The House of Commons is a far more orderly assembly than it was a hundred

years ago; it is more sober and less noisy, and the arrival of Labour

members has increased rather than diminished its good behaviour. It is also

a far more industrious assembly, and the influence of the Labour party

compels an amount of legislation that honourable members would have thought

impossible fifty years ago.

WORKING-CLASS LEADERS IN PARLIAMENT

Three representative working-class leaders in the House of Commons stand

out pre-eminently in contemporary politics--the Right Hon. John Burns, Mr.

J. Keir Hardie, and Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald. The Right Hon. D. Lloyd George

is conspicuous rather as the representative of the industrious

Nonconformist middle class, but the success of his career is no less

significant of the advance of democracy. The very Cabinet is now no longer

an aristocratic committee, and the highest offices of executive government

are held by men who are neither wealthy nor of distinguished family.

Two working-class leaders of an earlier generation--the Right Hon. T. Burt,

M.P., and Mr. H. Broadhurst--held office as Under-Secretaries in the

Liberal Government of 1892-5; but Mr. John Burns is the first trade

unionist to sit in the Cabinet. He, too, might have been an Under-Secretary

in the days of that short-lived Ministry, but decided, with characteristic

vigour, that if he was fit to be an Under-Secretary he was fit for the

Cabinet. At the close of 1905 the opportunity came, and the offer of Sir H.

Campbell-Bannerman to preside over the Local Government Board was promptly

accepted. The workman first took his place in the Cabinet when Mr. John

Burns, at the age of forty-seven, went to the Local Government Board--to

the complete satisfaction of Mr. Burns. For the robust egoism of Mr. Burns

is largely a class pride. His invincible belief in himself is part of an

equally invincible belief in the working class. His ambitions thrive on the

conviction that whatever Mr. John Burns does, that the working class does

in the person of their representative. Always does he identify himself with

the mechanics and labourers with whom his earlier years were spent, and by

whose support he has risen to office. The more honours for Mr. John Burns,

the more does it seem to this stalwart optimist that the working class is

honoured. He arrays himself in court dress at the palaces of kings,

receives honorary degrees at Universities, and is kept before the public by

the newspaper paragraphist, without wincing or pretending to dislike it.

Why should the workman not be esteemed by kings and universities? Mr. Burns

asks. So great is his self-respect that the respect of others is taken as a

matter of course. Much of the criticism that has been directed against Mr.

John Burns misses the mark, because it does not recognise that the motive

power at work all the time in his career is the triumph of his class. It is

the triumph of a member of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, of a

London workman, that Mr. John Burns beholds with unconcealed pleasure in

his own success.

There are drawbacks, of course, to this complete self-satisfaction. Since

the workman has triumphed in the person of Mr. John Burns, the working

class would do well to follow his example, and heed his advice on all

matters affecting its welfare, Mr. Burns argues. The failures of

working-class life and the misery of the poor are due to the lack of those

virtues that he possesses, he is apt to maintain. Hence Mr. Burns is hated

as a Pharisee in certain quarters when he extols self-reliance and total

abstinence as essential to working-class prosperity, and points to gambling

and strong drink as the root of all evil in the State. It is sometimes

urged that Mr. Burns over-praises his own merits; but the fault is really

in the opposite direction; he does not appreciate sufficiently that the

gifts he possesses--the gifts he has used so fully and so freely--are

exceptional. These gifts are a powerful physique, a great voice, a

tremendous energy, and a love of literature; and they are not the common

equipment of the skilled mechanic and the labourer. True, they are often

wasted and destroyed when they do exist; and in the case of Mr. Burns a

strongly disciplined will has made them abundantly fruitful. But from the

first the physique, the voice, and the untiring energy were far above those

that fall to the lot of the average workman; and the love of books stored

the mind with rich supplies of language to be drawn upon when speeches were

to be made. Not as an administrator at the Local Government Board has Mr.

Burns become famous. His fame as a champion of the working class was

established by popular ovations in Hyde Park and at dock gates. Battersea

has been won and held by the speeches of its member. It is not the mighty

voice alone, silencing interruption often enough by sheer volume of sound,

but the plainly pointed epigram, the ready jest and the quick repartee that

endear Mr. John Burns' speeches to the multitude. His sayings and phrases

are quoted. His wit is the wit of the Londoner--the wit that Dickens knew

and studied, the wit of the older cabmen and 'bus drivers, the wit of the

street boy. It is racy, it is understood, and the illustrations are always

concrete and massive, never vague or unsubstantial. Apt Shakespearian

quotations, familiar and unfamiliar, embellish the speeches. Personality,

vital personality, counts for so much in the orator of the market place.

The speaker must be alive to his audience, he must convince by his presence

no less than by his arguments. And Mr. Burns is so obviously alive. He

warms the shrunken, anæmic vitality of followers, and overpowers the

protests of enemies by sheer force of character.

Mr. John Burns is at his real vocation when addressing a great multitude.

His energy finds an outlet in speech on those occasions, an outlet it can

never find in the necessary routine of office administration. He was made

for a life of action, and when once, in youth, he had thrown himself into

the active study of political and industrial questions, every opportunity

was seized for stating the results of that study. As a Social Democratic

candidate for Parliament, Mr. Burns polled 598 votes at West Nottingham in

1885. In 1886 he was charged (with Messrs. Hyndman, Champion, and Williams)

with seditious conspiracy--after an unemployed riot in the West End--and

acquitted. In 1887 he suffered six weeks imprisonment (with Mr. R.B.

Cunninghame Graham) for contesting the right of free speech in Trafalgar

Square. In 1889 came the great London dock strike, and, with Messrs. Mann

and Tillett, Mr. Burns was a chief leader of the dockers. Battersea

returned him to the London County Council in 1889 and to the House of

Commons in 1892. The Liberal Party promised a wider sphere of work than the

Socialists could offer; political isolation was a barren business; and Mr.

Burns gradually passed from the councils of the trade union movement to the

Treasury Bench of a Liberal Ministry. But the Socialist convictions of

early manhood had a lasting influence on their owner. These convictions

have been mellowed by work; responsibility has checked and placed under

subjection the old revolutionary ardour; experience finds the road to a

co-operative commonwealth by no means a quick or easy route, and admits the

necessity of compromise. But there is still a consciousness of the working

class as a class in the speeches of Mr. Burns; and there is still the

belief expressed that the working class must work out their own salvation,

and that it is better the people should have the power to manage their own

national and municipal affairs, and the wisdom to use that power aright,

rather than that a benevolent bureaucracy should manage things for them.

Mr. John Burns is an older man by twenty-five years than he was in the

stormy days of the Trafalgar Square riots, and he is now a Privy Councillor

and Cabinet Minister, but his character is little changed. His speeches on

the settlement of the great Dock Strike of August, 1911, are the speeches

of the man of 1889. Parliamentary life made sharper changes in the minds of

Gladstone and Mr. Joseph Chamberlain than it has made in the mind of the

Right Hon. John Burns. But Mr. Burns never admits that he possesses health

and vigour beyond the average.

A working class leader of vastly different qualities is Mr. J. Keir Hardie,

M.P. He, too, no less significant of democracy, stands as the

representative of his class, claims always to be identified with it, to be

accepted as its spokesman. A Lanarkshire miner and active trade unionist,

Mr. Hardie has striven to create a working-class party in politics

independent of Liberals and Conservatives; to him, more than to any other

man, the existence of the Independent Labour Party and the Parliamentary

Labour Party--the latter consisting of the Independent Labour Party and the

trade unions--may justly be said to be due. The political independence of

an organised working class has been the one great idea of Mr. Hardie's

public life. Not by any means his only idea, for Mr. Hardie has been the

ever-ready supporter of all democratic causes and the faithful advocate of

social reforms; but the _great_ idea, the political pearl of great price,

for which, if necessary, all else must be sacrificed. Only by this

independence can democracy be achieved, and a more equal state of society

be accomplished--so Mr. Hardie has preached to the working people for the

last twenty-five years at public meetings and trade union congresses,

travelling the length and breadth of Great Britain in his mission.

There is something of the poet in Mr. Keir Hardie but much more of the

prophet, and withal a good deal of shrewd political common sense. Where Mr.

John Burns wants, humanly, the approval and goodwill of his friends and

neighbours for his work, Mr. Keir Hardie is content with the assurance of

his own conscience; and in times of difficulty he chooses rather to walk

alone, communing with his own heart, than to seek the consolations of

social intercourse.

Mr. Burns is a citizen of London, a lover of its streets, at home in all

its noise, a reveller in its festivities. Mr. Hardie belongs to his native

land; he is happier on the hills of Lanarkshire than in the Parliament of

Westminster; solitude has no terrors for him. Both men entered the House in

1892. Personal integrity, blameless private life, and a doggedness that

will not acknowledge defeat, have had much to do with the success that both

have won. For if Mr. Hardie remains a private member of the House of

Commons while Mr. Burns is a Cabinet Minister, Mr. Hardie has lived to see

an independent Labour Party of forty members in Parliament, and has himself

been its accredited leader.

Again, exceptional gifts may be noted. An eloquence of speech, a rugged

sincerity that carries conviction, a love of nature and of literature--all

these things, controlled and tempered by will and refined by use, have won

for Mr. Hardie a high regard and an affection for the cause he champions.

For years Mr. Hardie was misrepresented in the Press, abused by political

opponents and misunderstood by many of the working class. From 1895 to 1900

he was out of Parliament, rejected by the working-class electorate of South

West Ham. But nothing turned Mr. Hardie from his policy of independence, or

shook his faith in the belief that only by forming a political party of

their own could the working people establish a social democracy. Merthyr

Tydvil re-elected him to the House of Commons in 1900 at the very time when

he was braving a strong public opinion by denouncing the South African War;

and for Merthyr Mr. Hardie will sit as long as he is in Parliament.

It may safely be said that Mr. Hardie will never take office in a Liberal

Ministry. The sturdy republicanism that keeps him from court functions and

from the dinner parties of the rich and the great, and the strong

conviction that Labour members do well to retain simple habits of life, are

not qualities that impel men to join Governments.

