COMMONWEALTH: Dissolved

COMMONWEALTH(British Commonwealth of Nations)

Great Britain entered the throes of the third general election in two years.

Sedition. Last August it was brought to the attention of St. Patrick Hastings, Attorney General,* that the Workers’ Weekly, Communist journal, had printed a seditious article (TIME, Oct. 13), the headlines of which ran:

SOLDIERS, SAILORS, AIRMEN! WILL YOU KILL YOUR MATES? REMEMBER—YOU ARE WORKERS! THE BOSSES ARE YOUR ENEMIES.

DON’T SHOOT SINKERS ! THEY ARE WORKERS LIKE YOU. THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR A DECENT LIVING FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR WOMEN AND KIDS. IF THE PROFITEERING CAPITALISTS, THROUGH THEIR AGENTS—YOUR OFFICERS —TELL YOU TO MURDER BRITISH WORKERS—DON’T SHOOT.

Prosecution. Sir Patrick frowned beneath his wig. His strong features hardened as he came to a decision: The article was sedition and under a law passed during the reign of George III the editor must be prosecuted.

Discharge. J. Ross Campbell, American-born, was acting editor and upon a fine August morning he appeared at the Bow Street Police Court to answer to the charge of inciting His Majesty’s forces to mutiny. The Public Prosecutor, acting upon instructions from Attorney-General Sir Patrick, sent his representative to say that the article was after all only a criticism of a State for using armed force to quell industrial disputes. The Magistrate declared that there was no evidence to hold Campbell and accordingly discharged him.

Attack. There the matter might have ended but for an article in the Workers’ Weekly:

“The Political Bureau of the Communist Party desires to make it clear that no effort was made by Comrade Campbell to provide a defense. Arrangements had been made to ask for an adjournment in order that Mr. MacDonald, the Prime Minister, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Clynes and several others would be subpoenaed as witnesses for the defense. . . . We wish to state that the withdrawal of the charge was made on the sole responsibility of the Labor Government. . . .

“The Communist Party claims that the withdrawal of the charge is a victory tory for the workers, but at the same time one that will arouse the vicious hostility of the reactionary elements within and without the Labor movement.”

This subtle attack was backed with blunt words. The Communist journal declared that the Labor Government “for the first time since taking office had been compelled to act as a Labor Government should,” that “it had definitely responded to the Labor movement as a whole.”

Politics. A cry went up from the Conservatives and Liberals. In the words of The Times of London, the Government’s withdrawal of the charges against Campbell was “an act of unwarrantable interference on the part of the executive with the course of justice.”

Defense. Questions were asked in Parliament. Sir Patrick Hastings, tall and slender, his jet black hair giving him an almost youthful appearance, took his place in the front bench to “give the House every available detail of the Campbell case.” He read from a voluminous mass of briefs, stated that he had found that Campbell had a good war record, had been wounded, and was engaged only as acting-editor of the Workers’ Weekly. “What sort of a figure would I cut,” he demanded, “in prosecuting for sedition as a dangerous Communist a man who could hardly hobble into the dock?” Then in his peroration he asked: “What have I done wrong? I will answer any question put by any member of the House.” But the fears of the Opposition were not calmed. Conservatives gave notice of a motion of censure on the Government. The Liberals offered an amendment to the Conservative motion calling for a Parliamentary inquiry.

Premier. Before the Premier had stepped into the House of Commons, a general election was almost certain. At Queen’s Hall he had declared: “We will surrender nothing of the rights of Government. If there is to be an election, the responsibility is not ours.”

Defeat. After a whole day of debate, which T. P. O’Connor, “Father of the House,” characterized as “a miserable tempest in the tiniest little teapot that was ever introduced into political life,” a vote was taken for decision on which motion—Conservative motion of censure or Liberal amendment motion— a vote should be taken. By 359 to 198 the House decided to vote on the Liberal suggestion that Parliamentary inquiry be held. The vote on this measure resulted in the defeat of the Labor Ministry by 364 to 198 votes—only twelve Liberals voted with the Laborites.

Critics. It had not been expected that the Labor Ministry would fall on the legal issues arising from the suspended prosecution of James Ross Campbell. Political observers felt that their fate was to be sealed at the conclusion of the debate on the Anglo-Russian Treaty, scheduled for November. After the vote, they swore by all their gods that the Government had virtually fallen on the Russian issue and what the trivial issue of the dropped edition charge had been seized upon because it was favorable to Liberal and Conservative election interests.

