Proportional Representation: A Study in Methods of Election

by John H. Humphreys

CHAPTER X

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AND PARTY GOVERNMENT

"Parties form and re-form themselves; they come together, dissolve, and again come together; but in this flux and reflux a stability reigns such as we observe amid similar phenomena in the course of nature; and indeed it is the course of nature, only working in the world of politics instead of the world of physics."—LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

"To think in programmes is Egyptian bondage, and works the sterilization of the political intellect."—AUGUSTINE BIRRELL

Hitherto the objection most often urged against proportional representation has been that it is impracticable; the successful working, however, of the single transferable vote in Tasmania, in the elections of the South African Senate and in the Transvaal Municipal elections, and of list systems in Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Würtemberg and Finland has furnished a complete answer to this objection. Manhood suffrage obtains in Belgium, adult suffrage in Tasmania and Finland, and if, in countries possessing a franchise so democratic, proportional systems have proved successful, it is no longer possible to declare that proportional representation is impracticable. Indeed, the practicability of proportional representation is now generally admitted, and its critics prefer to lay stress upon objections of another character. They even complain, as does Professor Jenks, that "the supporters of the movement appear to be concentrating all their arguments on the feasibility of their project, quietly assuming that its desirability is axiomatic."[1] It does seem axiomatic that it is desirable that representative institutions should reflect the views of those represented, but it is now alleged that the representative principle is merely "a means of getting things done," that the chief function of the House of Commons is to provide the country with a strong Government, and that proportional representation would render these things impossible "because there would be no permanent majority strong enough to get its own way."

Proportional representation and the two-party system.

This fear of a weakened executive doubtless explains why many others who admit the justice and practicability of proportional representation, still hesitate to support a reform the effects of which may greatly modify existing parliamentary conditions. "We have still," said The Westminster Gazette,[2] "to be convinced that we shall do well to make still more difficult the maintenance of the two-party system, and that it seems to us would almost certainly be the effect of proportional representation." Ten years ago some professed supporters of proportional representation took up the extraordinary position of allowing it only in respect of two great parties within a State,[3] and quoted in support of their views the words of Professor Paul Reinsch in his work on World Politics: "It is still as true as when Burke wrote his famous defence of party, in his Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents, that, for the realization of political freedom, the organization of the electorate into regular and permanent parties is necessary. Parliamentary government has attained its highest success only in those countries where political power is held alternately by two great national parties." Is no allowance to be made for the fluidity of progressive democracy? Is it imagined that active political thought can be compelled to follow stereotyped channels? Too profound a respect for a system designed to meet former conditions led the Royal Commission on Electoral Methods to the conclusion that, "reviewing the whole of the evidence, and duly considering the gravity of the change involved, we are unable to report that a case has been made out before us for the adoption of the transferable vote here and now for elections to the House of Commons."[4] The Commission proceed "to emphasize the exact nature and limitations of this conclusion," which ultimately amounts to no more than a suggestion for the postponement of an inevitable change.[5] But the fact remains that the Royal Commission accepted the theory of government placed before it by those who desire to maintain the existing party system and who are of opinion that that system can only be maintained by single-member constituencies and the majority method of election. "On the question," says the Commission, "whether the representation of all parties in proportion to their voting strength is in itself desirable, we may point out that it is not a fair argument against the present system that it fails to produce such a result, because it does not profess to do so. A General Election is, in fact, considered by a large portion of the electorate of this country as practically a referendum on the question which of two governments shall be returned to power."[6] " … The case of those who hold that the transferable vote is not capable of application in this country rests only to a very slight extent on its mechanical difficulties…. The most potent arguments are a theory of representation on the one hand and a theory of government on the other."[7] It is evident that the most important objection which advocates of proportional representation have to meet concerns its probable effect upon party organization and upon party government, and it is therefore necessary to consider this objection in detail.

Burke's view of party and party discipline.

