and with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.' There is no trifling with the subject here. If this 'power did not exist,' remarks Judge Story, it would be utterly impracticable to transact the business of the nation, either at all or at least with decency, deliberation, and order.' That is precisely the state of affairs to which we are rapidly drifting in this country. 'As a member,' remarks Judge Story again, 'might be so lost to all sense of dignity and duty as to disgrace the House by the grossness of his conduct, or interrupt its deliberations by perpetual violence or clamour, the power to expel for very aggravated misconduct was also indispensable, not as a common, but as an ultimate redress for the grievance.' This is entirely applicable to the special difficulties which are now before us. Obviously, the penalty of expulsion from Parliament is not one which should be lightly employed. But it should be among the reserve powers of the Speaker, although no lesser authority should be at liberty to use it. If it were known to be available, there would seldom be any necessity for its use. Members may cheerfully run the risk of a week's suspension, or even go out of their way to bring it upon themselves, but they would not jeopardize their seats. We are, of course, aware that the House of Commons already possesses a general power of expulsion for 'grave offences.' But it has never been put into force for disorderly conduct in the House, and indeed there is a doubt whether it can be legally exercised under any circumstances. As Sir Erskine May observes, in enumerating the Wilkes' case and others,' all these cases can only be regarded as examples of an excess of their jurisdiction by the Commons; for one House of Parliament cannot create a disability unknown to the law.' In the United States, as we have seen, the fundamental law confers this particular power upon Congress. Such a law we have not at present in this country, but it may come. We may be very sure that the Radical party will not tolerate such obstruction as the Salisbury Ministry has had to face throughout the present Parliament. It would soon show that it meant to make full use of the power which it had obtained at the polling booths. There is nothing to prevent an alteration of the Rules authorizing the Speaker to suspend for an entire Session an old offender in obstruction. The Select Committee of 1878 remarked in their Report, in reference to the abuse of the Rules of the House, 'Your Committee have borne in mind that by the common law of Parliament, as they have been assured by high authority, such conduct is a grave offence, amounting to a contempt of the House, and that it renders any member who may be guilty of it liable to such cen

sure

sure or punishment as the House may think fit to inflict.' We do not say that an increase in the present penalties would root out obstruction. But the prompt and severe punishment of conspicuous offenders would do much to lessen the practice. The remedies themselves might be abused by a violent and despotic party, but it is impossible to provide against every contingency that may arise. The first thing to do is to enable the Government of the day to discharge its duties in an efficient and orderly manner. We believe that Lord Salisbury took an accurate view of the situation when he said, speaking at the Mansion House on the 6th of August last, My impression is that our forefathers would have found a very short and easy way with difficulties of that kind. If I may venture to prophecy, I suspect that our descendants will find a very short and easy way with difficulties of that kind also.' But the evil is now assuming such huge proportions that we shall not be able to wait for our descendants.

Not only is the business of the country brought to a standstill, but the Ministers of the Crown, the men upon whom the nation depends for the regulation of its affairs, are rendered almost unable to attend to the urgent work of their departments in consequence of the grinding toil and inordinately long hours to which they have to submit. It is true that under the New Rules no contested business can be taken after midnight; but when that class of business is over, there are all the orders of the day to run through. Report of Supply, or money business, may be taken at any hour, and it is often one o'clock in the morning, and sometimes much later, before the House adjourns. The burden of this excessive work does not fall exclusively upon Ministerial shoulders. It is severely felt by independent members of the House, and in course of time it will have the effect of driving some of the best of them out of Parliament. We regret to notice even now that several highlyesteemed members of the present Parliament have given notice of their intention not to contest their seats again, finding themselves unable to respond to the continual and urgent demands of the party Whips. The members to whom we refer belong to the class which the nation can ill afford to lose. No doubt there will be plenty of persons willing to come forward to take their places, but it is another question whether Parliament and the country will gain by the exchange. The truth is, and it is a truth not at all understood by the public, that not Ministers only, but the whole House is so driven and harassed, that it is utterly impossible the present system can go on much longer. We venture to say that no Government in the present day makes

