TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE GOVERNMENT AND THE LORDS. THE issue between the Government and the Lords is either important or it is not. It is a laughable policy to declare that it is important—nothing more important, indeed, under the sun—and to act as though the issue simply did not exist. Yet this is exactly what the Government are resolute to do, as they admitted in the debate raised by Mr. Ponsonby on Monday. Let us quote a passage from that debate :—" We have seen measures the principle of which had been expressly and emphatically approved by the electors at the poll torn to pieces or rejected with contempt, and without even the homage of discussion, at the instance and under the inspiration of the very men whom those same electors had sent to this House a discredited and impotent minority. This is a state of things which I venture to say is quite incapable of being defended. The picture I have drawn is not in any of. its features either an exaggeration or a caricature, and the necessity for a speedy, for a drastic, and for an effective remedy is a necessity which is not simply advocated upon platforms for party purposes by demagogues and men of one set of opinions in the State, but has been forcing itself with ever-increasing insistence upon all clear-thinking and clear-minded men." Any one reading these words for the first time would probably say to himself in effect :—" This, of course, is an extract from the speech of Mr. Ponsonby. The words are heated, but, after all, Mr. Ponsonby occupies the seat formerly held by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and it is only natural that ho should feel that the mantle of his late leader has fallen upon him. Sentimentally, it is appropriate that he of all men should now advocate a headlong policy." But the reader would be quite wrong. The words come from the speech of Mr. Asquith, and were uttered a few minutes before he expressed his intention of doing nothing! The cold words duly followed the hot, and it is settled beyond dispute that the Government mean to do their best to cling to official life for two years more before engaging the Lords. A few weeks ago the National Liberal Club echoed with the cheers of those who were informed that the relations of the two Houses were to be the dominating issue in politics. This statement, it now appears, meant that the dominating character of the issue Was to be attested by its total omission from the King's Speech, which is supposed to be a comprehensive catalogue of all the matters which will occupy the attention of Parliament during the Session.
Mr. Asquith talks as though he really believed that if there were a certain amount of resentment in the country against the Lords, it would increase at a kind of com- pound interest so long as the Government forbore to mention the subject. He talks as though this resentment would be a more powerful weapon in the hands of the Government later on than at the moment it was excited. Writing as reasonably impartial 'observers, we cannot admit that there is any anger in the country ; but if it did exist, it is perfectly certain that Mr. Asquith would be wrong in calculating that it would still be there, and even stronger, at some unspecified date in the future. In politics, as in war, there are moments when confidence and enthusiasm are greater on one side than on the other, and it is the part of generalship to recognise and make use of those occasions. If the opportunity is missed, it ,generally happens that hesitation is punished, and the , confidence and enthusiasm are transferred to the other side. Ministries themselves wear out. Disappointments paralyse their energies, and a blow struck at the end of an Administration's life has nothing like the force of a blow struck in its youth. Mr. Asquith, who has played his part in the House of Commons for a long time, must know this as well as any man. It is not a fact which can be disputed ; it is a truism. When, therefore, he tells us that, although he is terribly angry with the House of Lords, and, indeed, can hardly contain his anger, he intends to postpone striking back till some future date, we are justified in saying that he does not mean business. We remarked that the issue between the two Houses is either important or it is not. We might with equal truth put it differently, and say that there is either a fight or there is not. Fights are conducted on identical principles, whether they are between politicians or between schoolboys. If a schoolboy says "You have hit me on the nose and hurt me very much. But I shall not retaliate now. I mean to consider the matter, and when I have done so you will get what you deserve, but any rate it won't be till next half, and perhaps not till the one after that. So just you look out, you little cad 1 "-- we all know what to think of that particular contest. We understand that it is as certain as anything can be that the threatened boy is perfectly safe. If the other boy does not hit back in passion, he will not hit at all. The policy of the Government is even tamer than we have suggested, for they are like a boy W410 should add to his unimpressive declaration that he means to postpone his blow the explana- tion that he does so because he will not have it said that his opponent dictated to him the moment when he was to strike. It may be asked But when ought the Govern- ment to have taken up the challenge and risked a Dis- solution? It is hardly our business to say how many blows the Government ought to have borne before retaliating; but at any rate there was a very good opportunity for beginning a fighting policy after the rejection of the Licensing Bill. The country was callous about the Educa- tion Bill, but there was strong support for licensing reform all over the country, and it was not confined to one party. It need not be pretended that people were passionately attached to the Licensing Bill as to a heaven-sent solution