THE POWER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. journalist who has
attended the Gallery for nearly a quarter of a century ? Assertions with regard to the deterioration of the House have become common, but are rarely made by members who have sat in it for a long period; and I think that its decreased power over the Cabinet is due, in great measure, to peculiar circumstances, such as the huge size of the Ministerial party, whioh enables the Government to dis- regard the censure even of strong sections, and also to the callousness which corrodes Mr. Balfour's character.
Does not Mr. Sidney Low in "The Governance of England" put his case too high ? Ho sneers at the House of Commons as a big, miscellaneous public meeting, and describes the Ministry as the maker of new laws, saying that the Opposition protest powerlessly at every stage, and that the non-official Minis- terialists are able to do no more than affect the treatment of details. He cites specially the case of the Unionist opposition to the Home-rule Bill of 1893, and asserts that, for all the practical effect the Unionist speeches had on the fortunes of the Bill in the House of Commons itself, "they might as well have been delivered in St. James's Hall." It is true that the Bill passed the House of Commons ; but had it not been for the persistency and force of the opposition there the Peers might not have ventured to throw the measure out, or after they had done so their action might not have been endorsed by the country. The abandonment of the proposed vote for the erection of a Cromwell statue was an instance of the power of the House in the same Parliament.
According to Mr. Low, a Ministry can count on the support of its Parliamentary majority for any legislative project "so long as the majority holds together." This is begging the question. It may be by the majority not holding together that the House asserts its power ; and although an adverse vote is raro, the influence of the House is steadily, although almost imperceptibly, exercised. Sometimes, for instance, a private Member's Bill is forced upon the Government. It is true, as Mr. Low remarks, that they have not yet taken up the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, but the reason may be that on this subject a great section of those who vote for the Bill are not in earnest about it. Mr. Low says that Cabinet authority over legislation is almost unrestrained. Yet he admits that the London Education Bill of 1903 was almost recast. The Vaccination Bill also was recast beyond the recog- nition of Mr. Chaplin.
Although we see what ill a Government may do in spite of the House of Commons, we know'not what is prevented by the fear of that Assembly. Will Mr. Low or the editor of the Spectator maintain that the Cabinet in framing a Redistribution Bill does not seriously consider whether its provisions will be acceptable to the House ? Pills which are announced in the King's Speech may be left in Departmental pigeon-holes on account of the threatened opposition of Parliament ; others introduced may be abandoned at the end of the Session because they are found to be unacceptable. "Want of time" is a convenient formula.
The Closure is certainly a powerful instrument at the hand of the Government. I do not intend, however, to be paradoxical when I say that the Closure encourages discussion, and that perhaps it does not enable any measure to be carried which might not have been carried without it. Opponents think it their duty now to protract discussion till the Closure is applied. The most perceptible change in the House of Commons during the past quarter of a century has been the increase in the number of Members who take part in its business and debates. It is scarcely correct in these days to write of "long tiles of speechless men."
You say in your review of Mr. Low's book (Spectator, Decem- ber 3rd) that votes nowadays are not turned. Were votes on the Unionist side not turned in the Fiscal debate at the opening of last Session by the assurances of Mr. Akers-Douglas ? I have several times been told by Members that their votes had been affected, if not turned, by debate. They abstained when they had intended to vote, or they voted when they had intended to abstain. You refer also to "the growing habit" of sending deputations direct to Ministers. Those that go to Ministers are only a small proportion of the deputations received by private Members.
If the House of Commons should lose its power, part of the responsibility will lie with the Press. In the provinces and in Scotland most of the newspapers still attach value to Parlia- mentary reports. In London there is a rapid tendency to replace these reports by snippets and notes. Only a few of the London newspapers now employ a staff to do a complete special report. One great newspaper has just informed its staff that their services will not be required next Session. Clever journalists are sent to the Gallery to write impressions or sketches ; if their own interest in Parliament is slight, they spend as little time as possible in the Gallery, and rely on scenes and speculations. When these are not forthcoming, Parliament is supposed to be "played out." It is still possible, I believe, to give the average man a wholesome interest in the everyday proceedings of the House of Commons.
—I am, Sir, &c., ALEX. MACKINTOSH.
expressed our agreement with some portions of that view.
Previous page