In the first place, can Burke's definition of party be used in defence of modern party organization and discipline? The character of these has fundamentally changed since Burke's time. His conception of national parties and also, perhaps, of the probable influence of a system of proportional representation upon their formation may be gathered from his own words. "Party," says Burke, "is a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed. For my part I find it impossible to conceive that any one believes in his own politics, or thinks them to be of any weight, who refuses to adopt the means of having them reduced into practice. It is the business of the speculative philosopher to mark the proper ends of government. It is the business of the politician, who is the philosopher in action, to find out proper means towards those ends, and to employ them with effect. Therefore every honourable connexion will avow it is their first purpose to pursue every just method to put the men who hold their opinions into such a condition as may enable them to carry their common plans into execution, with all the power and authority of the state." No advocate of proportional representation would in the least quarrel with Burke's definition of party or deny that sustained effort and efficient organization are absolutely essential if practical effect is to be given to political principles. Burke, however, did not contemplate a party system in which complete submission to the programme of the party was considered an essential condition of membership. Burke's definition of party must be read in conjunction with his own interpretation of the term. "In order," says he, "to throw an odium on political connexion, these politicians suppose it a necessary incident to it that you are blindly to follow the opinions of your party, when in direct opposition to your own clear ideas; a degree of servitude that no worthy man could bear the thought of submitting to; and such as, I believe, no connexions (except some court factions) ever could be so senselessly tyrannical as to impose. Men thinking freely will, in particular instances, think differently. But still as the greater part of the measures which arise in the course of public business are related to, or depend on, some great leading general principles in government, a man must be peculiarly unfortunate in the choice of his political company, if he does not agree with them at least nine times in ten. If he does not concur in these general principles upon which the party is founded, and which necessarily draw on a concurrence in their application, he ought from the beginning to have chosen some other, more conformable to his opinions."[8] Burke does not limit the number of parties to two, and if his authority is to be invoked in support of the maintenance of the two-party system, it can only be invoked in support of the maintenance of two parties which are based on such leading general principles as will cover the whole field of politics, and the organization of which is such as to leave to members of the party a considerable measure of freedom in respect of individual questions. "We may be confident," says Lord Courtney of Penwith, "that the two main divisions will survive, the one pressing forward and the other cautiously holding back,"[9] and in so far as it corresponds to the two main tendencies in human thought the two-party system will doubtless survive any change in voting method. But with the spread of political intelligence it cannot possibly survive the rigidity of modern discipline—a rigidity which Burke would have been the first to repudiate—nor can it survive the modern tendency towards the formation of parties for the purpose of carrying specific reforms.

Narrow basis fatal to a large party.

The complete transformation of the Conservative Party into a Tariff Reform Party would considerably narrow its basis, and any narrowing of the basis of one party must help to break down the two-party system. For although Tariff Reform is a matter of great national interest, having very far-reaching effects, it obviously does not cover the whole field of politics. There is no fundamental and necessary relation between Tariff Reform and Home Rule, the constitutional position of the House of Lords, or the special problem of the place of religion in national education. Nor does it necessarily or even naturally attract those cautious intellects which are the typical supporters of Conservatism. The strenuous efforts which have been made in recent years to exclude from the Unionist Party all who are unwilling to accept the policy of Tariff Reform have, it is true, been crowned with considerable success, but there is a limit to the process of unification. Should the advocates of this fiscal change, for example, have desired to make terms with the Nationalist party for the purpose of carrying their policy, any attempt to impose those terms upon all members of the party would have resulted in a further and probably a more serious split. In such circumstances parties necessarily give place to groups, and the fissiparous tendency is most apparent where party discipline is most rigid. The solidarity of the German Social Democratic Party will only be maintained by according liberty of action in local matters to the South German Socialists.[10] The formation of the French Unified Socialist Party was a work of considerable difficulty, and its maintenance will only be possible if its constituent parts can tolerate differences of opinion. The two sections of the English Labour Party have been able to work together by concentrating their efforts on reforms which are advocated by both, whilst the troubles which have arisen within the smaller group, the Independent Labour Party, have sprung from attempts to insist upon a narrow interpretation of the term Independent. The narrower the basis on which the parties are formed and the more rigid the discipline employed, the more difficult will become the maintenance of the two-party system. If, then, it is considered essential to the successful working of parliamentary government that there should be but two parties, these parties must be based on broad leading principles and must be so organized as to allow for differences of opinion on minor matters. With the increase in the number of questions of first-class importance it will, however, be difficult to maintain even the semblance of the two-party system, and in the absence of those more elastic political conditions which a system of proportional representation provides, absolutely impossible.

Proportional representation and party discipline.

The argument in the preceding paragraphs can be illustrated from the effect of proportional systems on party organization in those countries in which they are at present in force. In Belgium the prophecy was repeatedly made that the new law would result in the splitting of parties into petty factions, rendering parliamentary government impossible. Its real effect has been, if anything, of the contrary character. There are still but three Belgian parties—Catholic, Liberal, and Socialist. Their principles have tended to become more clearly defined, but within each party there has arisen a considerable freedom of opinion in respect to all political questions which do not spring directly from the principles on which the parties are based. This was clearly shown in the discussion on the proposals for the annexation of the Congo. At the conference of Liberals held before the General Election of 1908 it was decided that the annexation of the Congo should be treated as a question libre. M. Vandervelde, at the same time, expressed opinions on this subject which were contrary to those held by the majority of Socialists, whilst several Catholics, who disapproved of the terms on which the Congo was offered to the nation, did not hesitate to say so. None of these expressions of opinion involved ostracism from the party, and, although party discipline is strict, there is but little doubt that this freedom of movement in respect to non-party questions will continue to grow. The annexation of the Congo was voted in due course, but the original draft of the Treaty received important modifications which were due largely to the action and criticism of the more independent Conservatives.