Palace. Dressed in frock coat and top hat, Premier Ramsay Mac Donald called upon King George at Buckingham Palace, conversed with him for a whole hour, departed, and later announced to the House of Commons that the King had granted his request for a dissolution.

Royal Power. When a ministry is defeated, the Prime Minister* must either resign With his Cabinet or request the King to dissolve Parliament. In the first case, he and his ministers deliver up the seals of office—emblems of their authority without which they cannot transact the business of the King’s Government. It is usual for the outgoing Premier to advise His Majesty on the choice of a successor.

Legally the King can refuse to accept Cabinet resignations. He can instead command the Premier to form a new Cabinet. He can disregard the advice of a retiring Premier and can charge a man of his own choice to form a new Cabinet. Likewise he can refuse to dissolve Parliament. In the legal sense, the conception of Blackstone, famed 18th Century jurist, is still true; the king is the fountain of honor, of office and of privilege.

The refusal of the King, for example, to accept the resignation of a Ministry defeated in Parliament would have serious effect, but Parliament could not legally force the Cabinet to retire. It would be powerless to legislate, for the King’s consent is necessary to each Parliamentary bill before it can become law. All it could do, short of causing a revolution, would be to refuse to vote supplies, thereby depriving the Government of money with which to conduct its business; or to decline to pass any measures framed by the Government, thereby deadlocking the legislature.

Alongside the laws which govern the King’s powers (chiefly those of the settlement of 1689—Declaration of Rights) are extra-legal rules cemented by precedence and the disuse of the King’s prerogative, or what Maitland called “constitutional morality.” This means that the King, in order to prevent a clash of laws or arouse public opinion against him, is compelled to do what his predecessors have done. He therefore usually accepts the advice of his ministers, dissolves Parliament when requested, gives his assent to laws.* But it remains an incontrovertible fact that he is legally within his right to undertake an independent action.

Prorogation. After the Premier had informed the House of Commons that Parliament was to be dissolved, the King’s speech proroguing! Parliament was read.

Dissolution. At a meeting of the Privy Council, presided over by the King, the royal proclamation dissolving Parliament was signed, sealed and delivered. The fifth‡ Parliament of King George V and the second Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was at an end.

Election. Premier MacDonald announced that the general election would take place on Oct. 29. In the Lords, Lord Buckmaster asked with amazement: “What is the explanation of this extraordinary haste?”

The Lord High Chancellor replied: “We are assured that it is the desire of the commercial community and the general community to get rid of the election as fast as possible.”

But the real reason was that the three great political parties have been preparing for an election for months and were, as subsequently proved, ready to start the campaign within a day’s notice.

Onus. Who was responsible for calling an election that is generally unpopular with the public? The Laborites declared that it was the Liberals, who, by joining the Conservatives, had deliberately turned them out of office on a trivial issue. The Liberals contend that the Labor Government was to blame, because it refused to “face an impartial inquiry into the circumstances which led to the withdrawal of the prosecution” against Editor Campbell. The Conservatives most heartily concurred with the Liberal contention. The Times of London said:

“Mr. MacDonald is quite sensible that the dissolution which he has obtained is sure to be highly unpopular. He did not court it, he did not want it. . . .

“But he forgets that up to the very latest moment before the division he had in his own hands the power to avert the necessity of an election at all. Mr. Asquith almost invited him to make understood that if only the Prime (Minister would consent to an impartial investigation of any kind, as members of his own party and, it is understood, colleagues in his Cabinet desired him to do, the Liberals would have smoothed his path.

“But Mr. MacDonald was adamant. He would not hold out the least hope of an examination into circumstances which, in the face of that, would throw an imputation of the gravest character upon his Administration. He has assigned no tenable or plausible grounds for this attitude.”

Cabinet. Until the sixth Parliament of King George is opened next January, the Cabinet of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald will continue to govern the country. If Labor wins the election, which is hardly likely, the Cabinet will probably carry on. If the Labor Party is defeated, the Cabinet can do two things: 1) stay in power and meet its fate in the new Parliament upon a vote of no confidence; 2) resign at any time after the elections.

Campaign. The campaign, which promised to be bitter, started within 24 hours after the proclamation of dissolution had been promulgated. What were the issues upon which the three Great Parties were to base their campaigns? Broadly summarized: Socialism.

The general feeling in Britain is that the Labor Government had set a proud record in foreign politics with the single exception of the Anglo-Russian treaty. In domestic affairs, it had failed utterly to carry out its last election promise to alleviate unemployment. Hence, with no basis for attack on foreign policy, the election campaign promised to be fought over purely social issues.

