breach of privilege. They expelled and imprisoned one of their own members for printing without permission a collection of his own speeches. A report of a debate in the House of Lords, written by the celebrated John Lock, was ordered by the Privy Council to be publicly burnt by the hangman. Cave, the bookseller, was imprisoned for having furnished a friend with notes of the proceedings of the House of Commons. During a debate in 1738, on the subject of reporting the proceedings of Parliament, one member said:" If we don't put a speedy stop to this practice [of reporting], you will have the speeches of this House every day printed, even during your session; and we shall be looked upon as the most contemptible assembly on the face of the earth." Pulteney and Walpole expressed their condemnation of the practice in unqualified terms, and the same House unanimously resolved that the reporting of the proceedings of Parliament "is a high indignity to, and a notorious breach of, the privileges of this House," and "that this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such offenders." The representatives of those days did not consider that their constituents had any right to criticise their proceedings in Parliament, and therefore had no claim to information as to what was said or done there. Even the

1 Parl. Hist., pp. 800-811.

Even

publication of the division lists was prohibited. Thus the secrecy of debate, originally intended as a safeguard against the Crown, was used as a pretext for protecting members from their constituents. In this manner did Parliament treat their constituents and flaunt their independence before the world.

And this Act is still the law of England. Numerous attempts have been made to repeal it, but they have all failed. For one hundred and fifty years, off and on, has the question been debated in Parliament. Resolutions without number have been brought before the House for shortening the duration of Parliament, but they have all been defeated by large majorities, although they have been supported by the most eminent statesmen in the country. Among the names of those who voted with the minority on this question are to be found Earl Grey, Lord Brougham, Sir F. Burdett, Sir James Mackintosh, C. Buller, George Grote, Joseph Hume, Serjeant Talfourd, Col. Thompson, C. P. Villiers, and, when first seeking election, Benjamin Disraeli. But notwithstanding the prolonged and vigorous agitation against the Act, no progress whatever has been made towards repeal. Of late years, indeed, no attempt has been made in this direction. We have made progress in most matters since the beginning of the last century when this Act was passed, and Parliament has been driven

forward with the times; but the Septennial Act still remains on the statute book. The political creed of to-day is very different from what it was in the time of the three Georges; but on the question of the duration of Parliament, and of the relation of the representative to his constituents which is involved in it, there has been literally no progress. The spirit of the eighteenth century stills pervades the Parliament of to-day; members have the same distrust of their constituents, the same impatience of control; and if they do not express their feelings so offensively, they show the same inclination to assert their independence of the constituent body as did their predecessors at the beginning of the last century.

CHAPTER III.

GOVERNMENT BY PARTY.

THE passing of the Septennial Act prepared the way for a complete change in the Constitution. Being practically free from the control of their constituents, the Commons proceeded to assert their independence in a very practical way. Agents they no longer pretended to be; they only used their procuratorial position in order to promote their own private ends as principals. Instead of devoting their services to the affairs of their constituents, they openly went into business on their own account. On entering Parliament they found that there was a demand for their votes; and as they wanted office or place or pay what more natural than that they should endeavour to make an exchange? But the great offices of state were already filled, and there was a limit to the dispensation of ministerial favours, the latter being reserved for the friends of the govern

ment. That those who were out of office, or who had been excluded from a share of ministerial favours, should clamour for a change of administration and should combine for such a purpose, was only what might be expected. Accordingly they formed themselves into an organized band, called the Opposition, and held themselves in readiness to oppose the government on every possible occasion. Ministers, on the other hand, being thus attacked, had also to organize their supporters, and so we had two hostile bodies, ranged on opposite sides of the House, each under its own leader, the one fighting to retain, and the other to seize, possession of the treasury benches. Here we have the beginning of a new system of government. This is what is now called Government by Party.

In carrying out such a system as this it is evident that the good of the country is likely to be sacrificed for the benefit of party. If the government be carried on purely in the interests of party, it is very certain this cannot be to the advantage of the country. The motives and aims in the one case are distinct from, if not incompatible with, the motives and aims in the other, unless we are to assume that the interests of party and of the country are identical, which would be as correct as to assert that an individual in following his own selfish interests was acting disinterestedly