Rebuilding Britain: A Survey of Problems of Reconstruction After the World War

by Sir Alfred Hopkinson

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

will be so much that ought by general agreement to be done, the ideals to be set before us will have so much in common, their realisation will need so much work in concert, such concurrence as to the practical steps to be taken, such goodwill among those who must work together with a common aim, that a "truce of God" between those who were once opponents may be called for. For a time at least old shibboleths might be forgotten, and the old so-called "principles," round which so many barren contests of the past have been waged, might cease to hamper us in adopting the practical measures which the exigencies of the time demand.

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

House of Commons in the face of the detached judgment, moderation of language, and independence of character which Parliament needs. The electors desire to have such qualities in their representatives, but care is taken to prevent their giving effect to it. But it is better to let even that question rest for a time.

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,

perhaps unbecoming, to say much. It has made for the unity of the Empire, not only as a symbol, but, so far as the strict limitations of our Constitution permit, as an active force. The existence of the monarchy and the character of three successive sovereigns, and their real personal interest in its people, are among the causes why India has been, and especially why the Native States have been, as a rule, so loyal in this time of danger, when the support of the whole Empire was so much needed. In our own country the example set of ever ready and earnest sympathy with all who are suffering from the effects of the War, feeling its strain and bearing its burdens, from the highest to the humblest, and also of that simplicity of life now so vitally important for all in the time of general self-denial, which is necessary or, at any rate, a duty for all, has been one of the real factors in knitting all classes of the nation together in useful service and willing sacrifice. Could anyone read the royal speech to the nation on July 6th, 1918, and the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury at St. Paul's, and of the leaders in Parliament, without feeling what a mighty influence for good there is in the British monarchy? Those words were not decorous platitudes demanded by convention, but the expression of genuine and intense feeling.

The sober freedom out of which there springs
Our loyal passion for our temperate kings

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

whatever is recommended as "logical" is also foolish. It would be well to prescribe a severe course of Burke for the 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

franchise ever made, and in doing so without doubt carried out the wish of the nation. It got rid of the fetters imposed on the free expression of the will of the electors, and the restrictions placed on the free selection of candidates of small means, by putting the expenses of returning officers on public funds, and also by making better provision for the revision of the register of voters. A number of useful Bills have been passed, and it has been a means of eliciting information from the Government which the country ought to have, but which would otherwise have been withheld. It has voted the necessary supplies for carrying on the War, and freely and readily assented to the increased taxation that was essential. Unfortunately it is the practice in a portion of the Press always to give prominence to the strange antics of certain members and the vicious attempts made by some to embarrass the Government in carrying on the War. A scene in the House of Commons is fully reported; the good work done, especially by certain useful committees, passes almost unnoticed. It is true, however, that the character of many of the debates has been regrettable, and that as regards what is perhaps its most important function, namely, the control of expenditure, the House has not been able to exercise its functions as it should.

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

that whatever they propose shall be carried by undiminished numbers." In this respect the present House is no worse than its predecessors for the last thirty years; the political truce has indeed improved matters in some respects. It is at least doubtful whether under "pre-War conditions" either the Representation of the People Bill or the Education Bill could have been carried, certainly they would not have been passed in a form to secure so much general consent. Instead of such consent, some measure strongly opposed by a minority might have been forced through by free use of the closure. A new danger has arisen, however, of a still more serious kind, threatening the position of the House of Commons. It is that, instead of national policy being controlled by legislation, settled by a recognised constitutional body elected according to definite rules and representing the nation, the real power of initiative and real directing force may pass to some other body or bodies unknown to the law and representing only a class or even to certain writers in the popular Press. The House of Commons, unless its constitutional powers and its independence are maintained or restored, may become a body for registering and giving legal sanction to the resolutions of some conference or convention indefinite in its constitution, but highly organised for the purpose of making representatives in Parliament mere delegates to carry out the proposals of the majority of those who themselves had acted as delegates of a section only of the community.

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

senting the nation as a whole, including the "bourgeoisie"—who also "are God's creatures"—as well as workmen, instead of irregular bodies appealing to the greed and hatred of a class, most of the misery through which Russia is passing might have been prevented, and the prospects of early restoration would have been assured. The British nation is too sane, too used to orderly freedom, to adopt either the spirit or the methods of the Bolsheviks, but we may hear of them even in this country. They may perhaps give serious trouble and interfere with progress on sound lines. The historic House of Commons must be the means of carrying out Reconstruction so far as legislation, and of controlling it so far as State action is required. Some changes in its methods will be discussed in the chapters on Reform, but the maintenance of the Constitution as the best instrument for promoting orderly, peaceful, and real progress is essential.

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.

---