TOPICS OF TIIE DAY.
BETTER CONDUCT OF BUSINESS IN PARLIAMENT. IT scarcely needed Lord Derby's motion to make us take thought on the state of public business. It is a question by no means limited to the present session. The inconvenience which we feel in this summer of 1860 is only the result of past misconceptions, and is tolerably sure to be the cause of still greater impediment and pri- vations in future sessions. Privations, we say, because every- thing which impedes the legislative progress of the country de- prives the people of greater facilities for the conduct of their business publicly, and even for the conduct of their private business, down to the very productions of industry and the subsistence of life. Everything which smooths the path of activity for the peo- ple of this country increases our freedom, our strength, our re- sources, our food, life, and happiness. We have to go a very little way from "the business of the evening" in order to discover that the question at issue, even in the proceedings of the House, is the welfare, indeed the existence of the entire community,. If any charge of mismanagement can be flung at Lord Derby's Cabinet, it may with quite as much justice be flung back upon the Cabinet over the way, or of any other Cabinet. Lord Palmerston is no more chargeable than Mr. Disraeli, or Lord John Russell, or Sir John Pakington, or Mr. Bright, or Mr. Bentinck. Indeed the popular Viscount who so often puts poignant truths in a playful form, has perhaps done less than most Members of Parliament in our day to damage the proper order of business, and more than most to preserve it. Perhaps the fault with which he is chiefly chargeable is a moral one, and one that cannot be brought home to him as an accusation—it is that a deference for his sagacity and power has sometimes stood a right honourable gentleman in lieu of clearer perception of public business, its pre- cedents and spirit, and has on some few occasions constituted the leader of the Cabinet and of the House virtually the Speaker. If, therefore, Lord Derby implies any kind of blame to the existing Ministry, it would be sound in political justice and in logic if Lord Palmerston were, as an amendment, to move "You're another."
In one respect both the great parties in the State have perpe- tuated an unlucky blunder, peculiarly inopportune at the present day. For years past, certainly since Sir Robert Peel broke up the Conservative ranks, and made a sacrifice of faction at the shrine of nationality, the "two great parties in the State" ought to have recognized no antagonism between them except upon purely political subjects. There should be neither a Ministerial party nor an Opposition party, except upon political measures and administrative questions. On all topics social, industrial, commercial, or scientific, the distinctions which may still exist in political affairs, ought to be forgotten ; and the two sides,—if there are so many or are not more,—should be divided solely by the personal views of Members upon the strict merits of the ques- tion before the House. We are well aware that this proposal is one decidedly advantageous to the Opposition. The way for the ex-Cabinet to beat the Cabinet in all questions non-political is to be much more popular, more patriotic, more scientific, than the Government; and this the Opposition can always manage, be- cause it is not trammelled by official embarrassments, compacts, technicalities, &c. If any political capital is be made by this course of action on the part of the Opposition, it is made legiti- mately. If the Opposition can obtain more influence by placing itself in harmcny with the opinions, wishes, and interests of the community, the very same process entails upon the influence thus developed, a certain responsibility to the public, which will al- ways cheek the Opposition in any abuse of its newly-acquired power ; and if the outgoing Ministry sees its rivals thus com- peting with it for public favour and support, the very change of place will enable the outgoing Government to take its turn in re- covering popular favour, and in obtaining over the new Ministry at some future date a victory useful to the public interests. This is a species of generous competition strictly in accordance with the spirit of our constitution, and decidedly in harmony with the tendency of the present day. Members may tell us, and justly, that if they have suffered the conduct of business to fall into disorder, they stand excused by the painful circumstances amid which they are placed. As a contemporary has said, if ever any calling demanded A Short Time Bill, it is the thankless labour of a Member of Parliament. Ex- cessively protracted hours are an admitted excuse for doing work badly. The long unbroken stretch of labour renders men listless, reckless in the waste of time, and hopeless of improvement. They know they "can't help it ; " they can't make others help it, and they give amendment up as a bad job. Whatever honourable gentlemen may say, such is the feeling at the bottom of the mind of every Member of the House of Commons. But how comes it that their labours are thus protracted P Is it not in part their own fault F Unless we adopt Robert Owen's philanthropic philosophy, and excuse every man as the pure "creature of circumstances," we cannot avoid admitting that Members make the misery under which they lie. The House of Commons is a giant supine under its own Trinacria. It is over- laid by the immense mass of business ; and a large portion of that business is gratuitously and wantonly kept over the House by the House itself. We allude to the local and private business. But it is a mistake to suppose that the surplus burden consists solely of the business so called. There is also a considerable
