Statesmanship in Parliament: When? Where?

The following “Notes on England” (1872) were written by Hippolyte Taine, who was one of the leading intellectual figures in France in the early decades of the Third Republic, established after Emperor Napoleon III capitulated to the Germans at Sedan in 1871.  Here is an excerpt describing Taine’s visit to England’s House of Commons, and note his admiration for an institution where there is “freedom from constraint” – in some ways not unlike the land itself.  Perhaps Justin Trudeau’s unprecedented lack of parliamentary decorum (aggravated by an imperious Supreme Court deadline on Assisted Dying) would benefit from a look back – to “a certain dignity” apparently found in another country, in a different culture, in the mother of all Parliaments.

In the House of Commons from ten o’clock till midnight.  There is still greater freedom from constraint; the House is full, and all have their hats on their heads; some wear them far back and pressed down.  Several wear white hats, fancy trousers and coat, are leaning back, half-lying on their seats, one of them is entirely lolling on his, and two or three are rather free and easy.  They enter, go out, talk with a wearied and unceremonious air; certainly a club in which one were to behave in this style would be moderately respectable.

The ministers were pointed out to me – Lord Palmerston, Mr. Milner Gibson, Lord John Russell, Sir Charles Wood, Mr. Gladstone.  Alongside of us, in the gallery, several members of the Upper House came and seated themselves, one young immensely rich duke, all had bad cravats, and he had a shabby coat.  Below us there is silence.  The members, tightly packed on their benches, have not even a desk on which to write.  They take notes upon their knees, drink a glass of water which they afterwards put on their seat.  Each one speaks in his place, in a natural tone and with few gestures.  Certainly a chamber arranged in this way, and so narrow, is incommodious, and even unhealthy, too warm in the summer for the night sittings; a man must be quickly worn out there.  But this simplicity denotes a business-like people, who suppress ceremonial in order to get through their task.  One the contrary, a raised tribune, isolated like that of our Legislative Assembly, leads to theatrical eloquence.

The business of the day related to the encroachment of the Lords, who had voted a money bill without the assent of the Commons; the debate, it is said, is one of the most important of the year; the House is full and attentive.  After Mr. Seymour, Mr. Horsman rises.  Very distinct pronunciation, a perfectly just and convinced tone, energy without emphasis.  His thesis is that the Lords are not a body of simple, privileged personages; though not elected, they represent the people.  They are country gentlemen, like the others, having the same interests, the same education, the same ideas, being as well situated to decide about the common interests. Election is but one means only for naming the representatives of the nation; there were others, for example the possession of a certain dignity, which is the case of the Bishops, inheritance, which is said of the Queen and of the lay Lords.  Besides, since 1832, the Commons have had a marked preponderance; the control of a second body is required, without which they would fall into pure democracy, &c.  Rather long, he repeated himself; however he made an impression; cries of “hear, hear” arose at nearly every sentence.  After him, in the opposite sense, spoke Mr. Bright, an accomplished orator.  But I had seen too many things these days; my nerves are not as strong as those of a member of Parliament, and I left the House.[1]

---

[1] Hippolyte Taine, Notes on England, tr. W. Fraser Rae (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1885), pp.223-225.