MR. MORLEY AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS. N OTHING is easier
or cheaper than to charge Liberal statesmen with inconsistency on the score of their acceptance of a peerage. But we are not yet governed by a single Assembly, and even those who are loudest in denouncing the House of Lords commonly end with the admission that as a Chamber of revision it will for a long time to come play an important part in legislation. It is true that of recent years both parties have shown them- selves unwilling to leave the Lords much time for doing this part of their work. When the second reading of an important Bill comes in the last weeks of a prolonged Session, its consideration in Committee is almost neces- sarily of a very perfunctory kind. But the cure of this evil is not to be found in the exclusion from the House of Lords of all newcomers whose title to. admission rests on other qualifications than those of birth or wealth. On the contrary, the more it is filled by men who can bring the weight of knowledge and experience to bear on its work, the better fitted it will be to save the House of Commons from the consequences of its own haste. Over and above the importance of ensuring that the business of the revising and delaying Chamber—and no serious proposal has yet been made for depriving the Peers of these functions—shall be done as well as possible, there is another part which the House of Lords can play to the great advantage of the State. Liberals have had good cause to regret the dislike with which they viewed the suggestion that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman should exchange the House of Commons for the comparative ease and leisure of the Lords. Had they been more tolerant of such a step on their leader's part, he might have been Prime Minister still. The combination of administrative work with constant attend- ance in the House of Commons makes very large demands on a Minister's strength, and the ability to meet these demands is not unaffected by the process of the suns. It is not given to all men to be as strong at seventy as they were at fifty, or to feel their Wily vigour increasing with the ripeness of their judgment. If no Second Chamber existed for legislation, we should still want one for administration, —still feel the need of a sphere in which statesmen may give to their country services which have only grown in value by the lapse of time, while they are relieved from duties which others can discharge, if not as well, at least well enough.
• Mr. Morley's farewell to his constituents puts the 3ustification of his migration to "the other House of Parliament" on this best of all grounds. "I am called," he tells them, "to make a choice between the two alterna- tives of withdrawal from the high responsibilities of the India Office and withdrawal from the House of Commons." He makes this choice of his own free will. The Montrose Burghs have always shown a just sense of their good fortune in being represented by a man of Mr. Morley's mark. But their "almost boundless indulgence" creates an answering responsibility on the part of their Member. When Mr. Morley took office more than two years ago he may have thought that the government of India was less incompatible with the duties of a Parliamentary representative than it has proved to be. He has now had an opportunity of reviewing the situation, and he has realised that the position is one which cannot be retained when once its real character has become clear. To con- tinue to represent a constituency while necessarily with- holding from it so large a part of his time and attention would be "irksome, demoralising, and politically wrong." If, indeed, there were no other way by which Mr. Morley could go on governing India, he would be bound, in our opinion, to accept even these consequences. The interests of India, the needs of India, the difficulties that arise in India, are too great to be brought into comparison with the interests, the needs, the difficulties of any constituency. The sacrifice which is involved in the honour of being represented by the Speaker might then be accepted with still greater reason by the electors who return the Secretary of State for India. Happily, however, there is no parallel between the two cases. The Speaker cannot be Speaker unless he is first a Member of the House of Commons. No such necessity exists in the case of a Cabinet Minister. He can part from his constituents and still retain his office. The "favour of the Crown" makes this possible, because it can give him a right to remain in Parliament while ceasing to sit in the House of Commons. Those who believe that the House of Lords has still a great and useful part to play in the conduct of affairs may be pardoned if they feel a natural satisfaction in the evidence which has now been given of the truth of their conviction.
Tim nation at large will share Mr. Asquith's desire that Mr. Morley should retain his present official post. His tenure of the India Office is one of the most con- spicuous successes of the Liberal Government. Indeed, we may go further, and describe it as the justification, or one of two justifications, of the unusually Departmental character of the present Administration. Spaaking generally, we look, and rightly look, in a Cabinet Minister for something more than the successful manage- ment of his special business. He is —at all events he ought to be—something more than the chief of a Department, however important. The Government of Great Britain is something more than an aggregate of well-managed offices arranged on the principle of water-tight compartments. It is a complex affair to which each member of the Cabinet ought to contribute not merely his special work, but his general counsel. In too many cases since the present Administration has been in office this contribution has been markedly withheld. A Minister's supporters in debate have so seldom been those of his own household as to suggest that his colleagues may have been as silent in the Cabinet as they have been in the House. Whatever advantages, real or imaginary, this new method may have, it has one obvious drawback. It does away with govern- ment by Committee, and substitutes government by a series of independent Secretaries. Each Minister is left a free hand with his own measures in return for leaving his colleagues a corresponding liberty as regards theirs. Two offices, indeed, are exceptions to this rule. The government of India and the conduct of our foreign• affairs are subjects of such absorbing importance that we need not wonder if the Ministers charged with them have little time or thought to spare for matters lying outside their immediate work. Mr. Morley came to the India Office in circumstances which, had the seals been in other hands, might have led to grave results. Popular dis- content may be a serious matter either because it is well founded, or because, having no real cause, it is still likely to spread rapidly. The unrest in India is of the latter kind. The government of Eastern races by Western methods does not always bring about the expected. results. Their new rulers give their subjects what they hold to be good for them, but not invariably what the subjects themselves wish. The irritation arising from this cause may not be serious in itself, but when it arises in a country in-which the subjects are for the most part ignorant of their rulers—of their language, their intentions, their ways of thinking, even their aspect—discontent, vague in its origin and wholly unintelligent in its purpose, may cover a vast area in a wonderfully short time. So far as the Viceroy's Government is concerned, it was quite able to deal with • any .outbreaks of local dissatisfaction, provided that its hands were left unfettered. But when the Liberals succeeded to office there was a section of the party which desired to apply the ideas of self-government and popular representation to a country in which the conditions which give these words their meaning do not exist. Had the new Indian Secretary been misguided enough to listen to agitators, whether in Bengal or at home, he might unwittingly have lighted a fire the extinguishing of which would at best have been a work of time and labour. Any one who is at the pains to refer to Mr. Morley's rare speeches, and to his frequent answers to questions put to him in the House, will see at once how steadily he has resisted any pressure in this direction.
There is a further reason for welcoming his transfer to the House of Lords in the fact that the debating power of that House is so unequally divided that any reinforcement of the Ministerial Front Bench is greatly to be desired. The Conservative forces have chiefs in abundance ; but in the case of the Liberals the smallness of the minority is reproduced in the fewness of the leaders. In the interest of good debating this is to be regretted. The case of an Opposition is never so well presented as when the argu- ments which have to be met have been set out with pro- portionate skill and elaboration on the side of the Govern- ment. From this point of view Mr. Morley's presence in the Lords will give the proceedings additional interest and additional value. Had he resisted Mr. Asquith's desire to include him in the reconstructed Cabinet, it would have been at the sacrifice not only of "loyalty and credit," but of the permanent interest of the Indian people.
Previous page