Visionary as he is--and no less a visionary because he has seen some

fulfilment of his hopes--so indifferent to public opinion that many have

exclaimed at his indiscretions, with a religious temperament that makes him

treat his political work as a solemn calling of God and gives prophetic

fire to his public utterances, Mr. Keir Hardie may remain a private member

of Parliament; but he also remains an outstanding figure in democratic

politics, conspicuous in an age that has seen the working class rising

cautiously to power. Mr. Hardie's influence with the politically minded of

the working class has contributed in no small degree to the changes that

are now at work. The ideal of a working class, educated and organised,

taking up the reins of government and using its power in sober

righteousness, has been preached by Mr. Hardie with a fervour that commands

respect. He has made an appeal that has moved the hearts of men and women

by its religious note, and hence it is very considerably from the ranks of

Nonconformists with Puritan traditions that the Independent Labour Party

has been recruited. Mr. Hardie is now fifty-five years of age. He has never

been afraid of making mistakes, and he has never sought the applause of

men. He has succeeded in arousing large numbers of people from a passive

allegiance to the party governments of Liberals and Conservatives, and

constrained them to march under a Labour banner at political contests.

Whether the Labour Party in Parliament will remain a separate organisation

or will steadily become merged in the Liberal Party, forming perhaps a

definite left wing of that party: whether a sufficiently large number of

voters will ever be found to make the Labour Party anything more than a

group in Parliament: and whether the Independent Labour movement is not

passing as Robert Owen's socialist movement and as the Chartist movement

passed away in the middle of the nineteenth century, are questions that are

yet to be answered. Democracy will go its own way in spite of the prophets.

In any case, the work of Mr. Keir Hardie has been fruitful and valuable.

For it has made for a quickened intelligence, and a more exalted view of

human life amongst the working people; and it has increased the sense of

personal and civic responsibility. It has made for civilisation, in fact,

and it has insisted on the importance of things that democracy can only

forget to its own destruction.

The third distinguished working-class leader in Parliament is Mr. J. Ramsay

MacDonald, the elected leader of the Labour Party, and its secretary since

its formation. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald is for the working class, but, though

born of labouring people, and educated in a Scotch board school, has long

ceased to be of them. Never a workman, and never associated with the

workman's trade union, Mr. MacDonald went from school teaching to

journalism and to a political private secretaryship, and so settled down

quickly into the habits and customs of the ruling middle class. Marriage

united him still more closely with the middle class, and strengthened his

position by removing all fear of poverty, and providing opportunities for

travel.

From the first Mr. MacDonald's political life has been directed clearly to

one end--the assumption of power to be used for the social improvement of

the people. And this ambition has carried him far, and may carry him

farther. With the industry and persistence that are common to his race, Mr.

MacDonald has taken every means available to educate himself on all

political questions; with the result that he is accepted to-day as one of

the best informed members of the House of Commons. He taught himself to

speak, and his speeches are appreciated. He taught himself to write, and

his articles on political questions have long been welcome in the monthly

reviews, and his books on Socialism are widely read. Twenty years ago the

Liberal Party promised no political career to earnest men like Mr.

MacDonald, men anxious for social reform. The future seemed to be with the

Socialists, and with the Independent Labour Party. When the Liberal

downfall came in 1895, it was thought that the fortunes of Liberalism were

ended. Native prudence has restrained Mr. Ramsay MacDonald from pioneering,

but once the Independent Labour Party, of Mr. Keir Hardie's desire, was set

going, and promised an effectual means for political work, Mr. MacDonald

joined it, and did well to do so. As an ordinary Liberal or Radical Member

of Parliament, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald would never have had the opportunities

the Labour Party has given him. He only entered the House of Commons in

1906--at the age of forty--and already as leader of the Labour Party he is

a distinguished Parliamentary figure, of whose future great things are

foretold.

Mr. MacDonald has studied politics as other people study art or science. He

has trained himself to become a statesman as men and women train themselves

to become painters and musicians. He has learnt the rules of the game,

marked the way of failure and the road to success, and his career may be

pondered as an example to the young. No generous outburst of wrath

disfigures Mr. MacDonald's speeches, no rash utterance is ever to be

apologised for, no hasty impulse to be regretted. In the Labour movement

Mr. MacDonald won success over older men by an indefatigable industry, a

marked aptitude for politics, and by an obvious prosperity. Other things

being equal, it is inevitable that in politics, as in commerce, the needy,

impecunious man will be rejected in favour of the man with an assured

balance at the bank, and the man of regular habits preferred before a

gifted but uncertain genius. The Socialist and Labour movements of our time

have claimed the services of many gifted men and women, and the annals of

these movements are full of heroic self-sacrifice. But an aptitude for

politics was not a distinguishing mark of Socialists, and therefore Mr.

MacDonald's experience and abilities gave him at once a prominent place in

the council of the Independent Labour Party, and soon made him the

controlling power in that organisation. With the formation of the National

Labour Party a very much wider realm was to be conquered, and Mr. MacDonald

has been as successful here as in the earlier Independent Labour Party. But

now the Labour Party having made Mr. MacDonald its chairman, it can do no

more for him. He is but forty-five years old, his health is good, his

talents are recognised; by his aversion from everything eccentric or

explosive, the public have understood that he is trustworthy. We may expect

to see Mr. Ramsay MacDonald a Cabinet Minister in a Liberal-Labour

Government. It may even happen that he will become Prime Minister in such a

Government. He is a "safe" man, without taint of fanaticism. His sincerity

for the improvement of the lot of the poor does not compel him to

extravagant speech on the subject, and his imagination is sufficient to

exclude dullness of view. He has proved that the application of Socialist

principles does not require any violent disturbance of the existing order,

and is compatible with social respectability and political authority. A

public opinion that would revolt against the notion of an ex-workman

becoming Prime Minister would not be outraged in any way by Mr. MacDonald

holding that office. Mr. Burns and Mr. Hardie have remained in their own

and in the public eye representatives of the working class, all education

notwithstanding. Mr. MacDonald has long cut himself off from the labouring

class of his boyhood. He has adapted himself easily and naturally to the

life and manners of the wealthier professional classes, and he moves

without constraint in the social world of high politics, as one born to the

business. No recognition of the workman is possible in Mr. Ramsay

MacDonald's case, and this fact is greatly in his favour with the

multitudes who still hold that England should be ruled by "gentlemen."

The Right Hon. D. Lloyd George is a striking figure in our new democracy,

and his character and position are to be noted. It was not as a labour

representative but as the chosen mouthpiece of the working middle class,

enthusiastic for Welsh nationalism, that Mr. Lloyd George entered

Parliament in 1890, at the age of twenty-seven. With his entry into the

Cabinet, in company with Mr. John Burns, at the Liberal revival in 1905,

government by aristocracy was ended; and when Mr. Lloyd George went from

the Board of Trade to the Chancellorship of the Exchequer, startling

changes were predicted in national finance. These predictions were held to

have been fulfilled in the Budget of 1909. The House of Lords considered

the financial proposals of the Budget so revolutionary that it took the

unprecedented course of rejecting the Bill, and thus precipitated the

dispute between the two Houses of Parliament, which was brought to a

satisfactory end by the Parliament Act of 1911. Romantic and idealist from

the first, and with unconcealed ambition and considerable courage, Mr.

Lloyd George, with the strong backing of his Welsh compatriots, fought his

way into the front rank of the Liberal Party during the ten years

(1895-1905) of opposition. More than once Mr. George pitted himself against

Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in the days of the Conservative ascendancy and the

South African War, and his powers as a Parliamentary debater won general

acknowledgment. In youth Mr. Lloyd George, full of the fervour of Mazzini's

democratic teaching, dreamed of Wales as a nation, a republic, with

himself, perhaps, as its first president. Welsh nationalism could not breed

a Home Rule Party as Irish nationalism has done, and Mr. Lloyd George has

found greater scope for his talents in the Liberal Party. The Welsh

"question" has dwindled into a campaign for the Disestablishment of the

Church in Wales, a warfare of Dissenters and Churchmen, and to Mr. Lloyd

George there were bigger issues at stake than the position of the Welsh

Church.

[Illustration: THE RIGHT HON. D. LLOYD GEORGE, M.P.

_Photo: Reginald Haines, Southampton Row, W.C._]

Already Mr. Lloyd George's Budget and his speeches in support of the Budget

have made the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer familiar to the

people of Great Britain; and now, in the eager discussion on his Bill for

National Insurance, that name is still more loudly spoken. Hated by

opponents and praised by admirers, denounced and extolled, Mr. Lloyd George

enjoys the tumult he arouses. His passionate speeches for the poor provoke

the sympathy of the working class; his denunciations of the rich stir the

anger of all who fear social revolution. Hostile critics deny any

constructive statesmanship in Mr. Lloyd George's plans and orations, and

prophesy a short-lived tenure of office. Radical supporters hail him as a

saviour of society, and are confident that under his leadership democracy

will enter the promised land of peace and prosperity for all. Neutral minds

doubt whether Mr. Lloyd George is sufficiently well-balanced for the

responsibilities of high office, and express misgivings lest the era of

social reform be inaugurated too rapidly. The obvious danger of a fall

always confronts ambition in politics, but the danger is only obvious to

the onlooker. Pressing forward the legislative measures he has set his

heart upon, and impatient to carry out the policy that seems to him of

first importance to the State, Mr. Lloyd George pays little heed to the

criticism of friends or foes. A supreme self-confidence carries him along,

and the spur of ambition is constantly pricking. Political co-operation is

difficult for such a man, and an indifference to reforms that are not of

his initiation, and a willingness to wreck legislation that cannot bear his

name, are a weakness in Mr. Lloyd George that may easily produce a fall.

Only a very strong man can afford to say that a reform shall be carried in

his way, or not at all, in cheerful disregard of the wishes of colleagues

and followers. Mr. Lloyd George's attitude on the question of Women's

Suffrage is characteristic. Professing a strong belief in the justice of

women's enfranchisement, he assumes that he can safely oppose all Women's

Suffrage Bills that are not of his framing, even when these Bills are the

work of ardent Liberals. He would have the measure postponed until he

himself can bring in a Reform Bill, to the end that the enfranchisement of

women may be associated with his name for all time.

