TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE MUTINY IN THE COMMONS.
THE House of Commons has acted sensibly at last in regard to the Obstructionists, and we hope effectually,—but that still remains to be seen. From the moment when the Irish trio, ceasing to obstruct legislation only, began to obstruct administration, it became clear that the House must act with decision, and secure itself against proceedings which, threatened to bring the whole machine to a sudden stand. If an admin- istrative Bill like the Bill allowing South Africa to confederate itself could he stopped, so could the Mutiny Bill, and then nothing would remain but anarchy or civil war. The motives of the refractory Members became at once of no importance. Whether they were seeking notoriety, or were longing to dis- charge their venom, or were sincerely convinced that they could benefit Ireland, was no more to be considered than the motives which induce cows to plant themselves in the way of a locomotive. They must go out of the way, or be driven over, and as driving over is risky, some kind of a Parliament- ary cowcatcher must be found. No institution is quite alive in England except the House of Commons, and an attack on its vitality is more dangerous than an ordinaxy insurrection. Accordingly, the leaders of both parties coalesced, and resolved that the Home-rule Ultras should be first of all dealt with in the old Constitutional way, last practised or threatened by Lord Palmerston to carry the Divorce Bill,—of sitting until the Bill either was passed or was defeated ; and if that failed —as we gather from the final speech of Sir Stafford Northcote,—should be dealt with personally, by exceptional proposals of direct repression. Members on both sides were warned, leaders like Mr. Forster and Mr. Childers, familiar with the business before the House, professed readiness to re- place Mr. Lowther or Mr. Raikes, and the united House pre- pared for a contest of endurance with the three. The struggle began at six o'clock, and was carried on for twenty-one hours with unflagging endurance on both sides, dogged courage, and occa- sionally considerable want of wisdom. The coalesced parties, once clear that their opponents were merely obstructing, should have voted in silence, or only have checked long speeches by usual and well-known methods of reproof. They should have given their adversaries no opportunities of wrangling, leaving unparliamentary remarks to be summarily put down by the Chair, which in the small hours fell to unusually strong men, Mr. Childers in particular displaying a dignified efficiency which delighted the House, and may have a great influence on his career. On the other hand, the Obstructionists lost their heads, and instead of using their unrivalled and almost miraculous powers of boredom, giving extracts for arguments, histories for illustrations, and rhapsodies for rhetorical perora- tions, almost openly confessed that they were simply obstructing. They made incessant motions to report progress,proposed amend- ments which were not even sense, plaintively inquired if they had not the right to offer an amendment on each word of the Bill, wrangled with the Chair, and at last abandoned even the pre- tence of producing reasons. Encouraged, however, by the rule of the House, which arranges for an adjournment on Wed- nesdays at six o'clock, and by the supposed sympathy of one English Member, Mr. Courtney, who at last flounced out of the House in a pet, they fought on like Turks behind a wall, and might have defeated the House or driven it to suspend the Standing Orders, but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after twenty hours had elapsed, in a firm speech intimated that the time for further action was imminently at hand. Then at last they collapsed,--Mr. O'Donnell intimated that the situation was changed, the resistance ceased, and the Bill passed through Committee. What was the action menaced by Sir Stafford Northcote, whether censure, suspension, or expulsion, was not revealed, but it was generally believed, and we hope with truth, that it was the latter. Suspension is, as we still contend, unjust, not indeed to Members who are accused of endeavouring to paralyse Parliament, but to their constituents, who are left with- out representatives, yet not disfranchised ; and censure is an un- known force, which might or might not be effectual, but expulsion has this strong justification. It is an appeal to the constitu- encies to remedy an evil which the body of the Representatives declare to be intolerable, before other and more stringent methods are adopted. It is objected, particularly by the offending Members themselves, that they have the constitu- encies behind them, and are sure to be returned again, but that is precisely the point which it is first of all the duty of the
