TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND THE EDUCATION BILL.
WE do not think that any very special importance is to be attached to Mr. Balfour 's speech at the Junior Constitutional Club. It has been described as a gage of battle, a signal of no surrender, and so forth; but in reality the Unionist leader left the case for compromise very much where he found it. That be should make a fighting speech was only natural. Considering the tone in which Mr. Lloyd-George and other Liberal speakers and writers have attacked the House of Lords, Mr. Balfour had little choice but to make use of the counter-attack, the only efficient form of defence in politics as in war. The House of Lords, however, if they are wise, will think very little either of the polemics of Mr.' Lloyd-George and the Daily News on the one hand, or of the fierce calls to battle which are addressed to them by the more violent section of the Unionists. What they have got to consider is how to make use for the national welfare of the great and responsible duties which the Constitution confers upon them. To begin with, it is clear that it is not their business to do anything which they think would be contrary to the vital interests of the nation as regards education in the widest sense merely because they are being threatened and attacked from outside. Inasmuch as the Commons are the representatives of the people, the House of Lords would be committing a capital error if they did not treat the opinion of those representatives with great respect. At the same time, the Lords have a right to remember that it is the people who in the last resort are their masters, and not the Commons. As long as the nation allows the House of Lords to exist, and allows them to possess the functions they do possess, they are bound to use an independent judgment, and not to adopt the position that they must at all times and in all seasons endorse every action taken by the Lower House. The electors have it in their power to abolish the House of Lords whenever they choose, but until they do so that House must act in the -way which they consider will conduce to the highest national well-being.
But though the House of Lords have a duty to perform to the country, and must perform it without fear of the consequences, it behoves them to remember that they are responsible to the State as a whole, and not merely to one party in the State. Here lies the danger of the present position. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the Peers belong to the Unionist Party, and hence they are almost inevitably biassed in favour of that party, and are tempted to further its interests in discharging their duties. At the moment it would be idle to deny that the temptation to use the existing political situation to secure a party advantage is exceedingly strong. Unquestionably, if we look at matters from a narrow party standpoint, the Unionist majority in the House of Lords could greatly embarrass the Government by refusing to make a compro- mise on the Education Bill. The result of such action must be that the Government would withdraw their Bill. That there would be any tremendous or immediate explosion of popular wrath over such withdrawal we do not for a moment believe. No doubt there would be a good deal of violent party indignation on one side and of party rejoicing on the other, but the country would not be stirred to its depths. On the other band, there would be a considerable number of people who would be sincerely relieved by the withdrawal, and many of these would be found amongst the Liberals. In the first place, those Roman Catholics who have hitherto voted Liberal—and they are the majority of the poorer Roman Catholics in the country—would be delighted. The same must be said of the Nationalist supporters of the Government, for, as we know by their speeches, they are violently opposed to the Bill. Again, there would be a large body of moderate men on both sides who, though they have not expressed themselves very loudly, are known to regard the Bill, from the administrative side, with a considerable amount of disfavour. They do not want to see the machinery of our existing system so radically disturbed. Further, those who are concerned with the problems of Imperial and local finance view the increased cost of the Bill with a very real alarm. It is not a light thing to add another million a year to Imperial expenditure, and many persons believe that the total extra charge on the Treasury will work out a great deal higher than a milli9n a year. But this is by no means all the extra expense involved. It has been calculated that the Bill will add an extra two or three millions a year at least to the rates. Speaking generally, the advocates of economy will feel that they have ground for consolation if the Bill disappears.
In addition, it must be remembered that a with- drawal must to a very great extent upset the legislative programme of the Government. They would be obliged before long to bring in another Education Bill, and no one who was at all behind the scenes while the present Bill was passing through the Commons can doubt that the steering of a new and more stringent measure through the House might be fraught with great danger and difficulty. To introduce a secularist Bill might very well be the ruin of the Liberal Party. On the other hand, a Bill adopting a new system for respecting the rights of the denomina- tions could hardly be drafted without the Government being forced to adopt devices which in the course of the present controversy they have declared to be unjust or impracticable. No doubt all Governments have occasion- ally to eat their words ; but during the past six months almost every alternative proposition, except their own, has been discussed and condemned by Ministers. That the Government do not believe that their own Bill appeals to the country very strongly, or would be endorsed by it with a triumphant majority, is pretty obvious from their absolute refusal to dissolve. They can make a good Con- stitutional point in declaring that they will never admit the right of the Lords to force a Dissolution, but we take it that if the Government were sure that they could over- whelm their opponents by appealing to the country on the present Bill, they would not hesitate to do so. If they won a victory in such circumstances, they would have the Lords completely at their mercy, not only as regards the Education Bill, but as regards the rest of their legislative programme.
