ATTENDANCE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.
London, 17th October 1849.
Sra—The strictures on the attendance at divisions of Members of Parliament contained in your list paper, will no doubt attract the attention of the public generally, and must prove especially interesting to the Members themselves. As one of the latter body, I would ask you to admit a few observations, which, I think, may throw some light on a subject to which, perhaps, a larger portion of your analytical acuteness might have been advantageously devoted. I do not, however, propose to examine your criticisms farther than to point out the fallacy and de- ficiency of measuring the assiduity of Members of Parliament solely by their presence at divisions.
You animadvert on the precipitation with which certain Members rash from committee and refreshment rooms to join in a division; but you do not notice the numbers who as hastily quit the House on such occasions, actuated by motives of a scrupulous character. -Thus, on most divisions on private bills, Ministers and the heads of parties formerly in office purposely abstain from voting, being un- willing to influence the votes of their adherents on matters which should be deter- mined quite irrespectively of party or political considerations: many individual Members likewise leave the House on such occasions without voting, because they have not obtained sufficient information on the subject to enable them to exercise their suffrage conscientiously on the question at issue. This course may be blamed as the result of wilful ignorance; but it is very difficult for Members, however laborious, to gain knowledge on all the multifarious topics brought before the House, sufficiently accurate to justify their pronouncing a judgment which may seriously affect the property and wellbeing of thousands. The limitation of human powers, enforced by the dictates of equity, requires that some selection should be made. Many Members, therefore, prefer the obloquy of being absent from such divisions to the risk of doing injustice; and leave the decision on bills of this kind to those who, being officially concerned, or locally interested, may be considered most competent to pronounce it. A man may have been present during the whole of the discussion, and have hastened out of the House at the ringing of the bell, in obedience to his feelings of honesty and justice ; yet, ac- cording to your argument, if I perceive it correctly, he is to be ranked as a care- less absentee because he will not be a reckless juryman. But does the compiler of the analysis require Members of Parliament to vote on all .divisions, however unnecessarily multiplied or vexatiously pressed? After having voted for or against the principle of a measure, or more than once on rno- tsons the mere offsets of the leading proposition, are they farther to assist in im- properly consuming the public time by fruitless contests? A very few Members may find leisure to do this, but the majority can scarcely be expected to undergo such useless and pernicious drudgery. Now, for instance, if I remember rightly, twenty-nine divisions took place last session on the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill; a discussion which some Irish Members are accused of having needlessly pm." tracted. Was it really to be expected that the bulk of English and Scotch Mem- bers would consent en masse to be martyrized-to Irish caprice or faction, as it may have been characterized ? The result was, that the numbers on division ranged from 234 to 63. It also sometimes happens that motions for adjournment as unreasonably made for the purpose of defeating a measure which would other- wise be carried by a large majority. Now, even very ardent opponents of such measures object to join in reiterated motions of adjournment of this description, and quit the House rather than sanction what they deem a factions procedure on the part of their friends. The recompense of this moderation, according to your estimate of Parliamentary duty, is a charge of dereliction. Venturing, in conclusion, upon a more sectional observation, I would appeal against the severity of your animadversions on those Metropolitan Members whom you have prominently held up as defaulters in assiduity. Excuse me for stating my conviction, that you have not adequately calculated the amount of labour de- volving on such Members. In addition to the ordinary Parliamentary service which they are required to render, they are expected to be accessible at all times to their constituents, amounting in number perhaps to 14,000 or 15,000; to urge their claims for redress of grievances on the Ministers and the House, and to join in deputations; they have to conduct an extensive correspondence; and to be pre- sent at public meetings, district and general, whose objects are political, social, or charitable, the preparation for which occupies much thought and attention, and whose miscellaneous details demand a brain of almost kaleidoscope combinations to master and expound. Jaded with the accumulated duties of the House, the Metropolitan Member is called upon to face the clamour, discordance, and diffi- culties of the platform, on which, so far from willingly " strutting his hoar" as you insinuate, he appears in compliance with the wishes of others, or in fulfilment of his promises and compacts, rather than from any sentiment of vain glory.
More might, no doubt, be advanced on the general subject; but I hope I have said enough to establish a fair degree of vindication against the sweeping charge of idleness, which, on one ground, you have sought to fix on so many of the Repre- sentatives of the People.
[We have not proposed " to measure the assiduity of Members solely by their presence at divisions '; though that is one test among others, and it is one which has the merit of being tangible. The "motives of a scrupulous character" de- serve consideration ; but what our respectable correspondent says on that head confirms our opinion, that there are Members in the House not fitted by natural bent or acquirements to be there, and also that much of the business which taxes the understanding of Members ought not to be there. An assembly for making general laws is unfit for this kind of local legislation; and our correspondent aids us in enforcing that opinion, with the eloquence of conscious shortcoming. Those who share his scruples, be says, hasten out of the House; thus leaving the "multifarious topics" to those "officially concerned or locally interested ": but that is not the whole truth—all Members do not share these delicate scruples; and the consequence is, that the "private" legislation, that fertile field of jobbing, is left to the officials, to those who have a local and often per- sonal not to say corrupt interest, and to those who are not scrupulous enough to stay away, but have perchance been canvassed to attend in sup- port of or resistance to a bill. We have no wish that Members should further assist in consuming the public time by fruitless contests; but they do not save that time by running away and leaving the victory to the originators of frivolous and vexations motions. Quite the reverse: the flight is usually dic- tated by the sense of personal inconvenience, and by want of sufficient will to grapple with the evil and crush it. If the rules of the House are effective to se- cure the progress of business, let Members stand to their posts and enforce those rules; if the rules are not effective, let them be mended: in either case, a proper use of the public time will be best secured by the firm and diligent attention of Members. As to the business out of doors which our correspondent pleads, we have no wish to withhold any credit due for that: we only doubt whether a vast amount of it is not contracted rashly, in too easy a temper, or in a mood the re- verse of independent. A Member for Westminster or Elarylebone is bound to represent the constituency of Westminster or Marylebone as an aggregate body, not the separate interests or suggestions of sections and individuals. But we do not desire to make a personal matter of the duty which we have undertaken, at the cost of much time and trouble: we have selected instances, because it was necessary to do so; but we have selected them without personal or party con- siderations. Our object certainly is not to occasion trouble, still less to parade grievances which cannot be remedied; but we hope yet to convince our corre- spondent that the ultimate effect of our investigations will be to obviate many hinderances of which he is justly conscious, and to strengthen the hands of those who share his wish to promote the efficiency of the public service.—ED.]
Previous page
