Procedures of The House of Commons (Redlich 1908 Vol.2)

.
CcmsT
"R3I7
THE PROCEDURE OF
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
A Study of its History and Present Form
BY JOSEF REDLICH
PROFESSOR IN THE FACULTY OF LAW AND POLITICAL SCIENCE IN THE
" "
UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA, AUTHOR OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND
my**
Translated from the German by
A: ERNEST STEINTHAL
OF LINCOLN'S INN, BARRISTER-AT-LAW, FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE,
CAMBRIDGE
With an Introduction and a Supplementary Chapter by
SIR COURTENAY ILBERT, K.C.S.L

CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
VOL. II
LONDON
ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE tt CO. LTD.
1903
CONTENTS OF VOLUME II
BOOK II MODERN PROCEDURE
PAGE
CHAPTER I
LEX ET CONSUETUDO PARLIAMENT! 3
CHAPTER II
ORIGINAL AUTHORITIES AND LITERATURE :
I LIST OF AUTHORITIES ... ... ... ... 10

II LIST OF BOOKS CONSULTED 14
PART II
THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE BUILDING AND THE

RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS
CHAPTER I
THE MEETING PLACE AND ARRANGEMENT OF SEATS ... 21

HISTORICAL NOTE ... ... ... ... ... 26
CHAPTER II
PUBLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS AND REPORTS OF DEBATES... 28

HISTORICAL NOTES :
I THE ADMISSION OF STRANGERS ... ... ...

34
II PUBLICATION OF DEBATES ... ... ...
36
CHAPTER III
PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS 39
HISTORICAL NOTE 47
vi CONTENTS
PART III
THE SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

PAGE"
CHAPTER I
OPENING OF THE SESSION AND CONSTITUTION OF THE

HOUSE 51
HISTORICAL NOTE 62
CHAPTER II
PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION ... 65
CHAPTER III
MAKING AND KEEPING A HOUSE AND THE ARRANGEMENT

OF THE SITTINGS ... ... ... ... ... ... 68
HISTORICAL NOTES :
I THE QUORUM 75
II THE TIME OF THE SITTINGS 76
PART IV
THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF THE HOUSE OF
COMMONS AS AFFECTING ITS PROCEDURE
CHAPTER I
THE RELATION OF THE Two HOUSES AND ITS EFFECT ON

PROCEDURE ... ... ... ...
79
CHAPTER II
THE CROWN, THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE HOUSE OF

COMMONS ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
89
PART V
THE RELATION OF PROCEDURE TO THE
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF THE
HOUSE OF COMMONS
CHAPTER I
THE PARTIES AND THE RULES 103

HISTORICAL NOTE AS TO ATTENDANCE AT THE HOUSE 112
CHAPTER II
THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ...

115
CONTENTS vii
PART VI
THE ORGANS OF THE HOUSE
PAGE
CHAPTER I
THE SPEAKER AND HIS OFFICE 131

CHAPTER II
THE FUNCTIONS AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE SPEAKER... 140

CHAPTER III
THE HISTORY OF THE SPEAKERSHIP ... ... ... 156

CHAPTER IV
THE SPEAKER'S DEPUTIES 169
HISTORICAL NOTE 170
CHAPTER V
THE OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ... ...
172
HISTORICAL NOTE 177
CHAPTER VI
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS... ... ... 180
1. STANDING COMMITTEES ... ... ... ... 182
2. SESSIONAL COMMITTEES ... ... ... ...
184
3. SELECT COMMITTEES ... ... ... ... 187
4. JOINT COMMITTEES 197
5. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ... ...
198
CHAPTER VII
HISTORY OF COMMITTEES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ... 203
PART VII
THE FORMS OF PARLIAMENTARY WORK
1. MOTIONS 215
2. PUTTING THE QUESTION 221
3. AMENDMENTS ... ... ... ... ... ... 228
4. DIVISIONS 233
5. PETITIONS 239
6. QUESTIONS ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
241
7. ADDRESSES TO THE CROWN 244
8. ADJOURNMENTS AND URGENCY MOTIONS 248
g. BILLS 252
HISTORICAL NOTES :
I PARLIAMENTARY FORMS ... ... ... ...

258
II THE MAJORITY PRINCIPLE 261
BOOK II
MODERN PROCEDURE
PART I
Authorities and Literature
"OEFORE proceeding to discuss the details of the pro-

*-' cedure of the House of Commons as it exists at the
present day, some information should be given as to the
authorities and
literature which have been consulted in
preparing the present work. The authorities fall into two
groups, distinguished by a difference in the legal character
of their contents the first comprises the sources of the
:
customary law, the second the express enactments as to the

order of business. Having regard to the historical account
given in BookI, it is
unnecessary spend time in ex-
to
plaining that the former is, to this day, the foundation of

the whole. It will be well, however, to begin by discussing,
in some preliminary remarks, the relation between the two

classes of authorities, and to show how express standards
of procedure have been formed.
CHAPTER I
LEX ET CONSUETUDO PARLIAMENTI
House of Commons has never known an "order

THE of business" such as modern Continental parliaments
possess, nor has it at the present day any code by reference
to which all questions of procedure have to be decided. Such
of the regulations for carrying on its business as have been
formulated must be regarded as grafted upon the historic
uncodified arrangements developed by custom. Neither the
civil nor the constitutional law of England has ever been
reduced to a code, though for hundreds of years there have

been, in the statutes, innumerable special enactments so, ;
4 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
too, there has never been any comprehensive legislation

dealing with the procedure of Parliament as a whole. Again,
to our own day, common law and equity, the unformulated
law,
1
are inexhaustible sources from which the civil law of
England is nourished, the former also containing the main
roots of the constitution of the state : in like manner the
modern provisions for the conduct of business in Parliament,
welded together into a collection of rules, rest on the broad
basis of the unwritten law, produced by centuries of usage
in the two Houses. Sir Edward Coke saw this clearly
when he said, "As every court of justice hath laws and
customs for its direction, some the civil and canon, some the
common law, others their own peculiar laws and customs,
so the High Court of Parliament hath also its own peculiar
law, called the lex consuetude parliamenti." 2
et
Custom, then, was the original source of the internal law

of Parliament, and, till the middle of the nineteenth century,
contributed more to its development than anything else.
Now the custom of Parliament, as Coke goes on to tell us,

is best learnt out of the Rolls of Parliament and other records,
by precedents and continual experience. It is the basis
upon which, as our historical account has shown, the most

ancient and fundamental institutions of parliamentary pro-
cedure rest ;
this is true whether we consider the institutions
peculiar to each House separately, or those which concern
their communications and legal relations one to the other and
to the Crown the whole law of parliamentary privilege is
:
derived from it. 3 Even now a large proportion of the

edifice of procedure stands simply upon precedents. As in
civil and criminal law precedents are the rock out of which
the common law is quarried, so do they form for Parlia-
The expression " unformulated law " is more correct than " unwritten
1
law." Though it may be accurate enough to say that the common law
"
lives from generation to generation in the bosom of the judges," and
is there developed, it is written down in the practically continuous series
of Year Books and Reports, which cover the whole of the last 600 years ;
though not in the form of statute law, it is written case law.

2
Coke, Fourth Institute, p. 14.
3
On this point May has the striking remark that " whatever the Par-
liament has constantly declared to be a privilege, is the sole evidence
of its being part of the ancient law of Parliament." (" Parliamentary
Practice," p. 62.)
LEX ET CONSUETUDO PARLIAMENTI 5
ment the source of the consuetude parliamentaria. The

customary law is ascertained and made available for the
decision of a new concrete case by searching, in the journals
officially kept by the Clerk, for analogous particular cases,
investigating their significance and adopting them as guides.

It has,therefore, frequently been found convenient to appoint
special committees to make such investigations. In more
recent times, with the widening of the Speaker's jurisdiction,
it has been in the first instance his task, when disputes
on points of order or similar difficulties have arisen, to give
his decision with as much respect to precedents as possible.
Compilations of such rulings from the chair (the form in
which precedents make their appearance in modern times),
and findings of committees would clearly be of the greatest
practical both to the Speaker and the House,
assistance
" "
and consequently Collections of parliamentary precedents
have often been published even in recent days, and are
convenient instruments kept by the Clerk of the House in
readiness for the Speaker and Chairman.
The journals are by no means the only authentic sources
of information as to what has been established by custom.
A large part of what concerns procedure is never recorded
in themfor not unfrequently usages have been formed and
;
long observed without giving rise to any definite decision of

the House or the Speaker, which would constitute a pre-
cedent. Long-continued practice, moreover, is not always
required for the creation of customs in procedure. In all
such cases the only proof of a customary rule is the
actual practice adopted, it being, of course, always in the last
resort a matter purely for the decision of the House itself
whether it accepts its custom as binding or not.
But by the side of this source of law, flowing from
old traditions, there arose comparatively early the lex
parliamentaria, by which we understand the aggregate of

the definite express decisions given by one or other of the
Houses as to the arrangement of its business, together with
the orders arising therefrom. The word order is used in
two senses it
may
: mean a concrete direction as to what
is be done in a particular case or it may describe an
to
abstract formulation of a rule as to the business of the
House. In the first sense an order is the commonest act

of the House, the motive power of all its actual positive
work. We have nothing to do with orders of the House
in this sense we are only concerned with orders which
:
are abstract regulations.

The mark which distinguishes orders of the second kind
is their laying down general rules which are conceived as
more or less permanent. Such orders, each of which is at

first independent and revocable at any moment, after
quite
the ground they cover has reached a certain extent, con-
stitute a connected body of formulated law upon matters of
procedure. As we have already seen, from the beginning

of the seventeenth century the House of Commons has
shown considerable activity in this kind of autonomous
legislation. In the course of time the constant repetition of
certain well-tried orders, as opposed to special, temporary
regulations, has led to the recognition of standing orders as
a separate class of rules. Standing orders are regulations
which have been expressly declared to be intended to bind
all future
parliaments, although right of the is reserved
repealing them at any future time by a. simple decision of
the House. Until, however, such an express decision is
come to, the House as a whole and the Chair and every
individual member are bound just as firmly by the terms
of the orders as ordinary citizens are bound by an act of
parliament.
In addition to the standing orders a second category of
procedure rules known as sessional orders has grown up.

These comprise regulations which the House expressly renews
at beginning of each session, making the principles
the
contained in them binding for the duration of its currency.
The number of sessional orders has never been large, and
several ofthem by constant repetition, session after session,
have practically become standing orders. 1 There are also
1
At present there are nine sessional orders in force dealing with the
following matters: (i) double election returns ; (2) exclusion of peers from
voting (3) prohibition against interference of peers in elections (4) bribery
; ;
at elections (5) tampering with witnesses (6) false evidence given to the
; ;
House or one of its committees (7) direction to the police to keep the
;
"
passages to the House clear (8) regulations as to printing the
;
votes and
proceedings"; (9) regulations as to printing the journal. As will be seen,
LEX ET CONSUETUDO PARLIAMENTI 7
a number of rules not belonging to either of the foregoing
classes, never expressly endowed with either short or long

duration, which by virtue of continuous practice, have
acquired the force of customary law. For more than fifty
years it has been usual for the procedure regulations and
forms of all three kinds to be collected from time to
time in a handbook under the editorship of the Clerk of the
House for the time being it is laid by the Speaker on
;
the table of the House, and may, therefore, be regarded as

an official statement.
All the forms enumerated above plainly reflect the auto-
nomy of the House of Commons in matters of procedure,
and, of- course, similar powers of self-government are

exercised by the House of Lords. 1 There are also, though
to a very inconsiderable degree, and so
speak in a rudi- to
mentary condition, an element of legislation and an element

of prerogative in the procedure of Parliament. The first
consists in the regulation by act of
parliament of certain
institutions (for example, the appointment of a Deputy
2
Speaker and certain ^privileges of the Speaker himself). The
operation of the royal prerogative is exclusively confined to
the opening, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament. In
its exercise lies the counterpart to the privileges of the two
Houses, as it rests upon the immemorial practice of the
peculiar rights of the Crown in relation to Parliament.
With the order of business proper neither legislation nor
prerogative has the least concern.
The binding force of the standing and sessional orders
depends on the desire of the House to keep its procedure
in accord with the decisions to which it has already come.
Consequently to annul this force there should be required, in

principle, some actus contrarius, some express declaration of
an opposite intention. The House, however, possesses another
the four first have no connection with the order of business. For the text
of the sessional orders see Appendix.
1 "
Blackstone, quoting Coke, puts this autonomy strongly, Whatever
matter arises concerning either house of parliament ought to be discussed
and adjudged in that house to which it relates, and not elsewhere." (Coke,
Fourth Institute, p. 15 Blackstone, vol. i., p. 163.)
;
8
See infra, Part vi., chap, ii., for the enumeration of the special
functions of the Speaker.
resource whereby it can free itself, in particular cases, from
the self-imposed barriers and fetters of its standing orders.
It can do so by the process of suspending the standing orders.
It is competent, under the existing rules, for the House to
be invited by a simple motion to set aside, with respect to
some special business, certain standing orders which affect

it, or, if need be, the whole of the standing orders ; in other
words, to suspend their action for a particular case without
prejudice to their continued validity. By usage a motion
for such temporary suspension requires previous notice ;
but
in urgent cases the House has even dispensed with this
requirement. Still further, the House has an indirect method

of suspension, not dependent on previous notice ; it may
make a concrete order prescribing a course of procedure
inconsistent with the standing orders, and thus by implica-
tion cancel their operation upon a particular occasion. 1
From the foregoing we may draw an important con-
clusion. In of Commons there are no special
the House
rules applicable to proposals for reform in procedure. Any
particular change in existing rules takes effect by force of a
simple resolution
;
no second resolution is required except for
the purpose of raising a new regulation to the status of a
standing order with permanent validity. Neither the notice

of an intention to move
a resolution affecting procedure nor
any other requisite for its passing is hedged in with special

technical formalities. A simple majority is all that is required,
and there is no discussion in committee. Technicalities have
never thrown any difficulty in the way of the Government's
introducing and carrying their proposals for alterations
in procedure, even, as we have seen, at the time of the
bitterest obstruction. The possibility of
securing, by simple
motion and order, that any subject may have priority in the
arrangement of the business of the House has always given
matters of procedure amendment a chance of immediate
and unimpeded decision. This principle, which has never
been infringed from the first, and the consequent facility
of change, at any moment and with convenient speed, have
See May, "Parliamentary Practice," p. 148. An example may be

1
found in the sitting of the ist of May, 1891 Hansard (352), 1854.
;
always been characteristic features in English parliamentary
procedure they have contributed in no small measure to
:
the of the whole

elasticity internal parliamentary system,
which has repeatedly helped it to pass with success
through
political crises both within and without the walls of the
House.
ii
io PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
CHAPTER II
ORIGINAL AUTHORITIES AND LITERATURE ON THE

ORDER OF BUSINESS
list of books given is by no means exhaustive for

THE a few popular works
instance, not upon Parliament
;
have been intentionally omitted.

In what follows a distinction has been drawn, for the
sake of greater clearness, between the original authorities on
the order of business in the strict sense, and other literature.
In the first group are included not only the official docu-
ments of parliamentary law, but also those printed papers
and publications which principally consist of, or are based
on, official materials.
I ORIGINAL AUTHORITIES ON THE ORDER OF BUSINESS
1. Rotuli Parliamentonun (Rolls of Parliament), 1278-

1503, 6 vols., 1783. Index, 1832.
This is the great collection of the documents of the mediaeval parlia-
ments, published in pursuance of an order of the House of Lords of the
9th of March 1767. It is a monumental work, and constitutes the main
source for the history of England during the middle ages, especially for
that of Parliament.
2. A supplement to the above is Professor F. W. ait- M

land's edition of the Roll of Parliament for 1305 in the
Rolls series, under the title Memoranda de Parliamento,
1305 ; London, 1893.
3. Select Charters illustrative of English constitutional his-
tory, edited by W. Stubbs, 8th edition ; Oxford, 1900.
4. House of Commons Journals, 1547-1903, vols. i.-clxviii.
The first printedvolume (1547-1629) contains frequent entries of the

debates ;
for some sessions there are several, not always consistent, reports.
In the later volumes the minuteness with which the actual proceedings
and decisions are recorded continually increases, but all reference to speakers
and the course of the debates is carefully avoided. On the other hand,
till the middle of the eighteenth century reports from committees and bills
are sometimes appended. As to the present mode of editing the journals

II
see infra, pp. 47, 48, and the examples in the Appendix. The series of
journals is, of course, one of the main authorities both for the explanation
of the existing procedure and for its history. The earlier books on par-
liamentary procedure are mainly compilations of extracts from them.
Their serviceableness is materially enhanced by the excellent indexes which
were added during the nineteenth century, and which cover the whole
period from 1547. Of special value for the study of the historic order
"
of business is the first volume of the General Index to the Journal of
the House of Commons," for the period 1547-1714, drawn up by Thomas
Vardon and Thomas Erskine May, 1852.
5. Standing Orders of the House of Commons for public

business.
The Standing Orders have been published, under the direction of the
House of Commons, at intervals from the year 1811. During the last
thirty years, in consequence of the numerous alterations in the rules,
anew edition has been published nearly every session. I have chiefly
made use of the following, of which I possess copies :
(a) Standing Orders of the House of Commons relative to private bills

and other matters: 2oth June 1810;' No. 355.
(6) Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1685-1848 :
3ist July
1848; No. 571.
(c) Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1860 :
25th August
1860; No. 586.
(d) Standing Orders of the House of Commons Part I. Public busi-
ness; Part II. Private business: 2nd August 1900; No. 314.
(e) Standing Orders of the House of Commons ist December 1902
:
;
No. 386.
In all of these editions by far the greater part refers to private
business.
6. Manual of Procedure inpublic business of the

the
House of Commons, prepared by the Clerk of the House for
the use of members and laid on the table by Mr. Speaker.
This is the official handbook presented by the Speaker to the House.
In the 1904 edition, with the index and an appendix, comprising the standing
orders relative to public business and the sessional orders, it makes a
little octavo book of 350 pages. It contains a systematically arranged
account of the forms of procedure, compiled in the main by the help of

Sir Erskine May's work. I have been able to use not only the older
edition, prepared by Sir Reginald Palgrave, but also the new edition
(1904) by the present Clerk of the House, Sir Courtenay Ilbert, in which
the old text has been completely revised, and which contains much
valuable new matter.
1
The dates given for this and other parliamentary papers are the dates
upon which they were respectively ordered to be printed.
B 2
7. The following reports and minutes of evidence are
of the
highest importance the history of the order of for
business during the nineteenth century. They comprise
the proceedings of the various committees of investigation
appointed since 1832 to consider the procedure of the
House of together with one or two reports from
Commons,
joint committees of the two Houses.
(a) Report from the select committee on the public and private
business of the House: i3th July 1837; No. 517.
(6) Report from the select committee on the public and private
business of the House, together with the minutes of evidence and index :
1 4th August 1848 No. 644. ;
(c) Report from the select committee on the public and private
3rd May 1854; No. 212.

(d) Report from the select committee on the public and private
igth April 1861 No. 173. ;
(e) Report from the select committee of the House of Lords (as to
promoting the despatch of public business), together with the minutes of
evidence and index loth June 1861 No. 321.
:
;
(/) Report from the joint committee of the House of Lords and House
of Commons on the despatch of business in Parliament (minutes of
evidence) 2nd August 1869
: No. 386. ;
(g) Report from the select committee on the business of the House
(minutes of evidence) 28th March 1871 No. 171.
:
;
(&) Report from the select committee on the business of the House
(minutes of evidence) 8th July 1878 No. 268 (with index).
:
;
(t) Report from the select committee on parliamentary procedure :
loth June 1886 No. 186. ;
(/) Report from the select committee on the business of the House :
i4th July 1890 No. 298.';
8. Further reports to the House of Commons which are
of importance on points of procedure are the following :
(a) Third report from the select committee on committee rooms and
printed papers ist July 1825
: No. 516. ;
(b) Report from the select committee on printing done for the House
(minutes of evidence) loth July 1828 No. 520.

:
;
(c) First and second reports from the select committee on public
documents (minutes of evidence) ist March 1833, 23rd August 1833 :
;
Nos. 44, 717.

(d) First, second, and third reports from the select committee on printed
papers (minutes of evidence) 2oth : March 1835, i6th July 1835, 7th
September 1835 ; Nos. 61, 392, 606.
1
To these should now be added First and second reports from the :
select committee on House of Commons procedure 22nd March 1906, :
25th May 1906 ; Nos. 89, 181.

AUTHORITIES AND LITERATURE >
13
Report from the select committee on publication of printed papers

(e) :
8th May1837; No. 286.

(/) Report from
the select committee on the losses of the late Speaker
and officers of the House by fire of the Houses of Parliament loth July :
1837 No. 493.

;
(g) First report from the select committee on private business 7th :
February 1840 No. 56. ;
(h) First report from the select committee on the publication of

printed papers by order of the House of Commons : i8th March 1840 ;
No. 130.
(f) First and second reports from the select committee on printing
(minutes of evidence) i6th August 1848, 2gth August 1848 Nos. 657, 710.
: :
(j) Report from the select committee on the office of the Speaker i2th :
May No. 478.

1853 ;
(fe) Report
from the select committee on private bill legislation :
24th June 1863 No. 385. ;
(/) Report from the select committee on parliamentary reporting

(minutes of evidence) 3ist July 1878 No. :
; 327.
(w) Report from the select committee on parliamentary reporting
(minutes of evidence) 23rd May 1879 No. :
; 203.
(n) Report from the select committee on House of Commons (admis-
sion of strangers) (minutes of evidence) 3Oth April 1888 No. 132. :
;
(o) Report from the joint committee

of the House of Lords and the
House of Commons appointed to examine into the present state of
private bill legislation: I2th July 1888; No. 208: Index to same,
No. 276.
(p) Report from the committee on estimates procedure (grants
select
of supply) (minutes of evidence) I3th July 1888 No. 281. :
;
(q) Report from the joint committee of the House of Lords and the
House of Commons on the Houses of Lords and Commons permanent
staff :2Oth July 1899 No. 286. ;
(r) Report from the select committee on private business 2ist :
November 1902 No. 378. ;
(s) Report from the select committee on national expenditure (minutes

of evidence) 4th December 1902
: No. 387. ;
() Report from the select committee on national expenditure (minutes

of evidence) 7th July 1903
: No. 242. ;
9. The various collections and editions of debates in the

House of Commons, including (amongst others) :
(a) D'Ewes, Sir Simonds, Journals of all the parliaments during the
reign of Queen Elizabeth both of the House of Lords and House of Com-
mons; London, 1682.
(b) Parry, Charles Henry, The Parliaments and Councils of England

chronologically arranged from the reign of William I to the Revolution
in 1688; London, 1839.
(c) Debates of the House of Commons in 1625, edited by Samuel

Rawson Gardiner ;
Camden Society, 1873.
(d) Verney Papers, Notes of proceedings in the Long Parliament ;
Camden Society, 1845.

I4 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
(e) Grey, A., Debates of the House of Commons from 1667 to 1694.
10 vols.
(/)Rushworth, John, Historical Collections London, 1659. 6 vols. ;
W., Parliamentary history of England from the Norman

(g) Cobbett,
Conquest to the year 1803 1806-1820 :
36 vols. A continuation of this is
;
(h) Hansard, T. C., The parliamentary debates from 1803. Series I

to III, 1803-1891 41 + 25 + 356 volumes. From this date onwards
;
Parliamentary Debates; authorised edition, Series IV.
II LITERATURE RELATING TO PARLIAMENTARY

PROCEDURE
(A) Exclusively concerned with Procedure
" Arcana
1. Parliamentaria, or Precedents concerning,
&c. Parliament." By R. C., of the Middle Temple. London,
1685.
2. Blackstone, "Commentaries on the Laws of England."
Kerr's edition, 1876. 4 vols.
"
3. Bourke, Parliamentary Precedents, being decisions of
the Right Hon. Speaker Charles Shaw Lefevre." London,
1857.
"
4. Clifford, History of Private Bill Legislation." 2 vols.
London, 1887.
"
Cohen, Dr. Gottfried,
5. Grundziige der englischen Ver-
"
fassung mit besonderer Riicksicht auf das Parlament (i and
2, Neue Jahrbiicher der Geschichte und Politik). Published

by Politz, 1847.
" Die
Cohen, Dr. Gottfried,
6. Verfassung und Geschafts-
ordnung des englischen Parlaments mit Hinweis auf die
Geschaftsordnungen deutscher Kammern." Hamburg, 1861.
the fourth part of the " Institutes of the
7. Coke, Ed.,
Laws of England." London, 1797.
8. Ellis, Chas. Thos., " Practical Remarks and Precedents
of Proceedings in Parliament." London, 1802.
9. Elsynge, Henry, "The Manner of Holding Parliaments
in England." London, 1768. (First edition, 1660.)
10. (A) Hakewel, W., "Modus tenendi parliamentum, or
the old manner of holding Parliaments in England, together
with some privileges of Parliament the manner and method ;
AUTHORITIES AND LITERATURE 15
how laws are there enacted by passing of bills." London,

1671.
(B) H.S.E.C.P. (Henry Scobell, Esq., Cler. Parl.),
" Memorials of the Method and Manner of
Proceedings in
Parliament in passing Bills." 1670.
These two works are often bound together as one book.
11. Halcomb, John, "A Practical Treatise of passing

Private Bills." London, 1836.
12. Hale (Lord Chief Justice), "The Jurisdiction of the
Lords' House or Parliament." London, 1796.
13. Hales (Judge), "The Original Institution, Power, and
Jurisdiction of Parliaments." London, 1707.
" Precedents of
14. Hatsell, John, Proceedings in the
House of Commons under separate titles, with observations."
Vols. i.-iv. London, 3rd edition, 1796 ; 4th edition, 1818.
15. Hooker's account of the method of proceeding in
Parliament; in Lord Mountmorres, "The History the of
Principal Transactions of the Irish Parliament from 1634 to

1666." 2 vols. London, 1792.
" Manual of
1 6.
Jefferson, T., Parliamentary Practice for
the use of the Senate of the United States." Washington,
1801. (Included in vol. ix. of his complete works, 1854.)
This book, by the celebrated American statesman, is to the present
day regarded as the foundation of both the theory and the practice of
the procedure in the American Congress. Jefferson, in the introduction,
expresses his view that the Senate of the United States should arrange its
procedure, in the first place, upon the basis of its own decisions and on
American practice, and, subject to this, should rely upon the principles
"
of English procedure ; for, as he says, this is the model that we have
studied." The book has been frequently republished. In its earliest
editions it has the merit of showing how English procedure at the
beginning of the nineteenth century presented itself to an experienced
American observer.
17. "Lex pai-linnicntiiria, or a Treatise of the Law and

Custom of Parliament." 2nd edition. London (undated).
"
1 8. May, Sir Thomas Erskinc, Parliamentary Practice."
Of this standard work
on parliamentary procedure eleven editions
have been issued. The
appeared in 1844, the second in 1851, the
first
tenth, by Palgrave and Bonham-Carter, in 1893. An eleventh edition,

edited by T. L. Webster and W. E. Grey, was published in 1906.
" Remarks and
May, Thomas Erskine,
19. Suggestions
with a view to facilitate the Dispatch of Public Business in
Parliament." London, 1849.
20. Mirabeau, "Reglements observes dans la chambre des
Communes pour debattre les matieres et pour voter, traduits
de 1'anglais. Mis en jour par le Comte de Mirabeau."
1789.
The value of this work, irrespective of its great importance in the
history of French procedure, lies, for our purpose, in its being a con-
temporary authority on the procedure of the House of Commons at the
end of the eighteenth century. In the introduction Mirabeau makes the
"
following striking remarks No English book has given an exact
:
account of the forms of procedure. The account which is here given is

not complete, but, so far as it goes, it is authentic. I owe this work,
undertaken solely for France, to an Englishman, who, though young, has
earned a high reputation, and who is regarded, by those to whom he is
well known, as one of the hopes of his country. He is one of those
"
worthy philosophers whose citizenship is not limited to Great Britain
(p. iv). The author of this interesting work, who receives so handsome a
testimonial, was none other than Jeremy Bentham, whose creative influence
upon French parliamentary procedure is thus evidenced. Mirabeau adds
(p. v) that the author had shown his work to several members of the House
of Commons, who, having gone through many parliamentary campaigns,
knew all the tactics employed, so that this document might be called
classic in its kind.
21. Modus tenendi parliamentum, edited by Sir T. Duff us

Hardy. London, 1846.
22. Mohl, Robert "Geschichte und Literatur der Staats-
v.,
wissenschaften," 1856, vol. ii., Monograph No. ix., "Die

Literatur des englischen Staatsrechtes."
" and Orders
23. Observations, Rules, collected out of
divers journals of the House of Commons." London, 1717.
24. "The Orders, Proceedings, Punishments, and Privi-
leges of the Commons House in England." London, 1641
(reprinted in Harl. Misc., vol. v., pp. 258-267).
25. Petytt "Jus parliamentarium." London, 1739.

" Practical
26. Suggestions for the Internal Reform of
the House of Commons by a parliamentary secretary."
London, 1832.
" The Procedure of the House of Commons
27. in
relation to the Progress of Legislation." London, 1871.
28. Smith, Sir T.,

" De
Republica Anglorum libri tres."
This appeared first in 1576 the references given are to the Elzevir edition
:
of 1641. A new edition, with notes and introduction by L. Alston was

published in 1906 by the Cambridge University Press.
" Reform
29. Torrens, W. T. McC., of Procedure in Parlia-
ment." London, 1882.
(B) Literature as to Parliament, its Arrangements and

History, Memoirs, &c.
1. Ashley, E., "The and Correspondence
Life of Viscount
"Palmerston." 2 vols. London, 1879.
2. Bentham, J., Works, edited by John Bowring. Vols.
ii. and x. Edinburgh, 1843.
3. Brayley, E. M., and Britton, J., " History of the Ancient

Palace and late Houses of Parliament at Westminster."
London, 1836.
4. Lord (Charles Abbot, Speaker of the House
Colchester,
of Commons, 1802-1817), "Diary and Correspondence."
2 vols. London, 1861.
" Notes from when Speaker
5. Denison, J. E., my Journal
of the House of Commons." London, 1900.
"
6. Fitzgerald, P., The Life and Times of John Wilkes,
M.P." 2 vols. London, 1888.
7. Follett, M.P., "The Speaker of the House of Repre-
sentatives." New York, 1896.
8. Forster, John, "Sir John Eliot." 2 vols. London, 1864.
" Methods and Forms."
9. Ilbert, Sir Courtenay, Legislative
Oxford, 1901.
10. Jennings, G. "Anecdotal History of the British
H.,
Parliament from the Earliest Periods." London, 1899.
11. Lummis, E., "The Speaker's Chair." London, 1900.
12. MacDonagh, Michael, "The Book of Parliament."
London, 1897.
MacDonagh, Michael, "Parliament:
13. its Romance, its
Comedy, its Pathos." London, 1902.

Carl Philipp, " Reisen eines Deutschen in
14. Moritz,
England im Jahre 1782." New edition. Berlin, 1903.
Often republished in an English translation.
i8 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
15. Mowbray, Sir John, "Seventy Years at Westminster."

Edinburgh and London, 1900.
" Life Charles
16. O'Brien, Barry, of Stewart Parnell."
2 vols. London, 1898.
17. Onslow Papers in Historical MSS. Commission
Report, vol. xiv., appendix ix., 1895.
1 8. Palgrave, Reginald, "The House of Commons ;
Illus-
trations of its History and Practice." New and revised

edition. London, 1878.
" Life and of the Right
19. Pellew, G., Correspondence
Hon. Henry Addington, First Viscount Sidmouth." 3 vols.
London, 1847.
" House
20. Pike, L. 0., Constitutional History of the of
Lords." London, 1894.
21. Porritt, Edward, "The Unreformed House of Com-
mons." 2 vols. Cambridge, 1903.
22. Temple, Sir Richard,
" Life in
Parliament, 1886-1892."
London, 1893.
23. Temple, Sir Richard, "The House of Commons."
London, 1899.
" Commons
24. Townsend, W. C., History of the House of
from 1688 to 1832." 2 vols. London, 1843.
" The Inner Life of the House of
White, William,
25.
Commons," edited by Justin McCarthy. 2 vols. London,
1904.
(C) English History, the Constitution of Parliament, and

Politics
1. Annual Register, 1758-1904.

Anson, Sir W. R.,
2. "Law and Custom of the Consti-
tution." 2 parts. Part L, 3rd edition. Oxford, 1897.
Part II., 2nd edition. Oxford, 1892.
3. Bagehot, W., "The English Constitution." 6th edition,
1861.
M. " The Development of Cabinet Govern-

4. Blanvelt, T.,
ment in England." New York, 1902.
" Essai
d'une psychologic politique du
5. Boutmy, E.,
peuple anglais au xix siecle." Paris, 1901.

English translation by E. English, with introduction by
J. E. C. Bodley. London, 1904.
6.
" Constitutional
Law viewed in relation
Broom, H.,
to Common Law and exemplified by Cases." 2nd edition.
London, 1885.
" Mr. Gladstone as Chancellor of the
7. Buxton, Sidney,
Exchequer." London, 1901.
8. Courtney, Leonard (now Lord), "The Working Con-
stitution of the United Kingdom." London, 1901.
9. Creighton, M., "Queen Elizabeth." London, 1896.
10. Davitt, Michael, "The Fall of Feudalism in Ireland."
London and New York, 1904.
11. Dicey, A. V., "Introduction to the Study of the Law
of the Constitution." 6th edition. London, 1904.
12. Franqueville,
" Le et le
gouvernement parlement
britanniques." 3 vols. Paris, 1887.
13. Freeman, E. A., "The Growth of the English Con-

stitution." 1898.
"
Froude,J. A.,
14. History of England from the Fall of
Wolsey to the Death of Elizabeth." 12 vols. New edition.
London, 1893.
15. Gardiner, S. R., "History of England from the Acces-
sion of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War." 10 vols.
London, 1901.
W. "
16. Gladstone, E., Gleanings of Past Years." Vol. i.
London, 1879.
17. Gladstone, W. E., "The Financial Statements of 1853,
1860-1863." London, 1863.
18. Gneist, R., "Das englische Parlament in tausend-
jahrigen Wandlungen." Berlin, 1886.
English translation by A. H. Keane. 4th edition. London,
1895.
W. " The Government of
19. Hearn, E., England, its
Structure and its Development." 2nd edition. Melbourne,
1886.
20
" A
20. Holland, Bernard, Imperium et Libertas :
study
in history and politics." London, 1901.
21. Jenks, Edward, "Parliamentary England." London,
1903.
22. Leclerc, M., " Les professions et la socit en Angle-
terre." Paris, 1901.
23. Lewis, Sir G. Cornewall, "An Essay on the Influence

of Authority in Matters of Opinion." London, 1875.
24. Low, Sidney, "The Governance of England." London,
1904.
" Constitutional
25. May, Sir T. E., History of England,
1760-1860." 9th edition. 3 vols. London, 1889.
" Life of Gladstone."
26. Morley, John, 3 vols. London,
1903.
"
27. Morley, John, Walpole." London, 1899.
"
28. Ostrogorski, M., Democracy and the Organisation of
Political Parties." 2 vols. London, 1902.
"
29. Paul, Herbert, History of Modern England." 5 vols.
1904-1906.
30. Salomon, F., "William Pitt." Vol. i.
Leipzig, 1901.
31. Stubbs, W., "Constitutional History of England."

4th edition. 3 vols.
Oxford, 1890-1896.
"
32. Taswell-Langmead, T. P., English Constitutional His-
tory." 6th edition. London, 1905.
33. Taylor, Hannis, "The Origin and Growth of the
English Constitution." Boston, 1900.