House to ascertain. There is no proof that Ireland is with the Triad. The immense majority of the Irish Members re- pudiate the assertion. A majority of four to one of the Home-rulers repudiate the assertion. The recognised leader of the party, Mr. Butt, repudiates the assertion in the strongest terms, declaring that if it were proved to be true, he "would retire from politics, as from any other scandalous brawl ;" and it is for the dignity of the House to assume that this view is cor- rect, and that the Irish people, which has its own virtues, is not prepared to fight even enemies by placing brickbats upon the rails. If it is, other measures must be taken ; but until it is, it is only fair alike to the constituencies and their representa- tives that the electors should be asked whether they approve of tactics pronounced to be outside the Rules of War, but still pursued in their name. For ourselves, we do not believe that the people of Ireland, however they may enjoy a little worrying of Englishmen, are prepared to pronounce them- selves incapable of Parliamentary Government, or fittingly represented by men who replace Irish eloquence by extracts from Blue-books, substitute for Irish humour repetitions of "I didn't," and make up for the absence of Irish sensi- bility by a more than English doggedness. Imitators of O'Connell! Why, O'Connell had genius, eloquence, in- ventiveness, a laugh in the very soul of him. It is not our business to guard his reputation, but the countrymen he emancipated should protest against such calumny.
We trust, even should the obstructive Members recover their sense of decorum, and recollect that they were elected to share in and not to arrest Parliamentary Government, that the deep impression caused by their action will not be effaced until the House has thoroughly reconsidered its organisation, and above all, the position of the Speaker and Chairman of Com- mittees. Mr. Brand and Mr. Raikes may be lacking in some of the qualities desirable in their great positions, but a series of Lord Eversleighs can scarcely be hoped for, and none but exceptional men of his stamp are able to rule assemblies into which the taint of rowdyism has once entered without legal authority in reserve. The Chairman of Committees, who requires power more than the Speaker, because the Speaker has—over Englishmen and Scotchmen, at all events—the imprescriptible influence conferred by the tradition of five hundred years, has no authority whatever, and the authority of the Speaker is too dependent upon the submission of his subjects. If it is considered, after reflection, that to invest him with the prero- gatives of a Judge, who can punish contempt as an offence, would be injudicious, he might at least be allowed the power exercised by the chairman of the humblest meeting, and be permitted to give a disturber who will not listen to his re- monstrances over to the police, We cannot see why the power of arrest after a warning which he is popularly supposed to possess should not be made real ; why arrest should not be made a serious punielament, pecuniarily, at least ; or why, in the event of direct insult, as, for example, in a statement that his ruling was nonsensical, he should not be allowed to con- sider that the House had been outraged. Why should an apology or the denial of his own words always clear a Member It should not be forgotten that although active obstruction has not lasted long, the Speaker has throughout this Session been the object of continuous disrespect, and that by English as well as by Irish Members. The ancient aid to English Government—the habit of deference to superiors—is dying in the House of Commons, as everywhere else, and it can only be replaced, where submission is required, by legal and regu- lated authority. There are men coining into the House every year to whom the notion of deferring to anything but power is utterly foreign, who cannot conceive why a Speaker should be addressed as "Sir," and who look upon etiquette, wherever it prevails, as a kind of servitude to be broken through. It is absolutely necessary that the dying "influence" should be transmuted into legal "authority," or the House of Commons will sink from a representative and legislative body into a political club, without dignity in its deliberations, energy in its acts, or influence upon the public opinion of the country. Brawlers cannot instruct, and it is not only once this Session that deliberation has degenerated, amid bitter remonstrances from an outraged but powerless Speaker, into a discreditable brawl. Mr. Childers on Wednes- day morning suppressed one such scene, with a cool firmness which showed that Australian experience is not lost in a modern English House of Commons, but.a great Legislature should not be dependent for its decency upon the qualities of an individual. There will be time during the Recess to con- sider the whole matter, and we earnestly hope that Parliament
will for once abandon the English habit of waiting for a catastrophe.
Previous page