sufficient

sufficient allowance for the time that is absolutely required for the unavoidable routine work of the Session, and consequently, each Ministry in turn is apt to construct a programme of legislation on a colossal scale. That programme makes a great appearance on paper, but there is this drawback connected with it, that it cannot possibly be carried out. Every Session there is some legislation that is indispensable. Then there are the Estimates, which must be passed, and it is evident that they will henceforth require much more time than used to be devoted to them. Due allowance must be made for these things. It is not enough to say that an undue desire to speak manifests itself in the House. As Sir Erskine May reminded a Committee before which he was giving evidence in 1871, this is an age of discussion; it prevails everywhere, as well as in Parliament; and it has greatly increased in the House of Commons.' That is a characteristic of the present age which we may lament, but there it is, and it does not do to ignore it. Governments must shape their plans accordingly. They are all inclined to exaggerate the public appetite for new legislation. Some day a Ministry will make a great reputation by doing nothing. The rest and be thankful' policy may not be popular with agitators, and it would never be expedient to persist in it too long, or to elevate it to undue prominence in the policy of a party. But the people generally would not be indisposed to see a Session of refreshing idleness in the Legislature. The present Ministry was put into office charged with a paramount duty-to preserve the peace in Ireland, and to prevent the nation from being split into two or half-a-dozen parts. It has done this, and if it had done very little more, the country would not have complained. We quite admit, as we believe Ministers would now admit, that the entire scheme of legislation submitted to the House of Commons last Session could not have been carried out unless the whole of the time of the House had been at the disposal of the Government. Some of the measures proposed--such as the Licensing regulationswere certain to provoke keen opposition. When obstruction had once set in, the hopes and intentions of the Ministry were hopelessly overthrown. But the supporters of the Government had to be in their places day after day and night after night, just the same, as if solid and substantial results were being obtained. Many of them, it cannot be denied, foresaw from the first that their labour would be thrown away. At the end of the Session it was inevitable that weariness and disappointment should weigh upon the party. It is a common supposition that the House of Commons cannot be worked too hard, or driven

too

too far. There could not be a greater mistake. As matters are now arranged, the demands upon the time of members are unreasonably great. Ministers and supporters alike are jaded before half the Session is over. This cannot be altogether prevented while obstruction remains in the ascendant, but a great improvement might be made in everything but the position of Ministers. For that there is at present no remedy.

It is now univerally admitted that it is impossible for the head of a great department of the State properly to transact his office work, which is sometimes very heavy, and at the same time to give the attendance which is required of him in Parliament. He should be at his office from eleven till four, and be free during those hours to devote himself entirely to the many subjects that will come before him for consideration. But as matters now stand, a large part of this time is taken up with Parliamentary affairs. The permanent officials may get up answers to the questions which are to be put to the Minister that afternoon in the House of Commons, but he will have to be consulted about them. He must see deputations and attend to a multitude of details. Having done a fair, perhaps a hard day's work, he goes to the House at half-past three, and there he must remain until the cry of 'who goes home?' resounds through the building. For a Minister is expected to be in pretty nearly every division. If his name is absent from two or three, he receives a significant reminder from the Leader of the House. This involves an attendance of something like nine hours four days a week. During that time, the Minister may have no Parliamentary work to do, or he may have a great deal. Should he happen to have a Bill under his charge, or be defending his vote in the Estimates, he may be required to make a dozen speeches every night, and it may be necessary for him to be in his place six or seven hours at a stretch. At the outset of the proceedings, he may be harassed by questions innumerable of which he has practically received no notice. One question is put down upon the paper, and member after member jumps up to put further questions, theoretically arising out of' the answer, but very likely having no real connection with it. One afternoon last Session, the total number of questions put was 540, although there were no more than eighty on the paper. This is an abuse which undoubtedly requires to be promptly dealt with, not in the manner suggested by some inconsiderate persons who wish, as we have explained, to give an arbitrary power to the Speaker to suppress questions, but in a manner which would be perfectly fair to all. That is to say, no questions whatever should be permitted except those which are actually on the orders of the day. Supplementary questions,

questions, except on the business of the House, should be absolutely prohibited. No doubt, this rule would lead to inconvenience at times, but can any one say that the present method is free from inconvenience? Is there not a general feeling in favour of making some great alteration in it? Nothing is more common now than to find that a sort of debate has been sprung upon the House, under the disguise of putting questions, and it is not always possible for the Speaker to arrest it until a lamentable waste of time has taken place.

The hardships endured by Ministers are shared, we must repeat, by unofficial members. Upon this point much misconception prevails in the public mind, and it is desirable that it should be cleared away, for otherwise the deterioration that is going on in the character of the House will make still more rapid progress than it has done during the last twenty years. The woes of Ministers are often put before the public, for Ministers are powerful persons, and they have the ear of the Press,' with the aid of which a man may do almost anything in the present day. The case of the unofficial member is never heard. Or if it is presented in one of the public journals, so ludicrous a perversion of it is given that every one behind the scenes is thunderstruck at the ignorance which prevails out of doors, even in quarters which ought to be well informed. The Daily Telegraph' presented such a picture one day during the past Session. The Member of Parliament, it informed the public, is only liable to be detained in the House occasionally when divisions are impending. At most times he is perfectly free. He has nothing to do. He is free to roam over a palace with its library, its refreshment and smoking rooms, its river terraces, and its ample lobbies, corridors, and halls.' Moreover, 'the prisoner may solace himself by the society of four or five hundred English gentlemen; he can have visitors, including ladies from outside; and he can even ask them to dine.' What more could mortal desire? There is only a very mild obligation of intermittent attendance' for the member to face, and it is impossible to admit that he has anything whatever to do which is worth dignifying with the name of work.

6

This, no doubt, represents a very prevalent impression as to the life of a Member of Parliament. It may be a correct impression as regards a small number of members who habitually absent themselves from their duties, and who contrive to make it up' to their constituencies in other ways. But it is not true

as applied to the great majority of members on either side of the House. We venture to say that there is no more exhausting or disappointing and unsatisfactory kind of labour thrown upon

any