We are nowadays constantly within hearing of elections and electioneering; and side by side with the clamor of this machinery complaints are as constantly heard of the unsatisfactory -character of the results accomplished. Parliamentary institutions may be said to be past being on their trial. The newer age condemns them. If these complaints had been confined to the experience of Parliament in some European countries, we might be content with the old explanation that the mischances arose from a foolish attempt to apply the principles of Parliamentary government to races and communities not prepared for their reception. Why complain if a Slav Sobranje breaks down, or even if an Austrian Reichsrath proves unworkable? Unfortunately, the complaints are perhaps more frequently heard from Anglo-Saxon communities, where the genius of the people has been supposed pre-eminently fitted for the successful management of Parliaments, and where long-standing use has made the forms and methods of Parliamentary procedure familiar to every citizen. Mr. Bryce has told us of the curious length to which popular feeling in respect of their Legislatures has run in some of the Western States. They are debarred from meeting more than a strictly limited number of days in the year, or perhaps from meeting oftener than every other year. A more recent form of restraint, which has, I be lieve, become established in one or two instances, would require that no Act of the Legislature should have the force of law until it has been submitted to and approved by a popular vote. The principle of a Referendum, familiar enough in Swiss politics, has not yet been seriously discussed among

ourselves, but it was acted upon in Australia, where the Constitution of the Commonwealth was submitted to popular votes after having been approved by the Legislatures of the constituent States. Opinions will doubtless differ as to what would have been the result had some recent Acts of Parliament-for example, the Licensing Act or the Education Act-been submitted to a plébiscite of the nation, as a condition precedent of their becoming law; but the suggestion of such a procedure may not be unprofitable to consider, and the fact that it can be made illustrates an abiding uncertainty as to whether Parliament can always be trusted as an expression of the national will.

a

We must approach the subject in a different manner if we would form a correct estimate of the decline of Parliamentary authority among ourselves, It would be well in the first place to recall how that authority stood in its highest manifestation, say during the fifty years which followed 1832. What were the distinguishing characteristics of Parliamentary action during that half-century? As Mr. Bagehot pointed out, Parliament evolved Committee called the Cabinet, to which was entrusted the administration of the several political departments and the preparation of the principal new projects of law. The expression of the will of the majority of the Legislature, and presumptively of the nation, was thus secured, but the service of Parliament went much beyond this. Within its Sessions the conduct of the Administration was continuously criticised, and the House of Commons justified its claim to be the Grand Inquest of the nation by the discussion of the grievances of all classes of the people.

The majority ruled through the Ministry. Minorities were heard with growing success through the representatives of discontented sections and the advocates of progressive change. One set of men pressed for economy of expenditure, and materially helped to secure it. Another set exposed the wants and the sufferings of the day-laborers, whether in the field, mine or factory, or on shipboard. Another set directed attention to the criminal law and its punishments, especially that of transportation, and, in connection with this last, our colonial relations necessarily came under review. Irish representatives could not fail to press upon their fellow-members the grievances only too plentifully supplied through the bad laws and bad administration of the sister island. Yet another illustration, which the reader may have earlier expected, is found in the battle against the evil legislation which throttled industry and commerce, and imposed unjust taxes on the food of the poorest of the people. Such activities were the glory of Parliamentary history, and whilst they severally ended in success, more or less complete when the majority and the Ministers representing the majority found themselves carrying through the measures of reform so long agitated, it must ever be remembered that it was through minorities, and private members representing minorities, that the work of conversion was begun and conducted up to the last stage of victory. There was work outside as well as within Parliament. The platform and the Press aided in the labor. But the highest education which animated the platform and instructed the Press was achieved in Parliament, where advocacy and criticism met, and the inertia of Conservative opinion was overcome by the energy of reason.

It would be a pitiful contrast to go step by step through a comparison of the Parliament of the mid-nineteenth

century and Parliament as it appears at the opening of the twentieth century. We cannot get rid of Ireland, and as long as money is voted for the service of Irish departments the defects of Irish government will continue to be brought under review. But apart from this, how complete is the change! The old combination of the energy of private members and the activity of Ministers has disappeared. The time allotted to the former has been curtailed, and new obstacles have arisen to prevent them from effectively using the hours still left at their command. Forms of procedure have been developed or abused, so as to take away in the House of Commons the power of bringing under discussion subjects which most urgently require it. The transformation is admitted, and is not unfrequently justified. It is claimed that the work of Parliament is to pass laws, and laws can be passed only when introduced by a Government commanding the confidence of the Legislature. Private members are reduced to impotence, but they deserve no better fate. They accomplish at best an idle intrusion into the arena and a waste of time that could be usefully employed. If the records of the last century are appealed to, the answer is that all the great work then required to be done has been done, and there is nothing left now to parallel the exigencies of the past. This line is taken by those who voice the majority which desires no change. I have no doubt a similar opinion was cherished, if not expressed, by faithful supporters of Ministers fifty years ago. It betrays a singular lack of imagination, not to say a dull unintelligence, as to the capabilities of the future. The politician must be strangely constituted who thinks that our land laws are beyond the discussion of change, and that no Parliamentary time could be well spent in canvassing proposals for

The

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? 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

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 everywhere 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 electorate 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 stili 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 singlemember constituencies, we had constituencies 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 Commons. Difficulties such as those connected with the claims of labor to representation 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 exposition of the machinery of election, by which this real representation is effected. 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 difficulties 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 obstacle. 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 strong. est 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 bypocrisy. 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.