Excerpt from
The Second
World War, Volume 5
'Closing the
Ring', by Winston S. Churchill: Chapter 9
* * * *
* Finally,
on October 28 (1943) there was the rebuilding of the
House of Commons to consider. One unlucky bomb had
blown to fragments the chamber in which I had passed
so much of my life. I was determined to have it
rebuilt at the earliest moment that our struggle
would allow. I had the power at this moment to shape
things in a way that would last. Supported by my
colleagues, mostly old Parliamentarians, and with
Mr. Attlee's cordial aid, I sought to re-establish
for what may well be a long period the two great
principles on which the British House of Commons
stands in its physical aspect. The first is that it must
be oblong, and not semicircular, and the second that
it must only be big enough to give seats to about
two-thirds of its Members. As this argument has long
surprised foreigners, I record it here. There are two main
characteristics of the House of Commons which will
command the approval and the support of reflective
and experienced Members. The first is that its shape
should be oblong and not semicircular. Here is a
very potent factor in our political life. The
semicircular assembly, which appeals to political
theorists, enables every individual or every group
to move round the centre, adopting various shades of
pink according as the weather changes. I am a
convinced supporter of the party system in
preference to the group system. I have seen many
earnest and ardent Parliaments destroyed by the
group system. The party system is much favoured by the oblong form
of chamber. It is easy for an individual to move
through those insensible gradations from left to
right, but the act of crossing the Floor is one
which requires serious attention. I am well informed
on this matter for I have accomplished that
difficult process, not only once, but twice. Logic is a poor
guide compared with custom. Logic, which has created
in so many countries semicircular assemblies with
buildings that give to every member not only a seat
to sit in, but often a desk to write at, with a lid
to bang, has proved fatal to Parliamentary
government as we know it here in its home and in the
land of its birth. The
second characteristic of a chamber formed on the
lines of the House of Commons is that it should not
be big enough to contain all its members at once
without overcrowding, and that there should be no
question of every member having a separate seat
reserved for him. The reason for this has long been
a puzzle to uninstructed outsiders, and has
frequently excited the curiosity and even the
criticism of new Members. Yet it is not so difficult
to understand if you look at it from the practical
point of view. If the House is big enough to contain
all its members nine-tenths of its debates will be
conducted in the depressing atmosphere of an almost
empty or half-empty chamber. The essence of good
House of Commons speaking is the conversational
style, the facility for quick, informal
interruptions and interchange. Harangues from a
rostrum would be a bad substitute for the
conversational style in which so much of our
business is done. But the conversational style
requires a small space, and there should be on great
occasions a sense of crowd and urgency. There should
be a sense of the importance of much that is said,
and a sense that great matters are being decided,
there and then, by the House. This
anyhow was settled as I wished. * * * *
*
|
