FOOTNOTES:

Reform of the House of Lords.

Objects of Reform.

The adoption by the Lords, in the autumn of 1906, of amendments to the Education Bill, so contrary to its spirit that they were rejected in the Commons by an overwhelming majority without any attempt at compromise, has brought the question of a reform of the upper House again prominently before the country. No one would now thinkof creating the House of Lords as it stands; but, as Mr. (now Lord) Courtney remarks, "The public judgment may long tolerate a machine which works without unnecessary friction, although it would not construct it in the same fashion if it had to be for the first time devised."[414:1]This is particularly true if it is difficult to propose something that would work better; and therefore in discussing the reform of the House of Lords it is important to have clearly in mind the objects to be attained. Now, there are four possible objects of a reform: to make the House less powerful; to make it more powerful; to change the nature of its power; or to bring it into greater harmony with the popular elements in the state; and it may be interesting to examine these objects in turn.

To Reduce the Power of the House.

The National Liberal Federation has repeatedly passed resolutions in favour of restricting what is called the veto of the House of Lords. This is most natural, for besides the objection in principle to hereditary legislators, there is the galling fact that the House is always hostile to the Liberal party. No one would suggest that so long as a second chamber is suffered to exist it should be wholly deprived of the right to reject or amend bills sent to it from the Commons. It is proposed, however, that the veto shall not be repeated after a certain interval, and the vital question is what that interval shall be. A provision that the Lords should not reject a bill passed by the Commons in two successive Parliaments, would probably be a mere legal ratification of their present constitutional position; for although, after a fresh general election has proved that the cabinet retains the confidence of the nation, the Lords may refuse a second time to enact one of its measures, they have never done so, and are not very likely to venture so far. A provision, on the other hand, that the Lords should not reject or amend a bill passed by the Commons in two successive sessions of the same Parliament would mean that except in the last session of an expiringParliament, they could reject or amend seriously no government bill, whether convinced that the nation approved of it or not.[415:1]This would be almost equivalent to an entire abolition of the second chamber so far as government measures are concerned, because the shred of authority left would amount to little more than that of requiring the ministers to reconsider their position, which they could hardly do without stultifying themselves. The President of the French Republic has a similar right in relation to the chambers, but it is never exercised. A change of this kind could certainly be made, but whether it would be wise or not is another question.

Moreover, if a rule that the Lords should not reject or amend a government bill passed by the Commons in two successive sessions did not virtually destroy the power of the House of Lords altogether, it would not accomplish the object of the Liberals. It would not put them upon a footing of equality with the Conservatives, for it would mean that it would take them two sessions to pass any legislation of a far-reaching character, while the Conservatives could do it in one.

We are not concerned now with the question of reducing the power of the hereditary members of the House, by introducing other members in their stead; but of reducing the power of the House as a whole. Those persons who are seriously interested in reforming the composition of the body are usually more anxious to increase than to diminish its authority, and it would be somewhat strange to make the House of Lords more representative or more popular, while at the same time taking away the last remnants of its power in political questions.

To Increase its Power.

In considering suggestions to reform the House of Lords for the sake of increasing its efficiency we are met by the question whether with a parliamentary system, that is with government by party, as highly developed as it is inEngland, a more powerful upper House is possible. Fifty years ago second chambers were defended on the ground that they acted as a drag on radical legislation. But, as we have seen, the House of Lords does not really perform that function. It does not try to check legislation by one of the parties, and only under peculiar circumstances can it seriously restrain the other. Nor could any upper House render that service effectively in England to-day. The fact is that although historically the position of the House of Lords may have been the consequence of its hereditary, non-representative character, it is now doomed to its present condition by the inexorable logic of a political system. Its limitations in dealing with government bills are imposed by the principle of a ministry responsible to the popular chamber, and working through highly developed parties; its inability to exert a substantial influence upon other public legislation is the result, not of its own inherent weakness, but of the condition of the House of Commons; while in private bill legislation, which lies outside the domain of politics, it shares in full measure the authority of a coördinate branch of Parliament.

To Change the Nature of its Power.

