GRAND COMMITTEES. "N EVER make a mistake in logic. It is
sure to be found out," said the late Lord Westbury to one of his pupils ; and he added, with characteristic frankness, "The facts remain at your disposal." The first part of this concise analysis of the art of advocacy must have Come home to the Government and its supporters in the course of the debates on the scheme to appoint a Scotch Grand Committee, but to refuse the use of similar Parliamentary machinery to England. The Ministerial proposal was one which necessarily and essentially contained a. whole series of mistakes in logic, and these mistakes were promptly discovered and driven home by the Unionists. A more one-sided business as regards argument cannot be imagined than the discussion of Monday and Thursday nights. Stripped of all ornament and rhetoric, what the Governmedt propose is a system of referring Bills to National Grand Com- mittees for those portions of the United Kingdom in which the Government has a local majority. That is, they name a Scotch Grand Committee because they have a local majority there, and would agree to name one for Wales, because there again they have a. local majority. They would, however, refuse to name one for England, because in England they do not possess a local majority. In other words, they are quite willing to use the system of Grand Committees to intensify their local majority, but they are not going to apply the principle when it would destroy their majority. Thus, when the real meaning of National Grand Committees partially applied is dis- covered, it is seen to be nothing but a party manceuvre,— a scheme for gerrymandering Parliament, and so manipu- lating a weak majority that, in many important cases, it may become a very strong one.
Fortunately, the House of Commons is not a place where proposals so shamelessly illogical can be made with any great success; and it may be safely said that the dis- comfiture of the Government, in the matter of argument, and as regards their attempt to rush the debate, will far outweigh any gain that may be achieved by the swamping of the Scotch minority, supposing that they finally carry their proposal. In favour of the system of National Grand Committees impartially applied to the three King- doms, a good deal may be said, though not, in our opinion, anything strong enough to make the change desirable. Still, we can understand the position of those who argue something in this way :—" The object of legislation is to obtain laws for each of the three Kingdoms which will be considered suitable for their respective inhabitants, and yet will not outrage the general sense of justice and legal propriety. Let us provide for carrying out this object in the following way : First, let the whole House decide whether or no it is advisable to reform the law on this or that point in one of the three Kingdoms. If the House decides that it is advisable, let the details of the way in which the reform is to be carried out be referred to those who may fairly be deemed experts in the matter,—the re- presentatives of the Kingdom in question. These represen- tatives must consider the Bill in detail, and then report to the House of Commons as a whale, whatever scheme of reform they think just. an wise. The whole House then examines the proposals, and if there are none which the majority holds objectionable, it passes the Bill. If, however, some of them, in the opinion of the majority, require amending, they can be amended and then passed." In this way it is claimed that local expert opinion is given its full weight, and yet the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament main- tained. As we have said, these arguments strike us as unsatisfactory ; but at any rate they are reasonable if applied to all three Kingdoms, and they would get rid of the ground for the accusation that the local majority is crushed by the Imperial majority. We should see clearly, for example, what was the wish of England on this or that project, and she would not have legisla- tion imposed upon her by the Celtic fringes. The local majority, that is, would be given a right of veto on legislation. But these arguments in favour 'of legislation by National Grand Committees entirely dis- appear if they are only to apply to parts of the United Kingdom, and if England is not to be allowed to enjoy the advantages of the scheme. A partially applied system of Grand Committees means nothing more nor less than that in the details of legislation the will of England is to be overridden by the will of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, but that the wishes of those two Kingdoms, and of the Principality, are not to be overridden in the details of legislation by the will of England. Scotland, Ireland. and Wales are to have their say as to our Church ques- tions, our education questions, our land questions, but we are to be greeted with the cry of "Hands off !" when we claim a, reciprocal right in regard to theirs. Translated into plain words, that was the declaration made by those who oppose Mr. Balfour's amendment.
We have pointed out that even if the scheme of National Grand Committees were a sound one, it has been applied by the Government in such a way as to render it grossly unjust, unreasonable, and impracticable. We hold, however, that in reality the principle is a mistaken one, and that even if fairly applied, it would be most injurious. The scheme of National Grand Committees, in truth, rests upon false premises. To begin with, it. involves the assumption that Bills can be divided off into Scotch Bills, Irish Bills, and Welsh Bills. In reality, nothing can be further from the truth. As a matter of convenience, it may be wise to limit the effect of certain Bills to certain areas ; but these Bills do not for that reason affect exclusively the people who live in these areas. Mr. Balfour dealt with this point very ably. "Is there such a thing," he asked, "as a. Bill relating ex- clusively to Scotland ? There is no such thing. The idea that we can legislate either for Ireland, or Scotland, or Wales, or England, and that that legislation passed for these countries does not react upon the other countries, is a fantastic absurdity." The other false assumption on which the proposal for National Grand Committees is based is the assumption that by taking the Scotch Members you get experts on Scotch questions. That is an entire delusion. Some of the men who know most about Scotland sit for English constituencies, while again, a considerable number of those who sit for Scotch constituencies are Englishmen. Mr. Balfour knows a great deal more about rural Scotland than Mr. Asquith does, yet Mr. Asquith will necessarily be on the Scotch Grand Committee, and Mr. Balfour will not. The leader of the Opposition met this assumption, that the Scotch Members are experts on Scotch questions, also with great dialectical force and brilliancy. "When I am told Scotland thinks this or that, all I know is that gentlemen have been sent here to support one or other of the great parties in the State, that Scotland may be taken to uphold these parties in propor- tion as it sends Members to support one party or the other. In that sense they represent Scotch opinion. But to tell me that they hold this or that opinion upon a sub-clause in a Parish Council Bill, and therefore that is the voice of Scotland upon it, is to talk nonsense, and nonsense to which I absolutely decline to listen. The truth is that upon a large number of these questions Scotch Members are no more experts, indeed, are not so great experts, as a large number of English Members." Mr. Balfour went on to ask what special qualification had a Member representing the Highlands for dealing with the problems of the Lowlands. "The Lowlands of Scotland, agricul- turally speaking, are incomparably nearer in all their conditions of life to the North of England than to the Highlands, and if you want expert opinion, you had better travel to Northumberland or Cumberland rather than to Inverness-shire or Ross-shire." To this exposure of the expert argument there is really no answer. Except that it is a convenient way for packing a Grand Committee, there is no sound argu- ment for referring Scotch Bills to a Scotch Grand Com- mittee. Grand Committees are very useful bodies when they are chosen in such a way as to obtain expert criti- cism at close quarters on technical Bills. The Grand Committees on Law and Trade, for example, did excellent work, but then their members were chosen on reasonable and intelligible grounds. They were experts through know- ledge and experience, not the experts of a geographical accident. If Grand Committees are to remain as useful Parliamentary institutions, they must not be travestied by such proposals as that for which the present Government has made itself responsible.
Previous page
