PARLIAMENT DURING THE WORLD WAR
1
The World War had a more transforming or modifying effect on Parliament
than any other event of magnitude in history. Parliament, indeed, has
had to face but few disintegrating shocks in the past, and it emerged
from them but little changed, if changed at all. Parliament passed
unaffected, first through the Civil War, and afterwards through the
Revolution. Only a slight alteration was made in the character and
social status of its Members, and in its spirit, by the Reform Act
of 1832, which was expected by friends and opponents alike to have
stupendous results. It has only been in later years, by means of the
extension of the franchise, that important modifications in the nature
of its membership took place. But the influences of the World War on
Parliament, passing and permanent, were both sweeping and profound.
There are certain attributes of the House of Commons which are
generally recognized. It is an open and unfettered deliberative
Assembly. Its Members pride themselves on being free to say what
they think, within the bounds of order and relevancy, in the hearing
of the whole world. It has the sole control of the imposition of
taxation and the spending of the revenue. It enacts laws. It is
composed of two elements, the Government and the Opposition. By means
of question and debate the Opposition provide a check on the policy
and administration of the Government, and should the Government be
defeated by their action they are ready to supply an alternative
Government. The followers of both are regimented by the system called
“Whipping” for the advancement of Party principles. In regard to all
these functions, the working of the House of Commons was, with general
consent, practically suspended for the period of the War. These effects
were but temporary. But there were others, relating more to the spirit
of the Assembly than to its procedure, which seem destined to endure.
Party discipline is unlikely ever again to be so rigid and punitive
as it was before the War. The House of Commons is still divided, as
of yore, between Government and Opposition, but the old solidarity on
each side would seem to have been permanently shaken. For one thing,
the group system has been introduced. I do not mean groups unattached
to Government or Opposition, in the sense that they do not accept the
Whips of either, but groups within the organized Parties, Unionist,
Liberal and Labour, advocating policies not antagonistic exactly to
the Party creeds, but somewhat out of harmony with the day’s policy
of the Government or Opposition. The influence of such a system is
disintegrating. For another thing, the independent Member made his
appearance, and it looked as if he had come to stay and to increase and
multiply--the Member, that is, who is attached politically neither to
Government nor Opposition, criticizing or supporting one or the other
according to the appeal the current subject of debate makes to his
stable--or is it unstable?--mind. The control of Government over its
followers has thereby been much weakened. Again and again after the
War, the Government, impressed or intimidated by the volume of attack
from Members who were nominally counted among their own supporters,
consented not to put on their Whips in the division, thus permitting
a vote to be freely taken on the matter in dispute, and allowing
their followers to act as thinking men, according to their individual
opinions, instead of as Party men as the Government dictated. All this
had the effect of making both debates and decisions truer expressions
of real conviction, uninfluenced by Party interests than they ever
had been before. But were the example to spread, a Government backed
by a solid majority, and strong enough to retain office and carry its
measures, might become far more exceptional than it has been in the
past. Yet this also must be pointed out, that every time the Whips were
withdrawn, the Government had a substantial, if reduced, majority,
showing they had right on their side--in the opinion of the vast body
of their supporters.
2
One of the War’s first effects was the easing of the political
situation at home by means of a Party truce. Parties at the time had
reached their highest point of strength and rigidity and were intensely
embittered. The question in dispute between the Liberal Government and
the Unionist Opposition was Home Rule for Ireland. Civil war, or, at
the least, grave political disturbances, seemed inevitable. Suddenly
into this scene of domestic turmoil and disruption appeared the still
more terrifying spectre of the World War. What would the Opposition do?
In all previous wars the Government were criticized and bated by the
Opposition, or by large and influential sections of the Opposition,
and, indeed, in some cases, were hampered and harassed in the very
conduct of operations. But on Sunday, August 2, 1914, when the action
of the Government with respect to the declaration of War between
Germany and France was still in doubt--Germany not having then invaded
Belgium--Mr. Bonar Law, as Leader of the Opposition in the Commons,
and Lord Lansdowne as Leader of the Opposition in the Lords, wrote a
private letter to Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister, declaring their
belief that any hesitation to stand by France would be fatal to the
honour and security of the United Kingdom, and promising the support
of the Unionist Party in any measures the Government might consider
necessary in aid of France. This decision of the Opposition was made
public by Mr. Bonar Law in a speech on December 14, 1914. “Many times
in the past,” said he, “nations with more or less free institutions,
have been brought to the verge of ruin because, even in the face of
danger without, they have not been able to stifle domestic conflict
within.” That was not to be so now. The World War developed a higher
degree of solidarity among Members of the House of Commons than had
ever been attained since the introduction of the Party system. When Sir
Edward Grey announced in the House of Commons, on Monday, August 3,
1914, that this country was constrained to draw the sword upon Germany,
the Government had the support of all Parties united and unanimous,
save for a small pacifist group composed of Labour and Radical
representatives.
