PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS (WAR-TIME REGISTRATION) BILL. (Hansard, 11 July 1944)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.

§ VISCOUNT BENNETT
My Lords, once more I must ask your indulgence to draw attention to a matter that I consider to be of some importance, though it may not commend itself to your Lordships. We are all familiar with the discussions which have taken place with regard to the failure of democracy as a form or system of government. Perhaps the strongest statement with respect to democracy in modern times was made by Professor Lecky in his book Democracy and 826 Liberty. Yet Sir Henry Maine pointed out more clearly within the memory of many of us that democracy was bound to fail as a system of government for reasons he gave, indicating that the fact of the intelligent portion of the community being outnumbered by those not quite so intelligent or well-informed was bound to bring about a condition in which democracy would fail. In modern days at any rate the tendency has been to believe that as a system or form of government it has been to a very considerable extent a failure. Like all your Lordships, I have given some attention to try to ascertain the reasons why that is so. I am quite sure the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has given very much attention to it, as no doubt every member of this House has done.
I have arrived at the conclusion that the reason democracy has failed is that we have departed from the fundamental principle on which it was established. Originally action was taken by a clan or tribe only by unanimity. All steps had to be taken with unanimity—that is, every single chief or every single member of the tribe or clan could, for instance, prevent the tribe from going to war. They required this unanimity for action. That was the basis of it. Then as time went on it became clear that the accomplishment of that aim was very difficult. I remember that the late Lord Balfour pointed out on one occasion that the man who invented rule by majority had been the greatest politician of all time. The cold fact is that a change has occurred. The rule of democracy was that the majority ruled and that the minority accepted the will of the majority as their will and thereby made it unanimous. That was the theory of it. We had great success in that but by and by there came into existence more than two Parties in the State. In some Acts there was provision for a majority of two-thirds or three-quarters, especially on constitutional matters. This is so in the United States and in some of our own Dominions. That being so, the question then arose: What would happen when Parliament no longer consisted of only two Parties? The result was that instead of having the will of the majority we have more frequently the will of the minority imposed upon the majority. I submit to your Lordships that that is a negation of democracy, that the foundation of democracy is the rule 827 of the majority and that any departure from that rule such as we now have is what has caused the failure of democracy.
I will put another branch of the subject to your Lordships—namely, what we call proportional representation. That involves minority membership in any legislative or other body and that too is a negation of democracy. Take, for instance, a constituency of 21,000 electors. There are three candidates at the election. Seven thousand and one votes may elect a candidate. Twenty-one thousand divided by three plus one means that 7,001 votes may enable a man to get a seat in the House of Commons or any other Legislative body. What is the net result? It is that the majority is not represented and you have government by a minority. I know that there are many who will be very shocked at any observations that there should be more than one polling day, but the truth is, as has been found in some countries, that in order that the principle of democracy may prevail there should be a second poll between the two highest candidates at the first polling day. That does secure for any legislative body a party that represents the majority of the people of the State or province or realm. It secures that Parliament represents the majority. A Parliament that represents a minority can never function successfully as a democracy because the majority will not be bound by the will or caprice of a mere minority. That is one of the reasons why in my judgment we have had the difficulties that have become so accentuated since there have been an increasing number of candidates at elections.
I think it worthy of consideration that in dealing with the future of representation we should make provision so that the old foundation principle upon which democracy has been founded is maintained—namely, that the majority must rule, that a strong Government or a Government that reflects the will of the people shall be a Government that is supported by a majority of the electors. At this late hour I will not elaborate what I bad thought might be said. I shall con- 828 tent myself merely with the observations I have made for I believe that we must take some steps, especially in the future, now that we have universal suffrage of both men and women, to ensure that the principle of democracy is preserved. The cause of the discussions we have had today with respect to citizenship and with respect to all those matters which affect the welfare of the Realm and of the individual is to be found in the failure of democracy. This can only be safeguarded by the principle that the will of the majority must prevail in the Government of the country and must be embodied in any Statutes providing for the representation of the people of the country in the Commons House of Parliament.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I would wish, as a matter of courtesy, to assure my noble friend that those of us who have remained have been much interested in what he has said. There are one or two points on which I might on another occasion offer my modest contribution, but having regard to the hour I will put the question.