Evening Post. SATURDAY, JUNE 23, 1928. PARLIAMENTARY MANNERS

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 147, 23 June 1928, Page 8

Evening Post. SATURDAY, JUNE 23, 1928. PARLIAMENTARY MANNERS

In the impressions of the House of Commons winch he communicated to the "Observer" of the 15th April Mr. Sidney Webb, as we pointed out a fortnight ago, liai-dly concedes, a single point to the pessimist. It is far too large and rough an assembly to suit his genius. He has been' additionally handicapped by entering it about twenty years 100 late. And for the whole of his six years of membership the Labour Party to which he belongs has, even during its few months of office, been in a minority. Yet in his 70th year and on the eve of his retirement Mr. Webb speaks with unstinted sympathy and admiration of an assembly which lie can never have found congenial and which is certainly not associated in his mind with any personal triumphs. While so many of the best men of all political colours are accustomed to decry the House of Commons, Mr. Webb is satisfied that it counts for more-in the life of the nation than it ever did before; that its proceedings attract a far more widespread and more intelligent interest than they ever did before; that ' those who lament the degeneration of the House of Commons, whether in capacity or integrity, in education or manners, are talking nonsense; that its "aggregate effectiveness" must bo "far, greater than in any previous generation." * . That this "aggregate effectiveness" might be greater still Mr. Webb of course does not deny, but one might say that he 'finds the chief difficulty in the fact that a larger' aggregate than ever before' is endeavouring td make itself effective. It is not merely that the House of Commons has now more than 600 members whereas'in what are often regarded as its great days in the 18th century the number was less than 500. A larger proportion of a larger House is now attempting to ■ discharge. the. duties for which members arc sent, or ought to be sent, to Wes'tminsler — the duties of legislation and criticism and not of mere blind and mute obedience to the Whips. / • It is only six years, ■ says Mr. Webb, since tho last representative retired of a once-numerous band, that of-the entirely silent members. Thus the last of the silent members retired .from the House at the very election which brought Mr. Webb into it, and he lias witnessed a continuous congestion which has severely strained the Parliamentary machine. In a House of 50 more members the leaders of a century ago had a much easier task because, as he says, active participation' in its work was confined to a few dozen men of conspicuous ability. The .Speaker has had his full share of the. k extra burden, and incidentally Mr.. Webb pays a high compliment, to the man who has just vacated the Chair. For this very reason, ho writes, each successive Speaker has a more onerous task than his prodecessors. I believe that none has successfully surmounted so many difficulties, and earned tho grateful appreciation of so largo, a proporjion of the members, as the present pecupant of tho Chair. A time limit for speeches and quickening the pace of non-conten-tious- Bills are the principal remedies which Mr. Webb suggests. Of one thing, however, he is, as already indicated, certain, and even dogmatically certain—that a diagnosis, which attributes the increasing difficulty of conducting debates to a deterioration, in the manners of the House or in the decorum of its proceedings is a false one. On the contrary, writes Mr. Webb, for at least a century both have,- decade by decade, steadily improved. The squalid brutalities and coarse personal habits of the Members of Parliament of the latter half of the eighteenth century—notwithstanding all their fine clothes —went along with a frequent loss of temper with each other and with the most malignant personal abuse. The old Chamber that the flro of 1834 destroyed—what with the constant dirt and foul air, tho effluvia of candles and oil lamps, the sucking of oranges, tho crude arrangements f.or eating and drinking—by the relatively unwashed members and tho unmentionablo defilements of the floor —must have positively stunk! What has become of the "beastly bollowings" and "zoological noises*" not to mention the widespread semi-intoxi-cation that often broke all bounds, which were not infrequent features of 'the debates in Victorian times! It is not a pleasant picture, but it is strictly in accordance with the facts. Even in the days when Pitt, Burke, and Fox were at the height ,of their power and Ministers, still appeared in the House in levee costume with stars and ribbons, this is how a visitor from Prussia described the appearance and behaviour of the rank and file. ■ Tho members, wroto Pastor Moritz, havo nothing particular in their dress; they even come into the House in their greatcoats and. with boots and spurs. It ■is not at all uncommon to see a member stretched out on one of tho benches while others are debating; some crack nuts, others eat oranges, or whatever else is in season. . . I have seen somo of the members bring in their sons while quite little boys, and carry them to their scats along with them. This was in 1782, but the custom of promiscuous feeding in the House survived the Great Reform Bill and even lingered into the refined Victorian era. Almost exactly a century ago (7th February, 1828), 'Lord Brougham was sustained throughout

a great six hours' speech on law reform by the refreshment which he drew from a hat full of oranges placed beside him on the bench. In the first reformed Parliament Cobbett, and O'Connell were equally distinguished for their temperance in regard to strong drink and their intemperance in oratory and oranges. The weakness of Joseph Hume, their fel-low-reformer, was for pears, and with this support he was able to sit out every debate from start to finish. Ho was never known, ' says Mr. Michael MacDonagh, to havo a steak even in Bellamy's kitchen—not to speak of port or table-beer—but he came down to the House every. day with his pockets stuffed with pears, and these lie munched in tho Chamber for dinner and supper. In 1840 Disraeli mentions that a speaker who was threatened with a break-down "sent for oranges," and it was at least five years later before the practice- was dropped. Cobden writes, in 1845 of "a ferocious attack" that a fellow-member had made upon him: 'Colonel Sitthorpo plied, the fellow with oranges to suck, in an affectionate way that resembled a monkey fondling a bear.' In view of what Mr. Webb says about die state of the atmosphere of the House —and of its floor—it is not surprising to find Cobden groaning over the ventilation, though, as that was several years later, the conditions must already haye improved considerably. But, as Mr. Webb points out, the eating was really a small matter in those days compared with the drinking. He speaks of "the widespread semi-intoxication that often broke all bounds" even in Victorian times, but the "universal drinking" w.hich prevailed two or three generations earlier did not stick at half-measures. In this respect Pitt did ( hot fall below the standard of his contemporaries, yet Mr. MacDonagh gives the following account of his reply to Fox's attack on the terms of peace which were afterwards confirmed by the Treaty of Paris in 1783:—■ Unfortunately Pitt was that evening sick'from.over-indulgence in port. Immediately behind the Speaker's Chair there was a- door, known, as Solomon's Porch, leading to the gardens of the Speakpr's residence, laved by the water's of the Thames. In the midst of Fox's speech Pitt had to retire to 'tho Porch. Ho held the door open with one .hand, and while ho vomited into tho garden turned his ear to tho House so that .ho might not miss any of the arguments of Fox. "Never,"^writes William Wilberforcc, who witnessed the incident, "do I recollect to have witnessed 'such a triumph of mind over physical depression. When Fox sat down, he replied to him'with great ability, though with less brilliancy than usual. It was an astonishing performance,' yet it is not as "a triumph of mind over .physical depression" that it chiefly impresses a modern reader. T.he contrast between Wilberforce's complacent description and the indignation excited by Dr. Salter's relatively rriild charges, against his fel-low-members about two; years later indicates how far we have travelled in the meantime. ' ,