"
34. Walpole, Sir Spencer, History of England from the
conclusion of the Great War in 1815." 6 vols. 1890. Con-
" The
tinued in Walpole, Sir Spencer, History of Twenty-five
Years (1856-1870)." 2 vols. London, 1904.
PART II
The Arrangements of the Building and the

Recording of Proceedings
CHAPTER I
THE MEETING PLACE AND ARRANGEMENT OF SEATS
order fully to understand the procedure of the House

IN of Commons it is necessary to learn the physical con-
ditions under which its proceedings take place, and, above
all, to form a picture of the arena, the place of assembly
of the Commons.
The edifice in which meets the gigantic
Parliament
Palace of Westminster is reared the spot, between the
upon
River Thames and Westminster Abbey, where, till the great
fire had stood the old royal palace of Westminster.
of 1834,
The congeries of buildings, some of them very ancient,
which went under that name included the S. Stephen's
Chapel, where, from 1547, the deliberations of the Com-
mons had regularly been held. The Commons' chamber 1
in the new parliamentary palace was not built in accordance

with the original plans of the architect, Sir Charles Barry,
but was reduced to the same small dimensions as those
which the old assembly room had possessed. This was done
of set purpose the greatest anxiety was shown to adopt
:
such measurements for the hall as would preserve in every

detail the historic tradition of the House of Commons.
Above all, it was desired to avoid any such material enlarge-
A detailed history of the old palace of Westminster, with full refer-

1
ences to authorities, and with the addition of numerous plans and pictures,
"
will be found in the thorough work by Brayley and Britton, History of
the Ancient Palace and late Houses of Parliament." The new House
of Lords was occupied for the first time in 1847, and thenew House of
Commons in 1850.
ment of the chamber as would cause a modification in
the traditional method of speaking, or put a premium on
loud-voiced oratory. Thus the character of an assembly
confined within narrow limits of space was preserved, and
the resulting style of parliamentary speaking and debate,
with its absence of demand for great vocal exertion, was
likewise retained. To gain this end it was
necessary to cut
down the floor space of the House to an area insufficient to
accommodate half the total number of members there are :
literally not enough seats for all of them, even with the aid
of the galleries, which are of considerable breadth, and run
along the two sides of the chamber at a moderate height

from the floor. The chamber, nevertheless, is quite large
enough customary attendance, and sometimes when
for the
for a special reason an unusually large number of mem-
bers has been present, chairs have been brought in and
placed in the open floor space between the rows of benches,

which rise to left and right, and members have sat there
as well as in the side galleries.
The accommodation for spectators is confined to the two
galleries along the short sides of the rectangle formed by
the chamber ; the front row of the gallery over the Speaker's
chair reserved for newspaper reporters, and behind them,
is
in a space shut off by a high and massive lattice of brass, is

the place for ladies visiting the House. The broad and deep
gallery over the entrance into the chamber is assigned to the
members of the public who have requested and received

admission, special seats being reserved for diplomatists and
other distinguished strangers.
The of assembly itself lies at the end of a long
hall
corridor, leading from the octagonal hall in the middle of

the palace, the central lobby ; the continuation of the
corridor on the other side of the central hall leads directly
to the corresponding entrance into the House of Lords.
The House, however, in the parliamentary sense of the
word, is smaller than the chamber itself. At a few paces
from the wall which the double entrance door is placed
in
there runs across the whole breadth of the chamber an

imaginary line, marked where it crosses the open floor space
by a strip of oilcloth on the carpet. This is the historic
MEETING PLACE, ARRANGEMENT OF SEATS 23
"bar" of House in the legal sense, the boundary

the
between the House of Commons and the profane outer
world. Outside the House in the technical sense there are
a few seats parallel to the short sides the chamber.
of
"
These are places " in the House but not " of the House."
They may only be occupied by members, but no speech

may be made from them, and members who have not yet
been sworn, though forbidden to take their seats within the
" cross benches."
Behind them, and
bar, may on sit these
separated from them only by a railing of no great height,

is a bench which is not regarded as " within the House,"
and which is accessible, by special permission, to strangers :
the back bench on the Speaker's right hand is the place for
such permanent officials as may be in attendance to give
assistance and information to ministers the spectator of the ;
proceedings of the House may see in this a symbol of the

subordination of the English Civil Service to the sovereignty
of Parliament. These seats are currently said to be "under
1
the gallery."
" floor "
The of the House the unoccupied ground
space runs between the rows of benches on the two sides
up to the table of the House, which stands directly before
the Speaker's chair. Just inside the bar, in the space other-
wise left free for members to move about in, stands, to the
right hand as one enters, the chair provided for the Serjeant-
at-arms or his deputy. From the floor of the House there
rise, at a moderate slope, to left and right, five rows of seats.
According to a tradition now more than a hundred years

old, the seats which lie to the Speaker's right (and therefore
to the left when looked at from the entrance) are occupied
"
by the Government party, the ins," and those on the other
side by the Opposition, the "outs." majority When the
changes there a corresponding migration of parties from

is
one side of the House to the other. Only the Irish party
refuses to recognise this arrangement since it became, under :
" "
1
The back bench under the gallery on the Government side
has recently (1906) been taken into the House, and the last bench behind
the Speaker's chair on the same side has been railed off and made into
the place for accommodating the permanent officials who are present.
Parneli's leadership, an irreconcilable Nationalist party, it has
always sat upon the Opposition benches, to the Speaker's
left, even when, as in 1893, for instance, it has been support-
ing the Government.

1
A narrow passage divides into two
equal parts the two long sides of the room, and the five
rows of seats parallel to them ; there are two small
also
passages on each side leading to the side which

exits
give access to the inner lobbies. The front benches on both

sides have a special significance, particularly those halves
which, looking at them from
the entrance, lie beyond the
central passage just mentioned, the "gangway." The front
bench on the Government side which has long been known
as the "Treasury bench" is occupied by the
Ministry of
the day, and opposite to them upon the other front bench
sit such of the members of the last Government as belong
to the House of Commons. No fixed order of seatsupon
the two front benches is prescribed, ministers and ex-
ministers (as the case may be) taking whatever places they
find convenient without
regard to order of precedence.
Opposite to the Prime Minister sits the recognised leader
of the Opposition, usually the Prime Minister in the last
Government, unless he was a peer. The two front benches,
therefore, contain the champions for the time being of the
two great parties. "Front bench policy" is an expression
signifying the official policy of the two great political armies,
and is often used in a sarcastic sense by the more inde-
pendent elements on both sides, especially when, as not
infrequently happens, the social homogeneity of the two
parties clearly displayed, or when arrangements or com-
is
pacts made between the leaders on the two sides interfere

with the plans of the advanced Radicals and free-lances.
The division between right and left has long been a
characteristic feature of the arrangements in the House of
Commons and has made its way thence into the political
practice and nomenclature of the whole modern world : but
there is another distinction of
place, depending upon the
construction of the House of Commons, which is but little
known outside England. The gangway mentioned above, at
1
See Supplementary Chapter.
all events so far as the front benches are concerned, is also

a political boundary. It is upon the seats of the front bench
" below the "
gangway (i.e., beyond the gangway, looking
from the Speaker's chair) that those members sit who wish
to independence of the Government or of
proclaim their
the front Opposition bench, as the case may be. Thus, for
instance, if a minister resigns because he is not in accord
with the policy of the Cabinet, he generally takes his seat
below the gangway. The old Radical leader, Mr. Labouchere,
was well-known figure below the gangway, both
for years a
while the Liberal party was in power and while it was out
of office. The Irish leader for the time being (at present
Mr. John Redmond) has always sat below the gangway on
the Speaker's left. If a minister or ex-minister refers to the
remarks of this or that honourable member below the gang-

way, it is almost always to be understood that he is defending
theGovernment or official party policy against independent
and influential members of his own party.
No acknowledgment of any right to these places has ever
been given by a vote of the House. Neither the division
into Government and Opposition sides nor the reservation
of the Treasury bench for ministers and of the front Oppo-
sition bench for ex-ministers is a matter of express parlia-
mentary law. But it may safely be asserted that at all

events the tenancy of the front benches has become a
fixed customary right by virtue of the constant practice
of the nineteenth century, and that if it were seriously
contested it would at once be formally confirmed by the
House. 1 bringing the House of Commons
The difficulty of
to recognise any personal rights of this kind is best evi-
denced by the fact that up to the present time no single
I
well known that in the first reformed House of Commons the
It is
Radical Cobbett rudely took possession of the accustomed seat of the

leader of the Tory party, Sir Robert Peel, and that this infringement of
what had long been the customary arrangement of seats was left by the
House without redress. In old days the privileged seat of ministers next
to the Speaker was made the subject of criticism, as we may see from a
discussion in the House in 1601, in the course of which the Secretary of
"
State, Cecil, said : If there be any that sits next the door that desires to
sitnext the chair to give his opinion, I will not only give him my place,
but thank him to take my charge. We that sit here take your favours
out of courtesy not out of duty." (D'Ewes, p. 630.)
II C
member has any right to a definite place in the House. For
centuries it has been maintained as an established
principle
that a member who
present in the House before prayers
is
and takes a seat by placing his hat upon it, or, in recent
years, by ticketing it with one of the cards placed upon the
table for the purpose, can, if he attends prayers, claim the
place for the whole of the sitting, even though he may leave
the House for a time, so long as he does not leave the
precincts of Westminster Palace.
1
Eminent or veteran mem-
bers have their habitual places secured to them by universally
observed custom.
The table of the house "a substantial piece of furni-
"
ture as Mr. Disraeli once called it in playful reference to
the protection it afforded him against Mr. Gladstone's fierce
attacks upon or under which lies the mace which is carried
solemnly by the Serjeant-at-arms in front of the Speaker as
he goes to his chair, stands between the two front benches
and forms as it were a physical fulcrum for the attacks of
the Opposition leaders and the replies of the Ministry. At
itsnarrow end, close by the Speaker's chair, sits the Clerk of
the House, in wig and gown, and by his side the two Assis-
tant Clerks. On the table among official books and papers
stand two solid brassbound boxes which contain the books
and forms used for the oath and affirmation, and which
often resound under the buffets of ministerial and opposition
speakers. Documents presented to the House, such as bills,

motions, messages from the Crown, and reports are said to
be "laid upon the table," but are not, in fact, placed there.
HISTORICAL NOTE
Complaints as to want of space in the House are very old : the in-
crease in the number members
of Parliament from 334 in the time of
of
Edward VI to 465 at the accession of James I made the inconvenience
so much felt that the Speaker issued a special warrant directing an
increase of seats (House of Commons Journals, vol. i., p. 141). Neither
then nor afterwards, however, was anything done to put matters right, so
1
See Standing Orders 82 and 83, Manual, p. 124. One member cannot
reserve a seat for another. If there are two sittings on one day the reser-
vation covers both. It is amusing to learn that the Speaker has given
a ruling as to hats, namely, that a seat can only be secured by leaving
upon it a bond fide hat, the genuine head covering of the honourable
member, a reserve hat being of no use for the purpose.
that in 1832 Cobbett made bitter complaints as to the "cramming" of

658 members into the same insufficient space.
1
The modern arrangement of places is a result of the formation of

parties and party government. In the parliaments of the seventeenth
century the division into right and left was quite unknown but from a :
well-known parliamentary anecdote it has been inferred that in the first half
of the eighteenth century the two great parties sat face to face it is said ;
that Pulteney, Sir Robert Walpole's bitter opponent, accused the latter of
inaccuracy in a Latin quotation, and, throwing a coin across the table,
offered to support his opinion by a bet. In another version of the story
it is true, Pulteney is said to have been sitting by Walpole and to have
whispered the correct quotation to him. Be that as it may, we possess

sufficientproof that in this period the local separation of parties had
already taken place. Moreover, it stands to reason that the first struggle
of many years' duration between well-defined parties such as was that
between Pulteney 's coalition and Walpole would be bound to bring to
maturity the need for the parties sitting together in the House. Party
splits, which are continually occurring in English history, have always,
both in former days and in recent times, caused variations from the strict
division into two for instance, after Mr. Chamberlain's secession from
:
Mr. Gladstone in 1886, he and those who acted with him sat for a con-
siderable time upon the Opposition side of the House, although they
supported the Conservative Government.*
The custom which assigns to Privy Councillors the part of the front
benches near the Speaker is of great antiquity. Hooker states " Upon the :
lower row on both sides the Speaker sit such personages as be of the
King's privy counsel or of his chief officers."
3
He adds that no other
person had any right to a definite place, except the members for the city
of London and those for York, who had the ancient privilege of sitting
on what is now called the Treasury bench. The privilege of the members
for the City of London is acknowledged even now on the first day of
each session.
It is noteworthy that knights of the shires, to whom many rights of
precedence were given down to the seventeenth century, had, from the six-
teenth century, no preference as to seats in the House over simple burgesses. 4
The present rules as to reserving seats can be shown to reach back to
the seventeenth century. A
resolution of the 26th of November 1640 pro-
"
vides Neither book nor glove may give any man title or interest to any
:
place, if they themselves be not here at prayers."* Hatsell, who gives this
and later extracts from the journals of the same tenour, states that by old
custom members to whom the thanks of the House had been voted had
their seats reserved by courtesy. The same
privilege has, of course, been
accorded to the parliamentary heroes of the House of Commons in the
nineteenth century. Hatsell, too, makes the remark that " the mentioning
anything upon this subject must appear ridiculous to those who have
not been witnesses to many and very serious altercations upon it." ("Pre-
cedents," vol. ii., 3rd edition, pp. 86-89 I
4* n edition, pp. 92-95.)
1 "
Townsend, History of the House of Commons," vol. ii., p. 463.
* "
Temple, Life in Parliament," p. 1
14.
*
Mountmorres, vol. i., p. 114.
4 "
Porritt, The Unreformed House of Commons," vol. i., p. 504.
4
House of Commons Journals, vol. ii., p. 36.
C 2
CHAPTER II
PUBLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS AND REPORTS OF THE

DEBATES
centuries it has been a principle of parliamentary

FORlaw that the deliberations of the House of Commons
are This principle, the historical development of
private.
which will be traced below, is still accepted as binding,
so that, technically, even now, nobody has a right to
insist upon the publicity of the debates. The House of
Commons, therefore, knows no theoretical distinction between
secret and public sittings ; they are all de jure secret.
Either the Speaker or any single member has a right to
propose the exclusion of all strangers who may be in the
House. Practice, however, has long made the principle
inoperative. It has never been formally repudiated, but since
1875 the mere fact of a member's informing the Speaker

"
that he " espies strangers has not been sufficient, as it had
been till then, to cause their immediate expulsion and so to
bring about a sitting which is secret de facto. The present
regulation is that upon the request of a member for the
removal of strangers a division is to be taken at once,
without debate, and the result of the division is to determine
what is to be done. In point of fact nobody now dreams
of avoiding publicity ; on the contrary, all the members
are only too anxious that their speeches and actions should
be made known as widely as possible. If any member
were to use his right so to move for a secret sitting in

order to cause annoyance or as a means of obstruction
the House would probably have little hesitation in taking
steps to frustrate his intentions. It is, however, not due
merely to the conservative
feelings it of the House that
has never brought to the point of asserting the prin-
itself
ciple of publicity as opposed to its old rule and the many

hundreds of years of its existence. The refusal is based also
on practical considerations : it is always possible that an
PUBLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS 29
occasion may present itself when the House may wish to

1
deliberate in private.
Admission of strangers to the House of Commons used
to be arranged somewhat informal way by means of
in a
orders given by members but in 1885, in consequence
:
of Fenian dynamite attempts, a strict supervision was

introduced, which is still maintained, though relaxed to
a certain extent. Every member usually able to obtain
is
two orders for admission each day. The distribution of

orders is placed in the hands of the Speaker's secretary
and the Serjeant-at-arms. Each visitor, before he mounts
the stairs leading to the gallery, has to enter his name
and address in a book which is provided for the purpose.
Foreigners introduced by an ambassador or visitors intro-
duced by one of the Agents-General of the Colonies need
no introduction by a member of the House. 2
Since the recent union of the Speaker's gallery with the
strangers' gallery there has been room for about 160 visitors.
Order is kept in the halls and corridors of the whole of
Westminster Palace by policemen of the London force ;
in
the chamber and at the entrance there
itself, in the galleries
are special officers of the House and doorkeepers for pur-

poses of supervision.
'The present regulations are as follows: The Serjeant-at-arms
attending this House shall, from time to time, take into his custody any
stranger whom he may see, or who may be reported to him to be, in any
part of the House or gallery appropriated to the members of this House,
and also any stranger who, having been admitted into any other part of
the House or gallery, shall misconduct himself, or shall not withdraw
when strangers are directed to withdraw, while the House, or any com-
mittee of the whole House, is sitting and no person so taken into
;
custody shall be discharged out of custody without the special order of

the House (Standing Order 88). No member of this House shall presume
to bring any stranger into any part of the House or gallery appropriated
to the members of this House, while the House, or a committee of the
whole House, is sitting (Standing Order 89). If at any sitting of the
House, or in committee, any member shall take notice that strangers are
present, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman (as the case may be) shall forthwith
" "
put the question That strangers be ordered to withdraw without per-
mitting any debate or amendment provided that the Speaker, or the
:
Chairman, may, whenever he thinks fit, order the withdrawal of strangers

from any part of the House (Standing Order 91).
2
Report from the select committee on admission of strangers, 3oth
April 1888 (No. 132); White, "Inner Life of the House of Commons,"
vol. i., pp. xvi sqq.
The most regular, and from the point of view of publicity
the most important, visitors to the House are, of course,
the newspaper reporters. It is they who keep the outer
world informed as to what happens in the House, and,

above all, as to the words, or at all events the substance,
of the speeches made in the debates. These private reporters
alone record what is said and done in the House. There
is not, and never has been, any official shorthand depart-
ment to take down the speeches and debates, nor is there,
strictly speaking, any official printed report of what is said,
though the House, acting Government, has long

by the
"" Hansard's
assisted the editors of by consider- Debates
able subventions from public money, and has thus, in fact,
rendered the continuation of this publication possible.
This arrangement of things, so different to the plans
adopted in all other European and American parliaments,
has been brought about by the fact that, like the attendance
of visitors, all public record of events and speeches in the
House has been theoretically prohibited for centuries ; in-
deed, the publication of debates was for a long time most
strictly forbidden and punished with great severity. The
history of the struggle for publicity in this most important
respect will be found described below. Here it is enough
to state that, as in the case of the rule against the admis-
sion of strangers, the letter of the interdict has never been
relaxed, though practice has brought into existence a state
of affairs exactly opposite to what the prohibition was
intended to secure. The House has never withdrawn the
threat, as finally formulated in 1738, of treating and
punishing breach of privilege any publication of its
as a
debates but,;
on the other hand, it has not only put up,
for more than a century, with the regular communication
of its proceedings to the world, but has even given official
recognition to the newspaper reporters. The legal status

of reporting has, as a matter of fact, been changed from
precarious sufferance to formal permission.
From the beginning of the nineteenth century the House
itself has recognised the necessity of securing adequate pub-
licity to its proceedings but for a long time it was content
;
to leave this task to be performed by private undertakings,

"
the newspapers and the publisher of the Parliamentary
Debates." In 1803, Mr. T. C. Hansard began to compile and
publish a report of the debates during the course of the
session ;
his enterprise was a commercial success and he
and his firm continued the work, without any public subven-
tion, till 1855. In this year the Treasury subscribed for
100 (increased in 1858 to 120) sets of reports for distribution
amongst public departments and libraries. In 1877 a change

was made 1 official support of the undertaking out of public
j
funds began to be given, to the extent- at first of ^3,000,

and afterwards of .4,000 after a time the increase in the ;
number of volumes and the general expenses led to a

revision of the amount, and the grant was fixed at ^500
for each volume of 960 pages. In 1891 the publishers were
changed, the name of Hansard was dropped, and the collec-

"
tion became known simply as the Parliamentary Debates."
The arrangement made day is that shorthand
at the present
notes of the debates are taken
by a staff of reporters in
the employment of the firm who have acquired the busi-
"
ness of editing and publishing the Parliamentary Debates."
The reports are not verbatim reproductions of what is
said : as a rule only the speeches of members of the
Government, the leaders of the Opposition and certain other
prominent parliamentarians are reported word for word.
Most of the other speeches are abridged and turned into the
third person. A proof of each speech is sent to the member
who made and such as it, are returned corrected are
distinguished by an asterisk.
"
The space allotted to reporters, the " Reporters' Gallery
as it is called,, is not large ; it supplies sitting accommodation
for less than sixty persons, the distribution of places being in

the hands of the Speaker and the Serjeant-at-arms. After pro-
viding for the leading London dailies and a few important

provincial papers, there are only a very few seats left for the
great news agencies. 2
Report of select committee on parliamentary reporting (3ist July,

1
1878) Evidence of T. C. Hansard, Minutes of Evidence, Qq. 158-509.

;
2
The whole question of reporting was thoroughly investigated by a
select committee in 1878 and 1879. The examination of witnesses, and
the report based upon it, give a highly interesting description of the whole
of the arrangements. The decision arrived at was unfavourable to the
The system just described has been upheld, in spite of
many complaints from members of the House, because it
supplies all needed, and is, at the same
that is practically
time, inexpensive. Objections to the abridgment of the
speeches come, in England as elsewhere, chiefly from bores
and parliamentary stars of the second and third magnitudes.
All important speeches are sure of full and accurate reports
at the hands of the reporter of the Parliamentary Debates :
and these are quite enough to serve the purposes of the

public and the future historian.
1
There is, moreover, another reason of a legal nature

which has weighed with the House in its refusal to take
part in any official publication of the debates. A direct
undertaking of the publishing of debates by the House itself
would be inconsistent with the rule, referred to above, by

which any such publication is a breach of privilege. Now
the House cannot very well allow itself constantly and
openly to infringe its own regulations. But the repeal of the
prohibition, for the purpose of instituting official reports of
the debates, would raise serious issues, as the delicate ques-
tion of liability at law to third parties for publication of the
speeches made would have to be considered. The legal

liability of the printer of parliamentary papers and of the
person from whom he takes his instructions was expressly

asserted by the courts in a famous instance. In the case
of parliamentary debates, similar difficulties might arise. The
privilege of freedom of speech, the right to immunity before
the law in respect of what is spoken in Parliament, protects
institution of an
shorthand department, the committee considering
official
"
that :
(a) of this country are not parallel with those
the circumstances
of other countries in which an official report exists (6) a large amount
;
of information as to the proceedings of Parliament is disseminated with

great rapidity by the newspapers (c) very few persons outside parlia-
;
mentary and would care to possess a verbatim report of

official circles
debates." (Report from the select committee on parliamentary reporting,
23rd May 1879 (No. 203), p. iii.) The evidence throws a good light
upon the technical circumstances of English parliamentary reporting at
that time. The reports of the committees of 1888 and 1893 will also
repay perusal. Another committee has recently had to consider the
subject : see Supplementary Chapter.
"
1
to the arrangements for reporting see the chapter The Reporters'
As
Gallery" in MacDonagh, "Book of Parliament," pp. 310-329.
members against any action based on expressions used in

addressing the House but this protection extends no farther.
:
It has been decided on several occasions that it does not
cover a printed reproduction by a member of a speech he

has delivered in Parliament. In a case which occurred more
than a hundred years ago, it was held by the Court of
King's Bench that a member might have a right to publish

his speech, but that the speech must not be made the
vehicle of slander against any individual ; if this was done
an action for libel would lie for its publication. 1 A similar
judgment was pronounced in 1813, in the case of a well-
known member of Parliament, Mr. Creevey. On this occasion
the House absolutely refused to interfere or to treat the
matter as a question of privilege. More recently the prin-
ciple has been judicially laid down that the reprinting of one
speech which reflects upon the character of any person

without adding the rest of the debate is not and
"fair,"
is therefore
unprotected no doubt : it would be otherwise
if the whole debate were given. 2
Though may possibly not be considered

these decisions
to principle with sufficient accuracy, there can
define the
be no doubt, from the whole tendency of English law, as
interpreted by the courts, but that under certain circum-
stances publication of speeches would involve legal liability
for libel the unlimited extension of immunity, as a matter of
;
principle, to the publication of speeches in Parliament would

be regarded as a serious attack on legal conceptions which
3
are operative the
present time.
at There is no practical
compulsion to take any such step there is much to be said :
against any diminution of the authority of the common law

and the regular course of justice in such matters. Without
some alteration in the law, which could hardly come about
1
Judgment in Lord Abingdon's case, Rex v. Abtngdon, 1795 (i Espinasse,
226). See May's "Parliamentary
Practice," p. 100. Lord Abingdon was
sentenced to three months' imprisonment and fined 100-
1
Wason v. Walter (2ist December 1867), L.R., 4 Q.B., 73. For other
cases at law and the conclusions to be drawn from them, see Broom,
"
Constitutional Law Viewed in Relation to Common Law," p. 843.
1
See the statement of Speaker Brand before the select committee
on parliamentary reporting, 1878, Minutes of Evidence, Qq. 1682-1688,
1732, 1733-
except by act of parliament, it might well happen that

publication of debates by the House might lead to severe
conflicts between the Commons and the courts of law, such
as occurred over the publication of parliamentary papers. 1
Nothing is more dreaded on all sides than such a conflict
of jurisdiction between the legislature and the judges. Here
again we see how what seems to be a purely practical
question, that ofparliamentary reporting, may, in the land
where parliamentary law has been evolved, lead on to the
deepest and most important problems of constitutional order.
As in many other instances, English conservatism in legal
matters is in this case a direct result of the intimate con-
nection between different institutions which have grown up
together.
HISTORICAL NOTES
I THE ADMISSION OF STRANGERS
The admission of the public to the House of Commons has a chequered
history. There is no information as to the attitude of mediaeval parliaments

on the subject. Hooker, however, is very clear, and we may regard his
statement as carrying our knowledge a long way back. He says, " No
manner of person, being not one of the parliament house, ought to enter
or come within the house, as long as the sitting is there, upon pain of
imprisonment, or such other punishment as by the house shall be ordered
and adjudged." 2 The reports collected by D'Ewes for the Elizabethan
period show the rule to have been then in full force. He relates several
instances of persons who by inadvertence or intentionally had entered the
House and were arrested and detained till they had been reprimanded by
the Speaker and had paid a fine to the Serjeant-at-arms. 3 The fact that
these offenders were as a rule required to take the oath of supremacy
shows that they were suspected of being Catholic spies. In the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries calls of the House were repeatedly taken to
ascertain whether strangers were present. 4 In 1650 a resolution was passed
by the Commons enjoining strict compliance with the rule as to exclusion :
"
Resolved that the Serjeant do not permit any persons to come within
this House in the mornings that the House sit, save only the members
of the House, the minister that prays and the officers attending the
House." 5 In 1688 it was ordered that the Serjeant-at-arms should arrest
1
The difficulties here discussed have been much lightened if not
"
entirely removed by the statute 44 and 45 Viet. c. 60, protecting fair
reports "of speeches made at public meetings. See May, "Parliamentary

Practice," p. 74.
2
3
D'Ewes, "Journals," pp. 334, 394, 491, 512.
* "
Scobell, Memorials," p. 84.
*
House of Commons Journals, vol. vi., p. 512.
any strangers in the House or gallery while the House or a committee

of the whole House was sitting. In 1689 this order was renewed, and
it was subsequently added that no member was to presume to bring
any strangers into House or gallery during the sitting. The rule was 1
re-enacted annually from 1689 to 1713, and from that time it was treated
as a sessional order. 2 These prohibitions, like many other police regula-
tions, were habitually disregarded. In 1701 the Journal has an entry
(vol. xiii., p. 683), "A complaint bemg made to the House that many
strangers did yesterday crowd into the Committee of Elections to the inter-
ruption of the business and disturbance of the said committee. Ordered,
That a committee be appointed to ...
consider of methods to prevent
disorders at the Committee of Elections." Hatsell reports that the House
could seldom be cleared of strangers without a violent struggle from some
quarter of the House that strangers might remain, that the Speaker and
Serjeant did not carry out the order till called upon to do so, and that
the House was in the habit of winking at its being ignored. But he
considered the maintenance of the rule of exclusion to be absolutely
3
necessary.
Such was the state of affairs down to the opening of the new West-
minster Palace, and evenNotwithstanding all the old
afterwards.
established practice to the contrary, the House's right to conduct its pro-
ceedings in private was successfully asserted on many occasions, as for
instance on the i8th of May 1849, the 8th of June 1849 and the 24th of
May 1870. No alteration
"
was made in the rule that a single member by
"
espying strangers could at once have the galleries cleared. The vexatious
use of this power, adopted by certain members in order to reduce the old
rule to an absurdity, brought about the change that was needed. Upon
the Irish obstructionist, Mr. Biggar, "espying strangers" on the 37th of
April 1875 Mr. Disraeli moved the suspension of the standing order on the
subject his proposal was at once agreed to and a few days later the
;
present rule was passed.

We hear of the attendance of ladies as listeners in the seventeenth
century ; in had become a well-established
the eighteenth century it
practice to allow Between 1778 and 1834 they were

them to be present.
expressly excluded. They might, it is true, come if they would be
content with a view from the roof chamber over the ceiling inserted in
the old S. Stephen's Chapel, through the ventilator, round which seats
were placed.
Members of the House of Lords have always been allowed to be
present the permission was only withdrawn in 1721 for a few years in
;
consequence of a misunderstanding between the two Houses.
1
House of Commons Journals, vol. x., pp. 35, 291.
3
A motion to refer this order to a committee for consideration was
brought forward in 1777, but rejected. (House of Commons Journals,
vol. xxxvi., p. 458.) In 1845 the practice of adopting a sessional order
was discontinued, and standing orders (now Nos. 88 and 89) were
enacted.
*
Hatsell, vol. ii., 3rd edn., p. 173 4th edn., p. 182. Carl Philipp Moritz,
;
in his well-known "Reisen eines Deutschen in England" (1782), gives

a characteristic account of his visit to the House of Commons atône of
its sittings.
II PUBLICATION OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
The question of the publication of debates and proceedings in Parlia-

ment on the part of persons present at them has always been closely bound
up with that of the admission of strangers. Indeed the possibility of
such publication was what gave reality to the question of admission and
was always the reason for the exclusion, from time to time, of all strangers.
Like the wider principle of exclusion the prohibition of reports is only
explicable when its origin is considered. The opposition between Crown
and Commons in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries made secrecy a
maxim of political prudence. In obedience to it silence was enjoined
upon all members under severe penalties. Thus Hooker tells us "Also, every :
person of the parliament ought to keep secret, and not to disclose the
secrets and things done and spoken in the parliament house, to any manner
of person, unless he be one of the same house, upon pain to be sequestered
out of the house, or otherwise punished, as by the order of the house
shall be appointed." '
Keeping strangers away was intended to preserve complete secrecy as

to the proceedings. But, of course, there never was a time at which
information did not leak out as to what had been done in Parliament.
In Queen Elizabeth's time many of the members kept diaries, by the help
of which Sir S. D'Ewes in the seventeenth century compiled his valuable
work. The journals of the House for this period often give copious
information as to the debates, as the Clerks did not then confine themselves
to recording decisions and orders of the House, but at times took full
notes of speeches and entered them in the journals. At first no objection
was made, but on the iyth of April 1628, urged thereto by something that
had happened, the House resolved that the entries had been made without
warrant. 2 It was found necessary, however, on the 25th of April 1640,
once more in express terms to prohibit Rushworth, the Clerk Assistant,

from taking any notes without the previous directions of the House, except
of the orders and reports made.* On the ist of December 1640 one of
the members brought the matter up and a debate took place, resulting in
an order that the Clerk and his assistant should not allow copies to go
4
forth ofany argument or speech whatsoever. The intense antagonism
which had by then developed between the Crown and the House of
1
Mountmorres, vol. i., pp. 143, 144,
2
House of Commons Journals, vol. i., p. 885.
*
House of Commons Journals, vol. ii., p. 12. Rushworth was the
admirable compiler whose collections, in many volumes, have never
been superseded as the most important source of information on the
history of the Long Parliament and of the Civil War period generally.
When Charles I intruded upon the Commons and had his famous scene
with Speaker Lenthall, Rushworth had, as Hatsell informs us (vol. ii.,
3rd edn., p. 231 4th edn., p. 243), sufficient presence of mind to take
;
down in shorthand the conversation between Speaker and King, as he

was standing by the table. The King sent the same evening for Rush-
worth's notes and received a copy of what he had himself said, Rushworth
praying to be excused from reporting the Speaker's words, as that would
have been a breach of privilege.
4
Commons made such measures of precaution quite intelligible. At the

same time the Commons made sure that the outer world should have
information as to their proceedings to the extent and in the form which
they judged desirable. Communications to the public, however, as to
debates in the House went on uninterruptedly, being sometimes made by
regular visitors to the House, sometimes by members themselves.
1
After
the Restoration, when parliamentary debates began to revive,
interest in
men like Marvell and Anchitell Grey, the
latter from 1667 to 1694, made
a profession of furnishing notes of the debates, obviously with the tacit
approval of the House. Grey's notes are the foundation for the later
"
collections which were published under the name of Grey's Debates."
At that period, which was innocent of regular newspapers, the business
of professional
"
News Letter Writers " flourished. Many of them were
inferior officials, clerks of theHouse, carrying on their reporting in the
lobbies as a subsidiary business unmolested and even with the help of
friendly members. The first conflict between the House and those who
carried on this practice took place as early as 1694. All reference to
debates and proceedings on the part of the news letter writers was then
strictly forbidden.*
Thus began the long and varied contest between the House and the
reporters first of the weekly and then of the daily press, a contest into the
details of which we cannot enter, though they provide material for
an important chapter in the history of public opinion.' The most impor-
tant events are as follows. In -1738 the House declared the publication
of its debates to be a breach of privilege.* This position proved quite
untenable it was
:
opposed to the yearly increasing interest of large
circlesin parliamentary events, and to the growing need for newspapers
as channels for expressing party views, and organs for influencing public
opinion. It was no easy matter to prevent the predecessors of the political
daily journals, the weekly papers which were so prominent a feature
In the session of 1641 (i3th July) the House resolved that no member
1
should either give a copy or publish in print anything that he should speak
there without leave of the House (House of Commons Journals, vol. ii.,
p. 209). This order was repeated in 1663 (House of Commons Journals,
vol. viii., p. 499), reference being made
to a recent publication of votes and
"
proceedings in the Common News
Books." During the sessions of 1641
and 1642 there are twenty-one entries of occasions upon which the House
took steps to prevent publication of debates. An instance from the year
1646 will show how minutely the House went into these things. Certain
speeches made at a conference with the House of Lords had been printed.
The House directed the Serjeant to make a search in the houses of four
named persons for all papers, originals and copies of the speeches, to
seize these and the printing presses, to disorder the letters, and to imprison
Field, the printer. At the same time they requested the Lords to concur
"
in the appointment of a joint committee to consider of some way of
righting the Houses and to prevent inconveniences of the like nature for
the future." (House of Commons Journals, vol. iv., p. 693.)
a
House of Commons
Journals, vol. xi., p. 193.
"
1
As to the incidents of the struggle, see Porritt, Unreformed House
of Commons," vol. i., pp. 589-596.
4
House of Commons Journals, vol. xxiii., p. 148.
of the English literature of the period, from furnishing their regular
reports of parliamentary debates they presented them to the public under
:
very transparent disguises, often of a highly amusing character. The

great Dr. Johnson was one of the regular reporters he gave accounts :
of parliamentary affairs in the leading periodical, The Gentleman's

