The Great Election

IT IS not often that we care to dwell at length on the incidents of English politics in which, as a rule, India is not concerned nor affected by the results. A Brodrick to a Hamilton, a Morley to a Brodrick succeeds, and the sublime continuity of British policy, continuous in nothing else but this one determination to maintain absolutism in India, takes care that India shall have no reason to interest herself in Imperial affairs. The present crisis in England, however, is so momentous and its results so incalculable that it is impossible to say that India will not be affected by its gigantic issues. The importance of the election turns not upon the issues of the Budget, though these are of no small magnitude, but upon the great constitutional question of the House of Lords and its veto. The veto of the House of Lords is the drag on the Parliamentary locomotive. It is the one obstacle that stands between England and a peaceful revolution. It is true that this veto has been exercised very sparingly and only when the Liberals have introduced measures of a revolutionary character or containing clauses which meant a too rapid subversion of ancient landmarks and safeguards; but this is precisely the use in the British Constitution of the otherwise useless, ineffective and somnolent Upper House. It has used the veto if not with perfect wisdom, yet with a moderation and an eye to its own safety that betokened at least a perfect discretion. In spite of this reserve the obstruction offered by the Lords to Liberal measures and their complacent acceptance of Conservative legislation has become more and more exasperating to the Liberal party and has often threatened a collision which was averted either by the submission of the Lords or the support of its obstructive policy by the electors at the polls. So long as the social preponderance of the aristocracy and the possession of land and wealth, on which that preponderance rested, was not touched, the Lords

Page-311

have submitted to the gradual loss of political preponderance and the slow advance of England from an aristocratic to a middle-class rule and even from a middle-class rule to a limited democracy, limited by the existence of the Lords themselves and the restriction of the franchise. A new force, a fatal solvent of established institutions, has entered European politics with the steady slow irresistible advance of Socialism, and England, long exempt from the working of this great tide of idealistic thought, is being more and more swiftly undermined, its cherished ideals sapped, its administrative and social structure threatened by the wash of the advancing waters. The uneasiness engendered in the more richly propertied classes by this advance of the destroyer has come to a head as a result of the provisions of the Budget by which the land, emblem and guarantee of English Conservatism, of the inviolability of private property and the survival of the old world society in its most vital features, has been subjected to substantial taxation. The innovation creates a probability of continual nibbling until under the impulse of a growing Socialism, land is nationalised, its proprietors bought out, and aristocracy destroyed. The Lords have either to resist the process in its first step or make up their minds to gradual extinction.

The question for the Upper House is how they will resist. It is open to them either to reject the Budget altogether –a measure of too drastic severity, –to throw out the Land clauses, –a device which will expose the Peers to the charge of violating the unwritten Constitution for the selfish purpose of saving their own pockets and throwing the burden of taxation on the middle class and the working men, –or to amend the Budget so as to lighten the land taxes and deprive them of their more inoffensive features. The last device has the disadvantage of being no more than a palliative, while it amounts to as serious a breach of the financial privilege of the House of Commons as the others. The omens point to a rejection of the bill by the Peers, but we doubt whether they will care to incur the odium of so disturbing the finances of the country. In all probability they will amend and leave to the Ministry the responsibility of dissolving Parliament

with no Budget sanctioned and the insecurity to the taxpayers resulting from this unprecedented and anomalous situation. The burden of choice will then fall upon the Commons, who must either submit to the destruction of the first and most essential safeguard of popular liberty in England, the popular control of taxation and the Exchequer, or take up the challenge given by the Peers. The first course is unthinkable. No Liberal Ministry especially, would care to go down to posterity as having betrayed the people of England and the future of democracy by such a sacrifice of the palladium of British liberty. Mr. Asquith may either dissolve as soon as the Lords refuse to withdraw their amendments or he may ask the King to create a number of Liberal Peers large enough to swamp the Conservative majority in the Lords, or he may at once bring in a bill for the limitation of the veto of the Upper House and dissolve upon it so as to raise definitely the question of the veto as the one real issue before the electors. The first course has this great disadvantage, that the real issues may be covered over by the clamour of the Conservative party against the socialistic trend of the new taxation and by the cry of Tariff Reform. By dint of repeated iteration the Conservatives have created an impression in many minds that the present Ministry is deeply tinged with Socialism and the Budget a deliberate attack on property. The effect this cry is having on the mind of the wealthier classes is shown by the number of defections in the Liberal ranks, –not so many, however, as might have been expected, –and the diminution of the Liberal vote at the bye-elections. The Budget opens the door to Socialism, but is in none of its provisions Socialistic, the only real novelty of importance being the land taxes which have their counterpart in countries the reverse of Socialistic. The Ministry is itself a curious conglomeration of Moderates, Radicals, and extreme Radicals, but there is not a single Socialist in its ranks and many of its members are avowedly anti-Socialistic in their temper and opinions. Nevertheless, the cry is having its effect on the susceptible British elector and, unless it is met, will imperil a great number of Liberal seats. The cry of Tariff Reform has its charm for a certain number of working men, but is not in

itself so formidable as the catchword of Property in Danger. To dissolve upon the rejection of the Budget will have the effect of preventing a clear issue from being raised and confusing the public mind by the entanglement of three separate questions, Socialism and the Budget, Free Trade or Tariff Reform, and the veto of the House of Lords. The Ministry have everything to lose, the Opposition everything to gain by this confusion of issues.

