The Columbus journal., 1882-07-26
The 'sPrevious Question" in the House
OF Commons.

The s'PreviOuS Question" in the House
OF Commons.
It is not surprising that the introduc-
ton into the House of Commons of the
..cloture," or what is known by parlis-
mentarians in this country as the ''pre-
vious question:" should be so stoutly re-
sisted, when the importance of the inno-
walton is historically and practically con-
sidered. Looking at the subject In the
, light of the present and its necessities.
the wonder is that some method of closing
q debate within q reasonable period
should not have been resorted to before
this late day; but, when we look back
and remember how few debaters there
were in the days when Mr.. Pitt and MIR.
Fox led in the discussion of important
questions, how conservative the English
people are, and how opposed they are to
q new departure from the old methods
of procedure, we easily realize that the
opposition to Mr.. Gladstone's new rule is
not altogether unnatural.
Prior to the adoption of the Reform
bill in 1882, the House of Commons was
. large body only in theory, for while
the number on the clerk list was large.
the number of absentees was also always
very large, the speaking was restricted
to limited number of orators, and the
debates on the most important questions
usually terminated by the natural pro-
cess of exhaustion in u few hours, so
that the main question came without
forcing.
But the Reform bill in 1882 not only
added many more members to the Com
mons. but it threw into it many conspic-
uous citizens who belonged to the mid
die classes. like Mr.. John Bright, men
fitted by education, ability and training.
to properly represent the ideas and de-
fend the principles which had brought
them prominently to the notice of the
public. Instead of the leading parts be-
ing all taken by dozen of bright and
distinguished leaders, as was the case in
the days of Fox and Pitt, there was
crowd of new speakers, representing un-
easy constituencies, who insisted on being
heard. As a natural consequence the
debates became more and more protract-
ed and wearisOme, the party contests be-
came more bitter and prolonged as the
House membership resolved itself into
noxiOus measures by what is now called
..filibustering" in this country word
that has come into general use since
Jefferson's Manual was written.
OF late years these obStructionists have
become so numerous and so persistent,
and 50 determined to delay certain Gov
ernment measures that were obnoxious
to them, that it became manifest some
decisive measures must be adopted, or
all legislation would be defeated by the
chronic deadlock. No matter whether
the ''filibustering" was resorted to by
the Tories, Radicals or Irish members. or
all of them in league against the Minis
try, the effect was the same, and there
was no way of putting an end to talking
against time. The instance of the Irish
members keeping the House in session
fOrty-two continuous hours, as was the
case on one occasion recently, is an ex-
ample of the power of a factious minor
ity, under the existing rules of practice,
and also serves to show the necessity of
curbing it.
Under these circumstances one would
naturally suppose that the necessity of
adopting a new rule of procedure in the
House of Commons would be so apparent
that there would be but little opposition
to it, especially with the majority party
in Parliament, which is charged with the
responsibility of keeping the wheels of
government in motion. But the pro-
posed new departure is seriously object
ed to Ql by the old conservative element
in Parliament and out of it, which dis
likes changes of all kinds, and which is
tenaciously welded to the idea that it is
''better to bear the ills we have than to
fly to others that we know not Of"
(2) The application of the previous ques-
ton to cut off debate looks to many
people, even in this country, as device
to stiie the freedom of speech. with
which mankind seems to be becoming
more and more enamored. Even the
majority has q deep interest in the
change, because it may be in the minor
ity next year, or next month, and then
the bit placed in its own mouth by
an overbearing majority may be as ag
gravating to them as it now is to the
minority. (3) The innovation is re-
sisted on the ground that it may lead to
still more serious and far-reaching re-
SuAIos AL oiuUlLlOuS ouu ICCAlCSS
try, backed by resolute and courage
GUS majority in full sympathy with them.
might not only pass the most tyrannical
measures, but suppress the voice of hon.
est opposition to them on the floor of the
House. N The Tories unanimously
object to the new rule, because they are
now in the minority, and expect to re-
main so Indefinitely. Altogether, the
position of Mr. Gladstone on this sub
ject is not pleasant one.
The use of the previous question in all
legislative bodies in this country. except
in the United States Senate, where it has
never been in vogue, has not been pro-
Life of any of the bad results anticipated
from its enforcement BY the English
statesmen. On the other hand, it has
been found so useful in suppressing
windy speech-makers and unscrupulous
filibusters that it will not be long before
it must be adopted by the Senate of the
United States.-Chicago Journal,