THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE EARLY-CLOSING MOVEMENT.
When is common sense to reign over man? According to Dr. Cumming, in a
few years we are to have the Millennium. Will it be then? I fear not.
At any rate, I am certain it will not be before.
Look, for instance, at the House of Commons: the Lords meet for debate a
little after five, p.m., and separate generally a little before six,
p.m., and it is perfectly astonishing what an immense amount of business
they get through; but the Commons meet at four, p.m., and sit till one or
two, a.m.; the consequence is, that very little business is done: that we
have a great deal too much talking; that really conscientious members,
who will not forsake their duties, but remain at their posts, are knocked
up, and have to cut Parliament for a time; and that what business is done
is often performed in the most slovenly and unsatisfactory manner. A few
minutes' reflection will make this clear. A bill is introduced, or,
rather, leave is given to a member to bring it in. It is read a first
time. To the first reading of a bill generally little opposition is
made. The member who introduces it makes a long speech in its favour,
and little discussion takes place. The real fight is when it is read a
second time. There are many ways of throwing out a bill without the
discourtesy of a positive rejection. The first of these means consists
in giving a preference to other "orders;" the second is, moving "the
previous question." Another is, moving "that the second reading take
place this day six months." If the bill get over the second reading, it
then goes into committee, when objectionable clauses are struck out and
fresh ones added, till the original proposer of the bill can hardly
recognise his offspring. The bill is then read a third time, and
afterwards sent up to the Lords. Possibly the Lords object to some parts
of it; a conference with the Commons is then desired, which accordingly
takes place, the deputation of the Commons standing with uncovered heads,
while the Lords, with hats on, retain their seats. The matter being
amicably arranged, and a disagreeable collision avoided, the bill is
passed through the Lords, where it usually creates a far more orderly and
less passionate debate than it has done in the Commons. The Lords being
assembled in their own House, the Sovereign, or the Commissioners,
seated, and the Commons at the bar, the titles of the several bills which
have passed both Houses are read, and the King or Queen's answer is
declared by the clerk of the Parliaments in Norman-French. To a bill of
supply the assent is given in the following words:--"_Le roy_ (or, _la
reine_) _remercie ses loyal subjects_, _accepte leur benevolence et ainsi
le veut_." To a private bill it is thus declared:--"_Soit fait comme il
est desire_." And to public general bills it is given in these
terms:--"_Le roy_ (or, _la reine_) _le vent_." Should the Sovereign
refuse his assent, it is in the gentle language of "_Le roy_ (or, _la
reine_) _s'aviser_." As acts of grace and amnesty originate with the
Crown, the clerk, expressing the gratitude of the subject, addresses the
throne as follows:--"_Les prelats_, _seigneurs_, _et commons_, _en ce
present Parliament assembles_, _au nom de tout vous autres subjects_,_
remercient tres-humblement votre majeste_, _et prient a Dieu vous donner
en sante bonne vie et longue_." The moment the royal assent has been
given, that which was a bill becomes an Act, and _instantly_ has the
force and effect of law, unless some time for the commencement of its
operation should have been specially appointed. Occasionally a bill is
introduced in the form of a motion, at other times as a resolution, but
generally the bill is the favourite form. Any bill which the Lords can
originate may be introduced and laid on the table by any individual peer,
without the previous permission of the house; but in the Commons, no bill
can be brought in unless a motion for leave be previously agreed to. Mr.
Dodd tells us, "During the progress of a bill the House _may_ divide on
the following questions:--1. Leave to bring it in. 2. When brought in,
whether it shall then be read a first time, and if not, when? 3. On the
first reading. 4. On the second reading. 5. That it be committed. 6.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the chair, for the house to
resolve itself into such committee. 7. That the report of the committee
be received. 8. That the bill be re-committed. 9. That it be engrossed.
10. That it be read a third time. 11. That it do pass. 12. The title of
the bill. These are quite exclusive of any divisions concerning the
particular days to be appointed for proceeding with any stage of the
measure, or of any proceedings in committee, or any amendments, or any
clauses added to or expunged from the measure in or out of committee."
Thus it is Acts of Parliament often made in one sense are ruled by the
judges to have another, and we have Acts to amend Acts in endless
succession. Tom Moore tells us of an Act of Parliament referring to a
new prison, in which it was stated that the new one should be built with
the materials of the old, and that the prisoners were to remain in the
old prison till the new one was ready. This is an extreme case, but
blunders equally absurd are made every day.
What is the remedy? Why, none other than the panacea recommended by Mr.
Lilwall as applicable to every earthly ill--the Early-closing Movement.
Early closing in the House of Commons would shut up the lawyers, who want
to make long speeches--the diners-out, who enter the House ofttimes in a
state of hilarity more calculated to heighten confusion than to promote
business--the young swells, to whom the House of Commons is a club, and
nothing more. We should have a smaller house, but one more ready to do
business; and if we should lose a few lawyers on promotion, and,
consequently, very industrious, very active, and very eloquent, that loss
would be compensated by the addition to the House of many men of great
talent and political capacity, who cannot stand the late hours and the
heated atmosphere, and the frightfully lengthy speeches, and the furious
partisanship of the House as at present constituted.
I have seen it suggested that a large board should be placed behind the
Speaker's chair; and that when any member makes a point, or advances an
argument, the point or argument, whether for or against the measure,
should be noted down and numbered; that a speaker, instead of repeating
the point or argument, as is now the case, should simply mention the No.
