Page images
PDF
EPUB

creation, rejoiced to hear that the Eight were still conferring and would continue to confer. Mr. Asquith's statement on July 29 contained the first hint of a possibility of a settlement of the Constitutional issue by consent. Hitherto we had only had the emphatic and reiterated assurance of the Lord Advocate of Scotland-a certain Mr. Ure-whose prediction of success was universally interpreted as a forerunner of fiasco. Things in

variably turn out contrary to Urite expectations. The House of Commons was surprised at the optimistic statement of the Prime Minister that the discussions between the representatives of the Government and the Opposition, after twelve meetings, during which they had carefully surveyed "a large part of the field of controversy," had

made such progress-although we have not so far reached an agreement-as to render it, in the opinion of all of us, not only desirable but necessary that they should continue. In fact, I may go further and say that we should think it wrong at this stage to break them off. There is no question of their indefinite continuance, and if we find, as the result of our further deliberations during the recess, that there is no prospect of an agreement that can be announced to Parliament in the course of the present Session we shall bring the Conference to a close.

One-sided
Negotiations

EIGHT hard-worked public men would not continue meeting one another for the mere purpose of playing bridge or discussing golf shop, the state of the weather or the crops, or even the unreasonableness of the rank and file on their respective sides. So it was argued. It was, moreover, noted that whereas at the outset the meetings of the Conference had been few and far between, there had recently been several meetings in the same week, suggesting that an interesting point had been reached and that, at any rate, the prospect of settlement was not absolutely hopeless. Many Unionists who regarded the Conference with suspicion have been to some extent reconciled to its continuance by the weeping and gnashing of teeth of the "wild men," who once more bombarded Mr. Asquith with foolish questions. Mr. Byles, of Bradford, who is understood to act as sub-leader of Sir Henry Dalziel's cohort, was particularly anxious to know whether, in the event of the Conference coming "to a rupture, the country will be informed then and there, or shall we have to wait for the reassembling of Parliament ?" To which the Prime

Minister replied that in the contingency referred to, which he trusted would not occur, "I do not think the country will be kept in the dark for long." There is no reason it should be kept in the dark for a day, and we trust that the Unionist Representatives, at any rate, are under no obligation to conceal the breakdown which is to most of us inevitable, for the simple reason that the position of the two Parties is irreconcilable. As we have frequently pointed out, the Conference is an unequal contest because, whereas Mr. Balfour and Lord Lansdowne have plenary powers, Mr. Asquith cannot even speak for his own Cabinet, which is full of intriguers like Mr. Churchill and Mr. Harcourt, who are awaiting an opportunity of tripping up their chief, who has no effective mandate from his followers.

Traffic in
Honours

THE most sinister incident during the Conference was the recent promotion of seven nonentities to the House of Lords. It is common ground that the hereditary peerage is already grossly swollen, and Mr. Asquith's action in ennobling another batch of well-to-do party hacks, who ex hypothesi have rendered such "services" by cheque and otherwise as commend themselves to Whips-because there is not a name of any public distinction among them-leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. It will be a bad day for the country should the Conference simply afford the two Front Benches an opportunity of putting their heads together for the purpose of perpetuating the present scandalous traffic in honours, by means of which Party coffers are periodically replenished and crashing "bounders" bound into the House of Lords. Note that whenever the question of the creation of peers has been raised in the House of Commons by independent Members on either side, the Front Benches have combined to stifle inquiry, because inquiry would involve exposure. When a man receives the Victoria Cross, his service is publicly specified. Why should we not be allowed to know the services rendered by our new nobility? We are, of course, aware that Sir Christopher Furness was unseated on petition, that Sir Richard Causton was rejected by his constituents, that Mr. Ivor Guest is a first cousin of the Home Secretary, but are these adequate reasons why devoted democrats should disguise themselves under grandiose names, or why their progeny shall

rule over us? Whatever else it may do, this Conference of Front Benchers bodes no good for the cleansing of the Augean stables of corruption, by which both parties are infected. It may be answered that, as politics is nowhere a clean trade, a few scandals more or less in the distribution of honours don't matter, to which we answer that it matters enormously that Politicians should implicate the Crown as the fountain of honour in such transactions as have taken place of late years. One fine day there may be a scandal, which would not only besmirch Politicians which would not much matter-but which might injure the Crown. We devoutly hope that in the new reign. which is opening up abundant vistas of promise in every direction, and which is reviving hope even in those who were disposed to despair of the Republic, that there may be greater discrimination than hitherto, and that henceforward it shall be impossible for any man, simply because he has drawn a cheque, to become either a peer, a baronet, or even a knight.

