taxation that was essential. Unfortunately it is the practice in a
portion of the Press always to give prominence to the strange antics of
certain members and the vicious attempts made by some to embarrass the
Government in carrying on the War. A scene in the House of Commons is
fully reported; the good work done, especially by certain useful
committees, passes almost unnoticed. It is true, however, that the
character of many of the debates has been regrettable, and that as
regards what is perhaps its most important function, namely, the control
of expenditure, the House has not been able to exercise its functions as
it should.

It was pointed out years ago that the House of Commons was in practice
ceasing to be what it ought, according to Constitutional theory, to be,
"a deliberative assembly of the representatives of the nation discussing
and forming judgments on national policy, instituting legislation and
determining its form," and was becoming simply "a body for registering
the decrees of a Cabinet." In practice it was assumed to be "the duty of
the minority in opposition to find objections to the proposals of the
Government, representing the majority, and to occupy time in voting
against them as often as possible, and on the other hand that it is the
duty of the majority to refrain from discussion, to applaud Ministers,
and to make sure that whatever they propose shall be carried by
undiminished numbers." In this respect the present House is no worse
than its predecessors for the last thirty years; the political truce has
indeed improved matters in some respects. It is at least doubtful
whether under "pre-War conditions" either the Representation of the
People Bill or the Education Bill could have been carried, certainly
they would not have been passed in a form to secure so much general
consent. Instead of such consent, some measure strongly opposed by a
minority might have been forced through by free use of the closure. A