Magazine, under the mask of proceedings of the Senate of Lilliput or of
Rome. 1
There were even then shrewd parliamentarians who saw that the
refusal by the House to allow publication of the debates was opposed
to its which called for trustworthy and accurate accounts
best interests,
of its Nevertheless the House repeated its decision of 1738 in 1753,
doings.
and again in I7&2. 2 It was then disorganised and corrupt, and was in the
throes of its conflict with Wilkes and the fearless North Briton, in the
pages of which the famous letters of Junius were lashing the King and
the degenerate parliament with unexampled journalistic ferocity. The
climax of the struggle between public opinion and the narrow-minded
parliament of privilege, which had lost all touch with the cultivated
section of the middle class, was reached in 1771. In that year the City of
London rallied with all its power to the help of the persecuted printer,
and, in spite of the arrest of the Lord Mayor, came off practically victorious.
"
Sir Erskine May gives a full account of these events in his Consti-
tutional History," vol. ii., pp. 27-49.
The House has never formally rescinded orders of 1738 and 1762,
its
but from the time of the Wilkes has silently ignored them.
affair it
From the last quarter of the eighteenth century onwards, no attempt has
been made to disturb the publication of parliamentary debates. The
changed conditions as to reporting were recognised in 1803, when the press
obtained from the Speaker an official assignment of a fixed part of the
gallery for its reporters. But the declaration that reports were a breach
of privilege was then, and still is, technically binding even in 1859 ;
Speaker Denison stated that the House did not recognise any publication
its debates, and paid no attention to corrections of mistakes. The 3
of
important reasons for maintaining this position have been stated above.
The English conception of the right to the publication of parliamentary
debates stands in the most marked contrast to the theory and practice
developed in many Continental parliaments freedom of speech by :
members has there been used for the purpose of launching slanders
against third parties, or for the protection of what would otherwise be
invasions of the rights of others. Parliamentary institutions, transplanted
from their native soil and subjected to uncongenial treatment, may
produce as fruits the most remarkable perversions of their fundamental
ideas and objects.
1
Dr. Johnson afterwards confessed that he had himself composed
many of the parliamentary speeches published by him, or at all events
had freely ornamented them as he thought fit. In doing so he claimed to
have held an even hand between the two parties: at the same time he
"
declared that he had taken care that the Whig dogs should not have
the best of it."
2
House Commons Journals,
of vol. xxvi., p. 754 ;
vol. xxix., pp. 206, 207.
*
"Notes from my Journal," p. 31.
CHAPTER III
PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS
Parliaments, if any, rival the House of Commons

FEW in the lucidity and completeness with which, in the
1
"parliamentary papers," it embodies its great labours in
printed form and thus preserves a permanent record of what
it has done. More than fifty years ago Robert von Mohl
" "
gave a striking description of the immensity of the material
thus accumulated bearing in mind the extraordinary degree
;
in which the yearly production of parliamentary papers has
since increased, the expression can certainly not be considered

too strong at the present day. At the same time, on closer
examination, it will be impossible to withhold our admiration
from the excellent arrangements which have been devised to
cope with this annually increasing mass of printed matter,
extending to thousands of documents, and to enable those
who wish to do so to survey the whole and find their way
about with rapidity.
The enormous extent of the parliamentary papers arises
from several causes. If we consider these we shall at the
same time obtain an insight into the various purposes which
such papers serve, and shall thus best obtain a general view
of all the questions which arise concerning them.
The House of Commons has long maintained as a prin-
ciple of its customary law that it is entitled to demand the
use of every means of information which may seem needful,
and, therefore, to call for all documents which it
requires.
This claim may be enforced without restriction. In its
most general form it is displayed in the right of the House

to summon any subject of the state as a witness, to put
questions to him and to examine any memoranda in his

possession. Practically speaking, in its constant thirst for
information upon the course of administration and social
1 " "
See May, Parliamentary Practice, pp. 536 sqq. ; Manual,
pp. 202-204.
conditions, the House generally turns to the Government

departments as being the organs of the state which are
best, in cases exclusively, able to give particulars as
many
to the actual conditions of the life of the nation, and as to
administrative action and its results from time to time.
The punctual and exact compliance with this demand is a
characteristic sign of the central position which the British
Parliament, with its control over the executive, holds in the
body politic from another point of view, it is one of the

;
chief tasks of the Government and other administrative
officials, an achievement for which *hey deserve the fullest
recognition. Let us remark in passing, that in the unlimited

character of the claim for information, which may in prin-
ciple be made at any time, there lies a fundamental parlia-
mentary right of the highest importance it is a right which, ;
both constitutionally and practically, is a condition precedent

to efficient parliamentary government.
all And we may
further remark in passing that it is a right to the immense
political and legal significance of which neither the older
constitutional theory of the Continent nor the modern German
constitutional doctrine has given sufficient recognition.
The right to information through the medium of adminis-
trative officials is exercised and complied with in different
ways according to the form in which the information is to be
given ; there are therefore corresponding differences in the

classes of parliamentary papers which serve this purpose.
According to time-honoured practice the House of Com-

mons is entitled to demand at any time such particulars as it
may want as to trade or finance or as to national or local
administration, by means of a direct order. how- In all cases,
ever, in which reports treating of matters connected with the

exercise of the royal prerogative are to be made accessible to the
House the special form of an address to the Crown is required. 1
The source of the distinction between these two modes of
obtaining information is, of course, to be found principally
1
The is that information to be obtained from or through
general rule
any Revenue departments, any department under the Treasury, or any
of the
department constituted or regulated by statute, is obtained by means of

an order, whilst information to be obtained from or through a Secretary of
State or the Privy Council, is obtained by means of an address. (Manual,
p. 202.)
in history. Even in the middle ages the Chancellor used to
make communications to the House upon the finan-
detailed
cial position of the country, and the right of the Commons
to information on money matters was never disputed but ;
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in the days of
personal government by the King and the Privy Council, a

tendency showed itself which we see in full vigour at the
present day, in the constitutionally governed monarchies of
the Continent : the ministers of the Crown strove to treat
their acts and the consequences that followed from them as
being, on principle, state secrets and to prevent the repre-
sentatives of the people from obtaining any deep insight
into administration. In all such cases the House was
obliged, if it was to obtain the information it sought, to

avail itself of the extraordinary expedient of an address to
the Crown. The subsequent course of events here, too, was
much the same as in every other matter which during that
period was claimed as part of the prerogative the rights :
of the Crown have been most carefully preserved in

form, but their constitutional effect has been completely
inverted by placing the exercise of all royal prerogatives
in the hands and upon the responsibility of a Ministry
completely dependent on the House of Commons. For
between
this reason the distinction different kinds of parlia-
mentary papers on the score of the legal nature of their

contents, some being claimed and some prayed for, though
still maintained, is devoid of any great political
formally
importance. At the same time in this case, as in many
others, there is a certain legal and practical significance
in the retention of the old form. The exercise of the pre-
rogative, in the
present case a refusal of information, no
longer points to a right of the Crown as against Parliament,

but is a device, supported by a technically impregnable
title, by which the Ministry can baffle the Opposition or,
under certain circumstances, even a section of its own
supporters.
It is only in exceptional cases, as always when there is
any question of prerogative, that such a refusal can be
given. In any case this use of an obsolete prerogative
is the
legal foundation upon which a Ministry may base a
n D
refusal of House, and thereby to the
information to the
public, when
thought necessary to keep something an
it is
official secret. This, of course, only affects a small segment

of the whole wide circle of administration and government;
in the ordinary course of things the distinction is only really
important in one department, namely, that of foreign affairs,

and to a certain extent also in naval and military policy.
On the of
communicating diplomatic documents,
question
every government must have a discretion as to what ought
to be published and what suppressed. The annual White
Books and Blue Books of the Foreign Office bear witness
that, in such matters too, the British Government is accus-
tomed to push very far the line at which official reticence
begins. It may be true that in the publication of papers on
foreign affairs the Cabinet of Great Britain acts with tradi-

tional prudence and political sagacity, and that it does not
omit to take thoughtful care of its own political justification :
it
beyond doubt that even in foreign politics it gives the
is
House of Commons and the public far more information

as to what has actually taken place and been done than the
1
Government any other great nation in Europe.
of
In the above-mentioned cases then, in which the House
of Commons or its members desire further information from
the Crown, an address is the proper mode of asking for it.
But it is seldom that such a course has to be adopted,
as for more than a hundred years it has been the practice
of the Government to look upon it as one of their official
duties periodically or spontaneously to distribute informa-
tion upon the subjects which would otherwise have to be
sought for by address. A literal flood of printed matter

pours daily on the House at the instance of the Government,
casting light upon all subjects which affect the interests or
the action of the state.
The class of papers laid before Parlia-
parliamentary
ment without request comprises in
previous the first
place the regular reports of the Secretaries of State and the

offices of which they are the heads, of the Privy Council
and the departments which are attached to it, and of the
"
1
See, on the other hand, L. Bucher's criticism in Parlamentarismus,"
pp. 193 sqq.
few officials who are in immediate subordination to the

Crown, as, for instance, the Lord Chamberlain. It includes
also the annual reports of the Board of Trade, the Local
Government Board and many other official bodies. Into
the same class fall the numerous trade and consular reports
published by the Foreign Office, the annual or special reports

of Colonial Governors, communications as to agreements
with foreign powers, returns and statistics as to military and
naval affairs, &c., &c. So also do the reports of the
numerous Royal Commissions which, in their endless series
of minutes of investigations, provide an enormous mass of
invaluable material for the economic, legal
study of the
and social development of England during the nineteenth
century. All these publications bear on their title page
" Presented
the inscription by Command of His Majesty
to both Houses of Parliament."
Closely connected with this class is another division
of parliamentary papers, namely, the reports and returns to
the House which have to be presented in pursuance of some
special provision an act of parliament.

in Among these
the chief place must be given to certain acts of subordinate
quasi-legislation, such, for instance, as the issue of Orders

in Council, executive regulations by ministers in charge
i.e.,
of departments. There is in England a fairly large

amount of authority, given by act of parliament to certain
of the central Government offices, to lay down regulations
and orders upon various administrative matters the acts :
by which such authority is conferred generally impose, as
a condition for the validity of the rules thus framed, that
they shall be laid before Parliament and be inoperative

until ratified by the tacit assent of both Houses during a
defined interval of thirty or forty days.
This class of parliamentary papers is enlarged by provision
being made for the publication of returns of regulations as
to prisons and schemes of management of public or semi-
public institutions, such, for instance, as endowed schools,
certain charities, colleges, &c.
The great class of papers first mentioned above, that
which includes all which are published in compliance
with a simple order of the House, is distinguished by the
D2
inscription on the title page of each such publication,

" Printed order of the House of Commons." This
by
class has two main sub-divisions. The first comprises
such papers as contain reports from Government officials,
produced in compliance with a direct order of the

House : it includes the detailed financial statistics which
accompany the estimates, all returns from the Treasury or
the Post Office or from the Revenue departments, and state-
ments as to commerce and navigation. The second division
comprises such papers as give the information collected by
the House itself through its immediate organs, its committees
of investigation. All reports of select committees with the
addition of transcripts of the evidence taken by them and
documents laid before the committees
copies of any written
are printed by order of the House. 1 The inconceivable
wealth and variety of political, economic and statistical
material which has been amassed in this way during
centuries may well give a better idea of the true
nature and living functions of the English Parliament
than can be gained from any theory of the subject, however
complete.
This class of papers receives
augmentation a further
under the principle of parliamentary law that all documents
which are read or used in the House must be laid upon
the table and made accessible to general inspection. In
most cases the House orders such papers be printed.
to
The parliamentary papers of all kinds for each session
are treated -as a unit; they appear, year by year, bound up
together under the title of "sessional papers," and are sub-

jected to a which has no reference
second classification,
to the
topics treated, and is the one in current use.
Four classes are formed: I. Public Bills; II. Reports of
Committees; III. Reports of Commissioners; IV. Accounts
and Papers. The last-mentioned division is by far the most
extensive ;
it contains all the countless statistical returns as
The debates in select committees and standing committees are not

1
published either in the parliamentary papers or in Hansard's collection,

although they are public. They are, however, well reported in The
Times, which gives full details of proceedings in select committees on
private bills.
to the effect and administration of particular acts, the

detailed accounts ofcountry's income and expendi-
the
ture in all branches of the service of the state, periodical
statistics and annual reports upon local taxation, reports as
to the proceedings of the judges on election petitions, statis-

tical tables as to the work of the House for the past session,
memoranda and printed documents on thousands of things

and questions. Session after session an annually increasing
number of large folio volumes is produced, placed in the
library of the House and presented officially to certain pub-
lic libraries. The volumes of sessional papers for each year
are progressively numbered and have their material arranged
with reference to subject matter and form. Most of the vol-
umes contain a great number of separate papers or printed
documents, each bearing a distinctive number on the title
page and having a separate printed paging. In addition the
separate volumes have each a paging continuous through all
the documents, which, it is curious to note, is added in
manuscript to the official copies of the sessional papers.

The greatest perspicuity is myriad papers and
given to these
printed documents by a series of indexes, covering the whole
period of two centuries. There is an index for each year and
one for the period from 1800 to 1850 also a separate general
;
index for every complete ten years since the last-mentioned

date.
The printing of parliamentary papers is undertaken by
private firms under contract and is carried out under the
supervision of the Speaker and his staff. The whole

treatment of the papers is entrusted to the Speaker and they
are administered and systematically distributed under his
directions. 1 Each member of the House has a right to
obtain any paper ordered by the House to be printed or
presented by the Government to the House. Bills, estimates,
reports of royal commissions and similar

committees and of
important papers are circulated without special instructions ;
other papers can always be obtained by a member upon
request, but are not sent until asked for. A special office,
under the control of the Speaker, the " Vote Office," attends
1
Till recently a sessional committee was annually appointed to assist
the Speaker in this part of his work.
to the punctual distribution of parliamentary papers according
1
to the instructions given to it.
The do not exhaust the whole list of
sessional papers
parliamentary publications which concern the House of
Commons. In addition to the papers which give material
information to Parliament, there are those which are pre-
pared for the arrangement of its business and for distri-
buting to its members information as to the arrangements
made. Each day there appear (i) The and Proceedings,
: Votes
i.e., the minutes of the last sitting of the House as prepared
by the clerks at the table, and (2) The Notice Paper, i.e.,
the programme of business for the next sitting. As supple-
ments, are given (a) the answers to questions asked at the
and not orally answered, (6) division lists of all
last sitting
divisions taken at the last sitting, (c) reports of private bill

committees and standing committees, (d) summaries of the
state of the order book, i.e., lists of the motions set down,
of questions to be asked and of all business already fixed
according to the calendar of the House. These classes of
parliamentary papers will be further discussed in Parts vii
and viii of this Book.
The publicity of all parliamentary papers has been ex-
pressly placed by statute on a legal footing. In connection
with a libel action, based
upon a parliamentary paper, the
question was definitely raised whether the privilege of free-
dom of speech, in its widest sense, extended to parliamentary
papers. To prevent any future conflicts Parliament passed

an act (3 4 Viet. & c. 9) providing that for the future any
proceedings, criminal or civil, against persons for publication
of papers printed by order of Parliament, were to be stayed
upon delivery of a certificate and affidavit showing such publi-

cation to have been by order of either House of Parliament. 2
1
The following figures will indicate the extent of the sessional papers.
In 1901 the total number of volumes was 92 of these 4 contain public
:
bills 4 reports of committees

; 28 reports of commissioners
;
and 56 ;
accounts and papers. The session of 1902 produced as many as 130

volumes 4 containing public bills 5 reports of committees
:
;45 com- ;
missioners' reports and 76 being included in the last class. Most of

;
these folio volumes have 600 to 800 pages or more. The index alone for
1901 takes up 124 pages.
z
See as to the case of Stockdale v. Hansard (2 Moody and Robinson, 9),
"
infra pp. 49, 50 ; also Broom, Constitutional Law," pp. 875-960.
The enormous but splendidly arranged mass of statistics

contained in the reports of committees and royal commis-
sions, in the periodical reports of central departments and
in the innumerable returns and accounts, is one of the great
achievements of the British parliamentary system from year ;
to year it sets forth with admirable clearness the whole
administrative, social and economic working of the body

politic and gives this information the widest publicity.
HISTORICAL NOTE 1
The history of and publication of parliamentary papers

the printing
is not deficient in shows the modification of the attitude of
interest. It
Parliament, especially, of course, of the House of Commons, towards

public opinion upon its action. It can hardly be doubted that at times
in ancient days, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, it was felt
necessary to make certain particular transactions and decisions of the

Commons public property it may be assumed that when this was desired,
;
the same procedure was adopted as in the case of the promulgation of

acts of parliament, namely, proclamation in the county courts and other
local tribunals.
The mention in the journals of the printing of parliamentary
first
papers an order of the 3oth of July 1641 we read, " Ordered that these
is in :
votes shall be printed and attested under the Clerk's hand." * The use of
" "
the expression votes for parliamentary proceedings appears here for the
first time. Between 1641 and 1680 there are repeated orders of the House
as to the printing of particular papers. On the 3Oth of October 1680
there is, for the first time, a general instruction in the form of a ses-
"
sional order Resolved,
: That the votes of this printed, being House be
first perused and signed by Mr. Speaker, and that Mr. Speaker nominate
and appoint the persons to print the same."* On the 24th of March 1680-1
the House directed " That the votes and proceedings of this House be
printed and that the care of the printing thereof and the appointment
of the printers be committed to Mr. Speaker." 4 From that day to the
present* an order to the same effect has been made every session, with the
one exception of the year 1702 when, in connection with a dispute with
the House of Lords, lasting barely more than a session, it was suspended for
1
Since the beginning of the nineteenth century there have been several
select committees of the House of Commons concerned with questions
as to the printing of parliamentary papers, their cost, their publication,
and manner of sale there are reports of committees in 1825, 1828, 1833,
;
1835, 1841 and 1848. The most important of all is the Report on Publi-
cation of Printed Papers of 8th May 1837 (No. 286), which was prepared
with reference to the suit of Stockdale v. Hansard. It is the chief source
from which the foregoing account is derived.
*
*
Ibid., vol. ix., p. 643.
4
Ibid., vol. ix., p. 708.
*
See, for instance, Sessional Order, 2nd Feb. 1904 ; Manual, p. 290.
a short time. Since 1681 the minutes prepared by the Clerks at the table
(Votes and Proceedings) have been regularly printed. In pursuance of
special orders of the House particular reports and other papers were then
printed and either appended to the votes and proceedings or added as a
whole to the journal for the session. At the end of the session the jour-
nal was compiled out of the daily votes and proceedings and published
by the Speaker's command when the House re-assembled. Curiously
enough it was customary till 1833 to have a so-called "Manuscript Jour-
"
nal prepared by special clerks and to treat this for judicial purposes as
the authentic version. This expensive and meaningless custom meaning-
less because the manuscript journal was a copy made from the printed votes
and proceedings was abandoned in 1833, and from that date the printed
copy of the complete journal prepared by the Speaker has been treated
by the courts of law as authentic. At this time the parliamentary papers
1
comprised the journals, the bills introduced, the reports of committees,

the minutes of evidence given to the House itself or to its committees
and reports of a statistical nature on trade and finance.
Turning to the question of publication, we find that from 1641 on-
wards parliamentary papers have been widely distributed with the full
approval, and indeed by the wish, of the House. In 1642 a committee
was appointed " to consider of the best way of putting the publick orders
and votes of the House in execution and of divulging, dispersing and
;
publishing the said orders, votes and also the declarations of the House
2
through the Kingdom." The practice of publication did not cease at
the Restoration. On the 24th of March 1680-1 a very interesting debate
on this question took place, the representative of the Government, Secretary
Jenkins, being almost the only opponent of such publication, giving as
"
his reason that it would be a sort of appeal to the people." The
House, however, kept to its established practice. 5
1
See Report of select committee on public documents (2yd August
1833, No. 717), p. 44.
1
House of Commons Journals, vol. ii., pp. 230, 608, 616.
*
For the debate see Parliamentary History, vol. iv., 1306. There are
several noteworthy, expressions on the part of individual members. For
"
instance, Sir John Hotham said Printing our votes will be for the
:
honour of the King and safety of the nation. I am confident, if it had

been necessary, you would have had petitions that your actions . . .
might be made public." Mr. Jenkins replied that they should consider
the gravity of the assembly there was no great assembly in Christendom
;
"
that did such a thing. Mr. Boscawen said If you had been a
Privy
:
Council, then it were fit what you do should be kept secret but your ;
journal books are open, and copies of your votes in every coffee-house,
and, if you print them not, half votes will be dispersed, to your prejudice."
"
Sir Francis said
Winnington I
hope the House will take notice that
:
printing our votes not contrary to law. But, pray, who sent us hither ?
is
The Privy Council is constituted by the King, but the House of Commons
is by the choice of the people. I think it is not natural nor rational
that the people who sent us hither should not be informed of our actions.
In the Long Parliament it was a trade among clerks to write votes, and
it was then said by a learned gentleman 'That it was no offence to
inform the people of votes of Parliament,' &c."
From 1691 the printed votes and proceedings of the Commons have
been treated by the House of Lords as affording authentic information of
what has taken place in the Lower House. 1
The sale of papers was

originally effected through the printer in early ;
days through officials of the House as well. The printers were not always
the same, and it appears from the evidence brought before the committees
of 1822 and 1835 that till 1777 the sale of parliamentary papers was con-
ducted at a profit, which was accounted for to the Speaker. In that year
the sale showed a loss and thenceforward the Treasury took over the
account. 2 The journals were first printed in 1742. In 1/67 and 1773 a
collection, in several volumes, of such reports as had not been inserted
in the journals was printed and published, and in 1801 a new and com-
plete edition of reports from 1715 to 1801 was issued. In 1763 the
printing for the House of Commons was undertaken by the House itself
and the papers began to be distributed gratis to members. About the
middle of the eighteenth century the regular public sale of parliamen-
tary papers by the printers practically ceased. Access by the public
to this source of information was made very difficult, in fact almost
impossible. It will readily be believed that the reformed parliament
had a strong feeling that so faulty a state of affairs must be put an
end to, and that some means must be found of satisfying the heightened
interest of the extended electorate in the work of the House of Commons.
So on the I3th of August 1835 it was decided that parliamentary papers
were to be rendered accessible to the public at the lowest price at which
they could be furnished." On the gth of February 1836 a special com-
mittee was formed, consisting of eight members, to assist the Speaker upon
all questions concerning parliamentary papers and their publication.*
After that date a similar committee was for many years appointed at
the opening of each session. Immediately after the adoption of the new
methods it so happened that an action in the courts of law caused
their legal foundations to be put to the test. A certain bookseller
and publisher named Stockdale was a defamatory sense referred to in
in one of the reports of prison inspectors which were periodically laid
before Parliament, the inspector having described a book published by
Stockdale as obscene and unsuitable for prison reading. Stockdale
brought an action for libel Hansard as the publishers
against Messrs.
of the prison report (1836). The verdict of the jury went against the
plaintiff on the ground that the statements alleged to be
defamatory
were true. But in his summing up the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Denman,
before whom the case was tried, gave a statement of the law which was
not favourable to the privileges of the House. He considered that the
fact of the House of Commons having Hansard to publish
directed Messrs.
all their parliamentary reports did not give to them or to any other
1
House of Lords Journals, vol. xv., pp. 1012. Further, from the time
of the Restoration the House of Lords has followed the same practice
as to printing and publishing its parliamentary papers as the House of
Commons.
2
See on this the detailed memorandum of Messrs. Hansard in App.
No. 3 to the report of 1837.
3
House of Commons Journals, vol. xc., p. 544.
4
Ibid., vol. xci., p. 16.
publisher of such reports, legal protection against actions for libel based
on the contents of such reports. In consequence of this statement the
House appointed a select committee, the report of which led to solemn
resolutions that the power of publishing parliamentary reports, votes and
proceedings was an essential incident to the constitutional functions of
the House that the House alone had jurisdiction to determine upon the
;
existence and extent of its privileges that the institution of proceedings

;
for bringing them into discussion or decision before any other tribunal
was a breach of privilege and that a decision by any court which was
;
in contradiction to the determination of either House was an offence against

the law of Parliament. Stockdale brought three other actions between
1837 and 1840, all upon the same materials, and they led to a series of
conflicts between the House of Commons and the courts of law, in the
course of which Stockdale and the Sheriffs of Middlesex were arrested by
the Serjeant-at-arms and imprisoned for contempt. The legal question as
to immunity was set at rest (1840) by the act of parliament above referred
to. The further development of the actions, in which the legal notion
of privilege and the punitive powers of the House came under discussion,
lies beyond the bounds of the account which we are here giving. See also
Part vi, ch. ii, of this Book Anson, " Law and Custom of the Constitution,"
;
vol. i., pp. 171 sqq. ; May, "Parliamentary Practice," pp. 141-144.
PART III
The Sittings of the House of Commons
CHAPTER I
the House of Commons can enter upon its
BEFORE
work there are a number of constitutional forms to
be gone through, which are regarded as essential
all of
the summons by the Crown constituting the House, after
;
a general election, by the swearing in of members and the

choice of a Speaker and lastly the solemn opening of Par-
;
liament on the part of the sovereign or his representatives

by the speech from the throne.
There is no express constitutional enactment laying down
when or how often Parliament must be called. We need
hardly say, however, that notwithstanding the absence of
such a rule, the annual or more frequent summons of the
British Parliament, which has taken place for the last two
hundred years, is an integral and fundamental principle of
public law. Like many other vital provisions of the consti-
tution, the rule that Parliament must meet every year is,
directly, only a matter of custom, but is indirectly secured by
a number of arrangements which have statutory authority,
though the rule itself has never been formulated into an act
of parliament. The annual summons of Parliament by the

Crown, technically regarded as a matter of prerogative,
still
has long ceased to be a right of the Crown exercisable at

pleasure, and has become a duty ; moreover, the exercise of
this prerogative now only takes place upon the advice of
a Government which responsible to Parliament.
is
From the beginning of the nineteenth century the

whole framework of the national finances, the necessity of
annually continuing by means of the Army (Annual) Act

(formerly known as
Mutiny Act) the legal of the status
the standing army, and a large number of other statutory
arrangements, have made it

indispensable to call Parliament
together for ordinary session not later than the month
its
of February. The session has, since the beginning of the

nineteenth century, regularly lasted till August, sometimes
extending into September or even later. When it has been
necessary to take parliamentary action after the end of the
regular session, a contingency, when it occurs, generally
caused by the claims of foreign policy or by military events,
Parliament has been summoned for an autumn session,
opened exactly in the same way as the ordinary session.
A new parliament is summoned immediately upon the
dissolution of the old, by the same royal proclamation. 2 In
this the Order in Council is announced, commanding the
Chancellors of Great Britain and Ireland to take the steps
necessary for the formation of a new parliament. In pur-

suance of the proclamation the Crown Office issues the
" Writs of Summons."
There are different kinds of writs for the different classes

of persons who are to be called together.
I. The Lords, except the Scotch representative peers, are
summoned individually and personally. The procedure by
which the Scotch peers find their way to Parliament need
not be described here.
Theoretically the only compulsion upon the Crown to summon Par-

1
liament arises from the statute 6 &

7 William and Mary, c. 2 (1694),
which provides that within years at the farthest from the deter-
three
mination of one parliament writs must be issued for the summons of
its successor. But at the present day the necessity for renewing the
many acts of parliament (including such important acts as the Ballot
Act), which have only a limited period of validity and are annually
extended by the Expiring Law Continuance Acts is a pledge, as well as
the need for the Army Act, that Parliament will be regularly assembled.
As to the political conditions affecting the royal prerogative of summon-
ing a new parliament, see Anson, vol. i., pp. 286-293; Dicey, "Law of
"
the Constitution," 6th edition, pp. 376 sqq. Bagehot, ;
The English
Constitution," 6th edition, pages 57-88.
2
Queen Victoria during her reign summoned fifteen new parliaments.
The between the dissolution of the old parliament and the as-
interval
sembly of the new varied from four weeks and one day (1868) to thirty
weeks (6 July 1865 to i February 1866).
OPENING AND CONSTITUTION OF HOUSE 53
II. The Judges, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General

and the King's Ancient Serjeant are called by a special for-
" Writ of Attendance."
mulary known as the
III. Lastly, the sheriffs or other returning officers of
the counties and towns are informed of the summons and
date of meeting of the new parliament, and are directed
to cause elections to be held for members to serve in the
House of Commons.
All these writs are sealed with the Great Seal and, at the
1
present day, are distributed by post.
It will be convenient here to interpose what it is neces-
sary to state as to the election of the House of Commons.

It is, of course, outside the scope of our present undertaking
to go deeply into the modern British parliamentary franchise
2
which extraordinarily complicated in its details.
is
Since the latest franchise reform of 1884 the House of

Commons has consisted of 670 members, who are for the
most part elected by single-member constituencies. 3 The
numerous voting qualifications may be divided into three
groups : I. Property qualifications, i.e.,the ownership of land
of various values according to tenure II. Occupation of
;
land; III. Residence for a definite

period as the inhabitant
of a separate dwelling (household franchise), or as a lodger
1
The language of the writs of election is now fixed by the Ballot Act,
J 8y2 (35 & 36 Viet. c. 33). Till the passing of this Act the formula in
use was couched
quite in a mediaeval style. See Anson, loc. cit., vol. i.,
p. 57, where the present form
is also given (p. 55). If a seat becomes
vacant during the continuance of parliament, the Chancery issues a writ

of summons upon the Speaker's warrant, granted, in case the House
is sitting, in pursuance of an order of the House, but in other cases by
the Speaker's official authority. In the former case the order is made
upon a special motion which, as a rule, is made by one of the whips

of the party to which the member whose seat is vacant belonged. See
May, "Parliamentary Practice," pp. 631 sqq.
*
See Anson, loc. cit., vol. i., pp. 75-141 as to the latest franchise ;
reform of 1884-5, Renwick Seager's "The Representation of the People

Act, 1884." The old literature on the historical development of the right
of suffrage (Oldfield's work being the principal authority) has now been
"
supplemented by Porritt, The Unreformed House of Commons," vol. i.,
pp. 1-118.
1
The only exceptions are the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and
Dublin, the City of London and those towns of between 50,000 and
165,000 inhabitants which returned two members before the last Redis-
tribution Act (1885). Anson, loc. cit., vol. i., pp. 127, 128.
(lodger franchise), or in virtue of some office, service or

employment (service franchise). In addition to the widest
by the Reform Acts of 1867 and 1884, the

franchises given
household and lodger votes, there remain certain ancient
franchises, for instance those of the legal successors of the
freemen in certain old towns. The right of voting is re-
stricted to males of full age who are British subjects. It is
forfeited by mental incapacity, by the receipt of parochial

relief within twelve months, by a peerage, by the holding
of certain offices (sheriff, returning officer), and by conviction

for treason or felony or for certain electoral offences. There
are certain Crown offices the acceptance of which disquali-
fies the holder from retaining a seat in Parliament, but does
not affect his right to vote.

Elections are held on the footing of certain permanent
lists (registers) which are annually settled
by specially ap-
pointed officers, Revising Barristers, at times fixed by act of
parliament, in courts where advocates on both sides are
allowed. The elections themselves are conducted under the
provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872. In a county within two
days from receipt of the writ, in a borough on the day of

receipt or the following day, the returning officer must give
notice of the day and place of election, which has to take
place, in the case of counties within nine days, and in the

case of boroughs within four days from the receipt of the
writ. On the day fixed for election written nominations of
the candidates must be sent in, each requiring the signature of
a proposer and seconder and eight other electors as assentors.
If within an hour of the time fixed for the election there are
only enough nominations to supply the vacancies, those who
have been nominated are elected and there is no voting.
Otherwise voting by papers (a poll) is fixed for a certain
day, which in a borough must not be more than three clear

days from the nomination day, and in counties not less
than two nor more than six clear days. When the election
is complete the result is indorsed on the writ of summons
in the form of a certificate (return) and this is sent back to

the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. After a general
election a list is prepared in the Crown Office from the
entire set of returns and is thence sent to the Clerk of the
House of Commons. In the case of a bye-election a cer-

tificate of the result is sent direct from the Crown Office
to the Clerk of the House ;
the newly-elected member has to
obtain from the Public Bill Office a confirmation of the
arrival of this return and to deposit it on the table of the
House as a proof of his right to sit.
On the day fixed by proclamation the newly
- elected
members assemble in their chamber, and at the same time
the Lords appear in theirs. Two o'clock in the afternoon
is the regular hour of meeting but usually a large number ;
of members come much earlier many secure their seats :
in the manner recognised by the custom of the House,
entering the room as soon after midnight as possible.

The further proceedings differ according as the session
is or is not the first of a new parliament.
1
In the first
case the House has no president the few necessary for- :
malities required before the Speaker is elected are therefore

carried out under the chairmanship of the Clerk of the
House. At two o'clock this officer takes his seat at the
table. The mace, which as a rule is carried in front of
the Speaker by the Serjeant-at-arms, is now brought in
without ceremony, and is placed not on but under the
table, as a sign that the House is not yet formally consti-
tuted as such. The constitution, the
first requisite for its
choice of the Speaker, cannot take place until the Crown has
given its consent. The Commons, therefore, wait in their
places, of course only for a few minutes, for the arrival of

" Black
Rod," who comes from the House
2
the messenger,
of Lords and requests their attendance in the Upper House.
The members, led by the Clerk, now proceed, by the long
corridors leading across the central lobby from the one
House to the other, to the Lords' chamber, and remain
standing at the bar. In the meantime the sovereign has
appeared, surrounded by his court officials, and has taken
his seat upon the throne or, if Parliament is opened by
;
commission, the five Lords who have been appointed Com-
1
See Anson, loc. cit.,vol. i., pp. 62-68 May, "Parliamentary Practice,"
;
pp. 154-156; MacDonagh, "The

"
Book of Parliament," pp. 96-114.
2 "
The office of Black Rod is a much esteemed position of honour,
and is usually filled by a retired naval or military officer of high rank.
missioners, Lord Chancellor at their head, hav

with the
taken places upon a bench placed below the throne,
their
but raised above the seats of the other peers. 1 In the latter
case, the Lord Chancellor announces to the assembly that
the sovereign, not thinking fit to be present in person, has
commissioned him and the other Lords by letters patent to
do in the name of the sovereign everything necessary on his
part for the opening of Parliament whereupon the letters :
patent are read at length. Then the Lord Chancellor

addresses those who are present in the following terms :
"
My Lords and
Gentlemen, We have Hisit in command from
Majesty to let you know His Majesty will, as soon as the members of
your Houses shall be sworn, declare the causes of his calling this parlia-
ment and it being necessary that a Speaker of the House of Commons
;
shall be first chosen, it is His Majesty's pleasure that you, gentlemen of

the House of Commons, repair to the place where you are to sit, and
there proceed to the choice of some proper person to be your Speaker,
and that you present such person whom you shall so choose here to-
morrow at 12 o'clock for His Majesty's royal approbation."
The Commons and their Clerk then leave the bar and
go back to their own chamber, where the election of a
Speaker is at once taken in hand. The Clerk rises and
points to one of the members, who has, by previous arrange-
ment among the Government party, been chosen to propose
their candidate for the Speakership. In the same manner,
the Clerk not being allowed to say a word, another
member is called upon to second the motion. Very fre-
quently the adoption of the motion, and consequently the
election of the Speaker, follows by acclamation. A division
only takes place in the rare case of the Opposition pro-
posing an alternative candidate to the person supported by
the Government.
The newly-elected Speaker rises at once in his place
and makes a short speech of thanks, at the close of which
his proposer and seconder lead him to the chair. The
mace is placed upon the table, the leader of the House and
the leader of the Opposition address their congratulations to
the Speaker-elect, and the former then moves the adjourn-
Queen Victoria opened Parliament in person twenty-nine times and

1
by commission forty-three times as yet King Edward VII has always

;
acted in person.
ment of the House, which the Speaker-elect puts and declares

to be carried.
On
the following day the solemn ceremony of the royal
approval concludes the first act in the constitution of the

" "
House. Black Rod appears again ;
but now his ap-
proach announced by loud cries of warning on the part
is
of the doorkeepers, and when he reaches the door of

the House he finds it locked and barred not till he has :
knocked three times and asked permission to enter is the

door opened to him. This is a traditional measure of pre-
caution handed down to when
the present day from times
the House dreaded rather than expected messages from the
Crown, and sought anxiously to protect itself from unwelcome
intruders the custom, though now only a memento of the
:
past, has been, for that very reason, piously kept up.
At the request of the messenger the Speaker-elect, accom-
panied by many of the members, follows him to the bar
of the House of Lords, and there addresses the Royal
Commissioners, whom he finds in waiting, in the following
words :
"
I have to acquaint your lordships that, in obedience to His Majesty's
commands, His Majesty's faithful Commons have, in the exercise of their
undoubted rights and privileges, proceeded to the election of a Speaker.
Their choice has fallen upon myself, and I therefore present myself at
your lordships' bar, humbly submitting myself for His Majesty's gracious
approbation."
To which the Lord Chancellor, addressing the Speaker-

elect by name, answers :
"
We are commanded to assure you that His Majesty is so fully sensible of
your zeal in the public service, and your ample sufficiency to execute all the
arduous duties of the position which his faithful Commons have selected
you to discharge, that he does most readily approve and confirm your
election as Speaker."
Then the Speaker again addresses the Commission, en-

treating that if, in the discharge of his duties, and in main-
taining the rights and privileges of the Commons' House of

Parliament, he should fall inadvertently into error, the blame
may be imputed to him alone, and not to
His Majesty's
faithful Commons. Then follows the centuries-old enumera-
tion by the Speaker of the rights and privileges of the
Commons. The whole ceremony is conducted substantially
1 1 E
in the same way as it used to be performed in the days of
Queen Elizabeth, from which it has been handed down.
The act of state ends with the solemn confirmation and
recognition of the Commons' rights and privileges by the
Crown, and the Speaicer, now fully installed in office,
returns to the House of Commons, where he reports what
has taken place, and once more returns thanks. 1
Immediately after this, the Speaker reminds the House
that the next and most important step towards constituting
the House is the taking of the oath required by law. 2
Standing on the upper step of the chair he takes the oath
himself and signs the test roll. The other members in
attendance follow his example. The next day and the day
after are devoted to the swearing in of members, which
may only be done at a full sitting of the House. Until a

member has taken the oath he has no right to vote, except
upon the election of a Speaker, and must take his seat

beyond the bar ;
a breach of this rule lays him open to
severe pecuniary penalties, prescribed by act of parliament,
3
for every vote given.
When the greater part of the members have taken the
oath, there follows, in the case of the first session of a
new parliament, the last act necessary for its opening
announcement of the causes of summons by the
the
speech from the throne. In other sessions, when there

is no need for the election of a Speaker or for the taking
of oaths, except for such members as have been elected
during the interval since the last session, the King's speech
See the proceedings on the re-election of Speaker Gully, on the 3rd

1
and 4th December 1900 Parliamentary Debates (88), 9-14.