The Party conflict was thus suspended. It was arranged that there were
to be no electoral contests during the War. If a seat became vacant,
the right and title to it of the Party in possession was not to be
disputed. All Party organizations, whether at headquarters in London or
in the constituencies, were put to “work of national importance”--to
use a phrase that came into common use during the War. Their trained
speakers were sent through the country to explain to the people the
origin of the War, and its objects, evil and good.
The Party truce quickly developed into a Party alliance. The Party
Administration in power gave way to a National Government. The
first move in this direction was the appointment of Lord Kitchener,
a neutral in politics, to the post of Secretary of State for War.
He stated publicly that he took office not as a Party man but as
a soldier, to give the State the benefit of his experience in the
prosecution of the War. Then in May 1915 Mr. Asquith, as Prime
Minister, came to the conclusion--or so it was said--that the War had
attained to such a magnitude that the State in waging it required the
active support of all Parties, and his colleagues in the Ministry
having, by his direction, placed their respective offices at his
disposal--an exception being made in the case of Sir Edward Grey,
Foreign Secretary--he formed a Coalition Government, representative
of the Unionist and Labour Parties, as well as the Liberal. The Irish
Nationalists stood aloof. John Redmond, their leader, was invited to
take Cabinet office, but though the Home Rule Act had been placed on
the Statute Book, in a state of suspension until the War was over,
he adhered to the settled policy of the Party that no Member of it
should take or seek office in any Government until Home Rule had
been established. The Nationalists, however, supported the War. Mr.
Asquith, announcing the formation of the Coalition to the House of
Commons, said it must not be taken as indicating anything in the
nature of a surrender or compromise on the part of any persons, or
bodies of persons, of their several political purposes or ideals.
“One reason only could justify,” he said, “such a new departure in
the constitutional practice of Parliament--a clear and urgent case of
national necessity.” At the conclusion of the War, he added, Parties
would be free to revert to their original positions.
The situation was anomalous in some respects. It was said at the time
that this sweeping reconstruction of the Ministry was the work of a
very small number of men, not more than a dozen, representing the
Government and the Opposition. The Parties, Unionist, Liberal and
Labour, were not consulted at any meeting called for the purpose, and
some of the Ministers were unaware, as they publicly stated, that a
Coalition had been arranged until they received the Prime Minister’s
request to resign their offices. What was most remarkable of all was
that the Liberal Government, which had been returned at the General
Election to carry Party measures, was put out of existence, and its
place was taken by a Government which had no mandate direct from
the people. The Coalition Government, nevertheless, was accepted
by the King, by Parliament and by the country. The truth is, there
was dissatisfaction with the conduct of the War. It was not moving
to victory, or did not appear to be, in the eyes of the public. Its
direction lacked vigour and far-sightedness at home, and at the front
high explosives. So the Coalition was formed not only to bring in fresh
minds, but also to widen the field of Party responsibility and thus
curtail the line of partisan attack. It was one of the most striking
examples afforded during the War of the adaptability of Parliament
to circumstances, even the most unprecedented and unforeseen, and
the swiftness with which it can move in a time of national danger.
Another instance of the pliancy of the Constitution in the face of
emergency quickly followed. The new Ministers did not have to go to
their constituencies for a renewal of their trust. This was avoided
by the passing of an Act temporarily suspending the old Statute of
1707 requiring the re-election of Members of the House of Commons on
acceptance of office.
Thus were the swords of all Parties sheathed in their scabbards. Thus
did the Opposition almost entirely disappear. Thus did Parties agree
to put their political opinions in the background for the duration
of the War. An Empire may be run on political principles; a man may
regulate his relations towards his fellow-men, or towards the State, on
political principles. But a World War cannot be conducted on political
principles, be they Conservative, Liberal or Labour, any more than if
you had the misfortune to fall into the hands of footpads you could
save yourself by summoning to your aid the political principles in
which you have faith. The real function of Parliament was also made
clear. It is often forgotten that Parliament does not govern. The
purpose of Parliament is to advise as to policy. That is to say,
it does not administer the affairs of the country, small or great.
Executive government is in the hands of the King’s Ministers. The
part played by Parliament during the War was to pass measures for the
prosecution of the War submitted by Ministers, subject only to the
merest attempt at control, or influence rather, by means of questions
and criticism.
3
Parliament settled down to the concentration of all the energies
and resources of the country in the efficient conduct of the War.
