any professional man in the present day than that which falls upon a moderately industrious Member of Parliament. In examining his lot, the Daily Telegraph' chose altogether to omit any reference to his compulsory service on Committees. We doubt whether the artist of the Daily Telegraph' would like that part of the performance. His soul might, indeed, be cheered by the blessed thought that he was roaming over a palace, and that he might invite ladies from outside.' But it is not altogether pleasant to be called upon to go into a palace at eleven in the morning and remain there until one the next morning, with a shabby interval of an hour or so for dinner. It is not at all an uncommon occurrence for a member to serve on a Committee from eleven in the forenoon till the House meets, and then to go into the House and remain about the building until the adjournment liberates everybody. Service on Committees is often extremely arduous, and involves much preparation and labour, if it is to be properly performed. As for compulsory detention being rare, we should have thought that every one who had the means of access even to the Lobby would have known that this is a thing of daily occurrence. 'Only when divisions are impending,' says the Telegraph.' But when are they not impending? The Whips, at any rate, always look for one at any moment, and if they were to allow members to go away, and a division were to be suddenly sprung upon the Government, the remarks addressed to them the next morning would not be framed upon the theory that compulsory attendance is not requisite. As for the charms of the society of 'five hundred English gentlemen' and of the refreshment rooms, it may be that the less said the better. The pleasures of imagination are always greater than those of reality. Work of the hardest kind is not so depressing or so exhausting as being required to linger about an ill-ventilated and evil-smelling building hour after hour, waiting for divisions which perhaps never take place, listening to wearisome speeches, or vainly endeavouring to fix the attention upon a book in the library amid the constant interruptions incidental to the House of Commons. There is no member of the House who will not own that the attendance there through a severe Session has involved the hardest work he has ever done in his life, however laborious that life may have been. It must be remembered that it is becoming increasingly difficult to get a 'pair,' by means of which a member may at least honourably escape to dinner. The Irish party never pair, and the Gladstonians are gradually adopting the same rule. A Liberal Unionist cannot get a pair on any terms. His former colleagues will have nothing to say

to

to him, and he must go away with his vote practically effaced during his absence, if he is compelled to take a little rest or change. This has greatly increased the burden thrown upon an important section of the Ministerialists. The members who are regular attendants of the House lead little better than a dog's life. They are not their own masters at any time. They cannot tell when they will be able to get their food, or when they will be allowed to go home. We say nothing of the work involved for the constituencies-the letters that have to be written, the deputations which must be seen, the applications for all kinds of things, from a cradle to a Government appointment, which must be replied to. All this is part of the Parliamentary penalty. But it is not necessary to add to these penalties by holding up the fagged and worn-out member to the public view as a voluptuary who has been spoiled by excessive indulgence.

For a proper appreciation of the malady which has to be cured, if cure be possible, we have to recognize the fact that the whole House is overworked. We have admitted, without reference to any particular party or Ministry, that too much work is forced upon it, and that sufficient margin is never left for those delays which must and will arise in every large legislative body. A Cabinet generally appears to lay out its plans upon the supposition that not a moment will ever be wasted. Who can hope to see the day when that will be the case ? Some allowances must be made for erroneous calculations, and still more for the weaknesses of human nature. There will always be an agitation going on about the interference of the authorities with a great strike, or with a procession in the streets, or about the arrest of a young woman, or some misunderstanding with a Foreign Power, or a fresh disturbance in Ireland. The House of Commons will insist on having something to say on such matters as these, and the only thing that can be hoped for is that the unexpected discussion may be confined within reasonable limits. There is a point at which the most devoted partisans begin to show signs of rebellion. It is reached when they feel that they are being called upon to undertake an impossible task, and when they are forced to carry day after day too heavy a load. They do not openly show an unfriendly tendency, but it is found that somehow or other it is very hard to induce them to attend the House, or to return after dinner. When a party leader ignores these signs, there is always danger of some of his plans breaking down. Mr. Gladstone has more than once put that to the proof, with results which he had weighty reasons for regretting. The first step, then, towards restoring to Parliament its old Vol. 171.-No. 342. efficiency,

20

efficiency must be to take care that there is a due proportion between the legislative programme and the amount of time at the disposal of the Ministry which seeks to carry it out. For otherwise there will always be a large record of failure at the conclusion of every Session, and the public will grow weary of hearing the charge of obstruction, which each party in its turn will level at the other. We must not forget that between 1881-83, the country rang with this charge, brought by Gladstonians against the Conservatives. It was said that measures of the utmost importance to the public had failed because the Conservatives would not permit any work to be done. The Conservatives brought the same accusations against the Gladstonians, and with far greater justice, between 1877 and 1880. It will be impossible for the public to decide on the merits of these incessant appeals to it, and there is a danger that it will, at no distant date, turn a deaf ear to them all, unless care be taken in placing the facts before it. In that respect, Lord Hartington's recent speech was of great value.

