LATENT CONSERVATISM.
SOME fine morning, an obstructive party, possibly a Temperance party, or possibly a party organised by brewers, will try to stop some measure that the country really desires, and then Obstruction will come to a sudden end. The English people, after its historic fashion, will suddenly realise what it all means, and will apply a remedy, probably not yet suggested, but sure to be much larger in its scope than it would in its present mood con- template as possible. At present, however, one of the most noteworthy symptoms of the hour is the excessive reluc- tance of all parties in the House of Commons to deal with obstruction by any means for which legal warrant or formal precedent cannot be produced. The mere suggestion of a radical cure alarms them ; and they dread an accusa- tion of "gagging the House" as if every division taken while Members still wanted to speak were not precisely the same thing. The old system of shrieking at an orator, " 'Vide !" " 'Vide !" " 'Vide !" till he resumed his hat, was an application of the " gag " mob-fashion, instead, of a " gag ' authorised and regulated by Standing Order. Every plan that would certainly secure the result desired —namely, the freedom of the House to act—is looked at askance, not only by those whom it would silence, but by those whom it would relieve from almost unendurable re- straints. It would, for example, be perfectly possible for the majority, when utterly sickened with debate, to suspend the Standing Orders and pass the disputed Bill through all its stages at once,—that is, in fact, to decree that a Bill the principle of which had been accepted, should become law as it stood. Not only is this legal, but in relation to minute matters it is done with a certain frequency. A Bill, for instance, correcting a verbal blunder in an Act was passed in this fashion only last Sesssion, and, if we are not mistaken, became law within forty-eight hours of its first introduction into Parliament. That plan would be fatal to obstruction, and, provided always that the principle of the Bill had been fully dis- cussed, would probably work little mischief ; but Members of all opinions would regard it as revolutionary. It would terminate, they would say, government by deliberation. Even the plan of fixing a date by which the final vote must be taken finds exceedingly little favour, though that plan has been sanctioned by the House itself, and. is the one by which American Congressmen relieve themselves from their permanent danger of being talked into lunatic asylums. Another plan, that of referring the Bill to a Committee representing the proportionate strength of parties, and accepting the Bill, as amended by the Com- mitteemen, by a silent vote, has floated through many minds, and was no doubt the silent hope among many of those who voted for Grand Committees ; but if it were proposed as a regular method of getting through business, the House would draw in its breath with horror.
What ! a Bill to pass for Cornwall, and a Member for the Orkneys to have had no opportunity of saying his perfectly meaningless say about it !—that would be an ignominous end of the British Constitution. Secret sittings would repress loquacity, and so would silent sittings, say on Saturday, solely for the despatch of business ; but the House, until the cataclysm has arrived, will not hear of any scheme "so opposed to the habitual English methods." As for schemes more drastic still, such as allowing the Cabinet to pass a Bill as it passes Education Codes, to become law after it has remained six weeks before the House of Commons, Parliament is almost as likely to sanction legislation by Order in Council. We believe ourselves that the European States, weary of the sterility and slowness of their representative bodies, and awake to the fact that discussion nowadays goes on outside, will one day try the experiment of Cabinet legislation, which, indeed, is in operation in some depart- ments of business all over the Continent already ; but Englishmen have not learned to think of such a method as even possible. They will never get Codes, as all ex- perience shows, in any other way ; but they do not greatly desire Codes yet, and until they do, they will regard Code- making by Cabinets as at best a philosophic dream. At present they hardly can bring themselves to use the Closure, tempered though it be by the Speaker's mediating power ; and as for the "absolute Closure," as it is called, would regard it as an indefensible breach of all the traditions of Parliament. They would much prefer the old Scotch— vide Galt—method of stopping an intolerable bore, a gentle wringing of his neck-cloth by half-a-dozen hands at once, till he leaves off from sheer incapacity of articulate speech. That would recall their schoolboy days, and somehow seem natural to them, whereas a legal method of doing the same thing strikes them as oppressive. The truth is, the majority of all parties in the House of Commons are born Conservatives, and so far from desiring change as change, can hardly bring themselves to endure it even when it tends to their highest advantage and con- venience. Their first thought, when any suggestion is made as to procedure, is to ask for a precedent ; and if there is none, they reject it, usually undiscussed. They are not angry with the proposal or with the proposer, but quietly set down both as a little foolish, or at best entirely premature. If he is exceedingly pertinacious, they will permit him to "ask the Speaker ; " and we suppose if the Speaker smiled, they would begin to listen ; but if he did not smile, they would think any further pertinacity not so much courageous, or even conceited, as downright im- pudent. Not only do they wish things to go on as usual, but they cannot see why they should not go on, and practically take obstruction to be a sort of eclipse of the sun, which they only have to wait out. Parliament always has been able to act, and will be able again, and if a few Ministers are sent to their graves with worry and defeated hope, there are plenty more to replace them. Even their own misery does not move Members, any more than Americans are moved by the badness of their Civil Servants and Judges, and conductors of railway trains. The oppression is all legal and in the order of things, and up to a point they are only excited when there is a proposal for a radical change. To paralyse Parliament by a misuse of its forms does not strike them as so " violent " as it would be to alter those forms, and they will bear to divide a dozen times in a night sooner than vote that the tedious Member for Blankton be no longer heard. It is a curious state of affairs, and suggests a stupid people ; but deep as is our dread of obstruction, as the future weapon of fanatical minorities, we see in all this tolerance a certain reason for hope. After all, a community which will bear obstruction rather than alter forms, is not very likely to cease to be law-abiding. It is because English Members can bear the misery of their House, and are not driven to revolt by the drip, drip of dilatory debate, that government by persuasion has so long remained possible. If they were explosive under tyranny, they might have exploded at the wrong moment, as the French have often done, and brought about a general wreck. Patience seldom ruins anybody, and there is always, as we have said before, this comfort, that when English patience gives way, it is as if a dam had burst. They must act, and will act, when the need becomes peremptory, and their history is sufficient guarantee that their action will not be feeble. It is not when anarchy is reigning, but when the law has been too supreme, so that its object cannot be fulfilled, that the Vigilance Committee arises, and that scoundrels suddenly find it better to dis- appear. All we hope is, that when the nation suddenly wakes, after its wont, from its conservative apathy, and obstruction disappears, it will remember, at least for one Election, the names of the obstructives.
Previous page
