Keeping the British Liberal Party flag flying high

[pipisme]

The government accepted Conservative representations that the average income from coal royalties should be over the four years 1922 to 1925, rather than the five years from 1921, because coal production in 1921 was artificially low at 163 million tons (mt) because of the miners strike that year. Coal production was 250 mt in 1922, 276 mt in 1923, 267 mt in 1924 and 243 mt in 1925. These are the amounts in OTL and this TGL.

 

[pipisme]

In its committee stage the Coal Royalties Abolition Bill was considered clause by clause by a standing committee of 36 MPs: 14 Conservative, 12 Liberal and 10 Labour. In order to win a majority on the compensation clause, the government would need the support of three Labour members, and the abstention of the other seven Labour members.

The Liberal-Labour Parliamentary Liason Committee met in late January 1927 to hammer out a compromise. The Liberal bottom line was that compensation must be paid to the landowners for their loss of income from the coal royalties. The Labour Party did not want any compensation to be paid, but they were prepared to countenance a minimal amount of compensation. Sir Alfred Mond, the President of the Board of Trade, entered into negotiations with Sidney Webb, the Labour spokesman on Trade. They agreed that the rate of compensation should be 4 percent of the average income from coal royalties for the years 1922 to 1925 inclusive.

This new rate of compensation was vehemently denounced by Neville Chamberlain, the Conservative spokesman on Trade, as little short of robbery and a betrayal of the government's promises.

In early February 1927, the revised clause setting out the new rate of compensation was passed by a majority of 22 to 14. However later that month, on the Third Reading of the bill by the whole House of Commons, 37 Labour MPs voted against because they were opposed to any compensation being paid. The Conservatives also voted against because they regarded the level of compensation as being far too low. However the bill received its Third Reading by a large majority and was sent to the House of Lords.

Because the Speaker of the Commons did not certify the bill as a money bill, the Lords were free to reject or amend it. A money bill is "a bill certified by the Speaker of the Commons that it contains only provisions dealing with national, but not local taxation, public money or loans or their management. The certificate of the Speaker is conclusive." Taken from The Oxford Companion to Twentieth Century British Politics.

 

[Looseheadprop]

In the middle 1930's the Labour Party split into revolutionary, labour and fabian factions. The Revolutionaries, by far the largest faction formed their own party and entered into an alliance with the Communist Party. The Fabians quickly disbanded and entered the Liberal Party, while the Labour Party remnant formed a quick coalition with the Liberals. Following the Second World War the Labour Party in the face of falling votes and changing union alliances dissolved itself into the Liberals

 

[pipisme]

In March 1927 the House of Lords passed the second reading of the Coal Reading Abolition Bill without a vote. However in the committee stage the Conservatives tabled an amendment increasing the rate of compensation to the landowners to 40 percent of estimated future income to be determined by Regional Valuation Tribunals. This amendment was passed by the Conservative dominated Lords.

The amended bill returned to the Commons in early May after the Easter recess. The original clause as included previously was reinstated.

In order to avoid the futile process of batting the bill between Lords and Commons with each House voting for their own compensation clause, Stanley Baldwin, the Conservative Party leader, proposed an all-party conference with representatives from each House to negotiate a mutually satisfactory compromise.

Prime Minister Acland rejected this, saying that the difference between 4 percent and 40 percent was too large to be bridged by compromise. If necessary, the government would use the Parliament Act to get the bill as passed by the Commons enacted into law.

 

[pipisme]

In a speech in his Tiverton, Devon, constituency on May 28, 1927, Acland said that if the Lords did not pass the Coal Royalties Abolition Bill in the form passed by the Commons, the government would dissolve parliament and call a general election. He said that the compensation payment to the coal landlords for losing their income from coal royalties of 4 percent of such income in the years 1922 to 1925 inclusive was just and fair.

Of course there was good deal of bluff in Acland's threat to call a general election. Based on by-election results the most likely outcome would be a rerun of the 1923 result with the Conservatives winning the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, but being in a minority over the Liberals and Labour. But a general election fought on the issue of coal royalties and Peers versus people would probably benefit the Liberals.