The same reasoning would apply to any proposal to alter in character the powers exercised by the Lords. The channels of possible activity of any second chamber are fixed in England by the system itself, and they are not far from the ones in which the House of Lords now moves. The House could, no doubt, be shorn of the remnant of political authority that it still wields, and it could be deprived of its right to take part in private bill legislation; but it would seem that, except by merely reducing their extent, the nature of its powers cannot be very materially changed.

To Bring it into Harmony with the Nation.

Creation of Peers.

During the generation following the Reform Act of 1832, men spoke of the possibility of making new peers as a sufficient safeguard against obstinacy on the part of the upper House. It was felt that a ministry with the nation at its back could, if necessary, force the Lords to yield by advising the Crown to create peers enough to turn the scale. LordGrey's government proposed to do this as a last resort to pass the Reform Bill of 1832, and obtained the consent of William IV.; but the threat was enough, and the Lords gave way. Such a drastic means of coercion is probably useless to-day; and would be only a temporary remedy. It is really not with the Commons that the House of Lords now comes into serious conflict, but with the cabinet which represents, or claims to represent, the nation, or to be more accurate the major part of the nation; and no creation of peers would be made to force a bill through the House of Lords unless the party in power had a mandate from the people to pass it. This is the real meaning of the saying that the House of Lords can force a referendum, or appeal to the nation, on a measure to which they object. A creation of peers to swamp the upper House would, therefore, not be tried until a general election had proved the persistent will of the electorate upon the measure in question, and then the Lords would in any case submit. Differences of opinion may, of course, arise on the question whether there is sufficient evidence of the popular will or not. In 1893, for example, the Liberals contended that the preceding general election had been carried on the issue of Home Rule, while the Conservatives insisted that it had really turned on other matters; and the same thing happened in the case of the Education Bill of 1906. Such a discussion may be conducted with heat, but especially with the enormous number of peers now required to turn a majority in their House, there is little danger of precipitate action. It is one of many cases where the conventions of the Constitution may appear to be strained, but where one may be sure they will not be broken.[417:1]

Moreover, if the creation of peers were within the region of practical politics to-day, it would be only a temporaryremedy for existing grievances. Contrary to the prevalent opinion, Lord John Russell thought that in 1832 the authority of the House of Lords suffered, on the whole, more from the abstention of its members under threat, than it would have from an actual creation of peers that might have brought it into harmony with the people. He remarks that the Tory majority of eighty, hostile to Lord Grey's government, was held back by Wellington, but employed by Lyndhurst to kill unpretending but useful measures.[418:1]Subsequent events have shown the impossibility of maintaining harmony between the Houses by a single creation of peers, for had a batch of Lord Grey's supporters been given seats in the Lords in 1832, the House would have been heavily Conservative again within a generation.

The difficulty to-day is not so much that the peers are permanently out of accord with the nation, as that they are bound to one of the two parties into which the country is divided. A mere reduction in the size of the Tory majority would do little or no good; nor would the difficulty be solved if the majority were transferred to the other party, or even if it shifted at different periods. In a country governed by party as strictly as England is to-day, the majority in the upper House must at any one time belong to one side or the other. If the majority shifted, there would not be permanent irritation in the same quarter; but first one side, and then the other, would complain that the Lords thwarted the popular will. While, therefore, the occasional creation of a large number of peers, either hereditary or for life, might, at a sacrifice of the self-respect of the House of Lords, produce for the moment a greater similarity of views between the two branches of Parliament, a constant political harmony could be attained only by such additions to the upper House by each new set of ministers as would make it a mere tool in their hands. In short, an upper House in a true parliamentary system cannot be brought into constant accord with the dominant party of the day without destroyingits independence altogether; and to make the House of Lords a mere tool in the hands of every cabinet would be well-nigh impossible and politically absurd.

Reform in the Composition of the House.

What is true of the creation of peers is true also of any other method of changing the membership of the House. Suggestions for reforming its composition have been based mainly upon the desire to reduce the hereditary element, and supply its place by representative men selected in other ways. The House contains, of course, many drones, who have inherited the right, without the desire, for public work. Either they do not attend at all, or they come only to swell a foregone majority upon some measure that has attracted popular interest. They give no time or thought to the work of the House, and their votes, on the rare occasions when they are cast, are peculiarly exasperating to their opponents. As the regular attendants at the sittings are few, it has been suggested that the English, like the Scotch and Irish, nobility should choose representatives of their own order, and that the rest should have no right to vote. Just as the Scotch and Irish representative peers are solidly Unionist, so a change of this kind would merely result in increasing the Conservative majority of the House, unless some principle of minority representation were adopted, in which case the majority, though numerically smaller, would be equally constant and more subject to party dictation.

