THE HOME RULE PETITION.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOB.") Sfa,—Even the bravest heart turns coward sometimes when danger threatens those it loves. Is it not possible that the Spectator, in its devotion to the Constitution and the Crown, is being influenced by some such fear when it attacks so vehemently those who are now suggesting that the King shall be asked to decide that the Home Rule Bill shall be referred to the electors before becoming law? We are, I think, in agreement on the following points : (1) The King has the legal right to refer the Home Rule Bill to the people. (2) There is no other restraint over the autocratic will of the Cabinet. (3) Civil war will be inevitable unless the Bill is dropped or submitted to the nation. As regards the last point, the vast majority of people, misled by newspaper exaggerations on other matters, do not take civil war as a serious menace; but the Spectator really believes it, and this makes its statement that what is applicable to the Home Rule Bill would also apply to the Welsh Church Bill and other questions on which there is strong difference of opinion, a little difficult to follow. The King's action in such grave circumstances can form no precedent for other cases in which civil war is not involved, but the Spectator seems to accept the statement made about three years ago by a leading Liberal journalist, with the approval of some Ministers, that "the King is merely the obedient automaton of his Prime Minister." You will remember the cool wave which swept the country when it was found that the King had felt it necessary to give the Premier secret guarantees for the creation of Peers. Is there not a risk that your efforts to conciliate the disloyal elements will have the effect of disquieting his Majesty's most loyal subjects, causing them to inquire whether the Monarchy is really useful if it is built up on pretence and powers of paper only ? They may consider that so flimsy a bulwark is a danger in giving the people a false sense of security.
Am I wrong in suggesting that the Spectator is afraid that the King's action will be misrepresented as direct opposition to the will of the people, though to any man of sense he is obviously merely endeavouring to ascertain their will The Spectator must have a very poor opinion of the democracy if that is the case. The action of the House of Lords was certainly used by Radicals in this way, but the Peers were suspected, not altogether without justification, of fighting for their own interests. In this case that is hardly possible, especially as Home Rulers claim the King as a supporter of
their views. It seems almost impossible that the author of " Wake up, England!" will allow the country to drift into civil war without one effort to rouse the nation to the dangers ahead. We British, no less than the French, love to follow a real man, and if the King's conscience leads him to declare frankly that he does not intend to favour either party, but that his consent to this measure must be withheld until his subjects have given their opinion in no uncertain voice, the whole Empire, I believe, will be stirred as never before. If Home Rule as now proposed does not imply real organized civil war, the King will probably not feel justified in inter- fering, but if he is once convinced that Ulster means to maintain her Union at all costs, the King will almost inevitably wish to know that his countrymen are prepared to take the responsibility of fighting it out. The petition has the object of strengthening his Majesty's hands if he feels bound to act. No one should sign it who does not believe that civil war is in sight.—I am, Sir, &c., ONE OF THE PETITIONERS.
[In our opinion the King can act as the adviser of his advisers in a thousand ways without incurring the remotest suspicion of joining in party politics. Although the King does not attend Cabinet Councils, his experience can be perfectly well placed at the disposal of his Ministers. It should be remembered that the King has a far wider personal knowledge not only of the British dominions beyond the seas, but of industrial communities at home and of the working of the Royal Navy than has any single one of his Ministers. To our thinking it is a misconception of all the present uses of the Monarchy to suppose that it does not justify itself unless it is capable of taking what is mistakenly called "a strong line" on certain occasions. To repeat a phrase which we have used before in writing of constitutional questions, the King is Grand Chairman of the Nation. He is the Head of a Crowned Republic. Ardent and affectionate supporters of the Monarchy as we are, we are not supporters of it in any other sense.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