On the same day Lloyd George, the Foreign Secretary, in a speech in Manchester, launched a spirited and eloquent attack on the House of Lords and the coal landlords, many of whom were members of that House. He pretended to be concerned that they would be plunged into poverty. With compensation payments of only tens of thousands of pounds they would be forced to reduce the lavishness of their parties. (1)

Acland rejected Conservative attacks that Lloyd George was inflaming class war and that he should make speeches only on foreign policy.

(1) I didn't know what the income was that coal landlords received from royalty payments. Average royalties per ton in the mid 1920s (in pence) ranged from 3.82 in Warwickshire to 9.66 in Cumberland. See Economic Development in the British Coal Industry, 1800-1914 by Brian R. Mitchell.

 

[pipisme]

An editorial was published in the Conservative supporting Daily Telegraph on June 4, 1927, under the heading Time to withdraw gracefully. This argued that while the provisions in the Coal Royalties Abolition Bill for compensation of the coal landlords were little short of robbery, a betrayal of the government's promises, and a surrender to the socialists in the Labour Party who are the puppet masters behind the government; it was not the right battle for the Conservative Party to fight, because the coal landlords were not a popular group in society. It was widely thought that this editorial expressed the opinion of the Conservative leadership.

When in the following week the compensation clause, as voted upon in the Commons, was debated in the House of Lords, enough Conservative Peers abstained to ensure that it passed. Though 39 Conservatives voted against. A few days later the bill received the Royal Assent and it became law.

Sir Herbert Samuel, British High Commisioner in Palestine since July 1 1920, announced on March 31 1927 that he wanted to retire from that post on June 30, at the end of seven years in office. Previously a Liberal MP and cabinet minister, he wanted to return to British politics.

The search was on for a new High Commissioner. The two leading names in the frame were Sir Alfred Mond, the President of the Board of Trade, and Edward Wood, Conservative MP for Ripon and shadow Colonial Secretary. Wood declined because he didn't want to give up a promising career in British politics. If the Conservatives were to win the next general election, he would almost certainly have a senior cabinet position in a Baldwin government.

Prime Minister Acland appointed Mond as the new High Commisioner in Palestine with effect from July 1 1927. Mond was Jewish and a fervent Zionist. His parents were Germans who had emigrated to Britain in 1867. Alfred Moritz Mond was born in 1868. His father was the chemist and inventor Ludwig Mond.

Alfred was the subject of anti-semitic attacks by his Conservative opponents. In the Great War he was denounced as a German and a Jew. He firat visited Palestine in 1921 with Chaim Weizmann. He was a prominent member of the British Zionist Federation.

In response to Conservative criticism that he would not be impartial between Arabs and Jews in Palestine as High Commisioner, Mond said that he would govern according to the principles of the Balfour Declaration and in accordance with the League of Nations mandate - a sacred trust laid upon Britain - with the firm intention of securing and advancing the welfare of all the inhabitants of Palestine. He said that he would resign his membership of the British Zionist Federation.

In a debate in the House of Commons in June 1927 on a motion tabled by Conservative backbenchers hostile to Mond's appointment, the Prime Minister said that he had known Mond for 22 years, as a member of Parliament and as a collegue in government. He had every confidence in his integrity and impartiality. Before the debate, Conservative leader Stanley Baldwin said that he would immediately dismiss any Conservative member of the shadow cabinet who spoke or voted in favour of the motion. Edward Wood said that he was confident that Mond would be an impartial High Commissioner who would not favour the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.

46 Conservative MPs and Sir Oswald Mosley (Independent - Harrow) voted in favour of the motion. Liberal and Labour MPs voted solidly against, as did the Conservative shadow cabinet and a number of Conservative MPs including Nancy Astor and Anthony Eden. But the greatest number of Conservative MPs abstained. However not all the Conservatives who voted for the motion were anti-semitic. Some did so because they thought that the High Commissioner should not be so strongly committed to Zionism.

 

[pipisme]

July 1, 1927. Richard Holt, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was promoted to President of the Board of Trade in place of Sir Alfred Mond, the newly appointed British High Commissioner in Palestine. The economist, Walter Layton, who was elected as Liberal MP for the Combined English Universities (the universities of Bristol, Durham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, and Sheffield) on March 12, 1926, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, was appointed Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He was widely tipped as a future Chancellor of the Exchequer.

