Page images
PDF
EPUB

their improvement. What shall we say of the condition of the people which in respect of household tenure and beneficent municipal activity depends so much upon these laws? Are the problems of education and of ecclesiastical organization completely solved? The question of colonial relations deserves a better fate than that of being brought forward at the fag-end of platform declamations in favor of Protection. In our better times the statesman interested in it would have addressed his most careful argument to his fellows in the House of Commons. Who again can fail to see how much work might be done through Parliament in the development of international friendship and the reduction of armaments? No failure of subjects can excuse the limitation of private members' opportunities in the House of Commons. Nor can any defence of it be found in the plea that newspapers now do the work which was done by such men as Hume, Cobden, Lord Ashley, Molesworth and their compeers. Newspapers chronicle and pursue the work of others. The editor of a daily newspaper can hardly afford to look beyond his nose. When debates originate in Parliament, newspapers perforce report them and offer some comment upon them. The flip-flap opinions thus expressed, backing and filling with wind, may not be of much value; but they draw attention to what is going on, the real, motive power lying in that force to which they simply testify.

The energy of Parliament has declined, Parliamentary authority deIclines with it, and the nation has suffered thereby. There is no want of subjects requiring discussion, and no substitute for Parliamentary discussion has been found. There remains, however, the parlous plea that the men of past generations are wanting. The eager reforming spirits of the past are not in the House of Commons. If they

were, they would soon assert themselves and make the necessary channels for their activity. Here, I think, we touch the real source of decay. And yet it is difficult to believe that nature is not as prolific to-day as yesterday in men ardently eager to work for the public good. The sources of reforming energy have not dried up. Has there been any change in the organization of public life limiting or denying the facility of entrance into the House of Commons of the power that once found its way there?

The change in our electoral machinery, under the operation of which members are returned by single-member constituencies, has quietly effected a radical change in the character of the House itself. Local influences formerly produced irregularly enough a great variety in the composition of the House of Commons. When a man was patron of his own borough or lord of his own district he was independent enough, and if self-will often produced nothing but wilful eccentricity it sometimes expressed a rough invaluable commonsense. When again there were two members to be returned for a constituency, it was common and almost necessary to run, as candidates, representatives of two wings of a party, thus producing in the House of Commons different grades of political opinion. And again, it was not an accident that, with the redivision of the country, there sprang into existence federal party organizations, highly centralized, which have become more and more actively engaged in the formation of programmes, the introduction of candidates, and, most of all, in the direct management of elections. A General Election may happen so hurriedly as not to find this widespreading machinery fully prepared for its work; but there is generally sufficient forewarning, and in bye-elections the machinery is constantly exhibited in full opera

tion.

The result is seen in a decline in the quality of candidates and in the growing poverty of Parliamentary life. Any one who would wish to study the process in detail may be recommended to read Ostrogorski's book, "Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties," a monument of years of careful and acute industry devoted to a patient study of political developments here and in the United States. The elaboration of the "machine" has not reached the degree of perfection among ourselves that it has across the Atlantic, but the process is of the same character. The force of individuality declines. Large views and the advocacy of great ideas are discredited. The men who are in request are those who will fall into their places according to pattern, and there is such a standardization of items that no difficulty can be found in replacing any link that accidentally drops out. I repeat that this is not realized among ourselves every where and at once"dark horses" will creep in provided they can keep their qualities in obscurity at first, which is a bad preparation for subsequent independencebut it is sufficiently realized to deaden enthusiasm for causes among the elec.torate and to produce that lack of enerergy in the House of Commons which lies at the bottom of the decay of Parliamentary life and of Parliamentary authority.

