representative government-第15章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


　only　thing　which　Parliament　decides　is；　which　of　two；　or　at　most　three；　parties　or　bodies　of　men；　shall　furnish　the　executive　government：　the　opinion　of　the　party　itself　decides　which　of　its　members　is　fittest　to　be　placed　at　the　head。　According　to　the　existing　practice　of　the　British　Constitution；　these　things　seem　to　be　on　as　good　a　footing　as　they　can　be。　Parliament　does　not　nominate　any　minister；　but　the　Crown　appoints　the　head　of　the　administration　in　conformity　to　the　general　wishes　and　inclinations　manifested　by　Parliament；　and　the　other　ministers　on　the　recommendation　of　the　chief；　while　every　minister　has　the　undivided　moral　responsibility　of　appointing　fit　persons　to　the　other　offices　of　administration　which　are　not　permanent。　In　a　republic；　some　other　arrangement　would　be　necessary：　but　the　nearer　it　approached　in　practice　to　that　which　has　long　existed　in　England；　the　more　likely　it　would　be　to　work　well。　Either；　as　in　the　American　republic；　the　head　of　the　Executive　must　be　elected　by　some　agency　entirely　independent　of　the　representative　body；　or　the　body　must　content　itself　with　naming　the　prime　minister；　and　making　him　responsible　for　the　choice

of　his　associates　and　subordinates。　To　all　these　considerations；　at　least　theoretically；　I　fully　anticipate　a　general　assent：　though；　practically；　the　tendency　is　strong　in　representative　bodies　to　interfere　more　and　more　in　the　details　of　administration；　by　virtue　of　the　general　law；　that　whoever　has　the　strongest　power　is　more　and　more　tempted　to　make　an　excessive　use　of　it；　and　this　is　one　of　the　practical　dangers　to　which　the　futurity　of　representative　governments　will　be　exposed。　　　But　it　is　equally　true；　though　only　of　late　and　slowly　beginning　to　be　acknowledged；　that　a　numerous　assembly　is　as　little　fitted　for　the　direct　business　of　legislation　as　for　that　of　administration。　There　is　hardly　any　kind　of　intellectual　work　which　so　much　needs　to　be　done；　not　only　by　experienced　and　exercised　minds；　but　by　minds　trained　to　the　task　through　long　and　laborious　study；　as　the　business　of　making　laws。　This　is　a　sufficient　reason；　were　there　no　other；　why　they　can　never　be　well　made　but　by　a　committee　of　very　few　persons。　A　reason　no　less　conclusive　is；　that　every　provision　of　a　law　requires　to　be　framed　with　the　most　accurate　and　long…sighted　perception　of　its　effect　on　all　the　other　provisions；　and　the　law　when　made　should　be　capable　of　fitting　into　a　consistent　whole　with　the　previously　existing　laws。　It　is　impossible　that　these　conditions　should　be　in　any　degree　fulfilled　when　laws　are　voted　clause　by　clause　in　a　miscellaneous　assembly。　The　incongruity　of　such　a　mode　of　legislating　would　strike　all　minds；　were　it　not　that　our　laws　are　already；　as　to　form　and　construction；　such　a　chaos；　that　the　confusion　and　contradiction　seem　incapable　of　being　made　greater　by　any　addition　to　the　mass。　　　Yet　even　now；　the　utter　unfitness　of　our　legislative　machinery　for　its　purpose　is　making　itself　practically　felt　every　year　more　and　more。　The　mere　time　necessarily　occupied　in　getting　through　Bills　renders　Parliament　more　and　more　incapable　of　passing　any；　except　on　detached　and　narrow　points。　If　a　Bill　is　prepared　which　even　attempts　to　deal　with　the　whole　of　any　subject　（and　it　is　impossible　to　legislate　properly　on　any　part　without　having　the　whole　present　to　the　mind）；　it　hangs　over　from　session　to　session　through　sheer　impossibility　of　finding　time　to　dispose　of　it。　It　matters　not　though　the　Bill　may　have　been　deliberately　drawn　up　by　the　authority　deemed　the　best　qualified；　with　all　appliances　and　means　to　boot；　or　by　a　select　commission；　chosen　for　their　conversancy　with　the　subject；　and　having　employed　years　in　considering　and　digesting　the　particular　measure；　it　cannot　be　passed；　because　the　House　of　Commons　will　not　forego　the　precious　privilege　of　tinkering　it　with　their　clumsy　hands。　The　custom　has　of　late　been　to　some　extent　introduced；　when　the　principle　of　a　Bill　has　been　affirmed　on　the　second　reading；　of　referring　it　for　consideration　in　detail　to　a　Select　Committee：　but　it　has　not　been　found　that　this　practice　causes　much　less　time　to　be　lost　afterwards　in　carrying　it　through　the　Committee　of　the　whole　House：　the　opinions　or　private　crotchets　which　have　been　overruled　by　knowledge　always　insist　on　giving　themselves　a　second　chance　before　the　tribunal　of　ignorance。　Indeed；　the　practice　itself　has　been　adopted　principally　by　the　House　of　Lords；　the　members　of　which　are　less　busy　and　fond　of　meddling；　and　less　jealous　of　the　importance　of　their　individual　voices；　than　those　of　the　elective　House。　And　when　a　Bill　of　many　clauses　does　succeed　in　getting　itself　discussed　in　detail；　what　can　depict　the　state　in　which　it　comes　out　of　Committee！　Clauses　omitted　which　are　essential　to　the　working　of　the　rest；　incongruous　ones　inserted　to　conciliate　some　private　interest；　or　some　crotchety　member　who　threatens　to　delay　the　Bill；　articles　foisted　in　on　the　motion　of　some　sciolist　with　a　mere　smattering　of　the　subject；　leading　to　consequences　which　the　member　who　introduced　or　those　who　supported　the　Bill　did　not　at　the　moment　foresee；　and　which　need　an　amending　Act　in　the　next　session　to　correct　their　mischiefs。　　　It　is　one　of　the　evils　of　the　present　mode　of　managing　these　things　that　the　explaining　and　defending　of　a　Bill；　and　of　its　various　provisions；　is　scarcely　ever　performed　by　the　person　from　whose　mind　they　emanated；　who　probably　has　not　a　seat　in　the　House。　Their　defence　rests　upon　some　minister　or　member　of　Parliament　who　did　not　frame　them；　who　is　dependent　on　cramming　for　all　his　arguments　but　those　which　are　perfectly　obvious；　who　does　not　know　the　full　strength　of　his　case；　nor　the　best　reasons　by　which　to　support　it；　and　is　wholly　incapable　of　meeting　unforeseen　objections。　This　evil；　as　far　as　Government　bills　are　concerned；　admits　of　remedy；　and　has　been　remedied　in　some　representative　constitutions；　by　allowing　the　Government　to　be　represented　in　either　House　by　persons　in　its　confidence；　having　a　right　to　speak；　though　not　to　vote。　　　If　that；　as　yet　considerable；　majority　of　the　House　of　Commons　who　never　desire　to　move　an　amendment　or　make　a　speech　would　no　longer　leave　the　whole　regulation　of　business　to　those　who　do；　if　they　would　bethink　themselves　that　better　qualifications　for　legislation　exist；　and　may　be　found　if　sought　for；　than　a　fluent　tongue　and　the　faculty　of　getting　elected　by　a　constituency；　it　would　soon　be　recognised　that；　in　legislation　as　well　as　administration；　the　only　task　to　which　a　representative　assembly　can　possibly　be　competent　is　not　that　of　doing　the　work；　but　of　causing　it　to　be　done；　of　determining　to　whom　or　to　what　sort　of　people　it　shall　be　confided；　and　giving　or　withholding　the　national　sanction　to　it　when　performed。　Any　government　fit　for　a　high　state　of　civilisation　would　have　as　one　of　its　fundamental　elements　a　small　body；　not　exceeding　in　number　the　members　of　a　Cabinet；　who　should　act　as　a　Commission　of　legislation；　having　for　its　appointed　office　to　make　the　laws。　If　the　laws　of　this　country　were；　as　surely　they　will　soon　be；　revised　and　put　into　a　connected　form；　the　Commission　of　Codification　by　which　this　is　effected　should　remain　as　a　permanent　institution；　to　watch　over　the　work；　protect　it　from　deterioration；　and　make　further　improvements　as　often　as　required。　No　one　would　wish　that　this　body　should　of　itself　have　any　power　of　enacting　laws：　the　Commission　would　only　embody　the　element　of　intelligence　in　their　construction；　Parliament　would　represent　that　of　will。　