A REASON FOR THE EXTRAVAGANCE OF THE COMMONS.
ECONOMISTS are always complaining that members do not fight the estimates, but among the many obstacles to so doing they always forget this one, that no member can ever tell when the Estimates will be discussed. Two hundred grievances arose last year calling for redress be- fore a jealous Commons could grant to Her Majesty the supplies necessary for her Government,—two hundred mo- tions, that is to say, were placed during last Session upon the business-paper of the House to be mooted upon the question of the Speaker's leaving the chair for the Committee of Supply. Two hundred and forty similar notices were also put down for discussion on the Friday evenings of last Session : these, however, but rarely delayed the progress of the estimates. The sole justification for these two hundred obstructions to the first duty of the House, the revision of the public expen- diture, is the ancient constitutional maxim that redress of grievances should precede the vote of subsidies to the Crown. This solemn Parliamentary dogma was worthy of all respect when Parliaments were unwillingly summoned for the pur- pose merely of taxation. The. Commons naturally took that opportunity to insist that before they contributed their money their wrongs should be set right. But it now only serves to cast a constitutional halo over a practice so absurd that when described it seems almost incredible,—a practice also not even justified by length of Parliamentary usage. When it is pro- posed that the consideration of the estimates should begin, this maxim justifies members in insisting that the House should first give its attention to subjects as relevant and im- portant as the bad state of landing-piers at Holyhead, the purchase of non-authentic pictures for the National Gallery, or to exclusive rights claimed by a cricket club over part of Battersea Park. Even when the string of heterogeneous mo- tions of which notice has been given are disposed of, mem- bers may still rise and continue so untimely a discussion unlimited as to time or subject. As might be expected, the power of ensuring an audience, and compelling the House to consider any matter, however trivial, before it is suffered to proceed to the most important business of the year, is largely resorted to, and consumes no inconsiderable portion of the Session.
In the session of 1860, time amounting to more than five average sitting days was thus occupied, being considerably more than half the time engaged in passing the estimates; and during last Session the same relative proportions of talk and work were nearly maintained. The amount of time thus occu- pied is not, however, such an evil as the absolute uncertainty that hence arises when the Committee of Supply will begin to sit. This is a most serious inconvenience,—members pre- pared to do their duty in discussing the estimates go away, the minds of those who have greater endurance are disorganized by the delay of a long and miscellaneous debate. The natural result of this struggle between appointed work and irregular discussion is that the estimates are hurried through thin and wearied Houses,—as the Chairman of the Committee himself confesses, " in a manner hardly seemly." The maxim that redress of grievances should precede the vote of supply is undoubtedly ancient. The present mode of applying this doctrine is quite modern,—modern at least to an assembly that habitually regulates its proceedings by pre- cedents of two hundred years' standing. The first recorded instance of an irrelevant amendment to the motion for reading the order of the day for the Committee of Supply occurred in March, 1811. Irritated by the commencement of the present well-established system, that separates certain days for the consideration of bills from sittings devoted to notices of motions, Mr. Creevey asserted his " undoubted right as a member of Parliament of saying or moving anything upon the subject of grievances, whenever the question of supply was before the House ;" and he brought forward the case of certain sinecure placemen as an amendment to the motion appointing the sitting of the Committee of Supply. It was admitted that he was in order' but Mr. Perceval, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, reminded him that it was "a privilege which courtesy to the House required should be exercised only in cases when loss of time was a material consideration." After the year 1820 this practice became gradually more frequent. At first, however, this right was exercised with moderation ; and for many years this mode of bringing motions before the House was seldom resorted to more than three times in a Session. The sensible rule prescribed by Mr. Perceval is now entirely lost sight of, and the Journals of last Session show fourteen of this class of amendment. And what is the result of this modern perversion of a time- honoured constitutional maxim ? The primary object in regulating the proceedings of the House is to obtain certainty night by night as to the business to be transacted. The voting of supplies is the peculiar province of the Commons. But out of all the proceedings of the House, the time when the Committee of Supply may be expected to begin sitting, is the most entirely uncertain. Before that can take place, a desultory discussion, not even restricted to subjects of which notice has been given, will probably be interposed, generally lasting two or three hours,—not infrequently of six or seven hours' duration. In a signal instance that happened in 1860, preliminary talk lasted for twelve hours.