It is dangerous to the statesman, the ambition that finds satisfaction less

in the success of a party or the triumph of a cause, than in the personal

victory. Dangerous, because it brings with it an isolation from friends and

colleagues. These come to stand coldly aloof, and then, if a slip occurs or

a mistake is made, and there comes a fall, no hands are stretched out to

repair the damage or restore the fallen. The statesman who is suspected of

"playing for his own hand" may laugh at the murmurs of discontent amongst

his followers while all goes well for him, but when he falls he falls

beyond recovery. No one can foretell the end of Mr. Lloyd George's career,

but his popularity with the multitude will not make up to him for the want

of support in Parliament should an error of judgment undo him. The pages of

political history are strewn with the stories of high careers wrecked in a

feverish haste for fame, that overlooked dangers close at hand; of eminent

politicians broken in the full course of active life by the mere

forgetfulness of the existence of other persons. A simple miscalculation of

forces, and from lofty station a minister tumbles into the void.

The stability of the working-class leaders makes their future a matter of

fairly safe conjecture. Mr. Lloyd George, romantic in temperament, covetous

of honour, confident of popularity, but heedless of good-will alienated and

of positive ill-will created, has reached the Chancellorship of the

Exchequer. Will he climb still higher in office, or will he pass to the

limbo peopled by those who were and are not? Time alone can tell. But in

this year of grace 1911 Mr. Lloyd George, incarnation of the hard-working

middle class, is a very distinct personality in the government of the

country, and his presence in the Cabinet a fact in the history of

democracy.

THE PRESENT POSITION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS

More than once since 1831 the House of Lords has come into conflict with

the House of Commons when a Liberal Government has been in power. A

compromise was effected between the two Houses over the Disestablishment of

the Irish Church in 1869, the Lords, on the whole, giving way. When the

Lords proposed to "amend" the Army Reform Bill (for abolishing the purchase

of commissions) in 1871, Gladstone overpowered their opposition by advising

the Crown to cancel the Royal Warrant which made purchase legal, and to

issue a new warrant ending the sale of commissions. This device completely

worsted the House of Lords, for a refusal to pass the Bill under the

circumstances merely deprived the holders of commissions of the

compensation awarded in the Bill. The Army Reform Bill became law, but

strong objection was taken by many Liberals to the sudden exercise of the

Royal Prerogative. In 1884 the Lords refused to pass the Bill for the

enfranchisement of the rural labourer unless a Bill was brought in at the

same time for a redistribution of seats. After some discussion Gladstone

yielded, the Redistribution Bill was drawn up, and passed the Commons

simultaneously with the Franchise Bill in the Lords.

Several Bills have been rejected or "amended" by the Lords since the

Liberals came into power in 1906, and the crisis came when the Budget was

rejected in 1909. In June, 1907, the following resolution was passed by the

House of Commons by 432 to 147 votes: "That in order to give effect to the

will of the people, as expressed by their elected representatives, it is

necessary that the power of the other House to alter or reject Bills passed

by this House should be so restricted by law as to secure that within the

limits of a single Parliament the final decision of the Commons shall

prevail." This resolution was embodied in the Parliament Bill of 1911.

Between 1907 and 1911 came (1) the rejection of the Budget, November, 1909;

(2) the General Election of January, 1910, and the return of a majority of

124 (Liberal, Labour, and Irish Nationalist) in support of the Government;

(3) the passing of resolutions (majority, 105) for limiting the Veto of the

Lords; (4) the failure of a joint Conference between leading Liberals and

Conservatives on the Veto question, followed by (5) the General Election of

December, 1910, and the return of the Liberals with a united majority of

126.

The Parliament Bill declared that every Money Bill sent up by the Commons,

if not passed unamended by the Lords within a month, should receive the

Royal assent and become an Act of Parliament notwithstanding, and that

every Bill sent up for three successive sessions shall in the third session

become an Act of Parliament without the assent of the Lords.

The Lords passed this Bill with amendments which the Commons refused to

accept, and the Parliament Bill was returned to the Lords in August. But,

as in 1832, the Prime Minister announced that he had received guarantees

from the Crown that peers should be created to secure the passage of the

Bill if it was again rejected; and to avoid the making of some three or

four hundred Liberal peers, Lord Lansdowne--following the example of the

Duke of Wellington--advised the Conservatives in the House of Lords to

refrain from opposition. The result of this abstention was that the Lords'

amendments were not persisted in, and the Bill passed the Lords on August

10th, 1911, by 131 to 114 votes.

By this Parliament Act the Lords' veto is now strictly limited. The Lords

may reject a Bill for two sessions, but if the Commons persist, then the

Bill passes into law, whether the Lords approve or disapprove.

The real grievance against the House of Lords, from the democratic

standpoint, has been that its veto was only used when a Liberal government

was in power. There is not even a pretence by the Upper House of revising

the measures sent from the Commons by a Conservative ministry; yet over and

over again, and especially in the last five years, Liberal measures have

been rejected, or "amended" against the will of the Commons, by the Lords

after the electors have returned the Liberals to power. The permanent and

overwhelming Conservative majority in the Lords acts on the assumption that

a Liberal ministry does not represent the will of the people, an assumption

at variance with the present theory of democratic government, and in

contradiction to the constitutional practice of the Crown. The great size

of the House of Lords makes the difficulty of dealing with this majority so

acute. In 1831 the creation of forty peerages would have been sufficient to

meet the Tory opposition to the Reform Bill; to-day it is said that about

four hundred are required to give the Liberals a working majority in the

Lords. The rapid making of peers began under George III., but from 1830 to

the present day Prime Minister after Prime Minister has added to the

membership of the House of Lords with generous hand. Satire, savage and

contemptuous, has been directed against the new peers by critics of various

opinions, but still the work of adding to the House of hereditary

legislators goes gaily on, and Liberal Prime Ministers have been as active

as their Tory opponents in adding to the permanent Conservative majority in

the Lords; for only a small minority of Liberal peers retain their

allegiance to the Liberal Party.

Thackeray gave us his view of the making of peers in the years when Lord

Melbourne and his Whig successors were steadily adding to the Upper House.

(Between 1835 and 1841 Melbourne made forty-four new peers, and

twenty-eight more were added by 1856.)

"A man becomes enormously rich, or he jobs successfully in the aid of a

Minister, or he wins a great battle, or executes a treaty, or is a clever

lawyer who makes a multitude of fees and ascends the bench; and the country

rewards him for ever with a gold coronet (with more or less balls or

leaves) and a title, and a rank as legislator. 'Your merits are so great,'

says the nation, 'that your children shall be allowed to reign over us, in

a manner. It does not in the least matter that your eldest son is a fool;

we think your services so remarkable that he shall have the reversion of

your honours when death vacates your noble shoes.'"

J.H. Bernard, in his "Theory of the Constitution" (1835), was no less

emphatic:--

"As the affair is managed now, the peerage, though sometimes bestowed as

the reward of merit, on men who have adorned particular professions, is yet

much more frequently--nine times out of ten--employed by the minister of

the day as his instrument to serve particular views of public policy; and

is often given to actual demerit--to men who hire themselves out to do his

commands through thick and thin. The peerage is now full of persons who

have obtained possession of it by disreputable means."

But in spite of satire and hostile criticism members of the House of Lords

have always enjoyed a considerable social popularity. They are widely

esteemed for their titles, even by those who denounce hereditary

legislators and desire to abolish the Second Chamber.

Disraeli created six new peers in 1867-8, and seventeen more from 1875 to

1880, in addition to conferring the earldom of Beaconsfield on himself. Yet

Disraeli had written in "Coningsby" (1844):--

"We owe the English peerage to three sources: the spoliation of the Church,

the open and flagrant sale of its honours by the elder Stuarts, and the

borough-mongering of our own times. Those are the three main sources of the

existing peerage of England, and, in my opinion, disgraceful ones."

Gladstone made fifty peers in his four premierships, and Mr. Herbert Paul,

the Liberal historian of "Modern England," makes the following comments:--

"No minister since Pitt had done so much as Mr. Gladstone to enlarge and

thereby to strengthen the House of Lords.

"Mr. Gladstone was lavish in his distribution of peerages, and rich men who

were politically active, either in the House of Commons or behind the

scenes, might hope to be rewarded with safe seats elsewhere."

[Illustration: THE PASSING OF THE PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS

_From the Drawing by S. Begg._]

Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman exceeded all previous records of the last

century by making twenty new peers in less than two years--1905 to

1907--and Mr. Asquith maintained this vigorous policy by thirteen new

creations in the first year of his premiership. Already many of these

peers, whose titles are not more than six years old, vote with the

Conservatives. Great Britain is now the only country in the world that

combines a democratic form of government with a second chamber of

hereditary legislators, and many proposals are on foot for the reform of

the House of Lords. While the Conservatives are more anxious to change the

constitution of the Upper House, and to make it a stronger and more

representative assembly, the Liberals prefer that its power of veto should

be abolished. No Act of Parliament was required to abolish the veto of the

Crown on Acts of Parliament, but the growth of a democratic public opinion

did not prove strong enough to end the veto of the Lords on the Bills

passed by a Liberal majority in the Commons, and therefore the Parliament

Act was passed.

