PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT AND THE EMPIRE

New Zealand Mail, 22 January 1902, Page 15

PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT AND THE EMPIRE

SPECIAL ARTICLE,

("All Ricii?3 Reserved.]

(By J- H. Shaw, M.A., LL.M., six years v Examiner in Constitutional Law .and History, University of Melbourne.)

it was a bitter ana biting sneer of the great Frederic of Prussia that Great Britain had been long in labour, but had at last produced a man. But it was just as true as it was bitter, for the man was Chatham. Now the cry for some time past in Britain inis been and still is just a cr y for “men,” that is, for men in t arjy’lu’s sense, men of light and leading, men with an eye. That is the cry; but it is an inconsistent cry. For as long as a people raise such a cry, and at the same time pursue a system the whole tendency and effect of which, practically viewed, is to give them not “men,” but talkers and Parliamentary dodgers, their proceeding is inconsistent and senseless. Lord -Rosebery’s letter of July lhth last year put this matter in a nutshell“ The nation had only justchosen its Parliament and its Government by an overwhelming majority. To that great multitude who are not politicians at all it must in any case be a sorrow and an anxiety to see a weak Government confronted by a still weaker Opposition at a juncture cf foreign hostility and international competition which needs all the vigilance, power and ability at our command. Public opinion is becoming aware that this is a crisis in our history which may have aii unlimited effect, on cur future. Yet for the moment I see no favourable issue.”

And this is the only result of an election which returned the existing Ministry by an overwhelming majority! It is pitiful, it is wondrous pitiful! But, now, lot us ask what is the primary, the essential cause of the very clear mischief? It would be too long a story for this paper to go into the constitutional history of this system of Parliamentary or responsible government, interesting and instructive as it is. It may suffice to say briefly that it was in the memorable debates on the Grand Remonstrance in the time of Charles I- that the essential doctrine first effectually found articulate expression in the speeches of Pyiii. Hampden and the other leaders of the Long Parliament. Nothing can be more remarkable and striking than the caution and moderation of these great men in stating their position and claim, and the most notable point is this: They confine their demand to a negative claim; that is, they do not deny the King’s prerogative of governing, they do not claim to nominate his Ministers, but merely the negative right to object to “evil counsellors” when appointed by him. The distinction is vast and essential.

But what lias become of the King’s prerogative of public administration “of the business of the Kingdom and Empire? This question brings us face to face with the difficulty. The Executive Government of the Kingdom is at this moment, in all essential points, just as clearly and as certainly by constitutional law vested in King Edward VII. and his Council as it was in King Edward 1. Possibly this statement may startle many people, but it is the correct statement cf the law of the land. But the question perforce recurs: What has become of the prerogative? The answer involves, in my opinion, tho answers to most of the serious questions now asked and the true cause of all the dangerous crises through which the nation is passing. The King’s prerogative of government has been, in plain terms, usurped by the Parliament, especially by the House or Commons. The result is the system of government which has come to be called Parliamentary or responsible government, or if you like, Cabinet government. My personal experience, ias long since made me aware how very Jittie these terms are comprehended by the people who in Britain and her colonies _ live under this system. They imagine, naturally enough perhaps, that it is part of the law, whereas the strict tact is that- it is nothing more than a convention, which has so far been alow ed to go on unchallenged. The Cabi- „ af h. s . 1S quite unknown to the mu, either in England or in the selfgoverning colonies. The King’s Minisers retain or vacate their position in anc V Vlth tl . le approval, briefly ber a of"fh e 0 S e at“re he P '”’ U,ar ° ham - SS&S’M&s: A fkfiks e co 13 K at all a mere verbal differ! fact’ wWi aU i essentlal Political r ,n" h T J>as many times ofX Jung to the feet to retraef H 7 an - d com Pelled him whole thhm i?in l again ’ aS 1 said ’ the or practice Tt aW ? inol N con vention vast and comi - Car that 110 such in the first anoma1 7 could footing or ft iff? S , eCUred a fi rm tins way only can the Royal