1, 2, or 3, as the case may be, and say, "I vote for the bill because of
No. 1," and so on. We should then have no vain repetitions; business
would be done better, and more speedily; members would not be confused;
the reporters would not have so much trouble as now; and the patient
public would be spared the infliction in their daily organs of column
after column of parliamentary debate. The advantage of the Early-closing
Movement in the House of Commons would be, that it would compel the House
to adopt some measure of the kind. It is curious to trace the increase
of late hours. In Clarendon's time "the House met always at eight
o'clock and rose at twelve, which were the old parliamentary hours, that
the committees, upon whom the great burden of the business lay, might
have the afternoon for their preparation and despatch." Sometimes the
House seems to have met at cock-crowing. In the journals and old orders
of the House we find such entries as the following:--"March 26, 1604.
Having obtained permission of her Majesty to attend at eight, the Commons
previously met at six to treat on what shall be delivered tending the
reason of their proceedings." Again, "May 31, 1614. Ordered, that the
House shall sit every day at seven o'clock in the morning, and to begin
to read bills for the first time at ten." The journals record that on
Sunday, August 8, 1641, at six o'clock a.m., the Commons go down to St.
Margaret's, and hear prayers and a sermon, returning to the House at
nine. This, however, was occasioned by the eagerness of the members to
prevent the king's journey to Scotland, and a minute was made that it
should not be considered as a precedent. The Long Parliament resolved,
"that whosoever shall not be here at prayers every morning at eight
o'clock shall pay one shilling to the poor." James I. mentioned as an
especial grievance, that the Commons brought the protestation concerning
their liberties into the House _at six o'clock at night_, _by
candle-light_! "I move," said Serjeant Wylde, "against sitting in the
afternoon. This council is a grave council and sober, and ought not to
do things in the dark." Sir A. Haselrigge said he never knew good come
of candles. Sir William Waddington brought in two from the clerk against
the direction of the House, and was committed to the Tower next morning.
Having sat on the occasion till seven, Sir H. Vane complained, "We are
not able to hold out sitting thus in the night." After the Revolution
matters got worse. Bishop Burnet complains that the House did not meet
till twelve; and in the next generation Speaker Onslow adds, "This is
grown shamefully of late, even to two of the clock." In the time of Pitt
and Fox the evil reached its climax. The motion for the Speaker leaving
the chair on Fox's India Bill was put to the vote at half-past four in
the morning. During the Westminster scrutiny the House sometimes sat
till six a.m. Pitt, speaking on the slave-trade, introduced his
beautiful quotation relative to the sun as it was then just bursting on
his audience. Sir Samuel Romilly tells us that he would not unfrequently
go to bed at his usual time, and rising next morning somewhat earlier
than usual would go down to be present at the division. I think it was
during the Reform debates that an hon. M.P., having been present at the
discussion the previous night, and being desirous to secure a good place
the next evening, went down to the House early in the morning for that
special purpose, and found the debate, at the commencement of which he
had been present, and which he thought had long been over, proceeding
hotly and furiously. In the last session of parliament the house sinned
greatly in this respect. I am told this state of things is for the
advantage of the lawyers, who otherwise would not be able to attend in
the House at all; but it may be questioned whether this is such a benefit
as some suppose, and certainly the midnight hour, especially after mind
and body have alike been jaded by the strain of a long debate, is not the
best for passing measures of a legislative character; and yet it is in
the small hours, when members are weary, or, we fear, in some cases
slightly vinous, or indifferent and apathetic, that most of the real
business of the nation is performed. Now against this bad habit for many
years Mr. Brotherton waged an incessant but unsuccessful war. As soon as
ever midnight arrived the hon. gentleman was on his legs, warning
honourable members of its arrival, and of the injury which late hours
must necessarily occasion to their own health, and to the satisfactory
progress of public business. In his attempts Mr. Brotherton then was
aiming as much at the good of the nation as well as the advantage of the
members of the House. Many were the scenes occasioned by Mr.
Brotherton's importunity. Mr. Grant says, "I have seen one look him most
imploringly in the face, and heard him say, in tones and with a manner as
coaxing as if the party had been wooing his mistress, 'Do not just yet,
Mr. Brotherton; wait one half hour until this business be disposed of.'
I have seen a second seize him by the right arm, while a third grasped
him by the left, with the view of causing him to resume his seat, and
when his sense of duty overcame all these efforts to seduce or force him
from its path, I have seen a fourth honourable gentleman rush to the
assistance of the others, and taking hold of the tail of his coat,
literally press him to his seat. I have seen Mr. Brotherton, with a
perseverance beyond all praise, in his righteous and most patriotic
cause, suddenly start again to his feet in less than five minutes, and
move a second time the adjournment of the House, and I have again had the
misfortune to see physical force triumph over the best moral purposes.
Five or six times have I witnessed the repetition of this in one night.
On one occasion, I remember seeing an honourable member actually clap his
hand on Mr. Brotherton's mouth, in order to prevent his moving the
dreaded adjournment." Constant ill-success damped Mr. Brotherton's
ardour. There was a time when his object seemed attained, but in the
last session he attended the Commons were as bad as ever. Mr. Brotherton
having made a futile attempt when the session was young, in favour of the
Early-closing Movement, abandoned his position in despair. The call for
Brotherton ceased to be a watchword with our less hopeful senators, and
Mr. Bouverie's view, that more business was got through after twelve
o'clock at night than before, appeared to be generally acquiesced in,
with a species of reluctant despair which was unanswerable. Still it is
true that early to bed and early to rise will make the Commons more
healthy and wise, though the general practice seems to be the other way.