The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1909. PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 643, 21 October 1909, Page 6

The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1909. PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.

; —-—e — The present Speaker of the House of Representatives is one of tho most strictly impartial of the list of members who have been chosen for, this high and responsible office'. He is, moreover, noted for his consideration to young members and for the'ready help which lie is always willing to oxtehd to members on eithor side of the House who may desire advice concerning tjio sometimes puzzling forms of Parliamentary procedure. Moreover, ho is quite capable of exercising his authority with proper firmness should occasion call for .it. It is with somo roluctanoe, therefore, that we direct attention to what appears to us to be a growing practicc and an improper one in connection with tho conduct of debates in tho House, and for which it would seem the good nature of Mr. Speaker is mainly responsible, We refer to tho ' procedure'. known ,as "personal explanation;" under cover of which Ministers and members alike are develop ing a reprehensible habit of making speeches which they aro not entitled to make under tho rules of the House. A very glaring instance—in fact several instances—of this occurred during Tuesday night's debate on the Addrcss-in-Eeply. In one case the Prime Minister was tho offender, and in another the Leader of the Opposition. After Mn. Hlne had concluded a speech' Sib' Joseph Waed rose and delivered a long reply under the plea that it was a " personal explanation." The rule has always been that a member may not intrude with a " personal explanation " unless he has been, or considers he has been, misrepresented by 'another member. ( Sir Joseph Ward's speech, as must be 'apparent to everybody; was not a personal explanation, at all, but a Ministerial speech in reply, to a general criticism of Ministerial policy. : Ho touched on a great many matters in connection with which his vio,ws : differed frith .those of Mr. lline but on not one of which had ho or anybody been misrepresented. Later on, after Mr. Herdman's speech, tho Prime Minister proceeded- to deliver another longispoech on finance. ■ Twice Mr.' Massey pointed out that the spccch was not a personal explanation, but the Speaker declined to restrain the Leader ,pf .the Housei Later 'in tho proceedings, Mr. Massey was guilty of the same offenco in connection , with a disputation with Mr. Gi W. Russell; and after ho had been allowed somo latitudo Mr. Speaker very . properly called him to order. We do not-for a'moment suggest .'that Mr. Guinness had the, slightest idea that he was not carrying, out his : - duties quite in accordance with the strict rules of Parliament,'-- The evil, has beSn of a, gradual growth prising probably out of the .goodnatured tolerance of Mr. Speaker. It is' a dangerous thing• to depart from strict rules in procedure in Parliament.' ■Precedents, are', created'- and it .. is . diffl-. cult to get back ,to the regular order of things, without appearing' to. do" , injus:' tice. In the matter under , review''the departure-, from tho practice of the past .is ■ in its , oarly stage 'and v/e'havc nd doubt that Mr. Speaker will find little difficulty infringing members;to a proper recognition of the limitation; imposed; by;:thc.rule. as.to "personal explanation." It is eminently desirable that the rules of ,debate should be strictly enforced in this respect or the; Standing Orders 1 as. to members' speecheS. will, be-, como a raero farce.