THE NEW DEMOCRACY AND THE CONSTITUTION.* Mu. McKEcmstE is generally

recognized as the sanest and most acute of modern constitutional analysts, and his new book, if it receives the serious attention it deserves, should go

far to mark an epoch in our habits of political thought It is Bagehot up to date, a clear and wholly impartial examina- tion of the constitutional revolution which our generation has witnessed. For it is no less than a revolution we have been living through, a far more drastic revolution than 1688. The old counters have changed their meaning, the old definitions are inadequate. Britain has advanced from a modified to an almost pare democracy. Mr. McKechnie blames no particular party, for all parties seem to have accepted the democratic maxim : " Find out what the people want and see that they get it." The stoutest Conservative nowadays would unthink- ingly subscribe to the axiom that "in all circumstances and at all costs the will of the people must prevail." We say '" unthinkingly," for as a rule he is not inclined to accept also 'the inevitable consequences, which are universal suffrage, equality of voting power, and the close supervision by the electorate over the government which is involved in the doctrine of "mandates," though by his advocacy of the Referendum he has made any logical opposition to these consequences impossible. Democracy in theory, however, differs in some important respects from its practical working as we see it. There are disturbing forces to upset the rule of the community considered as equal individuals. One is the power of political caucuses, another is the organization of the trade unions, a third is the legislative authority of the House of Commons, a fourth is the immense power of the Cabinet. Sovereignty may reside ultimately with the people, but practic-

• The N/113 Democracy and the Conatitutioa. By William Sharp McKechnie. London John Murray. L6s. net.]

ally theyonly possess it during a general election. At other times it resides in the House of Commons; that is, to all intents and purposes, in the Cabinet. It is always possessed, therefore by the dominant party alone, for to-day we have no protection of minorities. Working democracy may be defined as "a

monopoly of power enjoyed by one half of the people over the other half." Sovereignty is concentrated in the leaders of the party in office, provided they continue to lead.

If this be so, we must rewrite our constitutional text-books.

In former days the House of Commons was an independent body, exercising a wholesome supervision over Ministers ; now it is the obedient lackey of Ministers. The old representative government has given way to "government by the party machine voting to order." Moreover, the House is no more a microcosm of the nation, representing all the different elements

in the national life; for a Chamber elected entirely on the population basis represents numbers and nothing more

Further, owing to the organization of the Labour Party, and the tendency to appeal for votes on particular issues interests are superseding principles as the force which brigades parties. Taxation is no longer dependent upon representation, for the House of Commons is composed of people chosen not by the taxpayer, but by those who expect to get rather than to give. The real taxpayers are the outvoted and unrepresented minorities.

"The effective majority is able to reckon without its host. The issue of a general election turns on the wishes of those who, in the various forms of free education, old-age pensions, State-aided insurance, or grants in aid, receive, directly or indirectly, more than they pay. Voters, desirous of obtaining for themselves or their dependents increased subsidies from the common purse, are invited by rival candidates to vote for their only true friend, the party which will guarantee the more lavish expenditure." .

The House of Commons, legislatively all but omnipotent, is in finance the only authority, and, since the area of taxation

has been indefinitely extended, is free to disregard all economic laws and distribute the national wealth according to its own conceptions of justice. Old views about the sanctity of private property have long since gone by the board. The new doctrine is that it is the duty of Parliament " to supply out of the common purse the needs of all who have failed to help them- selves." Formerly supply was given in return for redress of grievances; but to withhold supplies is no longer a check on tyranny, for the despotic power is also the taxing power. Lastly, we have no checks and balances left, for every fraction of authority has been collected under one hand. " The Government-controlling organ has become the governing organ ; and no new machinery has been devised to control the new despot who has thus usurped the throne." Bagehot, therefore, must be rewritten. In his day Parliament dominated the Cabinet; now the Cabinet dominates Parliament, which, in Mr. Asquith's words, is "a mere automatic machine for registering the edicts of a transient majority."

