¹ In a recent authoritative article, however, Prof. W. J. M. Mackenzie of Manchester University has sketched out the field of inquiry and indicated topics for research. “Pressure Groups in British Government,” British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 6, pp. 133–48 (June, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² See Parsons, Talcott, The Social System (Glencoe, Ill., 1951)Google Scholar, Ch. 9, “The Processes of Change of Social Systems.”

³ See “The Ladder and the Queue,” from a broadcast by the Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Churchill on Oct. 8, 1951. In The New Conservatism: An Anthology of Post-War Thought (London, 1955), pp. 24–25Google Scholar.

⁴ See “Pensions in Perspective,” The Economist, Dec. 11, 1954, pp. 883–88Google Scholar. The article also discusses the “bidding up” of pensions at election time.

⁵ The Labor Party, Challenge to Britain: a Programme for Action (London, Dec., 1953), p. 25Google Scholar.

⁶ The Economist, July 24, 1954, p. 261Google Scholar.

⁷ 535 H. C. Deb. 146–148 (Dec. 1, 1954) and Cmd. 9338 for the increases and the timetable for their coming into effect.

⁸ See the discussion of professional associations by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who noted the growth of such organizations in membership and power in the decades before World War I and the increasing recognition of them by government. New Statesman, Vol. 9, “Special Supplement on Professional Associations,” April 21 and 28, 1917 and Vol. 5, “Special Supplement on English Teachers and their Professional Organization,” Sept. 25 and Oct. 2,1915. Both were special reports prepared for the Fabian Research Department at a time when guild socialism and pluralism were much in vogue.

⁹ For instance, virtually all trade unions—as compared with our, until recently, three major organizations—belong to the TUC and the total trade union membership runs not much under 50 per cent of the total working force—as compared with less than a quarter here. The National Farmers' Union is the only significant organization of farmers in Britain and it includes about 90 per cent of its potential membership, while here there are three important organizations, including together probably no more than 30 per cent of all farmers. In Britain there is only one important veterans' organization—the British Legion—while we have the Legion, VFW, AMVETS, and the AVC. In the field of business organization, the story is rather different. The comprehensive organizations in Britain are the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers, and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. These three organizations work together smoothly, however, and one does not get the impression that in political action British business is more divided than American.

¹⁰ An M.P. who wishes to speak in the House on a matter in which he has a direct pecuniary interest—e.g., through the ownership of property—is obliged to “declare his interest.” Sponsorship involving a subsidy, however, does not entail such a declaration.

¹¹ For the practice, see Sir Lewis Namier's anatomy of the 18th-century House of Commons in his Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III, 2 vols. (London, 1929)Google Scholar. For the theory, see, for example, Sir Robert Harry Inglis' great speech against the Reform Bill in 1831, when he defended the House as an assembly including representatives of all the great interests of the country. (2 H.C.Deb., 3rd ser., 1090–1139, esp. at 1109 and 1133 [1 March 1831].)

¹² Gash, Norman, Politics in the Age of Peel (London, 1953), pp. 106–9Google Scholar.

¹³ Cracroft, Bernard, “The Analysis of the House of Commons, or Indirect Representation” in Essays on Reform (London, 1867), pp. 155–90Google Scholar.

¹⁴ In 1947 the House resolved that it is a breach of privilege for a member to enter into a contractual agreement with an outside body “stipulating that he shall act in any way as the representative of such outside body” in Parliament. This has not, however, prevented M.P.s from representing the views of outside organizations in the House, nor has it prevented outside bodies from continuing their subventions. So long as the “complete independence and freedom of action” of the M.P. is respected, such arrangements are legitimate. See 440 H.C. Deb. 285 and in general the debate on this question, col. 284–365, and the report from the Committee of Privileges on which the debate was based (H.C. No. 118, 1946–7).

¹⁵ Report, Committee of Privileges (H.C. No. 118, 1946–7), Minutes of Evidence, p. 8.

¹⁶ At the outbreak of the war, for instance, part of the organization of the British Iron and Steel Federation was taken over by the Iron and Steel Control of the Ministry of Supply and its then president was made the Iron and Steel Controller. (Worswick, G. D. N., The Raw Materials Controls, Tract No. 257, The Fabian Society; London, 1944.)Google Scholar The general type of control in the Ministry of Supply was a converted trade association. (Government and Industry; Fabian Research Group; Research Series No. 83; London, 1944.)Google Scholar

¹⁷ In 1950 the Committee on Intermediaries reported on the relations between government departments and the great bureaucratic pressure groups. It referred to these relations as “organized liaison” concerning not only individual cases, but also “the general formulation and execution of policy” and constituting “an essential and recognised part of the machinery of government.” (Report; Cmd. 7904; March, 1950, par. 6.)

¹⁸ For discussion of the annual price reviews, see the annual reports of the N.F.U.; statements in the House of Commons by ministers; the White Papers normally issued stating the results of the price reviews; comment in farmers' periodicals, especially The British Farmer, The Farmer's Weekly, and The Farmer and Stockbreeder, as well as the general press, especially The Times, Manchester Guardian, and Economist, the last of which has the best running comment on agricultural policy.

¹⁹ SirKipping, Norman, The Federation of British Industries (London, 1954), p. 6Google Scholar.

²⁰ 522 H.C. Deb. 1331 (Jan. 22, 1954) and Manchester Guardian, Jan. 22, 1954, p. 14Google Scholar.

