British social politics; materials illustrating contemporary state action for the solution of social problems

Preface

The following pages are an attempt to place at the command of college and university students some first-hand materials for the study of current political and social problems. From many volumes of parliamentary debates, reports, and statutes have been selected, in the first place, a few of the most important Acts which have been passed by the British Parliament since the Liberal Government came into power in 1905, dealing with a vast range of social problems and activities that the Industrial Revolution had brought face to face with a typical modern democracy ; and secondly, extracts from the debates in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords with a view to illustrating different points of view which various classes, political parties, and prominent persons have entertained on these liberal and radical proposals.

To study the social problem in Great Britain should be a valuable introduction to the study of all the grave problems that confront every modern industrial state. To appreciate the efforts of contemporary statesmen in Great Britain to provide governmental solutions, partial at least, for these problems should be illuminating not only to the student of present-day affairs, but likewise to the historian who would sketch the development of society and social legislation or trace the marvellous growth of state activity in modern times. And possibly knowledge of these matters will not be confined to professional scholars ; the speeches of Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Churchill and many another have not an exclusively academic flavour or interest — they are making history.

An introductory chapter serves as an apology for the title and scope of this book. It makes no pretension to deal exhaustively or even adequately with any special event of the nineteenth century — iv BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS

merely to point out a lane of approach to the study of contemporary British history and how such study may be profitably linked up with the great highway of general nineteenth-century history.

Many topics indirectly of social and political significance might have been included in the volume had space permitted. But, in general, land laws, Irish Home Rule, and Welsh Disestablishment have been inexorably crowded out by Employers' Liability, Labour Unions, Child Welfare, Old Age Pensions, Budget Reform, the decline of the House of Lords, and National Insurance. It is quite obvious, too, that the very nature of the subject-matter will militate against its permanence. Most of the enactments herein presented will no doubt be superseded, or, at least, amended in detail, in the near future, for finality is not a common attribute of governmental regulations, and the solution of one problem frequently acts to create another. It is hoped, however, that occasional new editions may keep the work near to date.

To several authorities I am under obligations. First of all should be mentioned the reporters of the great mass of parliamentary proceedings, who, quite as anonymous as the monastic chroniclers of the Middle Ages, have infinitely surpassed the monks in the wealth of information with which they have supplied us. Then I would express gratitude to the compilers of the "Annual Register " and to the writers on the London .Times and the Spectator^ from whose digests and reports I have drawn freely. And I would confess the stimulus which has been given this work by the perusal of the writings of such enthusiastic British Liberals as Mr. David Lloyd George, Mr. Winston Churchill, Mr. J. A. Hobson, and Mr. Percy Alden. To my colleague. Professor Charles A. Beard, I am indebted for the immediate suggestion of the work, as well as for a lively sympathy with its purpose and valuable criticism in

its completion.

CARLTON HAYES Columbia University

Chapter I. Workmen's Compensation 20

1. The Home Secretary on Workmen's Compensation . . 22

Mr. M. J. Gladstone, Commons, March 26, igo6

2. Conservative Reply to the Home Secretary .... 32

Mr. A. Akers-Douglas, Commons, Alarch 26, igo6

3. Labour Reply to the Home Secretary 34

Mr. G. N. Barnes, Commons, Ma/r/i 26, igo6

4. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain on Workmen's Compensation 36

Commons, Marc/i 26, igo6

5. Sir Charles Dilke on Workmen's Compensation ... 38

Commons, Afril 4, igo6

6. Employer's Attitude toward Workmen's Compensation 41

Mr. H. G. Montgomery, Commons, April 4, igo6

7. Employee's Attitude toward Workmen's Compensation 43

Mr. J. R. Clynes, Commons, April 4, igo6

8. Foreshadowing National Insurance 45

Mr. H. J. Gladstone, Commons, December /j, igo6

9. Third Reading of Workmen's Compensation Bill . . 46

Mr. Joseph Walton, Commons, December ij, igob

10. Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 47

6 Echo. 7, ch. J 8

11. Workmen's Compensation (Anglo-French Convention)

g EJw. 7, ch. 16

V vi BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS

PAGE

Chapter II. Trade Unionism 77

12. Introduction of Trade Unions and Trade Disputes Bill 80

Sir John Walton, Conunons, March 28., igo6

13. Trade Disputes Act, 1906 85

14. Trade Union Act, 1S71 87

15. Trade Union Act, 1876 95

3g <S)^ 40 Vict., ch. 22 {in part)