:
2
For the history of the parliamentary oath, see infra, pp. 62-64. Under
Standing Order 84, members may take and subscribe the oath required
by law, at any time during the sitting of the House, before the orders
of the day and notices of motions have been entered upon, or after they
have been disposed of but no debate or business is to be interrupted
;
for that purpose.

taking the oath are now settled by
8
All legal questions as to
reference to the Acts 29 &
30 Viet. c. 19 and 31 & 32 Viet. c. 72,
which prescribe the following form of oath for members of all religious
denominations: "I do swear that I will be faithful and bear
true allegiance to his Majesty King Edward, his heirs and successors
according to law. So help me God." By the Oaths Act, 1888, certain
persons are allowed to substitute a solemn affirmation for the oath.
is delivered upon the day for which Parliament is
summoned. It is an act of state performed either by the

sovereign in person or by a commission of five lords in :
either case it takes place in the Upper House in the
presence of the Commons and their Speaker, who are

summoned from their sitting for the purpose.
This completes the constitution of Parliament, and the
session opened. The House of Commons can now legally
is
set about its business. The King's speech, or, to use the
correct constitutional term, the declaration of the causes of
the summons of Parliament, forms the legal basis for the
deliberations of the two Houses. 1
It is, perhaps, worth
while to lay stress upon this, as the legal conception of the

significance of the speech from the throne has not been
2
adopted on the Continent.
The King's speech gives in broad outline the legislative
programme of the session, comments upon the position of
foreign affairs and the state of the Crown Colonies and, in
a special paragraph, of nearly invariable form, addressed to
the Commons only, it promises an early submission of the
estimates for the wants of the coming year. The course of
the deliberations of Parliament is thus indicated, and they
begin regularly with a debate upon the speech and the
address in reply thereto.
The general political character of the King's speech leads
to the result that the course of the debate upon it is un-
trammelled as to subject-matter, a circumstance to which
the modern adoption of the principle that general debates
should be as much as possible avoided has given great
importance. General criticism of the Government from all
imaginable points of view, demands for redress of grievances,

the statement of aspirations and proposals of all kinds, are
1
Till 1870 whenever the speech from the throne, at the opening of Par-
liament, was read by a commission, it was written in the third person.
But since that date the sovereign has always spoken in the first person
even through the mouth of the Lord Chancellor.
1
In 1662, the journals of the House show that the Commons
appointed committees and transacted other business before the arrival of
the King's message to attend him in the House of Lords. Hatsell
characterises this as informal (" Precedents," vol. ii., 3rd edn., pp. 288,
291 ; 4th edn., pp. 305, 308).
E 2
6o
rendered possible. The whole policy of the country,

domestic and foreign, is open to discussion. The form of
procedure adopted is that, immediately upon the speech
being communicated to the House by the Speaker, a motion
for an address in reply is proposed by some member chosen
beforehand, generally some young member on the Govern-

ment side, and seconded by another. 1 Formerly the address
in reply followed closely the wording of the speech, but in
recent years it has become usual to frame it as a brief
expression of the thanks of the House.
The further debate is carried on in the strict formal
manner characteristic of English parliamentary procedure.
Any body of political opinion represented in the House,
any member who wishes thus early in the session to influ-
ence the Government's legislative programme any point,at
or to call the attention of ministers or the public to any
question, brings up what is desired in the form of an

amendment to the address, proposing the addition of some
words having reference to the question. 2 For instance,
the Irish party almost always proposes an amendment
regretting the absence from the Government's proposals of
any measure granting self-government to Ireland. Irish
grievances thus annually come forward at the very beginning

of the session.
Of late years the number of amendments has been
enormous, and the debate on the address has become longer
and longer. Since the introduction of the closure the
Government have stopped the debate after a reasonable
1
A characteristic touch is given by the traditional custom that the
mover and seconder of the address appear on this occasion in levee dress
or uniform.
1
The modern upon the address, and the
practice of lengthy debates
moving amendments thereto, is one of the consequences of the
of formal
material diminution in the number of opportunities for general political
debates which has been effected during the nineteenth century. According
to statistical tables kindly placed at my disposal by the Clerk of the
House (a valuable source of information of which I have availed myself
here and in many other places) the address was, from 1801 to 1879, almost
invariably voted after one adjournment : in a few sessions two or three
sittings were taken. Since 1880 and 1881, in which latter year ten days
were sacrificed to the address, the time has varied between the limits of
six days (1882) and sixteen (1887).
number of been devoted to it, thus cutting

sittings has
short the discussion and excluding all amendments not yet
disposed of. In 1902 the debate on the address took up
ten sittings, in 1903 eight. The numbers of amendments
proposed were twelve and thirteen respectively. In earlier
days, under the old rules, the House used to resolve itself
into a committee to draw up the form of the address, and
upon the report of the address to the House a second

debate took place. This procedure was abolished by Stand-
ing Order 9 on the 29th February 1888, with the object of
shortening 'the proceedings.
Although as a matter of fact the debate upon the reply
to the King's speech is the first real business taken up by
the House of Commons, there is no legal obligation to
adopt this course. On the contrary the House may begin

its deliberations with any measure it wishes to discuss. By
way rights the House is careful to adhere
of assertion of its
to a practice which dates from the early years of the seven-

teenth century. Before the Speaker communicates to the
House the speech from the throne, a bill, prepared or kept
by the Clerk for the purpose, is read for the first time :
the transaction is, of course, a pure form ; no more is heard
of the bill till it reappears at the opening of the next
1
session. It is always open to the House to take up formal
matters, such as of
business, receiving
disposing routine
reports as to writs issued during the recess, adopting the

usual sessional orders, &c., before the King's speech is
communicated. Moreover, side by side with the debate on
the address, other business may go on. Before the end of
the debate bills are introduced in great numbers, both by
the Government and by private members, and are read a
first time, motions debated and questions asked and
may be
answered. A
great deal of business, especially formal busi-
ness, is crowded into the first few days of the session.
The standing committees are formed, select committees are
appointed and nominated, the first formalities as to private

bills are gone through, and the ballot for days for private
members' bills is taken. The distribution of the real work

1
In the House of Lords this procedure is expressly directed by
Standing Order 2.
of the public business, is at the present day

House, its
entirely in the hands of the Government. The First Lord

of the Treasury, as leader of the House, makes an
announcement very early in the session as to the manner
inwhich the Government propose to allot the business of
the first days or weeks. be best to explain elsewhere
It will
how an understanding as to this with the Opposition is

1
regularly brought about.
HISTORICAL NOTE
Reference has already been made in several places to the historical
points as to the summoning and opening of Parliament (see vol. i., p. 40) ;
there is no need to repeat what has been said before. The history of
the members' oath, however, should be shortly sketched.
The parliaments of the middle ages asked no special oath from their
members as a legal preliminary to the fulfilment of their duties the ;
introduction of this requirement is wholly due to the politico-religious

conflicts of the sixteenth century.
The first oath imposed upon the members of the House of Commons
was instituted in 1563 by Queen Elizabeth's Act of Supremacy (5 Eliz. c. i) :
2
the oath was, in fact, first taken in I566. The purport of the oath (the
oath of supremacy) was that the member testified to his belief that the
sovereign of England was the only supreme governor of the realm, both
in ecclesiastical and in temporal matters. In 1610 two further oaths were
added by the statute 7 Jac. I c. 6 those of allegiance and abjuration
in consequence of the anti-Catholic legislation following upon the Gun-
powder Plot. In these oaths the members swore that they repudiated the
claim of the Pope to depose a king, and that they freely and heartily
"
promised to abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical the
damnable doctrine and position, that princes which be excommunicated
or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murdered by their subjects
1
The example of the session of 1904 will serve to show how the
constitution of the House takes place :
Opening, 3ist of January ; King's
Speech, 2nd of February adoption of sessional orders, same day adop-
; ;
tion of customary resolution as to ballot for private members' bills,

3rd of February order for formation of the Committee of Selection and
;
of the Committee on Standing Orders, 8th of February formation of ;
Public Petitions Committee, i5th of February formation of Committee

;
of Supply, igth of February formation of House and Kitchen Committee,

;
22nd of February formation of Committee on Public Accounts, 5th of

;
March.
1
Parry, p. 215; Porritt, loc. cit., vol. i., p. 128; Hatsell, vol. ii.,
3rd edn., pp. 79-85 4th edn., pp. 84-92 ; D'Ewes (" Journals," pp. 39, 78,
;
122) appears to consider that the oath was first administered in 1563
under i Eliz. c. i. but Prynne, "Parliamentary Writs," p. 407, states
;
definitely that the oath was first taken in 1566. New members elected
to the earlier parliament after the act was passed no doubt took the
oath; D'Ewes, p. 123.
or any other whosoever." From 1678 there was the additional declaration
against transubstantiation, which had to be made at the table of the
House with the Speaker in the chair. The oaths were administered by
the Lord Steward or his deputy in one of the rooms of Westminster
Palace. Under William III certain alterations of form were made. The
old oath of allegiance was replaced by a simple declaration of allegiance
to the King and Queen, but otherwise the requirements as to oaths
remained in full operation until 1829, when Parliament decided upon
Catholic emancipation and the repeal of the Test Act. A special form
of oath was then provided for Roman Catholic members.
The chief end, therefore, of the enactments as to oaths was to exclude
from the House of Commons those who professed the Roman Catholic
faith. Attempts made in the reign of Charles I to exclude members of
Protestant sects, Dissenters or Nonconformists, were defeated : the only
persons shut out were Quakers and Moravians, who refused to take any
oaths at all. 1 Jews were prevented by the form of the oath from becom-
ing members of the House of Commons, as the frame of all the oaths,
of course, took for granted the profession of Christianity. The reforms of
1829 left in the form of oath the words "on the true faith of a Chris-
tian," which thus continued to shut out holders of the Jewish faith. In
1832 the struggle for relief of the Jews from the disability to enter
Parliament began. It was pointed out that they were excluded by no
express law, and it was argued that the indirect result of the addendum
to the oath just mentioned was an unintentional effect of the law as to
parliamentary oaths. It was not till 1858, however, that these views won
acceptance. By the act 21 & 22 Viet. c. 48, the three ancient oaths were
replaced by a single one for Protestants of all creeds and persuasions, and
another act of the same year (21 &
22 Viet. c. 49) made it possible for
Parliament to admit Jews as members either House was empowered to
;
modify the form of oath by omitting the clause which was objectionable
to persons professing the Jewish religion. The alteration in the House
of Commons was at first effected by sessional order, but in 1860 a
standing order was adopted. In 1866 a single oath was prescribed for
members of all religious denominations (29 & 30 Viet. c. 19) as the :
new form did not include the words which took Christianity for granted,
Jews at last obtained full parliamentary capacity.
Asurvey of the whole history will convince anyone that the members'
oath of allegiance does not arise out of any constitutional principle
inherent in the notion of parliament. It has been merely a political
expedient for narrowing the circle of persons eligible for membership.

This is the true key to the understanding of the last phase in the story
of this institution in England the objection of the Free-thinker Bradlaugh
to take the oath, and the question raised thereby as to the oaths of mem-
bers without religious profession. There is no need here to enter into
any details of the long and complicated struggle in some of its incidents
not very creditable to the House of Commons of one man against a
great majority it is enough to recall the fact that the contest, owing
;
to Bradlaugh's persistence and strength of character, led to the triumph
1
As to the admission of members whose religious convictions
prevented their taking an oath, see May, "Parliamentary Practice,"
pp. 163, 164.
of the cause of freedom of conscience.
In 1888 Parliament passed the
last of its acts subject (the Oaths Act, 1888), enabling all
upon the
persons who entertain a religious objection to an oath, and all persons
who assert that they have no religious belief, to substitute a solemn
affirmation for an oath. 1
For the almost inextricable maze of parliamentary proceedings and

1
lawsuits which surrounded Bradlaugh's stubborn struggle for his rights, see
May, "Parliamentary Practice," pp. 164-168; MacCarthy, "History of Our
Own Times," vol. v., pp. 27-40; Annual Register, 1880, pp. 57-59, 70-76;
ibid., 1881, pp. 139-146; ibid., 1882, pp. 15, 30-34; ibid., 1886, p. 9;
ibid., 1888, p. 51 ; Anson, loc. cit., vol. i., pp. 87-89.
PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION 65
r
I ^HE termination of the activity of Parliament, except
-- in one particular case, like its summons to begin
work, lies power of the Crown.
technically in the It may
take place in two ways (i) by dissolution under a proclama-

tion issued under the Great Seal, or (2) by prorogation.
In earlier days dissolution was often personally an-
nounced by the sovereign to the Commons, who had been
called to the House of Lords for the purpose. Since 1681
the only instance of personal dissolution was in 1818,
when the Prince Regent, acting for George III, adopted this
course. The usual method is to prorogue Parliament in
the manner about be described, and, shortly after, to dis-
to
solve it by a proclamation, which at the same time summons
its successor. 2 Since the passing of the Septennial Act,
dissolution may technically come about without the exercise
of royal prerogative, namely, by the expiration of the
the
seven years of life limited by the act but no parliament :
has hitherto been allowed to continue for its full term.

Until 1867 there was another cause by which a parliament
was ipso facto brought to an end, namely, a demise of the
Crown. The difficulties repeatedly caused by the mediaeval
conception of the exhaustion of the power of Parliament
by reason of the exhaustion of the will of its convener
were partly remedied under William III by the act 7 & 8 :
William III c. 15, it was provided that the parliament in

existence at the time of a demise of the Crown should be
entitled to act for six months beyond the occurrence of that
event. An
act of 1797 (37 Geo. Ill c. 127) made provision
for the case of a demise of the Crown taking place after a
1 "
See May,
Parliamentary Practice," pp. 43 sqq. (1851 edition,
pp. 107 sqq.);Anson, loc. cit., vol. i., pp. 68-74.
*
In modern times the sovereign (e.g., in 1831 and 1847) has repeatedly
announced in the speech from the throne proroguing Parliament that it
was intended shortly to dissolve.
dissolution. Lastly, the Reform Act of 1867 made the dura-
tion of parliament independent of the death of the sovereign
and the succession to the throne.
Prorogation is a solemn act of the Crown, putting a
legal end to the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament,
and at the same time appointing a certain future day for their
resumption. It is the regular mode of bringing a session of

Parliament to its close. The immediate effect is to put an
end to the sittings, to extinguish all the powers given by the
House to its committees, and to annul all the legislative
stages of a bill which has not yet passed both Houses and
received the royal assent. The only parliamentary pro-
ceedings which remain untouched are impeachments and
appeals pending before the House of Lords. In former days

if a
prorogation affected a newly elected Parliament, or one
which had been already prorogued to a certain day, it was
necessary that Parliament should hold a formal meeting
on the day originally fixed and that the further proroga-
tion should be announced by a special writ, read by the
Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords to the Peers and
the Commons the Lords' bar, or that it should be done
at
by a commission of five Lords. Since the act of 1867

(30 & 31 Viet. c. 81) a royal proclamation has been sum-
cient For the closing of a session, now as
in such cases.
of old, prorogation must be brought about through solemn
announcement in the House of Lords either by the
sovereign personally or by a commission appointed for the
purpose.
A
parliament which has been summoned for, or pro-
rogued to, a certain day may be called together at an
earlier date under 37 Geo. Ill c.127, and 33 & 34 Viet.
c. 81 : the new summons is effected by proclamation, but
the day of meeting must not be less than six days from
the date of the proclamation.
Either House may adjourn at its own pleasure an:
adjournment brought about in this

way, which will be
further discussed in its proper place, has no legal effect
upon the course of parliamentary business. The Crown,
however, cannot direct an adjournment so as to produce a
temporary pause in the actual proceedings of Parliament ;
PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION 67
a claim to such a right was made by the Stuarts, but it

was never acknowledged. Under recent legislation 39 & 40
Geo. Ill c. 14, and 33 & 34 Viet. c. 81 the Crown has
acquired a certain legal power of abridging an adjournment :
if it lasts longer than fourteen days the Crown may by pro-
clamation order the resumption of the sittings on a day not

less than six days after the date of the proclamation.
It need hardly be said that the exercise of the preroga-
tive of dissolving and proroguing Parliament has long been
limited by the conventional rules which together make up
the system of parliamentary government. It is always the
responsible act of the Cabinet, which must find its support

in the approval of the majority of the House of Commons.
The prerogative of dissolution may, it is true, be exercised
on the responsibility of an incoming Minister even if he
has not the support of the old parliament ;
but he must
rely on obtaining the approval majority in the new
of the
parliament. Instances of dissolution upon the advice of a

minister supported only by a minority in the House of
Commons are furnished by the celebrated parliamentary
crisis 1784 which was utilised by Pitt, and again by
of
the proceedings of 1834 when the Peel- Wellington Cabinet,
which was in the minority, made a fruitless appeal to
the country. In former days there was much dispute as
to whether this procedure was constitutional, i.e., in
accordance with the spirit of the system of ideas worked
out for parliamentary government during the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries but the prevailing view has long
;
been that the question should be answered in the affirma-

tive, and there appear to be good grounds for such a
decision. 1
"
1
See Dicey, Law of the Constitution," 6th edn., pp. 376-382 ; Bagehot r
"The English Constitution" (1891), pp. 240 sqq.
CHAPTER III
MAKING AND KEEPING A HOUSE AND THE ARRANGEMENT

OF THE SITTINGS 1
A NECESSARY
for the
condition
opening of any particular sitting, is the pre-
sence of the number of members prescribed by parliamen-
for a meeting of the House,
tary law as a quorum. This number is forty, including

the Speaker or Chairman as the case may be. 2 At the
beginning of a sitting it is the Speaker's duty to con-
sider whether there is a quorum. If there are not enough
members present, he may send the Serjeant-at-arms to the

committee rooms to request the attendance of members in
the House. 3 The Speaker stands to count the members,
and if there are not enough in attendance sits down in the
4
Clerk's chair to wait until forty members are present. If
four o'clock comes without the quorum being reached he

adjourns the House to the next day appointed for a sitting.
Up to four o'clock the want of a quorum does not cause

an adjournment ;
at most it causes a pause in the proceed-
ings till four o'clock. The same rules apply in committee
as in the House
Chairman takes the place of the
;
the
Speaker if there are not forty members present the com-
;
mittee comes to an end. But in this case the adjournment

of the House is pronounced by the Speaker, who is brought
in for the purpose and counts the House again. A message
"
1
For what follows see Manual of Procedure," pp. 29-45 ; May,
"Parliamentary Practice," pp. 211-232; Standing Orders i, 2, 3.
2
In the House of Lords three lords form a quorum.
*
The appearance of the Serjeant with the mace ipso facto puts an end
to a meeting of a committee. In 1879 the Speaker explained, in reply to
complaints that had been made on the subject, that the custom was one
of long standing he read an extract from a manuscript book prepared
;
in 1805 on the authority of Speaker Abbot, in which this usage was laid
down. See Jennings, "Anecdotal History of Parliament," p. 599.
4
The doors are not closed every member who enters during the
:
enumeration is counted (Hatsell, "Precedents," 3rd edn., vol. ii., p. 168, n. ;
4th edn., p. 177, n.).

QUORUM AND ARRANGEMENT OF SITTINGS 69
from the Crown "makes a House," i.e., for the purpose

of such a message the House is considered to
receiving
be validly assembled even if less than forty members are
present in such a case business may be continued without
:
a quorum message has been received until the

after the
attention of the Speaker is called to the fact. 1
Next for the sittings themselves.
The House of Commons may hold a sitting upon any
day of the week no statutory provision against the
;
there is
transaction of business even upon Sunday. Of course the

holding of a Sunday sitting is a matter of extreme rarity ;
there are a few such exceptional meetings recorded in each
century, always under circumstances which account for their
occurrence. For more than a hundred years Saturday also
has ceased to be a regular working day, and accordingly the
standing orders of the House expressly provide that no sitting
shall be held on Saturday unless specially ordered by the
House. 2 There remain, therefore, the days from Monday
to Friday as working days. The distribution of business
on these days is as follows : On four days the House has
double namely, on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays,
sittings,
and Thursdays, the afternoon sitting beginning at 2 p.m.
and the evening sitting at 9 p.m. 3 At i a.m. the rules put
an end to all business, the Speaker adjourning the House
tillthe next sitting day without putting any question. On a

Friday there is only one sitting, beginning at noon (Standing
Order i, s. i ;
and Standing Order 2).
1
Hatsell, loc. cit., vol. ii., 3rd edn., p. 168 ; 4th edn., p. 176 ; May,
"Parliamentary Practice," p. 232.
1
The tradition of Parliament is that the custom of treating Saturday
as a holiday arose from the desire of the House to accommodate Sir Robert
Walpole. The great Premier wished to have his week-end free, so as to
be able to indulge his passion for hunting without interruption. See May,
"Parliamentary Practice," p. 212. In the sessions of 1902 and 1903 there
were no Saturday sittings, in 1901 there were two, in the sessions 1897 to
1900 one each, in 1895 and 1896 two each. For a complete table showing
the number of Saturday sittings from 1888 to 1905 see infra, Part viii.,
chap. ii.
1
Since 1906 there have no longer been divided sittings, and the hours
of beginning and ending have been altered. In the Supplementary
Chapter the most recent arrangements, with the consequential changes of
detail, are explained.
We will first direct our attention to the days on which
the House meets twice. At each sitting there is a fixed
"
time for what is called the interruption of business," viz.,
7.30 p.m. at the afternoon sitting and midnight at the even-

ing sitting.
1
The interruption has a great effect upon the
disposal of the business of the House. The notion is that
at the moment when it occurs all business before the House
is to come to a standstill, unless it is of the nature known as
"
exempted." But if a division is in process of being taken
at the time of interruption it is not affected and if a divi- :
sion being taken upon an amendment, not only is this

is
concluded but the remaining questions already stated from

the chair are also put after the time of interruption. 2 Fur-
ther, on the interruption of business the closure may be
moved and if this is done, or if proceedings under the
;
closure rules be then in progress, the chair is not to be

vacated till the questions consequent thereon and on any
further motion, as provided by the closure rule, have been
decided. 3 The immediate effect of the interruption of busi-
ness, as laid down by the rules, is as follows (i) If the
:
Speaker is in the chair, he declares that the debate or pro-

ceedings stand adjourned (2) if the House is in committee,
;
the chairman leaves the chair, the House resumes, and the
chairman makes his report to the House (3) if any dilatory ;
motion, such as a motion for adjournment of the House or

for adjournment of the debate, pending, it lapses without
is
question put. It is, however, an established practice to

allow formal motions, essential to the completion of the
transaction on which the House is engaged, to be brought
on and dealt with, even though opposed, notwithstanding
that the time of has passed
interruption such motions ;
would include, motion for the appointment

for instance, a
of a select committee consequent upon the business before
" "
Under the present rules there is only one
'
interruption see :
Supplementary Chapter.
*
But if a member offers to speak to such question, or rises to object
to further proceeding, the Speaker must at once proceed to adjourn the
debate.
3
See Standing Orders i, ss. 2-9. Any further question which the
closure ordered by the House directs to be put are also to be disposed
of before business is interrupted.
the House, or a motion for the first reading of a bill sent

down from the Lords. 1
The further effect is different according as we consider
the afternoon or the evening sitting. In the former case no
fresh business can be taken up by the House, the sitting is
simply at an end. But the arrival of midnight only pre-

vents the transaction of new opposed business ; subject to
the qualification above stated as to the completion of
pending transactions, nothing to which opposition is offered

from any quarter may be taken up. The House remains
sitting in order to go through the remainder of its pro-
gramme, so far as it consists of unopposed business and

can be got through before i a.m.
Any business appointed for a sitting and not disposed
of before its termination, stands over until the next sitting,
or until such other sitting as the member in charge of the

business may appoint. There is here, however, a difference
in practicebetween what is done at an afternoon sitting and
what done at an evening sitting. Business appointed for
is
the afternoon and not disposed of at the termination of the
sitting stands over automatically until the evening sitting.

At the latter the procedure is as follows after the business :
under consideration the interruption has been disposed

at
of, the Clerk reads the subsequent orders of the day. Those
" "
which are " unopposed or " exempted may be taken even
after midnight ;
in the case of other business the member
in charge names the which it is to be taken. He
sitting at
may choose this at his pleasure, and no debate can be
raised as to his choice or he may give previous written
;
notice to the Clerk.he fails to give such notice or to

If
name a day, the order becomes what is called " dropped,"

and disappears from the list of subjects for consideration
(the order book). The
matters thus undisposed of and post-
poned to later days are placed after the business already
fixed for such later sittings. It does not, however, abso-
lutely follow that they will have to be taken in this deferred
order ;
so far as the most important division of the business
is concerned, that, namely, brought forward by the Govern-
ment, the final decision as to the points at which the various
1 "
May, Parliamentary Practice," p. 215.
matters are to be placed in the programme of the day for
which they are appointed lies entirely in the hands of the
1
Ministry.
The total duration of the sittings is, as already mentioned,
precisely fixed by the rules. For an afternoon sitting, inter-

ruption of business and close of sitting are synonymous
terms. The evening sitting, as has also been mentioned,
may be prolonged till i a.m. Debate
may take place upon
"
unopposed business," but only until a vote is demanded ;
this converts the subject into "opposed business," and pre-
vents its further consideration. A Friday sitting, which, as
will be shown subsequently, has to deal with a much smaller
amount of work, may not last beyond 6 p.m. Whether the
orders of the day have been gone through at this hour or
not, the Speaker leaves the chair without putting any ques-
tion to the House. On this day the prescribed hour for
interruption of business 5.30 ; the rules applicable to the
is
midnight interruption on other days and their effect on

business are applied to Friday's work also. 2
The provisions just described are those which govern the
normal course of proceedings ; they are subject to several
exceptions. The sitting of the House may, in the first place,
be extended beyond the closing time fixed by the rules, and
in the second place it may be brought to an end before the
appointed time by a motion for adjournment.
The first contingency is identical with what is called the
3
suspension of the 12 o'clock rule. The notion of "exempted
"
business here makes its appearance. The extension of a
sitting may take place under two sets of circumstances (i) :
A motion may be made by a minister of the Crown at the

commencement of public business, to be decided without
amendment or debate, to the following effect " That the :
proceedings on any specified business, if under discussion at

12 this night, be not interrupted under the standing order
' " " That
sittings of the House,' or to the following effect :
the proceedings on any specified business, if under discus-

sion at the interruption of business at this afternoon's sitting,
1
See infra in the chapter upon the daily programme.
*
See Manual, pp. 29-35 Standing Order i.
;
3
Now ii o'clock: see Supplementary Chapter.
73
be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the

1
interruption of business at this evening's sitting." (2) Bills
originating Committee of Ways and Means, and pro-

in
ceedings taken in pursuance of any act of parliament or
standing order are not subject to interruption. In either of

these cases the discussion continues until the whole of the
" "
exempted business is disposed of ; then the unopposed
business is taken, and when that is all gone through, the

House adjourns without question put.
The abridgment of a sitting by a motion for adjourn-
ment will be found discussed later, where what is necessary
2
will be stated. Though recent reforms, as above explained,
have placed some limitation upon the freedom of the House
in the matter of adjournment, the right of interposition of
individual members to shorten a sitting has not theoretically
been taken away. It is quite otherwise, as the foregoing has
shown, with their power of prolonging the sittings the old ;
state of affairs has been entirely changed in this respect a :
directly opposite principle has been introduced. In earlier
days not only had the House a free hand as to the duration
of its sittings ; the only regular method of bringing a sitting
to an end was the making of an order on a motion for
adjournment proposed by some member this is no longer
:
the case. In place of the continuous power of the House

over the disposal of its time, the automatic regulation of
sittings above described has been adopted, and all initiative
in relaxing the strictness of the rules has been entrusted to
the Government, i.e., to the party majority in power. Even
among these, it is not every member who has power to

propose a motion for lengthening a sitting it is bound to ;
be a minister of the Crown. We have here one more of

the many indications of the entire change which has taken
place in the relations between the Government and the House

during the course of the nineteenth century.
There is yet another way in which a sitting of the House
'
Such a motion can only have reference to a single sitting. A motion
to treat all Government proposals as exempted business would be debate-
able. The Army (Annual) Bill is by custom treated as "exempt." Sec
Manual, p. 32, and Standing Order i.
2
See Part vii. on the forms of parliamentary work.
II F
may be brought premature conclusion namely, by an

to a
adjournment of the House by

the Speaker in fulfilment of
his duty. There are two cases in which he may be called
upon to adjourn the House the first belongs to the historic
:
procedure of the House the lack of an adequate number of

members in attendance ;
the second is one in which the
most recent parliamentary law has given the Speaker power
to adjourn a sitting on his own authority.
As to the former, I may refer to the account already given
as to the necessity of a quorum at the opening of a sitting.
When once it has begun the control over the competence of
the House is transferred from the Speaker to the House itself.
If a member demands
a count, the Speaker (or Chairman)
directs strangers to withdraw, the two-minute sand-glass is
turned, and members are summoned as for a division, the

outer doors of the House being kept open, even after
the two minutes are over. At the expiration of the two
minutes the Speaker (or Chairman) counts the members
present. If there are not forty in attendance the House is
adjourned without question put. The Speaker therefore

declares the adjournment of the House, not on his own
initiative, but on that of a member. In case there is not a
quorum any member can bring about the end of the sitting.
The Speaker merely as the executive officer of the
acts
House, carrying out its rules. The old principle, that the
House and not the Speaker is master of the duration of
the sitting, is clearly expressed it is the ancient and still
:
subsisting theory that the Speaker has no right to close a

sitting at his own discretion.
"
In the matter of " counting out the House, a new and
important departure has quite recently been made. By a

resolution of the ist ofMay 1902, the right of any member
atany time to call attention to the absence of a quorum,
and thus to have the House counted and the sitting termi-
nated, has been restricted, so far as the evening sittings are
1
concerned, to the hours after 10 p.m. If the figures in a
1 " "
Standing Order Counting out as a tactical device is, by reason
25.
of the smallness of the quorum, much less available in the House of
Commons than in other parliaments. It is extremely rare that a quorum
is not present at the beginning of a sitting. This was the case on the
division taken on any business at an evening sitting before

ten o'clock show that forty members not present, the
are
business under consideration is to stand over to the next
sitting of the House, and the next business is to be taken.

This provision has never, as yet, been put into operation,
and can only be understood in connection with the whole
of precautions against obstruction ; it cannot but be
the
regarded as a fundamental breach with the historic procedure

of Parliament.
About the time when the last-mentioned rule was adopted
a second innovation was sanctioned, which traversed the
ancient principle, just stated, that a sitting can only be
closed or suspended by a direct or indirect declaration of
the will of the House. The order runs " In the case of :
grave disorder arising in the House, the Speaker may, if he

thinks it necessary to do so, adjourn the House without
question put, or suspend any sitting for a time to be named
1
by him." accounted for by certain
This provision is to be
parliamentary events of the preceding years, but it stands in

such glaring opposition to the traditions of the House of
Commons that itcan only be looked upon as a specially
effective reserve weapon for the maintenance of order. It
has not, up to the present time, been put into actual
operation.
HISTORICAL NOTES
I THB QUORUM
The that the presence of forty members is required to make a
rule
House, like so much in the British constitution, appears to have arisen
by chance, and is one of the many procedure regulations which owe
their origin to the Long Parliament. On the 5th of January 1640-1, so
the journals of the House record, it was ordered "That Mr. Speaker is
"
not to go to his chair till there be at least forty members in the House
(House of Commons ii., p. 63). From that time the rule
Journals, vol.
has been kept intact, and has never been discussed again. The motive
it
of the order was the desire of the Puritan majority to protect them-
igth of May, 1876, for the first time in fourteen years. The number of
" "
counts out has steadily diminished. As statistics show, there
successful
were in the sessions 1890-1903 for the most part not more than three to
six there were ten in the years 1891 and 1897, in 1903 eight, most of them
;
on private members' days.

Under the most recent rules (1906) the time during which counting out
is forbidden is the hour from 8.15 to 9.15 p.m. See Supplementary Chapter.
1
Standing Order 21 (i7th February 1902).

