[281:4] _Ibid._, 580-81. Todd, I., 753.
[282:1] Such reductions are sometimes carried. There was the famous case in 1895 when a motion was made to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for War to draw attention to the alleged lack of supply of cordite. The defeat of the government in this case furnished the occasion for the resignation of Lord Rosebery"s cabinet. (Hans. 4 Ser.
x.x.xIV., 1685-1711, 1742.)
In 1904 Mr. Redmond, the leader of the Irish Nationalists, moved to reduce by 100 the appropriation for education in Ireland, and obtained a majority of 141 to 130. Mr. Balfour, declining to treat the matter seriously, remarked that the Irish leader had succeeded in reducing the grant to Ireland by 100; to which the latter replied that defeating the government at a cost of 100 was money well spent. (Hans. 4 Ser. Cx.x.xI., 1141-47.)
Again in 1906 a motion to reduce by 100 the appropriation for the Irish Land Commission was carried by a vote of 199 to 196. (Hans. 4 Ser.
CXLIX., 1459-86.) After some reflection the government decided that it was not a sufficient cause either for resignation or dissolution, although the ministry was undoubtedly losing its hold upon the country.
In each of these three cases the defeat of the government was an accident, the result of a "snap vote."
[282:2] May, 532-33, 589. Todd, I., 709-12. But this does not apply to local taxation for local purposes. May, 565-67; Todd, I., 710.
[282:3] May, 533, 589; Todd (I., 711) says that a motion can be made to increase a tax proposed by the government, but of the two precedents he cites, one (Hans. 3 Ser. LXXV., 1020) was a motion by the minister to restore in a sugar duties bill the rate of duty which had been proposed, but reduced in Committee of Ways and Means; the other (Hans. 3 Ser.
CCXVIII., 1041) was a motion to renew the existing rate of 3_d._ for the income tax, the government having proposed to reduce it to 2_d._
[283:1] May, 540, 567; Todd, I., 713 _et seq._ Provided the bill does not incidentally increase some other tax. May, 533.
[283:2] May, 533-35.
[283:3] _Ibid._, 589; Todd, I., 711.
[283:4] S.O. 14 provides that the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means shall be set up as soon as the address in reply to the King"s speech has been agreed to.
[285:1] On the procedure in the Committee of Ways and Means, and on Report from Committee of Supply and of Ways and Means, see May, 588 _et seq._
[286:1] May, 526; Ilbert, "Manual," -- 245, note.
[286:2] In order to provide money enough in the Consolidated Fund in antic.i.p.ation of receipts from taxation, each of these bills authorises the Bank of England to advance the sums required, and the Treasury to borrow on Treasury bills. May, 558, n. 3; Ilbert, -- 244.
[287:1] May, 556-57; Todd, I., 791.
[288:1] The name Customs and Inland Revenue Act was changed to Finance Act in 1894 when the death duties were included in it. In 1899 the provisions for the sinking-fund were also included. Courtney, "The Working Const.i.tution of the United Kingdom," 26-28; and see the recent Finance Acts.
[289:1] In the case of the consolidated fund services the separate items, _e.g._ the individual salaries, are given. In the case of the supply services only the amounts issued on account of each grant are given for the civil service; and for the Army and Navy only the total amounts.
[289:2] See his evidence before the Com. on Nat. Expend., Com. Papers, 1902, VII., 15, Qs. 764-69, 831.
[289:3] Thus the Parliamentary Papers for 1903 contain the Finance Accounts for the financial year ending March 31, 1903, and the far more elaborate Appropriation Accounts for the year ending March 31, 1902.
[289:4] He presents also separate accounts of the consolidated fund services, and other matters, with reports upon them.
[289:5] S.O. 75. For a brief history of the system of audit, and the laying of accounts before Parliament, see the memorandum by Lord Welby.
Rep. Com. on Nat. Expend., Com. Papers, 1902, VII., 15, App. 13. See also the description by Hatschek, in his _Englisches Staatsrecht_ (495-500), of the introduction into England of double entry and the French system of keeping the national accounts.
[290:1] All the reports of the Committees on Public Accounts from 1857 to 1900, with the minutes made in consequence by the Treasury, have been collected and printed together from time to time in blue books. There are now three of these published in 1888, 1893, and 1901, the last containing an index of all three (Com. Papers, 1888, LXXIX., 331; 1893, LXX., 281; 1901, LVIII., 161).