By-elections in the constituencies of Swansea West, previously held by Mond, and in Cumberland North because of Holt's promotion to the cabinet were held on July 31, 1927.

In Swansea West, Richard Charles Williams, the Liberal candidate, slightly increased the Liberal majority over Labour. Williams lived in the constituency. At one time he had been an adviser on native education to the government of Southern Rhodesia. However the Conservative vote fell by more than 5 percent from just under 30 percent to under 25 percent. The Conservative candidate was William Albert Samuel Hewins (1). Hewins was the first Director of the London School of Economics (LSE). He had been converted to tariff reform and was the first secretary of the tariff league. He was Conservative MP for Hereford from 1912 to 1918, and a junior minister at the Colonial Office from 1917 to 1918. Hewins fervent advocacy of tariff reform was an embarassment to the Conservative Party leadership which had pledged that a future Conservative government would not introduce tariffs.

Holt was re-elected in the marginal constituency of Cumberland North with a reduced majority over the Conservatives, who had high hopes of winning it.

The disappointing results for the Tories in the by-elections increased the low-level murmuring in the party against Baldwin. However Austen Chamberlain, widely regarded as Baldwin's most likely successor, said that he would not challenge Baldwin for the Conservative Party leadership. Baldwin was safe until after the next general election. However the general opinion was that if the Tories do no better in that election than in 1923 then Baldwin would have little choice but to resign the leadership.

(1) Here is a biography of Hewins: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/33848 .

 

[pipisme]

The Education Act 1927 implemented a recommendation of the Hadow Report on secondary education, published in 1926, and raised the school-leaving age from 14 to 15 with effect from 1928. It was supported by the Liberals and Labour. The Conservatives claimed that there were in favour in principle of the raising of the school leaving age, but it should not be done until financial resources allow.

In a speech on education in September 1927, William Wedgwood Benn, the President of the Board of Education, said that Britain needed a higher proportion of its school leavers to go to university, in order to develop the abilities and skills of its young men and women. University education should not be limited to the upper and upper-middle classes. It was a disgrace that the University of Cambridge did not allow women to take degrees. At 2 percent the proportion of nineteen year olds who attended university, was a smaller proportion than in any other European country, and far too low. (1)

(1) This figure is taken from 'We Danced All Night': A Social History of Britain Between the Wars, by Martin Pugh.

 

[stevep]

The Education Act 1927 implemented a recommendation of the Hadow Report on secondary education, published in 1926, and raised the school-leaving age from 14 to 15 with effect from 1928. It was supported by the Liberals and Labour. The Conservatives claimed that there were in favour in principle of the raising of the school leaving age, but it should not be done until financial resources allow.

In a speech on education in September 1927, William Wedgwood Benn, the President of the Board of Education, said that Britain needed a higher proportion of its school leavers to go to university, in order to develop the abilities and skills of its young men and women. University education should not be limited to the upper and upper-middle classes. It was a disgrace that the University of Cambridge did not allow women to take degrees. At 2 percent the proportion of nineteen year olds who attended university, was a smaller proportion than in any other European country, and far too low. (1)

(1) This figure is taken from 'We Danced All Night': A Social History of Britain Between the Wars, by Martin Pugh.

pipisme

Excellent! Provided they don't make the mistake we did after WWII and allow the establishment to stay overwhelmingly humanities and arts. [While a lover of history the country most desperately needed, and still now, more technical and scientific education being supported]. However a good start.

Not surprised the Tories are claiming, its a good idea but only when the funds allow. Standard delaying tactic, with emphesis on making sure the funds aren't available. Can't have the rich paying taxes so the poor can have good education, health, economic opportunities etc. [Sorry if I'm getting a bit political here but the parasitical nature of the powerful in this country has been its downfall for the last century or more.].

Steve

 

[pipisme]

Originally posted by stevep
Provided they don't make the mistake we did after WWII and allow the establishment to stay overwhelming humanities and arts

In this TL as in OTL most of the political establishment was in 1927 very strongly inclined towards the humanities and arts. However the Liberals were somewhat more aware than the Tories of the importance of scientific and technical education.

There could not be a significant expansion of university education without some system of grants and/or loans to finance undergraduates. But that has not yet been reached on this TL. The high fees meant that most university students were from the upper and upper-middle classes, though there were a comparatively few scholarships available.

