TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE POLITICAL SITUATION. THERE seems to be little doubt that the Government do not intend to precipitate a political crisis by pressing forward either the Veto Resolutions in the Lords or the Veto Bill in the Commons immediately on the re- assembling of Parliament. Whether the Government and the majority of Liberals in the House of Commons are at heart glad to postpone the General Election we shall not attempt to inquire. It is sufficient to know that what we may term physical reasons prevent an immediate attempt to deal with the Constitutional issue. As soon as the House of Commons meets it will be called upon first of all to deal with Supply, and then with such urgent matters as the Regency Bill, and the Bill which we are glad to see it is generally assumed will be introduced for altering the Royal Declaration and ridding it of the insults to the Roman Catholic subjects of the King which it now con- tains. In addition, a Committee must be appointed to inquire into the Civil List, and legislation will have to be founded on its recommendations. Finally, it will be necessary to dispose of the Budget, and probably to make legislative provision for the change in the qualifications for old-age pensions which takes place automatically on January 1st next. After that date the receipt of pauper relief in the past is to be no disqualification. No doubt while these matters are being dealt with in the Commons it might be possible to force the Lords to say " Yes " or " No " to the Veto Resolutions ; but considering the necessity for at least two months' work in the Commons, it is hardly practical politics to suggest such a course. And for this reason. The Liberals have always said that if the Lords rejected the Veto Resolutions, the crisis would become imminent. The Cabinet must then either get the consent of the Crown to the creation of Peers, or else resign or dissolve. But a Dissolution, as we have shown, is impossible till certain necessary work has been got through.
In addition to these considerations, there are others in regard to the difficult position of the King which we are sure weigh quite as strongly with his Majesty's advisers as with any other section of the community. Every one feels that it would be unfair to the King to place him at such a moment as this in the position of having to deal with the Constitutional crisis in its most acute form. This fact alone would prevent the Government from precipi- tating a, crisis at the end of June. The earliest time at which they could insist on the Lords saying " Yes" or "No" to the Veto Resolutions would be the beginning of August. There is a pretty general feeling, however, that Parliament and the Cabinet will not desire to sit through August and September. That being so, the earliest date at which the Government could bring on the Constitutional crisis would seem to be the autumn, say at the beginning of October. The practical way to deal with the problem before them, then, is either to hold an autumn Session, or to wait until the reassembling of Parliament next February. No one of course suggests that the Government will, or indeed can, give up their proposals in regard to the House of Lords. We fully realise that they are not only pledged to them up to the hilt, but that they sincerely believe that these proposals are necessary and urgent. Bringing them forward is only a question of time and convenience. We admit, further, that it would be unfair for Unionists to suggest that the Government ought not for the King's sake, to act so early as the autumn. If they hold that to be the best time for action, they ought not to be accused of want of consideration for the King. For ourselves, we see a great many objections to an autumn Session, chiefly of an administrative kind ; but we are bound to note also that, from a purely party point of view, the Unionists are not likely to suffer from such a plan being adopted. Partisan Unionists are indeed coming to feel that an autumn Dissolution would suit them quite as well as one at the beginning of next spring.
If the Government should decide not to have an autumn Session, but to postpone the decision on the Constitutional issue till next spring, a, question of very great import- ance remains to be considered. In such circumstances, ought the Lords to proceed with the consideration of Lord Rosebery's Resolutions ? At first sight it might seem that there could be no harm in their taking up the question of the internal reform of the House of Lords. Theoretically, the Liberals ought not to object to such action, for it is intended to meet the criticisms which Liberals generally make as to the evils of an hereditary Upper House. The Lords, then, might very well argue that even if there is to be a truce, they could not be accused of taking advantage of it unfairly if they were to proceed with the consideration of House of Lords reform. In our opinion, however, the matter cannot be left to their decision. If for reasons of their own Liberals object to the Lords going on with Lord Rosebery's Resolutions, and urge that to do so would be to take an unfair advantage of them, and would be contrary to the spirit in which the Liberals are acting in not forcing on the Constitutional issue, then it seems to us that, however much the Unionist Party will lose from a, party point of view, or the Lords will lose from the special point of view of their House, they must put up with such loss, and agree that the truce must be held to preclude any action on their part in regard to reform. If, however, the Lords do postpone the consideration of the Rosebery Resolutions on these grounds, it is imperative that the reasons for their action should be made clear to the country. Otherwise they may lay themselves open to the charge that they were not sincere in desiring to discuss those Resolutions, and were only too glad to find an excuse for dropping them. To be specific, Lord Lansdowne and Lord Rosebery must state publicly and precisely that they are not dropping, but merely postponing, the debate on the Resolutions, and postponing it solely on the ground that it would not be fair to discuss them during a period when by general agreement only essential and non-contentious work, or, at any rate, non-party work, is being undertaken by Parliament.
From what we have written above it will be seen that the situation is in the hands of the Government. If they decide to postpone the Constitutional issue to an autumn Session, or till next year, and to deal with none but non-party measures till then, and if, further, they tell the Opposition that they would regard the discussion of Lord Rosebery's Resolutions as an infringement of the spirit of the truce, then, however inconvenient it may be to the Unionist Party and the Lords, they must, we hold, acquiesce in the Government view. We shall be told, perhaps, that we have forgotten the Irish Members, and that it is they, not the Government, who will decide the course of events. We cannot agree. As we have said on several occasions before in these columns, any course which the Government like to adopt which is acquiesced in by the regular Opposition can be carried without the leave of the Nationalists. Moreover, the Nationalists, however discontented with that course, will not be in a position to wreak vengeance upon the Govern- ment, for this very good reason. They can only revenge themselves on the Government, even supposing they let their feelings blind them to all questions of policy, provided that the Opposition will co-operate in that work of vengeance. But on the hypothesis with which we are dealing, the Opposition would refuse to take any common action against the Government as long as the truce was maintained. The moment the truce is over, whether they like it or not, the Nationalists will be bound to go on with their work of supporting the Government. Not to do so would be to refuse to further the cause of Home- rule. The Irish know that they cannot get their Parlia- ment in Dublin without the abolition of the present functions of the House of Lords. Whenever, therefore, the proposal to abolish those functions is before Parlia- ment, they must, no matter how greatly irritated their feelings may be, vote for, and act with, those who are proposing the virtual destruction of the Second Chamber.
Previous page
