[Sidenote: In 1905.]
The result in the following year was the same, but the tactics were different. The first private member"s motion on the subject was shelved by the previous question, and the government dealt with the subsequent ones by the novel device, already described, of staying away from the division altogether. Mr. Balfour virtually took the ground that a vote on which the government exerted no pressure could not be regarded as a true expression of the opinion of the House, and might therefore be ignored--an extension, although by no means an illogical extension, of the accepted doctrines of the const.i.tution.
[Sidenote: Parliament the Great Inquest of the Nation.]
The system of a responsible ministry can develop in a normal and healthy way only in case the legislative body is divided into two parties, and under those conditions it is the inevitable consequence of the system that Parliament cannot support the cabinet on one question and oppose it on another. The programme of the ministers must be accepted or rejected as a whole, and hence the power of initiative, both legislative and executive, must rest entirely with them. This is clearly the tendency in Parliament at the present day.[355:1] The House of Commons is finding more and more difficulty in pa.s.sing any effective vote, except a vote of censure. It tends to lose all powers except the power to criticise and the power to sentence to death. Parliament has been called the great inquest of the nation, and for that purpose its functions have of late been rather enlarged than impaired. Nor are the inquisitors confined to any one section of the House, for while that part is played chiefly by the Opposition, the government often receives a caution from its own supporters also. If the parliamentary system has made the cabinet of the day autocratic, it is an autocracy exerted with the utmost publicity, under a constant fire of criticism; and tempered by the force of public opinion, the risk of a vote of want of confidence, and the prospects of the next election.
FOOTNOTES:
[327:1] For a collection of instances from 1807 to 1874 see Todd, "Parl.
Govt. in England," I., 422-28, 449-50.
[327:2] In the year 1904, for example, there were three motions clearly of this character. The first two (in favour of paying unskilled government workmen the standard rate of wages, and against granting permits for the vivisection of dogs) did not come to a vote; while the third (calling upon the government to encourage cotton growing in Africa) was agreed to without a division.
[328:1] It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between censure of past action, and a direction for the future; but, if we exclude votes indirectly implying censure, by a reduction of an appropriation, or an adjournment of the House, the only instances since 1886 where a vote relating in express terms to either of these things has been carried against the opposition of the government, have been as follows: On June 12, 1888, a resolution was adopted that redundant officials ought to be transferred to other departments, although a Royal Commission was already considering the subject. On April 30, 1889, a vote was pa.s.sed condemning the Indian fiscal system for encouraging the opium trade; and another vote to the same effect was carried, on going into the Committee of Supply on April 10, 1891. A commission appointed by the government reported in favour of the existing system which was thereupon maintained. (Com. Papers, 1894, LX., 583; LXI.; LXII.; 1895, XLII., 31 _et seq._; _cf._ 1892, LVIII.; and 1893, LXVI.) Finally, on June 3, 1893, it was voted that the examinations for the Indian Civil Service ought to be held in India as well as in England; but, after collecting the opinions of Indian officials, which were almost wholly adverse to the change, the government decided not to make it (Com. Papers, 1893, LXIV., 869; 1894, LX., 1), and so informed the House, Hans. 4 Ser.
XXIV., 1537.
[330:1] Cf. Dupriez, _Les Ministres_, II., 440-45. Lowell, "Governments and Parties," I., 117-26.
[331:1] May, 206, note 1, 236, note 1. Todd, II., 421-22.
[332:1] May, 237-38. Questions may also be addressed to the Speaker, or to private members in regard to bills or motions in their charge, but questions of this kind are few, and do not concern us here.
[333:1] May, 301.
[334:1] In the five years from 1873 to 1877 thirty-one such motions were made, of which all but three were withdrawn. Those three were negatived by an oral vote, and were not pushed to an actual division. In the next five years, up to the adoption of the Standing Order of 1882, the motions numbered sixty-four, and only eighteen of them were withdrawn, while twelve (one in 1878, seven in 1881, and four in 1882) were pushed to a division. For these and many other facts relating to these motions to adjourn I am indebted to my students at Harvard, Messrs. O. M.
d.i.c.kerson and E. Takasugi.
[334:2] In 1871 and 1878.
[334:3] Now S.O. 22.
[334:4] The rules framed by the Speaker on Feb. 9, 1881, provided, in regard to motions to adjourn, that no adjournment should be moved before the business of the day was taken up, except by leave of the House; and that debate on a motion to adjourn made after business had been taken up, should be confined to the question of adjournment. Com. Papers, 1881, LXXIV., 1.
[335:1] Now S.O. 10. The changes made in 1902 did not affect these provisions, but merely the time when the debate on the motion should take place.
[336:1] The debate was over the arrest of Mr. Dillon, M.P. Mr.
Gladstone, not thinking it a proper way to bring the question before the House, declined to resist the motion, which was carried without a division. Hans. 3 Ser. CCLXI., 183-216.