16. Conspiracy and Protection of Proi-erty Act, 1875 • • 9^

j(? &^ 3g Vict., ck. 86 (in part)

17. Labour and the Payment of Members of Parliament 102

Mr. Arthur Lee and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Commons, August 10, igi I

Chapter III. Child Welfare 107

18. Provision of Meals for School Children no

Mr. W. T. Wilson, Com7nons, March 2, igob

19. Opposition to Provision of Meals 112

Mr. Harold Cox, Commons, March 2, igo6

20. Government Advocacy of Provision of Meals .... 116

Mr. Augustine Birrell, Coninions, March 2, igo6

21. Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906 119

6 Eihv. 7, ch.§j

22. Introduction of Notifications of Birth Bill, 1907 . . 122

Lord Robert Cecil, Commons, April 23, igoj

23. Introduction of Children Bill, 1908 124

Mr. Herbert Samuel, Commons, February 10, igoS

Chapter IV. Old Age Pensions 130

24. Promise of Old Age Pensions 134

Mr. H. II. Asquith, Commons, April iS, igoj

25. Renewed Promise of Old Age Pensions 138

Mr. H. H. Asquith, Commons, May J, igo8

CONTENTS vii

PAGE

26. Second Reading of Old Age Pensions Bill 140

Mr. David Lloyd George, Commons, June ij, igoS

27. Opposition to Old Age Pensions Bill 143

Mr. Harold Cox, Commons, June ij, igo8

28. A Conservative Opponent to the Government Bill . 149

Lord Robert Cecil, Commons, June /j, igo8

29. Skepticism on Old Age Pensions 151

Mr. A. J. Balfour, Co>ntnons,Jiily g, igo8

30. Labour Defence of Old Age Pensions 157

Mr. William Crooks, Commons, July g, igo8

31. Opposition to the Bill in the House of Lords . . . 160

Earl of Wemyss, Lords, July 20, igo8

32. Danger of Dispute with the House of Commons . . 163

Earl of Rosebery, Lords, July 20, igo8

33. An Anglican Bishop on Old Age Pensions 165

Bishop of Ripon, Lords, July 20, igo8

34. Old Age Pensions Act, 1908 167

35. Old Age Pensions Act, 1911 176

I dr' 2 Geo. 5, ch. 16

Chapter V. The Unemployed 185

36. Report of Poor Law Commission, 1909 187

Resiune f7vm the ^^ Annual Register^''

37. Government Proposals on Unemployment 191

Mr. Winston Churchill, Comtnons, May ig, igog

38. Conservative Position on Unemployment 206

Mr. F. E. Smith, Commons, May ig, igog

39. Labour Party's Attitude toward Unemployment . . . 209

Mr. Arthur Henderson, Commons, May ig, igog

40. Labour Exchanges Act, 1909 213

g Edw. 7, ck. 7 viii BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS

PAGE

Chapter VI. Sweated Labour 217

■^ 41. Introduction of the Trade Boards Bill 220

Mr. Winston Churchill, Commons, March 2if., igog ; Sir Frederick Banbury, ibid.

