The pageant of Parliament, vol. 1 of 2MacDonagh, Michael
History
The pageant of Parliament, vol. 1 of 2
MacDonagh, Michael
Great Britain. Parliament
Questions are given in writing to the Clerks at the Table. “A
question,” according to the Standing Orders, “must not contain any
argument, inference, imputation, epithet or ironical expression.” The
judge of the regularity of a question is the Speaker. He disallows
it if in his opinion it is an abuse of the right of questioning, the
sole object of which is to obtain information from the Government.
Questions are sometimes altered by the Clerks on the ground of
impropriety of expression. Members occasionally complain of this
censorship. The Irish Party once resented the insertion at the Table
of the word “Roman” before “Catholic” in a question handed in by
one of their Members. Mr. Speaker Lowther was greatly surprised
that they should have regarded the word as offensive, but promised,
in deference to their feelings, it would not be used again. On the
other hand, they rejoiced over their success in having the term
“land-grabbers”—one of ill-omen, in Irish agrarian agitation—passed
in a question and thus appearing for the first time on the official
records of Parliament. I can also recall instances of Members who
refused to put questions as they appeared in print. They were so
different from the form in which they had been given in manuscript to
the Clerks that their authors absolutely disowned them. But however
questions may be sub-edited, it is rarely that one is rejected
altogether by the Speaker. A question addressed to a Minister must,
of course, relate to some public affair with which he is officially
concerned, or to a matter of policy or administration for which he is
responsible. Subject to these limitations a Member may put down four
questions daily interrogating Ministers on any subject, no matter
how local or trivial, for there are little things as well as great
things in regard to which the House daily exercises supervision or
requires to be informed. The Minister, however, may decline to answer
a question on the ground that it is against the public interest. This
stops the irresponsible interference of Members in the most delicate
functions of the Executive, which, if allowed, especially in foreign
affairs, might be productive of embarrassing and perhaps hazardous
consequences.
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