condition of the representative, or, more properly speaking, the elective, branch of the British Legislature must at this moment be a matter of the most profound disappointment and regret. The most practical and hard-working of races would seem to have intrusted the performance of its legislative business to hands which are either totally incompetent or utterly unwilling to discharge that business after a sensible and workmanlike fashion. The waste of time is enormous, the hours consumed in discussions of an eminently unpractical character are numerous beyond measure, and it is impossible but that the reputation of the House of Commons should be lowered in the eyes alike of the British public, who have hitherto regarded it with pride, and of the world beyond the seas, which has believed it to be one of the main bulwarks of the free constitution of Great Britain. The causes of this deterioration in the Lower House of Parliament may be variously estimated and explained. There are those who will attribute the evil solely to the change which, since the Reform Bill of 1832, has gradually crept over the constituencies, causing them to require different qualities in a representative from those which, before that date, were accounted his best recommendation. When borough or county seats were in the hands of patrons or of a small body of electors, it was not so necessary as at present that a candidate for a seat in Parliament should possess the art of ingratiating himself with electors

essential in these days of large constituencies and extended franchise. Such displays, having gained the desired end of election, have been perhaps expected, by the local electorate before whom they have been exhibited, to be repeated before the House of Commons with an equally satisfactory result. Thus, even if the ingredient of personal vanity had been absent, the new member has found himself urged, by the necessity of satisfying his constituents, to address the House of Commons on various questions which could have been satisfactorily discussed and settled without his intervention; and by this means the length of debates has increased to an indefinite extent, and the power of the House of Commons to transact business has been proportionally curtailed and diminished. From this point of view, it is fair to allow that there is some excuse for honourable members, who know that their chances of re-election to a new Parliament depend, in a greater or less degree, upon their maintaining in the debates of the House their local reputation for oratorical ability. It is needless to discuss the question whether such a cause sufficiently accounts for the state into which the House of Commons has fallen, or whether the increase of business which has to be performed, in comparison with that with which the unreformed Parliament had to deal, must not also be partly credited with the evil of which we complain. A still graver and more melancholy cause may perhaps be discovered in the scarce

If

ly disguised desire and intention of a section of members to discredit the British Parliament, and prevent the transaction of its business unless and until their own unreasonable demands are conceded. a combination for such a purpose really exists, it only renders it more desirable that public attention should be called to another, and that one of the greatest and saddest causes of the deterioration of the House of Commons and its practical inability to do the work of the nation.

We allude to the attitude which has recently been assumed by those who constitute the "regular Opposition," and their refusal to separate from party considerations and the influence of party tactics those questions of order and procedure which lie at the root of al! parliamentary government. It is by no means our desire, either now or at any other time, when assailing or defending a principle, to single out individuals for attack, or to resort to personal criticism where such can be avoided. It is impossible, however, to avoid reference to Mr Gladstone in the present instance, partly on account of the position which he has held, more than once, as leader of the House of Commons, and partly because of the general recognition of his leadership by the present Opposition, and his evident intention to assume and maintain that character. Such being the case, the responsibility for the conduct of the Opposition in the House of Commons cannot be evaded or denied by the veteran statesman who alone possesses the authority requisite to control that conduct, and prevent its degeneration into misconduct and confusion. Even if Mr Gladstone had taken no personal action in the scenes by which the House of Commons has suf

to

fered so greatly in public estimation, he could not have been held blameless in the matter, so long as there was no attempt on his part exercise his authority over those who profess for him such boundless esteem and admiration. Unfortunately, the case can be carried much further, and it is impossible to acquit the leader of the Opposition of the charge of having directly encouraged the breach of old and healthy parliamentary traditions, and assisted the party of obstruction in a manner which has in no small degree added to the loss of prestige and character which has fallen upon the House of Commons.

One of the greatest abuses which has arisen of late years in the Lower House is the mischievous prolongation of the debate upon the Address in answer to her Majesty's gracious speech in opening Parliament. This is an innovation which cannot be defended upon any grounds of parliamentary privilege or public utility. No measure, of however great importance,. can be advanced, because none can be proposed, upon the debate upon the Address, and the circumstances must be exceptional which can legitimately delay the conclusion of such a debate beyond the first or second night. Such circumstances have undoubtedly from time to time occurred, as, for instance, when the existence of a Government has been challenged by an amendment to the Address, moved by its political opponents. But the moving of multitudinous amendments upon every conceivable subject, at a time when no practical result can by possibility be obtained, is an abuse of parliamentary privilege, against which responsible statesmen, upon both sides of the House, should long since have set their face, and which