 

[pipisme]

By 1927 there was growing concern about the rising number of casualities caused by motor cars on Britain's roads - several thousand deaths and over one hundred thousand injuries a year.

In late February 1927 Prime Minister Acland appointed James Daniel Gilbert as Minister of Transport with a seat in the cabinet. Previously the Minister of Transport had not been a cabinet post. Gilbert had been a member of the House of Commons select committee on transport in 1918 and of the selerct committee on London traffic. Gilbert won re-election in the by-election on March 28, 1927, caused by his elevation to the cabinet, in his inner London seat of Southwark Central with an increased majority over Labour.

Gilbert's first major piece of legislation was the Road Traffic Act 1927. This instituted compulsory driving tests for the first time and mandated automatic disqualification of up to life for any motorist convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

 

[pipisme]

The Road Traffic Act 1927 also specified that pedestrians would have the right of way on all pedestrian (zebra) crossings. Previously the law had been unclear.

As part of his road safety campaign, James Gilbert, the Minister of Transport made the following decisions:

Ordered local police forces to investigate the causes of all fatal traffic accidents.

Requested all schools to have road safety lessons. Because the government had no power to tell schools what they should teach, Gilbert could only use moral pressure in his campaign to have schools teach road safety. However almost all schools agreed to teach road safety.

Launched a public competition for the best idea for an object which would indicate zebra crossings. The winner was that of a black and white striped pole topped by a flashing red globe. These poles soon became known as Gilbert Beacons, inevitably shortened to Bertie Beacons.

Most Tories thought that Gilbert was making too much fuss over his road safety measures. John Moore-Brabazon had expressed the opinion that 6,000 people a year commit suicide, so why make a fuss about the same number being killed in road traffic accidents. (1)

Features of the April 1927 budget included a 3d reduction in the rate of income tax, the reduction of 50% on rates (local property tax), an increase in the maximum rate of estate duty (inheritance tax) from 45% to 48%, and a 2d per gallon increase on the tax on petrol. However Thomas MacNamara, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave his assurance that the increase would go entirely into the road fund and would be used to finance new roads and improvements on existing roads.

Charles Masterman, the former Liberal MP and minister in Liberal governments died on November 17, 1927. There were rumours that he had committed suicide. Masterman had been talked about as a future Prime Minister. His life was regarded as one of great promise sadly unulfilled. However his death meant that his widow, Lucy, could now embark on the political career as a Liberal member of Parliament which she had always wanted. (2)

By the end of the year she was selected as the Liberal candidate for the marginal Tory held seat of Cambridge.

(1) It states in 'We Danced All Night' that Moore-Brabazon did say that, though it did not specify where or when. In OTL in the 1930s, he was sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists.

(2) Lucy Masterman maiden name was Lyttleton. She was the daughter of General Sir Neville Gerald Lyttleton and Katherine Wortley. She was the niece of Lucy Caroline Cavendish, for whom Lucy Cavendish College, Cambridge in OTL is named, and the great neice of William Ewart Gladstone.

 

[pipisme]

As there would be a general election in Britain in 1928, with a date in the Spring or early Summer generally regarded as the most likely, there was a scramble by the three main political parties to get candidates selected in constituencies where they did not have any. Though by the end of January 1928, the parties had picked almost all their candidates in winnable seats.

The Leasehold Reform Bill became law in January 1928. It provided for leaseholders to purchase the freehold of their homes for a fair price, while owners of shops or business premises were given the option of renewing their leases or buying the freehold.

The result of the by-election on February 23, 1928 in the Tory marginal of Ilford, a middle class suburb east of London in the county of Essex, caused by the death of the sitting MP, was a Liberal gain by a narrow majority of 464, with Labour in a rather distant third place.

The elections to the London County Council (LCC) were held on Thursday March 1, 1928. On the LCC, the Municipal Reform Party was allied to the Conservative Party nationally, while the Progressive Party had close links with the Liberal Party nationally. The number of councillors elected in the elections in 1922 and 1925 were as follows:

March 2, 1922 (OTL) : Municipal Reform: 82
Progressives: 25
Labour: 17

March 5, 1925 (TTL): Municipal Reform: 85 (+3)
Progressive: 23 (-2)
Labour: 16 (-1)

There was widespread speculation that if the Progressives did well in the election to the LCC on March 1, Acland would call a general election, especially after the Liberal gain in the Ilford by-election.