THE POPULARITY OF THE CROWN

The popularity of the Crown has become increasingly wider and more general

in the years that have seen the British people steadily taking up the work

of self-government. The fear of a hostile demonstration by the inhabitants

of London kept William IV. from visiting the Mansion House in 1830, and the

death of that monarch in 1837 evoked no national mourning. Queen Victoria,

unknown to the people on her accession, had the very great advantage of

Lord Melbourne's political advice in the early years of her reign. Her

marriage, in 1840, with the Prince Consort--who himself learnt much from

Melbourne--brought a wise counsellor to the assistance of the throne. "I

study the politics of the day with great industry," wrote the Prince

Consort. "I speak quite openly to the Ministers on all subjects, and

endeavour quietly to be of as much use to Victoria as I can." The Prince

Consort saw quickly that "if monarchy was to rise in popularity, it could

only be by the sovereign leading a good life, and keeping quite aloof from

party." The days of a profligate court and of "the King's friends" in

politics were past and gone; the royal _influence_ was to succeed the royal

_prerogative_.[87]

The aloofness from political partisanship has been faithfully maintained by

the successors of Queen Victoria, and great as the royal influence may be

in the social life of the wealthier classes, it is certain that no such

influence operates in the casting of votes by the people at Parliamentary

elections. No one suspects the King of desiring the return of Liberals over

Tories, or of favouring the Tory programme rather than the Liberal; and

this neutrality is the surest guarantee of the continued popularity of the

Crown.

For some years in the late 'seventies and early 'eighties of the nineteenth

century Republicanism was the creed of many ardent working-class Radicals

in England. Charles Bradlaugh was its chief exponent, and both Mr. Joseph

Chamberlain and the late Sir Charles Dilke were regarded as Republicans

before they entered Gladstone's Ministry in 1880. The Republican movement

waned before Bradlaugh's death. He himself was "led to feel that agitation

for an ideal form of government was less directly fruitful than agitation

against the abuses of class privilege; and in the last dozen years of his

life, his political work went mainly to reforms within the lines of the

Constitution."[88]

With the rise of the Socialist movement in England in 1884-5, and the

celebration of the Queen's Jubilee in 1887, Republicanism became utterly

moribund, and nothing save an attempt on the part of the sovereign to take

a definite side in party politics, or a notorious lapse from the morals

required of persons in office of State, could revive it.

The interest in Socialism was fatal to the Republican movement, because it

turned the enthusiasm of the active spirits in democratic politics from the

desire for radical changes in the _form_ of government, to the crusade for

economic changes, and the belief in a coming social revolution. The

existence of monarchy seemed a small and comparatively unimportant affair

to men and women who were hoping to get poverty abolished, and the

landlords and capitalists expropriated either by direct revolution, or by

the act of a House of Commons, dominated by working men with Socialist

convictions.

The national celebrations at the Queen's Jubilee in 1887 marked the

beginning of the popular revival in pageantry and official ceremonial. In

the Church of England this revival began some forty years earlier, and it

has, in our day, changed the whole conduct of public worship. The revival

of Roman Catholicism in England with its processions and solemn ritual has

been equally significant. By gratifying the common human instinct for

spectacle and drama the monarchy has gained the popular affections.

The Whigs scoffed at pageants and symbols; the earlier Puritans had

proscribed ceremonial as savouring of idolatry, and feared any

manifestation of beauty as a snare of the devil. In the latter half of the

nineteenth century, England began to throw off the shackles of Puritanism,

and to lose all interest in Whiggery. The new democracy was neither coldly

Deist, nor austerely Republican. It has shown no inclination to inaugurate

a reign of "pure reason" in religion or politics, but has boldly and

cheerfully adopted symbolism and pageantry. Friendly societies and trade

unions have their badges, banners, and buttons. The Roman Catholic Church

grows in popularity with the working class, and in many towns and cities

the Church of England and the Salvation Army are distinctly popular. On the

other hand, the Nonconformist churches confess annually to a decreasing

membership, and Secularist and Ethical societies have but the smallest

following.

The royal processions and the pageantry of monarchy have provided a

spectacular display that average human nature enjoys. The symbols and

trappings of monarchy must be shown if the sovereign is to be popular; they

add to the gaiety of life, and people are grateful for the warmth of colour

they impart to our grey streets. The sovereign in encouraging the renewed

and growing love for pageants and ceremonial has discerned the signs of the

times. Modern democracy does not desire that kings or priests shall rule;

but it does require that they shall on State occasions and in the

performance of their office, be clad in kingly and priestly robes, and by

their proceedings enrich the dignity of public life, and the beauty of

public worship.

THE DEMOCRATIC IDEALS: SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORM

The rise of Socialism in the 'eighties not only diverted the attention of

working-class leaders from political reform, but it substituted for the

destruction of monarchy and the House of Lords a reconstruction of society

as the goal of democracy; and the Socialist teaching has been of enduring

and penetrating influence.

Fifty years earlier in the nineteenth century, Robert Owen had preached a

Socialist crusade with strenuous persuasion--but, ignoring politics, he

outlived the temporary success of his cause. The utopian Socialism of Owen

flourished and died, as Chartism, under different treatment, flourished and

died.

The "scientific" Socialism of Karl Marx was planned on stronger

foundations. It brought a message of hope; it revealed how the change was

to be wrought that would "emancipate the workers of the world from the

slavery of wage service"; and it insisted that this change was inevitable.

On the Continent, and more particularly in Germany, the Social Democratic

Party has gained an enormous working-class support, and every election adds

to its strength.

In England the Social Democratic Federation--now the Social Democratic

Party--was founded in 1884 by Mr. H.M. Hyndman; but in spite of its

untiring efforts, it has never won the sympathy of the trade unions, nor

the confidence of the working-class electorate. Its Parliamentary

candidatures rarely attract attention, and it is not a force in Labour

politics. Nevertheless, indirectly, the influence of the Social Democratic

Party has been very considerable. Mr. John Burns, and many another Labour

leader, have passed through its ranks, and a social conscience has been

made sensitive to the miseries of the poor, largely by the voices--that

will not be silenced--of this comparatively small company.

The Fabian Society also began its work of educating public opinion to

Socialism in 1884, but, unlike the Social Democratic Federation, it made no

proposals for the creation of a Socialist Party or the organisation of the

working class into a separate political party. Mainly, its influence can be

seen in the increase of statistical knowledge and of State interference in

the conditions of life and labour in the working class.

The Independent Labour Party was not formed till 1892, and while professing

Socialism, it has aimed rather at securing the return of labour members to

Parliament, and to local governing councils than at the conversion of the

working class to a dogmatic social democracy. Often frankly opportunist and

experimental, the Independent Labour Party and its offspring, the Labour

Party in the House of Commons, have followed the national custom in

politics of attacking and redressing evident evils, and have done this with

considerable success.

But while the Socialists have compelled the attention of all classes to

existing social ills, and have made social reform the chief concern of all

politicians, the idea of a social democracy steadily recedes from the

political vision, and the conscious movement to Socialism falters.

Socialist workmen in Parliament or on city councils soon find themselves

absorbed in the practical work of legislation or administration, and learn

that there is neither leisure nor outlet for revolutionary propaganda. The

engrossing character of public work destroys the old inclination to break

up the existing order, for the Socialist member of Parliament, or city

councillor interested in his work, has become part of the machinery

responsible for the existing order, and without losing his sympathy for the

labouring people is content that the amelioration of society shall come, as

it now seems to him it must come, by slow and orderly stages and without

violence. The very return of so many Labour members to Parliament and to

local councils has damped down the fires of Socialism, by placing in

positions of authority and responsibility, and thereby withdrawing them

from the army of disaffection, the ablest leaders of the working-class

movement. The Labour member who cannot settle down to legislative or

administrative work, but attempts to play the agitator's part in the House

of Commons or the council chamber, is generally doomed to banishment from

official public life, and is allowed to remain an agitator.

Mr. John Burns may be denounced as a renegade by Socialist critics, but a

working-class electorate returns him to Parliament. Mr. Cunninghame Graham

and Mr. Victor Grayson may be applauded for their consistency by Socialist

audiences, but working-class constituencies are loth to return such

representatives to the House of Commons.

As Socialism quietly passes out of the vision of the political world, and

from a definite inspiration to democracy becomes a dim and remote

possibility of the future, Social Reform takes its place. Not only in Great

Britain, but throughout Europe, the social reformers or "revisionists" are

gaining the mastery over the scientific Marxian Socialists in democratic

politics. In Great Britain where "practical," or experimental, politics

have always prevailed over political theory, the passing of positive

Socialist dogma is naturally more obvious. Social Reform is now the cry of

Liberals and Conservatives alike. The old Liberal doctrines of _laissez

faire_, unrestricted competition, and the personal liberty of the subject

are as dead as the Stuart doctrine of the divine right of kings. The old

Liberal hostility to State interference in trade or commerce, and to

compulsory social legislation has melted away at the awakened social

conscience. It still has its adherents--Lord Cromer and Mr. Harold Cox

repeat the ancient watch-words of Victorian Liberalism, and they are

regarded with a respect mingled with curiosity, as strange survivals of a

far-off age--but no popular echo follows their utterances. Pensions for the

aged, better provision for the sick and the infirm, a more careful

attention to the well-being of children, national health, some cure for

destitution, and some remedy for unemployment--these are the matters that a

Liberal Government is concerned about to-day. And the Conservatives are no

less sincere in their willingness to help in these matters. Legislative

proposals for social reform are treated as non-party questions, and the

chief item in the Conservative programme, Tariff Reform, was adopted and is

advocated mainly as a social reform, a cure for industrial evils, and the

misery of unemployment.

Socialism proposed the abolition of poverty, and the common ownership and

control of the land and the means of production, distribution, and exchange

as the solution of economic questions.

Social Reform proposes to mitigate the hardships of life for the multitude,

and, while leaving land and capital in private hands, to compel by taxation

provision for the wants of the people. Its aim is the abolition of

destitution by State assistance to voluntary effort, and the gradual

raising of the standard of life. It does not propose to remove the cause of

poverty.

Socialism would place the democracy in possession of the means of wealth.

Social Reform requires the State to tax wealth and provide for the people.

It promises a living wage, decent housing accommodation, an insurance

against unemployment, and security in old age, and leaves the question of

national ownership or private ownership to be settled by posterity.

LAND REFORM AND THE SINGLE TAX

Apart from the ideals of Socialism, the democratic ideal of a community

owning the full value of its land was presented by Henry George, an

American economist, in 1879, and his book "Progress and Poverty," was at

once received with enthusiasm by certain reformers in England and America.