F 2
selves against a surprise vote during the hours of slack attendance in
the early part of the sitting. It is remarkable that it was eighty-nine
years before the idea of using the challenge of the presence of a quorum
as a technical device of parliamentary tactics took shape. The first
" "
instance of a count out recorded in the journals occurred on the 26th
of April 1729. Hatsell's account of the rules as to the competency
of the House is exactly applicable to the present day in particular he ;
points out that the rule has been extended by custom to a committee of
1
the whole House.
II THE TIME OF THE SITTINGS
The hours of work in the House of Commons have, in the course of

centuries, undergone remarkable variations. Hooker (about 1560) reports
that the House met every day, and that its regular hours were from
8 a.m. to ii a.m.; the afternoon was devoted to committees. 2 In 1571 the
beginning of the sittings was fixed at 7 a.m. (House of Commons Journals,
vol. i., p. 84 see also ibid., pp. 495, 808, 909).
;
On the 28th of March
1604 the journal records a sitting which began at 6 a.m. On the i3th of
April 1641 the House adjourned to 7 o'clock of the following morning.
Noon was strictly retained as the time for closing later hours were ;
sacred to committees. In the second half of the seventeenth century

10 o'clock was the regular time for beginning the sittings.* James I
described the deliberations on the great Protestation of 1621 as irregular
because of their having taken place by candle light. An order of the
3ist of January 1645-6 directs that no new motion be brought in after
12 o'clock at noon. There are many testimonies in the seventeenth
century records to the dislike of debates carried on with artificial
light. In the Long Parliament repeatedly found expression in orders

it
of the House. But as time went on, the competition of the courts
of law, which also met in the morning, rendered the postponement
of the hour of meeting more and more urgent. It is often recorded
that the Speaker sent the Serjeant to the various courts to call the
numerous legal members of the House to their parliamentary duties. The
gradual pushing on of the time of meeting, moreover, ran parallel to
an alterationin the time of the midday meal from 12 to 2 o'clock. 4
After the Restoration the time of meeting got later and later it was ;
customary, however, the beginning of the eighteenth century, to

till
adjourn the House till 9 or at latest 10 o'clock in the morning. There

are numerous orders giving special permission to introduce bills after
2, 3, or 4 o'clock p.m., these hours being regarded as the closing time.
"
Clarendon, Charles IPs famous minister, can still report The House :
"
See Parry, p. 345
1
Townsend, History of the House of Commons,"
;
"
vol. ii., p. 364 Franqueville, op. cit., vol. iii., p. 68
; Palgrave, House ;
"
of Commons," pp. 66, 67 ; Hatsell, Precedents," vol. ii., 3rd edn.,
pp. 165-170 4th edn., pp. 173-179.
;
*
Mountmorres, vol. i., pp. 130, 131.
3
See "Report on the Office of the Speaker" (1853), p. xi, and also
the passages referred to in the general index to the Journals, vol. i.,
PP- 535. 536.
4
See the quotation from the "Tatler," given by Townsend, loc cit.,
vol. ii., which the departure from the good customs of the fathers
p. 386, in
as to early meals and hours of work is deplored in moving terms.
met always at eight of the clock, and rose at twelve, which were the
old parliament hours." But even in those days instances of longer
1
sittings are not wanting. In 1708 a sitting, which began in the morn-
ing, lasted till 2.30 a.m. of the next day on the 22nd of December 1741
;
the House met at 9 a.m. and half-past four on the following

sat till
2
morning. Bishop Burnet, at the end of the seventeenth century, lamented
that Parliament seldom met before 12 and was disposed to rise after
two or three hours' sitting. Speaker Onslow remarked in 1759 that
the beginning of the sittings had been shamefully postponed of late,
even to two o'clock, in spite of all his efforts to prevent it, and
referred to the disappointment felt by the Prince of Wales (afterwards
George III) at the decay of good old customs it was the fault, the
;
Speaker said, of ministers. The order of the House on the 6th of
February 1717-8 is instructive, namely, that no special motion should

be required "that candles be brought in," but that it should be the
"
duty of the Serjeant, when daylight be shut in," to attend to a
supply of candles evening sittings had become the rule.
; During the
course of George Ill's reign the working period of the House extended
still further into the night. From the beginning of the nineteenth
century the hours at which the House really set to work and closed its
labours grew still later, to such an extent that Townsend in 1844 could
describe the practice of adjourning at midnight, which came in with
the Reform Act of 1832, as being a real release. A complete reversal
of affairs had taken place the House now began its sittings at
;
4 o'clock p.m., the time when everything had usually been over in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The changes effected since 1832
in the hours of sitting have been already described. Modern reforms
have once more placed the beginning at an earlier hour (now 2 o'clock). 1
The introduction of morning sittings (formerly on Wednesdays, now on
Fridays), starting at 12 o'clock, dates back to the 26th of January 1846,
(a standing order from the 25th of June 1852).
The duration of the session has since 1688 been subject to a like law
of postponement. Until the accession of the House of Hanover Parlia-
ment used to assemble in October or November, and prorogation took place
as early as April. Under George III the sittings of Parliament generally
lasted till the end of spring soon after they began to extend into summer,
;
and since the early part of the nineteenth century Parliament has seldom
been prorogued till the middle of August, or even later. This is partly
accounted for by the fact that it has been customary to call Parliament
together later, at all events not earlier than the end of January.
"
History of the Rebellion," book ii., s. 67 (Macray's edition, vol. i.,
1
p. 174) quoted by Townsend, vol. ii., p. 383.

* "
House of Commons Journals, vol. xxiv., p. 37. See also Report on
the Office of the Speaker" (1853), p. xi. ; May, "Parliamentary Practice,"
p. 183.
*
In 1906 this was again changed to 2.45 p.m. See Supplementary
Chapter.
PART IV
The Constitutional Position of the House of
Commons as affecting its Procedure
CHAPTER I
THE RELATION OF THE TWO HOUSES AND ITS EFFECT

ON PROCEDURE 1
relation of the House of Commons to the Upper

THEHouse needs a two-fold discussion, first from the
purely legal point of view and secondly from the political.
To discuss at full length the great and important problem of
English public law thus indicated is, of course, no part of
the task which we have here undertaken ; the scope of the
following remarks is governed exclusively by the need of

giving an exhaustive account of the procedure of the House
of Commons.
From the purely legal point of view the relation of
the two Houses may be described in one sentence. Inas-
much as Lords and Commons in combination with the
Crown form the " King in Parliament," the legislative Sove-
reign, agreement between the decisions of the two Houses
is required for the expression of the will of the state in all
parliamentary action. This agreement must, in the first
place, be perfect ;
and in the second place it can only
become operative in the form of an act of parliament.
Identical resolutions of the two Houses may certainly have
important political results and may indirectly achieve legal
results. They may further have a constructive effect in
the limited sphere of the autonomy of each House, as for
instance when they are directed to the transaction of common
"
1
May, Parliamentary Practice," pp. 436-443 ; Manual (1896 edition)
s.
ss. 394-412, (1904 edition) 250.
8o PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
business, or when co-operation of the two Houses in the

carrying on of parliamentary business has to be arranged, for
instance, by a joint committee. But to the outer world an
agreement between the two Houses has no legislative effect
except when it adheres strictly to the form of a bill, i.e., an
inchoate act of parliament. It is to this form alone that
we have to apply the above stated principle governing the

relations of the two Houses in their legislative work, namely,
that of necessity for complete agreement between the
the
two expressions of will. This agreement must be taken in
the strictest sense of the word : we shall have occasion in
our account of the legislative process to describe how
identity of decisions brought about, or the failure to reach
is
it established. In the same context another set of cognate

questions will present itself for discussion how the pro-
duction of an act of parliament is legally divided between
the two Houses, to what extent they have an equal share
of influence upon its contents. It should, however, be at
once stated that as regards all acts connected with the grant
of supply or the financial burdens of the nation, even the
theoretical share of the House of Lords in the formation of
the state will has long been reduced almost to a nullity. 1
The rules which govern the communications between
the two Houses have, in the House of Commons, sprung
wholly from usage, and are based, therefore, upon the
internal growth of law which the regulation of their mutual
business has produced in both Houses.
relations All the
provisions which
apply to the course of parliamentary
business are rules either of the Commons or of the Lords.
1
Apeculiar, but quite exceptional, legal relation between the Houses
in the event of a conflict between the Commons and the ordinary courts
of law, results from the fact that the House of Lords acts as the final
Court of Appeal. Such a conflict is only conceivable in the event of the
House of Commons its punitive powers to guard against a breach of
using
privilege. The leading
case on this subject is Ashby v. White (1704),
i Smith's Leading Cases, 240, which was concerned with the right to
exercise the franchise see also Paty v. The Queen (1705), 2 Lord Raymond,
;
1 105, and the Report of the select committee on the publication of printed
papers (8th of May 1837, No. 286). Such a constitutional conflict is now
impossible, owing to the changes in the final Court of Appeal, and the
exclusion of the non-judicial peers from the House of Lords when acting
as such Court (1875).
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES 81
There no law of Parliament as a whole upon the order of

is
business because there is no independent law-giving body

superior to both Houses. Each House is, in theory, there-
fore, the sole judge of its own action in the interpretation
and application the joint rules which have been evolved
of
through centuries of mutual dealing. 1 Practically speaking,

any change in existing customary forms of inter-com-
munication has always been effected by parallel provisions
in the two Houses in pursuance of a previous arrangement
made between them.
The forms of communication, as custom and, to a certain
extent in recent years, independent regulation in both Houses
have developed them, include in the first place the formal
handing over of bills which have been passed in one House
to the other for the purpose of bringing an act of parlia-
ment into existence. The forms and formulas which are
used in this process, and which have remained unchanged
for centuries, will be more fitly described when we come to
Part x. There are, in the second place, certain forms
of communication for other purposes, created by usage in
ancient days and still existing some of them are mere
;
modes of sending messages others have for their object the

;
1
The view stated above appears to me an irresistible inference from
the principle laid down by Coke and Blackstone, that "whatever matter
arises concerning either House
Parliament, ought to be examined,
of
discussed and adjudged in that House
to which it relates, and not else-
where." It follows that questions of mutual intercourse affecting both
Houses must, theoretically speaking, be solved independently by each.
The view of May (" Parliamentary Practice," p. 62) as to the legal nature
of the privileges of the two Houses is only in apparent contradiction
to these propositions. According to May, each House exercises its
privileges independently of the other, but these are not enjoyed by any
separate right peculiar to each, but solely by virtue of a common source
of law, "the law and custom of Parliament. The contradiction is only
apparent, for if the expression, Law and Custom of Parliament, is taken
in the sense of the originator of the phrase, Sir Edward Coke, it only
comprises such customary law as covers the various rules of privilege.
But these have arisen not only from the usage of the two Houses, but
also from the usage of the " King in Parliament," from the legal attitude
of the two Houses towards the Crown and the acceptance of this attitude
by the Crown. Here the High Court of Parliament is conceived as a
whole and as the supreme forum, the usage of which is the unique source
of law for all the special rights, comprised under the ideas of privilege
and prerogative, which belong to the separate members of the Court.
production by one House of a direct and material effect

upon the determination of the other, either by inducing it
to concur in some resolution or by attempting to remove
difficulties the course of the legislative process.
in These
forms are Message, Conference and Joint Committee. The
last-named will be discussed in Part vi., and it will here be
enough to include it in our enumeration.
Message is the commonest form of communi-
(a) Message.
cation between the two Houses it is used for the
purpose :
of requesting the attendance of witnesses, for communicating
parliamentary papers, for the interchange of reports, and for

expressing a desire for or acceptance of one of the other
two modes of co-operation. According to the present rules,
as laid down by identical resolutions in 1855, the Clerks of
either House are authorised to be bearers of messages to the
other, and the reception of such messages is not, of neces-
1
sity, tointerrupt the business then proceeding. Messages are
only, of course, transmitted by written communications.
(6) Conference. The means of bringing about direct
intercourse between the two Houses is a conference. It
isasked for by a message, which should always explain the

purpose for which the conference is desired. There are,
as may easily be understood, no definite rules as to the
admissibility of the purpose for which a conference may

be proposed f but it is a matter of principle that no subject
which one House formally discussing should be suggested
is
as matter of conference by the other. 3

For the purpose of a conference each House nominates,
as representatives, certain of its members, who are called
managers. By ancient rule it is settled that the number of
1
Resolutions of the 24th of May 1855 in the Manual (1896 edition),
"
ss. 390, 391 ; May, Parliamentary Practice," p. 437.
2
May (" Parliamentary Practice," p. 437) gives as examples of subjects
fitting for a conference: (i) To communicate resolutions or addresses to
which the concurrence of the other House is desired ; (2) Concerning the
privileges of Parliament ;
the course of proceeding in
(3) In relation to
Parliament (4) To require or communicate statements of facts on which
;
bills have been passed by the other House (5) To offer reasons for ;
disagreeing to or insisting on amendments made by one House

to bills
passed by the other.

3
See resolution of the I3th of March 1575, Manual (1896 edition), s. 398.
Hatsell, vol. iv., p. 3.
delegates from the Commons always double that from the

is
Lords. 1 In choosing managers special care is taken to

appoint members who are well acquainted with the matter
to be discussed. The House of Lords has the right to fix
both the time and the place of a conference. During its

continuance the deliberations of both Houses are suspended.
As regards the procedure at a conference a distinction has
to be drawn between two kinds, formal and free conferences.*
At a formal conference, after the managers have met, the
deputies of each House give to those of the other a written
statement of the reasons for the transactions giving rise to
the conference and then return, each to their own House,
and report. There is no discussion, nor is any resolution
come A
conference, on the other hand, permits
to. free
unrestricted discussion for the purpose of bringing about an
agreement between the determinations of the two Houses.

As a only two formal conferences can be held upon
rule,
any subject but a free conference can always be held after

;
the failure of two formal ones. On one very important

occasion, in 1836, upon the Municipal Corporations Bill, a
departure from old usage was made, and no fewer than four
conferences took place.
Already in the eighteenth century conferences had sunk
almost into disuse. No instance of a free conference is to-
be found between 1740 and 1836. Formal conferences, the
chief object of which is the removal of obstacles in the
way of passing bills, were practically done away with by the

3
resolutions of the i2th and i5th of May i85i. Messages have
taken their place. The institution of conferences has not
been technically abolished, but, as just explained, it has fallen
into disuse ; since 1851 message has also been substituted
for conference as the means for arranging joint addresses
to the Crown from the two Houses.
1
There is a note in the journals to this effect upon the 26th of March
1604. House of Commons Journals, vol. i., p. 154.
*
As to the ancient at which the
ceremonial at these conferences,
Commons had bareheaded, see the Orders of i6th of January
to stand
1702, Manual (1896 edition), p. 149, and Hat sell, vol. iv., 3rd edition,
pp. 23 sqq., 4th edition, pp. 26 sqq.
"
1
Manual (1896 edition), p. 147 ; May, Parliamentary Practice," p. 438.
S4 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
The reason why they have fallen into abeyance really
lies in the complete alteration in the political relations
between the two Houses of Parliament. can only We
deal with this subject in outline, for a complete historical
account of the fluctuations in the political balance of power
between Lords and Commons, even if confined to modern
limes, would involve the one of the chief
treatment of
heads of English constitutional law, and would lead us far
beyond our limits. The following remarks must suffice.
The political relations between Lords and Commons have
been profoundly affected by two circumstances in the first
place by the development of the system of party government,
and in the next by the democratisation of the House of
Commons and of public life generally which began in 1832.
The rule of the parliamentary oligarchy meant politically to
the House of Lords a prolongation and confirmation of
its real power
;
its members were practically compensated
thereby for the great limitation upon their rights, especially

in respect of financial legislation, which they had suffered in
the repeated conflicts between the two Houses in Charles II's
parliaments. Paradoxical as it may appear, it cannot be
doubted that the great Whig families in the House of Lords,
the chief supporters of the Revolution and of the new
dynasty, preferred to exercise their political power in the
House of Commons Upper House. Their
rather than in the
best weapon was narrow and corrupt franchise under
the
which the House of Commons was elected. The socially
homogeneous oligarchy, which governed the country un-
checked from the accession of the Hanoverian dynasty
till at least Pitt's victory over the Coalition, found far
more support for its political and legislative power in the
Commons than in the Lords. It will, therefore, readily
be seen that in this period there was no practical need and
no theoretical opportunity for a constitutional conflict
between the two Houses. There is
always in theory a
great risk when two equal constituentstogether are called
for the purpose of arriving at a joint determination, and
the danger is greatest in the highest function of the activity
of a state, legislation ; but, in point of fact, for the whole
period from the Revolution onwards, all risk was eliminated,

inasmuch as, speaking politically, there was really only one

constituent operative in the two Houses. Once more we find
that the difficulties which purely juristic inspection of a
parliamentary constitution brings to light, may disappear as

soon as we look into the social content of the legal forms
and the actual political structure to which they apply.
The Reform Act of 1832 marks a boundary between
two political worlds it was the first step
: towards making
the House of Commons once more a true representation
of the people, and it brought about a profound change
in the attitude of the two Houses to each other. The dis-
cussion of the measure itself, and no less the discussion of
the first great administrative reform which followed it, that
of the municipal corporations, led to the severest consti-
tutional conflicts inside Parliament, conflicts which ended
in the complete political defeat of the House of Lords. At
the critical moment, when
Whig Cabinet had already
the
obtained the consent of the Crown to the extreme measure
of creating a number of peers sufficient to overcome the
Tory resistance in the House of Lords, the Upper House
recognised the
danger which threatened its very existence
and retired from the field.
Thenceforward a new conception of the constitutional

position and function of the House of Lords came to be
adopted in England and a political convention was formed
;
which has been accepted by the House of Lords both

through the mouth of its leading members and by its con-
duct for the last two generations. The new theory ignores
the technically admitted equality of the House of Lords in
respect of legislation, and treats that body as no longer justi-

fied in presenting an absolute resistance to a vote of the
Commons. Since 1832, says Bagehot, "the House of Lords
has become a revising and suspending House. It can alter
bills ;
it can reject on which the House of Commons
bills
is not yet thoroughly in earnest, upon which the nation is

not yet determined." l Hence, while the veto of the Crown
has long since ceased to be effective in England, the House
of Lords can exercise a kind of suspensory veto ; to this
has its originally great constitutional power shrunk in the
"
1
Bagehot, The English Constitution," pp. 99 sqq.

86
present day. According to the living constitution of the

country, the extent to which the House of Lords can
full
carry its opposition to a great legislative measure accepted

by the Commons is to force the Government to make a
direct appeal to the country, and to ascertain by the result
of the elections whether its proposals really have a decided
majority of the nation at their back.
The last great occasion on which the House of Lords
asserted its upon the course of legislation was its
influence
rejection of the Irish Home Rule Bill of 1893. The fact

that Mr. Gladstone quietly accepted the defeat given to him
on this subject by the House of Lords, without appealing to
the electorate, was a strong testimony that he was conscious
of what was proved conclusively at the general election two
years later, namely, that the disinclination of the House of

Lords to loosen the bonds between the kingdoms of Great
Britain and Ireland was in full accord with the will of the
overwhelming majority of the nation.
Putting on one side such decisions on the great problems
of politics, the House of Lords has many opportunities of
asserting its traditional policy of social and political con-
servatism :
by means of alterations in bills sent up from
the Commons, and the resistance which such alterations
express, they can extort compromises from the ruling party
for the time being. In this connection it must not be over-
looked that the developments of the last thirty or forty years
in the peerage and

in the party divisions of the House of
Commons have brought about in the House of Lords an
entirely new situation : there are no longer in that House
two great parties nearly equal innumbers. At the present
time the House of Lords is composed almost entirely of
adherents of the Conservative-Unionist party, who are
opposed by not more than

forty or fifty Liberal peers.
Although this disparity has been caused in the first instance
by the great ferment in English affairs during the last thirty

years, the Irish question, there can be no doubt that, even
apart from the problem of Irish independence, the vast

majority of the peers form a homogeneous body on questions
of social and economic policy, which is not accessible to
party cleavage.
The consequence is that the political relations of the

House of Lords to the House of Commons during the last
two decades have been very different according as the govern-
ment has been in the hands of the Conservative-Unionist
party or in those of the Liberals and Radicals. In the first
case the House of Lords has felt itself a mere appendage to
the majority at the helm of state, and has been prepared
quietly to accept the schemes, often of a far-reaching kind,

of modern Tory democracy ; but it has blocked the way
and raised difficulties when a Liberal and Radical Cabinet
has brought forward a plan of reform. This was clearly to
be seen in the attitude of the House of Lords to the great
and administrative reforms of the last Liberal
ecclesiastical
Government (1892-1895), and no less clearly in the tolerant
behaviour which it adopted towards the Unionist Govern-
ments which followed. In the celebrated speech which was
Mr. Gladstone's last word to the House of Commons, in
1894, he painted this situation of affairs with the utmost
clearness, and emphatically warned his hearers that it was
one which could hardly fail to lead to a great constitutional
struggle in the future.

The programme has long contained as one of its
Radical
"
catchwords the " mending or ending of the House of
Lords. Whether or when the British Constitution will
approach the Radical ideal remains to be seen for the :
present one thing is certain ; within the limits of the recog-

nised functions which remain to the House of Lords, it still
continues to do important service to the nation. It lessens
the danger of reforms being unduly hurried on by a doc-

trinaire Radicalism, and at all events moderates the pace of
change, the desire for which is still triumphant in modern
England ; and thus it

helps to diminish the risks inherent
in a system of party government with a broad democratic
basis. A
democratic partisan or Radical theorist may stigma-
tise these effects as " weaknesses in the British Constitu-
"
tion ;
but a dispassionate critic looking scientifically upon
the whole matter will probably arrive at an opposite con-
clusion in a chamber based on wealth, rank and established
:
property in land, if
discharges with political tact
only it
such narrowly defined functions as above described, he will

see no inconsiderable help to the even flow of
development
1
in national Moreover, in the political principle
policy.
which the functions of the House of Lords express, they
correspond both to the present economic and social distribu-
tion of power, and to the ingrained aristocratic feeling of
the English people. The Peers recognised in good time that
in the days of progressive democratisation of constitutional
life,they could claim only a materially diminished share in

the exercise of sovereign power, and followed up their recog-
nition by a voluntary surrender :
by so doing, they have
been able to maintain their House as a living factor in
politics, so that in its narrowly limited field of action it
may yet prove itself a vigorous element in the constitution

of the land.
1
See Bentham's remarks in his "Essay on Political Tactics," chap, i.,
5-
89
CHAPTER II
THE CROWN, THE GOVERNMENT AND THE HOUSE OF

COMMONS
the moment when the High Court of Parliament

FROM
entered upon a regular exercise of its functions, the
central problem of the constitution must always have been how
to form an organic connection between the public authority
originally vested solely in the Crown, and the constitutional

power represented by the two Houses of Parliament. The
solution has had various stages of development. At first,
while the idea of the mediaeval Rex regnans was dominant

both in thought and in fact, it appeared in the shape of a
direct personal relation of the King to Parliament, symbo-
lised by his appearance at the opening. But ata very early
date the problem assumed a second shape, with immense
possibilities of development the servants of the
: Crown the
Chancellor, Treasurer, Paymaster, Comptroller of the House-

hold and before long the King's Secretary of State combined
toform a permanent organ of the royal government, to be
known as the Privy Council. The question then became
how to devise a permanent plan of co-operation between three
elements so diverse as the personal will of the monarch
(from Henry VIII's time so insistent in its demands), the
policy of the royal ministers, and the policy of Parliament,
with its chief internal factor the struggle for power on the
part of the Commons, the representatives of the nation.
We will, in the first place, consider the most ancient
historical aspect of the problem.
From the very earliest days it was accepted as a legal
principle that the Crown should have no current knowledge

of the proceedings in the House of Commons. Under
Henry IV (1407) was expressly admitted by
this principle
the Crown. 1 A and fifteenth
parliaincntnin in the fourteenth
centuries was a periodical negotiation between Crown and
1
Rot. Part., vol. iii., p. 6n.
II G
Estates, the framing of a compact between two parties, in

which secrecy of deliberation was the obvious policy of the
many-headed bargainers. Hence the presence of the King
at the deliberations of the Commons was always considered
inappropriate, while his right to appear in the House of

Lords has continued even to the present day, at all events
in theory. Indeed, only one King has ever appeared in the
House of Commons, and he but once. The event occurred
on the 4th of January 1641-2, when Charles I with an
escort made his way into the House in the hope of arresting
the five members whom he had charged with high treason
before the House of Lords. 1 But, apart from the personal
appearance of the King, it must be recognised that under
the Tudors and Stuarts, with their absolutist tendencies, the
old rule was threatened ; there was some danger that a
principle diametrically opposed to it might gain a customary
force and that the Crown might obtain a right of direct
intervention in the proceedings of the Commons. Over
and over again they protested with all their might against
the Crown's taking note of what was being done in the
House, and against the Speaker's showing to the King bills
under discussion and even the journal of the House.
Under Queen Elizabeth particularly there were numerous
cases of interference by the Crown in the proceedings of the
House,
2
but the Commons made special efforts to prevent
On the other hand, Charles II, William III and Queen Anne often
1
appeared in the House of Lords. The custom was discontinued by

George I, who did not understand English, and from that time it has been
a constitutional principle of the House of Lords also that the King does
not appear personally in the House except for the purpose of the ceremonial
opening and close of the session.
*
A
very characteristic instance of Elizabethan procedure may be taken
from the parliament of 1571. One of the members, Strickland, was sum-
moned before the Lords of the Privy Council on account of a speech he
had made, and was prohibited from taking any further part in the pro-
ceedings of the House. In the consequent debate, at times excited in tone,
the Treasurer declared that it had frequently occurred that the Crown had
taken notice of speeches in Parliament. See D'Ewes, pp. 168, 175. The
subsequent proceedings show plainly that the House refused to accept this
excuse. See also House of Commons Journals, vol. i., p. 500, where there
is a report of a heated discussion, exception having been taken to the
Speaker having shown the King the book of orders. The resolutions of
the Commons of the i7th of May 1604 and the 4th of March 1605-6
91
her successors from following her example. In 1621 one

of the members, Alford by name, declared in debate, " It
is an ancient order in both Houses of Parliament that
whilst anything is in debate in either of these Houses of
Parliament the King should not be acquainted with it till
the House had taken some course on it." 1 The question
thus raised was neither one of etiquette, nor even one of
mere political prudence on the part of the Estates it was :
one in which lay hidden the seed of the great constitutional

problem how to organise the whole machinery of govern-
ment. We must now examine rather more closely the
history of the problem thus indicated.
As soon as the House of Commons took shape as an
organic constituent of the Great Council of the King, the
need of some organ to serve as intermediary between the
historic possessor of all the power of government and legal
authority, the Crown, and the subsidy-granting Commons

made itself felt. In the primitive days of Parliament, the
Chancellor acted in this capacity ;
in the fifteenth century the
Privy Council. From the time of Queen Elizabeth onwards

we can watch the spontaneous growth of an entirely informal
mode of communication, though the privy councillor members
of the House of Commons, whereby the Crown, the body of
ministers and the representatives of the people were kept
should be referred to here. The former transaction related to the
King having asked for and obtained a bill, because it dealt with high
treason, and then having refused to return it and kept it for further
"
investigation. The House resolved, That it might not be drawn into
precedent, for any Speaker, being trusted by the House, to deny to read
a bill, which he receiveth to withdraw it out of the House
; to inform ;
the King or any other before the House be made acquainted with it."
"
The other resolution runs If a member of : this House complain of
another to a privy councillor for something done in the House, the
Committees for the Privilege to examine it." (House of Commons Journals,
vol. i., pp. 212, 277.)
1
Hatsell, vol.ii., 3rd edn., p. 332, note 4th edn., p. 352, note. See
;
also the cases quoted in the text of the i6th and |8th of June 1607,
on which days the Speaker forbade the reading of certain petitions,
alleging that the King had knowledge of them and had directed this
"
course. He was answered, deny the reading of the petitions
that to
would be a great wound to the gravity and liberty of the House." In
this case, too, the resistance seems to have been so serious that at the
next sitting the contested petition was read, and that, too, as it is stated,
with the concurrence of the King.
G 2
92
in constant touch. Such members of Privy Council

the
as belonged to the House of Commons were the represen-
tatives there of the Government. 1 They formed the nucleus
of the party of courtiers, and, in spite of all protests, kept the
Crown fully informed of the position of affairs. In the reigns
of James I and Charles I the growing distrust of the King
strengthened the opposition of the House as a whole to the
part of mediators played by the privy councillors among its
members. 2 There was as yet no thought of any organic tie
between Parliament and Government. The House of Com-
mons still took its stand upon the platform of resistance to
King and Government, narrow indeed but protected by its

right of granting supply and its established privileges. It was
only slowly that the capacity and will of the Commons ripened
to such an extent as to impel them to any constructive and
originating intervention in politics. At the sitting of the

1 2th of November 1640 there was loud expression of dis-
approval when one of the members, who filled the office

of Comptroller of the Household, remarked that the King
had taken notice of a matter which was under discussion
and it was determined to take steps to prevent information
reaching him. Again, on the i4th of December 1641, the King
in a speech to both Houses took notice of a bill then before
Parliament, whereupon both Houses immediately passed reso-

lutions that the fundamental privileges of Parliament had been
broken a conference was held between the Lords and Com-
:
mons, and it was agreed to present to the King a declaration,

3
petition and remonstrance. These complaints by Parlia-
1
A characteristic indication of
this already recognised attitude of the
Government contained in an entry in D'Ewes's Journals,
to the House is
p. 176. There was a sharp privilege debate on the 2oth of April 1571
with reference to the outspoken Strickland (vide supra). After giving a
"
report of one of the speeches the account continues During which speech
:
the council whispered together, and thereupon the Speaker moved that the
House should make stay of any further consultation thereupon." The
passage is instructive also as to the position of the Speaker in the Elizabethan
House of Commons. There is a similar incident reported on p. 679.
See the above quoted resolution of March 1605-6, also Elsynge's remark
1
upon Cardinal Wolsey's innovation in bringing in privy councillors as

members, supra, vol. i., p. 40. See also supra, vol. i., p. 50, and the case
from the year 1614 in the note.
3
Hatsell, vol. ii., 3rd edn., pp. 332, 333 4th edn., pp. 352, 353
; House
:
of Commons Journals, vol. ii., pp. 27, 342. Further, see Anson, vol. ii., p. 99.
CROWN, GOVERNMENT AND COMMONS 93
ment show how the solution of the problem of

difficult
parliamentary monarchy was found in its native home.

The next step taken went to the utmost extreme in the
other direction. The Long Parliament assumed full control
of government its action, from the point of view with
:
which we are at present concerned, was tantamount to a total

extinction of independence in the executive. From 1641
all
to 1649 England was governed by committees of the House

of Commons, much as, a hundred and fifty years later,
France was governed by committees of the Convention.
Cromwell's government, which followed, was a temporary
military absolutism, and on the Restoration the problem
of organising the share of Parliament in the sovereignty
still remained unsolved. Then came attempts at reforming
the Privy Council, the trial of such experiments as the
"
Cabal," that is to say, endeavours to concentrate the
power of government in the hands of a select number of
members of the Privy Council, meeting regularly for secret
deliberation. We
cannot stop to trace the tentative steps by
"
which the innovation of the " Cabal or " Cabinet Govern-
ment," so much feared and hated by its contemporaries, led,
under William III and Anne, to the adoption of the prin-
ciple and form of Cabinet and party parliamentary govern-
ment, and how these were afterwards, between the accession
of George I and that of Queen Victoria, worked out to their
1
completed shape. It is, however, important for us to observe
how hard the principle has had to fight for acceptance in

the House of Commons.
The old historic resistance of the Commons to any kind
of legal locus standi on the part of the King's ministers in
the House found expression in a remarkable series of bills
1
The most recent account
of the development in the eighteenth
century is to be Miss Blauvelt's book, " The development of

found in
Cabinet government in England," 1902. A lucid summary of the essential
features of Cabinet government, based upon its history and with reference
to its position at the end of the nineteenth century, is given by Anson,
vol. ii., pp. 106-140. The latest changes in the political nature of the
Cabinet have been described for the first time, in an admirable manner,
"
by Sidney Low in his book, The Governance of England," chaps, ii.-v.
See further Hearn, "The Government of England," pp. 197-229; Bagehot,
"The English Constitution," pp. 1-32; Gladstone, "Gleanings," vol. i.,
pp. 238-244.
and acts of parliament, covering the period from 1675
till the consolidation of cabinet government, that is to say,
till about the end of the reign of George III. These bills
and acts had for their object the prohibition of the holding
by a member of the House of Commons of any office under

the Crown they were attempts to return to the old consti-
;
tutional conception of the complete severance between the

House of Commons and the Government. 1 In so far as
they aimed at excluding ministers from the House of Com-
mons they have, of course, been completely unsuccessful ;
an current of development ran in the opposite

irresistible
direction ; but they have had permanent effects upon the
legal relations of ministers to the House, which must be

considered later.
The of the rise of parliamentary ministry in

history
England accounts for the further remarkable facts that to
the present day the fundamental principle of its existence,
"
the necessity that each of " His Majesty's Servants should
be a member of one of the Houses of Parliament, has
never been explicitly laid down, and that the "Cabinet" and
" Prime Minister " are
not juristic ideas incorporated in any
positive statement of English constitutional law. In all these
cases we are dealing with what Freeman has called the
" Conventions of
Parliament," the fundamental principles
and arrangements which Parliament, after attaining a posi-
tion of political sovereignty, has worked out in the course
first of these bills was brought in.