So much for constitutional changes. The theory of govern- ment has changed to meet them. Maine defined human progress as an advance from status to contract; as Mr. McKechnie neatly puts it, we have advanced a further stage from contract to legislation, for free contract is being exchanged for regulation by Act of Parliament. The law of supply and demand is ignored, and capital is treated as the enemy instead of the foundation of labour. Democracy is trying to finance its friends out of the purse of its supposed enemies, the landlords. Accumulations of capital, the essential of all permanent economic advance, are penalized; personal liberty, and consequently individual self-reliance, are threatened in the sacred name of the commonweal, and the legislature and the trade unions combine to exalt the average man and handicap those who exceed and who fall short of the average standard. Unskilled casual labour has no rights, and exceptional capacity has very few. The Govern- ment, in Mr. McKecbnie's phrase, tends to give the runner who stops at every refreshment bar an equal chance of victory with him who presses straight on.

"The most valuable form of equality is equality of opportunity. If democracy subordinates tho ambitions of artisans of peculiar aptitude to the interests of their indolent, shiftless, and pleasure- loving workmates, it will quickly ruin the prosperity of the nation. Trade unions, however, are ruled for the benefit of the average members of the rank and file, not of those conspicuous for the qualities which raise men above their fellows. If the House of Commons falls under the same influences every path of advance- ment in life for artisan talent will be effectively blocked." .41 ' What makes the situation more difficult is that triumphant democracy is singularly intolerant of plain speaking, singularly amenable to flattery, and singularly self-confident. The Par- liament which it produces must meddle with a thousand things Which the collective wisdom of the ages has forbidden-Govern- ments to touch. It will try, without regard to natural laws, to regulate the prices of goods and the wages of labour. By paternal legislation it will encourage over-population among the wastrel classes, and depress those who show any signs of rising above the average in ability or character. Mr. McKechnie analyses the presumptions of theory on which extreme democracy

rests, and has little difficulty in showing the slenderness of their warrant. Majority rule, if pushed too far, becomes an absurdity which defeats itself.

" To sum up, the theory of democracy has three radical defects : its initial assumptioh of the political equality of beings essen- tially unequal is untenable; its claim for the divine right of majorities to work their will upon defeated minorities is unfounded; while its total denial of effective constitutional and legal rights to men, whose equality in moral rights forms its own root doctrine, is illogical and absurd. Democracy, founded on a basis of false and self-contradictory theory, can never in practice prove a satisfactory system of government. It is d3ficient in all that makes constitutional liberty and progress possible, for it is built upon the ruins of the rights of minorities."

The majority of thinking men, whether Unionist or Liberal, would admit Mr. MeKechnie's contention. We have slipped unwittingly into a pure democracy, and the fault is with both parties, though the greater blame must be apportioned to the devisers of measures -like the Parliament Act, who, to serve a trivial party purpose, resorted to means which involved an end which they repudiated. Our business is, while it is not too late, to awaken the common sense of our nation and provide adequate safeguards. No civilized government in

the world offers such facilities for hasty and partisan legisla- tion as does that British Constitution which was once the admiration of mankind. Mr. McKechnie, after a survey of foreign checks and safeguards, discusses the possibility of their application to Britain. Mr. McKechnie rejects the Referendum on the ground that it contains all the dangers and faults of democracy which he desires to cure. He admits, however, that if it were confined within strict limits it would be valuable ; it is its indefinite expansion that he fears. But strict limits are of the essence of the proposal, and to reject a beneficial scheme because of its possible maleficent extension is the old fallacy of the "thin end of the wedge." Mr. McKechnie himself favours: (1) The insti- tution of a tribunal in the confidence of both parties to decide on what constitutes a Money Bill; (2) a differentia- tion in parliamentary procedure in matters of supply and in matters of ways and means, and the grant to the Second Chamber of fuller powers over the latter than the former ; (3) the appointment of an advisory council of non-political financial experts to advise, without controlling, the

Treasury and the Cabinet in framing their financial policy; and (4) he seems inclined to an interesting suggestion of Mr. John. Murray, that the House, in the committee stage

of important Bills, should vote by ballot. These proposals are well worth careful consideration, but the chief value of Mr. McKechnie's work lies in his diagnosis of the mis- chief. He has proved beyond possibility of doubt, and in a

manner at once persuasive and judicial, that the pure democracy- to which we are tending, like all extreme political methods, ends

in the flat opposite of the principles which were its original justification.

For ourselves we are confident that in the Poll of the People is to be found the only effective antidote to the evils of pure Democracy. Let the people have the right of veto over the legislation of their representatives. The only check needed is the check which is accomplished by the ability to say to the people as a whole--" Is it your wish that this Bill shall become law ?"