Home
Novels
Journalism
Other Writing
Quotations
Criticism
Collections
Features
Timeline
Pictures
MR Society
Links
Contact

"Our London Letter." The Norfolk News, March 9, 1872.

Last Monday evening was a red letter day in the history of the House. There was no scene, nothing whatever in the papers, but nevertheless a resolution of the house took effect that night for the first time which is of far greater consequence to the House and to the country generally than many a triumphant vote of confidence or no confidence which has filled the world with large type. My readers are I suppose aware that when the House goes into Committee of Supply on any of the estimates a motion is always made that the Speaker do leave the chair. It has hitherto been held to be the undoubted privilege of members to talk upon this motion to any extent and upon any subject, the theory of the Parliamentary Constitution being that they had some grievance which the house ought to compel her Majesty's Ministers to redress before any money was granted. In olden times this privilege was of the utmost importance. When a Tudor prince came down to the house for a subsidy, it was a very proper thing not to grant it till due inquiry had been made into the last flagrant case of Royal extortion under the name of borrowing, or of imprisonment without legal warrant. Times, however, have much changed since the days of the Tudors and the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair has of late years been used merely as an opportunity for the discussion of all kinds of private crotchets, so that the Government business was most seriously impeded. The matter has been much under consideration, and Select Committee after Select Committeee has "reported" - harmlessly into the air. But after immense discussion the Government succeeded a week ago by a majority of thirty-two in inducing the House to agree that whenever notice has been given that estimates will be moved in Committeee of Supply and the Committee stands as the first order of the day upon any day except Thursday and Friday, "on which government orders have precedence, the Speaker shall, when the order for the Committee has been read, forthwith leave the chair without putting any question, and the House shall thereupon resolve itself into such committee, unless on first going into committee on the Army, Navy, or Civil Service estimates, an amendment be moved relating to the division of the estimates proposed to be considered, on that day." The meaning of this is, that after the first introduction of any one class of the estimates, the House shall proceed with its consideration de die in diem, so long as it stands as the first order for Monday. On last Monday, as I have said, the new law came into force, and accordingly the Speaker had no sooner directed the Clerk to read the order of the day, than he slipped out of the chair, to the evident surprise of those who were uninitiated, or who had forgotten the decision at which the House had arrived. Probably a whole night was saved. Mr. Newdegate might have proposed, under the former rules of the House, to delay the estimates because conventual institutions required inspection; Sir James Elphinstone might have delayed them in order to state his views upon the question of deepening a channel in Ceylon; but both these gentlemen were happily avoided, together with many others, and the House promptly drew itself together to listen to Mr. Holms on the vote more immediately before it.

The Education Debate on Tuesday was evidently the debate of the session, so far, that is to say, as we have at present advanced. There was none of the ghostliness about it which has distinguished the debates on the Ballot Bill - it was genuine conflict of flesh and blood. The House, too, was fuller than it has been at any time this year, the Radical benches having scarcely a vacant space, and the upper galleries being somewhat inconveniently crowded. Of Mr. Dixon's speech, much can hardly have been said. It was clean, so to speak, very neat, and the elocution was faultless; but it lacked power, and there was a certain priggishness about it , which at times disposed the House somewhat to opposition. But the speech of Mr. Richard, who seconded Mr. Dixon, was a different affair. One word by way of reminding my readers about Mr. Richard and his history, which is rather remarkable. He is the son of Ebenezer Richard, a Welsh Calvinistic Minister. He went to Highbury College, and for many years preached at Marlborough Chapel, Southwark, so that he is a genuine representative of the middle-class Dissenters. To this day, even as member of the House, he lives in the unaristocratic district of Kennington. Without sixpennyworth of influence he contested Merthyr against Mr. Bruce, who had represented the borough for twelve years. Mr. Bruce was not by any means anxious about his own election, I believe, and even promised assistance to Mr. Fothergill the other candidate who was on the Bruce ticket. But Merthyr had become enfranchised by the Reform Act, and the result was that Mr. Richard was returned by nearly 6000 majority over Mr. Bruce, who was at the bottom of the poll. As a speaker, Mr. Richard is one of the best we have in the House, the practice of forty years amongst Welsh miners having given him a good training. He has had the good sense, too, thoroughly to accommodate himself to the latitude of Westminster, and talks strictly by book, never venturing on any pulpit effusiveness, a thing the House, which tolerates much, would hardly endure for a moment. He has a good strong manly voice which reaches everybody, and his attitudes are effective, barring perhaps a slight tendency to continuous seesawing of the body. The only thing against him is the recurrence now and then to the theology and phraseology of the Dissenting clergy, to which, to say the least of it, we are not accustomed. Writing now from memory of his speech, I find that the hits at Mr. Forster, are the things which abide with me. Some of them were admirable, straight from the shoulder, and to my great delight drew blood. Describing the Tory cheers which greeted some ministerial explanation which Mr. Forster had made, Mr. Richard said that cheers from the benches opposite he was sorry to say were "too frequently the fish for which the Vice-President of the Council was angling." I looked at Mr. Forster with much interest to see how he liked this very pointed criticism and it was very pleasant to see that he was much annoyed. Mr. Forster's speech was much praised by everybody for its good temper, and taking into consideration the provocation he had received, no doubt his self-command was worthy of all praise. But good temper unfortunately is not the one thing needful in a minister, nor will it unaided hold together the Liberal party. The division-list, all to within six, justified my calculations. I put the minority down at a hundred, and it turned out to be ninety-four.

Mr. Cardwell's new scheme for the regulation of the army is really the work of a gentleman who until very recently was a mere junior in the War Office, to wit, Mr. R.H. Knox, now one of the principals in the department. His promotion has been most rapid, and almost unexampled, but I understand he thoroughly deserves it. In fact, the gentlemen whom he has passed over admit the justice of his claims. It is evident therefore to those who know anything of a Government office that his merits must be great.

Friday

An ordinary Scotch debate was expected last evening with nothing more than ordinary six or seven hours of click-clack, and the constant recurrence of a good many Scotch terms which nobody but Scotch people can understand. But Mr. Auberon Herbert broke out with a somewhat remarkable speech in favor [sic] of secular education, which, however, except for its value as a protest, might just as well have been addressed to the winds. He is not a powerful speaker : in fact, his oratorical character is very much the reflex of his person - somewhat slight and hysterical. Nevertheless, he told the House some very great truths, and they were by no means commonplace. He pointed out, for example, that to apply rates to the propagation of the religion of the majority was to stereotype and perpetuate the religion of the majority and to give it an unfair advantage against that of the minority. The House however is utterly insensible to all "principles" of this kind. It treats the religious difficulty just as it would the purchase-in-the-army difficulty, and merely hunts about for a suitable and sedative compromise. Mr. Trevelyan, in fact, who followed Mr. Herbert, and is by no means a Philistine, dismissed his friend's speculations with a tone of contempt which was very disagreeable - at least to your correspondent - for the House never needs that any one should pander to its passion for temporising and expediency. Having said publicly harsh things about Mr. Herbert, I publicly and joyfully admit the pleasure with which I have just listened to him.

A SILENT MEMBER