Generations do, without doubt, differ from one another in vitality; and it may be that we are passing through a somewhat listless period. But we may as well make as good use as we can of the materials we have. The nation is still rich enough in publicspirited thinkers and workers, and Parliament might be rich too, if we cleared away the obstructions which make narrow and difficult the ways into it. A comparatively simple change holds the promise of a complete

transformation. If, instead of single-
member constituencies, we had constit-
uencies of half-a-dozen members, and
provisions enabling different groups of
electors within each constituency to get
a representative for themselves if they
were of adequate size to justify the
claim, we should at once emancipate
electors and candidates. We should
give the first the strongest of motives
for securing a direct representation
of themselves in the Legislature, and
we should give the elected a secure
standing-place on which he could rely
as long as he was true to himself and
held the faith which animated his
followers. Under such a scheme each
large provincial town would be one
constituency, and the elements of
political life within it would be in living
connection with the House of Com-
mons. Difficulties such as those con-
nected with the claims of labor to rep-
resentation would disappear, and the
Conservative member would not be in
imminent peril, though he remained
an obstinate Free-Fooder. Parliament
would have all the variety and vigor
of life. I do not enter into an exposi-
tion of the machinery of election, by
which this real representation is ef-
fected. It has been proved over and
over again to be very easily worked,
and the experiment could be tried any
winter evening by any set of men or
women that liked to put it to the test.
If we cross the narrow seas to Belgium
we should find a system of proportional
representation working there to the
great satisfaction of all parties, who
have found in it a solution of difficul
ties which at one time threatened the
nation with anarchical convulsions.

Why do we not adopt some similar method here? The real objection is found in use and wont and the aversion of those who are "in" to entertain any suggestion of changes in the ways which they have found sufficient for themselves. But there are two

their improvement. What shall we say of the condition of the people which in respect of household tenure and beneficent municipal activity depends so much upon these laws? Are the problems of education and of ecclesiastical organization completely solved? The question of colonial relations deserves a better fate than that of being brought forward at the fag-end of platform declamations in favor of Protection. In our better times the statesman interested in it would have addressed his most careful argument to his fellows in the House of Commons. Who again can fail to see how much work might be done through Parliament in the development of international friendship and the reduction of armaments? No failure of subjects can excuse the limitation of private members' opportunities in the House of Commons. Nor can any defence of it be found in the plea that newspapers now do the work which was done by such men as Hume, Cobden, Lord Ashley, Molesworth and their compeers. Newspapers chronicle and pursue the work of others. The editor of a daily newspaper can hardly afford to look beyond his nose. When debates originate in Parliament, newspapers perforce report them and offer some comment upon them. The flip-flap opinions thus expressed, backing and filling with wind, may not be of much value; but they draw attention to what is going on, the real, motive power lying in that force to which they simply testify.

The energy of Parliament has declined, Parliamentary authority declines with it, and the nation has suffered thereby. There is no want of subjects requiring discussion, and no substitute for Parliamentary discussion has been found. There remains, however, the parlous plea that the men of past generations are wanting. The eager reforming spirits of the past are not in the House of Commons. If they

were, they would soon assert themselves and make the necessary channels for their activity. Here, I think, we touch the real source of decay. And yet it is difficult to believe that nature is not as prolific to-day as yesterday in men ardently eager to work for the public good. The sources of reforming energy have not dried up. Has there been any change in the organization of public life limiting or denying the facility of entrance into the House of Commons of the power that once found its way there?

The change in our electoral machinery, under the operation of which members are returned by single-member constituencies, has quietly effected a radical change in the character of the House itself. Local influences formerly produced irregularly enough a great variety in the composition of the House of Commons. When a man was patron of his own borough or lord of his own district he was independent enough, and if self-will often produced nothing but wilful eccentricity it sometimes expressed a rough invaluable commonsense. When again there were two members to be returned for a constituency, it was common and almost necessary to run, as candidates, representatives of two wings of a party, thus producing in the House of Commons different grades of political opinion. And again, it was not an accident that, with the redivision of the country, there sprang into existence federal party organizations, highly centralized, which have become more and more actively engaged in the formation of programmes, the introduction of candidates, and, most of all, in the direct management of elections. A General Election may happen so hurriedly as not to find this widespreading machinery fully prepared for its work; but there is generally sufficient forewarning, and in bye-elections the machinery is constantly exhibited in full opera

[ocr errors]

tion. The result is seen in a decline in the quality of candidates and in the growing poverty of Parliamentary life. Any one who would wish to study the process in detail may be recommended to read Ostrogorski's book, "Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties," a monument of years of careful and acute industry devoted to a patient study of political developments here and in the United States. The elaboration of the "machine" has not reached the degree of perfection among ourselves that it has across the Atlantic, but the process is of the same character. The force of individuality declines. Large views and the advocacy of great ideas are discredited. The men who are in request are those who will fall into their places according to pattern, and there is such a standardization of items that no difficulty can be found in replacing any link that accidentally drops out. I repeat that this is not realized among ourselves every where and at once"dark horses" will creep in provided they can keep their qualities in obscurity at first, which is a bad preparation for subsequent independence— but it is sufficiently realized to deaden enthusiasm for causes among the elec.torate and to produce that lack of enerergy in the House of Commons which lies at the bottom of the decay of Parliamentary life and of Parliamentary authority.

