D. N. CHESTER and NONA BOWRING. Questions in Parliament. Pp. 335. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962. $5.60
| Author | A.H. Hanson |
| DOI | 10.1177/000271626334500120 |
| Published date | 01 January 1963 |
| Date | 01 January 1963 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
144
communism
to
which,
oddly
enough,
certain
left-wing
Catholic
groups
are
irresistibly
attracted
in
their
desire
to
be
&dquo;progressive,&dquo;
or
because
of
the
human
excellence
of
much
of the
French
Communist
rank-and-
file.
The
book
also
includes
an
important
section
dealing
specifically
with
the
Barange
law
of
1951
and
the
Debre
law
of
1959,
both
of
which
mark
a
clear
and
somewhat
&dquo;Vichyite&dquo;
departure
from
the
sacrosanct
republican
principle
of
laicité.
The
text
is
supplemented
by
numerous
valuable
tables
and
maps.
This
otherwise
excellent
book
calls,
however,
for
one
serious
criticism:
Mr.
Bosworth,
for
some
reason,
tells
us
next
to
nothing
about
the
Catholic
church
during
the
Vichy
regime;
why
this
reticence?
The
bulk
of the
higher
clergy
was
definitely
Pétainiste,
and
even
if
some
bishops
and
archbishops,
like
Cardinal
Salieges
of
Toulouse,
could
be
classed
among
the
Resistance,
there
were
others,
like
Cardinal
Baudrillart,
who
came
dangerously
close
to
collaborating
with
the
Nazis.
Was
not
the
church
backing
all
three
horses,
just
in
case?
Vichy
was
an
important,
if
nasty,
episode
in
the
history
of
the
French
church,
and
it
certainly
deserved
at
least
a
chapter,
all
the
more
so
as
certain
&dquo;Vichy&dquo;
ways
of
thinking
among
French
churchmen
did
not
end
with
Vichy
by
any
means.
ALEXANDER
WERTH
Paris
D. N.
CHESTER
and
NONA
BOWRING.
Questions
in
Parliament.
Pp.
335.
New
York:
Oxford
University
Press,
1962.
$5.60.
All
are
agreed
on
the
value
of
the
British
parliamentary
question
as
a
device
for
the
democratic
control
of
administrative
be-
havior.
A
leading
constitutional
authority,
Sir
Ivor
Jennings,
has
described
it
as
&dquo;of
the
utmost
constitutional
importance.&dquo;
It
is
surprising,
therefore,
that
the
first
book
on
the
parliamentary
question
as
such
should
have been
published
as
late
as
1962.
It
is
even
more
surprising
to
find
that
over
the
course
of
the
last
fifty
years
the
backbencher’s
opportunities
to
ask
ques-
tions
have
become
progressively
restricted.
The
daily
number
of
questions
for
oral
answer
that
a
Member
may
put
has
been
reduced
from
eight
(up
to
1919),
to
three
(up
to
1960),
and
now
to
two.
The
total
annual
number
of
such
questions
has
de-
clined
from
about
eight
thousand
before
1939
to
about
five
thousand
today-largely
as
a
result
of
the
habit
of
using
more
and
more
of
the
available
time
to
ask
&dquo;supplementaries.&dquo;
In
spite
of
the
vastly
increased
responsibilities
of
government,
which
would
imply
that
there
is
a
vastly
increased
number
of
questions
which
might
usefully
be
asked,
question
time
is
no
longer
than
it
was
at
the
beginning
of
the
century-less
than
an
hour.
However,
those
who
would
regard
these
developments
as
further
evidence
of
the
&dquo;new
despotism&dquo;
receive
little
encourage-
ment
from
Mr.
Chester
and
Mrs.
Bowring,
who
come
to
the
conclusion
that
&dquo;not-
withstanding
the
changes
brought
about
in
recent
years
Question
time
and
Questions
still
continue
to
perform ...
effectively&dquo;
the function
of
&dquo;bringing
to
the
public
notice,
with
the
minimum
use
of
Parlia-
mentary
time,
the
grievances
of
individual
citizens
and
of
groups
and
the
matters
about
which
Members
feel
strongly.&dquo;
In-
deed,
with
the
strengthening
of
party
dis-
cipline
and
the
ever-stricter
control
exer-
cised
by
the
Government
over
the
time
of
the
House
of
Commons,
the
question
has
increased
rather
than
diminished
in
impor-
tance
as
an
outlet
for
the
expression
of
backbench
opinion.
The
authors
also
regard
the
increasing
proportion
of
question
time
devoted
to
supplementaries
not
&dquo;as
a
deterioration
but
as
an
adaptation
of
the
changing
needs
of
the
House.&dquo;
Mere
information-gathering
can
now
be
done
through
questions
for
written
answer-on
which
there
are
no
restrictions-and
through
correspondence
with
the
Ministers.
The
main
point
of
the
oral
question
is
that
it
provides-subject
to
such
limitations
as
the
Speaker
chooses
to
impose-the
opportunity,
through
supple-
mentaries,
to
cross-examine
a
Minister.
As
other
opportunities
of
this
kind
are
fewer
than
they
used
to
be,
the
supplementary
has
become
correspondingly
more
important.
Some
may
feel
that
Mr.
Chester
and
To continue reading
Request your trial