Walter Bagehot

In truth, the principal peculiarity of the House of Commons in financial affairs is nowadays not a special privilege, but an exceptional disability.

On common subjects any member can propose anything, but not on money--the Minister only can propose to tax the people.

The House of Commons--now that it is the true sovereign, and appoints the real executive--has long ceased to be the checking, sparing, economical body it once was.

Every expenditure of public money has some apparent public object; those who wish to spend the money expatiate on that object; they say, "What is 50,000 pounds to this great country?

That check is the responsibility of the Cabinet for the national finance.

If any one could propose a tax, they might let the House spend it as it would, and wash their hands of the matter; but now, for whatever expenditure is sanctioned--even when it is sanctioned against the Ministry's wish--the Ministry must…

They will have to pay the bill for it; they will have to impose taxation, which is always disagreeable, or suggest loans, which, under ordinary circumstances, are shameful.

The Ministry is (so to speak) the bread-winner of the political family, and has to meet the cost of philanthropy and glory, just as the head of a family has to pay for the charities of his wife and the toilette of his daughters.

In truth, when a Cabinet is made the sole executive, it follows it must have the sole financial charge, for all action costs money, all policy depends on money, and it is in adjusting the relative goodness of action and policies that the…

From a consideration of these functions, it follows that we are ruled by the House of Commons; we are, indeed, so used to be so ruled, that it does not seem to be at all strange.

But of all odd forms of government, the oddest really is government by a PUBLIC MEETING.

If we think what an empire the English is, how various are its components, how incessant its concerns, how immersed in history its policy; if we think what a vast information, what a nice discretion, what a consistent will ought to mark…

We see a changing body of miscellaneous persons, sometimes few, sometimes many, never the same for an hour; sometimes excited, but mostly dull and half weary--impatient of eloquence, catching at any joke as an alleviation.

These are the persons who rule the British Empire--who rule England, who rule Scotland, who rule Ireland, who rule a great deal of Asia, who rule a great deal of Polynesia, who rule a great deal of America, and scattered fragments…

Paley said many shrewd things, but he never said a better thing than that it was much harder to make men see a difficulty than comprehend the explanation of it.

Nobody will understand Parliament government who fancies it an easy thing, a natural thing, a thing not needing explanation.

You have not a perception of the first elements in this matter till you know that government by a CLUB is a standing wonder.

It may be said that the House of Commons does not rule, it only elects the rulers.

I propose to begin this paper by asking, not why the House of Commons governs well? but the fundamental--almost unasked question--how the House of Commons comes to be able to govern at all?

The House of Commons can do work which the quarter-sessions or clubs cannot do, because it is an organised body, while quarter-sessions and clubs are unorganised.

But Lord Brougham does not know; he proposes to amend Parliamentary government by striking out the very elements which make Parliamentary government possible.

At present the majority of Parliament obey certain leaders; what those leaders propose they support, what those leaders reject they reject.

Nowadays, the power of leaders over their followers is strictly and wisely limited: they can take their followers but a little way, and that only in certain directions.

On the Conservative side of the House there are vestiges of the despotic leadership even now.

The progress of the military art is the most conspicuous, I was about to say the most SHOWY, fact in human history.