THE BURIALS BILL IN THE LORDS.
THE "Majority of the 18th June,"—as the French teach us to call it,—in the House of Lords, may, if it is followed up, prove almost as important an event to the Constitution of this country as the victory of the 18th June proved, sixty-two years ago, to the influence of England on the continent of Europe. It has long been the fashion to speak in public meetings with a half-laugh, but nevertheless with perfect truth, of the popularity of the House of Lords in the country. While fully recognising that popularity, we confess that we have not been amongst the number of those who have seen anything in the recent history of the House of Lords to justify that popu larity. Except a sensible vote delaying, for sound financial reasons, the final extinction of the paper duty, we can hardly remember a single instance in which the House of Lords has taken the initiative in giving expression to a wiser and more far-sighted current of public opinion than any which could gain the assent of the House of Commons. They delayed, and would, if they had dared, have resisted the Disestablish- ment of the Irish Church. They deferred most reluct- antly to the great majorities in the Commons on the Irish Land Bill. They rejected the abolition of Purchase in the Army, and obliged the Government of Mr. Gladstone to do by Royal Warrant what would have been better done by legis- lative enactment. They rejected most of the best schemes of reform proposed by the now-extinct Endowed Schools' Com- mission. They made no stand against the Public Worship Act. And in foreign policy they have appeared to be,—whether truly or falsely, we do not know,—even more Turkish than the majority in the House of Commons. All these have not been cheering indications, and of course, had not prepared us for the manly and independent vote of Monday night on the Burial of Dissenters in Churchyards. Nevertheless, it seems that the "long lane " has reached a turning-point at last. For on Monday, the majority in the House of Lords gave expres- sion to a vein of opinion in the country which represents not only the wishes of all sober-minded and moderate men, but even certain particular wishes of sober-minded and moderate men which the Conservative Government of the day had refused to gratify, and had done their best to oppose. Nor can it be truly said, as certain clergymen have asserted, that the whole responsibility of this step lies with the Archbishop. The fact is that on the same night both the Archbishops lent their whole weight to another amendment,—which was moved by the Archbishop of York,—but that instead of its being carried, the Government defeated it easily by a majority of 57 (146 against 89), while for this Liberal amendment, moved not by an Archbishop, but by the Earl of Harrowby, the House of Lords, in spite of the opposition of the Government, and in spite of its Conservatism, gave a majority of sixteen. That majority was due to the Ecclesiastical Liberalism of a great number of Conservative Peers who, on questions of this sort, are far in advance of the Government. Doubtless these
Conservative Peers have the sense to see that if we are to pre- serve an institution like the English Establishment from de- struction, it must be by a policy tending to endear it to the ex-
ternal religious world, not by one setting the external religious world at defiance. That has weighed much, no doubt, with Lord Harrowby and his friends. What has very likely weighed still more, has been a strong desire to gain for the Establish- ment a counterweight against the Ritualism and Sacerdotelism of an extreme party within the Church. By making friends of the Dissenters, and showing them that they are regarded not as enemies, but as allies, by the chief friends of the Church, the moderate Conservatives no doubt hope to win over the less strict amongst them, or at least to prepare the way for winning over their descendants to the Church, and so to increase materially the weight of the lay element in the Establish- ment. But whatever their reasons, the fact remains that the majority of the House of Lords have ignored the lead of the Conservative Government, and taken a Liberal lead of their own, on one of the most important questions which has ever divided moderate Conservatives from Tories of the old type. And what has happened once may happen again. When the long lane once begins to turn, there is no saying whether it will or will not relapse into its former undeviating directness and stupidity. What, indeed, might not happen, if the Peers once began to show themselves more in sympathy than they have been, with the moderate wish of the people of England for improvements and enlargements of the old institutions ? We believe the result might be of far greater importance to the future of both political parties and to the ascendancy of the English aristocracy than any mere change in the balance of parties, any transfer of power from the hands of one party to that of the other. For it might be the signal of a new era in the history of the House of Lords, and of a new departure in the political relations between the two Houses. For we must not forget that as it is the tendency of demo- cratic institutions to develope a new type of Conservatism,—the Conservatism rooted in the prejudices and customs of the people —so, too, it may well be another result of democratic institutions to develope in aristocratic bodies a new type of Conservative pre- caution against the unreason and obstinacy of such prejudices, a new tendency to guard against all which may cause strong reactions and rapid swings of the pendulum from extreme impatience of change on the one side to extreme changes on the other. While the House of Commons has been all but invariably Liberal, it was but natural that the majority in the House of Lords, though prepared at times to concede much rather than bring about a deadlock between the two branches of the Legislature, should