PEACE AND THE CONSTITUTION
_The question for the British nation is--Can we work our
course pacifically on firm land into the New Era, or must
it be for us as for others, through the black abysses of
Anarchy, hardly escaping, if we do with all our struggles
escape, the jaws of eternal death?_--THOMAS CARLYLE.
It is not only international peace that must be assured. As a necessary
condition for reconstruction comes the need for Peace, peace real and
lasting, and peace all round. There may be times when the nation or the
individual needs the bracing stimulus, if not of war, at least of
competition and of conflict in the realm of thought and in the realm of
action; times when old institutions, old creeds, old systems, old
customs, are fiercely attacked and vigorously defended. The storm clears
the air, and the struggle ends in the survival of the fittest. After the
War the nations, and our own not least, wearied of strife, exhausted by
losses, will need all their energies to repair those losses, to rebuild,
often in quite new form, what the havoc of war has destroyed, and to
adapt themselves to the changed conditions of an altered world. It will
be a time neither for contest nor for rest, but for co-operation, mutual
help in the work, not merely of restoration, but of building up
something better in its place, where the old has been destroyed, or
shown its defects under the strain. For this, Peace is needed, peace not
only between the nations, but peace between different classes and
opposing parties, and even divergent Churches; international,
industrial, political and religious peace. There will be so much that
ought by general agreement to be done, the ideals to be set before us
will have so much in common, their realisation will need so much work in
concert, such concurrence as to the practical steps to be taken, such
goodwill among those who must work together with a common aim, that a
"truce of God" between those who were once opponents may be called for.
For a time at least old shibboleths might be forgotten, and the old
so-called "principles," round which so many barren contests of the past
have been waged, might cease to hamper us in adopting the practical
measures which the exigencies of the time demand.
It is a significant fact, a note of sure and certain hope of the
ultimate result in the struggle against the powers of darkness, that men
are ready now to think and to act on the assumption that complete
victory will be achieved, and that the foundations for reconstruction
may now be laid, even while war is raging most fiercely. This work of
preparation to meet the difficulties that will arise after the War need
not interfere in any way with the paramount necessity of carrying on the
War to a successful issue, or divert the attention of those who are
engaged in that task. It is indeed matter for congratulation that in the
present Parliament, in spite of necessary preoccupation with matters
directly affecting the conduct of the War, a great Parliamentary Reform,
changing and enlarging the basis of representation, has been carried
through, and that the way to a great advance in Education has been made
possible.
These great changes have been made with something approaching to general
concurrence. On one question unfortunately proposals made as part of
their considered scheme for electoral reform by a representative
conference were set aside. The influence of old party machinery and a
sluggish reluctance to take the trouble to understand either its
character or its importance prevented the introduction of a system of
proportional representation. The representatives of the caucuses scored
a success towards slamming the door of the House of Commons in the face
of the detached judgment, moderation of language, and independence of
character which Parliament needs. The electors desire to have such
qualities in their representatives, but care is taken to prevent their
giving effect to it. But it is better to let even that question rest for
a time.
It would have been most unfortunate if it had been necessary, after the
War, when delay in dealing with many matters which will be most urgent
would be disastrous, to arouse contests about alterations in the
electorate and mode of election. The new Parliament may, after all, turn
out to be fairly representative of the nation, and may set about the
practical work of reconstruction at once. It would have been an
advantage if the Reform of the House of Lords could also have been
disposed of in the present Parliament, but it is not one of the
questions upon which the welfare of the country will immediately depend.
Everyone admits the need for reform; the abolition of the
"backwoods-man" must come; but it is the men of most experience in
public affairs who regularly attend sittings of the House of Lords, and
they contribute even now a valuable element in promoting useful
legislation as well as in revising and amending the Bills initiated in
another place. Most of the amendments of the Law which marked the latter
half of the nineteenth century were first introduced in the House of
Lords.
During this time of severe test, it cannot be denied that the House of
Lords has gained in the respect of the nation, that its debates have not
only been dignified but often useful and enlightening, nor that, as at
other times in its past history, it has shown itself to be quite as
ready as the other House to be a guardian of law and of liberty. The
business ability of many of its members has also been conspicuous, and
the value of the experience of those who have taken part in the
government of British possessions beyond the seas and of their knowledge
of other countries has been demonstrated.
Of the Crown and its influence it is unnecessary, perhaps unbecoming,
to say much. It has made for the unity of the Empire, not only as a
symbol, but, so far as the strict limitations of our Constitution
permit, as an active force. The existence of the monarchy and the
character of three successive sovereigns, and their real personal
interest in its people, are among the causes why India has been, and
especially why the Native States have been, as a rule, so loyal in this
time of danger, when the support of the whole Empire was so much needed.
In our own country the example set of ever ready and earnest sympathy
with all who are suffering from the effects of the War, feeling its
strain and bearing its burdens, from the highest to the humblest, and
also of that simplicity of life now so vitally important for all in the
time of general self-denial, which is necessary or, at any rate, a duty
for all, has been one of the real factors in knitting all classes of the
nation together in useful service and willing sacrifice. Could anyone
read the royal speech to the nation on July 6th, 1918, and the words of
the Archbishop of Canterbury at St. Paul's, and of the leaders in
Parliament, without feeling what a mighty influence for good there is in
the British monarchy? Those words were not decorous platitudes demanded
by convention, but the expression of genuine and intense feeling.