1
In 1675 the In 1680 the House
"
resolved That no member of this House shall accept of any office or
place of profit from the Crown without the leave of this House." This
resolution expired with the end of the parliament in which it was passed.
The efforts at exclusion reached their climax in the remarkable pro-
vision of the Act of Settlement (1701): "That no person who has an
office or place of profit under the Crown, or receives a pension from the
Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of

Commons."
Even this somewhat guarded provision never took effect, for political
necessities were too strong, the final form of the organisation of parlia-
mentary government being just then in the throes of birth. The attempts,
too, to diminish the influence of the Crown upon the House of Commons
by the exclusion of the holders of certain defined offices had little
success. Under George III the mischief of royal placemen and pensioners
rose to an intolerable height; Burke's bill of 1782 did away with the
worst scandals. See Porritt, loc. cit., vol. i., pp. 204-222.
CROWN, GOVERNMENT AND COAfMONS 95
of two and maintained by the unaided force of

centuries,
its practice. By custom alone, without any legislative regula-
tion, they have been kept intact, and have become the very
essence of the living constitutional law of England. 1
The establishment of an organic connection between
Ministry and Parliament was the seal of the final victory of
representative government over the idea of absolute mon-
archy. For this reason the old complaints were hushed
during the first half of the eighteenth century the spring-
time of the system of government by the parliamentary
oligarchy; but when, with George Ill's personal govern-
ment, the principle, though not the form, of parliamentary
government was again seriously threatened, they at once
revived. Under George III, who, as is well known, strove
with might and main to be his own Prime Minister, a new
period of constant interference by the King with the pro-
ceedings of the House began his policy finally led to
:
Dunning's famous motion of censure in 1780, and gave

occasion to the act of parliament carried by Burke in
1782.
There was no longer any thought of excluding ministers :
the influence of the Crown upon the House, which was felt
to be unconstitutional,was exercised by quite different and
corrupt methods, which were in the first instance attacked
by the Place Bill of 1782 (22 Geo. Ill c. 82). There were
"
1
The fact
(adduced by Sidney Low, Governance of England," p. 29)
" "
that the word
cabinet appears in an opposition amendment to the
address in the year 1900 cannot be taken as a legal recognition of the
body the same remark applies as to the Prime Minister, Lord Beaconsfield
:
(as Low also mentions, p. 154) having been described in the Treaty of
Berlin as "Prime Minister of England." This term is certainly technically
" "
inaccurate in any case
;
Great Britain and Ireland would be necessary.
It is no doubt true that in recent years English writers have laid
" "
stronger emphasis upon the purely conventional basis of parliamentary
government than their predecessors. But we must not infer that any
corresponding change has taken place in the constitution itself. What
has really happened is that English political thinkers have come to recognise
clearly the sharp contrast between the British constitution and the written
constitutions of Europe and America. It would have surprised old fashioned
English writers on state and law had anyone expressed astonishment at

their national institutions being based on custom. Long before the era
of parliamentary government the English had "political conventions" of
the highest significance in their constitution.
at thattime numerous sinecures, Court offices, pseudo-offices
and similar "places" of every kind which the Crown dealt
out to members of the House of Commons for the purpose
of securing devoted adherents to the Ministry of the day.
Burke's bill did away with a large proportion, though not
with all, of these offices. At the same time the House
determined upon a novel extension of the old principle
which had really become obsolete under parliamentary
government : on the iyth of December 1783 it was re-
" To
solved that, report any opinion or pretended opinion
of His Majesty upon any bill or other proceeding depending
in either House of Parliament, with a view to influence the
votes of the members, is a high crime and misdemeanour,
derogatory to the honour of the Crown, a breach of the

fundamental privilege of Parliament, and subversive of the
1
constitution of this country." It is, of course, obvious
that the whole affair was and could be nothing but a
demonstration for the system of parliamentary party govern-
:
ment had long since brought about a practice of constant

communication between the Crown and the majority in the
House. Moreover, the principle, only temporarily checked
in its operation by George by which all independent
III,
action in politics was forbidden to the Crown, had long
been in course of formation. This principle was made
effective by the use of the fiction that the Crown could have
no advisers other than those supported by the confidence of
the House of Commons ; but in spite of the fictitious shape
in which it was stated, its true character as the constitu-
tional foundation of unlimited party government was no less
acknowledged than secure. The idea, then, of keeping

ministers away from the House, as being the officers of state
most subservient to the Crown, had long passed away. And
since 1783 the House of Commons has taken no step directed
towards keeping the Crown in ignorance of the proceedings
in Parliament. The whole idea is completely obsolete, indeed,
under the present system of publicity, it is absurd. Still, the
principle technically exists and has even at this day a certain
constitutional importance. assumed that the king has
It is
no knowledge of pending schemes of legislation and must

1 "
Hatsell, Precedents," vol. ii., 3rd edn. ( p. 334 ; 4th edn., p. 354.
make his official demeanour conform strictly to this theory :
" "
nothing, therefore, like the institution of previous sanction
by the Crown as it exists in the constitutional states of the
Continent can ever make appearance in England, even in
its
an attenuated form. The rule, however, of non-intervention
by the Crown in the proceedings of Parliament has always

been subject to one not unimportant exception in the case ;
of bills which affect the royal prerogative, not merely know-

ledge, but even prior assent by the Crown is required
before are
brought up
they for discussion in Parliament.
This principle has always been applied to bills for imposing
or reversing attainder, or for granting pensions or honours
from the King in Parliament ; and since the passing of the
resolution of 1713 all money bills have to be brought in by
the Crown, i.e., by the Government.
Thereis no more striking testimony to the absence from
the modern parliamentary system of the old anxiety to keep

the Crown ignorance of parliamentary doings than the
in
fact that since the time of George III a special arrange-
ment has been made to give the sovereign as speedy and
direct information as possible about the debates in the House
of Commons. became usual towards the end of the
It
eighteenth century, and still is the custom, for the leaders of

both Houses to furnish the King each evening with a report
of the day's proceedings. This arrangement was continued
under George IV and William IV, and was insisted upon by
Queen Victoria. Though earlier reports have not been pre-
served, Queen Victoria made a collection of all those that
were sent to her by the leaders of the Lords and Commons
during her long reign, and they are kept in the royal
private library. As yet these documents have been kept
strictly secret, but doubtless at some future day they will
form an important source of material for the historian of
the Victorian age, and will elucidate many a doubtful point.
Gladstone, Disraeli, Balfour and the other Prime Ministers
of the latter part of her reign were as faithful in com-
plying with thePeel, Palmerston, Russell, and
custom as
the other prominent statesmen of her youth. 1
MacDonagh, "The Book

1
See Anson, loc. cit., vol. ii., p. 136; of
Parliament," pp. 350-365.
The
practice of giving the sovereign a direct report may,
if the letter of constitutional rule alone is regarded, be con-
sidered to be a direct violation of the old principle of the
non-intervention of the Crown. Indeed, in 1879, during the
course of a debate on the subject of the use of the royal
prerogative, Mr. Leonard (now Lord) Courtney, on the
strength of a remark in Erskine May's book, characterised the
whole procedure as unconstitutional. Mr. Gladstone, who
was then leader of the Opposition, called this an absurd idea,
and the House unanimously accepted his description. No
action was taken upon Mr. Courtney's suggestion, which was
simply ignored, and the matter remains in the same position
to this day. There can be no doubt that Mr. Gladstone's
view was the correct one. In a time when every citizen
can within a few hours obtain full information of what
has taken place in the House of Commons, it would be
ridiculous to insist upon keeping up the appearance of
ignorance on the part of the Crown.
The special legal consequences which, under existing
constitutional law, flow from the combination of an office
under the Crown with a Parliament, are results of
seat in
the historic mistrust of direct Crown influence on the House.
Although, as stated before, the complete exclusion of minis-

ters from the House of Commons, as designed by the Act
of Settlement, was given up almost at once, another act of
parliament, which was passed very soon afterwards, in 1707,
laid down the lines upon which the subject has ever since
been treated. The act (6 Anne c. 7, c. 41 in the revised
statutes) provides (s. 24) first, no one shall be capable
that
of being elected who has accepted from the Crown any
new office created since the 25th of October, 1705 ; secondly,
that the holders of certain specified offices shall be incapable
of election ; thirdly, that persons who hold pensions from
the Crown during pleasure shall be disqualified. Under s. 25
it is provided that when an office under the Crown and a
seat in the House are not incompatible, the acceptance of
such an causes the seat to become vacant,
office, if of profit,
but does not prevent re-election. There have been numerous
statutes modifying this fundamental
enactment, but they
have left untouched the two main principles stated above.
There are therefore (i) political offices which disqualify

their holders from election, namely, all new offices created
since 1705 (such as those of paid Charity Commissioner
or member of the Legislative Council of India), and also
certain old offices which have by later statutes been speci-
ally made to carry disqualification (e.g., the office of Master
of the Rolls) ; (2) offices under the Crown the acceptance
of which necessitates a fresh election ;
such are, for in-
stance, the old offices of Secretary of State and Chancellor

of the Exchequer, and also new offices (such as that of the
President of the Local Government Board) which have
by statute been included in this group (3) ;
offices which
" under the
are not technically Crown," and which, there-
fore, carry with them no special disqualification (such as the
office of an Under- Secretary of State). Under this head we
may classify the cases in which a transfer from one office to
another leaves a member's qualification unaffected. 1 There
are also certain special enactments preventing more than
four principal and four Under-Secretaries of State sitting as
members of the House of Commons at the same time. 2
There is, finally, another legal consequence of this legis-
lation which for a long time has been the chief practical
effect of the principle of incompatibility between office and
membership of the House of Commons, although it was

not in the least degree contemplated. It is well known that
English parliamentary law recognises no power on the part

of a member to relinquish his seat. In the absence of any
statutory disqualification a seat can only be vacated by a
resolution of the House, a course which it has seldom been
disposed to adopt. The Queen Anne legislation here came

to the rescue, with its provisions about offices inconsistent
with membership. When the wish to retire became frequent
itwas found possible to arrive at the desired result without
any alteration in the law was needed was for the

: all that
Crown to provide a member who wanted to resign with
1
See Representation of the People Act, 1867, Schedule H. On the
whole subject, see Anson, vol. i., pp. 79 sqq., and the careful tabulated
summary of all the separate enactments, ibid., pp. 93-96. Franqueville,
loc. cit., vol. ii., pp. 531 sqq.
*
15 Geo. II c. 22, 22 Geo. Ill c. 82, 18 & 19 Viet. c. 10, 21 & 22
Viet. c. 106, 27 & 28 Viet. c. 34.
ioo PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
a nominal office the holding of which caused him to cease
from being a member. There are certain administrative offices
connected with royal properties which have long since ceased
to exist except in name, and which are used for this purpose
the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, of the manor
of Northstead, and others. Although there are several offices
of the kind, the first named is the best known and is the
one usually referred to. They are ordinarily given by the
Treasury to any applicant without inquiry they would only ;
be refused in the case of a pending election petition or

criminal proceedings. 1
The political object aimed at by the legislation to which
we have been referring is clear, but it has long ceased to
be desired. For the acceptance of an office of profit under
the Crown no longer arouses suspicion that its holder has
been subjected to improper influence and that it is necessary
for him to submit himself anew to the ordeal of election.
The chief result of the retention of the rules is to impose on
a newly formed Government the necessity for a number of
re-elections and to cause useless expenditure of time and
inconvenience. The chances to which most elections are
exposed make the result of fresh contests very doubtful in
many considerations
constituencies :of safety often influence
and at times prejudice the composition of a Government ;
suitability for office rather than likelihood of re-election
ought to
govern the choice of a man for a post in the
Government.
The anomalous relation between ministers and the House
of Commons is made all the stranger by its being controlled
by the principle of parliamentary government, as settled in
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, that a minister must
be a member of one of the two Houses. The result may
under certain conditions be to produce an awkward situation,
as w e may see from an incident in the career of Mr. Gladstone:
r
in December 1845 ne was appointed Secretary of State, thus
losing his seat from various causes he was unable to secure

;
re-election and remained Secretary of State till

July 1846 with-
out a seat in Parliament. Thirty years later, Mr. Gladstone
drew attention to this breach of constitutional conventions
Report on Vacating of Seats, gth August 1894, No. 278.

1
which was challenged at the time and declared it to be

1
very unlikely that it would be repeated. But no one has
better recognised the eminent importance of this fundamental
rule of modern parliamentary government than Mr. Gladstone
himself : "The identification of the minister with the member
"
of a House of Parliament," he says, is, as to the House of
Commons especially, an inseparable and vital part of our

system. The
association of the ministers with the Parliament,
and through the House of Commons with the people, is the
counterpart of their association as ministers with the Crown
and the prerogative. The decisions that they take are taken
under the competing pressure of a bias this way and a bias
that way, and strictly represent what is termed in mechanics
the composition of forces. Upon them, thus placed, it
devolves to provide Houses of Parliament shall

that the
loyally counsel and serve the Crown, and that the Crown
shall act strictly in accordance with its obligations to the
2
nation." Mr. Gladstone's words, however true they are,
sound a little antiquated atthe present time, like respectable
but obvious commonplaces. For the Crown, which plays
so large a part in his constitutional and political thinking
and in his political terminology, has no longer the same
considerable influence on English political life as it had
in the days of his youth. The parliamentary character of
an English Ministry at the present day can therefore no
longer be described as being that of mediator between King
and nation. The democratic development of the constitution
during the last two generations has made the electorate un-
limited ruler over the policy of the country. It has made the
Prime Minister, indicated by the result of the elections, into

an uncrowned temporary regent both towards the rest of :
the Ministry and towards the Crown a modern Prime Minister

of England occupies a position of supreme political power
and legal authority. With good reason has his position
lately been compared to that of a President of the United
States indeed it is not going too far to assert that, under
:
favourable circumstances, a British Premier of commanding
1
In recent years an analogous case occurred in reference to the holder
of a subordinate under the Crown.
Irish office
J
Gladstone, "Gleanings," vol. i., p. 225.
personality,who knows how to employ all the latent poli-

tical and administrative powers of his high office, wields an
actual and legal authority which surpasses that of the head
1
of the American Republic.
Itimpossible in this place to follow out the effects of
is
the recent inner changes in the position of the British

Ministry, however enticing and profitable the subject may be.
The most important result, so far as our immediate task is
concerned, is now well known to us. We have learned that

the complete unfolding of the system of parliamentary party
government has revolutionised the order of business in the

House of Commons. Confining our attention to the relations
between Ministry and representative assembly, the change
may be juristically stated with the utmost precision. It
consists in the abrogation of the historic, and still tech-
nically subsisting, principle of complete equality among all

members of the House in respect of procedure and the order
of business. In its place a new principle has been adopted,
and this may be summarised as follows : The Government,
under the existing parliamentary system, have, by means of a
seriesof privileges, conferred by the rules of procedure,
become the masters and leaders of the House of Commons
as aworking organisation. Fully what this to appreciate
means, we must remember that all English Governments are
party Governments, and, therefore, a survey of the position

of the parties in the House is indispensable if we wish to
attain a complete understanding of the \vorking of the
English parliamentary system.

"
1
See Sidney Low, Governance of England," chap. ix.
PART V
The Relation of Procedure to the Political and
Social Structure of the House of Commons
CHAPTER I
THE PARTIES AND THE RULES
the time
of the Revolution, that is to say for
FROM
rather more than two hundred years, the whole course
of constitutional development in England has been deter-
mined by one political fact the presence in the House of
Commons of two great parties. The phenomenon of political
parties is one of a very special kind, and has been extremely

formative over the whole range of modern public law but ;
this is hardly the place forany detailed analysis of its nature,

or for a discussion of the conditions needed for its birth and
its effective working. This can be the more easily dispensed
with in that we have, in Ostrogorski's masterly work, an
exhaustive account of the history, structure and functions
of modern English party life, based upon careful first-hand
observation and research upon the English and American
party systems. We have, moreover, already referred, with
sufficient fulness for our purpose, to the chief occur-
rences of historical importance in the history of English
parties.
1
Our present concern is simply with the order of
business and procedure of the House of Commons. Now,
in recent English parliamentary affairs, party organisation
has always been taken for granted, and the assumption of
its existence has been transferred to the systems of all par-
liamentary nations there have always been the two great

;
historical parties, and in the last quarter of the nineteenth
century a third, the irreconcilable Irish party. To what

1
See supra, vol. i., pp. 57, 67-70.
extent have this assumption and these historical facts been

reflected in procedure and practice, and what is the con-
nection between procedure and the party system ?
A full description has already been given of the way in
which the division of the Commons into two great parties
manifests itself in the outward appearance of the House, in
the arrangement of places. We must, however, remember
that this arrangement has never been recognised by any
decision of the House. So far as the rules are concerned,
there is nothing to prevent any member from taking a place
without regard to his party allegiance. Nor is there any
express recognition of
party the standing or sessional
in
orders. This has not prevented the formation of a number
of political usages and customary regulations which owe their
existence to the fact that there are such institutions as parties
and party government ; among these are the composition of
standing committees with proportionate party representation,
the practice of taking speakers in debate from the two sides
alternately, the custom of practically allowing the leader of

the House, that to say, the leader of the majority party,
is
to settle all personal questions, such as the nomination of the

Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chair-
man of the important Committee of Selection, who also
presides over the Committee on Standing Orders. It is of
course obvious that parliamentary procedure cannot techni-

cally takeany notice of the existence of parties, as all forms
and expedients known to the rules must be equally open to
every member, whatever party, majority or minority, he may
belong to. It is true, as we have learned, that the majority
has gained a certain number of privileges in the shape of
certain special rights givenby the rules to the Ministry, who
are, under the logically worked out system of parliamentary
party government, no more than an executive committee of
the majority in the House of Commons. But it must not
be forgotten that the privileges given to certain members of
the majority, who are Ministers of the Crown, are only con-
ferred upon them in that capacity, and cannot be regarded
as rights belonging technically to the party.
There are, however, many ways in which the influence
of party makes itself practically felt in the disposal of the
actual business of Parliament. On all the more important

matters which have to be brought forward by the Govern-
ment as the executive organ of the majority, it has become
customary to arrive at some understanding between the two

great parties or their leaders, which often forms a basis for
joint political action. This practice dates back to the time
when the system of cabinet government was perfected, and
when two great compact parties became a
the existence of
standing and dominant element in English politics, i.e., to

about the beginning of the nineteenth century. On certain
subjects of great national importance, such as foreign affairs,
especially when it is to the interest of the state that the
decision of Parliament should appear to be the unanimous
decision of the nation, it is a recognised convention that
the consent of the Opposition to the proposals of the Govern-
ment should be obtained by unofficial communications, or,
at all events, that a serious endeavour should be made to
obtain such consent. Another custom, belonging to the
same class of
parliamentary usages, is that of arriving, or
trying to arrive, at some kind of compact as to the speed
at which the chief measures of the session shall be taken
and as to the distribution over the session of the work that
has to be got through. Lastly, greatest im- it is of the
portance to the prospects of a bill or motion whether it is

officially looked upon as a party matter or not, and whether,
" "
therefore, it is discussed on party lines or not. The
duration of the session is
nearly always fixed in advance ;
so that in spite of all increase of stringency in the rules
dealing with obstruction, the Government is still to some

extent dependent upon the goodwill of the Opposition
for the passing even of any substantial part of their yearly
programme. Hence it is always worth while for the Cabinet

to make a strong effort to arrive at some understanding
with the Opposition as to any large project of legislation.
It is one of the ordinary incidents of parliamentary business
for an official declaration to be made by the leader of the
Opposition as to the attitude of his party towards the great

legislative proposals before the House.
The party system has a very marked effect upon one
prominent feature of parliamentary life the attendance of
II H
io6 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
members. The large number of the representatives of the
people, and the considerations of space which have been
described above, when taken together, make it almost a
physical impossibility for all members to be present at the
same time ;
as in other parliaments, there are great varia-
tions in the number who attend. 1 The House of Commons
being a politically sovereign assembly, this variation, unless
guarded against, would involve great risks to a Government
which is absolutely dependent upon support the constant
of a majority those of
present. The consequence is that
there has never been a time when complaints of the absence
of often quite a large proportion of the members have not
been heard. The means adopted
earlier years for enforc-
i-n
ing the duty of attendance, such as calls of the House

(of which more in the historical note) have long been
abandoned as futile. They have been replaced by other and
more effective inducements. In the first place, there is a
deepening of the feeling of responsibility of members to
the electorate ;
this is itself a result of the gradual but
decided increase in the dependence of representatives upon
those who have sent them to Parliament, which has followed
the extension of the suffrage. Then there is the growth
of publicity in the whole of political life caused by the
activity of the press, the holding of meetings and the
heightened participation in politics of the more numerous

classes and their organisations. Moreover, the improvement
in the means of communication between London and the
provinces, turning the somewhat trackless Great Britain of

the seventeenth century into a compact little country, has
had a powerful though, of course, purely external effect in
improving the attendance at Westminster.
In party-governed England it is, however, not so much
a constant large attendance that is important as a steady
attendance in numbers proportioned to the strength of the
parties. The expedients which have been applied
technical
to bring this about have acquired, of course, great import-
1
It is only on the occasion of great parliamentary battles and memo-
rable political crises, such, for instance, as the division on Mr. Gladstone's
second Home Rule Bill, that the number of members exceeds or even
approaches six hundred.
ance, and an elaborate organisation of party forces in the

House has been developed. The chief features are two
the "Whippers in" or "Whips," and "Pairing." Both are
intended to guard against the dangers of irregularity in
attendance which threaten both Government and Opposition
the former, of course, the more seriously. 1
The Whips are permanent honorary party officers chosen
from the members of the party itself they hold in ;
their
hands the entire external and internal organisation and
management of the party as a political parliamentary unit.
The chief Whip on the Government side is always one of
the most experienced and trusted members of the party, and
he is assisted by younger colleagues. His high standing
is testified by his regularly holding the office of Parlia-
mentary Secretary to the Treasury ; the other Whips are
appointed to Junior Lordships of the Treasury, nominal and

quite unimportant posts. The office of Parliamentary Secre-
tary to the Treasury took shape in the early part of the
eighteenth century, and its holder was, from one important
part of his duties, frequently called Patronage Secretary ; he
had in his hands the disposal of the whole Government
patronage the distribution of places, livings, open and secret
favours. In the days of rotten boroughs and of secret ser-
vice money, often amounting to millions of pounds, the
holder of this office, one of whose duties was to look after
the purchase of constituencies for the maintenance of the
majority, obtained an enormous influence over members of

Parliament. 2 Since the reforms of 1832, this part of his
work has all disappeared and there is now no longer any
1
See Franqueville, " Le Gouvernement et le Parlement Britanniques,"
vol. i., pp. 565-567, vol. iii., pp. 70, 115, 389.
2
The development of this form of parliamentary management during
the period of the oligarchy reached zenith in the days of George Ill's
its
personal government. The King's correspondence with his ministers shows

clearly how unscrupulously and persistently the business of obtaining
majorities by the purchase of boroughs and direct bribing of members
was carried on. The third party of "King's friends" thus recruited was
always able to turn the scale. One of the main sections of Burke 's famous
"
Thoughts on the Causes of the Present Discontents," is devoted to a
trenchant attack on the system. (Bohn's edition, vol. i., see especially
"
pp. 321 sqq.) Cp. Lecky, History of England in the Eighteenth Century,"
vol. iii., c. xi Green, "History of the English People," vol. iv., pp. 217,
:
218: "Letters of Junius," passim.

H 2
io8 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
secret service fund available as a constitutional arrangement
in the interests of the Government for the time being. In
modern times one large department of party management
has been taken out of the hands of the Whips and entrusted
to the great party organisations (caucuses) and party funds,
managed by salaried officials ; the highest of these, the

General Agent of the party, under the direction of the
Prime Minister and the chief Whip takes charge of the
extra-parliamentary action of the party and the conduct
of elections. The chief Whip still presides over the internal
working of the party machine in Parliament. Of course,
now that there is but
patronage little
directly exercised
by the Prime Patronage Secretary has to ply

Minister, the
his calling with very different tools from those used by his
namesake a hundred years ago. He is the Prime Minister's
most influential adviser and executive officer for all the in-
ternal parliamentary affairs of the Government party. The
chief Opposition Whip stands in the same relation to his
leader. It would be hard to give a better description of the
unique and important functions of the Whips than that of

Ostrogorski, to whom we owe the best and most thorough
book on English and American 1
He " The two
parties. says :
chiefs act in broad daylight, and are responsible to the

public the Whips
;
work in the dark and are unknown to
the mass of the public. The leaders lay down the main
line of action, and exert themselves actively on great occa-
sions. The Whips, who are initiated by the leaders into all
the secrets of the plan of action, see that it is carried out
and keep an eye on the actors so as to ensure that each
man is at his post and ready to play the part which has
been allotted to him, whether it is a minor part or even
that of a supernumerary. Being constantly in touch with
the members in the lobbies, &c., of the House, the Whip is
in a position to follow the current of opinion in the party ;
he reports thereon to the leader, nips incipient revolts in
the bud, retails the leader's views to the members of the
party, and communicates to them the plans into which the

leader thinks it expedient or necessary to initiate them. The
"
1
For what follows see Ostrogorski, Democracy and the Organisation
of Political Parties," vol. i., pp. 135-149.
authority of the Whip is of a purely moral nature it is ;
derived solely from the prestige of his position and from his
tact. He must be acquainted with each member, know his
weak and strong points, be able to talk him round, to coax
him by smiles, by exhortations, by friendly remonstrances,
by promises or other devices, such as invitations to the
entertainments of the dukes and marquises of the party,
which he gets for members and their wives. Every day he
must perform wonders of affability, of patience, and of firm-
ness in view of the object which is the dream of a Whip's
whole existence to keep the party united, compact, and in
;
Inducing members to attend regularly at

1
fighting order."
the sittings, and particularly securing their arrival and
remaining for particular times at which critical divisions are

to be expected, are the daily tasks of the Whippers in. They
are carried out by the sending of what are called " whips,"
i.e., containing a request for punctual attendance on
notes
such and such an occasion. According as this request is
singly, doubly, trebly, or quadruply underlined is it regarded
as less or more urgent. To disregard a four-line whip, in
the absence of really unavoidable obstacles, is considered
an act of gross disloyalty to the party and may have serious
consequences. As a matter of fact the Government Whips
exercise very stern discipline. 2
1
Ostrogorski, vol. i., p. 137.
2
Ostrogorski gives a vivid description of the daily work of the
Whips.
" '
If he is the Government Whip he must take care to '
make a House
and
1
keep a House,' so that Government bills or motions of the day can be

discussed. He must have a reserve of members in the lobbies or in the
smoking room to take the place of those who have left the House, so as
to stop the attempts of the other side to count it out. Still more necessary
is. it for him to have all his followers ready for the divisions. For the
enemy is treacherous, and may plan a surprise, and call a division unex-
pectedly. The Whip must act as watch-dog, and not allow members who
want to dine out to leave the House. In any event he must know where
to find them in case of need, and be able to warn them by telegram or
by special messenger. The fate of a ministry sometimes depends on the
accuracy of his information of this kind, and on his rapidity of action.
To prevent the debate from languishing the Whip must have a reserve of
fluent speakers who can talk by the clock to enable those who are late to
come in time for the division. The Whips of both parties often have to
come to an understanding, as the parliamentary play is a piece with
two dramatis personce. On great field days they settle the order in which
speakers are to address the House, fix the number of sittings to be devoted
no PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
Further inducements to good discipline are afforded by
the official publication of the division lists, and by the fact
that absence from important divisions is keenly noted by
the London and local party papers, as well as by the party
organisations in the constituencies.
As we have remarked, the Opposition has a like organi-
" "
sation of Whippers in the possibility of taking an un-
;
wary adversary by surprise and forcing the resignation of

the Government has, in their case, the most stimulating
1
effect.
A very important duty which falls to the Whips is the

"
arrangement of
pairing." The
rigorous discipline to as
attendance has led to efforts being made to deprive absence
from a sitting, or part of a sitting, of its chance character,
by arranging that the absence of a member from one side
of the House shall be balanced by a simultaneous absence
of another member from the opposite side ;
in this way the
proper relation between the parties is, as far as possible,

maintained. Pairing in the House of Commons has be-
come a minutely regulated institution, and it is regarded
as a serious failure in political duty to go away, even for
urgent private affairs, without finding a pair. A breach of
the promise, to remain away from the
implied by a pair,
House would be so flagrant an act of personal and politi-
cal impropriety that it need not practically be taken into
account. The arrangement of pairs is part of the Whips'
business. When a session has lasted a long time it is often
difficult, of course, to find a partner from the other side for
every member who is anxious to be gone ; but, thanks
to routine and to the personal familiarity of the Whips
with members, the machinery of pairing works for the most
part smoothly and to everyone's satisfaction. The effect of
to the debate, &c. The performance of these duties requires uncommon

suppleness, but compatible with perfect honesty in our day." (" Demo-
is
cracy and Organisation of Political Parties," vol. i., p. 138.) Sir Wilfrid
Lawson gives his constituents an amusing account of the doings of the
Whips under the Liberal Government, and the gradation in the urgency
of their written appeals. See Jennings, "Anecdotal History of Parlia-
ment," p. 600.
Since there has been an independent Irish party it also has had Whips,
1
and the Labour party in the 1906 parliament has also appointed Whips.
Ill
the practice on the

whole of parliamentary life is to render
it on the ordinary business of Parliament
possible to carry
with comparatively small contingents on the two sides ;
members can therefore find the time necessary to fulfil their

private engagements, and it is possible to save their strength
and to induce them to attend willingly upon political field
days. Lastly, it has the advantage of giving greater firm-
ness to the apparently only apparently unstable ground of
parliamentary party government.
It has been already remarked that there is a profound
difference between the political parties of England and those

of Continental states. There can be no better illustration of
this than the way in which the elaborate parallelism in the
parliamentary arrangements of the two great parties in the

House of Commons is applied to bring about a permanent
organisation for the maintenance of a constant understand-
ing between Majority and Opposition, and even for common
work in the interests of the state. This remarkable pheno-
menon casts a vivid light upon the inmost character of
English parties, and will not in the least harmonise with the
lurid pictures, which most German constitutional teachers of
the nineteenth century and many German politicians have
been accustomed to paint, of "party rule" and the dangers
of unbridled " party tyranny." Assuredly it must not
be forgotten that the successes of party and party govern-
ment in England are due to their historically developed
nature, which has made them, at the same time, state
parties and national parties. That this could come about
depends, as we have seen, on elements rooted deep in the
national character ;
but these national characteristics could
never have matured except as the fruit of centuries of poli-
tical education, which in its turn has only been made
possible by strict adherence to and development of the
1
principle of self-government.
See supra, vol. i., pp. 125-132. Lothar Bucher was one of
1
the first to
arrive at a correct understanding of English party affairs. In the fourth
" "
chapter of his book, Der Parlamentarismus wie er ist (1854), there are a
number of discriminating remarks on English and Continental parties. It
is no doubt true that Bucher,

writing from the standpoint of one disap-
pointed with parliamentary government, often criticises in a biassed manner,
generalises from temporary appearances, and, in his dislike of England,
112
HISTORICAL NOTE AS TO ATTENDANCE AT THE HOUSE '
At all periods of its history, the attendance in the House of Commons

has been irregular, often very poor. With respect to the mediaeval
parliaments it appears from Prynne's study of the writs de expensis the
writs to constituencies directing payment of the wages of their
the
members that the borough members often stayed away in great numbers,
so that only a few of the borough writs exist on the other hand, the
;
completeness of the county writs affords a proof of the constant and

zealous attendance of the knights of the shires. It has, however, from
early times been a principle of parliamentary law that it was the duty
of every member to be present. Absence could only be justified by a
2
license to stay away, to be obtained from the House or the Speaker.
Anyone who absented himself without such an authorised excuse was
technically guilty of a contempt and incurred the penalties consequent
thereon.
The oldest method of increasing the attendance was the institution of
a call of the House, the calling over, name by name, of the roll of mem-
bers at a time fixed by order of the House for some subsequent day.
The interval between the order and the call varied in the course of
centuries from five days to six weeks. If any member were absent with-
out leave on the appointed day, that is, did not answer to his name, he
was regarded as a defaulter and punished. The most ancient, and at
the same time the most severe penalty for such a fault was a direction
1
by the House to the Serjeant-at-arms to arrest the deserter. The earliest
authenticated instance of a call of the House occurred upon the i6th of
February 1548-9, but there can be no doubt that the usage goes back to
mediaeval times. As a rule a call was ordered when a large number of
often arrives at distorted and unfair conclusions. But the recognition of

these faults should not prevent a full acknowledgment of the acuteness
and power of observation possessed by this remarkable man. In reading
Lothar Bucher's works it must never be forgotten that he was himself an
outspoken, not to say passionate, party man, and that he never took
a side more eagerly than in the fight against Mr. Gladstone's England and
the advance of democracy.
1
Hatsell, vol. ii., 3rd edn., pp. 90-95 4th edn., pp. 96-101 Scobell,
; ;
"
Memorials," p. 84.
1
See the interesting list of leaves of absence in Hales' " Original
"
Jurisdiction of Parliament (London, 1707), pp. 190, 191. The small
attendance is proved by the numbers upon divisions, found in the journals,
and by the smallness of the majorities. This is especially noticeable in
Charles II's parliaments, in which the penalties for non-attendance kept
being increased while at the same time the opposition between Court
party and Country party became strongly marked. See the examples
given by Parry, p. 567, note (k), p. 569, note (/), p. 573, note (o), p. 578,
note (<?), &c.
*
Instances appear in the authorities on the 7th of March, 1676-7, and
the nth
of December 1678. In 1554 a noteworthy attempt was made to
obtain judicial punishment of members who absented themselves without
leave it did not meet with success. The incident occurred, it must be
;
remembered, during the time of the fierce persecution of Protestants by

Queen Mary. (Parliamentary History, vol. i., 625.)
members had absented themselves permanently from London. At times
(e.g., in 1693) the Speaker sent to the sheriffs, along with the announce-
ment of the date of a call, letters directing them to summon all
members who were stopping in their counties to attend without fail on
the appointed day.
Probably even in early days the extreme penalty of placing members
under arrest was rarely put in force still Hatsell, who looked upon
;
the custom as antiquated, quotes a case in his own day, on the I5th of
February 1781. The following were regarded as adequate pleas for
excusing punishment Servitium regis, illness, special permission, or any
:
reason which had been declared sufficient by the House. Only those
members whose absence was not satisfactorily explained by a colleague
were marked as deficient and put upon the defaulters' list. Taking it
altogether, the expedient of a call of the House, though frequently adopted
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, does not seem to have been
particularly successful. The threat of imprisonment was one which could

not be carried into execution against any large number of absentees it ;
was soon found advisable to use another means of persuasion, namely,

fining. The most ancient form of money penalty for bad attendance was
deprivation of salary. As early as Edward I's day, in 1344, the repre-
sentatives of the counties of Oxford and Gloucester (amongst others)
"
were left without writs, possibly, Prynne suggests, because they neglected
their work." '
A statute of
Henry which very soon became obsolete,
VIII,
enacted that members should not depart until the session be ended with-
out license of the Speaker, under pain of forfeiture of their wages
(6 Henry VIII c. 16). When wages ceased to be paid, as they did
during the course of the seventeenth century, this method of penalising
members who would not attend regularly fell to the ground. From that
time the House repeatedly prescribed money fines for unlicensed absence.
On the i8th of March 1580-1 the House resolved "That every knight for
the shire that hath been absent this whole session of Parliament with-
out excuse allowed by this House shall have twenty pounds for a
. . .
fine set and assessed upon him and for and upon every citizen,
. . .
"
burgess or baron for the like default ten pounds in addition to loss of
wages. Considering the high value of money at the time, the penalties
were very heavy if they were exacted. On the i2th of July 1610, the
Commons resolved that all absent on calling the House should pay,
knights 6s. 8d., burgesses 35. 4^. Penalties for lateness were prescribed.
On the ist of May 1641 it was ordered that all members coming after eight
should pay nd., and if absent the whole day 55., unless with license.
On the 5th of May 1641 it was ordered that "All members of the
House that are about town and not sick shall appear to-morrow at
eight of clock, and their not -appearance shall be accounted a contempt
to this House, upon which this House shall proceed as against a person
not worthy to sit here." 2 On the i2th of November 1640 the House
1 "
Prynne, Parliamentary Writs," 4th part, p. ii.
2 "
Townsend, History of the House of Commons," vol. ii., p. 364,
House of Commons Journals, vol. i., pp. 131, 135. We see from an order
of the House in 1566 (Journals, vol. i., p. 76) that this punishment was no
"
novelty Ordered that if after the reading of the first bill any member
:
depart before the rising of the Speaker, without license, he shall pay gd.
in the poor man's box."
1 1
resolved that whoever left the House before the Speaker should pay a
fine of IDS.'
The first parliament after the Restoration took the matter very
seriously : on the 2ist an order was made that all members
of April 1662
should attend personally on the 5th of May, under a penalty of 20. In
1670 (2Oth December) it was ordered that any defaulters on the gth of
January then next should be doubly assessed in the bill of subsidies.
The House repeatedly (e.g., in 1692) ordered that no member should go
2
out of town without leave, or that the doors of the House should be
locked.
All these and similar punishments and commands, as we may infer from
their frequency, had but little success we can gather the same from the :
solemn words in which the famous historian of the Rebellion, Clarendon,

3
refers to the mischief. The difficulties of travelling, both by sea and land,
were cogent reasons, far into the eighteenth century, for late appearances
"
or even for absence. Bentham, in his remarkable Plan of Parliamentary
Reform," turned his attention to the subject, and proposed a kind of
automatic penalty on negligence by members. 4 Each member upon elec-
tion was to deposit a certain sum with the Clerk and to receive back an
aliquot part for every sitting at which he attended. The quota for any
day upon which he failed to appear might go to those who were present
on such day. Probably this device, in spite of its subtly rationalist psycho-
logy, would have failed too. Hatsell, who considers calls of the House
very useful and important, is on a better track in his criticism of this old
parliamentary fault. Referring to the report of a committee appointed in
1744 to go into the question, he expressed his opinion that all external
measures for increasing attendance were inadequate, and that the only
hope of improvement lay in a sincere desire on the part of members of
Parliament to attend to their duties.
In the nineteenth century calls of the House became quite obsolete.
The last took place on the igth of April 1836. Motions to have a call
ordered were brought forward on the loth of July 1855 and the 23rd of
March 1882, but both were negatived.
1
Townsend, loc. ctt., vol. ii., p. 369. On
-
the i4th of April 1663, the
Commons ordered a call of the House " on Monday fortnight, upon pain
" "
of 5 for absence. On the 4th of May : The House was called over and
an order made that 5 be collected
all defaulters." from
{Parry, p. 548.)
An order of the 1667-8 (House of Commons Journals,
I3th of February
"
vol. ix., p. 49) provides That every such member as shall desert the
:
service of the House for three days together without leave nor . . .
"
offering sufficient excuse shall pay a fine of 40. In 1689 a fee of 55.,
payable to the Clerk of the House, was even imposed on members going
away from London during the session with leave of the House (House
of Commons Journals, vol. x., p. 130.)
3
Clarendon, Book
74 (Macray's edition, vol. i., p. 427).
iv., s.
4 "
Bentham's Works, vol. ii., pp. 324 sqq. Essay on Political Tactics,"
"
ch. iv., 5, and vol. iii., p. 544, Plan of Parliamentary Reform."
SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF THE COMMONS 115
CHAPTER II
THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
account of the forms of

NO government or of the procedure of the House of
English parliamentary
Commons would be complete without some reference, even if

it must be short, to the personal character of the House, the
social structure peculiar to it as a body. It stands to reason,

without elaborate proof, that both the internal working and
the external attitude of any body are determined to a greater
or less degree, often indeed chiefly, by the social status
of its members.
Further, the development of the functions
of any legislative assembly as a whole, the spirit and direc-
tion of its action are to a certain extent determined, in the
first instance, by those each by
qualities, itself almost inde-
finable, which, taken together, may be described as the
national character of the people or peoples which it repre-
sents. There are, however, other factors the far-reaching
influence of which upon the life of a representative assembly
must not be under-estimated. It is material to know which
social classes furnish the most numerous and which the
most influential members and in what proportions the
;
different ranks and professions in the nation take an active

share in parliamentary life even the composition of a par-
;
liament in respect of age cannot safely be disregarded.

