THE WEEK IN PARLIAMENT
BY NEW MEMBER.
-FAST week tempers rose to a dangerously high pitch. Unionist back-benchers, to whom not the slightest licence is ever permitted, became increasingly incensed by the sporadic outbursts of hooliganism to which the Labour Party intermittently gave vent, and an ugly scene "as narrowly averted on Thursday when these tactics, if they can so be called, were carried to the House of Lords and Black Rod subsequently insulted on the floor of the Commons. If the Opposition were indulging in a carefully thought-out plan of campaign, and if any form of verbal retaliation were possible, the indignation of the Unionist Party would not be so great. But there is no indication that the Parliamentary Labour Party ever thinks coherenty about anything. The rowdyism consisted solely of cheap and heavy sneers and gibes, punctuated by a dreary fluctuating hubbub, and wholly undistinguished by intelligence or wit. It was carried on to the manifest disapproval of the front Opposition Bench, with the exception of Mr. Lansbury. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, after sitting through it for some time with an expression of melancholy resignation on his face, ultimately withdrew himself from the House.
If Labour members possessed one tithe of the courage or brilliance of the Irishmen of yesterday, we might have some fun. But they add to a ponderous density of mind inferiority complex on such a scale that it is quite impossible verbally to hit back. If any criticism is made of their intelligence, wisdom, or sincerity they at once assume an attitude of outraged indignation. First they become " hurt " and take up the line that just because their opponents have had a so-called " superior " education that is no reason for taking advantage of it in debate and " hitting below the belt." Then they begin to bellow. So the wretched Unionists have to sit silent while their leaders are described as liars, murderers, and hypocrites, and dare not reply, for fear of turning the House into a bear-garden.
The series of personal attacks made on ministers culminated in Monday's debate arising out of Mr. Neville Chamberlain's directorship of the firm of Hoskins and Sons. This fizzled out like a damp squib and mercifully cleared the air, for the atmosphere in the House has been much better ever since. Lord Hugh Cecil is primarily responsible for this happy turn of events. In a speech of surpassing brilliance he compared Mr. Arthur Henderson to an innocent child saying " damn " for the first time in order to prove to his friends that he wasn't really such a milksop as they thought. The inner life of the Labour Party seemed to him to be " a life full of warmth and colour," but he urged them in a classical passage, to distinguish in matters of propaganda between veracity and verisimilitude.
The Opposition finally decided against a personal attack on the integrity of the Minister of Health and Mr. MacDonald wisely closed the debate at the dinner hour. He made one point which will have to be con- sidered at a later date. The existing rule is that anyone who is a partner in a firm holding contractual relations with the Government cannot sit in the House of Commons. Turn the firm into a private company—a purely technical alteration—and he can be a Minister. There is, however, one great danger to be guarded against. Politics and economics become every day more closely intermingled. The State urgently requires the advice and the assistance of distinguished and experienced men of business. But there must be some inducement to these men to enter politics and shoulder some of its burdens.
Previous page