The sober freedom out of which there springs
Our loyal passion for our temperate kings
is an inheritance of our country which no theoretical discussions about
forms of government can interfere with, unless we are insane enough to
abandon the practical good sense that has brought the nation safely
through so many perils, in deference to some _a priori_ argument about
the best form of government, and the logical result of some so-called
principles. In politics--always using the term in its broad meaning, and
not as denoting the disputes and manoeuvres of parties, like the
contests between the green and blue factions of Byzantium--there is a
strong presumption that whatever is recommended as "logical" is also
foolish. It would be well to prescribe a severe course of Burke for the
_a priori_ theorists, and while they are occupied with it, set ourselves
to the real work. We should not forget, too, that Court influence, which
in some past times fostered corruption in political life, has for eighty
years been as a rule a purifying influence. It would not be easy for any
Minister, pressed by the political exigencies of the hour, to submit,
even for formal approval, to a sovereign who has only the national
interest to think of, perhaps most difficult of all to a high-minded and
clear-headed woman, a course of action that was dishonourable or mean.
However important the influence of the Crown and the functions of a
Second Chamber may be, it is the House of Commons which is the
corner-stone of the Constitution. Through it the will of the nation must
be expressed, and embodied in definite action. The representatives in
that House are those chosen by the nation by regular and legal methods
to exercise their judgment, to enact laws, and to control acts of the
executive. It is essential not only to maintain, but to restore the
position of the House of Commons, and insure for it the respect and
confidence of the people. It is impossible to deny that respect and
confidence have been shaken, and that the position of the House is
threatened from two opposite quarters. We hear it daily spoken of as
"that talking shop"; it has been said that it would be better, instead
of having a fine statue of Cromwell outside, to have a living Cromwell
inside to purge it thoroughly. The story of the officer who, on
returning to England after long residence in the East, asked his father
if "that nonsense was going on still," represents a feeling which is
widespread. The present House of Commons, the existence of which has
been necessarily prolonged, has been the subject of bitter and
contemptuous criticism. Much of that criticism is unfair. In spite of
the fact that its attention had first to be directed to questions
directly affecting the War, it has passed the largest extension of the
franchise ever made, and in doing so without doubt carried out the wish
of the nation. It got rid of the fetters imposed on the free expression
of the will of the electors, and the restrictions placed on the free
selection of candidates of small means, by putting the expenses of
returning officers on public funds, and also by making better provision
for the revision of the register of voters. A number of useful Bills
have been passed, and it has been a means of eliciting information from
the Government which the country ought to have, but which would
otherwise have been withheld. It has voted the necessary supplies for
carrying on the War, and freely and readily assented to the increased
taxation that was essential. Unfortunately it is the practice in a
portion of the Press always to give prominence to the strange antics of
certain members and the vicious attempts made by some to embarrass the
Government in carrying on the War. A scene in the House of Commons is
fully reported; the good work done, especially by certain useful
committees, passes almost unnoticed. It is true, however, that the
character of many of the debates has been regrettable, and that as
regards what is perhaps its most important function, namely, the control
of expenditure, the House has not been able to exercise its functions as
it should.
It was pointed out years ago that the House of Commons was in practice
ceasing to be what it ought, according to Constitutional theory, to be,
"a deliberative assembly of the representatives of the nation discussing
and forming judgments on national policy, instituting legislation and
determining its form," and was becoming simply "a body for registering
the decrees of a Cabinet." In practice it was assumed to be "the duty of
the minority in opposition to find objections to the proposals of the
Government, representing the majority, and to occupy time in voting
against them as often as possible, and on the other hand that it is the
duty of the majority to refrain from discussion, to applaud Ministers,
and to make sure that whatever they propose shall be carried by
undiminished numbers." In this respect the present House is no worse
than its predecessors for the last thirty years; the political truce has
indeed improved matters in some respects. It is at least doubtful
whether under "pre-War conditions" either the Representation of the
People Bill or the Education Bill could have been carried, certainly
they would not have been passed in a form to secure so much general
consent. Instead of such consent, some measure strongly opposed by a
minority might have been forced through by free use of the closure. A
new danger has arisen, however, of a still more serious kind,
threatening the position of the House of Commons. It is that, instead of
national policy being controlled by legislation, settled by a recognised
constitutional body elected according to definite rules and representing
the nation, the real power of initiative and real directing force may
pass to some other body or bodies unknown to the law and representing
only a class or even to certain writers in the popular Press. The House
of Commons, unless its constitutional powers and its independence are
maintained or restored, may become a body for registering and giving
legal sanction to the resolutions of some conference or convention
indefinite in its constitution, but highly organised for the purpose of
making representatives in Parliament mere delegates to carry out the
proposals of the majority of those who themselves had acted as delegates
of a section only of the community.
The course of revolution in Russia should be a warning to all. Russia is
passing through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, where is heard "the
continual howling and yelling of a people under unutterable misery, who
sit there bound in affliction and iron, and over it hang the
discouraging clouds of confusion; death also does always spread his
wings over it. In a word it is every whit a dreadful being utterly
without order." Had there been in Russia a regularly constituted
assembly possessing adequate power and representing the nation as a
whole, including the "bourgeoisie"--who also "are God's creatures"--as
well as workmen, instead of irregular bodies appealing to the greed and
hatred of a class, most of the misery through which Russia is passing
might have been prevented, and the prospects of early restoration would
have been assured. The British nation is too sane, too used to orderly
freedom, to adopt either the spirit or the methods of the Bolsheviks,
but we may hear of them even in this country. They may perhaps give
serious trouble and interfere with progress on sound lines. The historic
House of Commons must be the means of carrying out Reconstruction so far
as legislation, and of controlling it so far as State action is
required. Some changes in its methods will be discussed in the chapters
on Reform, but the maintenance of the Constitution as the best
instrument for promoting orderly, peaceful, and real progress is
essential.
The peace we need would only be uselessly disturbed, and the practical
reforms most urgently required would only be delayed by raising
controversial questions about the form of the Constitution. We may well
let them alone, and get on with something that will be of real benefit.