But we

Generations do, without doubt, differ
from one another in vitality; and it
may be that we are passing through
a somewhat listless period.
may as well make as good use as we
can of the materials we have. The na-
tion is still rich enough in public-
spirited thinkers and workers, and
Parliament might be rich too, if we
cleared away the obstructions which
make narrow and difficult the ways
into it. A comparatively simple
change holds the promise of a complete

transformation. If, instead of single-
member constituencies, we had constit-
uencies of half-a-dozen members, and
provisions enabling different groups of
electors within each constituency to get
a representative for themselves if they
were of adequate size to justify the
claim, we should at once emancipate
electors and candidates. We should
give the first the strongest of motives
for securing a direct representation
of themselves in the Legislature, and
we should give the elected a secure
standing-place on which he could rely
as long as he was true to himself and
held the faith which animated his
followers. Under such a scheme each
large provincial town would be one
constituency, and the elements of
political life within it would be in living
connection with the House of Com-
mons. Difficulties such as those con-
nected with the claims of labor to rep-
resentation would disappear, and the
Conservative member would not be in
imminent peril, though he remained
an obstinate Free-Fooder. Parliament
would have all the variety and vigor
of life. I do not enter into an exposi-
tion of the machinery of election, by
which this real representation is ef
fected. It has been proved over and
over again to be very easily worked,
and the experiment could be tried any
winter evening by any set of men or
women that liked to put it to the test.
If we cross the narrow seas to Belgium
we should find a system of proportional
representation working there to the
great satisfaction of all parties, who
have found in it a solution of difficul-
ties which at one time threatened the
nation with anarchical convulsions.

Why do we not adopt some similar method here? The real objection is found in use and wont and the aversion of those who are "in" to entertain any suggestion of changes in the ways which they have found sufficient for themselves. But there are two

pleas which are advanced in front of, and by way of covering, this real ob. stacle. The first is that members so independently elected are bound to be troublesome, unmanageable fellows. Experience does not support this apprehension. In our best days the strongest advocates of particular ideas were found to be thoroughly practical members of the House of Commons, and the forces of self-adjustment may be trusted to maintain a well-developed organization out of such elements. Parliamentary life has become smoother in Belgium, where Liberals and Socialists, once in mortal enmity, are able to co-operate together in common causes, and even members of the left wing of the Clerical party fine off in the way of amity towards men of other parties. The second plea is that the two-party system would be destroyed. The necessity of the two-party system is a postulate politicians are fond of assuming. I have noticed that Mr. Balfour often refers to it-not, indeed, as a thing proved, but as something which it is convenient to take for granted. He is a very clever man, and I am persuaded he has no settled conviction on the subject. If questioned he would give it the go-by, and he would probably evade discussion because in his moments of speculation he has seen how short of proof is the case for its The Monthly Review.

necessity. The Tadpoles and Tapers who have not probed things to the same depth doubtless feel a genuine apprehension of any danger that can touch the two-party system. They may be comforted with the assurance that it is not easily destructible. It has its roots in human nature, and the real question of public policy is whether it might not be to our advantage that the strictness of its discipline should be abated. Who can pretend that the process of dividing politicians into two camps and of drilling the men in each to think alike and speak alike over against the men of the other tends to the development of sincerity or assists in the apprehension of truth? The late Lord Carnarvon confessed one day that he had discovered with pain that the Conservative party was an organized hypocrisy. A cynic would remark that the discovery erred only in its limitation; and there is truth enough in the sneer to justify us in bidding the timid to be of good heart, even though. the two-party system be broken down at its edges. After all, there is something in the large generalization that the way of freedom is the way of safety and not of peril. A reform which liberates the development of thought and of counsel among the citizens of a nation carries a recommendation in: advance of itself.

Leonard Courtney..

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »