Part 1 — CHAPTER VIII

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

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

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,

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 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

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

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 repre

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.

PEACE AND DEMOCRACY

There is no more unsafe politician than a conscientiously rigid doctrinaire, nothing more sure to end in disaster than a theoretic volume of policy that admits of no pliability for contingencies.—J.R. LOWELL.

It is often assumed that a change in the form of Government in Germany would completely alter the attitude and conduct of the nation, and secure permanent peace, but that alone would not be sufficient. It would undoubtedly help; for under a more popular Government it would be easier for a different spirit in the German nation to assert itself. Democracies, however, have from time to time been aggressive, and have claimed to dominate their neighbours. A change far deeper than a change in the form of Government is needed. The claim put forward both by word and deed to impose the German will on others by organised force of any kind must be abandoned utterly, if the world is to be really at peace with Germany and with those whom Germany has been able to compel or to beguile into alliance with her. The conflict is not simply between autocracy or oligarchy and democracy, but between different ideals and diametrically opposed notions of duty. The conception of their State as an organisation carefully arranged to impose its will on others regardless of their feelings and their rights must be eradicated. Democracy and Liberty do not necessarily go together. There may be democracy without liberty, and it is possible though not probable that there may be real liberty without the form of democracy. An enlightened monarch, governing as well as reigning, may express the real will of a nation more truly than

Some may build themselves a Palace of Art where they may live alone; some may sink themselves in luxury or repose in sluggish indifference, careless of the life of others round them, with neither the heart to feel nor head to understand anything beyond their own immediate wants. But the highest aim and fullest life for man generally—as "an animal more social than the bee"—is

Political action may be one of the means of carrying on that fight. Is it not one of the "rights of man" to be allowed to join in it?

Such a justification, such a statement of the function of a Second Chamber, not directly elected, may provoke a histrionic smile among extreme advocates of so-called popular rights, but has never evoked an argument which can displace it as based on sound reason and common sense. There are some changes, too, which ought not to be made without a specific appeal to the people on that particular issue. To make them as part of the programme, as one plank in the platform of a party dominant for the moment, is not to execute but to evade the real will of the nation. We know by experience how the vote of a popular representative assembly may represent the opinion of "a bare majority of a bare majority;" conceivably anything