On the other hand, it has been proposed to make the House more broadly representative of the nation by a more or less extended creation of life peers, nominated, in part, perhaps, by sundry public bodies in the United Kingdom. It may be doubted, however, whether life peers are needed to increase the eminence or, in one sense, the representative character of the House. The peerage has been opened freely to men distinguished in various fields; and while many men without wealth have doubtless been precluded from an honour that would burden their descendants, many others have come in. The number of hereditary members of the House has increased nearly, although not quite, in proportionto population; and only about one fourth of the present members sit by virtue of titles dating before 1800. A large share of the creations have been made for political service; but others have been conferred in consequence of wealth amassed in commercial and industrial pursuits; the most distinguished lawyers and soldiers have always been rewarded by a peerage; and so in more recent times have a few men of eminence in science and literature. A body that contains, or has recently contained, such men as Tennyson, Acton, Kelvin, Lister, Rayleigh, and many more, can bear comparison in personal distinction with any legislative chamber the world has ever known. Therefore one may fairly doubt whether the defect to be remedied by a creation of life peers is either a lack of brains in the House, or a failure of its members to represent the deeper currents of national life.

Reform Unlikely to Add Much Strength.

But the personal distinction of members, in fields outside of public affairs, has very little connection with the political power of a body; and the House of Lords itself furnishes one of the most striking proofs of that fact. The men whose names have been mentioned have taken no part in the work of the House, and such people rarely do. Moreover, if they take part they rarely do it well. Occasionally such a man may have a chance to say something on the subject of his own profession that carries weight. The speech of Lord Roberts in July, 1905, for example, about the inefficiency of the British Army, was considered a very impressive utterance, but, except for the rule of office that sealed his mouth in any other place, he might have delivered it with just as much effect elsewhere. Men who would be created life peers on account of their distinction in other lines would either take no interest in politics, or would take it so late in life that they would rarely carry weight with the public. Such influence and repute as the House of Lords now possesses is derived not from the personal fame of the members but from the social lustre of the peerage, and no creation of life peers would be likely to addanything to that. The authority of a public body depends not upon the eminence but upon the political following of its members; and it is self-evident that no leading English statesman in the full tide of his vigour and popularity would willingly exchange a seat in the House of Commons for an appointment for life in any second chamber, so that a House of Lords constructed on these principles would become in large part an asylum for decrepit politicians.

Another suggestion of a similar kind is that the House should be remodelled upon the lines of the Privy Council, but the Privy Council to-day as a working body is nothing but the ministry, the other members attending only on ceremonial occasions. It is a mere instrument of government in the hands of the cabinet; nor, so far as English politics are concerned, can it very well be anything else. The proposal that colonial members should sit in the House of Lords is interesting from other points of view, but clearly it could not be applied in the case of domestic legislation. That the will of the House of Commons on English questions should be thwarted by representatives from other parts of the empire would be far more unfortunate than to have it thwarted by hereditary English nobles.

Other Probable Results.

But if a change in the composition of the House of Lords would be very unlikely to raise its political position as a whole, it might well reduce the personal influence of individual peers. If the House came to be regarded as mainly a collection of persons holding seats for life, the social position of its members might be very different from that of an hereditary nobility. A radical reform in the composition of the House might also very well produce a change of another kind. Perhaps the most important function of the House of Lords at the present day, and probably the chief privilege of its members, comes from the fact that it is largely a reservoir of ministers of state. By the present traditions ministers must be all taken from one House or the other; and a large proportion of them are always taken from the peers. This gives a nobleman, who is sincerely interested in publiclife, even if of somewhat slender ability, a fair prospect of obtaining a position of honour and usefulness. Now, if a number of life peers were to be created, it would clearly be possible to confer a title upon a man for the purpose of making him a minister. If this were done commonly, it might affect not only the position of the existing peers, but also that of the House of Commons. For a man not born to a coronet would be able to achieve a high office of state without an apprenticeship in the popular chamber. Thus a channel might be opened for a direct connection between the cabinet and the political forces of the nation without the mediation of the House of Commons. The change might be a first step in lessening the authority of Parliament, because cabinets, as will be explained in the following chapter, being really made or destroyed by the popular voice uttered in general elections, much of the power of the House of Commons is based upon the fact that it is the sole recruiting ground for all ministers not hereditary peers.