[290:2] Rep. Com. on Nat. Expend., Com. Papers, 1903, VII., 483, p. v.
[291:1] May, 564. On July 20, 1906, an amendment to the motion that the Speaker leave the chair was proposed, to the effect that the salary of the Secretary of State for India ought to be placed among the regular Treasury estimates, in order to give a better chance to discuss the government of India. One of the chief objections made to this was that it would tend to bring the Indian administration into party politics, and the amendment was rejected by a large majority. (Hans. 4 Ser. CLXI., 589-610.)
[291:2] May, 565.
CHAPTER XV
PROCEDURE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
_Closure_
[Sidenote: The Need of Closure.]
Almost all great legislative bodies at the present day have been forced to adopt some method of cutting off debate, and bringing matters under discussion to a decisive vote. They have been driven to do so partly as a defence against wilful obstruction by minorities, and partly as a means of getting through their work. Although following the path with great reluctance, the House of Commons has been no exception to the rule. With the evolution of popular government it has become more representative and less self-contained. Formerly an important public measure gave rise to one great debate, conducted mainly by the leading men, and the vote that followed was deemed to settle the question. The case had been argued, Parliament had rendered its verdict, and that ended the matter. But now every one has his eye upon the country outside. The ordinary member is not satisfied to have the case argued well; he wants to take part in the argument himself. He wants the public, and especially his own const.i.tuents, to see that he is active, capable, and to some extent prominent.[292:1] He watches, therefore, his chance to express his views at some stage in the proceedings.
Moreover, the strategy of the leaders of the Opposition has changed.
They are not trying merely to persuade the House, or to register their protests there. They are speaking to the nation, striving to convince the voters of the righteousness of their cause, and of the earnestness, devotion, and tenacity with which they are urging it. Hence they take every opportunity for resistance offered by the rules, and fight doggedly at every step. Just as in war the great battle that settled a campaign has been replaced by a long series of stubborn contests behind intrenchments; so in the important issues of parliamentary warfare, the single conclusive debate has given way to many struggles that take place whenever the rules afford a means of resistance. This may not be done for the sake of obstruction or delay, but it consumes time, and it has made some process of cutting off debate and reaching a vote an absolute necessity.
[Sidenote: First Used in 1881.]
The first resort to such a process was brought about by deliberate obstruction. This had been felt to be an evil for a dozen years,[293:1]
and was made intolerable by the tactics of the Irish members in opposing the introduction of the coercion bill of 1881. Several nights of debate were followed by a continuous session of forty-one hours; when the Speaker, on his return to the chair, of which he had been for a time relieved by his deputy, interrupting the discussion, said that the dignity, the credit and the authority of the House were threatened, and that he was satisfied he should but carry out its will by putting the question forthwith.[293:2] His action was not authorised by standing order or by precedent, but whether justifiable or not, it marked an epoch in parliamentary history.
[Sidenote: The Urgency Resolution of 1881.]
Brand, the Speaker, had not come to his decision without consulting Gladstone, then Prime Minister; and had made his action conditional upon the introduction of some regular process for coping with obstruction.[293:3] Gladstone at once gave notice of an urgency resolution, which was speedily adopted, thanks to the suspension of all the Irish members for interrupting debate contrary to the orders of the chair. The resolution enabled a minister to move that the state of public business with regard to any pending measure was urgent. This motion was to be put forthwith without debate, and if carried by a majority of three to one in a House of not less than three hundred members, was to vest in the Speaker, for the purpose of proceeding with such measure, all the powers of the House for the regulation of its business.[294:1]
[Sidenote: Urgency Rules.]
[Sidenote: Closure Rule of 1882.]
The language was vague, but the intent was clear. The urgency resolution sanctioned for the future the authority recently a.s.sumed by the chair.
