THE RIGHT TO ADVISE A DISSOLUTION.
[To the Edz'tor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sne,—Will you add to your courtesy in having published my article last week on " The Right to Advise a Dissolution," by allowing me to supplement it with the following remarks ?
I contend that, according to constitutional principles
;and practice, these are some of the things Mr. Baldwin should not have done. He should not have gone down to Plymouth and announced on a political platform his intention to advise ;the King to dissolve Parliament, without having, apparently, 'extended to His Majesty the ordinary courtesy—to say nothing of loyalty—of informing him beforehand and receiving his permission to do so, thus gratuitously, publicly and most improperly assuming the Sovereign's assent, which might constitutionally be withheld, as it has been in similar cases.
The flagrancy of this was intensified in that he perpetrated it before he had even submitted the question to his colleagues in the Cabinet. Deeply is it to be regretted, both on con- stitutional and Conservative grounds, that they did not resent thus being rushed into the very awkward predicament of either repudiating their head and possibly splitting the Government and party, or of embarking on a course which the majority felt would be fraught with disastrous results. Had they declined to share the responsibility Mr. Baldwin could scarcely have persisted.
Everyone admits the honesty of purpose of Mr. Baldwin quid the unselfish sincerity of his motives, but in the leader of a great party, and the responsible head of the Government of this great Empire, these are not enough. Everyone admits the honesty of purpose of Mr. Baldwin quid the unselfish sincerity of his motives, but in the leader of a great party, and the responsible head of the Government of this great Empire, these are not enough.
The pernicious results of the doctrine of the Prime Minister's exclusive right to dissolve—unchallenged neither when first assiduously promulgated in favour of Mr. Lloyd George, nor, in the case of Mr. Baldwin, by any public man on either side, nor I think by anyone in the public Press, of whatever shade of opinion—are already in front of us. Should there be no alternative—owing to the personal jealousies of Liberal and Conservative politicians—to Mr. Ramsay MaeDonald's taking office, he would, of course, contrive to snake an oppor- tunity favourable to his own party by wild promises of the lavish expenditure of public money in doles and pensions. Then he would advise the King to dissolve. Should the King refuse his assent, His Majesty would at once be denounced as " taking sides," intriguing with the older party, and " wangling the Constitution " as Mr. MacDonald has put it, so that " democracy should not have fair play." It is not even now too late to prevent such a disastrous alternative —the direct consequence of the general acceptance of a false constitutional doctrine, which should always be contested, from whatever source it may come, and whatever party it may appear to favour at the time.
If I am wrong in my contention and the real constitutional position is otherwise, then the sooner constitutional doctrine is altered the better by a resolution of the House of Commons repelling so serious an invasion of its rights. This is the more important that one of the old barriers against arbitrary Government—that of the House of Lords, has been broken down, and so far not repaired—if now it ever will be. Other- wise the Prime Minister of -Great Britain is in a position tmaccorded to any other authority, whether President or King, in any civilized country in the world. Every act of administration is liable to be impugned when Parliament meets. The smallest details of legislative proposals have to pass severe hostile criticism in Committee of the Abuse. Yet an act, transcending in importance all these,
which at one fell swoop sweeps Parliament away is to escape all effective challenge. For, when the consequent election is in full swing all parties are too busy with other things, and, being reluctant to admit that they do not welcome the appeal to the constituencies, only feebly protest. When the new Parliament is installed it is too much occupied with immediate affairs to worry over the cause of death of its predecessor to which it owes its own life.—I am, Sir, &c., E. L.
P.S.—I should like to point out that the addition of the word " Minister " to " Prime " in my article was a misprint. It was the detestable vulgarism of the expression, " The Prime," prevalent among the toadies who always hang about No. 10 Downing Street, which I stigmatized. It first came in during Mr. Asquith's Administration, though he, assuredly, never gave it countenance.
Previous page
