THE KING AND LABOUR.
BY MRS. PHILIP SNOWDEN.
WHEN it became evident that the late Conservative Government could not remain in office, and that the Labour Party, as the next• strongest group in Parlia- ment, was the only party which could carry on the King's Government for the time being, and thus avert an unwanted second General Election, there were those who expressed the hope that the King would refuse to send for the leader of the Labour Party, and would insist upon Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Asquith coming to some arrangement by which the calamity of a Labour Government would be prevented. This expectation sliming from two completely .erroneous ideas. The first was that the Labour Party was an unconstitutional and revolutionary body, bent not merely upon the destruction of the social and economic order, but upon the overthrow of the Monarchy. The second, that the King would so far depart from constitutional practice as to dictate the party character of his Government, and openly show his disapproval of the policy of one of the great political parties of the State.
Such a mistaken idea not only, betrayed an ignorance of constitutional government, but an ignorance of the attitude of the Labour Party to the Head of the State. The Labour Party might be found to be theoretically in favour of Republicanism, as a more democratic form of government, but Republicanism has never been a plank in the programme of the Labour Party. It has never been a subject of specific and serious discussion at Labour Party Conferences. The ceremony and display implicit in the institution of Kings and Courts have been denounced in Socialist and Radical journals, chiefly because of _ the contrast between these things and the lives of the poor. Labour speakers and Labour journals have denounced Labour leaders in the past for attending Court functions, and for associating on public occasions with royal personages ; but this criticism has never been either deep-seated or widespread. The Labour movement, on the whole, has taken a practical and common-sense view of the relations between the Court and the. people. In part, too, the absence of serious controversy on the question of the King and Labour . has been due to an appreciation of the irrelevancy of the matter to the general economic and social aims of the Labour Party. There are more important affairs _ in hand. Republicanism, like the question of the Dis- establishment of the Church, is regarded as of little . consequence when compared with that group of economic - problems which concerns the provision of sufficiency and security for all.
Unless it could be shown that the Monarchy is respon- sible for the existence of poverty, and is an obstacle to its removal, it would be a waste of time and effort to . direct agitation to the abolition of the Monarchy. And : that cannot be proved, because it is not- true. The conditions exist
"For forms of government let fools contest. Whate'er is best administered is best."
Indeed, I think it could be argued with success that in a country like our own, where the head of the State is a constitutional monarch who stands outside party 'and political controversies, and acts only on the advice of his ministers, who in effect are chosen by the people, there is a greater safeguard - of democratic ideals than in a cotnAry" where the temporary head of the State social contrasts and economic injustices 'of our time are not due to forms of government, but to far deeper causes. In democratic countries under either" Constitutional Monarchies or Republicanism, the 'same economic _ is the creation of party politics. There is certainly greater security for purity in the national administration.
The strength of the Monarchy in Great Britain lies in its strict aloofness from political partisanship. Any serious departure from this impartiality would quickly discredit the Crown and lead to an irresistible Republican movement, which would command support from men and women in all parties.
In the recent political revolution which has brought the Labour. Party into office the King has acted, as every reasonable person knew he would act, with the strictest constitutional propriety. He has shown that he has no political bias, and that he has no more personal likes or dislikes for the Labour Party and the Labour Govern- ment than he would have for any other party placed in power in a constitutional way. On the contrary, if there has been any departure from the way in which the Crown usually acts, in the manner in which it has acted towards a Labour Government, it has been shown in a punctilious care not to give the least ground for suspicion that the Labour Government was regarded by the King and his Court as being, from the point of view of the Constitution, in any way different from a Liberal or a Conservative Government.
To the credit of the Labour Government it must be said that they have not made the task of the King diffi- cult. They have accepted all the existing constitutional usages. 'They have regarded the King as the constitu- tional Head of the Nation. He, like the permanent Civil Service, is the permanent official who never changes in allegiance to the Ministers who come and go. The King and the Civil Service may have their own personal views upon political matters, but these are never allowed to influence the faithfulness of the service they render to the Ministers for the time being.
I have often heard it said in days gone by that a Labour Government would never have fair play, because it would be sabotaged by the Court and 'the permanent Civil Service. These fears have been proved to be quite unfounded.' From the King downwards, throughout the Civil Service the Labour Government have had nothing but fair play. On the whole, the Press and the Public also have been fair, if not generous, in their treatment of the Labour Government. There has been a disposition to give this new political experiment a fair chance. There has been the inevitable party political criticism, and this is likely to grow in intensity as the Labour Party succeeds. Perhaps—though it may be ungracious to make the suggestion—the remarkable willingness of the Press and the public to give the Labour Government a fair field when it took office was due to some extent to the belief, often amounting to a certainty, that the Labour Government would speedily prove its incompetence, and to the desire that its failure should not be plausibly attributed to the difficulties wantonry put in its way by its opponents.
But if .that motive did exist it has been frustrated by the moderation and good sense and adaptability of the Labour Government. It has disappointed, as those who knew the Labour leaders knew it would disappoint, those who expected or hoped that the Labour Government would be wild and reckless. Indeed, a violent attack is now developing against the Labour Government because of its caution and moderation. It is being criticized because it is not proposing extreme Socialist schemes. It ,would have pleased its opponents much more if it had done such things. But the party is at least wise enough not to fall into a snare like that.
Suppose that the party had acted as some of its oppo- nents would no doubt have liked it to act ? Suppose it had outraged all constitutional custom-? Suppose its Minis- ters had gone- to receive their seals 'of .office in hobnailed boots, with unwashed faces and collarless shirts ? Suppose they had disregarded all conventional courtesies as marks of servility ? Suppose they had treated the King and the heads and officials of the Civil Service with a hectoring authority, regarding this as the mark of democratic power ? Would all this have added to the respect and confidence the public would have had for them ? Such conduct would quickly have covered them with deserved contempt and ignominy.
The King, by his respect for constitutional procedure, has greatly helped the Labour Government ; and the • Labour Government, by its respect for constitutional methods and its acceptance of all reasonable conventions, -has made the difficult position of the Crown in the new and unique circumstances easier. The smoothness with which the Labour Government was formed, and with which its course has run so far, is a wonderful example of the adaptability of the British Constitution. That Constitution, broadening down from precedent to prece- dent, has proved itself capable of entrusting the Govern- ment of the country, with the co-operation of the King, to men who have no claims to high office on the grounds of birth, class, or academic distinction, but whose claims rest upon personal merit, public service, and the free choice of a democratic people. It is a great Constitution which provides for the association of the King and a Labour Government in the administration of national affairs.
Previous page