of a difficulty which does weigh with increasing heaviness on men's minds ; but none the less it represented a. sincere attempt to legislate in a direction where the Government carried with them a Font deal of sympathy. The Lords rejected the Bill as though it did not deserve any serious discussion at all, and that indiscretion could have been easily turned against them. We dare say that if the Govern- ment had appealed to the country then they would have been returned to power with a small majority. And that small majority would have been of vastly greater value to Mr. Asquith than the heavy but irresolute battalions he has behind him now. It would have stood for the ascertained convictions of the electors, whereas now he feels that the favour of the country has deserted him, and that he could not get a majority at all. The courage of Bob Acres oozed out at his fingers' ends, but Mr. Asquith's will ooze out at the end of the Sessions which he still promises himself. Mr. Asquith argues that such measures as the Irish Land Bill and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill were promised to the electors, and that he is in honour bound to introduce them. But is honour satisfied by the mere introduction of Bills ? Is it satisfied by adorning them with sacrificial fillets in order that they may be sent to the Lords for certain slaughter ? Mr. Asquith himself has told us that no Liberal measure has a chance of being passed. Should he not, then, redeem his promises by securing that the relations of the Houses shall be adjusted first ? In that way alone will a genuine effort be made to pass such a characteristically Liberal Bill as that for Welsh Disestablishment. Every one (except Mr. Asquith, whom we take at his word) knows that neither the Irish Land Bill in its present form, nor the Welsh Disestablish went Bill in any form whatever, will be added to the statute-boek at the end of this Session.
We have been writing from almost the same stand- point as that of the Liberal malcontents, because it is there that the absurdity of the Government position is best seen. But we need hardly say that we are very glad indeed that Mr. Asquith has drawn his own fangs. If the Government had succeeded in passing into law Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's scheme for ending disputes between the two Houses, we should be ruled by a single Chamber. Many Liberals, by some casuistry which we do not profess to understand, argue that under that scheme the Lords would still have exercised a restriction upon legislation. Yet the scheme provided for the certain ultimate triumph of the House of Commons in all disputes. Supremacy is not the less supremacy because its arrival is a little delayed. We believe profoundly in the necessity for a double-Chamber system which requires that the Upper House should be a real agent in the deliberating and legislative processes of the nation. We want to see the House of Lords stripped of its absurdities and made more efficient for its work ; but. unhappily the Government will not even consider any plan for making it se- We are sure that the country would welcome the reform of the Lords ; but we do not hesitate to predict that it will refuse to give carte blanche to the House of Commons to do as it likes without any check. Even as it is, the House of Lords sometimes puts on the brake all too gently. It is part of its professed function of interpreting the wishes of the nation to consent to what it does not like if it thinks the people desire it. Thus it agreed to place Trade-Unions above the law and to accept old-age pensions, although both proposals would almost certainly have been defeated if they had been made the subject of a Referendum.
Mr. Asquith has made no mistake in estimating the feelings of his party. He shrewdly guessed that most of his supporters did not want to face at once either the risk of being defeated at a General Election or the expense of standing again. A very large number of Liberal Members have little prospect of returning to the House of Commons. They cannot expect another " land-slide " like the last General Election, and, being human, they want to enjoy their position as long as possible, and avoid at the same time the outlay of another thousand pounds. Far be it from us to insist on this to the point of cynicism. No doubt they honestly desire a campaign against the Lords ; but when Mr. Asquith tells them that it can be fought late as well as early, they are invited to believe what they are very glad to believe, and they are easily convinced. Accordingly the Liberal Party as a whole—only forty- seven voted against the Government on Monday—cheerfully agrees to pray the farce out to the end. As for the Members of the Cabinet, the process is much the same in their minds as in that of their supporters. They do not cling to office for its emoluments. If it were purely a question of money, we believe they would make up their minds to fight at once. They manage to convince themselves in a sense that the work they have sketched out for this Session is important, and, with a vague optimism, they tell themselves that a good deal of it will somehow be accomplished ; and meanwhile they can continue in a Position of authority which would be anyhow, they hold, less worthily occupied by their opponents. All this makes it reasonable, to their thinking, to refuse fight, and simul- taneously to indulge in rodomontade against the Lords. It is supposed that the end will come in a voluntarily pro- cured Dissolution. Yet history proves that Governments never do voluntarily dissolve. They fall because Dis- solution is forced upon them ; internal dissensions, or other causes, make it impossible for them to continue to rule. Mr. Asquith may quite genuinely deceive himself ; but the policy he described on Monday can be described by impartial persons in only one conceivable way. It means acquiescence in what the Lords have done.
Previous page