The second device is being urged upon the Prime Minister by some of his supporters who are rather shortsighted politicians than men with the outlook of the statesman. The temporary difficulty would no doubt be surmounted, but it is a matter of unfailing experience that Liberal Peers so created gravitate in a very short time to Conservatism. If these Peers had to be actually created, the Liberal Ministry would very soon be face to face again with a similar situation, and the drastic remedy of doubling the bulk of the House of Lords could not be repeated ad infinitum. On the other hand, if the Peers yielded in order to avoid so great an indignity to their rank and order, they would do so under the most rigorous compulsion and be all the more eager to hamper and distress their victors in less vital matters. Mr. Asquith would avoid a particular difficulty, but only to perpetuate the great stumbling-block of all Liberal Ministries, a permanently Conservative Upper House. On the other hand he has a chance, if he boldly seizes on this issue, of avoiding a fight on the weaker points of the Budget, of forcing to the forefront a great constitutional issue in which everything liberal or even truly conservative in England ought to be on his side, and destroying at one blow and forever this perpetual thorn in the side of Liberalism and obstacle to radical legislation.

The drastic device of swamping the Lords with newly created Liberal Peers will be too much needed shortly to be thrown away now. When in the new Parliament, the bill for the limitation of the Peers' veto has been carried through the Commons, it will have to be carried through the Lords as well before it can receive the King's sanction and become law, and, since the Lords as they are will not consent to their own nullification, it is only by the swamping device that this great resolution can

Page-314

be effected. The only question is whether the bill should be brought in before or postponed till after the election. To bring in the bill before, pass it formally through the Commons without permitting much debate and immediately dissolve for a mandate from the country, would be the boldest but also the best policy for the Ministers. It would definitely raise the question as the one issue of the election and, if confined to the limitation and not the destruction of the veto, –so as to avoid the charge of destroying the constitution, –would rally the whole force of Liberalism behind Mr. Asquith. We do not know whether the course has suggested itself to the tacticians of the party, but it seems to us that it gives the only chance of a really effective and victorious electioneering campaign.

With all this, what are the chances of a Liberal victory? Very small, unless the Labour-Socialist vote is conciliated. The great feature of the recent bye-elections has been the repeated splitting of the democratic vote between Labourite and Liberal, the substantiality of the Labour vote and the consequent defeat of the Ministerial candidate and return of the Conservative in spite of a democratic majority in the constituency. For the Socialist party this is the right policy, by their independent attitude on an occasion of such vital importance to convince the Liberals that they cannot hope to exist as a power without coming to terms with the Socialist vote. But for the Liberals to accept a triangular contest would be sheer suicide. It would mean either a Conservative majority, not in the country –for the pendulum has not swung back so far –but in the House, or a Conservative Ministry with the Irish Nationalists holding the balance of power. It would be well worth Mr. Asquith's while to give the Socialist-Labour faction the 80 seats they hope to win, on condition of holding the other Liberal seats secure from competition. But an accommodation of this kind would mean an alliance with Socialism, as well as with Ireland, and some very drastic social legislation in the next Parliament. It is difficult to gauge the weight of the Moderate element in the Cabinet, and it may be strong enough to face defeat rather than permit such an alliance.

Page-315

We have dealt with this subject and its issues at length, partly in order to draw the attention of our readers to the issues and methods of a great and critical election in a democratic country. The introduction of democratic institutions in India, more genuine than the present Reform Scheme, cannot be long delayed, and it will be well for those of us who think to study their working in the European country which serves as a model to others. But beyond this aspect of the elections, there is a deeper interest to us Indians in the great constitutional struggle now at hand. The abolition or limitation of the Lords' veto is a question of supreme importance to the Indian politician. When the time comes, –and it is coming surely, –that popular assemblies have to be established in India, the veto of the Lords will be the one instrument that reaction will use to stay reform for a long season. It is that instrument which has baffled Irish Nationalism. If it continues to exist, it will baffle Indian Nationalism also. Although, therefore, Liberal and Conservative are one in their attitude towards India, every Indian patriot must watch with keen interest the result of the struggle and desire, not the success of the departing Ministry, but victory for the destroyers of the Lords' veto.

——————

OTHER WRITINGS BY SRI AUROBINDO IN THIS ISSUE

Page-316