The question of free trade or protection does not, at the present time, occupy a prominent place in Belgian politics, but should it do so, there is no reason to assume that opinions either for or against free trade would involve, as here, ostracism from any party. Such conditions admit of a much more genuine discussion of public and of economic questions. In England, with the system of single-member constituencies, Unionist Free Traders have had the alternative placed before them of submitting to the opinions of the majority of the party or of retiring from all active participation in public life. In Belgium, on the other hand, proportional representation has induced parties, while adhering to their fundamental principles, to make their lists of candidates as inclusive as possible. The list presented by the Catholics at Ghent in 1908 contained not only a free trader and a protectionist, but representatives of different classes of interests within the constituency, of agriculture, of landed proprietors, of workmen and of masters of industry. Stress was laid upon the comprehensive character of their list in the election address issued by the Catholics, and each party endeavoured to make its list representative of the forces within the party. Special efforts indeed are taken to accomplish this end; in the preparation of the Liberal list members of the organization took part in the preliminary selection of candidates, the final choice being determined by a formal election. In reporting that the Belgian system of proportional representation "is not favourable to small independent parties, or, what is of greater interest to many observers in this country, to small sections or wings of large parties," the Royal Commission on Electoral Systems misinterpreted the working of the Belgian system. It is true that the Christian Democrats form the only small party in Belgium which has obtained direct representation, but the Belgian system has certainly given representation to the wings of large parties. Count Goblet d'Alviella, who was examined by the Commission, has kindly furnished some observations upon the Commission's statement. "Whenever there is room," he writes, "that is, where the seats are numerous enough, the leaders take the greatest care to choose representatives of the principal shades of opinion within their party lines. At Brussels in 1910 the Catholics placed on their list not only M. Colfs, who upset their order of precedence in the previous election, but also M. Theodor, who, for the last three times, headed—unsuccessfully—a separate list of the so-called Independent Party. The Liberal list at Brussels has been formed by the joint action of Moderates (Ligue libérale) and Radicals (Association libérale), each of these two organizations trying to give satisfaction to their own subdivisions (Flemish and Walloon, rural and urban, &c.). At Antwerp the Liberal list has been formed by five Liberal organizations, each one choosing its own representative." The M. Colfs referred to in Count Goblet d'Alviella's letter strongly opposed the military proposals of the Belgian Government, but he was, nevertheless, placed by the party organization on the official list. Thus, in Belgium wings of parties undoubtedly obtain their legitimate influence, and this renders the formation of independent small parties superfluous. The number of broad general principles on which political parties can be based is strictly limited, and this explains why neither the Belgian nor any other system of proportional representation will produce innumerable parties.

"Free Questions" in Japan.

The electoral system in Japan, giving as it does great freedom for the expression of political opinion, has resulted, as in Belgium, in the separation of political questions into two types—party and free. According to Mr. Kametaro Hayashida, the Secretary of the Japanese House of Representatives, the measures before parliament are duly considered at party meetings; after deliberation a decision is taken as to whether the measure under discussion should be treated as a party question, or whether freedom of action should be permitted to the individual members of the party, and a communication, embodying the result of the party meeting, is then sent to every member. Here then we get additional evidence of the amelioration of party spirit, which follows the adoption of a more elastic system of representation. Political debate must become in such cases not only more real but infinitely more valuable. The number of questions left to the discretion of the individual member is by no means inconsiderable, as will be seen from the following figures showing the attitude taken by the various parties towards public questions in 1908:—

(1)—Laws

Party . . . . . Constitutionalist Progressive Conservative Radical

Party questions . 105 75 66 —
Free questions. . 2 32 41 107

(2)—Petitions

Party . . . . . Constitutionalist Progressive Conservative Radical

Party questions . 63 167 68 —
Free questions. . 119 15 114 182

"It should be noted," says Mr. Hayashida, "that the Radicals had no party questions, but made all questions free. On the other hand, the Constitutionalists, who supported the Government, made party questions of practically all laws submitted. On the average, apart from the Radicals, the three other parties treated 23 per cent. of the laws, and 37 per cent. of the petitions in the twenty-sixth session of the Imperial Japanese Diet as free questions."

The formation of groups.