seem to be even more Conservative than the Conservative minority in the House of Commons. Aristocracies are always more or less disposed to take a view opposite to that of large popular bodies, and there is no way surer to drive them into obstruction than for these bodies to propose great changes, and no way surer to open their eyes to the dangers of obstruction, than to find these bodies disposed for obstruction. It is quite on the cards that the Conservative majority in the House of Lords which interposed so dead a weight in the way of reform while the great majority of the popular body cried out for reform, may open its eyes to the dangerous consequences of mere obstruc- tiveness, directly it sees the great majority of the popular body denouncing reform. And in this way it may possibly happen that, the House of Lords may become as it were a mediating body between the Radicals and the popular Tories,—less dis- posed for great changes than the former, less disposed for mere
resistance than the latter. If that shonld happen, the House of Lords might still have a much greater part to play in the working of our Constitution than even its greatest admirers have hitherto dared to anticipate. For it might be that it would play much the same part which the " governor" plays in Watts's steam-engine. It is the principle of that useful con- trivance, that when the steam attains too high a power, the balls of the " governor " fly apart, and partially close the pipe which supplies the steam. When the supply is relatively small, the balls fall together, and leave the pipe fully open. The action of the House of Lords on public opinion might in the future be very similar. When the reforming impulse of the democracy is eager and passionate, the Lords might well supply a certain amount of obstruction to the progress of legis- lative change, but when, on the contrary, the impulse of re- form runs low, they might do all in their power to clear away any obstruction to the effective force of whatever reforming impulse may remain. That is the function which they appear to be discharging in relation to the attitude of the Established Church towards the burial of Dissenters ; and that is the function which, if the House of Lords could but see it, would contribute most to establish their political influence, and win for them not merely the esteem founded half in historic tradition and custom, half in habitual reverence for rank, which they now enjoy, but the esteem which is earned by great services, and especially the esteem which is given so freely in England to the particular kind of service tending to moderate the antagonisms of political life, and to " turn to scorn " " the falsehood of extremes."
Indeed, it is obviously the natural function of a second Chamber such as our own House of Lords, to mediate as far as possible between the two extreme parties in the State, rather than to support either one or the other. Not being rooted in any popular principle, but depending, as it does, on the in- trinsic reasonableness of its course for the respect of the people, it is obvious that it must usually risk less by doing bare justice to the party which is for the moment in eclipse, than by out- bidding the party which happens for the time to be in the ascendant. We do not want a second Chamber to increase the violence of the oscillations between popular Radicalism and popular Toryism, and any Chamber which did increase the violence of those oscillations would clearly promote the instability of the whole system. But if the Upper House leans upon the moderate and reasonable elements of the party which is, for the time, defeated in the popular House, it must win in turn the respect of both the popular parties, and throw its influence on the side of using victory with moderation. This was what the Italian Senate lately did when it threw out the Clerical Abuses Bill passed by the Chamber of Deputies. And this is what the House of Lords did on Monday, when it took up the action of the Liberals in relation to Dissenters' burials, and in spite of the resistance of the Govern- ment passed, by a majority of sixteen, a clause conceding to Dissenters every privilege to which the great majority of them at least have urged their claim. The advantage which the House of Lords would gain by thus representing all that is most moderate in the defeated party would be enormous, if only on this account, that it would be relying on a real element of popular force, though not on that which is, for the moment, in the ascendant. Moreover, it would tend to rectify the greatest fault of democracies,— their apparent fickleness, their tendency to swing rapidly from- one view to its opposite, for little or no reason beyond that of dissatisfaction with the immediate results of the last battle, and the restlessness which is so apt to attribute disappointed expectations to blunders in policy instead of exaggerated hopes.
We do not say that the House of Lords has as yet given us any great reason to build on the constitutional anticipations we
have just set forth. But assuredly their action in the matter of the Burials Bill has been extremely satisfactory, and may fairly point to a similar policy in other matters. Long as the Conservatives had been exiled from real power, we could scarcely expect the Lords to take up the role of moderation against a Conserva-
tive Government, much sooner than in three years' time from the date of the Conservative victory. But if they are wise, they will not now hastily abandon it. We can assure them
that if they continue to play it, they will do more to win a constitutional influence for their body in the days of the next Radical reaction, than they would be able to do by any amount of ingenious Conservative reasoning when the time comes. To win authority against a triumphant party, you must show that you can use your authority in favour of that party during "the winter of its discontent."
Previous page