²¹ On the activities of the N.U.T., apart from those invaluable and obvious sources, The Times and Hansard, see its annual reports and The Schoolmaster and Woman Teacher's Chronicle, a weekly periodical published by the Union.

²² Quoted in Flanders, Allan, Trade Unions (London, 1952), p. 64Google Scholar.

²³ The Committee on Intermediaries reported in 1950 that 21 departments of government received some 19,000,000 applications each year from members of the public for “licenses, permits and various kinds of benefits.” “The Departments,” it said “… have one thing in common. Whatever their particular branch of business, they all have the disposal of something which members of the public want—whether that be a license to acquire material needed for carrying on a business, permission to act in a oertain way or the grant of some monetary or other benefit” Report, (oited in note 17), par. 6.

²⁴ Writing of the struggle over the Education Act of 1902, Beatrice Webb contrasted “teachers' politics,” which was practiced by the N.U.T., with “teachers' diplomacy,” which was practiced by the representatives of the “elite” secondary schools. “Teachers politics” meant lobbying, deputations to ministers and M.P.s, and other forms of public pressure; “teachers' diplomacy” meant informal contacts with persons of influence on the part of secondary school teachers who in general belonged to the same social class. New Statesman, Vol. 5, “Special Supplement on English Teachers and their Organization,” Sept. 25 and Oct. 2, 1915.

²⁵ For elaboration of this point, see Butler, D. E., “American Myths about British Political Parties,” Virginia Quarterly Review, Vol. 31, pp. 46–56 (Winter, 1954)Google Scholar; and Beer, S. H., “The Future of British Politics: An American View,” Political Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 33–43 (Jan.-Mar., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁶ Report of the 52nd Annual Conference of the Labour Party (London, 1953), p. 145Google Scholar.

²⁷ Annual Report. National Farmers' Union (London, 1953), passim and report of Glasshouse Produce Committee, pp. 78 ff.Google Scholar

²⁸ See his attack on GATT at the Conservative conference of 1953, Verbatim Report, p. 63.

²⁹ Report, p. 147.

³⁰ Manchester Guardian, Oct. 2, 3, 19, and 29, 1953.

³¹ Jennings, W. Ivor, Parliament (Cambridge, Eng., 1939), pp. 211–12Google Scholar.

³² “The Powder and the Jam,” New Statesman and Nation, Vol. 47, pp. 148–49 (Jan. 33, 1954)Google Scholar.

³³ The terms“value”and “ideology” are used in the senses given them by Talcott Parsons in his Social System (Glencoe, 1951)passim and esp. at pp. 12 and 349.Google ScholarA value is a standard for selection among the alternatives which are intrinsically open in a situation and may be cognitive, appreciative, or moral. Following Parsons, I distinguish between values and need-dispositions (ibid., pp. 12–13). This distinction is important because values have the function of integrating social action not only directly, but also indirectly by conditioning need-dispositions. Without such integration a stable society would be impossible. Similarly, a principal theme of this article is the integrative function of values in the political system.

The meaning I give to “interest” is based on Parsons' concept of need-disposition. Like a need-disposition, an interest is not simply “appetite,” a genetically given need, but is appetite conditioned by social experience. Appreciative values, for instance, will condition the objects in which the ego seeks its gratification—e.g., the profit motive is not inborn—and will be more or less integrated with the developing moral values of a society—e.g., the rise of the moral values of the welfare state will enhance the desire of individuals and groups for economic security. Also, moral values may directly encourage or inhibit the assertion of felt needs. As John Plamenatz has pointed out in a perceptive note, people are not likely to assert demands for the satisfaction of needs unless they believe them to be justifiable. “Interests,” Journal of Political Studies, Vol. 2, pp. 1–8 (Feb., 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Yet an interest remains a claim for a satisfaction of the individual, or of the smaller collectivity as distinguished from the larger within which the claim is asserted. While, therefore, interests and values are closely related, the interests pursued within a political system must be distinguished from the primary integrative elements of the system, its values.

³⁴ 227 H. C. Deb. 54 (April 15, 1929).

³⁵ See Schumpeter, Joseph, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 2nd ed. (London, 1947), pp. 368–70Google Scholar.

³⁶ For discussion of this and other problems of the voluntary association in the welfare state, see Beveridge, Lord, Voluntary Action (London, 1948)Google Scholar.

³⁷ Chapman, Donald, “What Prospect for the Labour Party?,” The Political Quarterly, Vol. 25, pp. 205–16 (July-Sept., 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁸ Manchester Guardian, Oct. 16, 1953, p. 12Google Scholar.

³⁹ Verbatim Report of the Proceedings of the 68th Annual Conference, Oct. 2–4 1947. National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations (London, 1947), pp. 42–43Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ For example, at the 1953 conference, when a resolution was moved welcoming “the reduction in taxation already made” and urging “further economies in national expenditure,” an addendum was offered specifying that this should be done “whilst maintaining and improving the social services.” While the supporters of the original resolution were interrupted several times by hearty applause—for example, when asking for cuts in the housing subsidies—those supporting the addendum were heard in silence. Nevertheless, they met with no opposition and were mildly applauded at the end of their speeches; the addendum was accepted by the original movers and the resolution as amended passed unanimously. Verbatim Report, pp. 43–49.

⁴¹ See Feiling, Keith, Life of Neville Chamberlain (London, 1947)Google Scholar, and on Baldwin, Thomas Jones, A Diary with Letters, 1931–1950 (London, 1954)Google Scholar.

⁴² The Liberal Tradition in America (New York, 1955)Google Scholar.