George visited England in 1881, 1884, and 1889, and his visits resulted in

a strong movement for the taxation of land values. This movement has been

inspired by an ideal of a democratic community as definite as the Socialist

ideal, and it has grown steadily in popular favour as the justice of a tax

on land values has been recognised. "Progress and Poverty" is the bible of

the Land Reformers, as Marx's "Capital" is (or was) the bible of

Socialists. It is claimed that a tax on land values is the true remedy of

social and economic ills, and that democracy can eradicate the root-cause

of poverty by such a tax. In this belief the followers of Henry George have

preached the Single Tax, as it is called, with unquenchable fervour, and

the Liberal Party has been gradually won over--if not to the Single Tax, at

least to a tax on land values. Many Conservatives, too, favour the taxation

of land values in cities, and all the principal municipalities have

petitioned Parliament in favour of this method of taxation. But it is the

democratic ideals of Henry George that have been the life of the movement

for the Single Tax, and but for these ideals the movement would never have

become a living influence towards democracy, or inspired a social

enthusiasm.

The charm about the Single Tax propaganda is that its ideals of democracy

do not discourage the practical politician and the average citizen from

supporting what seems a necessary and reasonable proposal. Without

committing themselves at all to Henry George's full scheme for the total

abolition of land monopoly by a tax of twenty shillings in the pound on all

land values, and without abandoning the common British suspicion of the

doctrinaire and the political idealist, the ordinary shopkeeper and

householder are quite of opinion that urban values in land can be taxed

legitimately for the benefit of the community, and that democracy would do

well to decree some moderate tax on land values for the relief of the

overtaxed non-landowner.

So the taxation of land values is presented by its advocates as a social

reform more radical and democratic than all other social reforms, as a

reform that in fact would make democracy master of its own land, and the

people free from the curse of poverty; and it is accepted by the great mass

of working people as a just and useful method of raising revenue for local

and imperial needs.

Socialism, social reform, the Single Tax--various are the ideals of a

democratic people at work at the business of government, and various are

the means proposed to establish the democracy in economic freedom.

* * * * *

CHAPTER IX

THE WORLD-WIDE MOVEMENT: ITS STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS

EAST AND WEST

The movement towards democracy is world-wide to-day, and the political

constitutions of the West are desired with fervour in the East.

For generations there has been agitation in Russia for representative

government, and men and women--in countless numbers--have sacrificed

wealth, reputation, liberty, and life itself in the cause of political

freedom. On the establishment in 1906 of the Duma, a national chamber of

elected members, there was general rejoicing, because it seemed that, at

length, autocracy was to give place to representative government. But the

hopes of the political reformers were short lived. The Duma still exists,

but its powers were closely restricted in 1907, and the franchise has been

narrowed, to secure an overwhelming preponderance of the wealthy, so that

it is altogether misleading to regard it as a popular assembly.

In Egypt and in India the Nationalist movements are directed to

self-government, and are led by men who have, in most cases, spent some

years at an English University, or have been trained at the English Bar.

Residence in England, and a close study of British politics make the

educated Indian anxious for political rights in his own country, similar to

those that are given to him in Great Britain. In England the Indian has all

the political rights of a British subject. He can vote for a member of

Parliament, he can even be a member of the House of Commons. On two

occasions in recent years, an Indian has been elected to Parliament: Mr.

Dadabhai Naoroji sat as Liberal M.P. for Finsbury, 1892-5; Sir M.M.

Bhownagree as a Conservative for Bethnal Green, 1895-1906. Back in his

native land, the Indian finds that he belongs to a subject race, and that

the British garrison will neither admit him to social equality, nor permit

him the right of legislation. Hence with eyes directed to Western forms of

government, the Indian is discontented with the bureaucracy that rules his

land, and disaffected from the Imperial power. But so many are the nations

in India, and so poverty-stricken is the great multitude of its peasantry

that the Nationalist movement can touch but the fringe of the population,

and the millions of India live patiently and contentedly under the British

Crown. Nevertheless, the national movement grows steadily in numbers and in

influence, for it is difficult for those who, politically minded, have once

known political freedom, to resign themselves to political subjection.

In Egypt the Nationalist movement is naturally smaller and more

concentrated than in India and the racial divisions hinder its unity. Egypt

is nominally under the suzerainty of Turkey, though occupied by Great

Britain, and now that Turkey has set up a Constitution and a Parliament,

patriotic Egyptian politicians are impatient at the blocking out by the

British authorities of every proposal for self-government.

As in India, so in Egypt: it is the men of education who are responsible

for the Nationalist movement. And in both countries it is the desire to

experiment in representative government, to test the constitutional forms

in common use in the West, and to practise the responsibilities of

citizenship, that stimulates the movement. The unwillingness of the British

Government to gratify this desire explains the hostility to British rule in

India and Egypt.

Japan received a Constitution from the Emperor in 1890, and in 1891 its

Diet was formally opened with great national enthusiasm. It is a

two-chamber Parliament--a Council of nobles, and a popularly elected

assembly--and only in the last few years have the business men given their

attention to it. Although the Cabinet is influenced by Japanese public

opinion, it is not directly responsible to the Diet, but is the Ministry of

the Mikado. The resolution of the Japanese statesmen of forty years ago to

make Japan a world-power made Constitutional Government, in their eyes, a

necessity for the nation.

In Europe, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark all possess democratic

constitutions, and only the removal of sex disabilities in the latter two

is needed to achieve complete adult suffrage. Finland established complete

democracy nine years ago, and, with equal electoral districts, complete

adult suffrage, and the free election of women equally with men to its

Diet, is a model democratic state. But the liberties of Finland are gravely

threatened by the Russian Government, and there is no security for the

Finns that their excellent self-government will be preserved. In Germany,

with universal manhood suffrage, the struggle is to make the Government

responsible to the elected Reichstag.

The British self-governing Colonies show a tendency of democracy to

federate. The Australian Colonies are federated into a Commonwealth, and

their example has been followed by the South African Colonies. New Zealand

and Australia are at one in their franchise, which allows no barrier of

sex; but South Africa still restricts the vote to males. In Australia the

working class are in power, and the Commonwealth Prime Minister is a Labour

representative. There is no willingness to grant political rights to those

who are not of European race, either in South Africa or in Australia; and

the universal republic dreamed of by eighteenth century democrats, a

republic which should know no racial or "colour" bar, is not in the vision

of the modern colonial statesmen of democracy, who are frankly exclusive.

Only in New Zealand does a native race elect its own members to

Parliament--and four Maori M.P.'s are returned.

TYRANNY UNDER DEMOCRATIC FORMS

Experience has proved that democratic and republican forms of government

are no guarantee that the nation possesses political liberty.

Mexico, nominally a republic under President Diaz, was in reality a

military autocracy of the severest kind. The South American Republics are

merely unstable monarchies, at the mercy of men who can manipulate the

political machinery and get control of the army.

It is too early yet to decide whether the constitutional form of government

set up in Turkey in 1908, or the republic created on the abolition of

monarchy in Portugal in 1910, mark national movements to democracy. In

neither country is there evidence that general political freedom has been

the goal of the successful revolutionist, or that the people have obtained

any considerable measure of political power or civil liberty. Ambitious and

unscrupulous men can make full use of republican and democratic forms to

gain political mastery over their less cunning fellows, and no machinery of

government has ever yet been devised that will safeguard the weak and the

foolish from the authority of the strong and the capable.

Those who put their trust in theories of popular sovereignty, and urge the

referendum and initiative as the surer instruments of democracy than

Parliamentary representation, may recall that a popular plebiscite

organised by Napoleon in 1802 conferred on him the Consulate for life; that

Louis Napoleon was made President of the French Republic in 1848 by a

popular vote, obtained a new constitution by a plebiscite in 1851, and a

year later arranged another plebiscite which declared him hereditary

Emperor, Napoleon III. France, where naturally Rousseau's theories have

made the deepest impression, has since the Revolution gloried in the right

of the "sovereign people" to overthrow the government, and its elected

representatives have been alternately at the mercy of dictators and social

revolutionists.

On the whole, the stability of the British Government, rooted in the main

on the traditional belief in the representation of the electorate, would

seem to make more surely for national progress and wider political liberty

than the alternation of revolution and reaction which France has known in

the last hundred and twenty years.

England has not been without its popular outbursts against what the

American poet called "the never-ending audacity of elected persons," but

these outbursts are commonly accepted as manifestations of intolerable

conditions; and while the outbursts are repressed means are taken by

Government to amend the conditions. When the Government fails to amend

things, the House of Commons takes the matter up; and if the Commons

neglect to do so, then the electors make it plain that amendment and reform

are necessary by returning men to Parliament pledged to change matters, and

by rejecting those who have failed to meet the situation.

THE OBVIOUS DANGERS

The dangers that threaten democracy are obvious. Universal adult suffrage,

short Parliaments, proportional representation, equal electoral districts,

second ballots--none of these things can insure democracy against

corruption. For a government which rests on the will of a people--a will

expressed by the election of representatives--is inevitably exposed to all

the evils attendant on the unruly wills and affections of the average man.

The orator can play upon the feelings of the crowd, and sway multitudes

against a better judgment; and he has greater chance of working mischief

when a referendum or other direct instrument of democracy is in vogue than

he has when government is by elected representatives. For the party system,

itself open to plenty of criticism, constantly defeats the orator by the

superior power of organisation. Hence it frequently happens at

Parliamentary elections that a candidate whose meetings are enthusiastic

and well attended fails lamentably at the poll. His followers are a crowd;

they are not a party. They do not know each other, and they have not the

confidence that comes of membership in a large society.

PARTY GOVERNMENT

If the orator is a menace to the wise decisions of the people by a

referendum, the party organiser and political "boss" can easily be a curse

to representative government on party lines. By all manner of unholy

devices he can secure votes for his candidate and his party, and he has

raised (or lowered) the simple business of getting the people to choose

their representative into the art of electioneering. The triumph of

political principles by the election of persons to carry out those

principles becomes of less importance than the successful working of the

party machine, when the boss and the organiser are conspicuous. Patronage

becomes the method for keeping the party in power, and the promise of

rewards and spoils enables an opposition to defeat the Government and

obtain office. To be outside the party is to lose all chance of sharing in

the spoils, and to take an interest in politics means, under these

circumstances, to expect some consideration in the distribution of honours.