Such evidence as we possess does not then warrant the assumption that a proportional system leads to an increase in the number of political parties. It makes them more elastic. On the other hand, it has been demonstrated beyond any doubt that a system of single-member constituencies has completely failed to maintain the two-party system. In England the Labour Party forms within the House of Commons a distinct camp by itself, the Nationalist Party still more jealously guards its independence, and at the election of January, 1910, a smaller group of Independent Nationalists was formed. The rise of the Labour Party in Australia was not prevented by a system of single-member constituencies. In Germany and France single-member constituencies have not arrested the development of groups with national, religious, or sectional programmes. When, therefore, it is contended that proportional representation will lead to the formation of groups, the obvious answer is that it is the present system which is producing groups; and should the representation obtained by these groups, as in France and Germany and in Australia, give no clear indication of public opinion, then the instability which has been a characteristic of French and for a time of Australian parliamentary conditions may become characteristic of the House of Commons.

Nor do those advocates of proportional representation, who desire to maintain the two-party system by artificial means, offer any machinery adequate for the purpose. In an article written before the first elections for the Commonwealth parliament, Mr. Deakin wrote as follows:—

"By the very circumstances of the case the tariff issue cannot but dominate the first election, and determine the fate of the first ministry of the Commonwealth. There will be no time for second thoughts or for suspension of judgment. The first choice of the people will be final on this head. The first parliament must be either protectionist or anti-protectionist, and its first great work an Australian tariff. That is the clear-cut issue. The risk is that a proportion of the representatives may be returned upon other grounds, as the electors as a whole may not realise all that is at stake or make the necessary sacrifices or opinion and preferences to express themselves emphatically on this point."

In commenting upon this declaration the supporters of so-called two-party proportional representation[11] said:

"The only way to avoid the risk indicated is to take this one definite issue as the basis of proportional representation. Each State should be divided on it, and should elect its proportional number of Free-trade and Protectionist representatives." But how are all the electors to be constrained into accepting the dictates of party leaders as to the lines upon which elections shall be fought? The Labour Party in Australia apparently considered the special principles for which they stood of more importance than either Free Trade or Protection. The English Labour Party would doubtless adopt the same point of view, whilst the Nationalists regard the Tariff question as of little importance as compared with Home Rule. "The rude and crude division," said Mr. Asquith, "which used to correspond more or less accurately with the facts of a representative assembly of two parties, had perhaps become everywhere more or less a thing of the past."[12] There are no means available for restoring the earlier conditions, and certainly the existing electoral system of single-member constituencies affords no guarantee that in the future any one party will obtain a permanent majority strong enough to get its own way. The maintenance in form of the two-party system during the parliament of 1906-10 was merely due to the accident of the phenomenal election of 1906, when the Liberal Party was returned in such numbers as to exceed the combined forces of all other groups. At the General Election of January, 1910, five parties entered the field, and as a result of this election no party obtained an absolute majority. In the important parliamentary debates which arose immediately after the election each of these groups took part, as such, for the purpose of emphasizing their independence, and when, consequent upon the death of King Edward, a conference on the constitutional question was arranged between the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal parties, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, in commenting upon the conference, made this statement: "He regretted that there was going to be any conference at all, but if there was going to be one he, as a member of the Labour Party, denied the right of the two front benches to settle it. They no longer represented the House of Commons or the opinion of the country. There were other benches."[13] Obviously, if other benches are to be taken into consideration in the solution of constitutional questions, it is a matter of importance to know the true strength that lies behind those occupying them. The difference—an extremely important difference—that a proportional system would produce in the composition of the House of Commons is that the representation obtained by these groups would give a much more accurate clue to public opinion and, as in the long-run the strength of an executive depends upon its capacity to interpret the will of the people, the position of the executive would be rendered much more stable. This is the justification of Mr. Asquith's statement: "Let them have a House of Commons which fully reflected every strain of opinion; that was what made democratic government in the long-run not only safer and more free, but more stable."

But does parliamentary government, as the Royal Commission on Electoral Systems suggests, really depend for its working upon the maintenance of a system of election which admittedly distorts the real wishes of the people? This argument had been anticipated and effectively dealt with by M. Ostrogorski in his Democracy and Political Parties. "There arises," says he, "the old question of the Duke of Wellington, frightened by the prospect of the abolition of the rotten boroughs: How will the King's government be carried out? How will parliamentary government work? In reality the catastrophe will not be more than that which so alarmed the hero of Waterloo; now, as then, it will be nothing more nor less than the destruction of something rotten."[14] The King's government has been improved by the abolition of the rotten boroughs, and will be still further improved if opinion within the House of Commons is brought into more direct relation with opinion outside. The view taken by the Commission was not shared by one of its members, Lord Lochee, who in a note appended to the Report says: "I am not concerned to dispute that the introduction of proportional representation might involve important changes in parliamentary government. That, in my view, is not a question for the Commission. I shall, therefore, only say that I do not believe that the cause of good government is bound up with the maintenance of a distorted representation, or that British statesmanship would be unable to cope with the problems which a better system might bring in its train."

