LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
WHOSE GOVERNMENT IS IT P [To THE EDITOR CF THE "SsscriTos."] SIR,—On Tuesday evening Lord Winterton in the House of Commons asked the Prime Minister if the Treasury intended to use the term "our Government" in future, instead of "His Majesty's Government." Mr. Asquith denied any such intention, and claimed that " His Majesty's Government " was the proper and usual form. It may be the "usual form," but is it any longer its "proper " designation P and it may therefore be interesting and instructive to inquire " Whose Government is it ?" It is certainly not "His Majesty's." By our time-worn and honoured Constitution, "His Majesty's Government" consists of the three estates of the realm, "The King, the Lords, and the Commons." The House of Lords has been ruthlessly shorn of its powers, except the very minor one of retarding legislation for a limited time. Being therefore practically robbed of one of the estates of the realm, the Government cannot any longer claim to be His Majesty's Government. Is it then "our Government "P—government by the House of Commons ? Scarcely SO ; for the majority in the House have surrendered their power to the caucus, and have simply to vote as they are bid. They are even deprived of their right of discussing the Home Rule Bill, which is their own measure. Is it then the Government of Mr. Asquith and his Cabinet P We are now approaching more nearly its "proper " title. But here again we are met with this difficulty : Mr. Asquith and his Cabinet are merely carrying out the bargain they made with Mr. Redmond, upon which their existence as a Government depends. We are therefore reduced to the painful admission that Mr. Redmond and the Nationalists are to-day "our Government." They are dictating the policy of Great Britain, and are ruthlessly carrying into effect the dismemberment of the United Kingdom.
This argument would be strengthened by a reference to the Division lists upon the Home Rule Bill, which demonstrate how completely the dominant partner has been ousted by his more assertive junior. But there is a striking and very significant moral to be drawn from all this. If this old Constitution of ours, with all its sacred precedents and time- honoured safeguards, can be so wrecked and twisted as to be rendered simply a machine for registering Mr. Redmond's wishes, even to the extent of destroying the unity of the Empire, how is it possible to devise safeguards in the Home Rule Bill to prevent the Irish Parliament repudiating their liability to this country for the huge advances made to Ireland for land purchase P How is it possible to protect the large
minority of Protestants, or to prevent the Irish Parliament obtaining that entire separation they for so many years per- sistently demanded ?
Liberal members of Parliament sit night after night merrily cheering the Home Rule Bill as the closure and "kangaroos" hurry it along, undiscussed and unconsidered, little reeking that all their boasted principles of Government by the people for the people are being set aside and thrown to the winds, for admittedly the Government have no mandate for a Home Rule Bill. The most they can claim is that it was incidentally mentioned at the last election. So was Tariff Reform ; but the wildest Tariff Reformer does not venture to claim that the Unionists have any mandate for Tariff Reform.—I am, Sir, &a,
Previous page