Labor. The Labor Party, led by MacDonald, Snowden, Thomas, Wheatley, Clynes, etc., goes to the country on its nine months’ record in office plus a program of which the following are the chief points:

1) Bulk purchase and distribution at standard prices by the Government of principal commodities

2) Nationalization of the mines

3) Nationalization of power production

4) Continuance of the tax on land values

5) Acceleration of public works to provide employment

Liberal. The Liberal Party, whose leaders are Asquith, Lloyd George, Masterman and Sir John Simon, stress the risk which the taxpayers might be subjected to by the imprudence of the Labor Government’s proposal to guarantee Russia a loan.

The main planks in the Liberal platform embrace temperance reform, industrial peace and questions dealing with education, housing and unemployment. Free trade is mentioned to remind the electorate that the last election was fought over a protective issue. Great stress is placed on Lloyd George’s “coal scheme”:

“The Liberal policy is to make coal the great national asset by empowering the State to acquire all mineral rights and to provide State assistance and direction in the building of super-power stations.

“By a levy on the purchase price at which the mining royalties are taken over by the State, fund will be provided for rebuilding and bettering the mining villages.”

Conservative. The lone star upon the Conservative Party’s horizon is ex-Cabinet Minister Winston Spencer Churchill, who is now a full-fledged Conservative. It was said that never before has the Party been so short of able leaders. Ex-Premier Stanley Baldwin is, however, the de jure leader of the Party, although the signs and portent were that “Winnie” was fast becoming the de facto leader.

Mr. Churchill’s policy, now also that of the Conservative Party, was summed up by him in a recent and characteristic speech:

“The foundation of our Constitution was the good sense of the majority of the nation. The three-party system implied that we should never have majority rule. The idea that three parties should be firing at each other in a triangular duel, and that Government could thus effectively be carried on, was founded on a hopeless fallacy. . . . We must escape from that system and reestablish in its place some broad, solid and substantial foundation by which the King’s Government can be carried on, not for a session, but for a full Parliament. . . .”

Previously he had said that those who were not with Socialism were against it. His was an invitation to the Liberal Party to coalesce with Conservatism against Socialism, which he thought would ruin the country and destroy the greatness of the Commonwealth.

The main planks of the Conservative Party as contained in its election manifesto:

Anglo-Russian Treaty: Round condemnation: “Under that treaty, the rightful claims of British subjects are whittled down to an undefined extent, and Parliament is to be asked to commit itself in the eyes of Russia and of the world to the principle of guaranteeing that the British taxpayer shall repay the Bolshevist loan if the Bolsheviki, in accordance with their practice, should fail to repay that loan.”

Foreign Policy: “Coöperation in all matters admitting of common action with the United States for the support and strengthening of the League of Nations on practical lines.”

Defense: Careful scrutiny “in conjunction with the Dominions, the far-reaching commitments and implications of the scheme recently put forward at Geneva.”

Imperial Preference: “We shall steadily keep [it] to the front.”

High Prices: A royal commission to inquire into the high price of foodstuffs.

* In Britain, the duties of the Attorney General’s office are not unlike those of the corresponding office in the U. S. The Attorney General represents the Crown (meaning Government, in its widest sense) in all legal questions, advises the government departments when called upon. In addition, he has wide control in matters relating to criminal prosecutions, etc.

Sir Patrick Hastings, present incumbent of the office, receives a salary of £7,000 plus fees which usually amount to anywhere from £10,000 to £25,000. He is 44 years of age, started life as a mining engineer. When the South African War broke out, he joined up and served until 1901. Home again, he devoted himself to journalism, studied law at the Middle Temple, was called to the Bar in 1904. In 1919 he took silk—i. e., became a King’s Counsellor.

* The Premiership is not an office and the holder has no legal power over his fellow members Until 1905 the position was unrecognized but in December of that year King Edward VII signed a royal warrant granting Premiers of Britain precedence next after the Archbishop of York, or twelfth in the table of precedency. * The last time a sovereign of Britain refused assent to a bill was in 1707. when Queen Anne withheld assent to the Scotch Militia Bill.

† Prorogation of Parliament means the ending of a session without dissolution.

‡ The Parliaments of King George:

1st Liberal ended 1915

2nd Coalition ended 1916

3rd Coalition ended 1922

4th Conservative ended 1923

5th Labor ended 1924.