prerogative of government and the wishes and feedings of the people, expressed through tbe representative Chamber of the Parliament, he brought info and kept in harmony. This, briefly, jis 11 10 theory, and by virtue of it the i political system under which we live has so far contrived to exist with more or less of danger, mere or less of dis- | grace, and at tins time with a great deal :cf bath. It is not possible to find any political or social plan against which ; serious objections, practical or theoretical, cannot be made; that is quite cer- | tain. But if against any such plan ob- | jections can be fairly brought which in- ' valve great and obvious danger to the whole Empire, then indeed the matter becomes_ one which the nation, if it retain within it essential national vitality, must perforce fake into serious consideration. lam afraid this is exactly what is forced upon this nation by the Present war a r.q the conduct of it. or rather the misconduct of it. bv the nrosent Ministry. It seems to" me that one of the most serious, if not the worst of all objections to our so-called system of Parliamentary government is'this: it must inevitably by its very nature bring to the front men who are glib talkers, or as they are called, “able Parliamentarians,” that is, artful dodgers. And without doubt this is the case? A man must bo more or less of an orator, ; and above all a good debater, in order to secure an eminent position under our system. What chance would Bismarck have had of coming to tho front under such a system as ours? But then, unfortunately, the great orator or debater may prove a sorry failure in diplomacy or in administration. It may, I think, be asserted that our experience has often shown this, and moreover the various phases and failures of tho Boer war have proved it to the hilt. In the earlier stages of the trouble, Mr Chamberlain proved a very sorry match indeed for Paul Kruger, and in the succeeding phases of the war the administrative and diplomatic failures of him and of Lord Lansdovne and of the entire Cabinet were conspicuous. | At this late moment the writer does i not certainly appear in any way called upon to prove in special detail the shortcomings of a Ministry which is now utterly discredited by all people as ad- ! ministrators. But I fear that what I am now about, to mention goes much beyond mere incompetence or common negligence. It amounts, I think, to the most criminal, flippant disregard of public duty. Four months before the outbreak of the war the Intelligence Department of the War Office published a small book entitled “Military Notes on the Dutch Republics of South Africa.” From this volume the following information was to he clearly gathered by any persons or person desiring such information : j (1) A pretty correct estimate of the ; number of the Boer forces. ! (2) Full details of the Boor artillery and of its origin and manufacture, j (3) The most pertinent and serious fact that the Boers were an army of , mounted infantry. , | 14) That the Free State meant to throw in her lot with the Transvaal, j (5) That the Transvaal Boers would ; coalesce with tlie Free State people I west of Drakensberg, and then advance , against Ladysmith via the passes of tho 1 Drakensberg. j (6) That one of the greatest troubles, requiring a special medical provision, , would be enteric fever, i Now, on the first of the points nobody need now be told bow completely at sea were the Ministers from first to last.

On the second point. Lord Salisbury lias told us that “the Government was astonished.” i As to the third head, Mr Balfour, i three months after the war began, confessed his astonishment. I T On the fourth point., Mr Balfour, in : November, 1899, was equally astonished. ! And again, in January, 1900, the same gentleman described the investment of Ladysmith as beyond the reasonable cal- ; culations of the Government. And i again, wo know how wofully inadequate j were the provisions to meet the enteric fever.

Now. one remark is sufficient as to this almost incredible ignorance of the Ministry. Did they take the trouble to read these explicit warnings issuing from their own office? Or, on the other hand, having read them, did they with incredible insouciance disregard them? This is the dilemma. In either case it is not, as I before said, short of criminal disregard of public duty. Such shortcoming would surprise one, even in a raw lad in his teens, but what are we to think of it in a body of mature men and experienced politicians filling tho positions of his Majesty’s Ministers? Such a phenomenon as this must have some deep-seated evil root. Now, what or where is this root ? The answer goes to the essential point aimed at in this paper, and throws an ugly light on the whole nature and working of the political system I am trying to expose. Tho simple fact is that we make a big mistake in tacitly assuming that his Maesty’s Ministers find their “whole good and market of their time” in studying the exigencies and forecasting the measures demanded by tho public service of the State. They do assuredly nothing of the sort. Tho peculiarity of their position under this beautiful system of responsible government compels them to bo for ever on the lookout for what is