42. Second Reading of the Trade Boards Bill 226

Mr. H. J. Tennant, Comtnons, April 28, igog

43. Sweated Labour and Foreign Competition 236

Mr. A. J. Balfour, Commons, April 28, igog

44. A Labour View of the Trade Boards Bill 238

Mr. T. F. Richards, Commons, April 28, igog

45. The Lords' Debate — a Liberal View 241

Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, Lords, August jo, igog

46. The Lords' Debate — a Conservative View 245

Marquess of Salisbury, Lords, August jo, igog

47. Trade Boards Act, 1909 247

g LLdw. 7, ch. 22

Chapter VII. The Housing And Land Problem . 263

48. General Principles of the Housing and Town Plan-

ning Bill 269

Mr. John Burns, Commons, April j, igog

49. Detailed Explanation of the Housing and Town

Planning Bill 278

Earl Beauchamp, Lords, September 14, igog

50. Dangers of Bureaucracy 285

Earl of Onslow, Lords, September //, igog

51. Friendly Ecclesiastical Attitude toward Town Plan-

ning 287

Bishop of P)irmingham, Lords, September 14, igog

52. Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act, 1909 291

53. Conservative Opposition to the Development Bill . . 314

Lord Robert Cecil, Commons, September 6, igog

CONTENTS ix

PAGE

54. Reply TO Conservative Opposition to Development Bill 324

Mr. David Lloyd George, Commons, September 6, igog

55. Labour View of the Development Bill 329

Mr. G. N. Barnes, Commons, September 6, igog

56. Explanation ok the Development Bill 330

Earl Carrington, Lords, October 14, igog

57. Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909 334

g Ed'ci). 7, ch. 4J {in paH)

