MR. SYDNEY BUXTON'S POLITICAL HANDBOOK.* A POLITICAL handbook which has
reached a fourth edition, and
has increased its value at every step, may fairly claim a fresh recognition from the Press. In this new edition, such subjects as the House of Lords and Proportional Representation, with several others, are treated for the first time ; while those on Women's Suffrage, Tenant Right, London Municipal Reform, Home Rule, and several others, have been "largely rewritten."
To test the author's impartiality, one would like to know to which side of any controversy he himself adheres, that one may see how far he represents adequately the strength of the view which he himself rejects. So far as we are able to judge this point from the knowledge which Mr. Sydney Buxton has given us of his views in his various speeches at Peterborough or in the House of Com- mons, we should say that he takes even more pains to give the strong side of his opponent's case than he does to give the strong side of his own. For example, there can be little doubt that he sides agaiasl the House of Lords on -the question whether that House needs a radical reform or not. But while he gives a very clear outline of the strongest pleas offered in favour of the House of Lords, he seems to us to miss the most effective of all against them,—namely, the historical plea, that in all the
protests and struggles they have made against the legislation of the House of Commons since- 1832., there has not been
a single case,—so far as we can remember,—in which either the nation, or even the majority of the Conservatives themselves, would be willing to go back to the position of the House of Lords from the position into which things have been carried by the sympathy of the nation with their opponents. Look to all that the House of Lords has been unwilling to consent to,—the abolition of Jewish Disabilities, the repeal of the Protective system, the repeal of University Tests, the repeal of the Paper Duties, the abolition of Purchase in the Army, the Disestablish- ment of the Irish Church, &c.,—and, then ask even Conserva- tives whether they would wish, even if they could settle the matter by a wish, to return to the rejected policy now. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred they would say " No ;" and by saying " No," would prove that the wisdom of the House of Lords is the folly of the British nation.
Indeed, if there be a deficiency in this useful and carefully
condensed political handbook, it is this,—that Mr. Sydney Buxton gives us too many of the a priori arguments, and too
few of the effective illustrations from actual experience. Take the section on " Reciprocity." Nothing can be better in its way than the skeleton outline of the opposite views. But that is just a case in which the effectiveness of the Free-Trade argu- ments lies less in the mere outline of the case than in the argu- ment from experience. Surely, in this case, Mr. Buxton might have given us a few of the very striking figures by which the spring from misery under Protection to prosperity under Free Trade, has been illustrated. Again, in the very valuable section on "Proportional Representation," be would greatly have increased the value of his statement if he had shown by figures how very inadequately the most vaunted of the minority schemes really represents the ideal minority principle, and yet bow very gravely the actual operation of these schemes might tend to confuse the public as to the fairness of the result.
We wish that in his next edition Mr. Sydney Buxton would give us a new section on the most recent controversy of the
day,—the question between two Chambers and a single Chamber. As a specimen of Mr. Buxton's fairness, we may
quote his summary of the arguments in favour of and against the removal of the Bishops from the House of Lords :-
" 1.—That if it he inexpedient to prohibit the Clergy of the Church of England from being elected to the Lower House, it is inexpedient to allow the Bishops to sit in the Upper House. 2.—(a) That the legislative functions of a Bishop interfere greatly with his diocesan work and episcopal functions—already so manifold as to be nearly overwhelming. (b) That either he must neglect his legislative work, or he must partially withdraw his presence and influence from his diocese ; in trying to perform both functions, be probably does neither well. (c) That more especially the time of the youngest Bishop—ex officio chaplain to the House of Lords—is absorbed, just when it is most necessary that he should devote his undivided attention to his episcopal fanotions. 3.—(a) That the Bishops lose in popular sym- pathy, from the possession by them of exceptional and anomalous political privileges, especially as these are tinged with political par- tisanship. (b) That this is more especially the case inasmuch as the Bishops have mostly shown themselves by their votes and speeches to be on the side of reaction ; and have never used their political power to the real advantage of the Church or the community at large. (e)
• A Handbook to Political Questions of the Day, with the Arguments on Either hide. By. Sydney C. Buxton, M.P. Fourth Edition. London : John Murray.
