LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE PREAMBLE.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR:1
Stn,—It is commonly observed just now, in relation to the Parliament Bill, that there has been a lack of tactics on the Unionist side. The remark appears to me to be true of their attitude towards the Preamble. There were at least three good grounds upon which the Preamble ought to have been actively opposed by the Unionist Party :- (1) It has no relation to any part of the Bill : no Clause or words in the Bill depend upon it or are explained by it. Being thus irrelevant, it is absolutely and entirely out of order. Suppose that the Bill had been introduced without it ; can anyone doubt that an amendment proposing its insertion would have been ruled out of order P (2) It is a sham and a fraud, as the recent debates have shown. The Government have neither present intention nor future prospect of giving effect to it. (3) It is of no possible use to the Unionist Party except as a text for futile questions in the House as to when its promises are to be fulfilled. Reform is not brought a day nearer by reason of its presence in the Bill.
On these grounds the Preamble should have been opposed from the beginning and all along. At the General Election, dealing with the substance of the matter, candidates might have been expected to say: " We shall oppose this Preamble with all our force, because it is a sham. We want reform now, before any alteration of powers, not a hollow promise of reform." This language would have been understood by the people.
In the House the technical objection ought to have been put strenuously ; but, alas ! all technical knowledge about pre- ambles seems to have died out of the House of Commons. The motion to omit the Preamble should have come from the Opposition, and should not have been left to the Labour Party ; and it ought to have been pressed whatever course Labour took. On the contrary, the Unionists have seemed to cherish the sham thing as a valued pledge, to cling to it as a plank in the shipwreck. I may add that this opinion of mine as to what ought to have been done is not an after-thought, as some of my friends in the House of Commons and outside are aware. The lamentable conclusion was reached on the last night of Committee (May 3rd), wnen Mr. Balfour declined to go into the Lobby against the Preamble.—Such a vote would be misconstrued! Yes, truly enough, after his previous attitude towards it. Knowledge of the error in tactics at length dawned upon Lord Hugh Cecil, and upon him alone ; but it was now too late. The division on the previous amendment which the Opposition ought to have moved, and with which, as it was moved by Labour, they would have nothing to do, would have afforded the only chance, in the whole course of the debates, of running the Government majority down to danger point. The result might have been serious to the Government ; at any rate, it would have made the Two-Chamber members of the Cabinet uncomfortable in their seats, as, indeed, it is right and proper they should be.—I am, Sir, &c., G.
Previous page
