In any modern State the control of the action of Government is largely
wielded by organs not formally recognised by law--by the general
movement of public opinion; by the influence of what is vaguely called
"the city"; by the resolutions of such powerful bodies as trade union
congresses, federations of employers, religious organisations, and
propagandist bodies of many kinds; and, above all, by the Press. No
review of our system would be complete without some discussion of these
extremely powerful and in some cases dangerous influences. We cannot,
however, touch upon them here. We must confine ourselves to the formal,
constitutional machinery of national control over the actions of
Government, that is, to Parliament, as the spokesman of the nation.
An essential part of any full discussion of this subject would be a
treatment of the Second Chamber problem. But that would demand a whole
hour to itself; and I propose to pass it over for the present, and to
ask you to consider the perturbing fact that the House of Commons, which
is the very heart of our system, has largely lost the confidence and
belief which it once commanded.
Why has the House of Commons lost the confidence of the nation? There
are two main reasons, which we must investigate in turn. In the first
place, in spite of the now completely democratic character of the
electorate, the House is felt to be very imperfectly representative of
the national mind. And in the second place, it is believed to perform
very inefficiently its primary function of criticising and controlling
the action of Government.
First of all, why do men vaguely feel that the House of Commons is
unrepresentative? I think there are three main reasons. The first is to
be found in the method of election. Since 1885 the House has been
elected by equal electoral districts, each represented by a single
member. Now, if we suppose that every constituency was contested by two
candidates only, about 45 per cent. of the voters must feel that they
had not voted for anybody who sat at Westminster; while many of the
remaining 55 per cent. must feel that they had been limited to a choice
between two men, neither of whom truly represented them. But if in many
constituencies there are no contests, and in many others there are three
or more candidates, the number of electors who feel that they have not
voted for any member of the House may rise to 60 per cent. or even 70
per cent. of the total.
The psychological effect of this state of things must be profound. And
there is another consideration. The very name of the House of Commons
(Communes, not common people) implies that it represents organised
communities, with a character and personality and tradition of their
own--boroughs or counties. So it did until 1885. Now it largely
represents totally unreal units which exist only for the purpose of the
election. The only possible means of overcoming these defects
of the single member system is some mode of proportional
representation--perhaps qualified by the retention of single members in
those boroughs or counties which are just large enough to be entitled to
one member.
The main objection taken to proportional representation is that it would
probably involve small and composite majorities which would not give
sufficient authority to ministries. But our chief complaint is that the
authority of modern ministries is too great, their power too unchecked.
In the middle of the nineteenth century, when our system worked most
smoothly, parties _were_ composite, and majorities were small--as they
usually ought to be, if the real balance of opinion in the country is to
be reflected. The result was that the control of Parliament over the
Cabinet was far more effective than it is to-day; the Cabinet could not
ride roughshod over the House; and debates really influenced votes, as
they now scarcely ever do. The immense majorities which have been the
rule since 1885 are not healthy. They are the chief cause of the growth
of Cabinet autocracy. And they are due primarily to the working of the
single-member constituency.
The second ground of distrust is the belief that Parliament is unduly
dominated by party; that its members cannot speak and vote freely; that
the Cabinet always gets its way because it is able to hold over members,
_in terrorem_, the threat of a general election, which means a fine of
£1000 a head; and that (what creates more suspicion than anything) the
policy of parties is unduly influenced by the subscribers of large
amounts to secret party funds. I am a profound believer in organised
parties as essential to the working of our system. But I also believe
that there is real substance in these complaints, though they are often
exaggerated. What is the remedy? First, smaller majorities, and a
greater independence of the individual member, which would follow from a
change in the methods of election. And, secondly, publicity of accounts
in regard to party funds. There is no reason why an honest party should
be ashamed of receiving large gifts for the public ends it serves, and
every reason why it should be proud of receiving a multitude of small
gifts. I very strongly hold that in politics, as in industry, the best
safeguard against dishonest dealings, and the surest means of restoring
confidence, is to be found in the policy of "Cards on the table." Is
there any reason why we Liberals should not begin by boldly adopting, in
our own case, this plainly Liberal policy?