THE AUTOMATIC THEORY.
LTO THE EDITOR Or THE "SPECT1TOR.1
you permit a humble member of the rank and file of the Conservative Party—albeit a very old Parliamentary hand who has been a diligent student of Constitutional history and law for something like half a century—to enter a warm protest against your theory of the " automatic " action of the Crown in accepting or rejecting the advice of its responsible Ministers P I am old enough to remember the time when Queen Victoria, with the full assent of every Consti- tutional authority, practically dismissed the most popular man in England, Lord Palmerston, from his office of Foreign Secretary because he had taken for granted this " automatic " action of the Crown in a matter of far less importance than the subversion of our Constitution and the degradation of our social system.
It seems to me that you confuse "may" and " ma st." It is, of course, quite true t hat " the King can do no wrong," and if the Crown judges it to be right and constitutional to accept :the advice of its Ministers on any particular matter, its action 'is ipso facto Constitutional, and it cannot be blamed, however, corrupt or flagitious that advice may prove to have been : it is the Minister who will have to be impeached. So far you are right.
But it is a very different thing to say that the Crown " must " accept that advice, though it may appear to be both ( corrupt and flagitious. No one who has any close acquaint- ance with the history of the last three reigns—or even such an acquaintance as may be obtained from the numerous ;diaries, letters, reminiscences, and similar records of the period, such as Queen Victoria's " Letters," the " Greville Memoirs," and others—can hold that idea for one moment. Moreover, it is quite certain that the absolute reality of the discretionary lowers of the Crown has been maintained in regard to the granting of honours and the appointment to certain offices more definitely than in any other direction, especially in cases in which considerations of morality, as distinguished from religion, are involved. It would be invidious to particularise, but more cases than one are notorious. And it cannot be denied. that, throughout the reigns of Queen Victoria and .King Edward VII., public opinion has altogether approved the action of the Crown in this respect.
It is idle to pretend any analogy whatever between the circumstances of to-day and those of 1831-32.
Then there was a general uprising of public opinion throughout the country, in every class and in every county, even more marked in England than in the Celtic fringe. There was no question, no suggestion even, of corrupt " understandings " — whether called " bargains " or " no bargains "—between Ministers desirous of office and factions desirous of obtaining political power by wrecking the Con- stitution. The demand for a coup d'etat to be executed at the bidding of Ministers, and the resistance to it, were alike national movements; and the Crown had to consider, and did consider (for we now know all the negotiations), whether that demand had behind it the overwhelming majority of the nation ; and there was no doubt whatever about the fact that it was so. The coup d'etat that was asked for was in itself a minute one : it simply turned a very large minority in the Second Chamber into a very small majority. It in no way whatever affected the social life of the country. Mr. Asquith has himself recommended the creation of nearly as many Radical peers, many of whom are now practi- cally good Conservatives. And, lastly, the condition of the country was such that the Crown had practically to choose between the small and comparatively insig- nificant coup d'etat and the imminent probability of civil war. We all know with what extreme doubt and reluctance Lord Grey and Lord Brougham—both honourable English statesmen—timidly suggested the former alternative, and how eagerly and sincerely they both sought to find some other way out ; indeed, Lord Brougham long afterwards intimated a doubt whether the actual creation would ever have been carried out in any case.
To-day the circumstances are absolutely different in every respect. The anxiety for the Parliament Bill is entirely con- fined to Radical, Nationalist, and Socialist politicians. In the last two elections, since the bare was started by the Govern- ment at the dictation of Mr. Redmond, there has been an enormous turn-over of votes, not for, but against, the Govern- ment; so that it requires much impudence to suggest that the people are in favour of the Bill, and it is simply silly to pretend that they are in any way excited about it. Through- out England there is a considerable majority who look upon the "deal " between the Government and the Irish Nationalists as altogether corrupt and disgraceful : even in the Celtic fringe there is a majority of the same way of thinking in the Universities and among the educated classes. It is admitted by every honest person that the creation of 500 puppet-peers would degrade our social system, and make it the laughing- stock (instead of, as now, the envy) of the civilised world. It is hard to understand how any reputable British statesman can ask the Crown to let loose in the country a horde of persons—designated as " Right Honourables," and entitled to be addressed by the Sovereign as " Our Right Trusty and well-beloved," and so forth — who must be re- garded by all right-minded folk as social pariahs, by reason of the corrupt nature of their appointment as permanent legislators, as the price of future political services to be. rendered by them. Not one of these " noblemen " would be able to stand up in the face of the world and declare that his honours, his duties, and what ought to have been his great social position, had come to him bought only by merit.
I see it stated by my old friend, Sir Henry Lucy, in the Observer, with reference to the suggested creation, that "the Prime Minister will avail himself of privileges conditionally secured before the country was appealed to last January." The authority of Toby, M.P., is unimpeachable ; but there is so much virtue in the word " conditionally " that perhaps, he would have been on safer ground if he had said that "the Prime Minister would like to avail himself," &c.—I am Carlton Club.
[Sir Roper Lethbridge preaches to the converted when he tells us of the monstrous injury which would be done to the Constitution by the creation of 500 Peers. We neither re- quire to be told that nor to be assured that the Government deserve the censure of all moderate men for their action Unfortunately, however, calling the Government names, however well deserved—and we think them thoroughly well deserved—cannot alter facts, and the facts are against us. A statement of the facts as they affect the King is all that is required to divest Sir Roper's theories of any practical utility. The King must have Ministers, and while they are his Ministers he must follow their advice. If he does not, they resign and cease to be his Ministers. If he can replace them by other Ministers, of whose advice he approves, he can reject the advice of the Ministers in office. If not, not. But in the present case the King cannot get new Ministers without a Dissolution, and a third Dissolution would mean ruin to the Unionist Party. Therefore the Opposition cannot take office, and therefore the King must act automatically. Therefore the Peers must choose, as we have said, whether forcing the creation of Peers or passing the Veto Bill till it can be repealed is the greater evil. It is a hideous dilemma, but we did not create it, and cannot be blamed for it.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