That thus the Church, and the Christian religion, suffers in the general estimation. (d) That the withdrawal of these exceptional privileges would strengthen and not impair the influence and position of the Bishops ; and the Church itself would thus gain from their exclusion from the House of Lords. 4.—(a) That it is neither right nor just that one section of religions belief—and that a minority, or at least a bare majority—should alone be ex officio represented in Parliament. (5) That the exclusion of the Bishops from the House of Lords would remove a great cause of sectarian irritation. (c) That thus Dis- establishment would be the less pressed forward. 5.—That to remove the Bishops from the Upper House, would be further to sever the con- nection between Church and State, and be a great step towards Dis- establishment. 6.—(a) (By some.) That the inclusion of Bishops amongst the Peers weakens rather than strengthens the House of Lords. The Bishops have not the freedom of action of life-Peers, for they speak as delegates, while they are not really representative, are responsible to no one, and owe their nomination to the Prime Minister. (b) (By others.) That to exclude the Bishops from the House of Lords would be a Democratic step, tending to weaken the Upper House, by depriving it of men of acknowledged ability, life- Peers, and men more or loss representative. 7.—That the possession of legislative functions by some Bishops and not by all is an anomaly. On the other hand it is urged : 1.—(a) That so long as the Church is joined with the State, she ought to have, and is entitled to have, a representative voice in framing laws which she will have to obey, and in assisting to determine on matters affecting the people. (b) That more especially as Turks, Jews, Infidels, and Heretics' have full liberty to speak and vote on matters affecting the Church, she should not be left entirely at their mercy, and alone be deprived of a voice in the Councils of the Realm. (c) That while it is inexpedient, and out of harmony with their spiritual functions, to allow the Clergy personally to involve themselves in party contests, there is nothing undignified or prejudicial in allowing Bishops to it in the House of Lords. (d) That as ministers of other denominations can, and some- times do, sit in the House of Commons, these sects obtain as full a representation in Parliament as the Church of England does through her Bishops in the Peers. 2.—That the position of the Church would be lowered in the eyes of the people—and much harm be done to religion—if her Bishops were thus publicly degraded. 3.—(a) That it is a principle not only of the Protestant religion, bat of the British nation, that the Clergy should in no way be a `caste' by themselves, but should be ordinary members of the com- munity. (b) That while, as already stated, it is inexpedient to allow the Clergy to be eligible for Parliament, it is greatly to the interests of the people and of the Bishops themselves, that the latter should be brought into contact with the world through their position in the Constitution, and thus be enabled to carry out their work with greater knowledge and discretion. 4.—(a) That the attendance of the Bishops to their legislative work need not, and does not interfere with a due regard for their episcopal and diocesan functions. (b) That matters affecting the Church seldom arise in the House of Lords ; while the sittings of the Upper House are so infrequent and so short, as to absorb but little time or attention. (c) That largo numbers of business men find time, without neglecting their own work, to attend the House of Commons with its more numerous sittings and longer hours. 5.—That, as the Bishops are men of ability, and bring variety and a representative element into the Upper House, to exclude them would be to lower the character and position of the House of Lords. 6.—That as the Lords Spiritual' are a re- cognised part of the Constitution, to permit any tampering with their position would be to play into the hands of the Democratic Party ; and to weaken the position of the House of Lords against attack. 7.—(a) That to permit the Bishops to be excluded, would be to sur- render an important outwork of the Establishment, and to render more easy the accomplishment of Disestablishment. (b) That to allow the exclusion would be to confess that the Church of England was not truly representative of the nation."
That is an admirable condensation of the arguments, including those which are urged almost in the same words for dia- metrically opposite results, according to the special point of view of the individual reasoner. It would be difficult to classify the arguments better, or to put them in a simpler form. We wish every success to this valuable and thoughtful volume.
Previous page
