em

well-administered and up-to-date' county, was phasised in a paper read in May last before the Farmers' Club on the work of the Kent Rural Community Council. For about two years after its formation the Council was mainly engaged in making a series of inquiries to obtain information as to sociological conditions in the villages of the county. Thus the Council made a detailed inquiry into the provision of public village halls and playing fields, another into the condition of rural industries, another into the scarcity of skilled farm-workers, and another into the existence and position of apprenticeship charities,' of which there are known to be several in the county. In other counties other inquiries of a similar nature may have been made; but it is certain that for the country as a whole such information is lacking.

To sum up-If a really useful survey of the countryside were to be undertaken, two points at the outset would need careful consideration. First, what are its precise objects and scope, having regard not only to the facts which it is desired to ascertain, but also to the suitability of this method for obtaining them? I have suggested elsewhere that this question might be referred to a small representative committee for consideration and report. The second point to be settled would be the machinery by which such an inquiry could be expeditiously and economically carried out. The precedent of the Enclosure Commission has been cited and the work to be done is not dissimilar. But if the appointment of an ad hoc authority were deemed inadvisable there is a body in existence-the Development Commission-which might reasonably be entrusted with the

task.

HENRY REW.

Art. 11.-THE MANNERS AND TRADITIONS OF PARLIA

MENT.

the 1. The Historical and the Posthumous Memoirs of Sir Nathaniel William Wraxall. Edited by Henry B.

in

be

he

Wheatley. Bickers, 1884.

2. The Creevey Papers. Edited by Sir Herbert Maxwell, Bart. Murray, 1903.

3. The Greville Papers. Edited by Henry Reeve. Longmans, 1875.

4. Lord George Bentinck. By Benjamin Disraeli. Longmans, 1871.

WHEREVER the topic of parliamentary manners and traditions may be mooted, the inevitable comment is upon their evident and palpable decay, and the consequent danger to the very foundations of the Constitution. This is the universal verdict of the Press, which, although it has ceased to give anything but a travesty of our debates,* yet accepts as the merest commonplace that the House of Commons has sunk to an abyss of degraded manners from which it can never emerge. It confirms its own view by reproducing, in the most exaggerated form, an occasional lively incident or unmannerly interjection-which in fact has passed and has been forgotten in a few minutes, assigning to it almost the same space which is spared for an important debate upon which great issues often depend. It would be easy to illustrate this by copious examples. But we have no wish to rush into the lists against the newest and perhaps most powerful Estate of the realm; and we have no doubt whatever that the business instincts of its directors have inspired them with a shrewd perception of their own commercial interests.

Far be it from us to say that there is not a grave danger lest the chief governing body in our realm should lose its hold upon the nation by the decay of the interest and respect which it is essential that it should maintain. The weight of the House of Commons amongst the Estates of the realm has increased enormously. But

* It may be well to say that the present writer is one who has been a Member of the House for a very considerable number of years, and has for many more years been intimate with its ways and manners.

that has not prevented the growth of vigorous competitors, whose movements are more untrammelled, who can strike out new lines of their own, and who, above all, exercise what is practically irresponsible power. The House must act with the constant consciousness that it must eschew innovations. The fact, moreover, that under the Constitution it possesses practically unlimited power, must make it wary of giving rise to suspicions of extending that power in practice.

We propose to consider the present Parliamentary situation, calmly and without prejudice, and without ignoring much that has given rise to grave scandal, and to deep regret amongst those who most value constitutional government. We would invite those who are most keenly alive to the defects, to consider the enormous difficulties which have been the inheritance of centuries. Has any great political institution, in any country, had to accommodate itself, often within a few years, to such vast constitutional and social changes? The powers of a sovereign may be entirely remodelled. If so, those who wield those powers must learn by their own personal action to accommodate themselves to these changes. But how is this to be done in the case of a popular assembly whose authority might very well be destroyed by that collective responsibility, which generally means no responsibility at all? Within the Assembly fierce antagonisms exist. The rancour of party cannot by any conceivable process be averted. The aims of more than 600 men gathered in that House are infinitely diverse. With functions revolutionised, not so much by statute as by slow and almost imperceptible process of change, who would have dared to predict that the political institution, which is really the hinge upon which our Constitution turns, would remain keenly alive, as it has done, to its own continuous individuality and to its inherent sense of responsibility? Not only so, but that it would show signs of becoming even more alert to the preservation of that continuous individuality, to the recognition of that conscious responsibility? Yet we venture to think that we shall be able to prove that this represents the real facts of the case. Nothing is more certain than that every new year of Parliamentary experience reveals to every member

