360 



GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 



world as the model system of representation 

 defects which Lothar Bucher aptly character- 

 ized when he deprecated such a system of 

 " government by a club " for Germany. This 

 bill marks also the beginning of an epoch of 

 changes in the political methods and habits of 

 Great Britain consequent upon the extension 

 of the elective franchise. The difficulties of 

 the debute drove the Government to grave and 

 dubious innovations in parliamentary proced- 

 ure, notably the arbitrary assertion of a power 

 to close discussion. The land act was, in its sub- 

 stance, still more remarkable and significant 

 than the incidents and circumstances attending 

 its passage. The production of the party which 

 has been most closely identified with the doc- 

 trine of the absolute inviolability of established 

 laws of contracts and property rights, which 

 has been instrumental in gaining for the prin- 

 ciple of the unlimited and inalienable control 

 of the individual over all forms of property, 

 not only universal acceptance in England, but 

 currency all over the world, the land bill is, 

 in its essence, a renunciation of those princi- 

 ples, though avowedly only to meet this single 

 exigency. The measures which were asked for 

 from Parliament, and which were enforced for 

 the repression of the land agitation in Ireland, 

 were a not less strange contradiction of the 

 fundamental doctrines of the Liberal party, 

 which has always maintained, to the fullest 

 extent, the liberty of association and meeting, 

 and the right of free speech. Parliament was 

 opened January 6th. 



On the opening day William E. Forster, 

 Secretary of State for Ireland, gave notice of 

 bills for the better protection of life and prop- 

 erty, and for restricting the carrying and pos- 

 session of arms in Ireland ; and precedence was 

 asked for these measures over all other busi- 

 ness. Parnell and his party denounced in ad- 

 vance the coercive measures, and adopted a 

 method of opposition which, when resorted to 

 by the Home Rule party as a means of com- 

 pelling the unwilling attention of Parliament 

 to Irish questions, had raised a storm of angry 

 indignation that overwhelmed their cause. The 

 Land Leaguers, pursuing a more specific and 

 radical purpose, employed the tactics of ob- 

 struction in a more resolute and thorough- going 

 way. They determined to take advantage of 

 all the ample facilities which the rules of the 

 House afforded to delay and impede the re- 

 pressive legislation. By interminable speeches 

 the small group of Land League members pro- 

 tracted the debate on the address for two 

 weeks amid deprecations and indignant protests 

 from both sides of the House. On January 24th 

 Secretary Forster moved the consideration of 

 the protection of person and property bill. The 

 dilatory tactics of the Irish party were pursued 

 with redoubled energy. It became apparent 

 that the public business could be kept in check 

 indefinitely by this handful of members, and 

 the introduction of some mode of cloture, a 

 most distasteful expedient to Englishmen, be- 



gan to be talked of. The first step of progress 

 was the result of a trial of physical endurance. 

 A motion of the Prime Minister's to give the 

 Irish coercion bills precedence over the stand- 

 ing orders was carried, January 26th, after a 

 continuous sitting of twenty-two hours. The 

 tone of the public press, and the feeling out-of- 

 doors, as well as among members of Parliament 

 belonging to both parties, was that the course 

 of the Irish members was a national scandal, 

 degrading the honor of Parliament. Their 

 motive and justification, that they were em- 

 ploying the legal forms of parliamentary pro- 

 cedure to resist the needless suspension of the 

 constitutional liberties of their constituents 

 and countrymen, met with much fainter signs 

 of sympathy, even among the democratic 

 masses to whom they appealed, than the de- 

 nunciations directed against them for disre- 

 garding the time-honored comities of debate.* 

 The Land League members, supported by the 

 Home Rulers, soon brought the parliamentary 

 situation to a crisis, which was only tided over 

 by an extraordinary infraction of the smooth 

 tenor of legality in English aflairs. The sitting 

 which commenced at the usual hour on Jan- 

 uary 30th was protracted through the night, 

 the whole of the next day, and the following 

 night. After the House had been sitting for 

 the unprecedented space of forty-two hours the 

 Speaker, on resuming the chair on the morning 

 of the 1st of February, forbade further speaking, 

 and put the question. He explained that the 

 House had been kept in session from Monday 

 until Wednesday morning by the tedious discus- 

 sion of motions for adjournment, and that an 

 inconsiderable minority had resorted to this 

 mode of obstruction to impede a measure rec- 

 ommended in the Queen's speech, and declared 

 urgent by a large majority. " The credit and 

 authority of this House are seriously threat- 

 ened, and it is necessary they should be vindi- 

 cated. Under the operation of the accustomed 

 rules and method of procedure, the legislative 



* The rules of the British Parliament were adopted by the 

 American Congress at its first organization, and were made 

 the law of the French Chamber of Deputies also, upon its 

 establishment in 1S14. But from the beginning they hare 

 been modified In the House of Representatives by the im- 

 portant rule of "the previous question." The further re- 

 striction was adopted requiring the concurrence of one fifth 

 of the members present before a vote can be called. In 1794 

 the rules were amended by forbidding discussion on questions 

 of adjournment. A rule was adopted at a more recent period, 

 limiting to one hour the time allowed for a single speech. In 

 France the majority were empowered to bring a debate to a 

 conclusion by a vote. The Chamber has also a rule requiring 

 that twenty members should unite in demanding a division 

 before a question, except in certain cases, can be put. The 

 British Parliament has always felt a reluctance not only to 

 bind its members by restrictive regulations, but to interfere 

 with the rights of minorities, or with the utmost freedom of 

 debate. The power of a minority to hinder legislation has 

 been on a few occasions taken advantage of, but never, until the 

 Irish members availed themselves of it, in a way to seriously 

 impede parliamentary business, or to try the temper of the 

 public. The most noteworthy instance was the obstruction 

 of the prisons bill, which the rural members disapproved, but 

 would not openly oppose, on account of the relief from taxa- 

 tion it offered their constituencies. In 1848 the question of 

 introducing a check, like the " previous question " of the 

 cloture, was seriously under the consideration of the House 

 of Commons. 