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is the best authority on the habits of the House in the grant of public money ; and this is what Mr. Massey told a Committee on the Business of the House that sat in 1861 : —" I think that the time when the Committee of Supply comes on is now so indefinite, and that the Committee is made so subservient to the haphazard business of the House, that it is not fair to exact from gentle- men who take an interest in the business of supply to wait for an indefinite period, until business of a miscellaneous character, in which they take no interest, but which may be originated at the pleasure of any private member, is disposed of." He also gave it as his opinion that the facilities for interrupting the passing of the estimates are now so great, " that that which ought to be the first business of the House of Com- mons, and which should be transacted with the greatest order, and regularity, is in the most unsatisfactory state." Condem- nation so unreserved from a member of such experience and judgment as Mr. Massey might have inclined the House to greater temperance in resorting to this privilege. On the contrary, the fashion of obstructing the progress of Supply by these irrelevant motions is on the increase. In twenty years their number has more than doubled. During the three Sessions 1861-63 thirty-four amendments were moved on the motion for the Committee of Supply, as against sixteen in Sessions 1841-43, and twenty-one in Sessions 1851-53. And it must be remembered that as the sit- ting of the Committee on Friday evenings, since 1861, is generally of a formal character, the thirty-four amendments moved during the last three Sessions have been calculated excluding amendments moved upon Friday evenings. In this respect a change in the proceedings of the House commenced in 1861 has apparently had an injurious effect upon its habits. That favourite peg for desultory talk, the adjournment of the House from Friday to Monday, was then taken away, and in substitution the Committee of Supply is formally appointed for every Friday, not with a view of proceeding with the estimates, but as a means for afford- ing a constitutional opportunity for full and free discussion. This may be very desirable,—but it would seem from the late rapid increase of these obstructive amendments, that the practice of setting up Supply, as a dummy to be shot at with desultory talk, suggests the idea that this is the sole object of the Committee, and inclines members to adopt this most untimely method of provoking discussion on evenings in- tended to be devoted to the estimates. That present mode of working the privilege, that redress of grievances should precede supply, is an evil of great magni- tude, is at least no novelty. Ten years ago strong evidence against it was given by Mr. E. P. Bouverie before a Committee' on the Business of the House. Even stronger and more unani- mous condemnation of it was expressed before a similar Com- mittee that sat in 1861; when a restriction upon the privilege, first suggested by Mr. Erskine May in 1854, was brought forward under sanction of the Speaker and Mr. Massey. The limitation that Mr. Erskine May proposed, was that when once any of the four chief classes of the estimates had been entered upon, the privilege should cease so long as that class was under consideration,—to be revived again at the commencement of the next class. The principle in- volved in the privilege would thus remain intact ; and the House would be able to exercise it at least four times in the Session. The advantage to be gained would be that when once a class of the estimates' had been commenced, the progress of the Committee would be unin- terrupted; and, as explained by Mr. Erskine May, eleven out of twenty-six occasions for delay would have been saved to- the House in Session 1860. The Committee had not sufficient courage to recommend the slightest restriction on the privilege, —a timidity very significant of the feeling of the House upon this question.
Without, however, any change of practice, we would sug- gest to the House that the constitutional sentiment about redress of grievances might equally be satisfied, with compa- ratively little hindrance to the course of public business. There are other portions of the system of supply, such as reports to the House of the votes passed by the Committee, the sittings of the Committee of Ways and Means, the stages of the Appropriation Bill. These are proceedings generally of formal character and few minutes' duration. Above thirty of these occasions arose last Session, and the House enjoys- the same right to preface every one with unfettered debate as- it does of the sittings of the Committee of Supply. Warned by the opinions of such men as Mr. E. P. Bouverie and Mr. Massey, and encouraged by the inevitable necessity that the Crown should yearly meet its Parliament, it is to be hoped that the Commons will pluck up heart enough to place some restriction on a privilege based on an out-of-date consti- tutional dogma. It is of high importance that the House should act as the national mouthpiece : but its first and special duty is to guard the public expenditure. That these functions should be brought into the present unfortunate col- lision is, as the Speaker terms it, a great and growing evil. Without the slightest loss of power to insist on the redress of grievances, the House might easily contrive that its members should meet to that most difficult task, the revision of the estimates, with brains neither irritated by long delay, nor wearied by protracted and desultory discussion.
Previous page