of the House who understands its spirit, more and more of that continuous collective personality of the House which is far more powerful than any separate personality in the House. For the composition of the House it is, of course, the nation and not the House itself that is responsible. We have ourselves made, in deference to the presumed trend of public opinion, vast and—to say the least of it-hazardous extensions of the electorate; and with each extension, the selection is likely to be guided more and more by caprice, and less and less by any preponderance of judicial wisdom. Yet, in spite of the changes, chances, and almost reckless hazards, we assert that there remains in the House this mysterious and hereditary sense of continuous existence. It haunts the very precincts; it inspires a certain partnership in which all share. It is the source of all the best appeals which can be made to the solemn and overriding sense of justice and fair dealing which is inherent in the House, and may always be kindled into activity. It is often the most effective awakener of that sense of revolt against what offends the inherited sense of what is dignified and becoming. Those who lack imagination, and who sneer at historical tradition and all it involves, will, of course, be the last to come under the influence of that potent sway, and of many it may safely be said that they will never even remotely perceive its value and fundamental importance. To the vast proportion of the House it, nevertheless, remains an inspiration, and amply compensates us for long hours of weary labour and of baffled effort. It is the possession of this inestimable heritage that raises the House of Commons above all its compeers, all over the world. Any irresponsible scoffer or cynic will, of course, discount this and dispose of it in a few sentences of shallow wit. But it is just as well that the truth should occasionally be told; and we make bold to say that no one who has

A curious instance of this lack of what is becoming is given by a letter which appeared in 'The Times' recently, in which a certain member, instead of apologising for his exaggerated intrusion upon the time and patience of the House, actually makes it a boast that he and another of his colleagues, inflicted upon the House no less than some 1500 questions during the course of last session. The privilege of putting oral questions is one to be exercised with a due sense of responsibility. If all exercised it in the spirit of this boast the position would clearly become intolerable.

risen to the level of the inherited standard of the House, will hesitate about giving his adherence to the truth of its vital and energising tradition.

It has survived through many hazards, and has asserted itself against avowed and dangerous attacks, which might have gone far to destroy a less vigorous vitality. The House has often been obliged to accept within its walls those whose avowed object it was to undermine its character, and to destroy its powers at the root. Its leaders, however able and zealous, have not uniformly been loyal to the underlying collective personality of the House, and have not rarely forgotten the delicacy of the conditions upon which it depends. We have notorious instances of offences against the dignity of the House during recent days, to which we shall presently refer further. But we must not overlook some older and more conspicuous offenders, whose example might well have led to lamentable results and who had less right to put forward the exercise of ignorance, lack of experience, and the want of the steadying influence of hereditary responsibility.

This is not the place, even were it possible to do so, to trace in detail all the steps by which Parliamentary traditions and usages have grown up. Comparisons between remote times and the present day would, if thoroughly carried out, yield much of deep interest to the student of our Constitution; and all members of Parliament owe a very deep debt of gratitude to Sir Erskine May and to his most competent successors who have supplemented his work in this direction. But our object now is to make a general survey of the aspects of Parliamentary life in certain typical periods not too remote from our own day, and when the fundamental constitutional position was much the same; and by means of that survey to estimate the position of matters in our own day, and to compare the different standards of those days and of our own.

In the earlier part of the 18th century, the House of Commons held by no means the preponderating influence which later accrued to it. The number of people who interested themselves in politics was vastly smaller. The newspaper press was of little importance, and its place was taken by pamphleteers who used pens of un