has done much to discredit the branch of the Legislature in which it has become a custom. It is understood, indeed, that Mr Gladstone himself objects to the practice, and he has certainly expressed himself strongly against the moving of irrelevant amendments to the Address, although he did not scruple to avail himself of one moved by "a certain Mr Collings," which had the incidental effect of transferring him, at the beginning of the year 1886, from the Opposition to the Treasury Bench. However, when the general election of last summer had placed the Unionist Conservative Government again in power, Mr Gladstone's objections to this class of amendments appear to have revived, and his name was conspicuous by its absence from the division list when such an amendment had been moved to the Address upon the opening of the present session of Parliament. Absence from a division, however, is an undignified and unsatisfactory manner in which to convey the disapproval of a leader of the line of action taken by his followers. Something more is required in order to give reality and force to an objection honestly entertained by a person in Mr Gladstone's position. In the year 1881, when he occupied the position of Prime Minister, the House of Commons met on the 6th January, and it was not until the 20th day of the same month that the debate upon the Address was concluded. Upon the 28th, when speaking upon Mr Forster's motion for leave to introduce a Bill "for the better protection of persons and property in Ireland," Mr Gladstone, pleading for the closing of the debate, remarked that, although it had only lasted three nights, on the other hand, honourable gentlemen had achieved an

extraordinary feat on the Address to the Throne," in which "they had surpassed all former performances;" so that, even if they yielded to the feeling of the House at that moment, they would still "be able to say that they have spent many more days and hours of the time of Parliament in opposing the measures of the Government than has ever been so consumed in any Parliament and by any representatives before." These having been Mr Gladstone's views in 1881, one would have supposed that he would have felt some sympathy with a Government which, during the present session, has been exposed to opposition of a similar nature, and in an aggravated form. One would have hoped that an emphatic protest would have been made by him against the enormous exaggeration of the evils of 1881, which has occurred in 1887. Such a protest might or might not have been effectual; but it would have shown a respect for the dignity and character of Parliament, which would have been alike creditable to the man from whom it came, and useful to the cause of order and good government. What, however, has been Mr Gladstone's course? Far from rendering any such assistance to the transaction of public business as might have been afforded by such a protest, he has not only refrained from any action of the kind, but has actually taunted the Government with the delay which his own friends and supporters have indefensibly caused. The unprecedented length to which the debate upon the Address was extended, the obstructive tactics pursued by the Opposition during the discussions upon the Rules of Procedure, the intolerable repetition of speeches identical in form, substance and ideas, the con

further postponement of the division. Yet Mr Gladstone pressed for further delay and more debate, and his friends have been hurling their denunciations against the Government for having moved the second reading of their Bill-not, according to Mr Gladstone's own precedent, at 12 o'clock the very day and within two hours of its introduction being carried, but after an interval of three days, accompanied by a promise to afford full time for its discussion.

It is absolutely monstrous and unreasonable to pretend that any undue limit was placed upon the discussion on the motion for leave to introduce the Bill. If Mr Gladstone and his friends chose to debate at great length the demand for urgency made by the Government upon their responsibility, and to employ in their protest against granting that demand all the arguments which more properly belonged to a discussion upon the measure itself, they have only themselves to blame if the House and the Government declined to allow a repetition of the identical tirades which had been already delivered, and insisted upon allow ing to the responsible Ministers of the Crown, after three nights' debate, that priviledge of laying their Bill upon the table which, in the Upper House of Parliament, is granted to any member as a matter of right. Of course it will be denied that one single unnecessary speech has been made, or that the Parnellite-Gladstonians have been guilty of obstructive tactics. Above all, it will be insisted upon that, whoever else may have been to blame, the immaculate leader of the "regular Opposition" is above the censure, or even the suspicion, of ordinary men. But the people of Great Britain are apt to look matters straight in the face, and

to take a common-sense view of occurrences which have transpired before their eyes. They see that the whole time of the House of Commons has been absolutely wasted since the meeting of Parliament-that the Government

have not been able to bring forward their measures, and that speeches of almost interminable length have been continually made at times and upon questions which could lead to no result but delay. Seeing this, they will at the same time recognise that Mr Gladstone has been again and again proclaimed as their leader by the very men who have been foremost in this policy of obstruction, and they will naturally come to the conclusion that a leader must be more or less responsible for the conduct of his followers.

To every impartial mind, and to every man who cares for the character and efficiency of the House of Commons, it must certainly appear that Mr Gladstone's refusal to exercise his authority over the unruly obstructionists who delight to applaud him as their champion, conclusively proves that either he fears lest that authority should be disregarded if attempted to be exercised for the legitimate purposes of orderly procedure, or that he is unwilling in any way to assist the administration of law and order when the responsibility for that administration happens to be in the hands of his political opponents. One would have imagined that upon such a momentous question as that of the protection of the lives and properties of her Majesty's subjects in Ireland, Mr Gladstone, and indeed any man who had ever held office under the Crown, would have felt bound to cast upon the Government the responsibility of demanding urgency, and of producing at