Sir Michael Hicks-Beach presided on Wednesday evening at a dinner
of the Constitutional Union, held at St. James's Hall, and opened a discussion on the reform of Procedure in the House of Commons. On the points on which amendment is most urgently required, Sir Michael did not seem much disposed to give his hearty support to effective amendments. For instance, as regards closing debate by an absolute majority of the House, he said he had always felt a very considerable objection to it, and then proceeded to give as his reason against it, the very reason for it, namely,—"I have never thought that it would be practi- cally possible for the Government to use such a Closure in order to force through the House of Commons any grave constitutional change with which the country was fairly acquainted, without adequate debate." Of course not. If it were possible, it would be very unwise to arm Government with the power to attempt it. Any Government that attempted to stifle adequate debate in such a case would fall in disgrace, and ought to fall in disgrace. But that is just the reason for arming Govern- ment with the power for closing on its own responsibility debate that is in excess of adequate debate and that is wasting the time of Parliament. Sir Michael also alleged that such a power might become very dangerous at the close of a Session, when the House is very thin, and important second or third-rate measures might be passed by the help of such a power almost without attracting public notice. Well, that, again, would be a legitimate ground for censuring a Government, if such powers were unscrupulously used ; but is not the danger now in quite an opposite direction,—the direction of paralysing Govern- ment by the extreme difficulty of getting any minor measures through the House ? It seems likely that Sir Michael Beach will not be an enthusiastic supporter of any new Procedure rules,—except, indeed, rules of the mildest kind.
Previous page