The "spoils system" is notorious in America, but in England it has become

practically impossible for a man to take any serious part in politics

except by becoming part of the machine. An independent attitude means

isolation. To belong to a party--Liberal, Unionist, or Labour--and to

criticise its policy, or differ from its leaders, is resented as

impertinence. The machine is master of the man. A troublesome and dangerous

critic is commonly bought or silenced. He is given office in the

Government, or rewarded with a legal appointment; perhaps made a peer if

his tastes are in that direction. A critic who cannot command a

considerable backing among the electorate will probably be driven out of

public life. The disinterested activity in politics that puts the

commonwealth before party gain is naturally discouraged by the party

organisers.

Yet when public interest in national affairs sinks to the merely sporting

instinct of "backing your candidate" at elections as a horse is backed at

race meetings, and of "shouting for your party" as men shout for their

favourite football team, or sinks still lower to the mercenary speculation

of personal gain or loss on election results, then another danger comes

in--the indifference of the average honest citizen to all politics, and the

cynical disbelief in political honesty.

The warnings of John Stuart Mill against leaving politics to the

politicians and against the professional position may be quoted:

"Representative institutions are of little value, and may be a mere

instrument of tyranny or intrigue when the generality of electors are not

sufficiently interested in their own government to give their vote; or, if

they vote at all, do not bestow their suffrages on public grounds, but sell

them for money, or vote at the beck of some one who has control over them,

or whom for private reasons they desire to propitiate. Popular elections as

thus practised, instead of a security against misgovernment, are but an

additional wheel in its machinery."

Mill himself was a striking example of the entirely disinterested

politician, who, caring a great deal more for principles than for party,

finds little favour with the electors, and less with the party managers,

and retires from politics to the relief of his fellows.

A general lack of interest in politics can prove fatal to democracy. The

party managers, without the fear of the electorate before their eyes, will

increase the number of salaried officials and strengthen their position by

judicious appointments. Nominally, these inspectors and officers will be

required for the public service, and the appointments will be justified on

patriotic grounds. There will be little criticism in Parliament, because

the party not in power will be anxious to create similar "jobs" when its

own turn comes. Besides, as the public pays for these officials, there is

no drain on the party funds; and this is a matter of congratulation to

party managers, who are always anxious not to spend more than they can help

on the political machinery.

BUREAUCRACY

But the horde of officials and inspectors will change democracy into

bureaucracy, and the discovery is sometimes made too late that a land is

ruled by permanent officials, and not by elected representatives. The

elected representatives may sit and pass laws, but the bureaucracy which

administers them will be the real authority.

It may be an entirely honest and efficient bureaucracy, as free from

political partisanship as our British Civil Service and police-court

magistracy are, but if it is admitted to be outside the jurisdiction of the

House of Commons, and to be under no obedience to local councils, and if

its powers involve a close inquisition into the lives of the people, and

include the right to interfere daily with these lives, then bureaucracy and

not democracy is the actual government.

A host of salaried political workers--agents, organisers, secretaries,

etc.--will make popular representative government a mere matter of

political rivalry, an affair of "ins and outs," and by this development of

the party system will exclude from active politics all who are not loyal to

the "machine," and are not strong enough to break it. But a host of public

officers--inspectors, clerks, etc.--paid out of the public funds will do

more than pervert representative government: they will make it subordinate

to the permanent official class; and bureaucracy, once firmly in the

saddle, is harder to get rid of than the absolutism of kings, or the rule

of an aristocracy.

Yet a permanent Civil Service is better in every way in a democracy than a

Civil Service which lives and dies with a political party, and is changed

with the Cabinet.

On the whole, the best thing for democracy is that the paid workers in

politics should be as few as possible, and the number of salaried state

officials strictly limited. The fewer the paid political workers, the fewer

people will be concerned to maintain the efficiency of the political

machine, and the more freely will the electorate act in the choice of its

representatives. The fewer the salaried officials of State, the less

inspection and restriction, and the less encouragement to habits of

submission in the people. Democracy must depend on a healthy, robust sense

of personal responsibility in its citizens, and every increase in the

inspectorate tends to diminish this personal responsibility, and to breed a

"servile state" that will fall a willing prey to tyranny and bureaucracy.

Nevertheless, whilst in self-defence democracy will avoid increasing its

officials, it will distinguish between officials and employees. It is bound

to add to the number of its employees every year, as its municipal and

imperial responsibilities grow steadily larger, and these employees,

rightly regarded as public servants, cannot threaten to become our masters.

WORKING-CLASS ASCENDANCY

Still one more danger to democracy may be mentioned, and that is the notion

that from the working class must necessarily come our best rulers.

"Rulers are not wise by reason of their number or their poverty, or their

reception of a weekly wage instead of a monthly salary or yearly income. It

is worse and more unpleasant and more dangerous to be ruled by many fools

than by one fool, or a few fools. The tyranny of an ignorant and cowardly

mob is a worse tyranny than the tyranny of an ignorant and cowardly clique

or individual.

"Workers are not respectable or to be considered because they work more

with their hands or feet than with their brains, but because the work they

do is good. If it is not good work they do, they are as unprofitable as any

other wasters. A plumber is not a useful or admirable creature because he

plumbs (if he plumbs ignorantly or dishonestly, he is often either a

manslayer or a murderer), but because he plumbs well, and saves the

community from danger and damp, disease, and fire and water. Makers of

useless machine-made ornaments are, however 'horny-handed,' really

'anti-social persons,' baneful to the community as far as their bad work

goes; more baneful, possibly, than the consumers of these bad articles,

quite as baneful as the _entrepreneurs_ who employ them.

"The only good institutions are those that do good work; the only good work

done is that which produces good results, whether they be direct, as the

plough-man's, or navvy's, or sailor's; or indirect, as the policeman, or

the schoolmaster, or the teacher of good art, or the writer of books that

are worth reading. A man is no better or wiser than others by reason of his

position or lack of position, but by reason of his stronger body, wiser

head, better skill, greater endurance, keener courage."[89]

There it is. Democracy needs for its counsellors, legislators and

ministers, strength, wisdom, skill, endurance and courage, and must get

these qualities in whomsoever they are to be found. Democracy can afford

the widest range of choice in the election of popular representatives, or

it will never reach its full stature.

In the choice of its representatives, a democracy will do well to elect

those who know the life of the working people, and who share its toils;

just as it will do well to shun the mere talker, and to seek out for itself

candidates for election rather than have candidates thrust upon its

attention by some caucus in London. But the main thing is that it should

first discern men and women of ability and of character and then elect them

for its representatives, rejecting those, it may be of more dazzling

qualities, who are unstable in mind and consumed with vanity. It would be

well if the elected representative were always an inhabitant of the county

or the borough, known to his neighbours, and of tested worth. True, the

prophet is often without honour in his own country, and a constituency acts

wisely in electing a representative of national repute. But to search for a

man of wealth who will subsidise every club and charitable institution in

the constituency, and to rejoice when such a candidate is procured from

some political headquarters, is a wretched proceeding in a democratic

state. The member who buys a constituency by his gifts will always feel

entitled to sell his constituents should occasion arise.

Again, the delegate theory of representation can be a danger to democracy.

A Parliamentary representative is something better than a mechanical

contrivance for registering the opinions of electors on certain subjects.

Otherwise all Parliamentary debate is a mockery. A representative he is of

the majority of electors, but he must act freely and with initiative. Often

enough he may be constrained to vote, not as many of his constituents would

prefer, but using his own judgment. Of course when the choice is between

obedience to the party whip and the wishes of his constituents, and

personal conviction is with the latter, then at all costs the decision

should be to stand by his constituents, or popular representation is a

delusion.

To-day the pressure is far greater from the party whips than from the

constituents, especially when in so many cases election expenses are paid,

in part at least, from the party funds. And to overcome this constant

danger to popular representation a sure plan would be the payment of all

necessary election expenses out of the local rates, and the prohibition by

law of all payments by the candidate or by political associations. When

members are paid for their attendance in Parliament, far better would it

be, too, if such payment were made by the constituents in each case, and

not from the national exchequer.[90] Worse than the delegate theory is the

opinion that a representative of the people is in Parliament chiefly to

keep his party in power. Political parties are inevitable, and they are

effective and convenient when principles divide people. But popular

representation is older than a party system of government, and when it

becomes utterly subordinate to the welfare of parties it is time for a

democratic people to realise the possible loss of their instrument of

liberty.

Great Britain is not partial to groups, it has always broadly been divided

politically into two camps, but a few men of strong independent judgment

are invaluable in a popular assembly. There need be no fear lest

governments totter and fall at the presence of men who dare to take a line

of their own, and to speak out boldly on occasion. The bulk of members of

Parliament will always cleave to their party, as the bulk of electors do,

and the dread of being thought singular is a potent influence on the

average man, in or out of Parliament. Democracy is in danger of losing the

counsel of its best men when it insists that its representatives must be

merely delegates of the electors, without minds or wills of their own; but

it is in greater danger if it allows its representatives to be nothing but

the tools of the party in power or in opposition. For when Parliamentary

representation is confined to those who are willing to be the mechanical

implements of party leaders and managers, the House of Commons becomes an

assembly of place-hunters and self-seekers, for whom the profession of

politics affords the gratification of vanity or enrichment at the public

expense. In such an assembly the self-respecting man with a laudable

willingness to serve the State is conspicuous by his absence.

With a Press in the hands of party politicians, and with editors and

journalists engaged to write up their party through thick and thin, and to

write down every honest effort at political independence of mind, the

danger of losing from all political service the few rare minds that can ill

be spared is a very real and present danger.

ON BEHALF OF DEMOCRACY

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance," and often enough we sleep at

our vigils. But when all the dangers and difficulties that beset democracy

are enumerated, and all its weak spots are laid bare, we can still hold

democracy to be the only suitable form of government for persons possessing

free will, and the representation of the people the most satisfactory

expression of democracy.

