The Situation in Great Britain
BY JOHN HAYNES, PH.D., DORCHESTER HIGH SCHOOL, BOSTON, MASS.
In the last article of this series it was stated that the rejection by the House of Lords of the Budget of 1909 brought before the British people not only a fundamental question of taxation, but the constitutional question of the position of the Upper House. For centuries it had been generally conceded that the authority over finance belonged exclusively to the House of Commons. But the Lords in 1909, claiming that the new proposals were revolutionary, passed a resolution respecting the budget, “that this House is not justified in giving its consent to this bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the country.” The Commons answered by another resolution that this action was “a breach of the Constitution and a usurpation of the rights of the Commons.” Nevertheless it was necessary for the ministry to dissolve Parliament in January 1910, and carry the issue before the voters. In the campaign the Liberals stood for the budget, the denial of the right of the Lords to reject it, and home rule for Ireland. The Labor party, in addition to supporting the views of organized labor on questions affecting working men, were strongly in favor of the budget. The Irish Nationalists, as always, put Irish home rule before everything else. The Conservatives, under the name of Unionists, which they use to emphasize their opposition to home rule, made their campaign chiefly on the issue of “tariff reform,” which in Great Britain means the abandonment of her free trade policy. Sentiment in favor of doing this has greatly increased in recent years, and those who favor it are supplied with much greater financial resources for pushing their views than those who uphold the present policy. It would not surprise the present writer to see Great Britain return to the “protective” system, though he believes it would be a misfortune of the greatest magnitude to the British people.
The resolution passed by the Lords when they rejected the budget implied that an election would be in the nature of a referendum, and so it was to a certain extent, but it was a very imperfect one. The law which permits plural voting was, as always, a great disadvantage to the Liberals, and undoubtedly lost them several seats. Again, there has been no distribution of seats since 1885, and the present arrangement is grossly inequitable. Asan extreme example the member from Romford represents over seventeen times as many voters as the member from Whitehaven. The Liberals and Labor party are the ones who suffer from this condition. Ireland, whose representation is wholly Nationalist and Conservative, has one-fourth more members of Parliament than she is justly entitled to. Another thing which helped the Conservatives were “three-cornered contests” which gave them at least five seats as representatives of districts where the Liberal and Labor voters together far outnumbered the Conservatives. Then, again, the question was so confused with other matters that there was not a direct issue on the budget. Doubtless many free traders voted for Unionist candidates from opposition to Irish home rule or the policy of the Liberals on the school and liquor questions. It is the misfortune of the Liberals that their progressive policies at the same time encounter the three powerful interests represented by the landholders, the liquor dealers, and the Anglican Church. In Ireland the home rule question so overshadowed all others that there was no expression whatever of popular opinion on the budget, though enough is known to make it pretty certain that the majority would be against it. In England, Wales and Scotland, the popular majority of the Liberals and Laborites combined in spite of plural voting, was nearly three hundred thousand. It may be concluded that notwithstanding the growth of sentiment adverse to free trade the Lloyd-George budget would be adopted by a safe margin if it were submitted as a simple question to the British people. The actual result was the choice of 274 Liberals, 273 Conservatives, 82 Irish Nationalists and 41 Labor members, a situation which gives the Irish Nationalists under the leadership of John Redmond the balance of power.
The new Parliament met February 15th. The King’s speech was very brief and foreshadowed the re-introduction of the budget and proposals for giving the House of Commons undivided authority over finance and preponderance in all legislation. This speech from the throne contained the altogether unusual phrase “in the opinion of my advisers.” The motion of the Unionists to amend the King’s speech by inserting a resolution in favor of “tariff reform” was defeated by the votes of the Liberals and Laborites, the Irish Nationalists abstaining from voting. From the opening of Parliament till the 24th of March the time has been occupied with necessary routine work, but it has become evident from the attitude of Mr. Redmond and the more radical supporters of the ministry that the question of curbing the power of the Lords must take precedence of the consideration of the budget. If the Nationalists are satisfied by the action of the ministry on this question the budget will probably pass the Commons, the Irish members either voting for it or abstaining from voting.
For the present, the question of the power of the House of Lords has become paramount. It is recognized even by the Conservatives that the present situation is indefensible. The fact that the membership of the House of Lords is overwhelmingly conservative leads to what is practically a government by a single chamber when the Conservatives are in the majority in the Commons. It has been possible for Conservative ministries to put through measures, like the Education Act of 1902, which have never been submitted to the country and would probably not be approved if submitted. On the other hand when the Liberals are in power the Lords by rejecting and mutilating legislation have prevented the principal Liberal measures from becoming law. The only recourse of the Liberals would be to appeal to the country on every question of any importance. March 23d the House of Lords by a vote of 175 to 17 adopted a set of resolutions introduced by Lord Rosebery, which are likely to become the Conservative platform on the question. They are: “First, that a strong and efficient Second Chamber is not merely an integral part of the British Constitution, but is necessary to the well-being of the State and the balance of Parliament.
“Second, that a strong and efficient Second Chamber can best be obtained by the reform and reconstruction of the House of Lords.
“Third, that a necessary preliminary to such reform and reconstruction is the acceptance of the principle that the possession of a peerage should no longer itself give the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords.”
It will be noticed that this resolution is non-committal on the question of how the voting members shall be chosen. The suggestions which have found their way into print are that the Peers should choose a certain part of their own number, that county councils should elect, that learned societies should be represented, and that men who had held high posts should be voting members. It has been stated that there would be a number of life peers. The proposal is very indefinite, and furnishes no guarantee on the most necessary point, namely, that the Second Chamber must be one which will not forever defeat the measures of the Liberals when they have a majority of the Commons. It would seem that the only logical position of those who favor a strong upper house would be to have it elected from larger districts and for longer terms than the House of Commons.
The Liberals, however, have not adopted such a plan. On March 22d, Prime Minister Asquith gave notice of three resolutions which will probably for some time or until carried out constitute the platform of the Liberals and their allies. The first declares it expedient that the House of Lords be disabled by law from rejecting any money bill. The second that it is expedient that the powers of the House of Lords over other bills be restricted so that any such bill which has passed the House of Commons for three successive sessions and has been rejected by the House of Lords in each of these sessions shall become a law without the consent of the House of Lords provided that not less than two years have elapsed between the introduction of a bill and its becoming law. The third resolution proposes to limit the duration of each Parliament to five years. These proposals possess the advantage of definiteness which the Rosebery resolutions lack. They are obviously open to the charge of proposing a one-chambered government. Late dispatches seem to indicate that these resolutions have been approved by the leaders of the Nationalists and Laborites, and that at no distant day Premier Asquith will again go to the country with these propositions instead of the budget as the chief issue, for the resolutions are certain to be rejected by the Lords.
In the interval between the preparation of this article (March 28th) and its publication, it is probable that events will move rapidly in Great Britain, but the writer hopes that this and the preceding article on the budget will furnish in brief form a useful historical background for such events as may take place.