Unsatisfactory, therefore, as the present position of the House of Lords is to many people in England, the difficulties that surround the question of reform are very great; and a half-unconscious perception of these explains in large part the fact that although proposals to reform the House have been made of late years by leading men of every shade of political opinion, none of them has borne fruit, or even taken the shape of a definite plan commanding any considerable amount of support. To reform the House of Lords, or to create some other satisfactory second chamber may not be an impossible task, but it is one that will require constructive statesmanship in a high degree; and to obtain the best chance of success it ought to be undertaken at the most unlikely time, a time when the question provokes no passionate interest.

[406:1]"The Governance of England," 218.

[406:2]In 1830 the House of Lords contained 326 hereditary members. From that time until the fall of Mr. Gladstone's cabinet, in 1885, the Liberals made 198 additions to these members; and during the same period the Conservatives made 70. Since 1885 the Conservatives have been in power by far the greater part of the time, and their creations of peers have been correspondingly more numerous.

[409:1]See the chapter on "The Strength of Party Ties,"infra.

[412:1]When the Liberals are in power this is not much use for bills which the Lords are likely to amend seriously, because the amendments would have to be reversed in the Commons at a cost of much time.

[412:2]Rep. of Com. on Priv. Bill Legislation, Com. Papers, 1888, XVI., 1.

[414:1]"The Working Constitution," 120.

[415:1]Probably the advocates of this policy would not want to apply it in the case of private bill legislation.

[417:1]The power to create peers enough to swamp the House has a potential value. It could be used once for all to abolish or transform the body, and this fact has, no doubt, its effect on the general attitude of the members, but that does not affect the argument that as a means of maintaining harmony between the Houses the power is useless.

[418:1]"Recollections and Suggestions," 110-11.

Transfer of Power from Parliament to the People.

Its Causes; (1) the Growth of Power of the Cabinet.

If the predominance of the House of Commons has been lessened by a delegation of authority to the cabinet, it has been weakened also by the transfer of power directly to the electorate. The two tendencies are not, indeed, unconnected. The transfer of power to the electorate is due in part to the growing influence of the ministers, to the recognition that policy is mainly directed, not by Parliament, but by them. The cabinet now rules the nation by and with the advice and consent of Parliament; and for that very reason the nation wishes to decide what cabinet it shall be that rules. No doubt the ministry depends for its existence upon the good pleasure of the House of Commons; but it really gets its commission from the country as the result of a general election. Even if its life should be cut short by the Commons, the new cabinet would not now rest for support upon that Parliament; but would at once dissolve and seek a fresh majority from the electors. This was by no means true forty years ago. The Parliament elected in 1852, which sat a little more than four years, supported during the first half of that time a coalition ministry of Liberals and Peelites, and during the second half a ministry of Liberals alone. The following Parliament affords an even better illustration. It met in 1857 with a large majority for the Liberal cabinet of Lord Palmerston; but in less than a year he was defeated and resigned, to be succeeded by the Conservatives under Lord Derby, who carried on the government for another year before dissolving. The case of the next Conservative administration is more striking still. Coming into office in 1866, in face of a hostile majority,strongly Liberal, but hopelessly divided upon questions of reform, it remained in power more than two years, and brought to pass a drastic extension of the franchise before it dissolved Parliament. Nothing of the kind has occurred since that time. Every subsequent change of ministry has either been the immediate consequence of a general election, or if not, the new cabinet has kept the old Parliament together only so long as was absolutely necessary to dispose of current business, and has then appealed to the people. Practically, therefore, a change of ministry to-day is either the result of, or is at once ratified by, a general election.

(2) The Increase of the Electorate.