Government by autocrat, by despotism, benevolent or otherwise, by expert

officials, or by an oligarchy of superior intelligences is irksome to the

average man or woman of reasonable education, and in each case has been

intolerable to the British people. They have all been tried and found

wanting--royal absolutism, aristocracy, military dictatorship, and only of

late have we been threatened by an expert bureaucracy.

Parliamentary representation adapted, by the removal of disabilities of

creed and rank and income, to meet the demands of the nation, has been

proved by experience a clumsy but useful weapon for checking oppression.

Nowadays, we are using it less for defence against oppression, or as an

instrument for removing political grievances, and are testing its worth for

the provision of positive social reform. More and more it is required of

Parliament that means be found for getting rid of the ills around us, for

preventing disease and destitution, for promoting health and decency.

And just because legislation is, at the prompting of a social conscience,

invading our homes and workshops, penetrating into prisons, workhouses, and

hospitals, touching the lives of all of us from the cradle to the grave,

the more imperative is it that our legislators should be chosen freely by

the widest electorate of men and women. We fall back on the old maxim:

"That which touches all shall be approved by all," and can perceive no

other way of obtaining that general approbation for the laws than by the

popular election of our representatives.

Demagogues may exploit the popular will, the cunning and unscrupulous in

power may have us at their mercy, in our folly and indifference the nation

may be brought to grave losses; but still there is always the means of

recovery for the well-disposed while the vote remains in their hands.

So it is that, in spite of obvious failings and shortcomings, democracy by

representative government remains for nations throughout the world that

have not yet tried it the goal of their political striving. We are alive to

the imperfections of democracy. It is no automatic machine for conferring

benefits in return for taxes. It is the creation of mankind, not a

revelation from heaven; and it needs, like all good human things, constant

attention and can bear many improvements. It has to be adjusted from time

to time to suit the growing capacities of mankind--as the popular assembly

gave way to the representative assembly--and only on the failure to make

the adjustment does it get rusty and out of order. It has to meet the

requirements of vast empires and mighty confederations of states, and to

fulfil the wants of small republics and parish councils.

What but democracy can answer to the call for political liberty that sounds

from so many lands and in so many varying tongues? Did any other form of

government devised by the wit of man make such universal appeal?

And when all is said and done--what does this democracy, this government by

popular representatives, mean, but government by the consent of the

governed--the only form of government tolerable to civilised mankind in the

twentieth century?

Given a fairly good standard of common honesty in the ordinary dealings of

life, and the honesty of our public life, whether in Parliament or in the

Civil Service, in executive or administration, will serve. If the private

and commercial life is corroded with dishonesty, then democracy will be

bitten by knaves and rascals. For our chosen rulers have a way of

faithfully reflecting the morality of their electors, and are not free to

indulge their fancies, as kings of old were.

Politics are not, and never will be, or ought to be, the chief interest and

concern of the mass of people in a healthy community where slavery is

extinct. And democracy makes no demand that would involve such interest and

concern. The choice of honest representatives, persons of goodwill, and

reasonable intelligence, is no tremendous task in a community where

honesty, goodwill, and intelligence prevail. And if these things do not

prevail, if honesty is contemned in business, and goodwill between man and

man despised, and intelligence frowned upon, then it is of small importance

what the government of such a nation is, for that nation is doomed, and it

is well for the world that it should be doomed.

But, on the whole, it seems indisputable that the common people of the

great nations do cleave to honesty and goodwill, and that the desire for

intelligence is being widely fostered. As long, then, as we can count on

honesty, goodwill, and intelligence in our streets and market-places, as we

can to-day, mankind does well to elect its representatives to council and

Parliament and proclaim democracy--"Government of the people, by the

people, for the people"--as the proper government for mankind.

* * * * *

Notes.

[1] We cannot be sure about the constitution of the Witenagemot. The

evidence is conflicting, and, at best, we can only offer a statement of

opinion.

[2] "The parish was the community of the township organised for Church

purposes and subject to Church discipline, with a constitution which

recognised the rights of the whole body as an aggregate, and the right of

every adult member, _whether man or woman_, to a voice in self-government,

but at the same time kept the self-governing community under a system of

inspection and restraint by a central authority outside the parish

boundaries."--Bishop Hobhouse, _Somerset Record Society_, Vol. IV.

"The community had its own assembly--the parish meeting--which was a

deliberative assembly. It had its own officers, who might be either men or

women, duly elected, sometimes for a year, sometimes for life, but in all

cases subject to being dismissed for flagrant offences. The larger number

of these officials had well-defined duties to discharge, and were paid for

their services out of funds provided by the parishioners."--DR. JESSOPP,

_Before the Great Pillage_.

[3] Radmer, _Life of Anselm_. (Rolls Series.)

[4] "The boldness of Anselm's attitude not only broke the tradition of

ecclesiastical servitude, but infused through the nation at large a new

spirit of independence."--J.R. GREEN, _History of the English People_.

[5] "For as long as any one in all the land was said to hold any power

except through him, even in the things of God, it seemed to him that the

royal dignity was diminished."--EADMER, _Life of Anselm_.

[6] See Palgrave's _History of Normandy and England_.

[7] "A martyr he clearly was, not merely to the privileges of the Church or

to the rights of the See of Canterbury, but to the general cause of law and

order as opposed to violence."--FREEMAN, _Historical Essays_.

[8] _See_ Campbell's _Lives of the Chancellors_.

[9] F. York Powell, _England to 1509_.

"Ecclesiastical privileges were not so exclusively priestly privileges as

we sometimes fancy. They sheltered not only ordained ministers, but all

ecclesiastical officers of every kind; the Church courts also claimed

jurisdiction in the causes of widows and orphans. In short, the privileges

for which Thomas contended transferred a large part of the people, and that

the most helpless part, from the bloody grasp of the King's courts to the

milder jurisdiction of the bishop."--FREEMAN, _Historical Essays_.

[10] Walter of Coventry. (Rolls Series.)

[11] Roger of Wendover. (Rolls Series.)

[12] "Clause by clause the rights of the commons are provided for as well

as the rights of the nobles; the interest of the freeholder is everywhere

coupled with that of the barons and knights; the stock of the merchant and

the wainage of the villein are preserved from undue severity of amercement

as well as the settled estate of the earldom or barony. The knight is

protected against the compulsory exaction of his services, and the horse

and cart of the freeman against the irregular requisition even of the

sheriff."--STUBBS, _Constitutional History_.

[13] "Quod Anglicana Ecclesia libera sit."--_Magna Charta_, I.

[14] "This most important provision may be regarded as a summing-up of the

history of Parliament so far as it can be said yet to exist. It probably

contains nothing which had not been for a long time in theory a part of the

Constitution: the kings had long consulted their council on taxation; that

council consisted of the elements that are here specified. But the right

had never yet been stated in so clear a form, and the statement thus made

seems to have startled even the barons.... It was for the attainment of

this right that the struggles of the reign of Henry III. were carried on;

and the realisation of the claim was deferred until the reign of his

successor. In these clauses the nation had now obtained a comparatively

clear definition of the right on which their future political power was to

be based."--STUBBS, _Constitutional History_.

[15] "Ut quod omnes similiter tangit ab omnibus approbetur."

[16] Stubbs, _Constitutional History_.

[17] Stubbs, _Ibid_.

[18] "Analogous examples may be taken from the practice of the

ecclesiastical assemblies, in which the representative theory is introduced

shortly before it finds its way into parliament."--STUBBS, _Constitutional

History_.

[19] Stubbs, _Constitutional History_.

[20] Stubbs, _Constitutional History_.

[21] F. York Powell, _England to 1509_.

[22] Sir Courtenay Ilbert, _Parliament_.

[23] Ilbert, _Parliament_.

[24] Bagehot, _The English Constitution_.

[25] Bagehot, _Ibid_.

[26] Stubbs, _Constitutional History_.

[27] Stubbs, _Constitutional History_.

[28] Andrew Marvell, the poet, who sat for Hull in the reign of Charles

II., was paid by the mayor and aldermen of the borough. In return Marvell

wrote letters describing passing events in London. There are stray cases of

the payment of members in the early years of the eighteenth century. Four

shillings a day, including the journey to and from London, for the knight

of the shire, and two shillings a day for the borough member were the wages

fixed by law in 1323.

[29] Stubbs, _Constitutional History_.

[30] Bagehot, _The English Constitution_.

[31] _See_ Stopes' _British Freewomen_ for a full examination of this

matter.

[32] Stubbs, _Constitutional History_.

[33] For the last fifty years the political influence of London has been

less than that of the manufacturing districts.

[34] "The project was clearly to set up a new order of things founded on

social equality--a theory which in the whole history of the Middle Ages

appears for the first time in connection with this movement."--DR.

GAIRDNER, _Introduction to Paston Letters_.

[35] Four centuries later and this doctrine of all men having been born

free at the beginning was to be preached again in popular fashion by

Rousseau and find expression in American Independence and the French

Revolution.

[36] Froissart seems to be chiefly responsible for the notion, found in the

writings of later historians, that this John Tyler was the leader of the

revolt, and for the confusion that mistakenly identifies him with Wat

Tyler, of Maidstone, the real leader. Three other Tylers are mentioned in

the records of the Peasant Revolt--Walter, of Essex, and two of the City of

London.

[37] Hallam, _Middle Ages_.

[38] This law of Winchester was the statute of Edward I., 1285, which

authorised local authorities to appoint constables and preserve the peace.

According to a statement made by Jack Straw, Tyler and his lieutenants

intended, amongst other things, to get rid of the King's Council, and make

each county a self-governing commune.

[39] There are some grounds for believing that a plot had been made to slay

Wat Tyler at Smithfield. _See_ Dr. G. Kriehn _American Review_, 1902.

[40] F. York Powell, _England to 1509_.

[41] Durrant Cooper, _John Cade's Followers in Kent_.

[42] "These lords found him sober in talk, wise in reasoning, arrogant in

heart, and stiff in opinions; one who by no means would dissolve his army,

except the King in person would come to him, and assent to the things he

would require."--HOLINSHED.