CHAPTER VIIL THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET .... 347

58. The Budget Speech of 1909 361

Mr. David Lloyd George, Comvions, April 2g, igog

59. A Socialist's View of the Budget 381

Mr. Philip Snowden, Commons, iVovember 2, igog

60. Ecclesiastical Opposition to the Budget 388

Bishop of Bristol, Lords, N^ovember 22, igog

61. A Liberal Lord's Opinion of Ecclesiastical Opposition 390

Lord Sheffield, Lords, November 22, igog

62. An Attack upon the Sponsor of the Bill 392

Lord Willoughby de Broke, Lords, iVovember 22, igog

63. A Financier's View of the Budget 394

Lord Revelstoke, L^ords, November 22, igog

64. Ecclesiastical Support of the Budget 395

Bishop of Birmingham, Lords, iVovember 22, igog

65. A Conciliatory Speech on the Budget 397

Lord Ribblesdale, Lords, iVovember 22, igog

66. An Extreme Conservative View of the Budget . . . 398

Duke of Marlborough, Lords, N'ovember 2j, igog

67. Lord Rosebery on the Budget 399

Earl of Rosebery, Lords, November 24, igog

68. Lord Morley on the Budget 402

Viscount Morley of Blackburn, Lords, A^ove>nber 2g, igog

X BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS

PAGE

69. The Lords' Rejection of the Budget 406

Earl of Crewe, Lords, N'ovember 30, igog

10 Edw. 7, ch. S {in paii)

Chapter IX. Curbing The Lords 421

71. Proposals for Restricting the Power of the House

OF Lords 438

Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Conunons, Jinie 24, igoj

72. Defence of the House of Lords 449

Mr. A. J. Balfour, Commons, /ii 11 e 24, igoj

73. The Undemocratic Character of the House of Lords 456

Mr. D. Shackleton, Commons, Jinte 24, igoj

74. Defence of Two-Chamber Government 460

Sir William Anson, Commons, Jujie 24, igcj

75. The Issue between the Houses and the Parties . . . 464

Mr. Winston Churchill, Commons, June 2^, igo-j

76. An Arraignment of the House of Lords 470

Mr. David Lloyd George, Commons, June 2b, igoj

77. Exposition of the P.vrliament Bill 474

Earl of Crewe, Lords, November 21, igio

78. Opposition to the Parliament Bill 485

Marquess of Lansdowne, Lords, N'ovcmber 21, igio

79. Government Haste against the House of Lords . . . 494

Earl of Rosebery, Lords, iVovember 21, igio

80. Futility of Reforming the House of Lords . from

WITHIN 496

Lord Loreburn, Lords, jYovember 21, igio

81. Conservative Substitute for the Parliament Bill . . 497

Marquess of Lansdowne, Lords, N'ovember 23, igio

82. Support of the Lansdowne Resolutions 49^

Lord Ribblesdale, Lords, N'ovember 23, igio

83. Parliament Act, 1911 5°^

I &" 2 Geo. J, ch. I J

CONTENTS xi

PAGE

Chapter X. National Insurance 506

84. Exposition ok the National Insurance Bill 511

Mr. David Lloyd George, Commons, May 4, igii

85. Irish Support oe the National Insurance Bill . . . 535

Mr. John Redmond, Commons, May 4, igii

86. Defence of the National Insurance Bill 536 y

Mr. Sydney Buxton, Commons, May 24, igii

87. Lessons from German Experience 543

Sir Rufus Isaacs, Commons, May 24, igii

88. Attitude of the Latjour Party toward National

Insurance ,^7)

Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Commons, May 2g, igii

89. Attitude of the Unionist Party toward National

Insurance 555

Mr. H. W. Forster, Commons, December 6, igii

90. National Insurance and Self-reliance 561

Lord Robert Cecil, Comnions, December 6, igii

91. Defects in the Government Bill 563

Mr. Bonar Law, Commons, December 6, igii

92. Final Plea for National Insurance 568

Mr. H. H. Asquith, Commons, December 6, igii

APPENDIX. THE BRITISH CABINET, 1905-1912 573

Index

INTRODUCTORY NOTE I

Two historical factors have conspired to bring about in our own day a fundamental change in the convictions of many thoughtful persons as to the proper scope and functions of government. In the first place, the French Revolution not only abolished legal class privilege and defined civil " rights " uniform for all citizens, but it sounded the death knell of absolutism ; and its great dreams of individual liberty and social equality and political brotherhood provided a powerful stimulus, throughout the nineteenth century, to ever-recurring and increasingly successful movements throughout Europe for the extension of the suffrage and the removal of legal disabilities in society. In France, political democracy was gradually evolved through kaleidoscopic changes of Legitimate Monarchy, July Monarchy, Republic, Empire, and Republic. In England, a like process was painfully in evidence during Peterloo Massacres, and Chartist riots, and Reform agitations. In both countries, before the close of the century, the electorate had supposedly attained a democratic mastery over one great institution — the government.

Of greater importance to us than the more or less theoretical political principles proclaimed and exemplified by the French Revolution are the very practical problems created by that series of marvellous mechanical inventions and adaptations which has passed under the name of the Industrial Revolution. Within the last hundred years the whole social fabric has undergone a complete transformation, until it has brought forth present-day capitalism and the factory system and a wage-earning proletariat huddled in great towns ; and novel facts have presented themselves which could not be faced in the manner of the eighteenth century nor run away from as the laissez-faire economists of the last century would have done. So long as highly-developed industrial states — countries directly affected by the4«4ustFial--RevoTution — -_gursiied a' f raiTlTpolicy ofgovernmental non-intervention, thej:apitalist class deemed togrow wealthier and more powerful, while the mass ^f wage-earners appeared to grow relatively poorer and more degraded. Under such conditions, written constitutional guarantees of religious toleration and political equality did not suffice to render democracy real and vital. Soon after the French Revolution, Baboeuf had declared :

When I see the poor without the clothing and shoes which they themselves are engaged in making, and contemplate the small minority who do not work and yet want for nothing, I am convinced that government is still the old conspiracy of the few against the many, only it has taken a new form.

Gradually the__ffl^orking classes, whom the Industrial Revolution called into being, came to share Baboeuf 's opinion and to complain that they suffered from class privileges infinitely more oppressive than any of those against which the French revolutionists contended. They began to believe that political rights and written, constitutions, of themselves, might be quite sterile, and to demand the employment of political agencies in order to secure equalilY-Pf opportunity for all classes and the well-being of each and every citizen, worker as well as capitalist. It followed quite naturally from the interesting union of two revolutionary currents — the political and the industrial — _that thej3eople_of each affected-state thought of using their democratic representative mastery over government, in proportion to the extent to which they had achieved it, as a means through which to undertake industrial—regutetitDn and general social control. That hasmeant the socialisation of politics — government, in its widest significance, of the-4>e©pte