The decline in the power of the House is partly due also to the extension of the franchise, and the consequent growth in size of the electorate, which has become so large that the voters cannot be reached by private or personal contact, but only by publicity. A cynic might well say that if oligarchy fosters intrigue, democracy is based upon advertisement, for in order to control the electorate it is no longer enough, as it was a hundred years ago, to be backed by a few influential patrons or to enlist the support of the members of Parliament. The immense mass of the voters must be addressed, and hence public questions must be discussed not only in Parliament, but in the ears of the people at large.

(3) The Control by Public Opinion.

A third reason why power tends to pass away from the House is the greater control exerted in political affairs by public opinion, in consequence of the rapid means of disseminating knowledge and of forming and expressing a judgment. Whatever may be the importance of the editorial columns of the daily press in creating, or giving voice to, the general sentiment—and there is reason to suppose that editorials are of less consequence in both respects than they were formerly—it is certainly clear that the multiplication of cheap newspapers has made it possible for vastly larger numbers of men to become rapidly acquainted with current events; while the post and telegraph, and the habit of organisation, have made it muchmore easy for them to express their views. A debate, a vote, or a scene, that occurs in Parliament late at night is brought home to the whole country at breakfast the next morning, and prominent constituents, clubs, committees and the like, can praise or censure, encourage or admonish, their member for his vote before the next sitting of the House. Rousseau's charge that the English were free only at the moment of electing a Parliament, and then were in bondage during the whole of its term, was by no means really true when he wrote it, and is far less true to-day. It is for this reason that there has ceased to be any clamour for annual Parliaments, almost the only one of the famous six points in the People's Charter that has not been substantially achieved.[425:1]Parliaments have not grown shorter. On the contrary, in the twenty years from 1832 to 1852, when the cry of the Chartists was heard, the average duration of Parliaments was four years, and since the extension of the suffrage in 1868 they have averaged four years and three-quarters.

Its Manifestations.

The passing of political power from the House of Commons to the people is shown by many unmistakable signs, and by none more clearly than by the frequent reference in Parliament itself to the opinions of the "man in the street." He is said to fear this, or be shocked by that, or expect the other; and the House is supposed to pay some regard to his views, not because he is peculiarly gifted with knowledge, experience, or wisdom, in greater measure than the members themselves. Far from it. He is cited as a specimen of average humanity; the person to whom Carlyle referred when he spoke of modern Parliaments with twenty-seven millions, mostly fools, listening to them.[425:2]The members of the House are supposed to heed him because they are his representatives; for he is taken as a type of the voterof fair intelligence. In fact he is the personification of what is believed to be outside opinion.

The Doctrine of Mandate.

Another sign of the times is found in the doctrine, now sanctioned by the highest authority, that Parliament cannot legislate on a new question of vital importance without a mandate from the nation. The theory that the individual representative is a mere delegate of his constituents, so that he is bound to resign and submit to reëlection if he changes his views, has long been a subject of discussion; but the idea that Parliament as a whole exercises a delegated authority in the sense that it is morally restrained from dealing with questions that have not been laid before the people at the preceding general election would formerly have been regarded as a dangerous political heresy. Yet during the recent agitation in regard to fiscal policy, Mr. Balfour, while repudiating the suggestion that the existing Parliament, having been elected on the single issue of the South African War, ought to be dissolved when peace was made,[426:1]refused to grant time for a debate on free food, on the ground that it would be constitutionally improper for Parliament to act on the question until it had been submitted to the people at a general election,[426:2]and that it would be unwise for the House to discuss a subject on which it could not act.[426:3]

Based upon a similar principle is the claim reiterated by the Opposition during the latter part of Mr. Balfour's administration, that, although supported by a majority in the House of Commons, he ought to resign, because a long series of by-elections had shown that he had lost the confidence of the country. His retention of office under those conditions was said to be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution;[426:4]and Mr. Balfour's resignation late in 1905, when Parliament was not in session, involved an acknowledgment, if not of the necessity, at least of the propriety, ofwithdrawing from office in such a case. Former cabinets have sometimes broken up on account of dissensions among their members, or the impossibility of maintaining an efficient government; but there has been no previous instance of a cabinet, supported by a majority in Parliament, which has resigned apparently in consequence of a change of popular sentiment.

Waning Interest in Reports of Debates.

