THE " TIMES " ON THE CLOSURE.
THE Times articles on the Closure probably suggested to Mn, Arnold his recent remarks on the English deficiency . in lucidity. They are not the articles of men who take the subject on which they are writing into their minds at all, but of men who snatch greedily at every objection they hear made, without taking the trouble to test in their own Minds whether those objections are rational. Take the article of yesterday, against the Closure by a simple majority. The first great point made is that the Prime Minister, in offering in the spring to try the Two-thirds Rule, on the understanding that the other Rules might then pass so quickly that some profitable use of them would result for the legislation of the present Session, "by his own action barred the plea of principle." thy, what person in his senses ever thought that there was any plea of principle to bar ? Is not the question of Procedure a question entirely of policy, from beginning to end,—a question simply and solely as to what course Will yield the best results ? Mr,
Gladstone told Sir Stafford Northcote in the spring that the Government did not expect good results from the Two-thirds Rule, but that they would be glad to have the advantage of the other rules for facilitating legislation ; and that they would not object to try that less effective rule, on the under- standing that it would give them the speedy advantage of the
other rules, at a less cost of time and temper to the House. And that statement is said "to bar the plea of principle." The Times
might just as well say that a man who has been in treaty for a powerful horse, and finds the price too high for him, "bars the plea of principle" by his willingness to buy one of less strength, for a lower price. Of course he does, if it were even conceivable that in a matter of bargain of that kind,— and Mr. Gladstone's proposal to Sir Stafford Northcote was essentially a legitimate political bargain,—there could be any plea of principle to bar. Not merely a two-thirds rule, but any imaginable rule for closing debate which might be counted on to yield a good result, would be perfectly satisfactory to the country and the constituencies. The reason, and the sole reason, why we object so strongly to the Two-thirds Rule is that we are quite sure that it would not yield a good result, and would have to be debated all over again before long, at great cost to the legislative progress of the country. We believe that on this point the constituencies are getting thoroughly impatient, —and not too soon, either. What they say, and what we say,
is this :—' Take an efficient rule, and use it mildly, if you can,—nay, use it mildly, while you can ; but, at any rate,
take one which will have the force needful to put a stop to all this parody of Parliamentary discussion, if you must. Do not take so feeble a rule that you find it break in your hands, at the very moment when you need it most.' We submit that this is the demand of good sense ; that nothing can be more unwise than to ask for too little when the emergency is so great, and the mischief one of such long-standing and such rapid growth. To suppose that any great Parliamentary Minister will use the new Rules with superfluous severity, is the wildest of imaginations. In no conceivable way could he • more speedily ensure his own fall from power. But to suppose that even such a Minister might very easily find him- self unable to overcome the gross Parliamentary obstruction which would be brought to bear, say, on a County Franchise Bill or a Redistribution of Seats Bill, by the aid of a two- thirds rule, is not fanciful at all, but the most obvious and probable of contingencies. And if it were so, what would the constituencies say, and justly say, concerning the postponement to another Parliament of the reform of a grievance so long confessed by the whole Liberal party, and condemned by the great majority of the House of Commons ?
The Times says that if a vote on the first resolution could be taken by ballot in the House of Commons, it
would be thrown out by an overwhelming majority. We know of no evidence for such a statement, indeed, of no possi- bility that such evidence could exist. But supposing, for a moment, that this were so,—which we do not in the least admit,—what would it prove ? It clearly would not prove that that great majority sincerely regard the adoption of that
first rule as a serious political misfortune. If so, why not sup-
port that opinion by an open as well as by a secret vote ? We hope, and are inclined to believe, that most Members would really risk their seats for a deep patriotic conviction. It is, however, quite certain that it is not patriotic conviction which chiefly sways secret votes. Let the vote be taken in secret, and a man is far more apt to follow his whims, than he would be to follow his whims when acting in the face of day. There arc many, no doubt, who would give the same vote whether it were open or whether it were secret. There are, perhaps, a few who would vote more independently of the whims of others and not less independently of their own whims, in secret, than they would openly. But there are, undoubtedly, many who would be guided by more selfish motives in giving their vote secretly, than they would dare to be
guided by in giving it publicly. Supposing the Times to be right,—which we profoundly doubt,—it only proves this : that a considerable proportion of the representatives of the people care very little in their own hearts for the progress of popular legislation, but care very much about being known to be in- different to the progress of popular legislation. If that is an argument to prove that the first rule of procedure is not needed, we must confess our mind to be entirely unfit to enter into the meaning of the word "argument."
The Times asserts that "a two-thirds majority will always be found on the side of order and good government, when the rare crises occur." But the question is not one as to order and good government. The Irish Extremists may, for their own purposes, obstruct an English Reform Bill, and the Conservative rank and file who see no other way of getting rid, of it, may lend a half-ashamed support to that system of obstruction. The simple question for the constituencies is whether the House of Commons shall, or shall not, take power to pass measures which seem good to the majority, but not to the minority, of that House. If it fails to do this, it fails as the House of Commons. And it will fail to do this, if it can only put down obstruction by a two-thirds majority.' What is wanted is a change in the first rule in the very opposite direction to that recommended by the Times. The initiative in proposing the Closure should be withdrawn from the Speaker, and given,—perhaps to any Member of the Privy Council,—at all events, to the Minister of the day, who alone can tell the House all the 'reasons for shortening debate. Otherwise, as Mr. Dillwyn, who has made those Procedure resolutions so especially his own, told his constituents at .Swansea the other day, the House of Commons will lose rapidly in popular respect, and the people will be beginning to ask whether some other agency may not be found to carry out mime efficiently their declared will, than the agency of an Assembly which puts off from Parliament to Parliament all reforms, however urgent, and wastes three-fourths of its time in listening to the darkening of counsel by words without knowledge.
Previous page
