After how long a term should members of Parliament be subject to
re-election? The principles involved are here very obvious; the
difficulty lies in their application. On the one hand, the member
ought not to have so long a tenure of his seat as to make him forget
his responsibility, take his duties easily, conduct them with a view
to his own personal advantage, or neglect those free and public
conferences with his constituents which, whether he agrees or differs
with them, are one of the benefits of representative government. On
the other hand, he should have such a term of office to look forward
to as will enable him to be judged, not by a single act, but by his
course of action. It is important that he should have the greatest
latitude of individual opinion and discretion compatible with the
popular control essential to free government; and for this purpose it
is necessary that the control should be exercised, as in any case it
is best exercised, after sufficient time has been given him to show
all the qualities he possesses, and to prove that there is some other
way than that of a mere obedient voter and advocate of their opinions,
by which he can render himself, in the eyes of his constituents, a
desirable and creditable representative. It is impossible to fix, by
any universal rule, the boundary between these principles. Where the
democratic power in the constitution is weak or over-passive, and
requires stimulation; where the representative, on leaving his
constituents, enters at once into a courtly or aristocratic
atmosphere, whose influences all tend to deflect his course into a
different direction from the popular one, to tone down any democratic
feelings which he may have brought with him, and make him forget the
wishes and grow cool to the interests of those who chose him, the
obligation of a frequent return to them for a renewal of his
commission is indispensable to keeping his temper and character up to
the right mark. Even three years, in such circumstances, are almost
too long a period, and any longer term is absolutely inadmissible.
Where, on the contrary, democracy is the ascendant power, and still
tends to increase, requiring rather to be moderated in its exercise
than encouraged to any abnormal activity; where unbounded publicity,
and an ever-present newspaper press give the representative assurance
that his every act will be immediately known, discussed, and judged by
his constituents, and that he is always either gaining or losing
ground in the estimation, while, by the same means, the influence of
their sentiments, and all other democratic influences, are kept
constantly alive and active in his own mind, less than five years
would hardly be a sufficient period to prevent timid subserviency. The
change which has taken place in English politics as to all these
features explains why annual Parliaments, which forty years ago stood
prominently in front of the creed of the more advanced reformers, are
so little cared for and so seldom heard of at present. It deserves
consideration that, whether the term is short or long, during the last
year of it the members are in position in which they would always be
if Parliaments were annual; so that, if the term were very brief,
there would virtually be annual Parliaments during a great proportion
of all time. As things now are, the period of seven years, though of
unnecessary length, is hardly worth altering for any benefit likely to
be produced, especially since the possibility, always impending, of an
earlier dissolution keeps the motives for standing well with
constituents always before the member's eyes.
Whatever may be the term most eligible for the duration of the
mandate, it might seem natural that the individual member should
vacate his seat at the expiration of that term from the day of his
election, and that there should be no general renewal of the whole
House. A great deal might be said for this system if there were any
practical object in recommending it. But it is condemned by much
stronger reasons than can be alleged in its support. One is, that
there would be no means of promptly getting rid of a majority which
had pursued a course offensive to the nation. The certainty of a
general election after a limited, which would often be a nearly
expired period, and the possibility of it at any time when the
minister either desires it for his own sake, or thinks that it would
make him popular with the country, tend to prevent that wide
divergence between the feelings of the assembly and those of the
constituency, which might subsist indefinitely if the majority of the
House had always several years of their term still to run--if it
received new infusions drop by drop, which would be more likely to
assume than to modify the qualities of the mass they were joined to.
It is as essential that the general sense of the House should accord
in the main with that of the nation as is that distinguished
individuals should be able, without forfeiting their seats, to give
free utterance to the most unpopular sentiments. There is another
reason, of much weight, against the gradual and partial renewal of a
representative assembly. It is useful that there should be a
periodical general muster of opposing forces to gauge the state of the
national mind, and ascertain, beyond dispute, the relative strength of
different parties and opinions. This is not done conclusively by any
partial renewal, even where, as in some of the French constitutions, a
large fraction--a fifth or a third--go out at once.
The reasons for allowing to the executive the power of dissolution
will be considered in a subsequent chapter, relating to the
constitution and functions of the executive in a representative
government.