LOQUACITY IN PARLIAMENT.
WE think it was Benjamin Franklin who declared that any man who really had anything to say ought to be able to say it in ten minutes. Something like this appears to have been in the mind of Major Rasch and those who supported him in the House of Commons on Tuesday last. On one point all are agree d,—viz., that the unexampled loquacity of the House of Commons ought in some way to be curtailed. The volubility of its Members has grown with the growth of democracy, until Carlyle's scorn for a mere talking assembly begins to be shared by many who are far from accepting his general theories of government. In the days of a small electorate the average Member of Parliament was content to sit and vote with his party, and it was reserved for the dii maims of the House to " spread themselves," as the Americans say. The constituencies were not exacting, and so long as a Member turned up at the divisions on the leading measures of the Session and voted on the right side, it was considered that he had fulfilled all political righteousness. But the democratic age is one of advertisement, every individual striving to make himself felt and heard. Just as our hoardings and railway- stations proclaim to us the respective merits of rival soaps and patent medicines, so do our politicians think it essential to be constantly before the country, to be daily in evidence, so that the people down in Little Peddlington may be impressed with such apparent devotion to the public good. " So many worlds, so much to do," so many problems rushing into public view, such numberless details to be considered, and—for we do not wish to dwell too much on the lower motives of public men—such a far keener sense than formerly of intolerable shortcomings and unbearable abuses, that the easy-going silence of former days is looked upon as almost morally repre- hensible by our pushing, end-of-the-century political zeal.
But will Major Rasch's expedient of limiting the dura- tion of speeches effect the result which all desire ? Will it enable the House to do its work with promptness and efficiency ? Apparently the House is of opinion that it may, for the resolution was carried, albeit in a small House, by a large majority. The Resolution itself was of a general character, but its mover indicated that in his judgment fifteen minutes was enough for an ordinary Member, and one hour for those superior persons who have the privilege of sitting on the Front Bench. Now we quite agree that fifteen minutes is long enough time, from the listener's point of view, for nine out of ten Members in the present House, or in any likely to be elected in the near future. We also agree that if the art of speaking shortly were cultivated there would be much better speaking in the House of Commons than there is at present. The average Englishman lacks the power of concentration in speech, though he is usually rapid and efficient enough in action ; and we should feel genuine delight were it possible to secure in England a better and more facile expression in spoken words, though we have a suspicion that the fundamental qualities of old nations are fixed, and that England will continue to remain the land of slow speech and decided action. But when it comes to a rigid limitation by the rules of the House itself to the duration of speeches, would it really prove a gain ? Would it even secure the primary end in view,—that of putting the business of the House through with greater despatch and less boredom ?
With rigid limitation, every Member would be en- couraged to speak still more often than at present, and there would be less excuse for closure, because the House would feel that, the limit of speeches having been secured, it would be only fair to allow every one his chance, and the bore would assuredly take advantage of it on every opportunity. With all the increasing loquacity, there are still comparatively few Members who speak on the majority of subjects ; but were there a fifteen-minute limit nobody would feel that much time was being wasted if any par- ticular bore had his fling. It is clear that the number of speeches would be even greater, though each would occupy much less time, and so it is doubtful if any net saving of time would be secured. At Washington the time-limit is enforced in the House of Representatives, with the result that every one desires to get his ten or five or two minutes of shouting to the Chair, while nobody (unless an extension of time is granted) is in a position to make a very valuable contribution to the debate. Since the modern man appears to have lost, both in speaking and writing, that wonderful terse and concentrated expression which was native to the Greek mind, it is clear that, on a complicated measure, the important points cannot be made with adequate force unless some latitude as regards time is permitted. It is also clear that all speeches, whether official or non-official, are not of the same value, and the procrustean time-limit universally applied would inflict on the House a swarm of incompetent bores while curtailing speeches of genuine value. In place of a genuine debate in which the subject in hand was seriously considered from every point of view, we should be in danger of encouraging an infinite number of minute verbal punctures, petty pin-points of unintelligent criticism. Now Parliament is, as its very name implies, a place for speaking ; and our Government, through party agency and Parliamentary majorities, is really in the long-run government by debate. The Government, as Seeley shows, is holding a kind of confer- ence with the representatives of the people, bringing before them and defending its policy, and asking for advice, criticism, and ratification. The American House of Representatives is not of that kind. It is directly law-making, while with us the Cabinet really makes the laws in the true sense, and the House approves or rejects, while at the same time controlling (or pro- fessing to control) the general administration and policy. Debate in the House of Representatives is not, there- fore, of the importance it is with us, quite apart from the fact that so much of the real business is done in the committees. In the Senate, on the other hand, sharing as it does in the executive power and partly moulding policy, control over debate is of the most elastic character, and though there is some chafing at this on the part of brisk young men who want to be up and doing, the recent discussion in the Forum seems to indicate that the Senatorial elasticity will be adhered to. We do not think, therefore, that arguments from Washington will apply in the case of the House of Commons.
The real truth seems to us to be that, under democratic forms, the powers and responsibilities of the strong individual must and will be increased. This is no apology for Cammism, for in any representative system all power must be limited and controlled by the general will. What we mean is that democracy needs a good measure of personal government, that more power must be vested in the individual, who is of course responsible to the authority which appoints him. If this is so, the true solution for the loquacity and incompetence of the House of Commons is to increase the power of the Speaker. No person in our political system occupies a more justly respected and dignified posi- tion, but the weak point of his office is that there is still too great a tendency to regard it as ornamental. Elected in no party spirit, maintained and supported by no party vote, having the interest of the House and not a party (as in the United States) to consider, his high office extending back for centuries, the Speaker of the House of Commons occupies a quite unique position in the world. His power, even if vastly extended, could not degenerate into tyranny, because be is the embodied conscience and reason of the House as a whole. He has the greatest interest in checking were license of debate, for consider the terrible penalties inflicted on him by the Parliamentary windbag. Members may adjourn to smoking-room or terrace, but the Speaker must sit on, and must keep 1;is eyes and ears open. Even in the United States, where the Speaker is the avowed leader of the majority, both parties have acquiesced in the strong rules which Mr. Reed, the present Speaker, forced through when he held the Chair in 189U. He was denounced by his opponents as a " Czar," but they adopted his methods as soon as they found themselves iu power. We should not like to see a partisan Speaker here, but our argument is that, if even the very strong position taken up by an avowedly partisan Speaker is sustained in the long-run in the public interest as demanded by the weakness inherent in democratic legislatures, much more will the added force freely given to an impartial Speaker prove satisfactory to those who want order enforced, vague talking curtailed, and business done. It follows, too, that the power granted to the Speaker for regulating debate in the interests of the House would be exercised by the Chair- man when the House was in committee.
The older conception of democracy was unregulated individual liberty, but this simply will not work. While stopping short of social despotism, we shall find more and more that rational regulation is a condition of efficiency, and that such regulation must be intrusted to the hands of a responsible person with large freedom as to action. If he abuses his trust, let him be dismissed ; but so long as he proves capable, we may be sure that collective bodies will find in him a bulwark against slipshod methods and the tyranny of the average dullard. We should like to see a strong committee of the best men on both sides con- Rider carefully the new situation created in the House by modern conditions, determine on the line of action needed, and then give to the Speaker a free hand for dealing with irrelevancy and boredom in the interests alike of the House and the country.
Previous page