Many decisive traits in a parliamentary system can only be
rightly grasped by the help of an acquaintance with the

personal and social assumptions under the influence of which
they have been formed and to the continuance of which they
have largely to trust for their maintenance. Especially are
the nature of the English system and the procedure by which
it is carried on, with their insular and unique development,
inextricably interwoven with the characters of the men who
have from time to time been members of the Parliament of
England.
Following the frequent indications which have been given
Book I, we start from the fundamental position that down
in
n6 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
to the present day the historically attained aristocratic character
of the English representative assembly has never been really
lost. This is, for our purpose, the essential and vital fact,
though it must not blind us to the great changes which
have taken place during the last hundred years, and the
result of which may perhaps be best summed up in the
statement that the House of Commons is to-day, in its social
character, frankly a delegation from the whole of the propertied
classes of the land. But this remark needs some further
elucidation.
seems obvious that the social character of the House of
It
Commons, like that of every elected assembly, must depend

above all things upon the suffrage by which it is chosen.
One is disposed to assume in advance that a suffrage which
embraces large classes of the population, and a fortiori one
which is universal, equal and direct, will inevitably bring
into the ranks of the legislative body many representatives
of the numerous classes. A glance at the actual conditions
in present-day parliaments will, even on casual inspection,
reveal that nowhere has this consequence followed to the
extent that might have been expected ;
that in different
countries the extension of the franchise has had only a
comparatively weak effect in democratising the representation
of the people. It need hardly be pointed out that in all
states, though with widely different degrees of force, the

pressure of social and economic conditions must act as a
powerful brake upon this tendency, even though the law
may give absolute equality to all persons as regards voting
and eligibility. Participation in parliamentary life calls for
a total or partial abandonment of the work of earning a
livelihood and thus a substantial advantage falls to the share
of the higher and financially independent classes. This
advantage is considerably lessened, in favour of the poorer
elements of the people, by the institution of payment of
salaries, though it can never be wholly cancelled.
Of great importance then in the constitution of the
House of Commons are the facts that the English parlia-
mentary franchise is, in spite of its wide extension, still
considerably removed from being theoretically universal, equal
and direct, and that payment of members has been abandoned
for the last three hundred years. Unquestionably both have

done much to preserve the aristocratic character of the House
which it acquired under the utter want of system and the
inequalities of the historic franchise, and which the constantly
increasing corruption of the electorate, for more than a
hundred years after the Revolution, had until 1832 strengthened
and supported. Down to the Restoration the House of
Commons may be regarded as having been an assembly truly
representative, in the best sense of the word, of the English
people in its then social formation. The earliest franchise

was admittedly of a restrictive character. When
legislation
Henry VI prescribed as a qualification for county electors the
possession of freeholds to the clear annual value of 405., the
intention was unmistakably that of narrowing to some degree
But the
the circle of those entitled to take part in elections.
importance of this
qualification must not be exaggerated.
The House of Commons under the Tudors and Stuarts was
emphatically a body which represented the middle classes in
town and county, and was by no means a preserve of the
aristocracy. We have eloquent testimony to this effect in
the continuous growth to predominance in Parliament of
Puritanism, which sprang from the middle and lower classes
of the nation and was the religious counterpart of the
democratic conception of the state in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries.
The faithfulness with which Parliament then reflected the
average feeling of the nation was a result of the economic

and social structure of England in those days, above all
of the distribution and division of land during the six-
teenth and seventeenth centuries. On the other hand, it
is highly instructive that the first parliament after the

Restoration nickname of the " Pensioners'
received the
Parliament." This title was given to it by reason of the
large number of members brought in by royal influence
and dependent upon royal bounty. The change in the
personal character of the House was beginning after the :
victory of the Whig nobility at the time of the Revolu-

tion it became more marked and produced pregnant con-
stitutional effects in the growing influence of peers and
Government upon the representation of many constituencies.
n8 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
At the same time about the end of the seventeenth
(i.e.,
century) an alteration of another kind, no less characteristic,

began to appear in the membership of the House of Com-
mons. From the middle of the eighteenth century, England's
growth as a Colonial power, and still more her conquest of
India, brought the influence of the newly-formed capitalist
class to bear upon the House of Commons an influence
strengthened from about the last quarter of the century by
the great development of home trade. Indeed the pressure

which finally led to the Reform Act came, first and fore-
most, from these elements in the rising middle class and ;
to the middle class alone did the Act of 1832 open the
doors of Parliament, till then wholly dominated by the landed
1
aristocracy.
The caution with which was extended by
the franchise
the first Reform Act had the effect of preventing any change
in the social character of the House of Commons beyond
the inclusion of this new class. The period from 1832 to
1867, the heyday of modern parliamentary government in

England, saw the rapid and complete amalgamation of the
youthful Industrial interest with the old Landed interest :
the latter has recouped itself for its political and economic
defeat in 1846 upon the Corn Laws by taking its full share
in the mighty nineteenth century wave of industrial and
commercial expansion. In a word, the House of Commons
remains still, to a great degree, under the influence of the
historic because that aristocracy has, gradually
aristocracy,
but completely, joined forces, socially and politically, with
the prominent leaders of modern capitalism. The fact that
the peerage always opens its ranks and gives a free welcome
to new members who have attained to leadership in the
development of the nation's wealth or culture, plays as im-
portant a part in this movement as the restriction of the

inheritance of nobility to the eldest son.
The story of the concentration into a few hands of the disposal of

1
the great majority of the seats has often been told since the days when
English Radicalism first launched its accusations and, for example, exposed
the inner mechanism of the parliamentary oligarchy in the famous
"Black Book." According to Oldfield ("Representative History," 1816,
vol. vi., p. 293) out of 489 seats in England and Wales no less than
The reforms of 1867 and 1884, which gave

franchise
votes tourban and rural working man, and thus by
the
stages led to a democratic suffrage, made but little differ-

ence to the mixed plutocratic and aristocratic character of
the House as established in the middle of the century.
At each extension of the franchise the members of the upper
classes, already favoured in the competition, even when con-
ditions were otherwise equal, put out their full strength in
the effort to control the composition of the House of Com-
mons. The possessors of wealth have had an enormous
advantage placed in their hands by the heavy cost that
candidature and election always involve. In this respect,
too, there has no doubt been a progressive reform since
1832. Above all, the severe laws against bribery and corrupt
practices have put a strict limit upon the sums spent on
influencing voters, which had often bordered upon the

marvellous. 1 But, even now, the expenditure which is still
permitted by law seems, to anyone with Continental ideas,
extremely heavy.
2
Each candidate is bound, under the pro-
visions of the electoral law (38& 39 Viet. c. 84) to deposit
with the returning officer, or to give security for, a sum
varying with the size of the constituency ; the total amount
(which has to be shared equally among all the candidates)
varies from ^100 to .1,000 if any candidate's share is
:
not provided for, his nomination falls to the ground. This

amount, which goes to defray the official costs of the elec-
tion, is, however, in most cases only a small fraction of
what may legally be spent upon the conduct of an electoral
campaign. The possession of considerable resources is
therefore necessary for anyone who proposes to enter into
371 were in the hands of patrons; 87 peers disposed of 218 constituencies,

90 commoners had the filling up of 137 seats, the Government of 16.
1
The law is now consolidated in one statute, viz., the Corrupt and
Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Viet. c. 51). See the
author's work on Local Government, English translation, pp. 291-301.
*
In 1868 the expenses of the general election came to about 1,400,000,
according to a parliamentary return in 1880 the sum spent was esti-
;
mated by one of the ministers

the victorious party at
in 1,700,000
(Franqueville, op. cit., vol. ii., p. 479). After the passing of the Act of
1883 the total expenses of the general election of 1885 sank to a little
more than 1,000,000, in spite of the large increase in the number of
electors.
a contest for a seat in the House of Commons. Of late
years the great workmen's organisations have not hesitated

to produce funds for workmen's candidatures but the heavy ;
expenses of elections must still be regarded as a factor

which tells materially in favour of the rich.
Independently, moreover, of financial considerations, it is
an experience equally remarkable and unquestionable that the
ever widening electorate in England has always preferred
to give its votes to leaders of society, and still prefers to do
so. This is a fact much more effective in maintaining the

historic structure of the House of Commons as a body than
any of the other causes adverted to the limitations on the
franchise, the high cost of elections, and the non-payment
of members. We have here one of the fundamental charac-
teristicsof English political life, intimately bound up with
the national way of looking at things ; that it is of a general
character may be seen by noticing that the same observation
applies to the recently created town and county councils. 1
The English working classes have, as a rule, down to the
most recent times preferred to leave their economic interests
to be championed in Parliament by members of the govern-
ing classes, have become more conscious of

and, as they
the power of their numbers, have devoted their energies to
modifying in their own favour the programmes of the two

historic parties. To the present time the English masses
See Redlich on Local Government (English translation), pp. 278, 279, as
1
to the parallel in local affairs. No less an authority than Mr. Gladstone

has discussed the deep-seated basis of this phenomenon. In an article
(Nineteenth Century, November 1877) in which he foreshadowed the latest
franchise reform, he refers to the political doctrine of the equality of
"
all men in the following terms There is no broad political idea which
:
has entered less into the formation of the political system of this country
than the love of equality. The love of justice, as distinguished from
equality, is strong among our countrymen the love of equality, as dis-
;
tinguished from justice, is very weak. It was not the love of equality
which induced the working men of England to struggle with all their
might in 1831-2 for a Reform Act which did not confer the vote upon
their class at large. ... It is not the love of equality which has carried
into every corner of the country the distinct undeniable popular prefer-
ence, whenever other things are exactly equal, for a man who is a lord
over a man who is not. The love of freedom itself is hardly stronger in
England than the love of aristocracy as Sir William Molesworth him-
;
self not the least of our political philosophers once said to me of the
"
force of this feeling with the people 'It is a religion."
;
have been indifferent whether Whigs or- Tories undertook to

work for the promotion of laws benefiting the labourers,
the democratising of administration or the improvement of
their social and political position :
they have not attached
much value to being represented by members of their own
1
class, so long as their interests were being attended to.
It is in this way that the remarkable phenomena, to which
I have alluded elsewhere, have made their appearance the
levelling of party divisions between Liberals and Conservatives,
the extremely small number of Labour members in the House,
the absence of any outspoken class policy on the part of
an Independent Labour party within or without Parliament.
The standing aside of the working classes in the competition
for seats in the House has had an important result, so far
as the immediate subject of discussion is concerned : it has
allowed the personal character of the House of Commons
to In so doing, it has provided an indispen-
be preserved.
sable basis for the retention of the English parliamentary
system as it has come down to our day ; it has left the

personal and social support of the national system of govern-
ment to those on whose traditional co-operation rest the
conventions of parliamentary life and the spirit of parlia-
mentary practice and tactics. We may go further and say
that themaintenance of the conventions, which during the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries transformed the English
'
This idea is strikingly expressed in a letter by the well-known
Fabian politician and author, Mr. G. Bernard Shaw, printed in the
"
Labour Annual, 1900." A circular was sent out inquiring from him
and other Socialist politicians what course of action at the forthcoming
general election he would recommend to the workers to enable them most
speedily to accomplish the objects for which they were organising, such
objects being summarised in the circular, by reference to John Stuart
"
Mill's words, as a common ownership of the raw material of the globe,
and an equal participation in the benefits of combined labour." He
"
wrote in reply, I am greatly surprised to hear that the workers are
organising for the object stated by John Stuart Mill. In fact, I am sorry
to say I don't believe it. In the south of England and London, at all
events, the workers have learnt that their immediate interest is to have
plenty of rich people the richer the better to spend money generously
among them. The fact that this money is made out of the labour of
other working folk in distant factories does not trouble them at all. And
the factory folk seem equally satisfied. They return their employers to
Parliament with the greatest enthusiasm." (Labour Annual, 1900, p. 27.)
II I
constitution into an unconditional parliamentary government
and which have created modern English constitutional law,
would have been impossible but for the continuance in
power which brought them into existence.
of the class
One consequence of the leadership in government and
politics being left to the aristocracy and the capitalists, is
that the system of party government has a tendency to
become one government by "amateurs," a tendency of
of
late years increasingly noticed and lamented in England.
For the body from which English ministers are all recruited,
Parliament, is, with few exceptions, as yet free from pro-
fessional politicians in the strict sense of the term. 1 The
last few years have, no brought signs of
doubt, some
change ; there are indications that powerful personages, espe-
cially among the financial capitalists, are, as in the days of
George III, becoming desirous from selfish motives of taking
an active share in the work of the House of Commons it is ;
also doubtless true that the often very real social advantages
which accompany the possession of a seat in Parliament, are
looked upon as at all events some compensation for the
heavy expenses of obtaining it. But the House of Commons,
especially so far as concerns its leaders, is still a preserve
"
for the well educated sons of the " leisured classes who
have business capacity or possibly mere wealth, and who take
up politics from motives of ambiiton in many instances ;
they lay aside a career with much more promise of material
gain and adopt political highest privilege of

life as the
citizenship, regarding the

of attainment
great office as a
gratification of the desire for power, but using it for no
2
purposes of selfish material advantage. All these circum-
stances lead to the maintenance of the oligarchic character
of British ministrieseven in the days of triumphant de-
mocracy. The two last decades with their almost unbroken
1
The strict exclusion from Parliament of all members of the Civil
Service, which in the nineteenth century became of such high administra-
tive importance, is a significant feature of the same kind.
2
The ordinary salary of a minister except in the case of the law
officers and the Lord Chancellor is, when the standard of life even of
the upper middle class is taken, far too small to induce anyone to under-
take a political career for the chance of office. To a successful London
barrister the acceptance of office involves a serious loss of income.
record of Conservative rule have shown this very clearly.

The whole personnel of the Government, with but few
exceptions, still belongs to the old families or to the well'
established rich families of more modern times ; and at
least one-third of every Cabinet consists of members of the
1
House of Lords. Compared with the mass of the popula-
tion the country, all the social elements represented in
of
the Cabinet, taken together, form but a small circle of haute
politique.
It would, however, be a mistake to overlook the changes
which the slow but continuous progress in a democratic
direction of the right to vote, and, indeed, of the whole of
public life, has had upon the general c onformation of the

House. First and foremost we must mention the Irish
Nationalist party, the Home Rulers, who, as we have seen,
gave the final impulse to reform in the rules of business.

The Irish party is poles asunder from the other parties, not
only politically, but socially as well. In Ireland the unjust
franchise laws, the exclusion of Catholics from all power
and the possession of enormous estates by members of the
English nobility had at one time made the parliamentary
representation of Ireland the exclusive possession of the
aristocracy ;
in 1832 their power began to wane, at first but
1
Take, for example, the analysis according to professions, of Lord
Rosebery's Government, given by Sidney Low, loc. cit., p. 191 :
Earl of Rosebery - - Peer and wealthy landowner.

Earl of Kimberley - - Ditto.
Marquess of Ripon Ditto.
Lord Tweedmouth
Earl Spencer
Lord Herschell
... -
-
-
Ditto.
Ditto.
Successful lawyer.
Mr. Asquith - Ditto.
Sir H. Campbell Banner- Son of a wealthy manufacturer and
man. landowner.
Sir William Harcourt - Member of ancient and aristocratic
county family.
Sir George Trevelyan - Baronet and head of old county family.
Sir Henry Fowler - -
Wealthy solicitor.
Mr. John Morley - Journalist and man of letters.
-
Mr. Arnold Morley - Son of a very wealthy manufacturer.

Mr. James Bryce Distinguished jurist and professor.
- -
Mr. Shaw Lefevre - -

Landowner, nephew of a peer, and con-
nected by marriage with another noble
family.
Mr. A. H. D. Acland -
Member of an old county family.
1 2
slowly, but finally at a single stroke the full democratisation

of the membership was effected. The Irish Nationalist mem-
bers are socially a faithful embodiment of their constituents,
the peasants, the working classes and the Home Rule intel-
lectuals. The party is fully conscious of its social difference
from the historic parties in the House, and at times this
feeling has found expression in debate with all the bitterness
that such social distinctions produce. 1
There are, too, unquestionable beginnings of the for-
mation of a separate Labour party, as recent events have
shown. There can be no doubt that in the last few years
the most superior sections of the working classes, organised
in the trade unions, have shown a desire to be represented
in the House of Commons by as many of their own class
as possible, and to hold aloof both from Liberals and from
Conservatives. It remains to be seen whether this tendency
will be permanent or successful, and whether it will affect

the social character of the House
strongly demo-
in a more
cratic direction the further question, too, awaits an answer,
:
whether the attempt to form a Labour party, as a third

amongst the non-Irish parties in the House, will meet with
any better success than earlier efforts on the part of the
Radical wing among the Liberals. The present position of
English politics, produced by the introduction of the ques-
tion of Protection, displays the situation, so well known to
the historian, of disorganisation and simultaneous regrouping
of the whole party system on the lines of the new great
battle cry. But this very movement shows once more the
persistent inclination amongst Englishmen to convert their
politics into a struggle between two great parties divided by
their opinions on one single decisive question. To a critical
onlooker there is nothing yet to indicate that these circum-
stances are favourable to the attainment by the working
men of town and country of a position as a new parlia-
mentary unit. 2
1
See the debate of the 7th of February 1902, upon the discussion of
the new standing orders, with the numerous bitter references to a remark
of Mr. Chamberlain's.
3
One consideration that gives rise to difficulties in the way of inde-
is the absence of a second ballot.
pendent working men's candidatures
A
glance at the present composition of the House will
confirm what a Conservative member remarked in a retro-
spect of the last decades of the nineteenth century that
nothing (except youth) so much contributes to an entrance

into public life and to success in the House of Commons as
It would be even more correct
1
aristocratic connections.
to say that the House of Commons is still almost entirely
reserved for those sections of the population which are
under the control of the aristocracy and plutocracy and are
2
economically powerful. Of course, it must be remembered
that in England the ruling classes are continually receiving
recruits to their membership from below, that for some
generations the English aristocracy has been based mainly
" "
It is an old
political experience in England that a three-cornered fight
increases the chance of the Conservative candidate.
"
1
Temple, House of Commons," p. 81. The above statement refers of

course to the parliament of 1900-1905. In its successor the "Labour"
members are much more numerous.
The following taken from Dad's "Parliamentary Com-
2
statistics,
panion, 1904," will be the best proof of the statement made above.
Among the 670 members of the House were to be found: 119 lawyers
(21 K.C.'s, 60 other barristers, 22 solicitors, 9 ministers who were K.C.'s,
several of the remainder ex- judges), 77 large manufacturers, railway n
directors, 22 shipowners and marine engineers, 29 bankers and stockbrokers,
12 mineowners, 52 merchants, 18 newspaper editors and proprietors, 15
journalists, 6 doctors, 7 authors, 7 professors and schoolmasters, 54 military

and naval men, 10 former diplomatists and civil servants, 26 landed pro-
prietors, 47 gentlemen. The last named would represent the
country
landed interest, no doubt, with a large proportion of the 100
together,
members whose professions are not given. In the case of 15 other mem-
bers it is simply noted that they are eldest sons or heirs presumptive of
peers: but the number of sons and nephews of peers included among the
is much greater.
professional list There are 15 members of the Govern-
ment to whom no previous profession is assigned. As against all these
members we have 12 retail traders and about as many working men.
Of the last named, almost all are secretaries of trade unions, and by
no means belong to the proletariat. The foregoing figures are merely
approximate from the indications given it is often possible to reckon a
:
member as belonging to more than one class. But any such errors do not
affect the general accuracy of the picture. A further indication of the
strength of the aristocratic element is the large number of knights and
baronets. The notes as to the careers of the members show a very large
proportion to have been at the public schools and universities. "Taking
the assembly as a whole," says Sidney Low (loc. cit., p. 183), "its com-
position is pretty much what it was twenty, thirty, or fifty years back
. . .an assembly of persons who had either made or inherited a
.
fortune, or who were connected with the landed and territorial classes."
126
upon plutocratic foundations, and that new forces and new

elements from the mighty world-embracing commercial life
of the country are continually being absorbed without reserve
into the " Governing Classes." It is from this point of view
that we can best grasp the importance of one factor in

English parliamentary life and the whole of English politics,
which is well understood in England, but often passes wholly
unobserved abroad, where the institutions of the Island
Kingdom are judged by theory only the effect, that is to

;
" It is very easy in Germany

say, produced by Society."
to overlook the influence of this factor, as in German
political life it has hardly any counterpart.
may perhaps It
appear to many a teacher of constitutional law inconsistent

with the dignity of science, not merely to recognise, but even
to enter upon a serious analysis of the effect upon the life
of the state produced by this element with its mixture of

allthe weaknesses, both small and great, of human nature.
But it must be done if we are to grasp the anatomy
and physiology of English public life in its entirety. Here
we must content ourselves with indications only. London
with its
" which in the main coincides in
Society season,"
time with the sittings of Parliament, brings together in the
capital the highest stratum of the governing classes it is ;
the sum
of the strongest social powers not only of England,
in the widest sense, but of a much larger sphere. recent A
German observer of England, Dr. Karl Peters, has strikingly
pointed out how London Society is an important bond of
union between the wealthy and governing classes of the
mother country and the corresponding classes in the far off
colonies, even bringing in the plutocratic and aristocratic

social elements of the United States of America. But for
England itself the political importance of Society lies in
its indefinable amalgamating new persons and

capacity of
families who have risen from below with the old families
of the land and with those who have been absorbed a
generation or two ago. No doubt this capacity and its

effect depend upon the fact that an effort on the part of the
" "
new arrivals to unite with the aristocracy or plutocracy
is also a trait in the national character. That this is the
case will be no news to anyone who has once heard of
the English fault of "snobbishness," so often denounced by

Continental observers. However that may be, the mainten-
ance of the old aristocratic basis of English parliamentary life
in the days of the victory of democracy must be ascribed
in a not immaterial degree, though of course not wholly,
to the political influence of Society, an influence which in
the present day has increased rather than diminished. It
would lead us too far from our course to trace the effect
of Society on the inner life of Parliament, especially in
the narrowing down and formation of the circles of leaders
and of members of the Government in spite of the undeni-;
able interest of the phenomenon we cannot dwell upon it.
There is little doubt that this influence has been on the

increase during the last twenty years, and that the more
and more strongly displayed plutocratic tendency of Society
constitutes a feature in the picture of modern England
which calls for little admiration. Men like Sir Robert
Peel, Mr. Gladstone, Lord Beaconsfield, produced effects in
" born leaders "
Society as through the power and greatness
of their personalities, without sacrificing anything to the
weaknesses and prejudices of Society and a man like
;
Mr. Joseph Chamberlain has his way by dint of his political

will power and his genius for agitation. But it is to be
feared that such cases are less numerous than those in
which English Society fails to make a " selection of the
fittest." At all events it must not be overlooked that many
social levers and forces are at work powerfully affecting
the personal composition of the House of Commons
and greatly influencing what, in the
age of the strictest
Cabinet government, may be looked upon as one of the

most important functions of the House of Commons that
of a machine, corresponding to national modes of life and
thought, for selecting and promoting the most capable men,

those who are called by nature to rule and to conduct the
government of the country.
It must not be
forgotten, either, that the modern pluto-
cratic nobility of
England, like the old aristocracy, always
holds the door open to members of the liberal professions,
even though they may not be wealthy, and that, on the
other hand, the younger sons of noble territorial families
inherit no " places in the sun," but very frequently seek and
find waytheir by adopting careers in com-
into Parliament
" It
merce, manufacture, journalism or law. is," says the
observer quoted above, " most fortunate for the stability
of the realm that the ideas which are truly aristocratic
find favour with the British democracy ;
and this outside
tendency is strongly reflected inside the House." 1
Another noteworthy fact, springing from like causes, is
that the House of Commons has always contained, as com-
pared with other parliaments, a large proportion of young
men, though the days of boy members have long passed
away ; almost all great parliamentary careers have been those
of men who came into the House at a very early age.
2
The ambitious sons of well-to-do families, who enter early

into political life, still form the most important element.
Not only were Pitt, Canning, Peel and Gladstone sent to
the House as youths, but the leaders of the present genera-
tion, Wyndham, Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr.

Mr. Balfour, Mr.
Winston Churchill, and many others who at this day are
eminent statesmen or party leaders. The youthful vigour
and receptiveness which have always been found among the
members of the House are elements in the secret of the
strength of England's parliamentary system :
they account,
at least partially, for its elasticity and its power of meeting
new political situations as they arise.
It is, as has been remarked before, hardly possible to
over-estimate the importance of the social structure of the

House of Commons in developing and maintaining all the
great qualities of the English parliamentary system. For
hundreds of years the House of Commons has been a meet-
ing of gentlemen, and is so still, though it may,
place
perhaps, have lost its claim to be what it used to be called,
"the best club in London." Parliamentary behaviour, the
"
1
Temple, House of Commons," p. 81.

2
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries many members of the
House of Commons were under age. A special clause in the statute 7 & 8
William III c. 25 increased the stringency of the law against the election
of minors. In Charles II's Pensioner Parliament there are said to have
been members of fourteen and fifteen years old. Charles James Fox was
made a member by his father at the age of nineteen. (See Townsend,
loc. cit., vol. ii., pp. 401-403.)
conception of what is permissible in Parliament and what

is not, has, even in the days of growing democracy, suffered
little change of character. It has always been developed

in harmony with the modes of thought of men who have
possessed wealth, education
culture,and who have raised
themselves to high place in the free competition of profes-
sional life, or who have inherited the obligations of a great
historic name ;
such men have been in one way or another
brought into living connection with the tradition of the old
aristocracy and have acquired from its members the moder-
ation and sense of responsibility, learned during generations
of practice in parliamentary government, and indispensable
to the maintenance of their pre-eminence.
not only the memories associated with a man's own
It is
name or the thought of his ancestors which can exercise a

truly conservative force upon national life ; devotion to duty
may equally be inspired by the memories associated with
the great permanent institutions of public life, the way to
a share in which is both legally and actually open to every
individual. The profoundly aristocratic feeling of the English
nation brings with it great capacities and powers ; with its
help it has been possible, in spite of the full acceptance of
all the demands and principles of modern democracy, to
employ institutions rooted in feudalism in such a way as to

preserve the freshness of youth and an inexhaustible poli-
tical fertility in the great and venerable constitution of the
country. All state depend absolutely upon the

institutions
characteristic qualities of the nation these qualities at one
:
and the same time support them and provide the material
upon which they have to work. No method of legally esti-
mating constitutional principles, without taking into account
the national, political and social factors in the life of the
constitution, can be anything but a dry skeleton, unable
to give any true knowledge of what actually occurs in the
state. The true nature of a subject so apparently abstract
as the theory of the forms and technique of parliamen-
tary business can only be grasped and properly appreciated
when it is treated as the living product of the men who
are applying it to their work. Remembering, then, the
influence of personal and social factors upon the English
i 3o PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
parliamentary system and its practice, we need not feel any

surprise that when the political and legal notions expressed
in them were adopted by other nations with entirely different
traditions theysoon were subjected to manifold misrepresen-
and misconceptions of all kinds.
tations, strange inferences
In a different connection we shall have to consider once
more the conclusion which we have now reached, and shall
then, perhaps, more fully appreciate its great importance.
PART VI
The Organs of the House
CHAPTER I
five hundred years the only officer entrusted by the

FORHouse of Commons with the conduct of its business
"
was elected chairman, the Speaker.

its This is no longer the
case. But even now there is but one president ; the Speaker
is the only regular chairman over the deliberations of the
House, and its sole representative to the outer world. The
other officers who, under certain circumstances, take his place
in the chair possess only an authority derived from his
and exercisable in the event of his inability to act. They
are strictly vice-presidents, and therefore do not form with
him a presidential college.
As the history of the office will show, the relations be-
tween Speaker and Crown and the relations between Speaker
j
and House have materially altered in the course of centuries.
In earlier days, it is true, the position of the Speaker was
looked upon by some of his contemporaries very much as
it is now regarded but it has needed a long development
;
to place him
securely upon his pinnacle and to make his
office asynonym for dignity and impartiality all over the
Anglo-Saxon world.
"
Parliamentary Practice," pp. 191-195, and passim.
1
References :
May,
Manual (1904), p. 22; Lummis, "The Speaker's Chair"; MacDonagh,
"The Book of Parliament," pp. 115-132; Denison, "Notes from my
"
Journal," London, 1900 Sir John Mowbray,
; Seventy Years at West-
"
minster (1900), pp. 115-119; Report of the select committee on the office
of the Speaker (1853); Parliamentary Debates (107), 1020-1050; Speaker
Gully, Address to the electors of Carlisle (Manchester Guardian, 5th July
1895), and speech (Standard, iyth April 1902).
It is difficult to describe the character of the office, im-
possible to define it in set terms. A mere catalogue, however

complete, of the rights exercisable by the Speaker under the
unwritten law of Parliament and
standing orders of the
the House would give no adequate picture of the nature
of his high station, or of the dignity which it confers, no
presentation of the Speaker's traditional but purely moral

eminence, which far transcends all the detailed rules affect-
ing him. The authority wielded for generations by the
holders of the Speakership restsmore on custom and tra-
dition than on and not until one has deeply studied
rules,
the debates in the House of Commons and read the accounts
of observers of its life at different periods and, even
then, not without frequent opportunities of attending the
sittings of the Housecan one form a living concep-
itself,
tion of itsamplitude, and the frank recognition which it

receives. This authority is securely based on the Speaker's y
absolute and unvarying impartiality which is the main
feature of his office, the law of its life. The Speaker's im-
partiality has been won upon two fields. As regards his
relations to the Crown
by the act of parlia-
it is secured
ment which forbids his acceptance of any office of profit
under the Crown, and by the adoption, about the same
time as this act was passed, of the idea, now a matter of
principle, that after resigning the chair he ought not to

reappear in the House either as one of the Government or
as a private member. His impartiality within the House is
guaranteed by a number of arrangements to which other
parliaments provide no parallel. Above all, the member of
the House of Commons who is elected to the chair ceases,
from the moment of his election, to belong to any political
party ;
this condition precedent for the Speaker's impartiality,
his exclusion from the conflict of parties, has been an un-
written law of Parliament since the beginning of the nine-
teenth century. It is true that now, as in former times, the
majority always nominates one of its own number in case of

a vacancy but for generations two rules have been strictly
:
observed ;
first that a Speaker, who does not himself wish
to resign his office life,and quit political is regularly re-
elected ; and secondly, that re-election takes place notwith-
standingthat the party from which he came may have

become the minority in a new parliament.
As a rule, at a general election, no opposition is offered
1
to the Speaker by the other party in his constituency. In
any event the Speaker only offers himself as a candidate by
written communications and refrains in his election address
from touchingupon questions. Re-election to
political
office is now an
by the House established principle ; it
was only once violated during the nineteenth century. The
exceptional case occurred in 1835, when the Whigs, then
in majority, passed over Mr. Manners Sutton,
the whom
they had re-elected in 1832, and chose a Whig, Mr. Aber-
cromby, to be Speaker in his place. Their conduct finds its
explanation in the fact that the Speaker himself, during
the violent conflicts over the Reform Bill, had failed in
observing the strict impartiality required of him, though

not, it is true, in the House. 2 For the Speaker then, until
he leaves his office and political life, there exists no dis-
tinction of party in the House. He has no party to
consider or to fear. From the moment of election he
discards every outward tie that has hitherto bound him to
his party he refuses to enter a political club, and, both
;
1
An exception to this rule occurred in the year 1895, when the Speaker,
Mr. Gully, was unsuccessfully opposed by a candidate put up by the Tory
party in his constituency, Carlisle. Mr. Gully had shortly before the
dissolution been nominated by the Liberals, upon Mr. Peel's resignation,
and had been by the small majority of eleven votes. This may
elected
perhaps be considered to justify the breach with tradition made by the
Tories. Still, the majority on both sides disapproved of the line of action
taken. Though the Conservative-Unionist party had in the meantime
gained a majority, Mr. Gully was, as a matter of fact, unanimously re-
elected as Speaker, in spite of his coming from the Liberal party.
1
On all other occasions on which the majority passed from the
Speaker's party to the other side (in 1841, 1874, 1886 and 1895) the Speaker
was re-elected without regard to the party complexion of the majority.
The remarkable result was arrived at that, during the whole of the nine-
teenth century only three Speakers came from the Tory party namely,
Sir John Mitford (1801), Mr. Charles Abbot (1802-1817), and Mr. A. C.
Manners Sutton (1817-1835). The other Speakers were all members of
the Whig or Liberal party they were Mr. J. Abercromby (1835-1839),
;
Mr. C. Shaw
Lefevre (1839-1857), Mr. John Evelyn Denison (1857-1872),
Mr. Henry Bouverie Brand (1872-1884), Mr. Arthur Wellesley Peel (1884-
1893), Mr. William Court Gully (1895-1906). The present Speaker, Mr. J.
W. Lowther, was a Conservative.
within the House and without, abstains from expressing
any political opinion. The absolute independence of the
Speaker further secured, in a material sense, by his being
is
provided under act of parliament (2 3 William IV c. 105, &

as modified by 4 5 William IV &
c. 70) with a salary of
.5,000 a year, free from all deductions and taxes, and an
official residence in Westminster Palace. 1 His salary con-
tinues after a dissolution, lasting until the election of a
Speaker for the new
parliament, and, being a charge upon
the Consolidated Fund, it does not come before the House
in the estimates. If he retires he is practically sure of a
peerage and a life pension of .4,000 a year.

The obligation of impartiality appears in the rules also,
in the shape of a legally formulated provision, which has
subsisted for hundreds of years, that the Speaker is only
numbers on a division are equal,
entitled to vote in case the
and that in such a case he is bound to vote. A further
inference from the idea thus expressed is that it is incum-
bent on the Speaker to abstain from addressing the House
except from the chair in the discharge of his presidential
duty this has been the accepted practice from the eighteenth
:
century onwards. He is, by parliamentary usage, debarred

from further exercise of his rights as a member, especially
that of speaking in debate. Till the beginning of the nine-
teenth century was quite a common occurrence for the
it
Speaker to join in the debates and divisions in committee like

any other member but for the last two generations there
;
has been no instance of such conduct. It is not only that

such intervention clashes with the exalted conception of the
In addition he enjoys some quaint perquisites he receives a present

1
:
of wine from the state for his household the Clothworkers' Company ;
presents him at Christmas with a piece of broadcloth and a buck and a ;
doe from the Royal preserves at Windsor are sent annually by the Master
of the Buckhounds. He has, further, an allowance of ^"100 a year for
stationery and receives 1,000 for equipment upon his election (see Mac-
"
Donagh, Book of Parliament," p. 131). Till 1839 it was also customary
to present him with a service of plate this was discontinued in deference
;
to the opposition of Hume (Hansard (26), 603). A delightful old custom

was for the Speaker at the close of each parliament to take away as a
memento the arm-chair in which he had sat as president this has fallen ;
"
into disuse since 1832. (See Pellew, Life of Lord Sidmouth," vol. i.,
p. 68.)
Speaker's impartiality ; it renders it possible that he might

be called to order by the chairman of the committee, and
this is felt to be incongruous with the Speaker's authority
over every member of the House. 1 The necessity of giving
a casting vote upon a tie has several times been thrown upon
the Speaker in recent years. Historians of the British Parlia-
ment love to dwell upon the case which occurred in 1805,
when Speaker Abbot, being called upon to give a casting
vote, decided in favour of a motion for the impeachment of
Lord Melville, the last instance of this method of calling a
minister to account. May quotes altogether eleven instances in
the nineteenth century. From the time of Speaker Adding-
ton two principles have guided Speakers in their decisions
upon casting votes ; they may now be considered as estab-
lished parts of parliamentary practice. In the first place a
Speaker should give his vote, if possible, so as to avoid a final
settlement of the question before the House ; if there is any
way of arriving at such a result, he should give the House

an opportunity for reconsidering the matter. For instance,
in 1797 Speaker Addington gave his vote, upon a tie, in
favour of the third reading of a bill, so as to give the
House another chance of arriving at a definite decision, viz.,
upon the question that the bill do pass. In the second

place, when hegives a vote upon the merits, he does so
freely according to his own convictions and the dictates of
his conscience, first stating the grounds upon which he acts,
which are recorded in the journal of the House. 2 Thus in
the division upon the Church Rates Abolition Bill, Speaker
Denison, in giving his reasons, stated that in his view a
In 1813 Speaker Abbot spoke strongly against a bill introduced by

1
Grattan for relief of Catholics; in 1821 and 1825 his successor, Speaker
Manners Sutton, spoke against the repeal of Catholic disabilities (Hansard,
ist series (26), 312, 2nd series (13), 434, 435). In 1834 the same Speaker
spoke against a bill for admitting dissenters to the Universities in 1856 ;
Speaker Shaw Lefevre spoke on the management of the British Museum.

