TOPICS OF TIIE DAY • THE VOTE ON THE LORDS.
AGOVERNMENT majority of sixty-eight, obtained against a conjunction of forces between the Conservatives and the Irish Irreconcilables,—who in the first division of this episodical conflict had the honour of leading out their passive Tory coadjutors to the disastrous division in which they were so utterly defeated,—is sufficiently satisfactory, especially in a House which wanted more than a hundred Members of its full complement. We are heartily glad that the vote has been taken, though it would have been even more satisfactory, if it could have been taken without so much expenditure of time. It was absolutely essential that Ireland should not imagine that there was about to be a change of policy in regard to the Land Act, before its working had been either generally understood or substantially tested. And the only way of convincing Ireland that no change of policy was con- templated, was for the one House which originated, and which alone could have originated, the policy of the Land Act, to protest energetically against the childish desire of the other House to begin unravelling the half-finished web. This purpose has been answered by the votes of Monday week and of Thursday night, and now the House of Lords' Committee may very comfortably go on with its secret inquiry, without having reason to fear that its inadequate investigations can prove anything but abortive,—abortive, that is, as regards the main purpose for which Lord Donoughmore and his col- leagues spoke and voted. If the Committee can make itself useful in bringing the purchase clauses of the Land Act into more efficient operation, good will really have been brought out of evil. But, as every one who read the debate in the Lords knows, the object of the Committee was not to vivify the dormant powers of the Land Act, but to paralyse its active powers, and the vote of the House of Commons will effectually prevent that. Ireland will know that the Conservatives, even when acting in hearty concert with the Land Leaguers, have no chance of arresting the great policy accepted by Parlia- ment in 1881.
Lord Hartington's speech made two very important points with great force. The first point was that Government avowedly asked for, and obtained, coercive measures, only as supplementary to remedial measures, and had positively declined to put forward coercion as their cure for the anarchy in Ire- land. If, then, he said, within six months of the first use of the remedial measure, you begin to hesitate, and ask leave to weaken the effect of that measure by tampering with and diluting it, you have obtained your coercive measures on false pretences, and may fairly be reproached with your want of straightforwardness in attempting to knock down the price which was the avowed consideration for the unpopular concessions made. That is really a very weighty point. No Act was ever voted by the Liberal party with more reluctance and regret than the Protection of Person and Property Act, and it would never have been voted by them, but for the solemn assurance of the Government that the real and permanent remedy was forth- coming. To allow the confidence in that real and permanent remedy to be undermined, while still availing themselves to the full of the exceptional and dangerous powers conferred by the temporary measure, would be almost a breach of faith with the Liberal party, and one which would have been resented all over the United Kingdom. Lord Hartington's other point was this, that unfortunate as a difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament undoubtedly is, yet unanimity, or the appearance of unanimity, on such a matter as that opened by the House of Lords when Lord Donoughmore's Committee was ap- pointed, would have been far more unfortunate. That would have meant an agreement to whittle away the privileges conferred by the Land Act,—an agreement to disappoint Ireland, before she had more than just tasted the fruits of the great Act of last Session. Such a unanimity would have been mischievous in the highest degree. The vote of the House of Lords was a small mischief, more or less cancelled by the various votes of the House of Commons. But the vote of the House of Lords without the neutralising votes of the House of Com- mons to take away their significance, would have been a great mischief. As the acid had been given, the alkali had to be given, too, and even if there be some slight interior effervescence, it will but be the sign that the danger is removed.
But Lord Hartington's admirable speech closed with what seems to us a somewhat ineffective attempt to whitewash the House of Lords :—" We cannot make the House of Lords re- sponsible for the government of Ireland. When, as in this instance, they have, in our opinion, interposed a great and serious obstacle and difficulty in the task of governing Ireland, it is in our power, and we think it is our duty, to cast upon them the real responsibility of their action. Such a proceed- ing is, in our opinion, no censure. It is no menace, no attack upon the House of Lords. It does not tend in any degree to weaken its authority, or its dignity, or its power. In my opinion, the real danger to the authority and dignity of the House of Lords would be for the Government to suppose its action so unreasonable or so insignificant, that it was not worthy of the serious attention of this House. For these reasons I hope the House will pass the resolution of my right honourable friend." Now, it stands to reason, that when the House of Commons deprecates the proceedings of the House of Lords, as detrimental to public policy, it does censure what they have done. That censure may not be a menace, but it does tend, and necessarily tend, to weaken the authority and dignity of the House that did it. The people see that the House of Lords have done wrong at a very critical moment. Of course they will, if they are wise, feel less respect for the action of the House of Lords, and more anxiety as to the prob- able commission of similar follies, in the future. It is idle to say that we can possibly think as well of the House of Lords. as we should have done had they rejected Lord Donoughmore's. proposal. We must think worse of it for its vote on that. proposal, and ought to think worse of it, and to guard our- selves better for the future against similar blunders. Lord Hartington is not usually inclined to euphemise. But in these• few sentences he certainly attenuated extremely a very charac- teristic and serious blunder made by a very important con- stitucnt of the British Constitution.
Previous page