[336:2] In the twenty years that the Standing Order of 1882 remained unchanged, the number of motions to adjourn, before public business began averaged seven a year. In 1903 there were only three of them, and in 1904 seven; but in 1905, when Mr. Balfour"s cabinet was manifestly losing its hold upon the country, the number rose to nine. Incidentally the change of rule has tended to shift the debates on those motions into the time reserved for private members, for the debate must occur at the evening sitting, and in the earlier part of the session two of the four evening sittings belong to the private members.
[337:1] May, 264-65, 286.
[337:2] _E.g._ Hans. 4 Ser. CXXV., 379-80, 382-83, 386-87, 397-98, 415, 629-30, 1229-32; _Ibid._, Cx.x.xVI., 836-40. _Cf._ remarks by Mr. Swift MacNeill in 1906. _Ibid._, CLII., 1178-79.
[337:3] Hans. 4 Ser. Cx.x.xV., 1229. Since this was written a report has been made by a select committee on the subject; and appended thereto is a memorandum by Sir Courtenay Ilbert on the history of the rule against antic.i.p.ation.
[338:1] _Ibid._ 1232. _Cf._ Cx.x.xVI., 840.
[340:1] Hans. 4 Ser. CXLIII., 886-95.
[341:1] Anson, "Law and Custom of the Const." I., 270; May, 571-72.
Redlich (_Recht und Technik_, 116-17) points out that these amendments began in 1811 at the very moment when special days were first reserved for the government.
[341:2] Old S.O. 56.
[341:3] May, 573-74.
[341:4] Friday was especially reserved for this purpose by old S.O. 11, _cf._ Old S.O. 51.
[342:1] S.O. 17.
[342:2] May, 573.
[342:3] May, 574; Ilbert, "Manual," -- 231.
[342:4] May, 574.
[342:5] Ilbert, "Manual," -- 45.
[343:1] The change consisted in leaving the Committee of Ways and Means out of the exceptions, in S.O. 51, to the general rule that the House goes into committee without question put.
[Sidenote: The Committee on Indian Accounts.]
Debate on the motion to go into committee on the East Indian Accounts is still allowed, in order to provide an opportunity for general debate on the questions that may arise on these accounts. (S.O. 51, _cf._ Ilbert, "Manual," -- 64.) An amendment can also be moved (_Ibid._, -- 117), but in practice this has no serious effect.
[344:1] Hans. 4 Ser. x.x.xVII., 724-26. With this may be contrasted the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in Supply in 1888 (Com.
Papers, 1888, XII., 27), which said that the debates on the estimates were an effective means, both of criticising the administration and of controlling expenditure. It expressed the opinion that although the estimates were not often actually reduced, the discussion prevented future extravagance. For the condition at the present day see the Report of the Committee on National Expenditure, and the evidence thereto annexed (Com. Papers, 1902, VII., 15; 1903, VII., 483).
[344:2] Hans. 4 Ser. x.x.xVII., 727-30.
[344:3] Debate on supplementary and excess grants is limited to those particular grants. May, 585-86.
[345:1] May, 584-85.
[346:1] Since the reduction of the vote for royal parks on March 11, 1886, the only two instances have been a reduction of the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords, carried against the government in 1893 on the ground that they were excessive, and in 1895 a rejection of the appropriation for a statue of Cromwell.
A list of all the reductions in the estimates from 1868 to 1887 may be found in Appendix 5 to the Report of the Committee on Estimates Procedure (Com. Papers, 1888, XII., 27). A list of those from 1887 through 1901 in Appendix 1, of the first report of the Committee on National Expenditure (Com. Papers, 1902, VII., 15. _Cf._ Return of Divisions in Supply, 1891-1901. Com. Papers, 1902, Lx.x.xII., 139). There were eighteen reductions in the twenty years covered by the earlier report, eleven in the fourteen years next following. Of those eleven, four were cases where estimates were withdrawn by the government (two of them supplementary estimates, afterward voted as regular estimates for the next year), three were reductions moved by the government because the expenditure had become unnecessary, another was a reduction accepted by the government, two more were the two cases mentioned in the text, and the remaining one was moved to call attention to a grievance, _i.e._ the number of rooms in the Parliament buildings occupied by officers of the House. This last case, together with the reduction of the salary of the Secretary of State for War (which occurred in 1895, but is not mentioned in the list), is described hereafter in the text.
[348:1] The vote was 141 to 130. (Hans. 4 Ser. Cx.x.xI., 1141-50.)
[348:2] The vote was 199 to 196. (Hans. 4 Ser. CIL., 1486 _et seq._) Mr.
Balfour"s cabinet resigned three months later when Parliament was not in session.
[348:3] _Cf._ May, 588.
[349:1] May, 561. He speaks here only of the Appropriation Bill, but what he says is equally true of all the Consolidated Fund Bills, of which the Appropriation Bill is merely the last, completing the process for the year.