No　measure　would　become　a　law　until　expressly　sanctioned　by　Parliament：　and　Parliament；　or　either　House；　would　have　the　power　not　only　of　rejecting　but　of　sending　back　a　Bill　to　the　Commission　for　reconsideration　or　improvement。　Either　House　might　also　exercise　its　initiative；　by　referring　any　subject　to　the　Commission；　with　directions　to　prepare　a　law。　The　Commission；　of　course；　would　have　no　power　of　refusing　its　instrumentality　to　any　legislation　which　the　country　desired。　Instructions；　concurred　in　by　both　Houses；　to　draw　up　a　Bill　which　should　effect　a　particular　purpose；　would　be　imperative　on　the　Commissioners；　unless　they　preferred　to　resign　their　office。　Once　framed；　however；　Parliament　should　have　no　power　to　alter　the　measure；　but　solely　to　pass　or　reject　it；　or；　if　partially　disapproved　of；　remit　it　to　the　Commission　for　reconsideration。　The　Commissioners　should　be　appointed　by　the　Crown；　but　should　hold　their　offices　for　a　time　certain；　say　five　years；　unless　removed　on　an　address　from　the　two　Houses　of　Parliament；　grounded　either　on　personal　misconduct　（as　in　the　case　of　judges）；　or　on　refusal　to　draw　up　a　Bill　in　obedience　to　the　demands　of　Parliament。　At　the　expiration　of　the　five　years　a　member　should　cease　to　hold　office　unless　reappointed；　in　order　to　provide　a　convenient　mode　of　getting　rid　of　those　who　had　not　been　found　equal　to　their　duties；　and　of　infusing　new　and　younger　blood　into　the　body。　　　The　necessity　of　some　provision　corresponding　to　this　was　felt　even　in　the　Athenian　Democracy；　where；　in　the　time　of　its　most　complete　ascendancy；　the　popular　Ecclesia　could　pass　Psephisms　（mostly　decrees　on　single　matters　of　policy）；　but　laws；　so　called；　could　only　be　made　or　altered　by　a　different　and　less　numerous　body；　renewed　annually；　called　the　Nomothetae；　whose　duty　it　also　was　to　revise　the　whole　of　the　laws；　and　keep　them　consistent　with　one　another。　In　the　English　Constitution　there　is　great　difficulty　in　introducing　any　arrangement　which　is　new　both　in　form　and　in　substance；　but　comparatively　little　repugnance　is　felt　to　the　attainment　of　new　purposes　by　an　adaptation　of　existing　forms　and　traditions。　　　It　appears　to　me　that　the　means　might　be　devised　of　enriching　the　Constitution　with　this　great　improvement　through　the　machinery　of　the　House　of　Lords。　A　Commission　for　preparing　Bills　would　in　itself　be　no　more　an　innovation　on　the　Constitution　than　the　Board　for　the　administration　of　the　Poor　Laws；　or　the　Inclosure　Commission。　If；　in　consideration　of　the　great　importance　and　dignity　of　the　trust；　it　were　made　a　rule　that　every　person　appointed　a　member　of　the　Legislative　Commission；　unless　removed　from　office　on　an　address　from　Parliament；　should　be　a　Peer　for　life；　it　is　probable　that　the　same　good　sense　and　taste　which　leave　the　judicial　functions　of　the　Peerage　practically　to　the　exclusive　care　of　the　law　lords；　would　leave　the　business　of　legislation；　except　on　questions　involving　political　principles　and　interests；　to　the　professional　legislators；　that　Bills　originating　in　the　Upper　House　would　always　be　drawn　up　by　them；　that　the　Government　would　devolve　on　them　the　framing　of　all　its　Bills；　and　that　private　members　of　the　House　of　Commons　would　gradually　find　it　convenient；　and　likely　to　facilitate　the　passing　of　their　measures　through　the　two　Houses；　if　instead　of　bringing　in　a　Bill　and　submitting　it　directly　to　the　House；　they　obtained　leave　to　introduce　it　and　have　it　referred　to　the　Legislative　Commission。　For　it　would；　of　course；　be　open　to　the　House　to　refer　for　the　consideration　of　that　body　not　a　subject　merely；　but　any　specific　proposal；　or　a　Draft　of　a　Bill　in　extenso；　when　any　member　thought　himself　capable　of　preparing