printing, with the view of pressing some of its advantages a little
farther, as well as of considering objections. I must remark more
particularly upon the permission, accorded to the members generally, to
send in their speeches to be circulated with the proceedings. This I
regard as not the least essential step in an effective reform of the
debating system. It is the only possible plan of giving free scope to
individuals, without wasting the time of the assembly. There need be no
limit to the printing of speeches; the number may be unnecessarily
great, and the length sometimes excessive, but the abuse may be left to
the corrective of neglect. The only material disadvantage attending the
plan of sending in speeches in writing, without delivery, is that the
speakers would have before them only the statements-in-chief of the
movers of motion and amendment. They could not comment upon one another,
as in the oral debate. Not but this might not: be practicable, by
keeping the question open for a certain length of time, and circulating
every morning the speeches given in the day previously; but the
cumbrousness of such an operation would not have enough to recommend it.
The chief speakers might be expected to present a sufficiently broad
point for criticism; while the greater number are well content, if
allowed to give their own views and arguments without reference to those
of others. And not to mention that, in Parliament, all questions of
principle may be debated several times over, it is rare that any measure
comes up without such an amount of previous discussion out of doors as
fully to bring out the points for attack and defence. Moreover, the oral
debate, as usually conducted, contains little of the reality of
effective rejoinder by each successive speaker to the one preceding.
The combined plan of printing speeches, and of requiring twenty backers
to every proposal, while tolerable perhaps in the introduction of bills,
and in resolutions of great moment, will seem to stand self-condemned
in passing the bills through Committee, clause by clause. That every
amendment, however trivial, should have to go through such a roundabout
course, may well appear ridiculous in the extreme. To this I would say,
in the first place, that the exposing of every clause of every measure
of importance to the criticism of a large assembly, has long been
regarded as the weak point of the Parliamentary system. It is thirty
years since I heard the remark that a Code would never get through the
House of Commons; so many people thinking themselves qualified to cavil
at its details. In Mill's "Representative Government," there is a
suggestion to the effect, that Parliament should be assisted in passing
great measures by consultative commissions, who would have the
preparation of the details; and that the House should not make
alterations in the clauses, but recommit the whole with some expression
of disapproval that would guide the commission in recasting the measure.
[DIFFICULTIES OF PRINTING IN COMMITTEES.]
It must be self-evident that only a small body can work advantageously
in adjusting the details of a measure, including the verbal expressions.
If this work is set before an assembly of two hundred, it is only by the
reticence of one hundred and ninety that progress can be made.
Amendments to the clauses of a bill may come under two heads: those of
principle, where the force of parties expends itself; and those of
wording or expression, for clearing away ambiguities or misconstruction.
For the one class, all the machinery that I have described is fully
applicable. To mature and present an amendment of principle, there
should be a concurrence of the same number as is needed to move or
oppose a second reading; there should be the same giving in of reasons,
and the same unrestricted speech (in print) of individual members,
culminating in replies by the movers. If this had to be done on all
occasions, there would be much greater concentration of force upon
special points, and the work of Committee would get on faster. As to the
second class of amendments, I do not think that these are suitable for
an open discussion. They should rather be given as suggestions privately
to the promoter of the measure. But, be the matter small or great, I
contend that nothing should bring about a vote in the House of Commons
that has not already acquired a proper minimum of support.
I am very far from presuming to remodel the entire procedure of the
House of Commons. What I have said applies only to the one branch, not
the least important, of the passing of bills. There are other
departments that might, or might not, be subjected to the printing
system, coupled with the twentyfold backing; for example, the very large
subject of Supply, on which there is a vast expenditure of debating. The
demand for twenty names to every amendment would extinguish a very
considerable amount of these discussions.
There is a department of the business of the House that has lately
assumed alarming proportions--the putting of questions to Ministers upon
every conceivable topic. I would here apply, without hesitation, the
printing direct and the plural backing, and sweep away the practice
entirely from the public proceedings of the House. No single member
unsupported should have the power of trotting out a Minister at will. I
do not say that so large a number of backers should be required in this
case, but I would humbly suggest that the concurrence of ten members
should be required even to put a public question. The leader of the
Opposition, in himself a host, would not be encumbered with such a
formality, but everyone else would have to procure ten signatures to an
interrogative: the question would be sent in, and answered; while
question and answer would simply appear in the printed proceedings of
the House, and not occupy a single moment of the legislative time. This
is a provision that would stand to be argued on its own merits,
everything else remaining as it is. The loss would be purely in the
dramatic interest attaching to the deliberations.
[ALTERNATIVE SCOPE FOR ORATORY.]