The result of the election was as follows:

Municipal Reform: 73 (-12)
Progressive: 36 (+12)
Labour: 15 (-1)

The Liberals were pleased with the result obtained by their Progressive allies. They had never expected the Municipal Reform Party to lose control of the LCC, and a gain of 12 seats was better than they expected.

After consulting with his cabinet and Liberal Party officials over the following few days, Acland announced on Monday March 5 that Parliament would be dissolved and a general election held on Wednesday April 25. That date was chosen to avoid political campaigning during Holy Week and Easter Week. Easter Sunday was on April 8.

 

[stevep]

pipisme

Looking good. Especially with the London council results. The government has achieved a lot and [given what we know] avoided a number of the historical problems. Probably expect the Tories to remain the largest single party but if the Liberals can make good gains they are securing their position. A lot could depend on whether the bi-election result is part of a trend or a one-off, possibly caused by tactical voting. Could be interesting if the Liberals make gains while Labour declines. The latter might possibly then decide its best interests are to cancel the coalition and go it alone.

Wondering what's going to happen in the coming year. With the broader financial situation there's nothing the government can do to avoid the coming crash but might be able to make a better job of mitigating the dark days ahead. This presumes that the Liberal Party will follow the sort of policies it put forward OTL in the 430's. [As a ruling/leading party it might not have the same freedom/incentive to consider radical policies in TTL]. However I think they are still committed to free trade which will make things very difficult when the depression comes, not to mention make any agreement with the dominions more difficult.

Steve

 

[pipisme]

The Liberals are confident of doing well in the general election, at least becoming the largest single party and possibly winning an overall majority - the first time since the general election of January 1906. The Ilford by-election victory was largely the result of tactical voting by Labour voters. Also Sir George Hamilton, the Conservative candidate, was not a local man, having been born in Alnwick, Northumberland. He was MP for Altrincham in Cheshire from 1913 until 1923, when he was defeated by the Liberal candidate.

The Liberals campaigned on their record of social reform, progressive legislation such as the extension of the vote to all women on the same terms as men, lower income tax, general economic prosperity and support of the League of Nations, under the Asquith and Acland governments since January 1924. Some important Acts passed under those governments, which have not been mentioned previously are as follows:

The Land Purchase Act 1926 provided for tenant farmers to buy the freehold of their farms at a mutually agreed price with their landlords. However by 1928 few tenant farmers had taken advantage of the Act.

The Security of Tenure (Agriculture) Act 1926 gave tenant farmers security of tenure.

The Old Age and Widows and Contributory Pensions Act 1925 lowered the retirement age from 70 to 65, and provided for the payment of pensions to widows. It was similar to the 1925 act of the same name passed by Baldwin's government in OTL: http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/ces/cesbookapen7.html . The thrift disqualification attached to old age pensions was also removed.

Legislation was enacted in 1926 and 1927 to implement the recommendations of the Beveridge Report on the Coal Mining Industry: The establishment of a National Wages Board for the industry, a minimum wage for all miners, and the encouragement of profit sharing by tax incentives.

 

[pipisme]

The Conservative Party was officially bound by Baldwin's pledge made in November 1924 that a Conservative government would not introduce tariffs. However a large proportion of the party (probably a majority) really wanted tariffs and Imperial Preference. Leo Amery, the Shadow Secretary for War, was a fervent advocate of Imperial Preference. However Baldwin said that his pledge applied to the Parliament elected in this general election, not to future Parliaments.

 

[pipisme]

Baldwin's pledge not to introduce tariffs was widely regarded as an act of political opportunism, rather than made out of deeply held principles. While on the one hand it might bring back Conservative voters who had voted Liberal in 1923, on the other hand the perceived opportunism could alienate voters.

The consequences of the very real possibility that the general election would result in Labour becoming the largest party in the House of Commons, was the subject of widespread discussion. If that were to happen some Conservatives wanted their party to ally with the Liberals to prevent a Labour government, but Baldwin and other leading Tories said that if the Labour Party was able to secure a majority in the House of Commons it had the comstitutional right to form a government.