The formation of an executive.

Changes will doubtless take place in the method of carrying on the King's government, but they will take place very gradually, and will be evolved out of present conditions. It would be essential, as now, that the government should possess the confidence of the House of Commons and of the country, and, in order to obtain this confidence it would not be sufficient to secure a majority by means of bargainings between groups which involved important sacrifices of principle. Even with such rigid party discipline as now obtains it would be difficult and perhaps impossible to effect an alliance between Unionist Tariff Reformers and Nationalists for the purpose of carrying out a double policy of Tariff Reform and Home Rule. It is certain that under a system of proportional representation such an arrangement would be useless as a basis for a stable executive, for with the lessened rigidity in discipline party leaders would have no means of enforcing the terms of such bargains upon their followers. The composition of the House itself would give a clear indication of the main policies which would meet with the approval of the House and also of the Government which would command its confidence. It is perhaps unwise to attempt to map out in any detail the probable course of events, but there are some who are unwilling to take this step forward in the perfecting of democratic institutions without some clear conception of the way in which a good government might be formed under the new conditions. Professor Nanson of Melbourne has endeavoured to satisfy this anxiety by attempting to forecast the probable effect which a system of proportional representation would have upon the formation of governments in Australia, showing how such a system would enable a really stable executive to be formed.

"To bring the matter vividly before us," says he, "consider the two vital issues now before the Australian public. These are Protection and the Labour platform. Every elector and every candidate at once falls into one of four groups. For every one is either Protectionist or anti-Protectionist, and every one is either Labour or non-Labour. Every person is therefore either Protectionist and Labour, or Protectionist and non-Labour, or anti-Protectionist and Labour, or anti-Protectionist and non-Labour. Using the letters P, A, L, N to denote Protectionist, Anti-protectionist, Labour, Non-labour, we have four groups which we may denote by PL, PN, AL, AN.

"It is clear that if we can find out the number of voters in each group we can at once declare the verdict of the country for or against Protection, and for or against the Labour platform. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the percentage of voters are: Non-labour Protectionist, 32; Non-labour Anti-protectionist, 28; Labour Protectionist, 24; Labour Anti-protectionist, 16; as shown in the following table:—

P A
N …. 32 28 60
L …. 24 16 40
__
56 44 100

"Then it is clear that there is a majority of 60 per cent, to 40 per cent, against the Labour platform, and a majority of 56 per cent, to 44 per cent, in favour of protection. Under such circumstances the distribution of members in a House of 75 would be as follows:—

P A
N …. 24 21 45
L …. 18 12 30
_
42 33 75

"In such a House there would be a majority of 45 to 30 against the Labour platform, and a majority of 42 to 33 in favour of Protection. In such a House the only possible Ministry would be a Non-labour Protectionist. There would be a straight out Ministerial party of 24. There would be a right Ministerial Labour Protectionist wing of 18 bound to support the Ministry in its Protectionist policy. There would be a left Ministerial Anti-protectionist Non-labour wing of 21 bound to support the Ministry in its Non-labour policy. The straight out Opposition would be 12. Such a House might well be left to elect a Ministry. Every minister would, with a proper method of election, if necessary, be a Non-labour Protectionist. For there would be an absolute majority of the House against every Labour man and against every Anti-protectionist. Every Minister would be heart and soul with the Ministerial policy. There could then be no possibility of dirt eating or of voting against one's convictions, as is alleged to be the case at present."[15] The divisions between English political parties may not be so clearly cut nor the composition of the Executive so homogeneous as outlined in this forecast of Professor Nanson, but a proportional system would certainly yield a true indication of the mind of the nation on at least three, and probably more, of the important matters under discussion in England—Tariff Reform, Home Rule, and the constitutional position of the House of Lords. A clear expression of national opinion on these issues would determine the policy which an executive resting for authority upon the House of Commons would have to pursue, but, in addition, the improved electoral methods would yield unmistakable indications of the attitude of the nation towards those Labour and Social questions which will more and more claim the attention of Parliament. In brief, so far from proportional representation creating conditions unfavourable to the formation of a strong executive, it will furnish the only means by which in the future stable executives can be formed. It will place within the hands of governments a new and more delicate instrument with which to gauge public opinion, and it is on the accurate interpretation of public opinion that the continued existence of a government depends.

A check on partisan legislation.

