A History of the Four Georges and of William IV, Volume IVMcCarthy, Justin H. (Justin Huntly)
History
A History of the Four Georges and of William IV, Volume IV
McCarthy, Justin H. (Justin Huntly)
Great Britain -- History -- 1714-1837; Great Britain -- Politics and government -- 1714-1837
The Reform Bill was, then, clearly on its way to success. It had
passed its second reading in the House of Commons by a large, and what
might well be called a triumphant, majority. Now, when a great measure
reaches that stage in the modern history of our Constitution, we can
all venture to forecast, with some certainty, its ultimate fate. We
are speaking, it need hardly be said, of reform measures which are
moved by a clear principle and have a strong and resolute band of
followers. Such measures may be defeated once and again by the House
of Lords, and may be delayed in either or both Houses for a
considerable time; but it only needs perseverance to carry them in the
end. Some of the more enlightened and intelligent Conservatives must
have begun already to feel that the ultimate triumph of the reform
measure was only a question of time; but then those who were opposed to
every such reform were determined that, at all events, the triumph
should be put off as long as possible. The House of Lords would, no
doubt, throw out the Bill when it came for the first time within the
range of their power; but it was resolved, meanwhile, to keep the Bill
as long as possible in the House of Commons. Therefore there now set
in a Parliamentary campaign of a kind which was almost quite new to
those days, but has become familiar to our later times--a campaign of
obstruction. After the second reading of the new Reform Bill there set
in that first great systematic performance of obstruction which has
been the inspiration, the lesson, and the model to all the obstructives
of later years. The rules and the practices of the House of Commons
offered in those times, and, {160} indeed, for long after, the most
tempting opportunities to any body of members who were anxious to
prolong debate for the mere purpose of preventing legislation. For
example, it was understood until quite lately that any motion made in
the House, even the most formal and technical, might be opposed, and,
if opposed, might be debated for any length of time, without the
Speaker having the power to intervene and cut short the most barren and
meaningless discussion.
[Sidenote: 1831--Parliamentary procedure]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account