¹ Actually the new procedure of the House of Commons closely resembles the procedure used by the House of Lords. Just as in the Lords, there is much cross argument, infrequent joining of the issue, and no attempt to press an advantage. When the session starts with a prime-ministerial statement, the subsequent discussion is limited, as a rule, to expressions of appreciation. The taking of a record vote by a division is avoided whenever possible.

² The more democratically-minded reformers wished the House of Commons not only to hear and approve Government policies in general terms—the change that has been instituted—but also to choose committees to work with and to supervise the administrative departments. In general, this latter change has not occurred, though the Select Committee on National Expenditure has shown what might be done. Indeed, the direct control of the House over administration is probably less today than at any other time since the Reform Bill. Various proposals for House of Commons reform were given at length in the Special Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in Public Business (Stationery Office 161 of 1931).

³ Jennings, W. Ivor, in Annual Survey of English Law, 1939 (London, 1940), p. 37.Google Scholar

⁴ I omit any consideration of the important question of the organization of production, since there has been no constitutional change respecting it.

⁵ The civil service, moreover, is the only permanent planning agency that the English system provides for. However imperfect it may be in this capacity, its depletion may have a more serious effect than other changes superficially more important. On October 28, 1941, the reservation age for civil servants was raised, for the administrative and executive grades, from 25 to 30, and for clerical grades from 30 to 35 (Manchester Guardian, Oct. 29, 1941).

⁶ English regional schemes are at least as old as early attempts to solve the problem of Irish home rule. Recent schemes have had a socio-economic basis, such as the project for a regional government of Northumbria, or the attempts to deal with “depressed” areas.

⁷ In November, 1941, the House of Lords, with one law lord, Lord Atkin, dissenting, decided that the Home Secretary's discretion to detain under Regulation 18b was unlimited (Manchester Guardian, Nov. 8, 1941). In October, Mr. Mc-Govern, M.P., wished to go to Northern Ireland to get information on which he could judge the propriety of a detention under Regulation 18b of a member of the parliament of Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary refused him permission to make the journey. (See Manchester Guardian, Oct. 17, 1941, and following.) Thus neither courts nor members of the House of Commons may look into the propriety of the Home Secretary's actions.

⁸ When it is provided, for instance, that regional commissioners, in making local regulations, must secure the consent of the Home Secretary if possible, what is actually meant is that they need submit them to him only if they see fit.

⁹ A valuable judgment as to the extent to which “crisis legislation” (as he calls it) may permanently affect English institutions is found in SirCarr, Cecil Thomas, Concerning English Administrative Law (New York, 1941)Google Scholar, Chap. 5 et passim.