men's Compensation Bill. But surely the Peers cannot want to produce such a result. Even those who think that Sir Matthew White Ridley and Mr. Chamberlain go too far cannot desire to exchange them for Mr. Asquith and Sir William Harcourt. When we consider, too, the effects abroad and in Ireland that would be wrought by the return of a Home-rule Ministry, it seems incredible that any section of Unionist Peers can wish to produce such a result. Wo do not, of course, wish to argue that these sort of fears ought to be used to induce the Peers to swallow any and every measure that may be sent up to them. They would be quite right to reject such a notion, and to declare that they have a legislative duty which mayhave to be carried out without any thought of the consequences. There are, no doubt, Bills which the House of Lords ought to throw out at whatever cost to their party or to the Government they support. Their prime business, indeed, is to see that no important Bill is slipped through, as it were, behind the backs of the electors, and no revolution wrought by a side- wind. Say, for example, that a female suffrage measure were to get through the House of Commons. The Lords would under such circumstances be fully justified in insist- ing upon a direct vote by the constituencies and in disregard- ing any thought of the consequences upon the Conservative party or Government. But no one can possibly pretend that the Compensation Bill is a measure of this kind. It is a Bill upon which the country has been amply con- sulted, and upon which it is clear that the vast majority of the electors are agreed. Practically there is no opposi- tion to the Bill, except on behalf of a group of mine- owners. The rest of the great employers have accepted the Bill almost as heartily as the workmen. The Bill cannot, then, possibly be described as a measure which the House of Lords is bound to refer to the constituencies, either in whole or in part. But perhaps we shall be told that none of these dreadful consequences would occur to the Conservative party, and that, putting things at the worst, all that woad happen would be that the Liberal Unionist Members of the Cabinet would receive a snub, and be forced to retire. Let no one be so foolish as to cherish this delusion, for delusion it is. In the first place, the Government, even if it wanted to, could not shed its Unionist Members without destruc- tion. But as it happens, that question need not be considered, and for this very sufficient reason. Though Mr. Chamberlain is the parent of the Bill, its warmest supporters in the House of Commons are not Liberal Unionists but Conservatives. There is not the slightest shadow of foundation for the notion that its advocates in the House belong to the smaller wing of the Unionist party. In all probability, indeed, it is rather more popular with the Tories, for many of the Liberal Unionist Members have still something of the old Whig dislike of social legislation. Again, this precious theory that the defeat of the Bill need only mean a blow to the Liberal Unionists is negatived by the fact that the present Cabinet is one of the most loyal and united Administrations that has ever held office. The notion that Mr. Chamberlain and his Bill could be deserted by his colleagues if it got under too heavy a fire in the Lords is simply ridiculous. Lord Salisbury, Mr. Balfour, Sir Matthew White Ridley, and the rest of the Cabinet are gentlemen as well as politicians, and they will be absolutely loyal to their friend and colleague. Because things were so " uncomfortable " in the last Home-rule Cabinet, people must not imagine that all Cabinets are torn by ill-feel i g.

The effect of the destruction of the Bill on the Unionist party and on the Unionist Government would be bad, but the effect on the House of Lords itself would, we venture to think, be even more disastrous. The Unionist party would in time recover.—not so the House of Lords. If the House of Lords were to show the levity and the want of consideration and of savoir (sire which would characterise them were they to destroy the Compensation Bill, the country would never take them seriously again. The man in the street would be sure to say, If they can't get on with either the Home-rulers or the Unionists, who can they get on with ? ' and would ask, ' What is to be done with a body which won't let us have either a Home-rule or a Unionist Ministry ? ' An unfair way of putting the matter no doubt, but still the way it would be put. Unquestionably the House of Lords would suffer most seriously in public esteem if it were to destroy the present Bill, and to decide that a Bill that was not too advanced for Lord Salisbury and his colleagues or for the majority of the employers was too advanced for it. Everything that the House of Lords gained when it defeated-the Home-rule revolution would be lost by wrecking the Compensation Bill. But the majority of the Peers are capable Englishmen, and free from any doctrinaire bias, and we therefore believe that they have only to think the matter out to come to the conclusion that if the Government insist on the Bill remaining unmutilated it must pass. Even those who think the Bill is risky will see that the risks in the other direction are infinitely greater. Given, then, that matters are not rushed, and that the Peers have proper time for consideration and consultation, we do not believe that they will run their heads into Lord Londonderry's trap.