Words - Not Swords

A saucy little book called The Point of Parliament, a collection of Punch articles, last week was selling like nylons on London bookstalls. The author was Sir Alan (A.P.) Herbert, M.P., professional humorist, amateur pedant and enthusiastic beller of stray cats.

In a series of talks with fictitious youngsters "Richard & Ivy," Author Herbert dissects piecemeal Parliament's intricate anatomy in a warm, simple, tot-on-each-knee manner. First he winces through the exigencies of being an M.P., describes the House of Lords (". . . Still very useful for correcting mistakes of grammar and spelling . . ."), then leads a bill entitled "Ivy's Christmas Dinner" through labyrinthine Parliamentary procedure.

Says Herbert: "After the Bill is printed and everyone can look at it quietly," it is "set down" for Second Reading. "That gives anyone interested in Ivy's stomach an opportunity ... to say, 'it should be a Christmas luncheon, because [I] do not approve of Ivy staying up late and going to bed with a distended tummy.' "

If the Second Reading is carried, the Bill is handed to a committee where "they can put down an amendment 'to leave out "turkey," and insert "cold boiled mutton." ' ' Then comes the Report stage, where "when someone proposed that Ivy should have oysters as well as turtle soup, the Minister might say 'Well, I am all for that, but I am not sure if there are any oysters ... I will find out.'

"If the Third Reading is carried, Richard, the clerks write some words in Norman French upon it and it is sent along the passage to the House of Lords. There it goes through precisely the same process. ... After the King--or his representatives--gives Le Roy le veult . . . the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, and those clever people who have for so long been saying 'Why don't you do something?' now unite to say 'Why ever did you do that?' "

Herbert, who has spent eleven years in Parliament as Independent Member for Oxford University, weaves into each chapter a theme of "words--not swords." "The English, long ago, made up their minds that it was better to decide things by talking than by cutting off people's heads, which was the old way. ..."

Herbert has other reasons for being sure that British methods are best: "There are no questions to Ministers in the American Congress. For one thing, the Ministers are not there and cannot be hounded about by the Members. I do not know what happens in Russia; but I doubt very much whether nasty questions to Ministers in public are strongly encouraged."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.