But those who, with Professor Jenks, regard the representative principle as being merely a means of getting things done, will perhaps want some indication of the possibility, not only of forming an Executive under a proportional regime but of carrying legislation. There are obviously two aspects to this question. The power of initiating and of controlling legislation is now so largely in the hands of the executive authority that means are required not only of getting things done but of ensuring that the privileged position possessed by the executive authority is not abused. The present system enables a ministry in command of an overwhelming but false majority to impose upon the nation legislation with which the nation is not in accord. It is more than doubtful whether the Education and Licensing measures carried by Mr. Balfour's administration (1902-5) would have been acceptable to a House of Commons which was truly representative, and as Mr. Balfour's government dominated the House of Lords as completely as it controlled the House of Commons, the only check which existed upon the action of the Ministry was the fear of defeat when the time came for the inevitable appeal to the country. Such a check has proved to be inadequate to prevent the passage of partisan legislation, and the failure of the House of Commons to protect the nation against legislation of an arbitrary nature has given rise to the demand for checks of another character.

Unlike the referendum, proportional representation will strengthen the House of Commons.

Thus, it is now urged that the nation should, by means of the referendum, be afforded the opportunity of exercising that control over the executive which the House of Commons has lost. "Formerly," says Professor Dicey, "when the King was the real and effective sovereign of the country, and was responsible for its government, it was right that he should have a veto. The nation is now the sovereign, and what I propose is to place a veto in the hands of the nation.[16] Now, although proportional representation is not inconsistent with the referendum, yet these two reforms endeavour to cure the defects of representative institutions in different ways. The referendum, by transferring responsibility and authority from the House of Commons to the nation, will tend to diminish the importance of the representative chamber. Proportional representation, on the other hand, aims at strengthening the House by making it more fully representative, and in consequence more competent to discharge its true functions. Moreover, there are some practical objections to the referendum. There must always be considerable difficulty in framing the form in which a legislative proposal should be submitted to the country. To be permitted to say 'yes' or 'no' to a complicated measure is not sufficient. It would have been extremely difficult for most of the electors to have stated, without any qualification, whether they approved of Mr. Asquith's Licensing Bill of 1908. This measure was far too comprehensive to submit as a whole, and an unfavourable verdict would have given no clear indication as to the nation's wishes, and would have been open to serious misinterpretation. The new licensing duties and the new land taxes contained in the Finance Bill of 1909 had nothing in common, and it would have been necessary to have submitted a Bill of this nature in sections. Further, every time a measure which had passed the House of Commons was rejected by the nation, the prestige of the House would be impaired, and the conclusion is unavoidable that, were the referendum adopted, the House could only retain an authoritative position by introducing a system of proportional representation so as to bring it as closely as possible into agreement with the nation. It is, moreover, generally agreed that Finance Bills should not be the subject of a referendum, but in a modern state these are of as much importance as other legislation. The work of legislation demands special qualifications. When we select a doctor or a lawyer, or any other agent, we wish him to do his special work. The elector desires to have an effective choice in the selection of his representative in parliament, but having chosen a legislator with whom he is in sympathy entrusts the details of legislation to him. Proportional representation would give the elector this effective choice, and by restoring to members of Parliament a greater measure of freedom would enable the House of Commons to resume its proper function of controlling legislation. The need for the referendum would disappear.

Proportional Representation facilitates legislation desired by the nation.

It may be said, however, that there is here no indication of the means of getting things done, only of a check upon partisan action. But proportional representation, in rendering more difficult the passing of legislation conceived in a partisan spirit, will save the time and energy of Parliament for legislation which is more in accordance with the nation's will. The history of the numerous Education and Licensing Bills which have been presented to Parliament during the two decades 1890-1910 furnish an excellent example of the way in which a rigid party system results in the waste of parliamentary time. No wonder that the legislative machine has broken down. Efforts are now being made to increase the working capacity of the House of Commons, but if these are to be permanently successful, there must be such an abatement of partisan feeling as a system of proportional representation encourages. The changes which have been introduced in recent years into the procedure of the House of Commons are of a far-reaching character. According to the rules adopted in 1907, all Bills, other than money Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, are referred, after the passing of the second reading, to Standing Committees of the House, unless a resolution to the contrary is moved immediately and carried. There is a growing opinion in favour of these committees, the value of which is largely due to the greater sincerity in discussion which takes place in them. When Mr. Asquith moved the resolution allocating the time to be allowed for discussion on the Housing and Town Planning Bill, Lord Robert Cecil expressed the opinion that the system of guillotining debate was destructive of the legislative efficiency and the dignity of the House of Commons.[17] "Personally he thought some remedy might possibly be found in an extension of the Grand Committee system. He began with a violent prejudice against them. He had now sat on several of them, and he had come to the belief that, on the whole, they were by far the best instrument they now possessed, inferior though it was to a full and free discussion in the whole House for the consideration of legislation. The most important characteristic of them was that only those decided who heard the arguments. They did not have the disgusting farce that went on in that Chamber of members trooping in from outside who had not the slightest knowledge of the subject which had been discussed, who had not taken the slightest interest in it, and who merely asked the Whips at the door, 'Which side are we to-day?' and voted 'Aye' or 'No' as they were told. The Prime Minister recognized that the independence and dignity of the House were invaluable assets to the country, and had shown on many occasions a genuine desire to preserve the dignity of members of Parliament, and the self-respect of the House." Mr. Asquith, in reply to this statement, also expressed his opinion that by a larger and more elastic use of the system of Committees it would be possible to avoid some of the evils arising from the growing congestion of parliamentary business. "The Housing and Town Planning Bill was," said he, "a very good illustration of the useful purpose served by the Grand Committee. It was there for twenty-three days; it was discussed under almost ideal conditions; the closure was never moved from beginning to end; the Government Whips never sought to exert their authority in any one of the divisions which took place; and the discussion was conducted by men who were obliged to listen to the arguments of those who were opposed to them. As regards Bills of this character, it was perfectly certain that they got a much more accurate discussion, and decisions were arrived at far less under the stress of party prepossession than when a Bill was discussed in Committee of the whole House."