Legislation unconnected with the War was suspended. No Private Bills
relating to commercial and municipal undertakings were introduced. At
the commencement of each session a Standing Order was adopted which
prevented the bringing in of Bills, or the moving of motions dealing
with public affairs, by unofficial Members, thus sweeping away a
privilege always highly valued. Even the control of the Commons over
financial supplies and expenditure--the most ancient and imperative
duty of the representative Chamber--was allowed to fall into abeyance.
No Estimates of the customary kind were presented by the Service
departments. Only token votes of the nominal sum of £1,000 were
asked for. Each might mean, and probably did mean, £50,000,000 or
£100,000,000. There was no debate on details. It was recognized that
secrecy was most essential in the public interest. Expenditure to the
extent of thousands of millions was authorized by successive Votes
of Credit. The House willingly sanctioned the nature and amount of
the taxes proposed for the raising of the national revenue. It also
agreed without discussion to proposals for obtaining most of the money
required for financing the War by means of loans.
Other business of the highest importance was transacted with the utmost
celerity. Acts of Parliament of enormous scope were often passed
in a single day, which in ordinary times would have been wrangled
over for months. What Sir Frederick Banbury, of the City of London,
the most searching and tireless critic of the policy and measures
of the Government before the War, said of himself on the War Loan
Bill--turning over a new leaf as a parliamentarian--may be applied to
Members generally. “For twenty-three years,” he said, “I have been
promoting discussion and preventing legislation. Now my desire is to
prevent discussion and promote legislation.”
The one distinctive feature of the House of Commons which has struck
all visitors for many a year was the Government and the Opposition
seated facing one another on rising tiers of benches, and, in moments
of high Party excitement, shouting challenge and defiance across the
estranging floor. That picture was turned to the wall during the World
War. There was an entire change in the aspect and temper of the House
of Commons as the great arena of political controversy. The traditional
seating of Members according to their Party principles was disturbed by
the formation of the National Government. The floor lost its historic
political significance. To cross it no longer meant so tremendous a
personal revolution as a change in Party convictions--a passing from
one political camp to the other. Certain conventions in regard to the
occupation of seats, which appear to have arisen principally in the
later half of the nineteenth century, have been so long accepted that
they have now almost the force of settled rules. In theory no Member
has a prescriptive right to a particular seat. There is only one way
by which a Member can secure a place for the sitting, and that is,
according to the Standing Order, by being present at prayers. I should
say, parenthetically, that if a Member is thanked by the House for some
great service, the place in which he sits at the time is reserved for
his sole use, but that is a thing that has not occurred for many, many
years. Nevertheless, the application of this Standing Order has been
limited to the general body of Members on both sides of the House, who,
by the use of the convenient, though irregular, term “private Members,”
are distinguished from Ministers. The Treasury Bench, to the right of
the Speaker, has long been appropriated exclusively by Members of the
Government. At one time it was known not only as the Treasury Bench,
but also as the Privy Councillors’ Bench. Not even a Privy Councillor
who is a supporter of the Party in power, but not himself a Minister,
ever takes a seat on the Treasury Bench now. The corresponding
Front Bench at the other side of the Clerk’s table, called the
“Front Opposition Bench,” has long been reserved to Members who have
held office in the preceding Administration of different political
principles from the Administration in power. Apart from Ministers and
ex-Ministers, certain distinguished Members, such as leaders of groups,
are recognized as having a right to certain seats. But these places are
reserved solely by usage and courtesy. In like manner it is the custom
for old and respected Members, irrespective of Party, to be allowed to
occupy without question places they have a mind to.
4
During the War, Liberals, Unionists and Labour sat where they pleased.
Political forces that for centuries had been antagonistic in their
very nature and composition coalesced, as if by a miracle, in defiance
of all the accepted principles of political strife. Evidence of this
amazing fusion was to be observed in all parts of the Chamber--in the
appearance of familiar faces in strange places, among the general body
of Members to the right and left of the Speaker, and still more in the
juxtaposition on the Front Benches of Party leaders who were lately
in the bitterest antagonism. Liberals, Unionists and Socialists sat
together as Ministers on the Treasury Bench. For the first time in the
history of Parliament the “Front Opposition Bench,” as the appellation
of the corresponding bench on the other side of the Table, became
obsolete, because, for the first time in the history of Parliament,
it was filled with partisans of widely different political opinions
who were united in supporting the Government. No longer did Members
blaze across at each other with fiery eyes from under clouded brows.
On the contrary, one called the other “my honourable friend” in the
true Coalition spirit. During the long time of international peace,
but of domestic Party strife, it was as rare as summer snow for a
Member to refer in debate to a Member on the other side of the floor
as his honourable friend. Disraeli would not allow a Minister in his
Government to call an opponent his honourable or right honourable
friend. “Such ostentatious intimacy,” he used to say, “would make the
Party struggle appear to outsiders a mere game.” By the etiquette of
the House the leaders on each side of the Table were “right honourable
gentlemen” to one another, no matter how close might have been their
personal relations. During the War it was a common thing to hear
the term “my right honourable friend” exchanged across the floor by
political opponents of old standing.