proportion of questions addressed in the earlier part of the even- ing to the members of Government which spring out of such business ; and a large proportion of debating originates in busi- ness of the same kind though ostensibly bearing upon more general subjects. In short, besides making itself a sort of Town Council for the United Kingdom, and every part thereof, the House of Commons likewise constitutes a debating society for the discussion of every petty and pettyfogging question which may arise out of a parish or turnpike dispute. If all this class of properly muncipal business were thrown back upon the arena to which it specifically refers—to the parish, the borough, the city, or the county—and transacted there, the House collectively would at once feel its energies re- bound with an elasticity unknown for many Parliamentary gene- rations. Released from that burden and all its entangling em- barrassments, Parliament proper would be free for the more ma- ture consideration of general acts governing the action of the local bodies. Members would not only have more time for the proper execution of their duties, but would have that leisure without which we cannot obtain healthy- reflection, deliberation, or concentration. Each House would thus acquire an increase of capacity for the execution of its proper functions—the Peers as the grand judiciary in matters political and administrative, and in other matters generally, including finance; and they would be more vigorous in the function which they have recently under- taken so wisely and patriotically as the Grand Law Amendment Society. The increase of freedom to the House of Commons, as the Grand Inquest of the Nation, would be proportionate. We are well aware that this particular reform has been hindered by the jealousy of the House, which feared to relinquish power and authority ; forgetting that it would hand over subordinate func- tions, perplexing pettinesses, and a conflict with paltry interests, solely in order to develop a higher authority as the most power- ful legislative controller of the local municipal councils—as the controller of finance, and as the court of ultimate appeal on all political questions. We have supposed that the leaders of the House on both sides have acquired a clearer perception of their opportunities either for united action or for legitimate competition ; and we have sup- posed that the House of Commons and the House of Lords have been relieved of a large section of business which occasions hin- drance, embarrassment, waste of energy, and confusion ; but we admit that the immense increase of general business in the country would still leave the House of Commons under a serious burden. Now, nothing contributes to lighten burdens so much as a proper division of employments ; and the House of Commons, for all its power, can be no exception to that economical rule. The subject is not now entertained for the first time, and an excellent sugges- was made some years back, if we remember rightly, in the Edin-f. burgh Review. It was, that the House of Commons should not entertain every question at every stage in the presence of the whole 650 and odd members, but that the body should divide it- self into sections for the consideration of public measures in their several stages. At present the stages of a bill are eight,—the moving for leave to bring in the first reading, the second reading, the motion to go into Committee, the discussion in Committee, the reporting of the Committee, the third reading, and the mo- tion that the bill do now pass. It would be very undesirable to diminish the number of these stages ; but there would be no ob- jection to diminishing the number of Members whose time is hin- dered by the discussion of stages in which they have very little concern. The House might very jealously regard any attempt to remove from it the control over any stage where the general principle of the measure needs to be investigated by the whole representatives of the people ; such stages are two, the second reading and the third reading. And the House might retain full power on the last motion of all—that the bill do now pass. Here are three out of the eight stages in which the whole House ought to assist ; but the other stages, although they are in no way to be regarded as merely formal, would be best watched by a selection of those Members who have paid most attention to the class of subjects to which the proposed measure belongs. The Courts of Chancery and Common Law would never get through a fourth part of their work, if they were compelled to treat it in public, with the whole force of the Court. Not only is great economy attained by employing one Judge at Chambers, but the single Judge gets through the technical part of the business far more rapidly, from the absence of interruption. It was not proposed, however, to render the action of any portion of the House private: if we remember rightly, the idea was, to divide the whole House into so many committees, each acting in certain stages exactly as the House would act.
Let us suppose for a moment that the entire body were divided into eight committees, each committee to sit in a separate cham- ber of its own. The business coming before Parliament might be distributed amongst these committees, one of which should enter- tain all purely political measures ; while the others severally might be charged with legislation on judicial matters ; on finance ; on highways and public buildings, &c. ; on education ; on colonial affairs; on affairs naval and military, engineering and nautical; and thelast might be empowered to consider any measure which required a combination of all the elements of the several committees. Each one of these committees, selected according to the general fitness
of its members for the work before it, would probably secure an attendance not very far short of that which we see at present in the full House for routine work ; and it is obvious, first, that the saving of time would materially expedite the business in hand ; secondly, that the constitution of the committee would cause the work to be carried on with more concentrated know- ledge and purpose ; and therefore, thirdly, that really greater watchfulness and efficiency would be introduced into the business than when the attention of the efficient members is diluted by the presence of that milk-and-water body, "the whole House." Such a sectional representation of the House would be better able than the whole to determine the propriety of giving leave to introduce a measure at all ; to diseuss it in detail, both in c,oinmietee and upon the comprehensive report of the committee. We have al- ready supposed that the whole House would retain in its hands the discussion and judgment upon the stages of the second read- ing, the thin:treading, and the passing of the bill.
Lord Derby, however, was quite innocent of any such "sub- versive measure" as that to which we have adverted. A true fatalist, he seems to have felt that there was nothing for a per- fect gentleman to do in the present ease, than to perceive the un- happy state of things, and politely to deplore it, only without party acrimony or too much zeal."
Previous page