The plain truth is that the House of Commons is much too large for practical work, and that, in particular, one section of the country is extravagantly over-represented in it. We do not see how any man who looks fairly into the subject can have a moment's doubt in his mind that Ireland is not entitled either by population or by any other just claim to 103 representatives in the House of Commons. We can scarcely hope that such a question can be considered without prejudice, or without some violent controversies being aroused, but in spite of these disadvantages, it will have to be taken into consideration, or we may as well make up our minds at once that the popular branch of the Legislature is hopelessly crippled. With a House of the present number, work will never again be well and smoothly done. It matters very little on what basis the Irish representation is calculated, for upon any that may be taken, the number of members allotted to it will be seen to be far too large. In 1884, on the second reading of the Reform Bill of that year, Mr. Gladstone acknowledged that Ireland had no more than one-seventh of the population of the United Kingdom, and that on that basis she was entitled only to 93 members instead of 103. But, being no doubt unwilling to incur the risks of diminishing the Irish representation, he justified an adherence to the higher standard on the ground that some injustice might have been done to Ireland in this respect under the Reform Bill of 1832, and that it was possible Ireland, as regards population, might recover something of the ground she had lost. Since

then,

then, Ireland has been still further declining in population, while the rest of the United Kingdom has been gaining ground, so that we are probably not far wrong in estimating that Ireland has less rather than more than one-tenth of the total population. On the basis mentioned by Mr. Gladstone, this would give her 67 representatives in Parliament. The Act of Union fixes the number at 100, but that was adapted to the circumstances of the time. It will scarcely be contended that if the population of Ireland sank to 2,000,000, she should be permitted to retain the same Parliamentary representation that she had when her population was three or four times as much. Mr. Gladstone has already shown the world that the Act of Union is no barrier to the most sweeping changes which may be required by time or by public opinion. The Fifth Article of that Act ordains that the Protestant Episcopal Church, its discipline and government, shall be and shall remain in full force for ever.' But that did not prevent Mr. Gladstone from abolishing it. If great injustice is inflicted on the rest of the country by Ireland absorbing considerably more than her fair share of Parliamentary representation, the Act of Union cannot stand in the way of reform. The Fourth Article is not more sacred than the Fifth.

Mr. Gladstone clearly felt, in 1884, that the Irish representation would have to be reduced, but he, not unnaturally, refrained from provoking the opposition of the Parnellite members by introducing clauses into his Bill with a view of carrying out what he knew to be right. Doubtless the fact was also present to his mind that the centres of population had undergone great changes, and that a reapportionment of seats on the basis of population would give a far larger number to the North of Ireland than it at present possesses, while the sections of the country which were, and are, under the dominion of the National League would undergo considerable loss. But, if the representation of Ireland is ever to be put on a strictly equitable footing, such consequences as these will have to be left entirely out of account. The right thing must be done, regardless of which party will lose or which will gain. We do not wish, any more than Mr. Gladstone, to see the population of Ireland continue to decline. But human wishes will not affect the issue one way or the other. The fact is before us that, from various courses, the inhabitants of most rural districts diminish in numbers, and that the centres of industry are not recruited from them. In other words, there is still a constant drain from Ireland to the shores of America. Mr. Gladstone would, no doubt, tell us that this is not by any means an

unmixed

unmixed good for Great Britain, and we should fully agree with him. The full effect of the Irish occupation of a large part of the United States has not yet been felt either by that country or by this. It is probably destined to produce many consequences for which the sober portion of the American people are as little prepared as we are. But that is a matter beyond control, and it has no bearing on the constitution of Parliament. Even the Irish in America would scarcely have the audacity to allege that the basis of Parliamentary representation should be calculated upon the theory that they are still in their native country.

Whenever the work of recasting the House of Commons is taken in hand, Ireland will assuredly have to lose some of its members, and of those who remain, a certain proportion will be transferred from the South and West to the North. If all the Irish members were loyal, these changes would be equally a matter of necessity. We have been very sorry in former times to see certain ancient boroughs in England lose their representation in Parliament, but their decline, and the rise of important towns elsewhere, rendered the operation necessary. So it will be with Ireland. If future statesmen have sufficient wisdom and courage-and a good measure of both would be needed for the process-seats which are cut off from one section of the country will not again be given to another section, but will be allowed to lapse altogether. That would be the most cautious and the wisest way of reducing the total numbers of the House. The acute mind of the late Sir Henry Maine perceived the inevitable tendency of the forces now at work. The Obstruction,' he remarks, spoken of by politicians of experience with lamentation and surprise, is nothing more than a symptom of the familiar disease of large governing bodies; it arises from the numbers of the House of Commons, and from the variety of opinions struggling in it for utterance. The remedies hitherto tried for the cure of Obstruction will prove, in my judgment, to be merely palliatives. No multitudinous assembly which seeks really to govern can possibly be free from it; and it will probably lead to a constitutional revolution, the House of Commons abandoning the greatest part of its legislative authority to a Cabinet of Executive Ministers.' * No prediction was ever in the way of being more fully accomplished. There is but one modification which it is likely to undergo. The House will be cajoled by successive administrations to part with its powers to Committees of its own number,

* Popular Government,' pp. 94–95.