The all but total extinction of oral debate by the revolutionary sweep
of two simple devices, would be far from destroying the power of speech
in other ways. The influence exerted by conversation on the small scale,
and by oratory on the great, would still be exercised. While the
conferences in private society, and the addresses at public meetings,
would continue, and perhaps be increased in importance, there would be a
much greater activity of sectional discussion, than at present; in fact,
the sectional deliberations, preparatory to motions in the House, would
become an organized institution. A certain number of rooms would be set
aside for the use of the different sections; and the meetings would rise
into public importance, and have their record in the public press. The
speaking that now protracts the sittings of the House would be
transferred to these; even the highest oratory would not disdain to
shine where the reward of publicity would still be reaped. As no man
would be allowed to engage the attention of the House without a
following, it would be in the sections, in addition to private society
and the press, that new opinions would have to be ventilated, and the
first converts gained.
Among the innovations that are justified by the principle of avoiding at
all points hurried decisions, there is nothing that would appear more
defensible than to give an interval between the close of a debate and
the taking of the vote. I apprehend that the chief and only reason why
this has never been thought of is, that most bodies have to finish a
mass of current business at one sitting. In assemblies that meet day
after day, the votes on all concluded debates could be postponed till
next day; giving a deliberate interval in private that might improve,
and could not: deteriorate, the chances of a good decision. Let us
imagine that, in the House of Commons, for example, the first hour at
each meeting should be occupied with the divisions growing out of the
previous day's debates. The consequences would be enormous, but would
any of them be bad? The hollowness of the oral debate as a means of
persuasion would doubtless receive a blasting exposure; many would come
up to vote, few would remain to listen to speeches. The greater number
of those that cared to know what was said, would rest satisfied with the
reports in the morning papers.
* * * * *
We need to take account of the fact that even greater moderation in the
length of speeches would not entirely overcome the real difficulty--the
quantity of business thrown upon our legislative bodies. Doubtless, if
there were less talk upon burning questions there would be more
attention given to unobtrusive matters at present neglected. The mere
quantity of work is too great for an assembly to do well. If this amount
cannot be lessened--and I do not see how it can be--there are still the
six competing vehicles at old Temple Bar. The single legislative rail is
crowded, and the only device equal to the occasion is to remove some of
the traffic to other rails. Let a large part of the speaking be got rid
of, or else be transferred to some different arena.
[EVERY BODY ENTITLED TO CONTROL SPEECH-MAKING.]
I regard as unassailable Lord Sherbrooke's position that every
deliberative body must possess the entire control of its own procedure,
even to the point of saying how much speaking it will allow on each
topic. The rough-and-ready method of coughing down a superfluous speaker
is perfectly constitutional, because absolutely necessary. If a more
refined method of curtailing debates could be devised, without bringing
in other evils, it should be welcomed. The forcible shutting of anyone's
mouth will always tend to irritate, and it is impossible by any plan to
prevent a minority from clogging the wheels of business. The freedom of
print seems to me one good safety-valve for incontinent speech-makers;
it allows them an equal privilege with their fellows, and yet does not
waste legislative time.
I remember hearing, some time ago, that our Chancellor of the Exchequer
was induced, on the suggestion of the _Times_, to put into print and
circulate to the House beforehand the figures and tables connected with
his financial statement. I could not help remarking, why might the
Chancellor not circulate, in the same fashion, the whole statement, down
to the point of the declaration of the new taxes? It would save the
House at least an hour and a half, while not a third of that time would
be required to read the printed statement. I believe the first thing
that would occur to anyone hearing this suggestion would be--"so the
Chancellor might, but the same reason would apply to the movers of
bills, and to all other business as well ".
* * * * *
Our English Parliamentary system having been matured by centuries of
experience, has become a model for other countries just entering upon
representative government. But the imitation, if too literal, will not
be found to work. Our system supposes a large gentry, staying half the
year in London for pure pleasure, to which we may add the rich men of
business resident there. A sufficient number of these classes can at any
time be got to make up the House of Commons; and, the majority being
composed of such, the ways of the House are regulated accordingly. Daily
constant attendance, when necessary, and readiness to respond to the
whip at short notice, are assumed as costing nothing. But in other
countries, the case is not the same. In the Italian Chamber I found
professors of the University of Turin, who still kept up their
class-work, and made journeys to Rome at intervals of a week or two, on
the emergence of important business. Even the payment of members is not
enough to bring people away from their homes, and break up their
avocations, for several months every year. The forms of procedure, as
familiar to us, do not fit under such circumstances. The system of
printed speeches, with division days at two or three weeks' interval,
might be found serviceable. But, at all events, the entire arrangements
of public deliberation need to be revised on much broader grounds than
we have been accustomed to; and it is in this view, more than with any
hope of bringing about immediate changes, that I have ventured to
propound the foregoing suggestions.
* * * * *
[OPINIONS FAVOURABLE TO PRINTING.]
Since the foregoing paper was written, opinions have been expressed
favourable to the use of printing as a means of shortening the debates
in the House of Commons. Among the most notable of the authorities that
have declared their views, we may count Lord Derby and Lord Sherbrooke.