But perhaps the most ominous sign that power is passing away from the House is the slowly waning interest in parliamentary debates. In the eighteenth century the House strove to prevent the publication of its discussions. Now the debates are printed under a contract with the government, which provides that no speech shall be reported at less than one third of its actual length;[427:1]and most of the members like to appear in the newspapers as prominently as they can. But, if the desire of the members to be reported is still increasing, the eagerness of the public to read what they say is less keen. Men who are thoroughly familiar with the reporters' gallery tell us that the demand for long reports of speeches in Parliament has declined, and that editors find it for their interest to cut them down, often substituting for the remarks of the members themselves descriptive sketches of what took place.[427:2]One cause of this is, no doubt, the length of the debates, and the number of minor speakers taking part, which tends naturally to dull the popular craving to read them. Then there is the fact that Parliament is no longer the only place where the party leaders make notable speeches. In short, the predominance of the House of Commons as the great forum for the discussion of public questions has been undermined by the rise and growth of the platform.

History of the Platform.

After a long slumber the habit of speaking at public meetings revived about the middle of the eighteenth century;[428:1]and a little later it was taken up, in connection with the early political associations, as a systematic means of agitation in the hope of bringing pressure to bear upon Parliament. At an early time leaders of the party in opposition were present; but after the outbreak of the French Revolution public meetings came to be used mainly by the working classes, and were regarded as seditious. Men who took part in them were prosecuted, and acts were passed to suppress them. These were so effective that by the opening of the next century political meetings had ceased to be held; except at elections, when some of the candidates for Parliament made speeches to their constituents. The repressive statutes were, however, temporary, and, although they were reënacted more than once, the meetings revived during the intervals of freedom. The last of these special statutes, one of the famous Six Acts of 1819, expired in 1825, and from that time the platform entered upon a fresh career, marked by three new features: the participation of all classes; the organised effort to bring about a definite political change by a legitimate creation of public opinion; and the growing use of public speaking by parliamentary leaders as a regular engine of party warfare. Moreover, the influence of the platform was much enlarged by the practice, which began shortly before that time, of reporting the meetings and speeches at considerable length in the provincial press.

The Platform and Popular Movements for Reform.

The first movement at this period in which the platform played a leading part was conducted by the Catholic Association in Ireland, and ended in the removal of Catholic disabilities by the Act of 1829. But far more important examples of the use of public meetings are to be found in England. Throughout the agitation that accompanied the passage of the Reform Act of 1832, public meetings were innumerable, and the platform was raised to a dignity andinfluence much greater than ever before. In fact its position as a recognised power in English public life began at that time. Its rapid advance in good repute was much helped by the fact that during the struggle for reform it was used mainly to strengthen the hands of the ministry; but this was not yet its characteristic function. For the next score of years it was chiefly employed in attempts to force upon the attention of Parliament, by popular agitation, measures which did not otherwise receive serious consideration. Two efforts of the kind are especially noteworthy. One of them, that of the Anti-Corn-Law League, by the completeness of its organisation, by the cohesion and eloquence of its leaders, by confining its attention to one point, and by good fortune, succeeded in accomplishing its object. The other, that of the Chartists, lacking these advantages, failed; and although most of the demands of the Chartists were afterward obtained, that was the result not of their endeavours, but of other causes.

The Platform and the Ministers.

Meanwhile the platform was used more and more freely by the parliamentary leaders, but this came gradually. Pitt spoke only in the House of Commons; and in fact until a few years before the Reform Bill almost no minister, except Canning, made political speeches outside, and his were addressed mainly to his own constituents. In 1823, however, he delivered a speech at Plymouth, in which for the first time a statement about foreign policy was made by a minister in public, and five years later the change in the government's policy about Catholic disabilities was announced at a banquet. With the reform movement the ministers began to take the public a little more into their confidence. At the general election of 1831, Lord John Russell made the first public speech intended as an election cry,[429:1]and aroused an echo at meetings throughout the land. In the same year Lord Grey talked about the bill at the Lord Mayor's dinner, a festivity that became in after years a regular occasion for announcements of governmentpolicy. From that time the use of the platform grew rapidly in favour with the cabinet. In 1834 Lord Brougham made the unfortunate series of harangues in Scotland that wrecked his political career. A little later Lord Melbourne explained his own dismissal in a public speech; and Peel, on taking office, declared his policy in an address to his constituents. So important a matter, indeed, did the platform become in public life, that Lord Melbourne, referring to the performances of Brougham and O'Connell, spoke of the vacation as a trying time.[430:1]Thereafter the platform was constantly used both by ministers and leaders of the Opposition to bring public opinion to their side.

