PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 916, 20 September 1889, Page 27

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.

In ihe early part of the present Parliamentary session the Premier intimated that so loDg as members continued to

behave iu the admirable manner which had distinguished their conduct ud to that time, there would be no need to enter into the quest : on of providing new Ernies ' of Procedure. We do not know whether Sir Harry Atkinson still retains an equally high sense of hon members’ behaviour. His views on that head may possibly be modified, but ho probably admits, as we do, that the circumstances in which the stonewalling occurred on the Representation Bill weie so exceptional as to take that case out of the category of ordinary mere obstruction. That stonewalling, however regrettable in itself, was the only available form of protest and resistance against a threatened gross wrong on the part of the majority toward the minority. Upon this an argument has been based that had the rule of Closure been in force the stonewalling would have been crushed and the cities irremediably wronged, aud it has been contended thence that the Closure should not be established, lest on some future occasion it might be used on the side of oppression. This view appears to us to be founded upon a double misconception. In the first place there seems to be a prevalent, but utterly erroneous idea that Closure —where it is the rule of a Parliament —can at any time be enforced by a Blinister supported by a majority. So fnr from this being the case. Closure in the. House of Commons cannot even be moved without the express sanction of the Speaker (or the Chairman of Committees, if the House be in committee), and it cannot be carried unless a certain minimum number of votes shall be recorded in favour of the motion. A mere majority does not suffice. This

makes all the difference. In any case, however, there is no ground for supposing that Closure—except (inconceivable case) in the hands of a corrupt Speaker occupying the chair—would or could bo t he mertfta of stifling fair debate, or of enabling a public wrong to be done. When it was introduced in the House of Commons by Mr Gladstone, seven years ago, there were all sorts of gloomy prognostications as to the consequences of the step. Afet last year, after six years’ experience of the working of a comparatively mild form of Closure, the House of Commons readily agreed to the adoption of a far more drastic form, which accordingly is now in force. So satisfied was the House with the operation of the system that, whereas on ttio first proposal of the Closuro rule in 18S2 the adoption of the rule was only carried after nineteen days and nights’ hard fighting, the infinitely severer form of Closure introduced in 1888 was passed in a single sitting, after less than two hours’ debate. Experience has shown that none of the formidable consequences predicted in 1882 have followed the adoption of Closure. On the contrary, the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees have been so chary of permitting it to be moved that it was only in very exceptional instances, and when there was almost a moral certainty of the permission of the Chair being accorded, that a Minister ventured to move the Closure of a discussion. The fear that Closure might prove a potent instrument of oppression in the hands of a powerful Minister has proved entirely illusory. The Speaker and the Chairman of Committees took good care of that. They never allowed the fact to be ignored that the decision rested with them whether or not Closure should be moved, aud that their sanction could by no means be counted upon as a mAfter of course. Clearly then it does not at all follow that had the Closure rule been operative in the House of Representatives the resistance to the Representation Bill would necessarily have been in continently repressed. Indeed, there are several very cogent reasons to the contrary. To begin with, the situation up to the time of the compromise was never one in which Closure could legitimately have been enforced. Not only was the conduct of the Bill’s opponents strictly orderly and decorous,, but their speeches also wore sensible and relevant; in some cases so specially able that it has been justly felt as a serious grievance that, such utterances should have been arbitrarily excluded from the pages of Hansard. Such was the character ct the debate on the second reading ; and the amendments which were to be proposed in Committee were all of a thoroughly reasonable and unobjectionable nature. The whole proceedings differed toto caslo from those of 1881 or of last year. But apart from this, it ia incredible that a number of members large enough to carry Closure would have been found willing to gag their opponents on such a question. It is not always a mere matter of law and power in these cases. So far as legal power goes, a Parliament might do all sorts of outrageous things. A country majority might pass an Act casting all taxation on the towns, and freeing the rural districts. But no House would dream of doing anything of the sort. There is “ a higher law ” in these cases —to quote the historical phrase of the Amerieau Minister—or moral law that will always, in the long run, override the mere technical “lawof the letter.” We see no reason, therefore, to retract or modify the opinion we have more than once expressed, that the adoption of a moderate form of Closure is desirable, and would be found in no respect prejudicial to the freedom of legitimate debate, although fatal to mere reckless obstruction such as some previous sessions have witnessed in our Parliament. We believe that sooner or later its adoption will be found as inevitable in our New Zealand House of Representatives as it haß been in the English House of Commons. We still hope to see new Rules of Procedure —this oneincluded —brought in next session, at a time if possible when r;o question of an irri-ating nature is innnedia'elv occupying the Parliamentary mind, and that such rules will be agreed to.