happening or is likely to happen affecting their position in Parliament. This is what they really do study, and upon the dexterity and acuteness with which they succeed in dealing with this main chance, their position as Ministers does real! 3 r depend. And so long as the nation accrpts this most dangerous practice of making the interests of parlies j an( i particular men paramount to the j true calls of the public service you will ! have the same result-—party first, and j the nation secondary. It is quite inj evitable, because it is the very nature ! and essence of the system, ft is unj wise in the last degree to expect more i than ordinary human nature and human I ■ motives in any ordinary set of men. It ; is not the aim of this paper to prove ; the failure cf tho present or any Minis- | try, but to expose the weakness and i rs J ! ional danger cf the system under which wq are living. At. this late time of C!a3 r 1 do not believe that any con- ; siderahle body of people of any party have confidence in this Ministry as administrators. Yet there never was prob- | abl.y a Ministry with greater voting - power behind them, both in Parliament and in tho country. Here is, then, a | plain paradox to be explained; but again the explanation is not difficult, i Had I been in Britain at the time of last election and had a vote, I should j certainly have voted for the Governj merit, or rather I should have been I obliged perforce to vote against the ! persons who were trying to get into ! their places. That is the true state--1 meat of tho Conservative majority: people had reall3 r no choice. See now how this squares with the fundamental postulate underlying this delightful Par- ! liamentary government. It assumes, that is to say, that when one Government does not satisfy us we can get rid j of it. and get another which will”better carry out the national policy in harmony 1 with tho national will. This is the • theory. It. is all very beautiful, com--1 pact and reassuring to look at; but j ala-! when the day of trouble comes, I and the stress and the storm, and we ; call on our formula to help us, what ;is the response? As Carlyle would say. I “Constitution can’t walk.” We get for i answer tho pro-Boer platitudes, and as | I think in many cases the treasonable i utterances of the Campbell-Bannermans ; and the Laboucheres, “et hoc genus I orane.” We are perforce with a bad : grace and grinding of the teeth driven , to lay to heart the veritable and ugly j fact—constitution won’t walk! Our | theory, in fact, breaks down entirely ; and egregiousiy the moment a severe • strain is put upon it. Here we have one political party—the one in office— I professing to carry out our wishes in j respect to this war, but sadly failing |to do so; another party—the one in j opposition—professing just the very op- ; posite policy, if they get the chance; ■ nay. not only that, but openly, inde- | eently and unpatriotically holding Janj guage which can have no other effect I but to give countenance, comfort and : encouragement to a determined enemy :in arms against their country. Does j an3' man in the Empire capable of ob- | servation and critical thought believe . that this wav would be still going on i this late day but for this same wicked ' and silly comfort and encouragement thus given to the Boers by this'party ? I for one have a strong opinion on the : subject, and if I had the power that ; opinion would certainly shape itself in action possibly disagreeable to several ! prominent political persons. Truly, we i pa>' a high price for our free speech ! ! But, now, this beautiful Parliamentary S3'.stem lias inevitably other evil sides : and effects besides those so far dwelt upon. For being a wrong organ or a ; wrong organic action set to work in a ! living organism, it may, of a surety, bo j expected to be many-sided. The next j evil result is that tho representative I Chamber of the Legislature, abandoning or neglecting tho function, that of i legislation and criticism, by virtue I whereof it came long ago into existence, j and in theory at least still exists, gives j itself up-to party struggles and fights ! for office. I do not venture to apporj tion how much of the time of the House ! of Commons is wasted in these pitiful party fights. Any shrewd observer can ! settle that for himself. The late Sir j H. S. Maine, in his book of “Popular | Government,” showed in his own masterly way how completely the functions of legislation and executive have been subverted and confounded under this system of Parliamentary Government, j Truly, that particular chapter of a fine book is just now, for any thoughtful man, profitable to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest. So also would be largo portions of Professor F. Harrison’s book “Order and Progress.” How wise were the founders of the American Constitution in coming to the resolution that “it would be a dangerous thing in a democratic country to make tho Executive subordinate to the Legislature,” is it not written in tho book “The American Commonwealth,” bj r one James Brice, a pro-Boer member of his Majesty’s Opposition? All American history since that day has proved how much cause America has to bless the far-reaching, sagacious foresight of those great founders 1 They did not place the head of their Executive ah the mercy of a vote of Congress. Had that been clone, the Union would have been blown to fragments long since. Let me recapitulate, (a) Under our system, as now developed, the House of Commons has, in effect, usurped the Royal prerogative.

(b) By the ver3’ nature of the system in the popular Chamber of tho Legislature it must bring, and does bring into undue prominence men whose talents lio in talk and debate, and who as a rule fail as administrators in great national crises. It was so in the Crimean war, and it is so again in the Boor war.

(c) By thus bringing forward the wrong men and suppressing a higher order of statesmen, we lose the services of these latter, and only get them under this system by pure accident on occasions. Chatham was a glorious accident,

(d) We need no better example than this war to prove that the system dees not accomplish that by the presumption of which it exists, i.e., to enable us when one set of men are proved incompetent to put another and better set of men in thc-ir places. The present political situation demonstrates this. (e) By confounding the functions of the Executive and the Legislature, it causes the proper duty of Parliament to be badly done, and often not to bo done at all.

' (f) By causing an abnormal and insidious predominance of party interests, tho system leads men to lose sight of and to suppress' the true national interests.

Without attempting to dogmatise, one thing seems to me clear and decisive, and I believe must so appear to all thinking people, viz., this so-called re= sponsible government of the Imperial? Parliament never was intended for and' is entirely inadequate to the administration of a great Empire. Nay, it has endangered, and is at this moment endangering, the very existence of the Empire. To what essentially and at bottom, when everything is considered 'July, do we owe this Boer war? Is it not exactly and wholly to the base backing down of the “able Parliamentarian,” W r . E. Gladstone, after the check of Majuba ? We in Australasia, in sending our contingents to Africa, are simply and wisely fighting for our best interests, nay. for our very existence as free communities. If tlie Africander Bond had succeeded in the main design of a great South African Dutch Federation, a great wedge would have been driven into the -very middle of our maritime empire, and the Australian colonies or India would not have been secure for one week. It is, therefore, clear to me that a great modification in the system of government of the Empire must come, and come quickly, too, if we wish to be secure. 1 have not space here to speculate, hut I think that this great change, when it comes, will take the form of some radical modification of the ancientand legal organ of our Government, .the Privy Council. But it must he accompanied by some fundamental modification of tlie power of tho House of Commons in Imperial concerns. [Note.—lt should be stated that the foregoing article, having been in our hands before that of Mr A. R. Barclay on “The Sovereignty” was published, cannot be viewed as a controversial reply to Mr Barca’s contribution, though it bears that complexion. As a coincidence, it ma3 r further be remarked that an able article on “The Paralysis of Parliament” appeared in the lash issue to hand of the “Quarterly Review,” which arrived after Mr Shaw’s article was in type.—Editor “'New Zealand Times.”]

In our next issue we shall publish a Special Article, entitled “ EXPERIMENTS.” By Sir Robert Stout, K.C.M.G., Chief Justice.