Thus it seems that a lessening of party discipline and a greater freedom and sincerity in discussion result in an acceleration of the rate of legislation, and as a proportional system favours these conditions it would materially assist the process of getting things done.

Proportional Representation in Standing Committees.

But this important change in the procedure of the House of Commons—the discussion of the details of legislation in Grand Committees instead of committees of the whole House—furnishes from another point of view cogent reasons for the adoption of a system of proportional representation. In the composition of these committees strict care is taken to allot representation to the various parties within the House in proportion to their strength. Otherwise these committees would not possess the confidence of the House. But if the composition of committees on a proportionate basis is a condition of their success, would not their work be even more successful if in the first instance the strength of parties within the House corresponded to the number of their supporters in the country? The House of Commons would enjoy the confidence of the nation, and its standing committees would acquire greater authority because they, in turn, would be fully representative.

One of the most important of these committees is the Scottish Grand Committee, to which all Scottish Bills are referred. All Scottish members are appointed to this committee, but in order that its composition should conform to the rule—that committees should reflect the strength of parties within the House—it has been found necessary to add thereto a number of English Conservatives who often, if not usually, have not the special qualifications necessary for dealing with the details of Scottish questions. If the purpose for which the Scottish Grand Committees have been constituted is to be fulfilled, it will be necessary that the different political forces within each part of the Kingdom should be represented in the House proportionately and that the membership of the committees should be confined to Scottish members. It is quite possible, under the present electoral system, that there might be an overwhelming Conservative majority in England and a large Liberal majority in Scotland. In such conditions the Scottish Grand Committee would fail to work. It would be necessary to add so large a number of English Conservatives that the Committee would lose its distinctively Scottish character. There is often very little difference between Scottish representatives on Scottish questions. A good instance of this was shown in the discussion on the report stage of the House Letting Bill (1909). The measure was opposed by the English Conservative members of the Committee, whilst the Scottish Conservatives voted for it. If the Scottish Conservatives were fully represented in the House of Commons they would obtain adequate representation on the Committee; a large addition of English Conservatives would not be necessary, and an agreement between the members of the Committee would often be much more quickly reached. Not only so, but a system of proportional representation would greatly strengthen the personnel of the Committee. Both the Scottish Law Officers of Mr. Balfour's Administration were defeated in the General Election of 1906, and in consequence the Scottish Conservatives, in their deliberations in Committee, were deprived of the expert advice which these officers could have afforded. Obviously, Scottish legislation can be dealt with best in a Scottish Grand Committee, but the successful working of this Committee requires the true representation thereon of the different sections of political opinion in Scotland, and, in addition, the presentation of those opinions by their most capable exponents.

Similarly, all members representing constituencies in Wales and Monmouth are to be appointed to the Committee dealing with Bills relating exclusively to that part of the country. Such Bills are not so numerous as Bills relating to Scotland, but nevertheless it is most desirable that in the discussion of a Welsh Bill minorities in Wales should be represented not by members sitting for English constituencies, but by representatives chosen by themselves who would be fully conversant with Welsh conditions. In the absence of such representation there will always remain the feeling that the minority has been unfairly treated, and it is this sense of unfairness that so often calls forth opposition of a partizan character, and such opposition is fatal to progress in legislation.

Perhaps the South African National Convention affords the most striking example of the capacity of a fully representative body to achieve results of a satisfactory character and with little delay. Had this Convention been packed either in the Boer or the British interest the great task of South African Union would never have been accomplished. The scrupulous care with which the rights of the minorities were respected is the secret of the wonderful rapidity with which the enormous difficulties involved in the task were overcome. Not only were minorities awarded full representation on this Convention, but every facility was afforded them in the choice of their delegates. The sense of justice and the spirit of reasonableness go always hand in hand, and the spirit of reasonableness alone makes possible the smooth and efficient working of the legislative machine.

