TOPICS OF THE DAY
•
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE TORIES FOR THE LORDS.
THE Tory chiefs are shifting their "ground, and making a grave mistake in doing so. Up to a quite recent date their argument was that the Lords, in stopping the Franchise Bill, and endeavouring to insist on a previous Dissolution, were acting as an independent branch of the Legislature, and one representing the solid opinion of the country, as opposed to its " fleeting " emotions, might be expected to act. They claimed for the House of Peers a quasi-judicial character, and asked if a House which surrendered its convictions even to a popular cry would be deserving of respect ? It must so long as it existed be true to itself, and vote, like the House of Com- mons, according to its conscience. The Tory leaders are alarmed, however, by the popular response to their argument, and by the direct danger of the Lords, and are stepping for- ward to throw over the Peers the shield of the Conservative Party. The Peers are not responsible, it is said, for the whole Conservative Party is entirely with them. It is "we" who have advised them to reject the Bill. Sir Stafford Northcote is even more explicit. The attacks on Lord Salisbury, he tells the citizens of Edinburgh, are all unfair, for Lord Salisbury's colleagues are entirely in agreement with him, and everything that has been done has been done after consultation with all the Con- servative leaders. There is a certain chivalry in the admission, as, in making it, the Conservative leaders accept the whole unpopularity of the Lords as justly attaching to themselves also, and do away with any advantage they may have obtained from their very guarded speeches in the Commons ; but the admission is none the less a fatal one. It amounts to this,—that the Opposition regard the House of Lords as part of their regular force, and carefully plan what Bills it shall and shall not reject. So sure are they of their influence, that they can discount it, and settle in secret conclave what shall happen in the Lords before the Lords have assembled or debated. They do not consider the Lords an independent House at all, or a representative body either, but a splendid instrument of their own party, to be used carefully no doubt, but still to be used in accordance with the decisions arrived at by an external body, the group of persons who have sat in the last Tory Cabinet. They are to tell the "independent," and "judicial," and " representative " House what to do, and tell them so strongly, that they become responsible for what the House actually does,—so responsible, that they publicly admit and urge their responsibility as a reason against attacks upon the House of Lords. In their eyes, in fact, the House of Lords is part of the Tory Executive, and should not be attacked by itself because it is subordinate, and only obeys orders.
This theory, though utterly unconstitutional, is startlingly near the truth, and its admission raises at once the question whether, so far as it is true, the majority in this country governs at all ; whether, in fact, the minority, though rejected at the polls, is not entrusted with a permanent veto upon all legislation. The majority rejects the Tory Government and elects a Liberal Administration, and fancies it is governing ; but this Administration can do nothing, for the beaten minority, through its instrument the Upper House, can reject any measure it does not choose to pass. The minority cannot, it is true, veto any Executive acts, or arrest a war, or interfere with patronage, because, as Mr. John Morley pointed out at Newcastle on Monday, no Ministry now pays any attention to the Lords' votes of censure, which, constitutionally speaking, ought to compel them to resign ; but very few policies can be carried through without legislation, and the minority can reject any legislative project. In all serious contingencies, except war, the whole policy of the Cabinet, supposed to be governing, is controlled by its opponents. The Ministers, for example, decide that it is needful on public grounds to limit the right of eviction in Ireland, and the elected representatives agree with them. A law is, of course, neces- sary, and after infinite trouble a Bill is matured, debated, and passed through the Commons. In other words, it has received the assent of the nation, and should be law; but the chiefs of Oppcsition resist, tell the Lords that they must throw out the Bill, and it is thrown out, in reality by the minority which was beaten at the polls. The Government is completely baffled, and the nation with it, neither having the slightest power to override the Conservative chiefs, who possess, on Sir S. Northeote's theory, a complete, a permanent, and an irre- sistible veto, only to be overcome by a plaiscite taken for the purpose. This veto, moreover, they can exercise in the dark, through a body supposed to be independent, although, as they courageously admit, the Tories—that is the minority—plan, its action and are responsible for it. The Lords are not to blame for what they do, or Lord Salisbury for advising them to do it, but the whole Conservative Party which controls both, and therefore is responsible for both. The minority, in fact, though out of power, and though opposed to the nation, is. the ultimate controlling force, and their chiefs—the members of the former Cabinet—only suffer legislation to go on because, if they wholly stopped the machine, it might break to pieces. Does Sir Stafford Northcote actually not perceive that in diminishing the corporate responsibility of the Lords or claiming for them immunity because their dictator acted after consultation with all Tory leaders, he is justifying both the extreme Radical argument and the argument of the thinking Liberals ? The former say, as Mr. Morley said, that the House of Lords, so far from being a representAtive body, is a mere "Tory Club "—one of the executive agencies of the Tory Party—and therefore cannot be endured. The latter say that the House is so entirely Tory that agreement with a Liberal House of Commons cannot be expected, and therefore such agreement must be sought through a determined reform. Sir Stafford Northcote implicitly admits both assertions, de- claring, in fact, that the responsibility of the party for Lord Salisbury—whose action is only impugned because he is the House of Lords—is so perfect that he should not be separately condemned. Sir Stafford himself and his colleagues, the representatives of the minority, settle what the Lords should do, and through that instrumentality become as powerful for purposes of restraint as if they were the majority. Representative government in its most important department, legislation, is reduced to a fiction, and is avowedly so regarded by the ablest Tories. A heavier blow, as it seems to us, could not be levelled at the Lords by those who profess to be their best friends.
We quite admit that if the minority could always use this instrumentality to veto or delay detested Bills, there might be something to be said for it. The scheme would be an extravagant and dangerous method of securing the rights of minorities, and in times of excitement would break down ; but still, it would secure them effectually. Wisely used, it would place in the hands of the minority an irresistible moderating power, and insure that laws considered monstrous by a con- siderable though minor section of the people should only be passed slowly, or after immense debate and effort. That system would, of course, be tedious and infructuous, but still it would prevent the deep cleavages between parties which we see on the Continent, and so would have compensations. The vetoing power of the President has often had that effect in the United States, being as indefeasible when his party is beaten as when it has control of the whole Legislature. But then this impartial action of the Lords is notoriously absent. Whenever the minority is Liberal, this indirect vetoing power disappears, and the House of Lords, cheerfully passing any Bill submitted to it, however foolish or short-sighted, adds its whole weight to the weight of the majority. The defenders of the minority become their oppressors, and the Liberal chiefs, so far from telling the Lords what they are to do, think themselves fortunate if their ideas obtain even a fair hearing. The Lords' veto is a Tory veto only, and Sir Stafford Northcote's argument comes to this, that constitutionally a Tory Government shall be uncon- trollable, while a Liberal Government shall always be con- trolled by the very men whom in the representative Assem- bly it has defeated. Has the wildest Radical ever said any- thing worse about the existing Constitution, or more completely denied that it has, in any intelligible sense, a representative character ? The old veto of the Kings was better than this, for the King might be a Liberal, and at all events might be willing that a Liberal should rule. The Conservative Party cannot assume the responsibility of the House of Lords' action with- out an admission that the House is one of the trustworthy agencies of the Conservative Party. That is, it is not an independent, still less a judicial, House at all.
Previous page