Another embarrassing factor in the position from the Government's point of view is the fact that they are not prepared to ask the country to abolish the House of Lords. If they were really willing to make such a pro- posal, it would be plain sailing enough. It is an open secret, however, that there are a great number of Liberal Members of the House of Commons who would look with the utmost alarm on abolition, because abolition must involve allowing the Peers to stand for the House of Commons. As every experienced electioneerer knows, there are an enormous number of constituencies in which Peers, now enclosed in the gilded cage of the Lords, would make the most formidable of Unionist candidates. Whether the House of Lords is unpopular or not we need not discuss. Unquestionably, however, individual Peers are by no means unpopular even in exceedingly democratic constituencies. Again, it is pretty certain that the country is not prepared to be ruled by a single Chamber. That being so, the abolition of the House of Lords, if determined on, must mean the construction of a new Upper House, and in existing circumstances a new -Upper House on thoroughly democratic lines. But a new Upper House cannot be con- structed on democratic lines without withdrawing a good deal of power from the House of Commons, and such sacri- fice of power it is notorious the House of Commons are not prepared to make. We need not, however, enumerate all the many and complicated embarrassments which must overtake the Liberal Party if they withdraw their Bill. It is sufficient to say that the Lords, perceiving these embarrassments, as party men cannot but be greatly tempted to put their opponents in so disagreeable a fix. Nevertheless, we are of opinion that the Lords would make the greatest possible mistake, and ultimately suffer very greatly in that popular esteem which is their only real source of power, if they yielded to the temptation and struck that veiy hard and damaging blow at the Liberal Party which they have it in their power to strike. If the Lords play the party game, the good sense of the nation will, we believe, determine that for the future a Second House must be provided which is less liable to allow its action to be dictated by party considerations. This being so, we would very strongly urge on the Lords not to allow the patent perplexities and embarrassments of the Government to deflect their action. They must strenuously refuse to adopt the party politician's attitude of mind and to argue : "The Government have got themselves into a mess. Let them get out of it by themselves. It is not our business to help them."
We fully admit that it is much easier to counsel the House of Lords in the abstract than to suggest to them in the concrete how they are to divest their minds of all party bias. We may point out, however, that the Peers have among themselves a leader who is eminently capable of the required detachment of mind, and who, if they will follow his advice, will be able to show them how the present situation may be employed to achieve a benefit for the State rather than for the Unionist Party. The Duke of Devonshire, besides being a man with the strongest possible sense of public duty, is by a happy chance conversant with our whole educational system. Though he has never posed before' the public as an expert, he has had a long and wide experience of its details. Again, his powerful brain and sound judgment enable him to realise what are the effects of con- crete and specific proposals in the field of politics. Further, he has an instinctive appreciation of what his countrymen feel, and of the way in which their minds work. We believe, then, that if the House of Lords will be content to accept the leadership of the Duke of Devon- shire, he will be able to suggest means by which a just compromise may be arrived at, and will preserve the House from placing itself before the country in the unenviable light of a body which has yielded to the temptation of securing a party triumph. It must be remembered, how- ever, that the Duke of Devonshire is not a man who will force his leadership upon the House of Lords, or upon any other body of men. Though he has all the qualities necessary, it might almost be said of him that he has an instinctive dislike of leadership, or, at any rate, of calling upon men to follow him.—That, perhaps, is in the last resort the reason why men are willing to give him their confidence so completely.—At any rate, the Peers must not expect him to use any of the arts of leadership in getting them to adopt a particular course. If they wish for a sound compromise, they must place themselves in his hands and ask for his guidance. Other- wise his natural inclinations may prompt him to act rather as a signpost showing the right road than as a leader who goes down the road and insists on those behind him going down it too. After all, the Duke of Devonshire has often before shown himself the natural leader of the British people. Though he did nothing comparable in the world of politics to the man who jumps on a horse and waves his sword, he no less effectually led the nation to withstand the break-up of the Union in 1885. Again, he was, we venture to assert, the real though the unofficial leader of the nation only a year ago against the follies of Protection. These are good omens, and therefore we do not abandon our hope that the Duke of Devonshire will in effect, though not in name, lead the country now, and secure a national settlement of the education question.
Previous page