" Social politics " thus becomes a convenient phrase to indicate, loosely perhaps, the present-day development of political democracy and its utilisation for social purposes. Social equality is its goal. Mr. Percy Alden, one of its distinguished advocates in the ^

BritishTarliament, writes in a recently pubFshed volume ^ • /" '^

Without claiming too much for the new programme which the Liberal party has put forward, this, at least, may be asserted with confidence, that it implies a desertion of the old individualist standard and the adoption of a new principle — a principle which the Unionists call socialistic. If it be true that a positive policy of social reconstruction savours of socialism, then, of course, this contention can be justified. The rnajnjpoint is that the function of the State in the mind of the Liberal and Radical of to-day is much wider in scope than seemed possible to our predecessors. The State avowedly claims the right to interfere with industrial liberty and to modify the old economic view of the disposal of private property. Liberalism recognises that it is no longer possible to accept the view that all men have arTequdl chance, and that there Is nothing more to be done than merely to hold evenly the scales of government. As a matter of fact, the anomalies and the injustices of our present social system have compelled even our opponents to introduce ameliorative legislation. But the Liberal of to-day goes further. He asks that such economic changes shall be introduced as will make it pr»ggi"h1p fr.r pvpyy man to possess a minimum of security and comfort. Property is no longer to have an undue claim ; great wealth must be prepared to bear burdens in the interests of the whole community. Our social system must have an ethical basis.

At least since Bismarck prevailed upon the German Reichstag j^^ to enact measures to insure workingmen against sickness, accident, « unernployment. and old age, the progressive. governments of every civilised state have concerned themselves with a vast range of social legislation. The labour of a life-time would hardly suffice to study~fhe various forms and activities of social politics in Australia and New Zealand, in the Scandinavian states and in Belgium, in France and in Germany, in Great Britain and in our own

1 Democratic England, pp. 5-7.

American Union. Yet the subject is of such interest and immediate importance to every student of comtemporary history and politics — so portentous for the future — that its extent and complexity should not stagger us ; there is but an increased need of a dispassionate and scientific review of the causes and results of social politics.

II

It w^ould be difficult to find any country better adapted to an introductory study of social politics than England, where, in a nation of first-rate importance, the two requisite factors, to which reference has been made, have been very much in evidence throughout the nineteenth century. On the one hand, the revolutionary spirit of democracy, since the time of Burke and Pitt, has coursed through the veins of the old-time corporation government of the country and has remade the body politic, until now not a nation in the world can boast a more simple, direct, and truly representative form of political democracy than the United Kingdom. On the other hand, no country has been more, or worse, affected by the Industrial Revolution ;_no nation has had graver industrial^ problems to face. It was in Great Britain that the most important mechanical inventions were made; it was British manufacturers who had a start of at least a score of years over their continental rivals ; and to those islands throughout the nineteenth century has clung that boasted preeminence in industry and in trade. And anyone who takes the trouble to peruse thousands of pages of parliamentary records and commission reports can begin to understand at what tremendous cost that industrial supremacy has been secured and upheld — a cost of veritable millions of human lives and of the physical and spiritual degradation of other millions.^ The most serious social questions have confronted England's political democracy!

1 Cf., in addition to the various Factory Commission and Poor Law Commission Reports, Charles Booth, Life and Labour of the People in London, and Seebohm Rowntree, Poverty : A Study of Town Life.

