TOPICS OF THE DAY.
LABOUCHERE AND THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE.
MR. LABOUCHERE is very anxious to bring home to the Queen her presumed disinclination to have him for one of her Administration, We hardly know why. He thinks, we suppose, that it will weaken the popularity of the Throne with the people. He does not seem to fear,— what is, we believe, decidedly more likely,—that it will have just the opposite effect,—that of diminishing still further his own popularity. It is perfectly true, no doubt, that Mr. Labouchere struck a chord which vibrated loudly and persistently,--far more loudly and persistently, in our opinion, than it ought to have done,—when he appealed to the popular grudge against our finding so many dowries and settlements for the younger branches of the Royal Family. The English people are not a very_ logical people, and while they are thoroughly loyal to the Throne, they are very anxious to have a cheap rather than a splendid Throne, which is, in our opinion, a grave mistake. They entirely overestimate, too, the pecuniary sacrifices which the Throne really demands as compared with the only Republican political systems with which it can be properly compared,—the Republican systems of the United States and France. But whether the feeling was wise or unwise, there can be no doubt that Mr. Labouchere took a very popular line when he re- sisted the multiplication of Royal grants, and represented the settlements on the younger branches of the Royal Family as substantial inroads on the resources of the poor. But it does not follow that, because these settlements were unpopular, the constitutional use of the Royal prerogative is unpopular, and though it would have been most un- constitutional to refuse any Minister recommended to the Sovereign by her responsible adviser after a General Election had clearly pointed out in whom the confidence of the new House of Commons was really placed, it is per- fectly constitutional for the Sovereign to discuss with that adviser the advantages and disadvantages of any particular appointment. Whether or not she has actually discussed Mr. Labouchere's qualifications as a Minister with Mr. Gladstone is quite a different and quite an irrelevant question. But the Sovereign has an indisputable and constitutional right so to influence her Prime Minister's mind as to induce him, if she can, not to recommend to her a Minister whom he might otherwise have recom- mended, or to recommend to her a Minister whom he might otherwise have hesitated to recommend. The choice of Ministers is a power which the Presidents of Republics usually possess absolutely, and without any limitation at all. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom possesses it on condition that he first receives the assent of the Sovereign to his choice ; but that assent can neither be given nor refused to any good purpose without a free consultation between the Sovereign and her responsible Minister, and no one has either any right to inquire, or any opportunity of coming to a well-founded conclusion on the point on which Mr. Labouchere seems so anxious to force the public to draw a particular conclusion,—namely, whether the Prime Minister's judgment was, or was not, affected by the considerations submitted to him by the Sovereign as to the fitness or unfitness of any particular appoint- ment. As Mr. Gladstone has told Mr. Labouchere, the responsibility is his, and only his. Mr. Labouchere tells Mr. Gladstone that it is very chivalrous in him to take the full responsibility on himself,—which it is not, for he could not constitutionally have acted in any other fashion,—but then goes on to insist that, after all, the Queen's feeling had probably everything to do with this particular exercise of responsibility. On that point, conjecture is absolutely worthless. The truth cannot pos- sibly be known while the matter is still under discussion, and, moreover, if it could be known, it would be perfectly irrelevant. The responsibility is just as much Mr. Glad- stone's, if his judgment were more or less affected by the Sovereign's judgment, as if the question of the fitness or unfitness of that particular Minister had never entered into the mind.of the Sovereign at all, much less been dis- cussed between her and her Prime Minister. The theory of the Constitution requires the Sovereign to defer to the advice ultimately tendered by the leader of the majority in the House of Commons after an appeal to the people ; but it does not require the Sovereign to defer to that advice without conference and deliberation. It is part of the Minister's duty to take his Sovereign's criticisms, if she makes any, into careful consideration, and to let them modify his judgment if they seem to him to be pertinent and weighty. We do not believe that the people grudge the Sovereign this constitutional power at all. It is a very reasonable and proper power, without which the Throne wculd become too much of a hollow form and an empty name, to entitle it to the respect of the people. Supposing that the Queen does really disapprove of Mr. Labouchere as a Minister,—which, however, cannot be known, and ought not to be known,—and has convinced Mr. Gladstone that such a nomination as his would be inexpedient, the people would, we believe, place even more confidence in Mr.. Gladstone's decision on account of the influence exerted over it by the Queen's judgment, than they would in Mr. Gladstone's isolated judgment without the help of the Queen's. Certainly they would not distrust it the more for having the Queen's confirmation. Mr. Labouchere deceives himself greatly if he fancies that he is so much of a popular idol that it would anger the people against the Throne to learn (if they could learn) that the Sovereign did. not approve him as a Minister. On the contrary, the Royal depreciation would do him much more harm with the people, than his depreciation of the Sovereign's judgment would do her.
The truth is, that Mr. Labouchere is not, and never has been, a true popular leader. He is too much of a cynic, too little serious, too wholly destitute of political passion, for the position. He is a sectional leader, and a sectional leader only, and the section which he leads is a dwindling, not a growing one. He has plenty of audacity, but no deep conviction of his own. He has neither any political ideal that fills him with enthusiasm, nor even any depth of hatred to fill him with destructive vehemence. At bottom, he is a good-natured man who has a poor opinion both of his friends and of his adversaries, one whose strength has consisted in his supreme indifference to all causes, and the boldness with which he shows that indif- ference when he sees a chance of startling prejudices which he despises. That is not the stuff of which popular leaders are made, and even his own bias runs quite counter to the prevailing enthusiasm, the super- ficial sentiment, and the political credulity of the moment_ He has no real belief in the Socialistic dreams which are now firing the imaginations of the people in all directions. He is a Home-ruler, but a Home-ruler who has exceedingly little belief in the sacredness or great- ness of that cause. He is a Democrat, with an under- lying contempt fOr Democracy. He does not believe sin- cerely in the popular or national mission either of his own or of any other country. He mocks at all great ambitions,— most of all at those which he knows best. Instead of "Charity begins at home," bis principle would be, "Mockery begins at home." He mocks more, indeed, at the House of Lords than at the House of Commons, because he mocks more at rank than at wealth ; and he mocks more at rank than at wealth because he himself is of the aristocratic caste, while his wealth is more or less of an external accident. His greatest talent is for belittling what he knows best, and that is not a talent which ever goes far with the people. He has no enthusiasm for " his own flesh and blood." He has not even any deep vindictiveness in him which some- times does duty for enthusiasm. He has at bottom almost as little belief in the masses as he has in the classes, though he is aware that, so far as they are more numerous, they are also more powerful. The Queen has far more popular influence, if she exerts it judiciously, than a hundred such clever mockers as Mr. Labouchere. She re- presents a great popular reverence, a great historical tradition ; in short, she is the symbol of unity to a nation which, though it is knit together much more loosely than of old, and is rent by a hundred doubts and grudges which were almost unknown to our ancestors, is still a nation, and not a mere disorganised crowd. Such politicians as Mr. Labouchere do all in their power to reduce the nation to a crowd ; but those who, like every good Sovereign, do all in their power to raise a crowd into a nation, have the immense advantage of eliciting the nobler side of popular feeling, and touching a deeper spring than any which artists in pococurantism and masters in mockery can command.
Previous page