THE greatest sufferer under an odious system which stimulates a craving for "distinctions" is undoubtedly the Press, which used to be an honourable high-minded body, Prestige of independent of Ministers and ex-Ministers, whereas the Press it now largely consists of servile Party organs on the look out for such favours as Governments bestow faithful henchmen. When we see editors of respectable reviews and austere weeklies stooping to pick up common or garden knighthoods, can we be surprised that our profession should be on the down grade? The politicians may have gained what the Press has lost, but the public have not gained by having third-rate politicians palmed off upon them by expectant newspapers as first-rate statesmen. Will the Conference check the unlimited creation of peers, which has been the undoing of the House of Lords? We doubt it. The Front Benches know their own business, even if they don't know the country's business, and it is infinitely convenient to them to maintain "a tame Press" by dangling "honours" before the principal proprietors, pour encourager les autres." The managing director of a daily journal, who is also proprietor of a periodical, has recently reached the halfway house to the House of Lords by effecting a

66

lodgment in the baronetcy. Now we would frankly put it to any Liberal, Radical, or Unionist confrere as to whether such a transaction increases the prestige of our profession, or whether, on the other hand, it does not tend to make "tied houses" of newspapers and to enslave the Press to the politicians.

Muddling
Through

THE holiday mood of the House of Commons at the end of July facilitated the work of the Government as much as it hampered the Opposition. Every delay was regarded as a nuisance, every speech as a bore. Ministers had, as usual, muddled their business, especially the Accession Declaration of the King, which there was a general desire to alter, so as to omit the offensive and insulting references to Roman Catholicism. The Prime Minister introduced a measure calculated to provoke the maximum of friction. At the eleventh hour he announced that he would throw over his original proposal and substitute the following simple Declaration: "I do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant and that I will according to the true intent of the enactments to secure the Protestant succession to the throne of my realm uphold and maintain such enactments to the best of my power." An interesting debate ensued, to which Mr. Birrell contributed an entertaining speech, discussing the fallacy fondled by Protestants that the Pope had no dispensing power over an oath containing references to a matter of faith, and that whilst he could dispense from an oath of loyalty and supremacy, “if you use language sufficiently offensive and disgusting to the Roman Catholic mind, that was an oath from which the Pope could not dispense you." Without embarking upon the dangerous topic as to the limits of the dispensing power, "I am certain of this, that no such limitation as that forms any true part of the Catholic doctrine of dispensation. It is a Protestant delusion if you think, by putting in particular words having an insulting reference to particular articles of the Roman Catholic faith, that you have 'got' the Pope. Nothing of the kind." We do not know why Mr. Birrell, or any one else, need fear saying that an infallible Pope claims an unlimited dispensing power, and that, consequently, all the "declarations" in the world could not save us from a

Catholic monarchy in the event of our King becoming a convert to Catholicism, though were it avowed he would ipso facto forfeit the throne by virtue of the Acts of Parliament safeguarding the Protestant succession. In Mr. Birrell's vernacular there would be no way of "getting" either the King or the Pope if the former's conversion remained secret.

Catholics and the King

THIS is surely the gist of the controversy, though it seems to have been lost sight of by many speakers during the debate, which was envenomed by the drastic application of the closure to prevent serious discussion, Ministers excusing themselves on the ground that, as the Second Reading was carried by more than 400 votes, they were entitled to proceed without delay. Ultimately the amended form of Declaration was passed by a majority of 190 (244 to 54). Although the Government deserve no credit for their modus operandi, the country may congratulate itself on the conclusion of a controversy which could only have done harm. The House of Lords devoted the August Bank Holiday to passing the Accession Declaration Bill, the second reading of which was carried without a Division. Lord Crewe and Lord Lansdowne both approved, while the Archbishop of Canterbury also gave his blessing, pointing out that the original object had been political rather than religious, and that the new Declaration said all that was necessary and in such a way as to be intelligible to every one without offending the most sensitive Roman Catholic. "Such a solution will be to the relief of the personal position of the gracious Sovereign of this Empire; it will be to the easing of the mind of reasonable controversialists on either side; and I will add, it will be to the credit of Christian common sense." The result is hailed with great satisfaction in various portions of the British Empire, whose sentiments were somewhat overlooked during the Debate in Parliament. Archbishop Bourne sent a cordial telegram of congratulation to Mr. Asquith on his courage, determination, and tact" in amending the Declaration, which would be keenly appreciated by the Catholics throughout the Empire; but the Irish Catholic makes a different and more interesting comment:

[ocr errors]

The passage into law of the Bill for the Amendment of the Royal

« PreviousContinue »