to suppose that the common good could be achieved by a system that tends to create and perpetuate party strife and national animosities. We might as well create discord in order to produce harmony, or provoke quarrels for the purpose of promoting friendship and cordiality. The most extraordinary part of the matter is that there are still men to be found who believe such a vicious system is essential to parliamentary government.

This species of party warfare, too, is peculiar to parliamentary life, I had almost said to English parliamentary life, for it has not fairly established itself in any non-English speaking races, and even in England itself it has found no place in any other departments of public or private service. It is unknown in the Church. Ecclesiastical assemblies, whether established or dissident, have not adopted it, and I am not aware that these assemblies are more disorderly, or that their business is worse conducted on that account. It is also unknown in municipal life, where the representative system is in full vigour. The local representatives do not range themselves in hostile camps and spend their time and energies in faction fights. On the contrary, they meet, discuss and vote on civic matters, and absolutely ignore parliamentary precedent in their mode of conducting business. Party organization is equally unknown in commercial life, where the repre

sentative system also exists. The board of directors is a miniature parliament elected by the shareholders to manage their business for them. But no one ever heard of party organizations in the board-room of a joint stock company. A commercial undertaking conducted on the approved parliamentary model would be doomed to certain ruin. Had Government by Party not come into existence under exceptional circumstances; had it not been the slow growth of generations; had it not been associated with the names of our most eminent men and with some of the proudest events of our history and had almost become a part of our natural life, it would find few defenders amongst us at the present day. The system is tolerated because of old associations, and because we have come to think that it is in some way an essential part of our time-honoured Constitution; but if it were now, for the first time, proposed for our acceptance, I venture to say that it would not recommend itself either to the intelligence or to the moral sense of the community.

CHAPTER IV.

OUTSIDE PRESSURE.

OUTSIDE pressure is a new force in politics. In former times, the only means of communication between the general public and Parliament was through the electoral body. Until within a century ago, public meetings, at all events for political purposes, were almost unknown, political organizations were unheard of, and the platform and the press were not recognized as organs of public opinion. Parliament was then regarded as the sole exponent of the wishes and opinions of the country, and any reference in either House to what had been said or done outside of it with a view to influence its decisions was considered as derogatory to its dignity, or as an interference with its rights and privileges, and was resented accordingly. Public meetings, the practice of petitioning Parliament on national questions, and organizations for political purposes, all originated about the

close of the last century. The first public meeting of note of which we have any record was the famous assembly of the freeholders of Middlesex, and afterwards of Yorkshire, to protest against the proceedings of the House of Commons for expelling John Wilkes. About the same time, petitions began to be presented to Parliament in favour of constitutional reform, and the abolition of the slave trade. The first political organization was the "Society for supporting the Bill of Rights," which was followed by the "Protestant Association," "The Repeal Association,” "The Anti-Slavery Association," and the "Catholic Repeal League," and others of a similar character.

These various movements marked the commencement of a new era in English politics. They were the indications of the changed attitude of the people towards parliamentary institutions. Public meetings and political organizations grew out of the abuses of our representative system. Parliament had now ceased to represent the people, and the people began to look elsewhere for redress. As long as Parliaments were of short duration, the House of Commons was fairly representative of the great body of the people. Public grievances were rapidly cleared off by each Parliament as they arose, and were not allowed to accumulate for indefinite periods as they do now. When the term of Parliament was length

ened, however, the Commons were relieved from the control of their constituents. Members who held their seats for seven years were not under any obligation to deal promptly with, and, as a matter of fact, did not trouble themselves about, the grievances of their constituents. Much-needed reforms were accordingly put off from year to year; public grievances accumulated beyond hope of redress; the old channel of public opinion got blocked up, and the obstructed stream overflowed its banks and formed for itself new channels. It is along one of these new channels that we are now proceeding.

In order to prevent the accumulation of public grievances greater promptitude is required in disposing of them on the part of Parliament. The necessity for this is now beginning to be recognized. Matters of importance are discussed out of doors, on the platform and in the press, as they arise, and Parliament is sometimes greatly influenced by the opinions so expressed. Thus, the attitude of Parliament towards the general public has completely changed. Demonstrations of opinion, which, a century ago, would have been treated with contempt, and those who took part in them probably punished for sedition, are now accepted as the voice of the country. The general public have been taken into favour. Public opinion, or outside pressure, has become a

H