As usual in English politics, practice outran theory; for so late as 1886 Mr. Gladstone, in answer to a remonstrance from the Queen, felt it necessary to excuse himself for making speeches outside of his constituency, on the ground that in doing so he was merely following the example of the Conservatives.[430:2]Yet in 1879 he had set the nation ablaze by his Midlothian campaign; and although his orations there were delivered as a candidate for the seat, they were, and must have been intended to be, published by the newspapers all over the country.[430:3]It was, in fact, at this very time that Lord Hartington spoke of the far greater interest taken in public speeches than in debates in Parliament.[430:4]Not that the platform became at once of especial value to the party leaders. On the contrary, it was at first used much more frequently by the Anti-Corn-Law League, the Chartists and others. But since the introduction of something verynear manhood suffrage, which began in 1868, great popular movements, unconnected with party politics, have become well-nigh impossible. In a real democracy there is little use in trying to overawe the government by a display of physical force, and hence an agitation has for its natural object the winning of votes. But the House of Commons has now been brought so fully into accord with the masses of the people that any strong popular sentiment is certain to find immediate expression there. Once in the House it is on the edge of a whirlpool, for even if it originates quite outside of the existing parties, and gives rise, at first, to a new political group, it can hardly fail, as it gathers headway, to be drawn into the current of one of the two great parties, and find a place in their programme. Now in any question connected with party politics the highest interest attaches to the speeches of the party leaders, both because they are the standard bearers in the fight, and because they are the men who have power, or at the next turn of the wheel will have power, to give effect to their opinions.

Public Speaking now Universal.

The platform has thus had a perfectly natural evolution. So long as elections to the House of Commons were controlled by a small number of persons, public speaking could be effective only occasionally, when popular feeling could be deeply stirred over some grievance; and it was employed chiefly by outsiders in an effort to force the hands of Parliament. This was in part true even after 1832. But when the suffrage was more widely extended in 1868, so that elections depended upon the good-will of the masses, it became necessary for any one with political aspirations to reach the public at large, and the most obvious means of so doing was from the platform. Speeches by candidates at elections became universal, and in order not to let the flame of loyalty burn low, it has been increasingly common to fan it at other times, by the talking of members to their constituents, and still more by addresses to the whole community on the part of leaders of national reputation. Public speaking has, therefore, become constant, without regardto the existence of any issue of unusual prominence. James Russell Lowell long ago made a remark to the effect that democracy is government by declamation, and certainly household suffrage has loosened the tongues of public men. An observer at the present day is struck by the fluency of Englishmen upon their feet, and by the free use of humour as a means of emphasis, instead of the sonorous phrases formerly styled oratory.

The Platform has Increased the Influence of Party Leaders.

It has now become a settled custom for the cabinet ministers and the leaders of the parliamentary Opposition to make a business of speaking during the late autumn and the spring recess; and the habit tends to magnify their power, for they are the only persons who have fully the ear of the public. Except for a few important utterances, the debates in Parliament are not very widely read; editorials in the press are read solely by members of one political faith; the remarks of private members to their constituents are published only in the local papers; but public speeches by the chief ministers, and to a less extent those by the principal leaders of the Opposition, are printed at great length by the newspapers of both parties, and are read everywhere.[432:1]

Moreover, the platform gives a greater freedom than the floor of the House. The ministers do not want to bring before Parliament a policy they are not immediately prepared to push through, nor would it be easy to find time amid the business of a session to do so. It is not altogether an accident, it is rather a sign of the times, that Mr. Chamberlain broached his plan of preferential tariffs, not in Parliament, but at a public meeting in Birmingham. It was, indeed, a strange thing to see an ardent discussion on a most important question conducted in public meetings and in the press, while the ministers were striving to prevent debate upon it in the House of Commons. It was a mark of thelimitation which the course of events has placed upon Parliament. The platform has brought the ministers face to face with the people, and this has increased the political importance of both. Not only is the electorate the ultimate arbiter in political matters, but the platform has in some degree supplanted the House as the forum where public questions are discussed.

Back to Index Next