THE PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
WHEN Mr. Balfour on the 30th of last month explained to the House of Commons the Govern- ment's proposals for amending the Rules of Procedure, he asked that those proposals might not be met with the assertion that the Govdrnment were " abandoning the old traditions of the House and throwing away safeguards which were once necessary " in the Constitution. He appealed to Members, that is to say, to discuss the new Rules as practical business men ; to regard the Govern- ment scheme as a scheme not necessarily final or perfect, but as at least an honest attempt to deal with a very difficult subject. His appeal has not been entirely successful. There are Members, like Mr. Gibson Bowles, to whom such an appeal seems to be merely an incentive to unmannerliness. But on the whole the long discussion which has taken place on the Government's proposals has been markedly fair and earnest. Credit hits been generously given by Opposition speakers where they con- sidered that credit was due, even though whole-hearted acceptance of the new scheme has seemed to 'them im- possible. For ourselves, we regard. the Government's pro- posals, taken as a whole, as likely to be productive of great good. In considering possible schemes of reform of Parliamentary procedure, there are two main questionii that sensible men must ask themselves. First,—Will this or that alteration lead to the business of the nation being done in a more thorough, more rapid, and, in short, a more businesslike way ? Second,—Are we, in adopting this alteration, at the same time dispensing with anything that is valuable and necessary ? Or, in other words, is our gain possibly outweighed by our loss ? We believe that time will show that the proposed new Rules, on the whole, satisfactorily answer both questions.
We sympathise thoroughly with the spirit that jealously regards the House of Commons as what has been called "the Grand Inquest of the nation." We would not alter one iota of its Rules of Procedure unless we were convinced that such an Inquest were rendered more efficient and effective by so doing. But you cannot avoid facts. The potentialities of the Inquest change with time. And what are the facts ? Contrast the conditions of a hundred years ago with the conditions prevailing to-day, and take the debated point of questions first. In 1800 not a single question was asked during the whole Session of Parlia- 'ment. In 1901—we give Mr. Balfour's figures—there were asked 7,180 questions. These 7,180 questions occu- pied nearly 120 hours, or 15 eight-hour days i of Parlia- mentary work. Then take the time occupied n division work in the lobbies,—work of a purely physical kind. Last year there were 482 divisions. Calculating divisions as taking place at the rate of 5 in an hour—which is quick work rather than otherwise—that means that 12 eight- hour days were eaten up in the bodily exercise of wOking in and out of lobbies. We only give two sets of figures. Now is it in any way possible, regarding the House of Commons as an assembly of men entrusted with definite business to perform, to deny that there is something 'wrong here? But there is more to be said. Time is wasted in other ways. As matters stand at present no single Member of the House knows for certain where he is, what he has to do, when he will be called upon to vote, when he may safely absent him- self from - the • House, when he must make sure of being present, when, in fact, he is wanted to do the 'business he has been sent to Westminster to per- form. Why, as Mr. Balfour put it, should the Mem- ber of Parliament, simply because he is a Member of Parliament, alone of his Majesty's subjects never know when he can dine and when he can sleep ? It is surely necessary in this matter to clear our minds of cant. It is difficult to have patience with those who argue that because you are a Member of Parliament you must there- fore resign the ordinary man's desire to live a regular, rational life. You have undertaken to represent in the House of Commons the views of so many-thousand busi- nesslike men. You must, therefore, lead an unbusiness- like existence. You must be prepared -to spend your afternoons and evenings in " hanging about." You may be wanted, or you may not be wanted, at any minute. But you must " hang about " in case you are wanted.' The contention is absurd. It is as if the captain of cricket eleven, having won the toss, were to insist that the whole of his team must sit, padded, gloved, and bat in hand, on a single seat in the pavilion, in case he might suddenly decide that any particular member of the team should go in next.
First and foremost, therefore, we welcome the proposal of a settled "journal" for the House. If the Government proposals are carried, the House for the first four days of each week will meet at 2. Private business will last till 2.25. At 2.25 will be asked. questions relative to the taking of business. Public business will last from 2.30 till 7.15. From 7.15 to 8 will come questions. At 9 the House will resume, and after the disposal of any remnant of private business, public, or private Members', business will last till 12, when remaining questions, if any remain, will be answered. Friday will be given to the private Members instead of Wednesday as hitherto. That is the " journal," and we regard the idea underlying its construction as businesslike and sound. It gets rid of "hanging about." It allows the Member of Parliament to arrange his time and to concentrate his activities, as surely he must and should if he is to add to the efficiency of the Rouse to which he belongs. Apart from the time-table, however, the new Rules touch other points. It was never a businesslike arrangement that the work of the House might be stopped altogether by the fact that the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees might both at the same time be prevented from coming down to the House. The new Rules provide for the election of a Deputy Chairman empowered to act on behalf of the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees. That is a sensible and businesslike pre- caution also. But another point arises. The business of the House must not be interrupted. As Mr. Chamber- lain has put it, " the efficiency of any deliberative body rests entirely on the authority of the Chair." The new Rules strengthen the authority of the Chair. For a first offence against the Chair's authority the penalty is to be raised from suspension for " a week to suspension for twenty days ; for the second offence, suspension for forty days ; and for the third offence, -suspension for eighty days,all these days to be Parliamentary working days. That is, if a Member is suspended by the Chairman on the last day of a Session, the penalty inflicted runs into the working days of the next Session, instead of, as hitherto, merely into the holidays. We are not, however, completely satisfied on what is, after all, a minor point. It is provided by the new Rules that a Member may not resume his seat, after having been " guilty of gross dis- orderly conduct," until he has " communicated to Mr. Speaker the expression of his sincere regret " for his offence to the Chair. We object to this provision simply because we do not think that it is. businesslike. It is all very well to punish, but in addition to inflicting punish- ment to insist on what in the nature of things may not in all cases be a really " sincere " apology seems to us need- less. There is little utility in trying to reduce a grown- up man to the " Say you're sorry " position of the naughty child of the nursery.
We regard the Government's proposals in this matter entirely from a non-party standpoint, It is very easy to do otherwise. It is easy, for instance, to cavil at the possibility, or probability, of most Members taking under the new Rules a " holiday" or a " week-end " from Thursday night to Monday morning. We do not object to that possibility. We see nothing dangerous in it, and much that will work for good. It is a fact that there are Members of the House whose " business " may compel them to be absent from London for at least two days in the week. The presence at Westminster of thinking business men of this class for the remaining four days in the week is surely not to be tabooed. The point is that no sensible man can contend that the House of Commons at present, having certain things to do, finds it always possible to go the right and businesslike way to do them. We do not believe that there is in any party, even in any clique, a, Member of Parliament who does not in his heart complain to himself of the dilatoriness, the ineffectiveness, the waste of time necessitated by the con- ditions under which the work of the House of Commons is done. Sir William Harcourt urges that the House is not a meeting of Vestrymen, not a meeting of shareholders in a company. We agree : it is something-far greater. But that is no reason for refusing to admit that the business. like methods of a Vestry Board or a committee of share- holders might be valuable to the country. We welcome the new Rules precisely because we believe that the " business " of the greatest Assembly in the world will be furthered by an approach—why should it be regarded as a descent ?—to the methods adopted by smaller and far less important bodies.
Previous page
