TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE POLITICAL SITUATION. THE series of speeches which Lord Selborne has been delivering in Scotland during the week are of real importance, for it is clear that they represent the views of the Unionist leaders in regard to the Constitutional crisis. Lord Selborne, in effect, unfolded a scheme of wise and well-considered Constitutional reform as an alternative to the crude and partisan proposals of the Government. Instead of proposing, as they propose, not to reform the House of Lords but merely to paralyse it and so to leave us at the mercy of Single-Chamber government—it is impos- sible to take seriously their vague promises of some day giving us another and a new type of Upper House—the Unionists have genuine plans for reform with which to meet the present situation. To begin with, they propose to get over the difficulty of deadlocks between the two Houses of Parliament not by simply enacting that the will of the Lower House shall prevail after two years' delay, but by the reasonable and thoroughly democratic proposal that the master of both Houses— the people—shall decide in cases of disagreement. Next, instead of leaving the House of Lords unreformed, the Unionists suggest a scheme under which the Upper House will be strengthened, while at the same time the House of Commons will be left in the position which it now occupies of the predominant partner. Possibly if we could alter the Constitution from top to bottom it would be better to have, as in America and France, two Houses with co- ordinate powers—that is, an Upper House, like the Senate in America, which is able to claim complete equality in legiilation with the Lower House. That, however, it is recognised, would be too great a change in our Constitu- tion. Accordingly the Unionists desire, while reforming the House of Lords, to retain, though in a greatly modified shape, some portion of the hereditary element—the element which, ever since our institutions have been democratised, has given the predominant position to the Commons and the lower position to the Lords. The retention of the hereditary element is the symbol and proof of the inferior position accorded to the Upper House. Lord Selborne pointed out that four methods bad been suggested for that moderate reform of the House of Lords which the Unionists recognise must prevail in all the circumstances : (1) Indirect election; (2) selection by hereditary peers ; (3) qualification by office ; (4) nomina- tion by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister. Without attempting to indicate which was the best of these methods, or to decide whether it might not be possible to make use of a conjunction of two or more of the methods he had named, Lord Selborne dwelt upon the necessity of a national as opposed to a party settlement. Ho further pointed out that the essential point was to give adequate representation to both parties. Unquestionably a House which would be very strong for deliberative pur- poses, and well qualified in the case of deadlocks to invoke an appeal to the people, could be obtained by the establish- ment of a House founded on Lord Selborne's lines. In Lord Selborne's speech on Wednesday, in which he dealt with great good sense and moderation with the methods of applying the referendum, he also proposed that before an appeal was made to the people there should be either a joint session or, what he regarded as better still,a sitting of a small joint committee of the two Houses, a committee appointed from each House in strict proportion to the numbers of the two parties in it. That committee would contain the best men of both Houses of Parliament and be presided over by the Speaker. " In that committee the minority of either House might appeal to the majority to invoke the referendum."
That the proposals for the reform of the House of Lords outlined by Lord Selborne are both wise and practicable we have no doubt. Unfortunately, however, we see not the slightest prospect of the Government assenting to them or to any other scheme for House of Lords' reform. That is a great pity—nay, a great crime—but unfor- tunately it is also a fact, and a fact which we have got to face. It is no good for Unionists to argue as to what the Government ought to do and what reasonable men of all parties must wish them to do when it is clear they will 4. nothing of the kind. We shall be told, no doubt, that we are too pessimistic, and that it is incredible that the Government will not act on the lines which have always in the end. influenced British Governments ; in other words, that they will not do the fair and reason- able thing—accept a compromise and make a non-party settlement. At heart we have very little doubt that the majority of the Cabinet and the majority of the Liberal Party would be immensely relieved at being able to come to a national and non-party settlement. They are not, however, in a position, or, what is much the same, they believe that they are not in a position, to do anything of the kind. The situation is controlled by the Nationalists, and the Nationalists have presented their ultimatum to the Government. Unless the Veto Bill is passed in its present form they will no longer keep the Government in office. The Labour Party and the extreme wing of the Radical Party are said to be equally determined against compro- mise; but such determination is not really the important point. The bulk of the Labour Party and of the Radicals, after all, are Englishmen, and, however strong the language they use, Englishmen will always come to a compromise in the end. The Nationalists, however, are of a very different temper of mind, and treat the matter logically, or, as they would say, keep their eye upon their main object. They want Home Rule. They know that their only chance of getting Home Rule is through an autocratic Single Chamber in which they hold the controlling power. The creation of any House which had the power of invoking an appeal to the people would, they are fully aware, destroy all chance of passing a Home Rule Bill. After Home Rule is passed they will not much care what happens to the Constitution, or in what manner it is decided to constitute a new Upper House or to get over deadlocks. What they must have is an interregnum of not less than three years, during which Single-Chamber government shall prevail. That is their sine qua. non. This they can obtain if the Veto Bill is passed, but in no other way. Therefore they are deter- mined to have the Veto Bill—the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill—and nothing else will serve their pur- pose. It is useless, then, to speak of compromise either to them or to those whom they control.
"I speak not of pity, I speak not of fear.
They neither must know who would serve the Vizier."
As the Nationalist Vizier might put it : " If you ask us to allow a compromise you are simply asking us to give up the one thing for which we care. You do not suppose that we are keeping the Liberal Ministry in office out of natural love and affection' for them. We are keep- ing them in office to do our work. If they cannot do it, we have no further use for them, and are quite prepared to see their rivals in power."
Here, then, is the essential fact of the situation. The Liberals are not in a position to compromise. There remains the further fact that the Veto Bill, even though a great many Liberals may dislike it at heart, is unfortu- nately a Bill which was mentioned in every constituency at the last election, and is also a Bill upon which the whole, party can unite. It is, indeed, hardly too much to say that it is the only important measure upon which the Government can be absolutely sure of obtaining a majority. Hence the force of Parliamentary circumstances is driving the Bill on, and will drive it on to the final con- clusion in the House of Commons. The only chance of defeating it is a revolt amongst moderate members of the Liberal Party, and of such a revolt we are bound to say we see no symptom whatever. The fact is, party feeling is just now far too much embittered for such a development. If the moderate Liberal is asked to consider the matter rather' from the national than the party standpoint, he is almost' certain to make the purely party reply : " The Lords have brought all this upon themselves by their folly in throwing out the Budget. They have made their own bed and they mustlie on it." That, no doubt, is a very poor answer, for it assumes that two wrongs, if only sufficiently violent, will make a right. Nevertheless, it is the answer which is pretty sure to be given. It-remains to be considered whether therels any other possibility of stopping the Bill. We are bound to say that' we can see none, unpleasant as it is to make the admission. The House of Lords can, of course, amend the Bill, but there is no prospect of their amendments being accepted. That being so, the controversy must,for the Lords, ulti mately resolve itself into the question : " Shall we throw the Bill out or shall we pass it ? " But if they throw the Bill out, the prerogative of the Crown will certainly be used to create sufficient peers to pass it. As we have repeatedly pointed out in these columns, it would be the height of political madness to expect or desire that the Sovereign should resist the advice of his responsible Ministers if we assume, as we are obliged to assume, that no body of Ministers is prepared to take office if the present Govern- ment were to resign. No new Cabinet could take office without at once dissolving, and a dissolution just now would admittedly not help the Unionist Party, but greatly injure it. The Government would probably gain from twenty to thirty seats. In other words, the Crown must in this case, as indeed in all others, act, as we have termed it, automatically, and that means accepting the advice of the Ministry in being. The Sovereign's powers cannot in effect go beyond a change of Ministry. What may be the King's own views of the situation we do not know, and it is wholly unnecessary to inquire, for such views ought not to affect, and we are sure would not affect, his action in the very slightest degree. The Crown does its proper work and performs its proper function quite irrespective of its holder's opinions. Just as the Speaker acts on the Stand- ing Orders of the House whether he approves or dis- approves of their effect in particular cases, so the King acts on the Constitution.
We reach the point, then, that the question the House of Lords will have to decide is whether they shall or shall not compel the creation of peers. It has been said that if it were known that the Lords intended to compel the creation of peers, the Government, since they greatly detest the idea of creation, would give way and compromise. This was a possible view before the general election and possibly also before Parliament met and the Veto Bill was intro- duced and the situation had hardened on its present lines. We are compelled to say that at present there are very few indications that this power of compelling a. compromise exists. No doubt the House of Lords could, by insisting on the creation of peers, damage the Government very con- siderably, but unfortunately the Government are only too likely to feel that they must endure such damage since the only alternative would be even more damaging, i.e., resignation. The Lords can force the Cabinet to choose what will seem to it the lesser of two evils, but they cannot force it to choose what it naturally regards as the greater evil—i.e., its own destruction. No doubt it is still arguable that the Unionists would, by inflicting this damage on the Government, even though they did not effect their object of forcing a compromise, still gain, but before that can be admitted several points must be considered.
One of these points is raised by a correspondent. He urges that if peers are made in order to pass the Veto Bill, they will not, in the revolutionary atmosphere thus created, be used for that purpose only. The Liberal Party, owing to their thus obtaining a majority, even if only a temporary majority, in the Lords as well as the Commons, would be doubly in possession of Single-Chamber government. They would possess it under the Veto Bill after a two years' delay. They would also possess it by commanding both Houses. But this might very well deprive the Unionist Party of their best and, indeed, in the circum- stances only weapon in fighting Home Rule. In most cases we agree that the two years' delay would be of very little value, but in the case of a measure like Home Rule— which will, we feel sure, only have to be understood by the country to be dismissed as ruinous—the possibility of having two years in which to explain the matter to the electors might prove of vital importance. To put the matter in another way : If the peers are created, the Home Rule Bill could be got through before the country has been awakened to the position. We do not say, of course, that it can be stopped even under the two years' delay allowed by the Veto Bill, but at any rate there will be a much better chance of doing so.
We will not say that this is a conclusive argument against forcing the creation of peers, but at any rate it is one that ought to be most carefully considered. We must, at the same time, point out to the Government that, even though the moderate Unionist opinion may be reluctantly shaping in this direction, it does not follow that the majority of the House of Lords can be controlled by such moderate views, unless the Cabinet can afford some help to those who suggest moderate • counsels. The Liberals talk about the Lords committing political suicide. They must remember that men can be driven to suicide as well as kept from it. In these circumstances the Government, if they want to avoid the creation of the peers, as we are sure they do, would naturally, one would think, be tempted to find some kind of middle course and try to build a golden bridge. But here, unfortunately, we are again checked by the evil fact that the Nationalists do not mean to allow the slightest compromise. It cannot be repeated too often that this is the controlling circumstance, and the circumstance which must be faced.
Say what we will, the Unionist leaders have got a choice of evils before them, and all reasonable men meet a choice of evils by choosing the lesser. It is not for us to decide offhand which is the lesser evil, but we may at any rate point out one further consideration. It is difficult to believe that it can ever be the business of those who are opposed to revolutionary methods and the revolutionary spirit to compel action of a revolutionary character. But, it will be urged, the Veto Bill is a revolutionary measure. Agreed. It remains to be decided whether the creation of peers, no matter on whom the ultimate responsibility may rest, will not prove even more revolutionary in character and in effect.
Previous page