 

[stevep]

The consequences of the very real possibility that the general election would result in Labour becoming the largest party in the House of Commons, was the subject of widespread discussion. If that were to happen some Conservatives wanted their party to ally with the Liberals to prevent a Labour government, but Baldwin and other leading Tories said that if the Labour Party was able to secure a majority in the House of Commons it had the comstitutional right to form a government.

Interesting. I was rather suspect that Labour was in decline, or at least struggling to make progress with a resurgent Liberal party. Could well be however that there's going to be a lot of uncertainty about the results.

Just to clarify. Your got Baldwin and all saying if Labour gained a majority but the earlier comment was about if they became the largest single party, which is a different matter.

Stevep

 

[pipisme]

Originally posted by stevep
Just to clarify. You've got Baldwin and all saying if Labour gained a majority but the earlier comment was if they became the largest single party, which is a different matter.

I meant that the statements by Baldwin and others were if Labour became the largest single party. As there were no opinion polls then there was no reasonably accurate measure of party support. Labour would need to win only 34 seats to have 206 seats which would be one more than one-third of a House of Commons of 615 seats.

The Liberal manifesto included the following policy aspirations and proposals:

Education: Increased expenditure on education especially on reducing class-sizes in elementary schools. An extension of university and technical education. A national agreement with teachers in respect of their pay and conditions, and raising the qualifications of teachers.

Electoral reform: If re-elected the Liberal government would convene an all-party conference under the Chairmanship of the Speaker of the House of Commons to consider the advantages and disadvantages of different voting systems.

Housing: The policy of slum clearance would continue, together with the building of more garden cities.

House of Lords: Women would be allowed to become Peeresses and therefore members of the House of Lords.

 

[perfectgeneral]

L(R)VT

Most capital gains are land value gains. The key to a land value tax is to separate the predatory unearned land rent from the gain in property value due to development and investment.

This is the difference between property tax (rates) and land rent value tax.
In theory the UK government are entitled to 100% of the land rent of UK land. This is effectively returning ownership of land to the crown while allowing perpetual lease to the deed-holder.

In practice the value of annual rent can be hard to estimate on land that is owned and not rented. This sets a practical maximum of about 95% of total annual rent chargeable. If this results in a 5% return on holding land before any development then this is more benefit than a wasteful land owner deserves, but could prevent marginal land from being dumped on the crown to avoid liability.

To balance the charge on land rent (or estimated equivalent), taxation on property must be stopped. No rates. Since Land Rent Tax can be set so high without damaging investment (in fact it steers more into investment from land speculation) less is required from sales tax, profit tax or income tax (at this time charged equally on business income and personal income).

Land Rent tax is the most progressive of taxes. Only owners of large areas of prime land are hit hard. The farmer's land now reflects the value of possible crop/herd income (decadent use of land for hunting and landscaped gardens just got more expensive). Marginal farm land is taxed at a correspondingly lower level due to the low value of the land. No need for farming subsidies (France take note). The developer pays dearly for all that prime building land and can only recoup by income from buildings on that land. No slum estates waiting decades for an opportune moment for redevelopment. The individual home owner pays for the quality of the site, gains next to nothing for increased local facilities. On the other hand the value of land doesn't bubble with no/little return to a speculator. So the price you pay reflects the true worth of a building in that location.

A Land Tax of 95% will totally undermine the left (we will all be workers and the rich will have earned it) and weakened the right (if money is power, they will have a lot less of it, unless they invest in industry). The higher the Land Value Tax is set the better. All other taxes can be scrapped (maybe some income tax still required, but I doubt it). Why would the Liberals cut LVT back to 5% from 15% rather than cut taxes on jobs (income tax), trade (duties and tariffs) and investment (corporation/profit/business income taxes)? I doesn't seem very Liberal. The one argument I can think of for retaining some income tax is to justify a universal franchise. I'm unsure how to prevent all investment going into the virtual world of finance and Insurance. The proportion of industry to financial investment could be steered by the proportion of LVT to income tax, but a tax that hits finance will hit industry just as hard, if not more so. I suspect that the liberal view would be that investment opportunities must be allowed wherever they are. They would not seek to steer the proportion. A nominal income tax to pay for armed forces and parliament then. So that they act in our name as well as that of the crown/country.