Nor would it be easy to find a country better fitted than England to illustrate the elements of opposition to such a socialising tendency, for it must not be supposed that democracy has been evolved in the United Kingdom suddenly, or without a struggle, or that the entire English nation have at any time thoroughly understood the social problem or been over-anxious to cope with it. The interested conservative classes have always had their many apologists, whether of the obscurantist type who seek to justify opposition to change by reference to the mysterious workings of a Divine Providence, or of the so-called scientific turn who aim to clothe existent inequality and injustice in the language of the economic schools. In fact, many clergymen and other ethical teachers, and political economists with their laissez-faire theories, and lawyers and judges with their juristic explanations of the Englishman's right to freedom of contract, all contributed support, directly or indirectly, throughout the greater part of the nineteenth century, to that compact conservatism which, in the name of law and order and security, or of sound economic doctrine, or even of God, checked the growth of the social democracy and- prevented the application of its remedies.'^

The whole problem has been rendered especially difficult in the United Kingdom by reason of an established church and a landed aristocracy, both of which have been naturally bent upon the preservation of the status quo. They have enjoyed the prestige which belongs to ruling classes, and not only have they declined to see advantage in a change which might molest their own abundant wealth and large estates, but they have succeeded in inculcating in many others a similar attitude of mind. The Return which Lord Derby asked for in 1872, as a result of a criticism by John Stuart Mill, incomplete and inaccurate as it was, showed certainly that in that day 2250 persons owned nearly half the enclosed land of England and Wales, 1700 owned nine tenths of Scotland, and

1 Cf. A. V. Dicey, Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century (1905).

1942 owned two thirds of Ireland. From the same Return we learn that 28 dukes held estates to the amount of nearly 4,000,000 acres, t,;^ marquises 1,500,000 acres, 194 earls 5,862,000 acres, and 270 viscounts and barons 3,785,000 acres. Since 1872, the number of landowners has considerably increased, but not to such an extent as materially to alter the fact that, over against an enormous land monopoly in the hands of the aristocracy, the vast majority of British subjects possess no right whatsoever to their native soil. Any such monopoly is bound to be inimical to political democracy and social equality, yet it is not without its defence by economists, jurists, and divines.

Of course, the landed aristocracy have bv no means universally fvpposed social legislation. For several decades, jealous of the increasing wealth of manufacturers and merchants and traders whom the new industrial system immediately benefited, and envious of this newer aristocracy that was springing up about them, they contributed important support to the first discomfiture of the new capitalists. Such a man as Shaftesbury furnished a conspicuous example in his support of factory legislation. These noblemen were often zealous to attack the manufacturers, but were rigidly conservative in the defence of their own landed interests. In time, however, as the profits of their estates were invested more and more in commercial and industrial enterprises, the former friction tended to disappear, and the whole aristocracy, whether founded originally on land or on trade or on manufacturing, have, in our own time, discovered common interests in opposing labour legislation all along the line.

In the political institutions of the country these privileged classes have been deeply intrenched. For centuries the statutes have been promulgated under the form, "Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same." Of course, the crown was practically deprived of its legislative powers by the " Glorious

Revolution" of 1688, and Queen Anne exercised the sovereign's veto riglit in 1707 for the last time. But the Lords Spiritual and Temporal — the House of Lords — remained long aftenvards a powerful factor in legislation, or, more often, in staying legislation. At the beginning of the nineteenth century not only was this House an important governmental institution, of equal powers with the Commons, save in strictly fiscal affairs, but its members, by means of indirect influence or direct patronage, actually controlled a large number of seats in the other House, and although the passage of the Reform Bill of 1832 served partially to free the Commons from the Lords, nevertheless the Upper Chamber remained to our own day a conservative and usually successful opponent of democratic legislation. The House of Lords has been a curious survival, a historical anachronism, in the progress of British democracy.

Nor has the House of Commons achieved its present position without a very long struggle. Emancipated in part from the Anglican hierarchy and the higher nobility by the Reform Bill of 1832, and rendered more representative of the country than it had ever been before, it still remained far from democratic. Its restricted electorate and peculiar method of election tended quite naturally to limit its membership to the country gentry and to the newer industrial and commercial magnates ; and the counsels of these classes customarily prevailed in Commons' debates. To tell the story of how the democratic spirit in the nation reacted upon the House","and~how the reforms of 1867, of 1872, of 1884, and of_ 1885 were secured, would far exceed the spacfi-aad purpose-ofJiiLS introductory notei^ The movement was painfully slow ; and it has been only of comparatively recent date that the House of Commons has become largely representative and able to assume seriously and interestedly the responsibilities of social politics. Even now, certain property qualihcations prevent some half million~oF aduff^rfEfsh male citizens, who are in particular need of remedial

1 Cf. May, Constitutional History of England, edited by Francis Holland, 3 vols. (1912). ,*•'''

legislation, from exercising_the suffrage, to say nothing of all thg female citizens of the kingdom.

