There is nothing new under the glass roof of the House of Commons, not
even the balloting syndicates, of which so much has been heard since the
Session opened. Fifteen or sixteen years ago the Irish members
astonished everybody by the extraordinary luck that attended them at the
ballot. The ballot in this sense has nothing to do with the electoral
poll, being the process by which precedence for private members is
secured. When a private member has in charge a Bill or resolution, much
depends on the opportunity he secures for bringing it forward.
Theoretically, Tuesday, Wednesday, and (in vanishing degree) a portion
of Friday are appropriated to his use. On Tuesday he may bring on
motions; on Wednesday advance Bills; and on Friday raise miscellaneous
questions on certain stages of Supply. On days when notices of motion
may be given there is set forth on the Table a book with numbered lines,
on which members write their names. Say there are fifty names written
down--or four hundred, as was the melancholy case on the opening night
of the Session--the Clerk at the Table places in a box a corresponding
number of slips of paper. When all is ready for the ballot, the Speaker
having before him the list of names as written down, the Clerk at the
Table plunges his hand into the lucky-box and taking out, at random, one
of the pieces of paper, calls aloud the number marked upon it.
[Illustration: BALLOT.]
Say it is 365. The Speaker, referring to the list he holds in his hand,
finds that Mr. Smith has written his name on line 365. He thereupon
calls upon Mr. Smith, who has the first chance, and selects what in his
opinion is the most favourable day, _ceteris paribus_, the earliest at
liberty. So the process goes through till the last paper in the
ballot-box has been taken out and the list is closed.
It is at best a wearisome business, a criminal waste of time, useless
for practical purposes. It was well enough when Parliament was not
overburdened with work, and when the members balloting for places rarely
exceeded a score. But when, as happened on the opening day of the
Session, two of the freshest hours of the sitting are occupied by the
performance, it is felt that a change is desirable. This could easily be
effected, there being no reason in the world why the process of
balloting for places on the Order Book should not be carried out as was
the balloting for places in the Strangers' Galleries on the night Mr.
Gladstone introduced his Home Rule Bill. On that occasion the Speaker's
Secretary, with the assistance of a clerk, and in the presence of as
many members as cared to look on, arranged the ballot without a hitch or
a murmur of complaint from anyone concerned. The sooner the public
balloting is relegated to the same agency the better it will be for the
dispatch of public business. With it should disappear the consequent
wanton waste of time involved in members bodily bringing in their Bills,
a performance that appropriated nearly half the sitting on the second
day of the Session.
The spread of the syndicate contrivance would happily hasten the
inevitable end. It was by means of the syndicate, though it was not
known by that name, or indeed at first known at all, that the Home Rule
party managed in the Parliament of 1880-85 to monopolize the time
pertaining to private members. Their quick eyes detected what is simple
enough when explained--that the ballot system contained potentialities
for increasing the chances of a Bill by twenty or thirty fold. Suppose
they had ten Bills or motions they desired to bring forward. They
usually had more, but ten is sufficient to contemplate. These were
arranged in accordance with their claim to priority. Every member of the
party wrote his name down in the ballot-book, thus securing an
individual chance at the ballot. Whilst the ballot was in progress, each
had in his hand a list of the Bills in their order of priority. The
member whose name was first called by the Speaker gave notice of the
most urgent Bill, the second and third taking the next favourable
positions, and so on to the end.
It will be seen that, supposing fifty or sixty members thus combined,
their pet Bill would have fifty or sixty chances to one against the
hapless private member with his solitary voice. The secret was long
kept, and the Irish members carried everything before them at the
ballot. Now the murder is out, and there are almost as many syndicates
as there are private Bills. All can grow the flower now, for all have
got the seed. But it naturally follows that competition is practically
again made even. The advantage to be derived from the syndicate system
has appreciably decreased, whilst its practice immeasurably lengthens
the process of balloting.