The Speaker, however, not wishing to make what might appear to be an arbitrary use of his new powers, laid before the House a number of rules by which he should be guided;[294:2] and these have furnished the suggestions for much of the later procedure for curtailing debate.[294:3] The one dealing with the primary object of the resolution provided that when it appeared to the Speaker, or to the Chairman in Committee of Supply or Ways and Means, to be the general sense of the House that the question should be put, he might so inform the House, and then a motion made to that effect should be voted upon without debate, and if carried by a majority of three to one, the original question should be put forthwith. The urgency motion was used at once to push through a couple of bills relating to Ireland; but the resolution expired with the session, and after being revived for a short time the next year, it was replaced in the autumn of 1882 by a standing order based upon the Speaker"s rules.[295:1] The new order made, however, two changes in the procedure. Instead of being applicable only after urgency had been voted, on a motion by a minister, in regard to some particular measure, it could be used at any time; and instead of requiring a vote of three to one, it required either a bare majority, if two hundred affirmative votes were cast, or one hundred affirmative votes, if there were less than forty votes against it. Instead, therefore, of being a weapon that could be used only in cases of exceptional obstruction by a small group, it became a process applicable at any time to limit debate by the minority. But although apparently a regular part of the procedure of the House, the motion to cut off further debate could be made only on the suggestion of the Speaker, and this vested in him an arbitrary initiative which he was loth to exercise. The standing order was, in fact, put into operation on two occasions only, on Feb. 24, 1885, and on Feb. 17, 1887.
[Sidenote: Closure Rule of 1887.]
The difficulty that had been felt in using the procedure was avoided by the adoption in 1887 of a new standing order[295:2] transferring the initiative to the members of the House, while securing fair play to minorities by leaving with the Speaker a power of veto. The rule provides that any member may claim to move that the question pending be now put, "and unless it shall appear to the chair that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority," it shall be put forthwith. If carried, the pending question, and following it the main question before the House, with all others depending upon it, must be put without further amendment or debate.[295:3] The process, now ent.i.tled for the first time "closure,"
was modified in 1888, so that the only requirement about the size of the majority was that one hundred votes must be cast in the affirmative.
In this form it has ever since remained, and it has been freely used, having been actually applied from one score to four score times each year.[296:1]
[Sidenote: The Speaker"s Consent.]
The requirement of the Speaker"s a.s.sent has proved to be no mere formality. This is especially true where closure has been moved by private members, for his consent, or that of the Chairman of Committees, has been refused in one third of such cases.[296:2] Largely for that reason, no doubt, the use of closure by private members has become far less common than it was formerly. During the first ten years after 1887 it was moved by private members on the average about forty times a year, but since that period the average has been only twelve. Even in the case of motions made by a minister, consent has often been withheld. It happened very frequently during the earlier years, but of late has been much less common.[296:3] Evidently the Treasury Bench and the Speaker have come to adopt very nearly the same standard for determining when a matter has been sufficiently debated. To a spectator in the gallery the discussion seems to proceed until the House must be thoroughly weary of it before closure is moved; and, indeed, the House itself very rarely rejects the motion when it gets a chance to vote upon it--a fact which shows that if the Speaker had not power to withhold his consent, the majority would cut short debate more drastically than it does now. But although debate may have gone on until the House is weary, and the benches are nearly empty, until the speeches consist mainly of the reiteration of arguments in less incisive form, yet there are almost always members who are longing in vain for a chance to make a few remarks. In great debates the order of the chief speakers on each side is commonly arranged between the whips, and given to the presiding officer; who usually follows it, though not without occasional exceptions. For the rest he gives the preference, among the members who try to catch his eye, to those who have the ear of the House, or who are likely to say something worth hearing, not forgetting to call on a new man who rises to make his maiden speech. By seizing on the dull hours, when the House is not full, an undistinguished member can often get his chance. Still, there are many men who sit impatiently with what they believe to be effective little speeches ready to be fired off upon an appreciative public, and see their chance slipping away.[297:1] Perhaps they are bores, but on them the closure falls as a blight, and they raise the bitter cry of the curtailment of the rights of private members.
[Sidenote: Closure at the End of a Sitting.]
The closure can be moved at any time, even when a member is speaking, but perhaps its most effective use is at the close of the sitting. A standing order adopted in 1888 provides[297:2] that when the hour arrives for the cessation of debate--technically known as the interruption of business,--the closure may be moved upon the main question under consideration, with all others dependent upon it. This gives an opportunity of finishing a bit of work without appearing to cut off discussion arbitrarily, and it is especially valuable now that the new rules of 1902 have established on four days of the week[297:3] two regular sittings with an interruption at the end of each.