Both advocate the printing of the answers by ministers to the daily
string of questions addressed to them. Lord Derby goes a step farther.
He would have everyone introducing a bill to prepare a statement of his
reasons, to be circulated among members at the public expense. Even this
small beginning would be fruitful of important consequences; the
greatest being the inevitable extension of the system.
I am not aware that my suggestion as to requiring a plurality of members
to back every bill and every proposal, has gained any degree of support.
It was urged that, if the power were taken away from single members to
move in any case whatever, the few that are accustomed to find
themselves alone, would form into a group to back each other. I do not
hesitate to say that the supposition is contrary to all experience.
Crotcheteers have this in common with the insane, that they can seldom
agree in any conjoined action. Even in the very large body constituting
our House of Commons, it is not infrequent for motions to be made
without obtaining a seconder. The requirement of even five concurring
members would put an extinguisher upon a number of propositions that
have at present to be entertained.
The last session (1883) has opened the eyes of many to the absurdity of
allowing a single member to block a bill. When it is considered that, in
an assembly of six hundred, there is probably at least one man, like
Fergus O'Conner, verging on insanity, and out of the reach of all the
common motives,--we may well wonder that a deliberative body should so
put itself at the mercy of individuals. Surely the rule, for stopping
bills at half-past twelve, might have been accompanied with the
requirement of a seconder, which would have saved many in the course of
the recent sessions. It is the gross abuse of this power that is forcing
upon reluctant minds the first advance to plural backing, and there is
now a demand for five or six to unite in placing a block against a
measure.
It occurred to Mr. Gladstone, during the autumn session of 1882, to take
down the statistics of attendance in the House for several days running.
His figures were detailed to the House, in one of his speeches, and were
exactly what we were prepared for. They completely "pounded and
pulverised" the notion, that listening to the debates is the way that
members have their minds made up for giving their votes.
[EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY DISCUSSION INCREASING.]
The recent parliamentary recess has witnessed an unusual development in
the out-of-door discussion of burning questions. In addition to a full
allowance of vacation oratory, and the unremitted current of the
newspaper press, the monthlies have given forth a number of reasoned
articles by cabinet ministers and by men of ministerial rank in the
opposition. The whole tendency of our time is, to supersede
parliamentary discussion by more direct appeals to the mind of the
public.
To stop entirely the oral discussion of business in Parliament would
have some inconveniences; but the want of adequate consideration of such
measures as possessed the smallest interest with any class, would not be
one of them.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 18: _Contemporary Review_, November, 1880.]
[Footnote 19: I have often thought that, the practice of circulating,
with a motion, the proposer's reasons, would, on many occasions, be
worthy of being voluntarily adopted.]
* * * * *
_Notes and References in connection with Essay VIII., on Subscription._
It may be useful here to supply a few memoranda as to the history and
present practice of Subscription to Articles.
In the _Quarterly Review_, No. 117, the following observations are made
respecting the first imposition of Tests after the English
Reformation:--
"Before the Reformation no subscription was required from the body of
the clergy, as none was necessary. The bishops at their consecration
took an oath of obedience to the King, in which, besides promising
subjection in matters temporal, they 'utterly renounced and clearly
forsook all such clauses, words, sentences, and grants, which they had
or should have of the Pope's Holiness, that in any wise were hurtful or
prejudicial to His Highness or His Estate Royal'; whilst to the Pope
they bound themselves by oath to keep the rules of the Holy Fathers, the
decrees, ordinances, sentences, dispositions, reservations, provisions,
and commandments Apostolic, and, to their powers, to cause them to be
kept by others. And, as their command over their clergy was complete,
and they could at once remove any who violated the established rule of
opinion, no additional obligation or engagement from men under such
strict discipline was requisite. The statement, therefore (by Dean
Stanley), that 'the Roman Catholic clergy, and the clergy of the Eastern
Church, neither formerly, nor now, were bound by any definite forms of
subscription; and that the unity of the Church is preserved there as the
unity of the State is preserved everywhere, not by preliminary promises
or oaths, but by the general laws of discipline and order'; though true
to the letter, is really wholly untrue in its application to the
argument concerning subscriptions. For it is to the total absence of
liberty, and to the severity of 'the general laws of discipline and
order,' and not to a liberty greater than our own, that this absence of
subscription is due.
"In point of fact, the requirement of subscription from the clergy was
coeval with the upgrowth of liberty of opinion: while the circumstances
of the English Reformation of religion made it essential to the success
and the safety of that great movement. It was essential to its success;
for as it was accomplished mainly by a numerical minority, both of the
clergy and laity of the land, there could be no other guarantee of its
maintenance than the assurance that its doctrines would be honestly
taught, and its ritual observed by the whole body of the conforming
clergy.
