• MR. ASQUITFI AND THE COMMONS. [To THR EDITOR OF
Tfli "SPECTATOR:] Sra,—I do not suppose that Unionists need take much notice of the Prime Minister's recent fulmination against the House of Lords. None of it was very important, or indeed new, as the main threat was delivered (in phraseology equally admirable) by Mr. Gladstone in 1894, and by the late Premier three years ago; and a series of Resolutions have lain unheeded upon the table of the House of Commons for many months past, embodying the machinery by which the Liberal Party and its allies hope to curtail the power and privilege of the Lords. I am anxious to point out that Mr. Asquith is much more jealous for the reputation of the House of Commons in theory than be is in fact. As an effective instrument for debate it has been ruined by the operation of the Closure, which is now as regular a part of procedure as daily prayers or questions. As a legislating body it has been superseded by the Cabinet, which has pushed its power of executive authority to unprecedented lengths. May I give a few examples to show bow utterly the House of Commons has lost the confidence of the Cabinet?— (1) When cattle-driving was at its height in the summer of 1907, Mr. Birrell took no action until the doors of the House of Commons were closed on August 27th. On that evening, without any notice being given to the representatives of the people and without any chance of discussion, the Chief Secretary Issued in the Dublin Gazette the proclamation of six Irish counties under the "ordinary law" of King William IV.
(2) When Mr. McKenna found that he could not penalise certain Church schools in Wales and Yorkshire by an Education Bill, he proceeded against them, behind the back of the House of Commons, by Regulations,—concerning Which the Judges have subsequently had something to say.
(3) When Mr. Asquith was anxious to announce the fact that Home-rule would be a foremost plank in the Liberal platform at the next General Election, he did not so inform the House of Commons, but left it to Mr. Churchill to state at North-West Manchester by-election, where a large number of Irish voters were to be appeased.
(4) When the united brains of the Cabinet decided that non- contribution was to be the basis of old-age pensions, this decision was declared, not upon the floor of the House of Commons, but from the housetops at the Dundee by-election.
(5) When everybody was interrogating the Prime Minister as to his views upon women's suffrage, he declined to answer in the House of Commons, but sent his Chanceller of the Exchequer— like Daniel into the den of lions—to the Albert Hall to deliver his message, which, in a rare flash of silence, he succeeded in doing.
(6) When Mr. Itunciman (another member of the Cabinet) was striving to compose the religious education difficulty, he took counsel, not with the House of Commons, but with a few Non- conformist friends and the Archbishop of Canterbury,—an incursion upon its legitimate sphere of action which the House of Commons resented.
(7) And when the Prime Minister was ready to draw the sword against the House of Lords, he definitely declined to do so in the Parliament over which he presides, but reserved his " momentolm declaration" for a convivial meeting of partisans at the National Liberal Club.
The House of Commons is a thing of the past, whether for pronouncements of policy or for purposes of discussion. It is still allowed the privilege of voting and of deliberating under difficulties, but its real power is gone. And now the Prime Minister is anxious to take power from the House of Lords as well, leaving all authority in the hands of a. Cabinet oligarchy. It is because such retrograde suggestions will never find favour with our progressive people that I do not hold the "great speech" of Friday week to be particularly important. It is, however, essential to restore to the Commons the power that has been usurped from them, not by the Lords, but by the Cabinet.—I am, Sir, &c., LLN Mexconm.
Previous page