[43] Stow.

[44] "Whereof he (Cade) lost the people's favour and hearts. For it was to

be thought if he had not executed that robbery he might have gone far and

brought his purpose to good effect."--FABYAN'S _Chronicle_.

"And for this the hearts of the citizens fell from him, and every thrifty

man was afraid to be served in likewise, for there was many a man in London

that awaited and would fain have seen a common robbery."--STOW.

[45] "During the period, which may be roughly defined as from 1450 to 1550,

enclosure meant to a large extent the actual dispossession of the tenants

by their manorial lords. This took place either in the form of the violent

ousting of the sitting tenant, or of a refusal on the death of one tenant

to admit the son, who in earlier centuries would have been treated as his

natural successor. Proofs abound."--W.J. ASHLEY, _Economic History_.

[46] _See_ Dr. Jessop, _The Great Pillage_.

[47] "That a populous and wealthy city like Norwich should have been for

three weeks in the hands of 20,000 rebels, and should have escaped utter

pillage and ruin, speaks highly for the rebel leaders."--W. RYE, _Victoria

County History of Norfolk_.

"Robert Ket was not a mere craftsman: he was a man of substance, the owner

of several manors; his conduct throughout was marked by considerable

generosity; nor can the name of patriot be denied to him who deserted the

class to which he might have belonged or aspired, and cast in his lot with

the suffering people."--CANON DIXON, _History of the Church of England_.

[48] "There was something in the temper of these celebrated men which

secured them against the proverbial inconstancy both of the Court and of

individuals.... No Parliament attacked their influence. No mob coupled

their names with any odious grievance.... They were, one and all,

Protestants. But ... none of them chose to run the smallest personal risk

during the reign of Mary. No men observed more accurately the signs of the

times.... Their fidelity to the State was incorruptible. No intrigue, no

combination of rivals could deprive them of the confidence of their

Sovereign."--MACAULAY, _Burleigh, his Times._

[49] "The Tudor monarchs exercised freely their power of creating boroughs

by charter. They used their Parliaments, and had to find means of

controlling them. In the creation of 'pocket' or 'rotten' boroughs, Queen

Elizabeth was probably the worst offender. She had much influence in her

Duchy of Cornwall, and many of the Cornish boroughs which obtained such a

scandalous reputation in later times were created by her for the return of

those whom the lords of her council would consider 'safe' men."--ILBERT,

_Parliament._

[50] Elizabeth's popularity steadily diminished in her last years. The

death of Essex, ecclesiastical persecutions, increased taxation, and the

irritations caused by royal expenditure were all responsible for the

discontent. James I. failed from the first to secure the goodwill of the

people.

[51] Oxford men all three. Sir John Eliot was at Exeter College, 1607; John

Hampden at Magdalen, 1609; and John Pym at Broadgate Hall (later called

Pembroke), 1599.

[52] Clarendon, _History of the Great Rebellion_.

[53] "The same men who, six months before, were observed to be of very

moderate tempers, and to wish that gentle remedies might be applied, talked

now in another dialect both of Kings and persons; and said that they must

now be of another temper than they were the last Parliament."--CLARENDON,

_ibid._

[54] Macaulay, _Hallam's Constitutional History_.

[55] "The great rule of Cromwell was a series of failures to

reconcile the authority of the 'single person' with the authority of

Parliament."--ILBERT, _Parliament_.

[56] "A very large number of persons regarded the struggle with

indifference.... In one case, the inhabitants of an entire county pledged

themselves to remain neutral. Many quietly changed with the times (as

people changed with the varying fortunes of York and Lancaster). That this

sentiment of neutrality was common to the greater mass of the working

classes is obvious from the simultaneous appearance of the club men in

different parts of the country with their motto: 'If you take our cattle,

we will give you battle.'"--G.P. GOOCH, _History of Democratic Ideas in the

Seventeenth Century_.

[57] See _Memorial of English Affairs_.

[58] "By its injudicious treatment of the most popular man in England,

Parliament was arraying against itself a force which only awaited an

opportunity to sweep it away."--G.P. GOOCH, _History of Democratic Ideas in

the Seventeenth Century_.

[59] "So die the Leveller corporals. Strong they, after their sort, for the

liberties of England; resolute to the very death."--CARLYLE.

[60] "Then ensued a scene, the like of which had in all probability never

been witnessed in an English court of justice, and was never again to be

witnessed till the seven bishops were freed by the verdict of a jury from

the rage of James II."--S.R. GARDINER, _History of the Commonwealth_.

[61] Professor C.H. Firth, Lilburne in _Dict. Nat. Biography_.

[62] Winstanley's _New Law of Righteousness_, 1649.

[63] Palgrave. Introduction to Erskine May, _Parliamentary Practice_.

[64] Sir John Eliot, 1629.

[65] Edward II., in 1327, and Richard II., in 1399, had not been deposed

without the consent of Parliament.

[66] "The monarchical regime which was revived under Charles II. broke down

under James II. It was left for the 'glorious Revolution' of 1688, and for

the Hanoverian dynasty, to develop the ingenious system of adjustments and

compromises which is now known, sometimes as cabinet government, sometimes

as parliamentary government."--ILBERT, _Parliament_.

[67] G.P. Gooch, _Annals of Politics and Culture_.

[68] Palmerston's influence in the House of Commons was about as bad in the

nineteenth century.--_See_ BAGEHOT, _The English Constitution_.

[69] "Here and there we find an eminent man, whose public services were so

notorious that it was impossible to avoid rewarding them; but putting aside

those who were in a manner forced upon the Sovereign, it would be idle to

deny that the remainder and, of course, the overwhelming majority, were

marked by a narrowness and illiberality of sentiment, which, more than

anything else, brought the whole order into contempt. No great thinkers, no

great writers, no great orators, no great statesman, none of the true

nobility of the land, were to be found among those spurious nobles created

by George III. Nor were the material interests of the country better

represented. Among the most important men in England those engaged in

banking and commerce held a high place; since the end of the seventeenth

century their influence had rapidly increased.... But in the reign of

George III. claims of this sort were little heeded."--BUCKLE, _History of

Civilisation_.

[70] "They, the friars, and especially the Franciscans, largely influenced

politics. The conception of individual freedom, upon which the life of St.

Francis was built, went far to instil the idea of civic freedom into men's

minds.... It was the ideas of the friars that found expression in the

Baron's War." The Song of the Battle of Lewes "set forth unmistakably the

conception of the official position of the King, and affirmed the right of

his subjects to remove evil counsellors from his neighbourhood, and to

remind him of his duty--ideas due to the political influence of the

Franciscans."--CREIGHTON, _Historical Lectures and Addresses_.

[71] The late Lord Acton pointed out that St. Thomas Aquinas was really the

first Whig.

[72] See Introduction to Rousseau's _Social Contract_, by H. J. Tozer.

[73] "That which distinguishes the French Revolution from other political

movements is that it was directed by men who had adopted certain

speculative a priori conceptions with the fanaticism and proselytising

fervour of a religious belief, and the Bible of their Creed was the

_Contrat Social_ of Rousseau."--LECKY, _England in Eighteenth Century_,

Vol. V.

"The original contract seized on as a watchword by Rousseau's enthusiasm

grew from an arid fiction into a great and dangerous deceit of

nations."--Sir F. POLLOCK, _History of the Science of Politics_.

[74] Mr. H.J. Tozer. Introduction to Rousseau's _Social Contract_.

[75] See Conway's _Life of Paine_, Vol. I.

[76] Professor T.F. Tout, _England from 1689_.

[77] Tout, _ibid._

[78] Tout, _ibid._

[79] R.G. Gammage, _History of the Chartist Movement_.

[80] "The condition of the labouring classes was the least satisfactory

feature of English life in 1846. Politically they were dumb, for they had

no parliamentary votes. Socially they were depressed, though their lot had

been considerably improved by an increased demand for labour and by the

removal of taxes in Peel's great Budget of 1842. That was the year in which

the misery of the English proletariat reached its lowest depth."--HERBERT

PAUL, _History of Modern England_.

[81] Justin McCarthy, _Short History of Our Own Times_.

[82] McCarthy, _Ibid_.

[83] Tout, _England since 1689_.

[84] "For a general extension of the franchise, an extension from the

occupation franchise to the adult franchise, there does not appear to be

any demand, except in connection with the burning question of the franchise

for women."--ILBERT, _Parliament_.

[85] "On the mere numerical basis Ireland is much over-represented, but

Ireland claims to be treated as a separate entity, and her claims cannot be

disregarded."--ILBERT, _Parliament_.

[86] Rt. Hon. A.J. Balfour, M.P., House of Commons, 1910.

[87] "With great tact, and without very much friction, he brought the

monarchy into touch with the state of things brought about by the Reform

Bill. He did for the Crown what Wellington did for the House of Lords. Just

as the Duke saw that the Lords must give up setting themselves against the

national will strongly expressed, so did the Prince see that the Crown

could no longer exercise those _legal_ rights for which George III. had

fought so manfully. Like the Lords, the Crown now became a checking and

regulating, rather than a moving, force. It remained as the pledge and

symbol of the unity and continuity of the national life, and could do good

work in tempering the evils of absolute party government. Such of the royal

_prerogatives_ as were not dead must be carried out by ministers. The royal

_influence_ continued to run through every branch of the State."--Professor

T.F. TOUT, _England from 1689._

[88] Mr. J.M. Robertson, M.P., _Charles Bradlaugh--A Record of His Life and

Work_.

[89] F. York Powell, _Thoughts on Democracy_.

[90] Unfortunately the present House of Commons has just decided, August,

1911, to pay its members a salary of £400 a year from the national revenue.

It is to be regretted that the cost has not been laid directly on the

electors, and that the time is not more appropriate. With the country torn

with strikes of workmen seeking a few extra shillings a week, it was hardly

the opportune moment for a House of Commons to vote itself some £250,000 a

year. The proposal would have been more palatable to the nation if the

Commons had decided that payment should begin with the _next_ Parliament.