Taking off the Whips.

Proportional representation will therefore not only facilitate the formation of a stable executive in the new political conditions, but it will be of very great value in creating the atmosphere in which legislation can most easily be passed. Even with the present system of false representation progress might often be more rapid if debate was less partisan in character. The executive might easily refrain from driving so hard the members of the party on which it rests for support. All political questions are not of the same importance, and a step in the direction of freer and less partizan conditions would be taken if opportunities were more often given to members to vote in accordance with their own judgment. The experiment of taking off the official Whips more frequently might yield valuable results. Sir Courtenay Ilbert says, however, that "open questions are not popular; they compel a member to think for himself, which is always troublesome."[18] But the advantage which would arise from the increase of the spirit of reasonableness would far outweigh such disadvantages as might befall the less politically minded members of the House. Far less importance too need be attached to snap divisions, and, as Sir William Anson has suggested, it should be generally understood that the results of such divisions need not entail the resignation of a government.

New political conditions.

Must then the practical politician still reject proportional representation? Sir Charles Dilke, in evidence before the Royal Commission on Electoral Systems,[19] attached great importance to the views of political leaders upon the party system, and doubtless practical politicians are guided by their views. The recent utterances, however, of two great party leaders show that the new political conditions and their consequences are fully recognized and appreciated by them. Mr. Balfour, in a speech before the Scottish Conservative Club,[20] emphasized the importance of having every shade of opinion represented in the House of Commons: "There is a section," he said, "an important section of Socialist opinion in the country, and it is quite right that they should find voice in the House of Commons if their numbers in the country render that desirable. We cannot, we do not, lose by having Socialist members in the House of Commons, if there are many Socialists in the country. We do not lose, we gain by it." Does this utterance of a great Conservative leader indicate any belief that the two-party system is the final and unchangeable expression of national feeling. Mr. Asquith has said that "the rude and crude divisions which used to correspond more or less accurately with the fact of a representative assembly of two parties only, the Whig and the Tory, the Right and the Left, or by whatever other names they may have been called, with strictly drawn lines of demarcation with no debatable or intermediate territory, that perhaps has become everywhere, more or less, a thing of the past." Such opinions so freely expressed must prepare the way for the more serious consideration of proportional representation by the practical politicians. It will in no sense involve the abandonment of party organization, but it will render those organizations, to use Mr. Asquith's words once more, "elastic, flexible, always adapting itself to shifting conditions." Party organization of such a character is undoubtedly a fundamental condition of the smooth working of the parliamentary machine, but another condition equally fundamental is that the strength of parties within the House should bear a direct and true relation to the strength of parties in the country. Both these requirements are supplied by a system of proportional representation.

[Footnote 1: "Doubts of Proportional Representation," The Albany
Review, November 1907.]

[Footnote 2: 12 September 1908.]

[Footnote 3: T. R. and H. P. C. Ashworth, Proportional Representation applied to Party Government, 1901, p. 195.]

[Footnote 4: Report of Royal Commission on Electoral Systems (Cd. 5163) par. 133.]

[Footnote 5: Ibid., par. 126.]

[Footnote 6: Ibid., par. 134.]

[Footnote 7: Ibid., par. 88.]

[Footnote 8: Burke, Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents.]

[Footnote 9: "The Regeneration of Parliaments," Contemporary Review,
June 1905.]

[Footnote 10: The Baden Socialists voted for the estimates in the Baden
Diet, and shortly after at the German Socialist Congress, Magdeburg, 21
September 1910, a motion was carried excluding from the party ipso
facto any member who in future voted for the estimates. The South
German Socialists left the Congress House.—Times, 23 September 1910.]

[Footnote 11: T.R. and H.P.C. Ashworth, Proportional Representation
Applied to Party Government: A New Electoral System, 1901, p. 210.]

[Footnote 12: Address to members of the Russian Duma, House of Commons, 22 June 1909.]

[Footnote 13: The Times, 13 June 1910.]

[Footnote 14: M. Ostrogorski, Democracy and the Organization of
Political Parties. (Translation by F. Clarke, M.A.), vol. ii. p. 713.]

[Footnote 15: The Australian Review of Reviews, January 1906.]

[Footnote 16: The Times, 16 March 1909.]

[Footnote 17: The Times, 16 June 1909.]

[Footnote 18: Preface to Parliamentary Procedure of the House of
Commons, by Josef Redlich, p. xvii.]

[Footnote 19: Minutes of Evidence of the Royal Commission on Electoral
Systems (Cd. 5152), Q. 1492.]

[Footnote 20: Glasgow, 22 October 1910.]