"Thus the _Reformation subscriptions aimed at the prevention of covert
Popery_, a danger to which the Reforming laity felt that they were
exposed by the strong wishes of a majority of their own class; by the
undissembled bias of many of the parochial clergy; and by the secret
bias of some even of the bi-hops; whilst the diminution of their
absolute control over the clergy lessened the power of enforcing the new
opinions when the bishop was sincerely attached to them."
The entire article is of value both for its historical information as to
the history of Tests in the English Church, and for its mode of
advocating the retention of subscription to the Articles, as at present
enforced.
* * * * *
[Subscription came with the English Reformation.]
The Report of the Royal Commission of 1864, on Subscription in the
English Church, supplied a complete account of all the changes in
subscription from the Reformation downwards. Reference may also be made
to Stoughton's "History of Religion in England," for the incidents in
greater detail.
Perhaps the most remarkable defence of Liberty, as against the
prevailing view in the English Church, is Dean Milman's speech before
the Clerical Subscription Commission, of which he was a member. It is
printed in _Fraser's Magazine_, March, 1865, and is included in the
criticism of the _Quarterly Review_ article, already quoted.
The Dean's Resolution submitted to the Commission was as follows:--
"Conformity to the Liturgy of the Church of England being the best and
the surest attainable security for 'the declared agreement of the Clergy
with the doctrines of the Church'; with many the daily, with all the
weekly public reading of the services of the Church of England
(containing, as they do, the ancient creeds of the Church Catholic), and
the constant use of the Sacramental offices and other formularies in the
Book of Common Prayer, being a solemn and reiterated pledge of their
belief in those doctrines, the Subscription to the thirty-nine Articles
is unnecessary. Such Subscription adds no further guarantee for the
clergyman's faithfulness to the doctrines of the Church; while the
peculiar form and controversial tone in which the Articles were compiled
is the cause of much perplexity, embarrassment, and difficulty,
especially to the younger clergy and to those about to enter into Holy
Orders."
Much doubt was entertained, whether this motion came within the terms of
the Commission. It was not pressed by the Dean.
I give the following quotation from the speech:--
... "And if I venture to question the expediency, the wisdom, I will say
the righteousness of retaining subscription to the thirty-nine Articles
as obligatory on all clergymen, I do so, not from any difficulty in
reconciling with my own conscience what, during my life, I have done
more than once, but from the deep and deliberate conviction that such
subscription is altogether unnecessary as a safeguard for the essential
doctrines of Christianity, which are more safely and fully protected by
other means. It never has been, is not, and never will be a solid
security for its professed object, the reconciling or removing religious
differences, which it tends rather to create and keep alive; is
embarrassing to many men who might be of the most valuable service in
the ministry of the Church; is objectionable as concentrating and
enforcing the attention of the youngest clergy on questions, some
abstruse, some antiquated, and in themselves at once so minute and
comprehensive as to harass less instructed and profound thinkers, to
perplex and tax the sagacity of the most able lawyers and the most
learned divines....
"One of my chief objections to subscription to the thirty-nine Articles
as a perpetual test of English Churchmanship is that they are throughout
controversial, and speak, as of necessity they must speak, the
controversial language of their day; they cannot, therefore, in my
opinion, be fully, clearly, and distinctly understood without a careful
study and a very wide knowledge of the disputes and opinions of those
times, a calm yet deep examination of their meaning, objects,
limitations, which cannot be expected from young theological students,
from men fresh from their academical pursuits. I venture to add, indeed
to argue, that their true bearing and interpretation seems to me to have
escaped some of our most eminent judges from want of that full study and
perfect knowledge; and I must say that, in these laborious and practical
day, it may be questioned whether this study of controversies, many of
them bygone, will be so useful, so profitable, as entire devotion to the
plainer and simpler duties of the clergyman.
"Their immense range, too, the infinite questions into which they branch
out (it has been said, I know not how truly, that five hundred questions
may be raised upon them), is a further objection to their maintenance as
a preliminary and indispensable requirement before the young man is
admitted to Holy Orders. On the whole I stand, without hesitation, to my
proposition, that the doctrines of the English Church are not only more
simply, but more fully, assuredly, more winningly, taught in our Liturgy
and our Formularies than in our Articles."
* * * * *
The very elaborate work of Mr. Taylor Innes, entitled the "Law of
Creeds," is exhaustive for Scotland; including both the Established
Church and the various sects of Protestant Dissenters. It also
incidentally takes notice of some of the more critical decisions on
heresy cases in the English Church. Mr. Innes properly points out, that
the abolition of Subscription is compatible with compulsory adherence to
Articles. The relaxation of the forms of Subscription in the English
Church, by the Act of 1865, gave a certain amount of relief to the
consciences of the clergy, but left them as much exposed as ever to
suits for heresy.
* * * * *
[Report of Presbyterian Alliance.]