- A WORD OF WARNING AND ADVICE TO ENGLISHMEN.
[To Tan EDITOR OP THR "SPECTATOR'
Sin,—Having read your article on England and Australia (Spectator, September 5th), I, as an Englishman long resident in Australia, venture to send you the following. At the present time two men stand prominently forward in English politics,—Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Rosebery. They are both Imperialist, and they agree that some new departure must be taken if the integrity of the Empire is to be main- tained. But that which strikes the visitor to England who is not biassed in favour of either party is that both these politicians are reactionists. Mr. Chamberlain advocates a more or less disguised Protection. Protection always tends to corrupt the Legislature. Young and vigorous nations may protect themselves in order to get a fair start in the race for wealth, but when an old and wealthy nation reverts to such a policy the case is different. One is inclined to suspect that, like an old man, it must be losing its vigour, and feels itself unable to keep the lead any longer. Other signs of the reactionary tendency of the Cabinet, in which Mr. Chamber- lain was the leading personality, are the growth of militarism, the appointment of military Governors, the withdrawal of Constitutional liberties from Malta, the Education Act, &c.
To turn to Lord Rosebery. At Glasgow last February he told us that "he thought a league to put down public speaking would enlist the support of every intelligent inhabitant of these islands, and that we must seriously consider whether we could not by some other arrangement work the Empire, not less efficiently, but more peacefully and economically." I read with much interest the recent discussion in your columns on the relations between this_ Sovereign and Prime Minister, from which I quote the following (Spectator, February 7th, p. 220) :—" The sting of the article [in the Nineteenth Century] lies in the postscript, in which Mr. Low calls attention to Lord Rosebery's recent state- ment, h propos of Lord Kitchener, that 'it is in the power of the Sovereign to summon any Privy Councillor to any Cabinet for any particular purpose.' In view of Lord Rosebery's position and experience, Mr. Low plausibly argues that he cannot be regarded as accepting 'the theory that the Prime Minister's office is one of "absolute political power," with the Sovereign's function limited to that of unauthoritative criticism. On the contrary, it would appear that he is prepared to Record to the Crown a share in the actual conduct of aaministration such as few champions of Royal prerogative during the past century would have ventured to claim." Lord Rosebery's suggestions re the suppression of public speaking, Constitutional reform, and the appointment of Lord Kitchener appear to indicate a reaction towards absolutism and militarism. Do the action and utterance of these two leaders of political thought indicate a national reaction F Asking myself this question, one of Hume's political essays came to mind. Hume wrote :—" It is well known that every Government must come to a period, and that death is unavoidable to the political as well as to the animal body. But as one kind of death may be preferable to another, it may be inquired whether it be more desirable for the British con- stitution to terminate in a popular government, or in an absolute Monarchy ?" Hume pronounces himself in favour of absolute Monarchy, on the ground that we cannot expect to have "any fine imaginary Republic.' "Matters, therefore, must be trusted to their natural progress and operation; and the House of Commons, according to its present constitution, must be the only legislature in such a popular government. The inconveniences attending such a situation of affairs present themselves by thousands. If the House of Commons in such a ease ever dissolve itself, which is not to be expected, we may look for a civil war every election. If it continue itself, we shall suffer all the tyranny of a faction subdivided into new factions. And, as such a violent government cannot long sub- sist, we shall at last, after many convulsions and civil wars, find repose in absolute Monarchy. Absolute Monarchy, therefore, is the easiest death, the true Euthanasia of the British constitution."
A sufficient commentary on the passages italicised above Is (1) Lord Curzon's recent statement : "I do not hesitate to say that we are trying to run the Empire with a staff which would be inadequate to a second-class European kingdom"; (2) Mr. Chamberlain's recent declaration," We are in for a big fight" ; (3) a reference in your columns to Mr. Low's article: "Parliamentary impotence has perhaps tended to encourage a feeling that the constitutional theory of government by "the King in Council" might well become more of a reality,' especially in view of the possibility of the group system replacing the party system." Now what I wish to say in the way of warning is that if England is going to pursue a policy of reaction, in the political sense, the Australian States will be compelled to part company and go their own way. I can, from personal experience, confirm the opinion expressed by a recent writer in the Times, that in Australia, under the able tuition of the Sydney Bulletin,
which Francis Adams called "the only mouthpiece of origin- ality in Australia," the opinion is gaining ground that "the Briton no longer governs himself in England,—that he is
here the victim of greedy British financiers, and that his kin In Australia should cut loose before the same grip is irre- vocably tightened on them." Which recalls lIume's sagacious remark: "I would assert that the power of the Crown, by means of its large revenue, is rather on the increase." In short, the opinion is spreading in Australia that England is not a "veiled Republic," but a "veiled Plutocracy"; an opinion which is likely to be strengthened by Mr. Chamberlain's attempt to cement the Empire by commercial bonds.
Again, Mr. P. Rowland has recently told us (" The New Nation,' p. 268) how England appears to him after a sojourn in Australia :— 'Nothing strikes an Englishman more on re- visiting England, after some years of colonial life, than the iron sway of custom and convention in every department of old world society. In England the true rulers seem not the living, but the dead: she thinks herself a Democracy, calls her- self an Aristocracy, and is a Neerocracy." Plutocracy and Necrocracy, hard names doubtless ! I was comparing notes with an intelligent New Zealander a few weeks ago, and we agreed that Mr. Rowland was not far out. Since then my opinion has been confirmed by reading an article on "Permanent Officials and National Inefficiency" (Nineteenth Century, August), in which Mr. Byers Maxwell shows that Ministerial responsibility is a fiction, and that England is really governed on the principle of routine. Now for a word of advice. If England wishes to keep her lead and avoid the death prophesied by Hume, Englishmen will have to do two things :—(1) Establish representative government in the -United Kingdom. The House of Commons is the sole Legislature,— but it cannot be called representative of the nation when only about one-sixth of the population are electors. The electoral system is such that even a newly elected House of Commons does not, except by accident, represent the majority of even the small number of electors. The Constitutional position of the Premier is such that if the interest of the nation as a whole happens to conflict with that of party he must either resign or put party first. The only person who is in a position in which duty to the nation and personal interest • quite coincide is the Sovereign. As the Sovereign to-day has no political power, the nation is not repre- sented as a. whole, and as it costa something like £3,000 for election expenses, the amending forces of Democracy are excluded from Parliament. A wise statesman would find a way of uniting Crown and people for the common good, thereby making the House of Commons more efficient than it is. He would avoid Hume's dilemma by saying "Both." (2) Establish an Imperial Council of some sort to deal with Imperial questions in a non- party spirit, and to relieve the overburdened House of Commons of those duties which have fallen upon it, but which it either does not perform at all or performs very badly.
[We are always glad as far as possible to give a hearing to our trans-Oceanic fellow-countrymen, though in the present instance we distinctly dissent from some of our correspondent's contentions. His statement as to election expenses is a palpable exaggeration.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