A similar transformation took place in the House of Lords. Unionist
leaders sat as Ministers on the Government Bench with such of the
Liberal leaders in the late Ministry as were reappointed to office
by Mr. Asquith. The Leader of the House, Lord Crewe, speaking on
June 4, 1915, when the Coalition made its first appearance, referred
to his new colleagues as “my noble friends, whom a few weeks ago I
should not have ventured to address by that term.” “All the House,” he
continued, “is now composed of cross-benches, and happily we have here
no fractious politicians.” It had been suggested that Tory peers in
the Government should retain their old seats, but this was rejected,
as Lord Lansdowne, late Leader of the Opposition afterwards explained,
for two reasons. These were that close consultation between colleagues
in the Ministry is necessary to legislation, and that the public would
not believe there was a Coalition if Ministers did not sit side by
side on the same bench. Lord Lansdowne’s brief speech was, perhaps,
the most moving incident of that historic day. He was not a man given
to emotion, but his voice faltered as he told his followers, sitting
opposite, that the old comradeship was now “all at an end,” and that he
addressed them as leader “for the last time.” He added a word of thanks
to the Unionists for their faithfulness to himself in the past, and
gave a pledge of their whole-hearted support to the Prime Minister in
the prosecution of the War.
5
Another novel experience was the two Houses in secret session for
the consideration of War measures. The first of these sessions was
held on April 25, 1916, when the Government laid before Commons and
Lords in their respective Chambers the proposals for the compulsory
recruiting of men for the armies in the field. Only on two previous
occasions did the House of Commons decide to exclude “strangers,” and
among them, of course, the representatives of the Press. These were,
in 1870 for a debate on sexual diseases, and in 1878 for a debate on
the murder of Lord Leitrim, an Irish landowner. Summarized reports of
both discussions were published in the newspapers. These must have been
supplied by Members. In order to prevent similar disclosures of the
debates in secret session on War measures, the Privy Council issued a
Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Acts, declaring it unlawful
for any person in any newspaper or periodical, or in any public speech,
to publish any report of the proceedings except such report as might be
officially communicated.
The procedure by which the public galleries are cleared is the ancient
one of “spying strangers.” It is a reminder that by the theory of the
Constitution debates in Parliament are secret, and that reports of them
are still, as they always have been, permitted as a matter of grace by
either House. Accordingly, in the House of Commons, Mr. Asquith drew
the Speaker’s attention to the presence of strangers. The question
“that strangers be ordered to withdraw” was put at once, without
debate, and carried, and the occupants of the public galleries, about a
dozen peers, and the Press representatives, got up and left. On former
occasions the order for the withdrawal of strangers did not extend
to the Ladies’ Gallery, which, by one of those curious parliamentary
fictions, is not supposed to be within the House. “Ladies,” says
Erskine May in _Parliamentary Practice_, “can only be informed of
the subject of debate, and left to withdraw or not, at their own
discretion.” This difficulty was got over on April 25 and 26, 1916--the
secret session having lasted two days--by the Speaker directing that
the Ladies’ Gallery should not be opened. All the doors were locked
and bolted. No one was present in the House who was not an elected
representative, save the Clerk and the Serjeant-at-Arms.
As there is no rule in regard to “spying strangers” in the House of
Lords, the procedure there took the form of moving a resolution that
strangers be ordered to withdraw. On this an interesting debate arose.
The Lord Great Chamberlain, who controls admission to the House of
Lords, had closed the Chamber and its precincts to strangers without
waiting for the peers’ decision. This technical irregularity was held
to be an infringement of their lordships’ privilege to prescribe the
conditions under which any debate should take place, and a protest
against it on their part was put upon record. Before this discussion
in the Lords ended with the passing of the resolution to exclude
strangers, it was made clear that the view which the Government took
of the obligation of secrecy resting upon each individual Member of
Parliament was not only in regard to printing and public speaking,
which were covered by the new Regulation under the Defence of the Realm
Acts, but in regard to private communications as well. Lord Crewe
treated it as a matter of course that none of the Peers present at
the secret session would “in any way divulge what passed, so far as
its character was confidential.” In the official reports of the secret
proceedings in both Houses, which were given to the Press, the purposes
of the Government were briefly stated, but nothing was said as to the
reasons for them, which would disclose the military situation to the
enemy.
Parliament was found capable of adapting itself, in all respects, to
the national needs in that roughest and most perilous passage which
this country has encountered in its voyage through time.