STRENGTHENING THE EXECUTIVE.
ENGLISHMEN instinctively regard with suspicion any measure for strengthening the Executive. Dunning's famous motion of April 6th, 1780, " That the power of the Crown has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished," represents the general view of our generation as well as his. We have had a sore experience of what uncontrolled bureaucracy means in the shape of " Dora." We have seen that a measure ostensibly designed to safeguard the realm could be perverted to cover the arbitrary confiscation of private property, to fix the height of women's boots or to forbid the playgoer to buy chocolates. The twentieth-century bureaucrat is no more to be trusted than the eighteenth- century king in the exercise of an unlimited prerogative. Nevertheless, we are driven reluctantly to the conclusion that the Emergency Powers Bill, which the Government have introduced and which the Commons read a third time on Wednesday, ought to become law. As a measure " to make exceptional provision for the protection of the community in cases of emergency," it undoubtedly confers far-reaching powers on the Government of the day, who will have the right to say when an " emergency " has arisen. Ten years ago we should have said that the Bill was unnecessary as well as undesirable. We cannot say so to-day when the State, the community, is threatened by new dangers, which must be countered by new pre- cautions. The trade unions, originally designed to defend the workman's economic liberties, have developed into huge combinations controlled by a few ambitious men who aim at destroying the liberties of the nation. We see the leaders of the so-called " Triple Alliance " openly assuming that, as representatives of the miners, the railway- men, and the transport workers, they are entitled to dictate to the Government. We see the " Council of Action," composed of the same men with a few weaker colleagues, presuming to say what the foreign policy of Great Britain shall be, and decreeing that the Moscow Bolsheviks should be allowed, if they could, to enslave Poland once again. Only last week we had the country threatened with a railway strike because the majority of the railwaymen's union delegates thought fit to decide that the miners' claims were just and must be granted. It is nothing to the men who are responsible for this dangerous agitation that the Government are supported by a very large majority of the House of Commons, and that the by-elections show the country to be still strongly in favour of the Coalition. These men repudiate, in fact if not in words, the democratic theory of the constitution. They claim that the minority, in the name of " Labour," shall prevail over the majority. In these circuire stances the majority is bound to take up the challenge
and to entrust the Government in which it confides with special powers to keep the minority in check. That, in essence, is the case for the new Bill. The motive of the Bill is clearly expressed in the first clause :—
" If at any time it appears to Hie Majesty that any action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any persons or body of persons of such a nature and on so extensive a scale as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribu- tion of food, water, fuel, light or other necessities, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any sub- stantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, His Majesty may by proclamation (hereinafter referred to as a proclamation of emergency) declare that a state of emergency exists."
The complaints of Mr. Thomas and other members of the " Council of Action " about such a clause are little more than a paraphrase of the old French comic song, " Cet animal est tree michant, Quand on l'attaque, it se defend." The Government, on behalf of the community, warn all concerned that they will not fold their arms and look on helplessly if the railwaymen or any other section try to starve the nation into surrender to the will of the union leaders. If and when a " state of emergency " exists, Parliament is to be informed at once ; if the Houses are not in session, they are to meet within five days. This constitutes a valuable check on the executive. Further, any regulations made by Order in Council under the "proclama- tion of emergency " are to lose their force after a further seven days unless both Houses resolve that the regulations shall be maintained for a longer period. That is to say, the Executive under the Bill is endowed with special powers for twelve days at its own discretion ; after that, it cannot exercise those powers without the sanction of both Houses of Parliament. The clause describing the powers is necessarily drafted in general terms. In a grave emer- gency, in which the community was put upon its defence by a violent minority, it would be undesirable and indeed impossible to limit the action of the Government in pre- serving the peace and maintaining the supply of things necessary to life. It is provided, however, that the maxi- mum penalty for a breach of the regulations should be imprisonment for three months with hard labour and a fine of £100, and that offenders should be tried before a court of summary jurisdiction. The Government do not therefore contemplate any serious resistance to their special measures in the event of an emergency arising. The " proclamation of emergency " would of itself have a strong moral effect and would, as we believe, tend to restrain the strikers from acts of violence, and recall them to a sense of their duty to their country. We cannot help thinking that Mr. Asquith, who on Monday subjected the clauses of the Bill to technical criticism in detail, missed the point. If the community were threatened with starvation by a section, it would be justified in protecting itself by all the means at its disposal. We cannot restrict the nation's right of sell-defence by narrow legal provisoes.
We attach no importance to the argument that the Bill is provocative or inopportune. If " Labour "—that is, not the British working men and women, but the Socialist Labour party—wants to stir up strife, it is surely as well for the community to be prepared. If, on the other hand, " Labour " wants peace, the Bill will remain dormant. There is perhaps more force in the argument that it is unwise to arrtt the Executive with fresh powers when in the near future a Labour Ministry may take office. It may be contended that all the old constitutional checks should be maintained with care so as to prevent a Labour Ministry from playing havoc with all our institutions and reducing Great Britain to the miserable condition in which Russia is to-day. For our own part, we cannot accept this line of reasoning. We believe in democracy, in the right of the majority to rule. If the majority of the British electorate should think fit to return the Labour Party to power, and Mr. Smillie and Mr. Robert Williams, Mr. Cramp and Mr. Lansbury came into office, with a few outwardly moderate colleagues like Mr. Thomas and Mr. Clynes, we should regret it very much, but we should counsel the minority to make the best of it. We do not doubt that the British people would soon grow tired of the Labour Ministry, but while it was in office it would have to be respected. We feel sure that experience of office would rapidly sober the better Socialists, as it has done in Australia, and show them that there is a wide gulf between the theories of their middle-class advisers and the practical administration of affairs. However that may be, if the electors ever choose to give the Labour Party a majority, they must take the full responsibility. We cannot hope to keep the Labour Party out of office by any paper obstacles, and, in streng- thening the Executive, we must face the risk that the new powers accorded to the Government may be used hereafter by the very men who are now in a minority. This, it seems to us, is the only possible interpretation of democracy. We can never go far wrong if we insist that the will of the majority, legally and constitutionally expressed, shall prevail.
Previous page
