TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE PROSPECTS OF COMPROMISE.
OUGHT the House of Lords to agree to a compromise on the education question ? and if so, will they ? These are the questions which are being asked throughout the country to-day. In our opinion, the House of Lords should agree to a compromise. Whether they will do so will, we presume, depend upon the advice given to them by those in whose leadership and guidance the Majority of the Peers have confidence,— that is, Lord Lansdowne, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Duke of Devonshire, and, though they are comparatively young Members of the House of Lords, Lord Goschen and Lord St. Aldwyn. There are many grounds on which the House of Lords and its leaders will be tempted to refuse a com- promise. In the first place, the action of the Commons can no doubt be represented as not altogether' courteous to the Upper House ; and we note that in certain quarters there is talk about the procedure adopted being insulting to the Peers, and so forth. It seems to us, however, that if the House of Lords are wise, they will pay no attention whatever to the question of form, but will think only of the essentials of the problem. The House of Lords, after all, cannot have more dignity than the sum of the dignity of its Members, and we venture to think that in a matter of ordinary business the most respected and most trusted leaders of the Peers would entirely put aside any per- sonal question, and consider that their private dignity was best consulted by paying no attention whatever to the special formalities adopted by those with whom they were dealing. A well-mannered man does not make a fuss, or put himself out, or allow business to be impeded by the bad manners of the other side. He simply ignores them. If, then, there have been bad manners on the part of the Commons—which, however, we by no means affirm —tbe dignified course for the Lords is to say nothing and think nothing about them, but to proceed to the work of the moment unruffled and undisturbed.
The next temptation to which the Lords are exposed is that of obtaining an immediate party advantage in the struggle between the Unionists and the Liberals. As we have pointed out on more than one occasion, the Government will, from many points of view, find themselves in a position of great embarrassment if their Bill is lost. But the business of a Parliamentary Opposition in ordinary circumstances is to embarrass the Government. There- fore the natural inclination of the majority of the Peers and their leaders, who are keen members of the Opposition, is to use the opportunity thus presented to them of placing Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Administration in a difficulty, or, rather, of not allowing them to escape from the difficulty in which they have placed themselves. We have argued before, and are as convinced as ever, that the House of Lords will commit a capital error if they allow their action to be affected by these considera- tions. The House of Lords are keenly desirous of retain- ing the confidence of the country ; but if they are to do so, they must show themselves capable of taking a non-party view of matters of great and national importance, and of being willing to help even their opponents out of a difficulty if they think that to do so will, on the whole, be for the public good, or will further the settlement of problems which vex and disturb the internal peace of the nation.
But though these are by far the most important considerations which we would urge upon the Peers, we believe that it can also be shown that even in the higher party interest it will be wise for the House of Lords to arrive at a compromise. A short party view may lead to the demand for the destruction of the Bill. A long party view, we are convinced, will lead to the desire to compromise. No one who has taken stock of the political condition of the country can doubt that at the present moment there are a very large number of persons who are what we may call natural Conservatives and Unionists, but who, owing to their views on the educa- tion question, are artificially kept within the bounds of the Liberal Party. Rightly or wrongly, they feel' so deeply about the education question, and are so determined not to endure what they believe to be the injustice of the Act of 1902, that as long as that Act holds the field they will throw all other political considerations to the winds, and will be eager allies of any party which challenges it. If, however, another system of national education can be substituted for the ACt. of 191)2, as is the aim of the present Bill, and a settlement of the education controversy be arrived at, these men will feel free to re- consider their political position. For ourselves, we do not doubt that if the educational controversy is settled, and if we are then faced, as apparently we are to be faced, with legislation of a strongly Socialistic character, a very large number of those whom we have called natural Conserva- tives, artificially made Home-rulers or Radicals by the education controversy, will gradually give their support to the Unionist Party,—provided, of course, that that party has the courage to take up an attitude of honest opposi- tion to the Socialist programme, and does not attempt to out-Herod Herod on such problems as the granting of old-age pensions. In other words, the cessation of the education controversy will, we believe, in the end tend very greatly to the strengthening of the Unionist Party, and to the depletion of the ranks of their opponents.
It is hardly necessary to say that we should not urge what we have called considerations of the more far- sighted party type if we believed that a compromise need. involve any abandonment of principle, or would be injurious to the cause of religious education. We hold, however, that a compromise may be obtained without any such loss or injury. The point upon which the whole question of compromise turns is that of the teacher. If the House of Lords are willing to abandon their proposal, that the teachers in the transferred schools shall always be allowed to give the denominational lesson, and will accept the proposal that this liberty shall only extend to existing teachers, we believe that a settlement, which will, in fact, be the Lords' settlement on most other vital points, is obtainable. If the Lords could not safe- guard the rights of the existing teachers, and if, for any reason, the present Bill had to be regarded as one which could never be amended, there would, no doubt, be strong ground for the Lords refusing any compromise on this point. As, however, the liberty given to existing teachers will prevent any serious injury being done to denomina- tional teaching for at least five years, and as after that, and in a new Parliament, it will be perfectly possible to relieve the teachers of the statutory disqualification now laid upon them, we hold that the refusal to compromise in regard to the teachers would be most uustatesmanlike. It is evident that if the House of Lords cannot rely upon the next Parliament relieving the teachers of their disabilities, it is idle to imagine that the proposal in its present shape can be .permanently rejected. To assume that no reconsideration of this provision is possible if it is once passed is practically to haul down the flag.
To conclude, it is our deliberate opinion that the House of Lords, by consenting to a compromise on the Bill, will achieve four objects of momentous importance. In the first place, they will show the country that in a great crisis they can rise above lower party considerations and assume a national position. Next, they will win the gratitude of the British people by putting an end to a controversy in regard to which the nation at large is getting more and more impatient and disgusted. Thirdly, by refusing to snatch at the party advantage near at hand, they will, we believe, do a great' service in the long run to the Unionist cause, and will—which surely should be their object—helpto strengthen the resistance to those Socialistic measures which threaten to undermine our national life and our political stability. Fourthly, though giving up a good deal in the interests of compromise, they will not do any fundamental injury to the cause of denominational education. The ,issue trembles in the balance. For ourselves, and in spite of the gloom of the situation from many points of view, we cannot help believing that on this, as on so many previous occasions, the House of Lords will show the political instinct and the foresight which we rightly claim to be the special gift of the English race. In certain ways the House of Lords 'is the most English institution in the country. It will best prove its Englishry by compromise, concession, moderation, and a willingness not to push rights, privileges, and even logic too far.
Previous page