Without entering into a discussion of the matter, it may not be amiss at this point to suggest a possible further difficulty in the British polity — the two-party system. For many years every voting Englishman was identified, largely by reason of historical accident, with one of two parties — the Tory, or Conservative, and the Whig, or Liberal. The two-party system, whatever may be its advantages, has certain defects, as we in the United States know only too well, — a devotion to names rather than to principles, a traditional, almost hereditary, alignment of voters on important questions, and a loyalty to party often transcending loyalty to the nation at large, — and evidences of these defects are not lacking in English history. When one thinks of the party squabbles over protection and imperialism and Irish Home Rule, and of the time and energy spent in gaining some slight tactical advantage for a political party, he wonders whether the most successful operation of real democracy will not be through channels other than the two-party system. At all events, the group systems that prevail in Germany and in France, and that are now appearing in Great Britain, do not seem to be barren of achievement.

That the old-line British parties promoted real progress along certain lines is indisputable. Thus, it was the Whigs, or Liberals, who sponsored the great Reform Bill of 1832 and a good deal of the subsequent reform legislation, such as the democratisation of

1 The following brief outline of the development of the political parties in England should be supplemented by readings in May, Constitutional History of England, ed. by P'rancis Holland, 3 vols. (1912) ; Sir William R. Anson, Law and Custom of the English Constitution, 2 vols. (2d ed., 1896) ; H. Paul, A History of Modern England, 5 vols. (1904-1906) ; .S. Walpole, History of England since 1S15, 6 vols. (1890), and History of Twenty-five Years, 2 vols. (1904) ; A. Dicey, op. cit., and The Law of the Constitution (1885) ; A. L. Lowell, The Government of England, 2 vols. (1908) ; and J. A. K. Marriott, English Political Institutions (1910).

the towns and cities, the repeal of the corn laws and establishment of free trade, the abolition of slavery in the colonies, the reform of the poor law, and the mild beginning of factory legislation. But the Liberals, recruited chiefly from the townsfolk, the middle-class traders and manufacturers, and the dissenters and Non-Conformists, appeared far more anxious to rid their brethren of black slavery beyond the seas than to check the growth of white serfdom in their own factories at home. The free-trade agitation of Cobden and Bright was the extreme radical plank in the Liberal platform of those days ; the party failed utterly to appreciate the aggravated distress of the working classes, or, if they did appreciate it, their self-interest or economic principles restrained them from applying remedies ; and it was Liberals quite as much as Tories who ridiculed and suppressed the Chartist movement. In their repugnance to a wider democracy and to state action for the improvement of the general welfare, the Liberals of the mid-century held fast to the faith of their forefathers, the Burkes and the Pitts.

On the other hand, the Tory, or Conservative, party were taught novel and strange doctrines by that bizarre and paradoxical genius, Disraeli. While that remarkable leader never lost an opportunity, in novel-writing or in parliamentary debate, to keep alive the Tory tradition of exalting the prestige of the landed aristocracy and the Anglican Church, and of proclaiming them as the bulwarks of English liberty, he was moved by the same Zeitgeist which supplied political theories to a Napoleon III and to a Bismarck. Disraeli, like his great contemporaries on the continent, declared that something definite should be done for the poorer and working classes in the community and that they should be educated to a proper sense of what they owed to the crown, the lords, and the church ; and in the meantime, a vigorous foreign and imperialistic policy would distract public attention from the graver domestic ills. It was Disraeli who both championed the Reform Act of 1867 and subordinated social legislation at home to the prosecution of a glorious diplomacy in India, in Afghanistan, in Egypt, in the Russo-Turkish lO BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS