POLITICAL COMMENTARY

Carry on, Carrington

DAVID WALDER

When Queen Victoria sought Lord Mel- bourne's advice on the constitution he wrote in reply 'there is no publication to which reference can be made for the ex- planation or description of it. It is to be sought in debate, in protests, in letters, in memoirs and wherever it can be picked up.'

Three weeks ago Auberon Waugh ex- pressed a wish in this column that, by throwing out Mr Callaghan's well-known Bill, the Lords would create 'a constitutional brou-ha-ha.' In fact they did not throw it out, but passed a number of amendments. Significantly among those who thus voted against the Bill were Tories, Liberals, neutrals and at least one Socialist, Mervyn Stockwood, Bishop of Southwark. The effect of the amendments is to give the Home Secretary until 31 March 1970, in Lord Carrington's words, `to reflect upon the discussions which have taken place in Parliament and outside it.'

Now what powers of reflection Mr Callaghan possesses it is difficult to ascer- tain, for all his processes of thought are well-concealed behind that half-smile, reminiscent of a waiter who knows very well he has brought the wrong order but is not prepared to admit it. Nevertheless the constitutional brou-ha-ha is on, and, unless miraculously Mr Callaghan brings us the right order, will be with us for some time to come.

By exercising their classic power of de- lay on Monday the Lords has also spared us one of the delights contemplated by Auberon Waugh, that of the Home Secre- tary answering to a writ of mandamus. Rather churlishly through the mouth of Lord Shackleton Mr Callaghan was heard to say that he did not seek nor need an indemnity from his statutory duty. He has one just the same until 31 March 1970, which I suspect must really be something of a relief despite the Attorney-General's argument in the Commons that his colleague was committing no constitutional breach. I would hesitate to disagree with Sir Elwyn Jones, but not for very long. and even then only because he is such a nice man. So I retain my view : that after 31 March 1970. unless Mr Callaghan lays Orders which his own whipped supporters in the Commons vote down, in itself an entertaining process and one which might give rise to comment, a Conservative voter in, let us say Huyton, will resume his right of potting the Home Secretary.

Sitting in one of the tiny pens reserved for visitors to the House of Lords on Mon- day, I was, however, just a little cast down. Constitutional issues do tend in Britain to be rather damp squibs. Maybe it's the climate, maybe it's common sense, maybe it's because, as Melbourne pointed out, we have no written constitution. Of course the Lords gave no impression of trying to light a damp squib. The atmosphere was ex- cellent. A packed public gallery included a lady who giggled immediately at all the little jokes and a gentleman who snorted in the grip of some powerful emotion. In the peeresses' gallery the Marchioness of Winchester in a superb sari, elsewhere sonic ,'•:ittier hillies similarly dressed as'it to-ttinind uts ot oUr imperial past. On the floor brace of )1Shops in costume and

the Lord Chancellor, wig- and robeless but still in tail coat and knee breeches, con- triving to look like some superior and dis- approving functionary at a continental wine tasting.

This was the House, I was reminded, which found time during the Suez crisis to argue about the nesting habits of peewits; and therefore, on those grounds alone, good luck to it.

The debate itself gave me further en- couragement. The Government spokesmen, Lords Stonham and Shackleton, were, in their different ways, simply awful: the former bogus-indignant, the latter bogus- cheerful. Dr Stockwood volunteered, as a friend, that he had never heard a worse speech from Lord Stonham 'or from practically anybody in this House.' After that the only hope left for the Minister of State at the Home Office would seem to be that he will be kicked downstairs again. The only substantial support received for the Bill came from Lord Mitchison, who revealed little save that by transition he has not lost his old House of Commons partisan nastiness. One question he did pose, however, of general interest—I sus- pect unintentionally: if, like some other Labour peers, he apparently despises the House of Lords and dislikes its powers, why did he accept the ermine in the first place?

In a corridor, away from the debate for a moment to snatch a forbidden cigarette, I returned to the damp squib. Former constitutional issues are not very precise in their lessons. The Duke of Wellington's ordered retreat of the I.ords in the face of the Reform Bill is too remote, Whig Ladies of the Bedchamber are not helpful. The sustained crisis which led up to the Parliament Act of 1911 only revealed a lack of public interest. Even Churchill and Lloyd George stumping the country and talking of 'the People's Budget', on the authority of Sir Philip Magnus 'left the populace unstirred'. Further, Lansdowne had already instructed the Lords to capitu- late in advance. Doubtless a study of the past only reveals that each constitutional issue is, inevitably, different from all its predecessors.

That being so, what should Mr Callaghan, in the time given him by the Lords' amendments, reflect upon? More important, what should 'the sovereign people' (some such phrase was often used in the Lords) reflect upon, since Dicey and Bagehot are not their favourite bedside books? The heated debates by their elected representatives which marked the passage of the Bill through the Commons will not, I suspect, help very much. The big legal guns of the Tories, the Hoggs and the Walker-Smiths and the Rentons, fired sonorous barrages. The Home Secretary re- plied with slightly less weight of metal. Mr Michael Foot helped him with a machine gun, not always very accurately, perhaps

because he is more used to spraying his own side. Inevitably, however, the ex- changes degenerated into the throwing of

sticks and stones of party advantage. Mr

Ivor Richard, one of these roly-poly Welsh- men who always seek to improve an argu- ment by suggesting that both parties to it are something less than honest, consequently failed to electrify the House when he announced that the debate was not about the constitution at all but—votes. Captain Kerby broke a parliamentary silence of some years, but not to mix with general principles, only to give a geographical breakdown of his constituency. Among all this Mr Ben Whitaker stood out as a shining light, spoke against the Bill, and honour- ably abstained.

His speech had many similarities with the later one of Dr Stockwood in the Lords. Both contained a sort of ritualistic reference to Rhodesia although without suggesting how British-made laws might be enforced there. Mr Whitaker also referred to gerry- mandering in Ulster, where, of course, he has a strong case, although I would have thought that, whatever the boundary jug- gling, an overall Unionist majority was likely to result. More important, however. both speakers rejected the argument 'that the Tories would do the same if they could' which I can only suppose is current in Labour circles. To make myself quite clear, neither Mr Whitaker nor Dr Stock- wood was prepared to say that the Tories would not do the same, merely that he did not accept that as a sufficient argument for voting for a Bill of which he dis- approved.

Which brings me back to the essential difference between the debates in the Com- mons and the Lords, the discussion of party advantage. Deliberately, neither Lord Brooke nor Lord Carrington mentioned it, but wisely concentrated on the flimsiness of the Redcliffe-Maud excuse (disposed of conclusively by Baroness Sharp, who knows more about the machinery of local govern- ment than almost anyone else). It would of course have been strange, I will admit, if the Commons had restrained itself. Yet it is a very curious argument for practising politicians to use.

Party advantage in this context implies the immutability of votes. No swings, no floaters, little of the uncommitted. To hell with policies and let us all move into the adman's world of AS, Bs and cs with classes as rigidly defined by the possession of a Bentley as by that of a war horse in the Middle Ages. More crudely, will all the prosperous vote Tory and all the poor vote Labour? If this is so, 'the sovereign people' are being offered little hope and their in- telligence is being sorely underrated by their elected representatives.

Paradoxically then, to some, I return to the Lords for guidance on this undoubtedly constitutional issue. Only they appear to reject Prince Metternich when he said 'what is called a constitution today is nothing but "get out so that I can get in"'. Mr Callag- han will not take my advice, I suspect, but others may accept an invitation to look at one speech, even from a person with my well-known political bias and perhaps less well-known admiration for soldiers.

The speech was on 17 July and by General Lord Robertson. As befitted a son of 'Wtujiy' he said that the gerrymander Bill simply 'breaks the rules'. I can't find any- thing to add to that.