It would perhaps be improper to leave in the mind of the student the impression that in either the United States or France the people have retained the bicameral system merely because of dislike of change or because of adherence to a tradition which has really ceased to be applicable. Many persons both in the United States and in France honestly believe that great advantage is derived from the bicameral system, owing to the fact that every matter which is acted upon favorably by a two-chambered legislature is subjected to a double examination. But whether because of the desire to secure locality or class representation or double deliberation, it is at present the case that in almost all civilized countries in the world possessing an approximation to popular government, the bicameral system of legislative organization has been adopted.

XIII

THE BICAMERAL SYSTEM AND ITS RELATION TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

THE

HE bicameral form of legislative organization was accepted as the proper form at a time when the general principle of the separation of the legislative and executive powers of government had great if not controlling influence over men's minds. In those days it was believed that permanent good government was possible only upon the condition that on the one hand the executive authority should be, so far as concerned his tenure of office and the exercise of discretion, within the limits of the law, independent of the legislature, and that, on the other hand, the legislature should in its exercise of the powers conferred upon it by the constitution act independently of almost any executive control. The principle further was believed to involve the grant to the legislative of all power to make the law and to the executive of all power to enforce the law.

Under the mistaken belief that this general theory lay at the basis of the British system of government as it existed at the end of the eighteenth century, the framers of the United States Constitution drafted their instrument on what they believed to be British lines. The founders of the American system of government derived their conceptions of the British system either from Black

stone, who described the law of England rather than actual British institutions and practices, or from the incomplete and inexact appreciation of those institutions made by the French writer Montesquieu, whose work on Esprit des Lois had great vogue among the political thinkers of a century and a quarter ago. But about the time that Montesquieu was writing his book a movement had begun in Great Britain which was destined to have an important influence on the position and powers of the British upper house, the House of Lords.

As a result of the dying out of the last of the Stuart line of monarchs, who, under the Act of Settlement, were entitled to the British throne, the Hanoverian line obtained the crown at the beginning of the eighteenth century. George I., the first of his line, was a German and did not understand the English language. He could not with any pleasure or profit, and on that account did not, regularly meet with his ministers, but preferred to deal with only one of them. The result was the gradual development of what has since come to be known as the Prime Minister. To this minister the Crown, during the reigns of both George I. and George II., intrusted the management of public business. Among his other functions was the control of Parliament in such a way that the business of the country would be carried on smoothly. If he could not control Parliament he was expected to resign and give way to one who could.

The efforts of the various public men in England, either to keep or to get office, resulted in the development of political parties. At first almost each public man of prominence had his own following. There were many little parties, but gradually these parties united until two large parties were formed. One of these

usually supported the government, and the other opposed it.

This movement continued with only one serious interruption until 1832. This interruption was in large measure due to the fact that the third generation of Hanoverian kings learned to speak English. George III., who was the cause of interrupting this general movement, not only could speak English, but also was a good deal of a politician himself by nature, and learned the business very well during his more than ordinarily busy reign. When he ascended the throne he was dissatisfied with the position into which the Crown was being forced by the movement which has been described. This position was that of reigning rather than governing, for the attempt of the Crown and the ministers to control the Parliament had resulted, with the development of political parties, in subjecting the Crown to greater and greater Parliamentary control. George III., therefore, determined to be his own Prime Minister, and, partly because of his ability as a politician and partly because of the influence the Crown still possessed, he was able to become a power in the government of his kingdom.

It was probably, in some degree, at any rate, because the American colonies were, at the time they became independent, more familiar with the political conditions of the reign of George III. than with the previous political history of England that they mistook a temporary reaction for a permanent condition. But however this may be, the period of George III.'s influence came to an end, and the movement whose progress he merely interrupted proceeded with even greater rapidity than before.

Prior to about 1830 conflict between the two houses of Parliament hardly existed, because the House of Commons was altogether subservient to the House of Lords. This was so, although it was the confidence of the House of Commons which the Cabinet had to have. Although the House of Commons was in theoretical control of the government, members of the House of Lords practically controlled the election of enough members of the House of Commons to secure a majority in that body. But in the latter part of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century England was undergoing great changes in its social and economic conditions. The expansion of foreign trade, the increasing use of coal, the manufacture of iron, and the invention of the steam-engine and its application to manufactures, with the consequent development of the factory system in industry, all contributed to the formation of new kinds of wealth and new classes of property-owners. With increasing insistence these new classes demanded representation in the government, until about 1830 it became impossible longer to resist them.

A bill was at this time introduced into and passed the House of Commons, which later became famous under the name of the Reform Bill. It widened the suffrage considerably, and was therefore opposed by the House of Lords, but this opposition was overcome by the threat, which the Crown was compelled reluctantly to make, to appoint enough new peers in harmony with the views of the majority in the House of Commons to overcome the existing unfavorable majority in the House of Lords. The house having yielded, the bill was finally passed and became law without this threat being actually carried into effect.