Since that date there has been only one instance of a Speaker's parti-
cipation in a committee debate, namely, on the gth of June 1870, when
Speaker Denison spoke against an unimportant, but, as he considered,
unjust item of proposed taxation. (" Notes from my Journal," p. 257.)
See Palgrave, " House of Commons," pp. ip, 63-65. He describes
2
from his own experience the excitement which used to be felt on the
occasion of an equality of votes in parliamentary language a "tie."
prevailing opinion existed in favour of some settlement of the

question different from that contained in the bill ; he con-
sidered it his duty, therefore, to leave to the future the final
arrangement to be made rather than to take the responsibility

on his single vote of deciding what was to be done. 1
The complete aloofness from politics imposed upon the
Speaker received its full extension during the nineteenth
century, when it came to be considered that he must keep
himself free from all political action outside as well as inside
the House, even in his own constituency. He is thus the
only member of the House of Commons who is not allowed,
either in speech or in writing, to advocate the interests of

his constituents. The
position in which his constituency is
placed is accurately described in England as one of practical
disfranchisement. The latest historian of the House gives a
capital description of the situation in the following terms :
" The Speaker's constituents not only do not go to the poll ;
they cannot, according to present-day usages, call on their

representative to vote either for or against any measure which
may be before Parliament. As the Speaker never meets his
constituents to discuss politics, one of the chief means of
present day political education is lost to them. Political
organisation is suspended in a Speaker's constituency for a ;
present-day Speaker has no need of any local party organi-

sation to secure his return, even if he deemed it proper to
contribute to party funds. The newspapers in the consti-
tuency have necessarily to refrain from criticism or comment
on the parliamentary conduct of its representative and in ;
nearly all the essentials which go to make representation the

constituency is unrepresented. In the constituency repre-
sented by the Speaker of to-day political life is dormant ;
for all outward activities, as they concern both political
its
education and local political organisation, are suspended.

But no constituency complains or frets under its temporary
and peculiar political disabilities. It is honoured in the
See further, as to this, the description by Speaker Denison of the occasion

in 1 86 1, alluded to in the text, when his casting vote postponed for
several years the settlement of the long vexed question of church rates.
(" Notes from my Journal," pp. 95 sqq.)
1 "
honour done by the House of Commons and the country

1
to its representative."
It will easily be understood that, outside the House, in
the purely social sphere, which is so important in English
political life, the Speaker's rank is universally recognised as v
of the highest. The whole conduct of his life expresses his

exalted position. It is no exaggeration to say that the
Speaker presides over a
court, and is surrounded by a
ceremonial resembling that of a sovereign. He gives a
series of set banquets to the House and holds levees to
which members are invited in regular succession. A recent
English sketch of the office aptly puts it that the Speaker
" He
has, in simple truth, many of the attributes of royalty :
lives in a royal palace. He has his own court, his own

his own public household.
civil list, He is approached and
addressed with a ceremony and deference such as is shown
to royalty. He represents in his proper self the
. . .
rights and privileges of all his subjects. In his own sphere

his word is law, and, should that law be broken, he keeps
his own officer to convey offenders to his own prison. His
functions, multifarious as those of sovereignty itself, include
many of a stately or ceremonial kind. He wears his own
proper robes, which it is not lawful for other men to don.
His sceptre is borne before him the mace of the most
honourable House over which he rules ; upon his head
reposes his peculiar crown, the Speaker's wig, and just where
the throne stands in the House of Lords we find in the
House of Commons the Speaker's chair." " Who
shall
asks our " that Mr. in
deny," author, Speaker is, every sense
in which were not treason to him "*
it call so, a king ?
The high conception of the Speaker's position, so admirably

described in this passage, is of course obvious in all state
"
ceremonials. As " first commoner in the realm his place
is
immediately after the peers, and at all times he is at
liberty personally to approach the wearer of the Crown in
the name of the House and to report its desires. It is only
under his conduct, not and by themselves,
as individuals
that the members of the House of Commons have any right
1
"The Unreformed House of Commons,"
Porritt, vol. i., p. 481.
2
Lummis, "The Speaker's Chair," pp. 6, 7.
II K
'

to appear before the King to lay their wishes before him by
word of mouth. All this faithfully kept ceremony is, how-
ever, only the outward sign, used by the conservative and

symbol-loving sense of the nation, to express that the Speaker
is to the outer world what he is legally appointed to be in
the House itself, the supreme arbiter and director of the
proceedings, raised partyhigh above ;

all divisions that at
the same time dignity and majesty of
in his person the
the elected representative assembly of the nation are incar-
nate, that he is the personification of the respect traditionally
paid by all classes of the population to the great body in
which the self-government of the nation has for centuries
found its expression. Within the House, too, the tradition
of hundreds of years has surrounded the Speaker with a
venerable ceremonial. When he enters or leaves Parliament
he is always preceded by the chief executive officer of
the House, the Serjeant-at-arms, to whose custody the mace
is entrusted ; the deferential behaviour of the members to-
wards the Chair also indicates the effort to exalt his peculiar
dignity. Breaches of this ceremony by young members are
often corrected in a humorous manner, but, to this day, if
any member infringes it of set purpose and intentionally fails

in due respect to the Speaker, though but in a slight degree,
he will be dealt with severely, even to the extent of arrest. 1
Every member of the House has to show his respect for the Chair
1
upon entering or leaving by making a bow towards it. Members, too,

are strictly forbidden, while moving about the floor of the House, to cross
the line from the Chair to the member who is speaking. The Speaker
himself makes three bows to the Chair before he mounts the raised plat-
form upon which it stands, to symbolise the dignity of the place. We
can see from Hooker's report (Mountmorres, vol. i., pp. 145, 147) how
"
old these rules are When any knight, citizen, or burgess, doth enter
:
or come into the Lower House, he must make his dutiful and humble
obeisance at his entry in, and then take his place. If any ...
other person or persons, either in message or being sent for, do come,
he ought to be brought in by the Serjeant and at the first entering
;
must make one low obeisance, and being past in the middle
. . .
way, must make one other and when he is come before the Speaker
;
he must make the third, and then do his message the like order he :
must keep in his return." Scobell (p. 6) states " No member in coming :
into the House or in removing from his place is to pass between the Speaker
and any member then speaking, nor may cross or go overthwart the
House or pass from one side to the other while the House is sitting."
;
A resolution reported by D'Ewes from the 1580 parliament shows how far
By the common law of England failure in respect or

obedience .owards any judge an offence punishable by
is
severe fine and imprisonment, and known as contempt of

court. By analogy the offence is extended to the highest
tribunal, that of Parliament, and its
accompanying penalties
protect and support him who presides over the debates of
the House, and is the visible embodiment of the dignity
of the High Court of Parliament.
these customs depend upon definite orders of the House. A motion, made
"
by Sir James Croft, was very well liked of and allowed of all this
House . . that Mr. Speaker and the residue of the House of the better
.
sort of calling, would always at the rising of the House depart and come
forth in comely and civil sort, for the reverence of the House in turning
about with a low courtesie, like as they do make at their coming into
the House, and not so unseemly and rudely to throng and thrust out as
of late time hath been disorderly used." (D'Ewes, p. 282.)
K 2
i 4o PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
CHAPTER II
THE FUNCTIONS AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE SPEAKER
WE now propose to attempt a survey of the functions

the Speaker, as constituted
of by the unwritten law
and by the custom of '
of Parliament, by its standing orders
the House, recorded in numerous pages of its
journals. We
must content ourselves, however, with grouping these func-
tions in certain divisions indicated by the procedure of the
House and summarising them briefly. A fuller account of
each would lead to intolerable repetition ;
for each power of
the Speaker corresponds to a definite section of procedure,
which will in turn have to be dealt with by itself. The
office of the Speaker is not a subtly devised creation hedged
in by definite abstract rules ;
on the contrary it has been an
organic part of Parliament from the beginning and has grown
up and been developed in intimate connection with the
changes which its procedure has undergone. This process

too is still active. Every material alteration in the arrange-
ment of parliamentary business involves, to some extent, a
change and duties of the Speaker. The great
in the rights
transformation to which procedure was subjected in the last
quarter of the nineteenth century gave to the Speaker far-
reaching authorities of a discretionary kind such as the
historic order of business never entrusted to him.
The functions of the Speaker fall into two chief divisions.
*
In the first place he is the representative of the House of
Commons to the outer world, to the Crown, to the House
of Lords, and to other departments of the state. Hence the
name of his office ;
he isthe spokesman the Speaker of
the House. As the representative of the whole House, he
enjoys in the public life of England the exalted position we
have described above ; and as such he discharges a series
of important and constitutionally defined duties. In the
second place he is, unless incapacitated, the sole director
of the proceedings of the House, the guardian and warder of
the orderly action of the body. The latter function is the
THE FUNCTIONS OF THE SPEAKER 141
foundation on which his position of right and honour

towards the outer world is based, and must, therefore, be
considered first.
The Speaker regularly takes the chair at all meetings of

the House strictly so called only at his request, and if and
;
so far as he feels himself unable to preside, have his substi-

tutes, to whom we shall refer later, any right or duty to
take his place in the chair. Both when the House is sitting
under the presidency of one of his deputies and while it is
deliberating in committee the Speaker remains in the building,
ready at any moment to appear on the scene.
The
rights of the Speaker as chairman constitute in the
aggregate what may be called the presidential power. This ^
comprises both authorisations which proceed from the Chair
and prohibitions. We will take the last named first.
During the sittings of the House the Speaker alone is
charged with the prevention of all interruptions to the

discussion, i.e., with the maintenance of order. He alone is
authorised to repress any breach of order that occurs, either

of his own motion or upon a call (Order Order !) from !
some member, and to bring matters back into accordance

with the rules. For this purpose he exercises all the disci-
plinary power of the Chair formulated in the standing orders

or given by the unwritten customary law of the House,
calling the offending member to order, and in the event of
contumacy applying the prescribed form of censure. When
a member has spoken insultingly of another member, or has
offended the dignity of the House by some other form of
unparliamentary behaviour, it is the Speaker who requests

the withdrawal of the objectionable words and demands a
public apology. When the House has decided to enforce
the penalty laid down in the rules for the refusal of such a
request, it is the Speaker who pronounces sentence. As we
have seen our historical sketch, the old authority of the
in
Speaker in matters of discipline has been materially strengthened

and extended by recent changes in the rules. The most
severe Dunishment for disobedience, one which belongs to
the old procedure and corresponds to a committal for
contempt of court, is arrest followed by imprisonment the ;
penalty can, it is true, be imposed only by an express

1 42 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
order of the House, but its execution is left to the
Speaker.
The positive aspect of the presidential power comprises >
in the place the conduct of the deliberations of the

first
House, and of all the arrangements for the despatch of its

business. This covers the whole of the possible action of
the House of Commons, with its unrestricted jurisdiction,
technically arranged and regulated by the rules. The posi-

tion of the Speaker is brought vividly into view by the
forms which are adopted. All speeches are addressed to
him, not to the House. This rule is strictly observed any ;
formal speaking to the House would at once be checked as

a breach of the rules.
1
Further, it is the Speaker alone who
calls upon members to speak. It should be clearly under-
stood that the House of Commons has never had, and has
not now, any list of speakers. Any member is entitled
address the chair he can succeed in "
to if
catching the
Speaker's eye," and obtaining from him permission
to speak.
In case of dispute the House, not the Speaker, finally
decides who is to have precedence. The Speaker, further,
has always to see that the daily programme is drawn up
in accordance with the standing orders. But the most im-
portant function discharged by him, that which gives him
his chief political influence, is that of being the sole and final
judge of whether any motion or amendment is in order or

not. and incomparable authority
By virtue of the traditional
which is conceded to him by all parties in the House an
immense power is thus placed in his hands and, under
1
This feature of the ceremonial in the House of Commons, which is
occasionally misunderstood in Continental parliaments, has its origin in

history. It has come down from the times in which the Speaker really
was what his name expresses, the Prolocutor of the Commons, the
interpreter of the will of the House as a whole. In those days it stood
to reason that, when discussions took place among the knights and bur-
gesses about the subsidies requested by the King, or the grievances
to be laid before him, the chief desire of each member was to make
his meaning as clear as possible to the House's spokesman, so that he
might know what the wish of the House was. With this object he
would always address himself to the. Speaker. The practice has long
become a form used without reference to its origin the members who :
speak address in reality neither Speaker nor Crown, not even their fellow
members, but the nation, in the hope of influencing public opinion.
certain circumstances, he may exert a direct influence upon

1
the extent of legislative action.
Of great importance too are his functions upon a division.
He alone puts the question to the House, certifies the result,
and has supreme control over the often complicated course
of the voting. Above all, he regulates the debate, not merely
by deciding who is to speak, in doing which he follows
the tradition of calling on members alternately from the two
sides of the House, but Îso by seeing that the rules of order
are maintained in full force throughout. For this purpose
he is any moment to interrupt a member who is
entitled at
speaking and to say what he wishes he must always be

;
listened to quietly and without contradiction, and his admo-

nitions must always be obeyed. We shall have to discuss
later on the various principles which the rules lay down as
to parliamentary behaviour and language. We need only

say now that the tradition of copious almost to
centuries,
excess, has established fixed conceptions and conventions
to guide the Speaker in his action. His powers in relation to
the debates have never been looked upon as entitling him
to express or enforce any completely new
or purely personal
opinion as to what is on principle allowable in debate or
otherwise. The conception lying at the root of English

parliamentary law is this, and the law deducible
that the rules
from the journals and from traditional
precedents in the
usage are reins by which the action of the House is to be
kept in form and order, and that the Speaker is the person
who, with firm and cautious hand, is to hold and use
them for guiding the House on the lines which have been
handed down. It is no part of his office to consider how
he may use his power to devise new reins or bridle for the
House. The guiding principle is that the Speaker is not
the master of~ the House, but its representative, its leader
Quite recent instances show that it lies in the Speaker's power to

1
exclude certain subjects from discussion for a considerable time, occasion-

ally for a whole session, and thus to exercise a measurable influence
upon the fate of a Government. This power is considerably augmented by
the extreme subtlety of the rules prescribing the order in which subjects
are to be taken up. The subject, together with the most recent case of
the Speaker's use of this power for the benefit of the Government, is discussed
below in Parts vii and viii.
i 44 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
and authoritative counsellor in all matters of form and
procedure. Not that in case of need it is not both right
and proper for him to take the initiative, if there is occa-
sion to censure unparliamentary acts or similar behaviour
calling for restraint. Only he must always be sure, in all
important decisions, and especially in making any change
of practice, that he is in accord with the average opinion
of the House. In the ordinary course of things, with the
abundance of precedents that exist, there can, for an expert
on the rules, be very little doubt as to the decision of the
Speaker his task

; only hard when he finds himself face
is
to face with a new situation. Even then he must try to

deduce his decision logically from rules or precedents which
are already in force the great number of the latter, and the
;
elasticity which necessarily belongs to customary rules,

together with the
parliamentary training in their interpre-
tation which the Speaker has always had, make the task of
bringing new circumstances within the existing law very

much easier. No
method could be devised for pro-
better
tecting tradition, upon which indeed the greater part of

parliamentary procedure rests, from becoming rigid it pro- ;
vides a means of taking into account the material changes

in conditions that occur during long periods, and of giving
authoritative by new precedents to new con-
expression
ceptions parliamentary form and usage.
of It is perhaps
the most difficult and responsible, certainly the highest, of

the duties which fall to the Speaker's share. For it assumes
that he is familiar with the whole labyrinth of precedents
which have been laid down by the practice of centuries, so
far as they are not wholly obsolete, and that he is capable,
by selecting from them, of finding the best way of pro-

ceeding in any new situations which may arise. This duty
of the Speaker's, perhaps the most important department of
his official work, may best be understood by comparing it
with the corresponding attitude of an English judge to the

law which he administers. The immense and many-meshed
net of the common law with its thousands of decided cases
wraps him folds, but gives him
in its in compensation
thousands of chances to use the unwritten law stored up
in precedents for extending the law itself by exposition, even
for creating new law :

so, too, is it with the Speaker. Behind
the comparatively meagre body of positive enacted rules
stretches the wide expanse of century -long parliamentary
usage, as recorded in the journals of the House. Here,
too, the Speaker has the opportunity of drawing new judge-
made law out of the old decisions, a function which must be
acknowledged as the highest authority which he possesses.
It must not, of course, be overlooked that, from a purely
technical standpoint, the House is the sole and absolute

master of its order of business. Its jurisdiction ismost clearly
seen in its power at any time to alter the rules of business ;
as we have already remarked, no special procedure, no

1
particular majority is required for this purpose. In point
of fact alteration in rules is nowhere subjected to so few
difficultiesas in the House of Commons. But so long
as they remain unchanged, whether they depend on some
express order of the House or on customary practice, their
maintenance is confided to the Speaker alone it is his
duty ;
to see that they are obeyed, to explain and apply them. In
principle the supreme authority of the House is retained ;

it is clear enough from an express order, made so long
ago as 1604, that when precedents are not conclusive the
Speaker is to lay the matter before the House for decision:
2
but it is entirely in the Speaker's discretion to judge whether

and when to call for such a decision of the House. If he
deems it unnecessary to do so, his ruling is final.
Among
so great a multitude of precedents it can but rarely happen
that the Speaker will be unable to find a more or less
relevant conduct without an appeal to the
guide for his
House. It has, as a matter of fact, very seldom happened
that a Speaker, instead of giving the ruling of the Chair
on his own responsibility, has requested the decision of the
House on a special case. And when he has once given
his decision there can be no refusal to accept his verdict,
nor any discussion of his ruling by the House.
Supra, p. 8.
5
On "
the
27th of April 1604, Agreed for rule, If any doubt arise
upon a bill, the Speaker is to explain but not to sway the House with
argument or dispute." (House of Commons Journals, vol. i., p. 187 ;
Hatsell, vol. ii., 3rd edn., p. 227 ; 4th edn., p. 239.)

It follows, then, that in the House of Commons there can
be no debates on questions of order, such as have attained
to a melancholy celebrity in Continental parliaments. Any
member is entitled, even bound, to bring to the Speaker's
immediate notice any instance of what he considers a breach
of order, and to ask for the Speaker's explanation upon
any obscurities in procedure. To do so it is proper to call

attention to oneself by interrupting and to lay the point in
1
question concisely before the Speaker. Occasionally other
members intervene with brief suggestions ; but generally the
Speaker decides at once in any event the decision lies with
:
him and his ruling is, as just remarked, subject to no
appeal. A set debate on a point of order can only be

brought on in one way and under definite conditions. The
rules prescribe that due notice of motion must be given that
on some future day a vote of censure upon the Speaker will
be moved. 2 It need hardly be said that such an event is
abnormal and happens but rarely, and that such a motion

would only be acceded to by the House if the circum-
stances fully justified it. 3 To an Englishman it would appear
seriously to undermine the exalted position and dignity of

the Speaker if, in addition to his application of the rules
being open challenge to

upon special important and
occasions, it was competent for every member to call in
question the Speaker's authority whenever he chose, and if
"
Interruptions are the commonest things that occur in our debates
1
. . .
(they) are the very salt of our debates. ...
It can never be
said that interruptions per se are disorderly." (From Mr. E. Blake's speech,
Parliamentary Debates (107), 1041.)
2
The latest case of the kind was that which was brought up on the
7th of May 1902, upon the motion of Mr. Mooney. Mr. Dillon, one of
the Irish Nationalist members, had been censured by the Speaker on the
soth of March 1902, and suspended by reason of an offensive interruption
directed against Mr. J. Chamberlain, who was then Colonial Secretary.
Mr. Dillon had been previously much excited by a remark of the Minister's.
As the Speaker declined to accede to the demand of Mr. Dillon and
the other Irish members that he should rule Mr. Chamberlain out of order
and demand the withdrawal of his words, a motion was made from the
Irish benches for a vote of censure upon the Speaker it was, of course,
;
defeated by a large majority. (Parliamentary Debates (107), 1020-1050.)

3
See Mr. Balfour's speech (ibid., 1031-1037), in which he showed that
no motion for censuring a Speaker had been brought forward for eighty
years. An earlier precedent may be found in the year 1777. See Parlia-
mentary History, vol. xix., 227 sqq.
he was liable at all times to be called upon to defend the

correctness of his decisions. 1 It is true that the House is
^
the supreme Court of Appeal, to which the Speaker, like
all others, is subordinate, but the authority of the Chair is
equally firmly established as against the individual members.
Until the judgment of the House is appealed to in the
prescribed form the authority of the Speaker must override

the doubts of a single member and be final. According
to ways of looking at things the parliamentary
English
umpire would be as much lowered by a dispute with
a member about his ruling as a judge would be in a
court of law, if, after giving his decision, he allowed
himself to be drawn
argument into an
parties with the
whose case he had disposed of, or with the public, about the
correctness of his judgment or the grounds upon which it
was based. Of course we must never forget what has been
emphasised in another connection that the special conditions
found in the House of Commons, the immense power of
tradition there, the common interest of all its sections, how-
ever divided in party opinion, in maintaining this tradition
and the high level of parliamentary life, are indispensable
conditions for the working of the whole machinery. Here,
again, it is not rules or juristic formulae, but the psycho-
logical historically developed, upon which depends
factor,
the undisturbed working of so complicated an arrangement
as a modern representative constitution.
Besides the general enforcement of the rules of the
House, the Speaker's official duty includes, as a specially
-
important department, the assertion of the principles of
parliamentary law grouped under the head of Privilege, the
venerable special rights of the House. He it is who to this
day, when a new parliament is opened, claims from the
Crown, at the bar of the House of Lords, the confirmation
The debate of the1902 shows how completely these

of May
1
7th
rules have entered into the and blood of the House of Commons
flesh ;
even the Irish leader, Mr. John Redmond, stated the rules clearly and with
full approval. (Parliamentary Debates (107), 1025.) But he guarded himself
"
by adding, But such power as that vested in the Chair would be intoler-
able unless there existed in the House itself the power of reviewing, under
proper conditions, those decisions If no such power existed
. . then freedom of discussion would be a thing of the past."

.
of the privileges of the Commons, using the form which has
been customary for centuries ;
and to him the assurance of
the Crown is given. So, too, he is at all times the guar-
dian of the inviolability of these rights and privileges against
attacks from within the House or without. He is bound
^/
without delay and on his own authority to repel any inva-

sion or attempted invasion of the rights of the Commons,
and to lay before the House any matter which
view in his
constitutes a breach of privilege. If, therefore, any such
breach of privilege occurs during a sitting in committee,
the sitting must at once be broken off and the Speaker
must be called in to receive a report of what has taken
place. such a case, again, the Speaker has to exercise
In
the important judicial function of deciding, according to
his own views, whether, having regard to all precedents,
any breach of privilege has taken place, and whether, there-

fore, the occasion calls by the House to
for special action
protect its
rights. Here, once more, what has been already
said as to the Speaker's interpretation of the rules applies ;
his judgment, otherwise unfettered, is always based upon an
examination, often, no doubt, of an elastic kind, of the prece-

dents laid down in the journals of the House.
We have now reached a point at which we can realise the

characteristic feature of the Speaker's office and the modern
English conception of parliamentary presidency ;
we have the
clue to a full understanding of the English solution of this
constitutional and political problem, namely, the predominantly
judicial character of the office of the Speaker. The historic

development, now long completed, of the complete impar-
tiality of the Speaker has been essential in leading up to this
solution, and is same time the clearest expression of
at the
the search for it. Ever since there has been a House of
Commons in the modern sense, there have been judicial
features in this organ of the House ; but, if we probe to the
bottom, the elevation of the judicial function into the dis-

tinctive element in the Speaker's office is intimately con-
nected with the development of the system of parliamentary
party government. When once the government of England
had come to be placed in the hands of an elected majority
in a parliament divided into parties, it would have been
intolerable had the president, and with him the rules of

procedure, become a constant object of party strife. The
conflict of unreformed House of Commons
parties in the
of the eighteenth century seems, no doubt, only too often a
political game played by two different sections of the same

governing class, a consequence of the oligarchic charac-
ter of the parties under the corrupt franchise of the day.
However that may be, one thing is certain the House :
of Commons has long made it a point of honour, some-

thing self understood, that the rules of the game shall be
kept by all of the players. Just as the judicial bench in
the ordinary courts of law has been excluded from the sphere
of influence both of Crown and Parliament, so also the need
for raising the Speaker into an impartial and unapproach-
able protector of the rules of procedure, a real judge in the
party war, came to be felt during the same period. The

historical account given below will make this abundantly
clear.
Moreover, one purely external indication shows that it is

not merely a use of analogy to conceive of the Speaker
in the modern House of Commons as above all things
a judge, nay as the sole judge, of parliamentary law. His
decisions are called by a name used for expressions of
judicial opinion, "rulings." The modern president of the

House Commons, then,
of is a judge who has to apply
the rules of procedure to the best of his ability and with
perfect impartiality, maintaining with a firm yet sensitive
hand the proper relations between the two parties to the
proceedings before him, the majority and the minority ;
he must do so by maintaining the rules and the usage of

centuries, and by taking care that both majority and minority
are unimpeded in their use of the forces and the weapons
which the order of business provides for strong and weak.
He must, further, like a judge, watch to see that the advance
of the majority and the resistance of the minority observe
the spirit of the rules and the whole spirit of parliamentary
life. only when the Speaker is looked upon as a judge
It is
that we
reach a complete understanding of his attitude to
the rules on the one hand and to the House on the other.
As the law stands above judge and parties, so do settled
tradition and the unwritten standards of parliamentary law
stand above the Speaker and the House. To apply this law,
to deal with wise discrimination between the House and the
individual member and between party and party, to do this
according to the rules and in the spirit of parliamentary law is
the essential, the crowning task of the Speaker. If we would
understand the spirit of parliamentary law we must clearly

grasp the principle that its provisions, however various, are
all directed to one end, namely that of keeping the activity
of Parliament in swing, and of securing that in any
full
event those affairs of state shall be attended to which could

not be dealt with without a regulated course of proceedings
in the House of Commons. On
hand the legisla-
the one
tive proposals placed before Parliament by the Government
must be promptly despatched on the other, the minority
;
must, under certain circumstances, be given a chance of

postponing the decision of Parliament as to some particular
subject, or even, at times, of preventing its ever being

reached. These conflicting requirements may both, under
different conditions, become necessities of state, to the
securing which the order of business and its treatment

of
by the Speaker must contribute. Protection of a majority

against obstruction and protection of a minority against
oppression are both alike functions of the Chair. It is
hardly too much to say that they exhaust the duties of the
high office held by the impartial guardian of parliamentary
law, under the aegis of which alone can new legislation be
legally brought to completion.
remains now to cast a glance over the functions of
It
the Speaker which extend beyond the precincts of the House

into the world outside. Externally, the Speaker is not only
the ceremonial representative of the House, he is its only
constitutionally recognised deputy. As the " mouth " of the
House he publishes its decisions in the prescribed manner,
communicates its thanks, conveys its votes of censure, warn-
ings and solemn declarations, as it has ordered. Through

him alone has the House direct communication with the
Crown. The Speaker betakes himself in solemn procession
to the Sovereign if an address from the House is to be pre-
sented, he appears as the head of the Commons before the

bar of the Upper House when the Sovereign comes there in

person or by deputy, and he receives all royal messages sent to
the House by a member of its body belonging to the Cabinet ;
alterations by the Lords in bills passed by the House of

Commons are sent to him, and he has to consider whether,
and if so to what extent, these (or any other proceedings of
the Lords) trench upon the privileges of the Commons.
The Speaker, too, is the medium of execution for all orders
of the House which are directly external in their operation ;
it is on his authority that summonses are sent to witnesses

whom the House may desire to examine, or to private
citizens or officials whom
it wishes to reprimand he pre- :
pares, in pursuance of the decision of the House, any orders

for the arrest of persons who have committed offences
against the High Court of Parliament, and he has these

orders carried out by the officers who are at his disposal ;
lastly, he has in his hands the machinery for keeping the

numbers of the House to their full strength. Except in the
case of a general election he sends out the formal warrants
authorising the issue of writs of election, even when the

vacancies to be filled up arise during a prorogation. He is,
of course, the chief under whom the secretarial and recording
work of the House is carried on : all documents and papers
which concern the House as a whole are delivered to him ;
and he communicates them to the House, unless in his

discretion he declines to do so, a course which under certain
circumstances he is entitled to adopt. The general rule is
that every written document read out by the Speaker is at
once laid upon the table of the House, and then entered
verbatim in the minutes and journal of the House. The staff
of the department of the Speaker are under his direct control,
and the staffs of the departments of the Clerk of the House
and the Serjeant-at-arms are under his general control.
The whole elaborate duty of driving the parliamentary
machine is thus placed in the Speaker's hand. The great-
ness of the honour which the office confers upon its bearer
in the nation's eyes, is matched by a corresponding responsi-
bility, and by the importance of the claims made on his
capacity and character. There can be no better testimony

to the incomparable moral and spiritual health and stability
which for centuries have marked the ruling classes in England
than the series of strong and capable men who have succeeded
one another in the Speaker's chair since the commencement
of parliamentary government. They have not excelled in what
would be called greatness or heroism ; such qualities, it may
readily be conceded, would find no place in the historically
settled character of the office what has distinguished them
;
has been their display of excellences of character and spirit

within the reach of all mankind. We must search in the
ranks of the Speakers not for leaders of the nation's policy,
but for specimens of the capable average man of the ruling
class. We can, in all seriousness, feel little doubt of the
and moral capacity of the nation itself when the
political
is so high and continues always at an even level
average ;
when time time simple members of the House, often

after
before their appointment known but to a narrow circle, have
been found able to maintain during the last two hundred
years without exception the elevation of the office ; when,
finally, each Speaker seems to gain moral and spiritual
strength from the fulfilment of his duties. Ceaseless diligence
and love of order in the management of parliamentary busi-
ness, a lofty conception of the Speaker's task, the passing on
from generation to generation of a tradition of unapproachable
personal integrity and political impartiality, have come to be
associated with the very idea of
the Speakership ; these
qualities, united to clear grasp of the methods of conducting

business, and at times to an amazing sagacity in handling
men, are the great characteristic traits of the Speakers as
they pass in long sequence before the view of the historian
of Parliament.
This seems an appropriate place at which to take a short

glance at the extent and essential features of Privilege, of which
the Speaker is the supreme guardian. As has been already
stated in the Introduction, it is no part of the plan here
adopted to discuss the law of privilege on its own account.

This section of English parliamentary law deals with an inde-
pendent problem of the highest importance in politics and
history, and for exhaustive treatment it should be specially
dealt with. We must here be content with the indications

which follow, and confine ourselves to such points as are
necessary for understanding procedure.
We
may, following Sir W. Anson's excellent treatment of
the subject, divide the aggregate of parliamentary privileges
into two groups, one consisting of those which are asserted
by the Speaker when he presents himself to have his elec-

tion confirmed, and the other of those rights which do not
receive this solemn formulation. The first group comprises
the privilege of freedom of person, the privilege of free
speech and certain technical privileges, viz., the privilege of

collective access to the Crown, and of having the most
favourable construction put upon the proceedings of the
Commons. not in these days much to be said of
There is
the two last-mentioned. The right of free speech will be

dealt with in the section upon the debates of the House so ;
far as it affects the publication of debates and parliamentary

papers, it has already been sufficiently considered.
The privilege of freedom of person protects members
during the session, and for forty days after prorogation or
dissolution the protection is a survival from the ancient
;
Teutonic idea of judicial safe conduct ; during the currency

of the period members are safe from arrest, have immunity
against the authority of the state. But there is an important

qualification parliamentary immunity is excluded not only
in cases of treason and felony, which have been exceptions
from the earliest days, but in every case of arrest for an
indictable offence, i.e., practically in all criminal matters.

The second of Sir W. Anson's groups comprises, in the
first place, the right of the House to supervise the due consti-
tution of its own body, both by attending to the filling up
of vacancies and by seeing that its members are legally
entitled to their seats. With
this object the House, and the
House alone, during its sittings, gives the necessary orders
for the holding of elections to vacant seats. Under the same
head falls the historic right of the House to determine dis-
puted elections, a right, however, which since 1868 has in
practice been transferred to the regular judges, being now
exercised by the King's Bench Division of the High Court.
And, finally, the House of Commons has the exclusive
II L
power of adjudicating upon legal disqualifications alleged to

exist any person returned, and even of expelling from
in
the House by its order persons whom, it deems unfit for
membership.
In the second place there is the right, inherent in each
House, to exclusive cognizance of matters arising within it.
This is the basis of the complete autonomy of each House
in respect to its procedure. 1 And hence are derived the
special rights of the House which may be called the clasps
which bind together the whole subject matter of privilege,
namely, its right in any particular case to be the sole and
authoritative judge as to the existence and extent of a privi-
lege and as to whether it has been infringed, and its further

right to use its inherent power to punish, by way of sanction
to the judgment at which it arrives. Privilege, however, as
both Anson and May aptly observe, is law, and must rest
upon a legal basis : it follows that the courts of law must,
on principle, be competent to discuss the question where the
boundary line is to be drawn between the jurisdiction of the
ordinary courts and the extraordinary jurisdiction which the
Houses of Parliament are entitled to exercise for their own
protection. A number of celebrated conflicts have arisen
from this source in which the courts of common law and
Parliament, especially the House of Commons, have come
into opposition ;
we cannot here go fully into the subject,
2
which has, moreover, been alluded to in eailier chapters.
The leading cases, such as Burden v. Abbot (14 East, i),
Howard v. Cosset (10 Q.B., 359), Bradlaugh v. Cosset (L.R.,
12 Q.B.D., 271), have not produced any intelligible or exact

delimitation of the boundary between the ordinary law and
the privileges of Parliament. We
may state generally that
privilege, like the rest of parliamentary law, is the product
of a historical development, and that the legal notions w^hich
receive their expression in the claim of privilege have
acquired a new significance with the political supremacy of
the House of Commons as established by the system of
parliamentary government. It must also not be overlooked
1
See remarks supra, pp. 7, 81.
1
See Anson, vol. i., pp. 175-184 ;
also infra, Part ix.
that parliamentary privilege, asopposed to the ordinary law,

has always been, and still is, based on the assumption of
a special jurisdiction over the members of the House them-
selves. This important point will have to be discussed when
we come to the explanation of the notion of parliamentary
freedom of speech.
L 2
CHAPTER III
THE HISTORY OF THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER 1
first (Prolocutor) of the House of Commons whose name

THEappearsSpeaker in the records was Sir Thomas Hungerford, of whom the
Rolls of Parliament (vol. under date 1377, report that he "avoit
ii., p. 374),
les paroles pur les communes." It is, however, not until the parliaments
of Queen Elizabeth's day that the office stands out with any distinctness
either in the journals of the House or in contemporary reports. The legal
authorities vested in the Speaker in the year 1600 were not materially
different from those which we find two hundred years later. But in some
definiteand important aspects of the Speaker's office a process of change
began about that time which was not finally completed till the beginning
of the nineteenth century. The result of the process is the modern, non-
partisan Speaker portrayed in the foregoing chapters. From the time of
the Reform Bill there has been no essential change in the nature of the
Speakership. The Victorian age has, no doubt, introduced many inno-
vations among the Speaker's functions, but it has had no influence upon
the character of his office.
We have then, substantially, three types of Speaker first, the Speaker

:
of the mediaeval Parliament, secondly, the Speaker of Tudor and Stuart

days, and, thirdly, the Speaker of the period from the beginnings of
parliamentary party government.
So far as the first stage is concerned we may say in a few words all
that needs to be mentioned. We are no doubt justified in assuming
that even before 1377 the Commons had some officer to preside over
their deliberations and to interpret their wishes to the Crown. 2 P'rom
the last-named year the Prolocutor of the Commons is usually named in
the Rolls of Parliament but there are many gaps in the list of Speakers
;
for the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. 3 This, in itself, is a proof that
the office had not yet become too independent. From the first, as remarked
before, the records show that the Speaker was elected by the Commons
and then confirmed in office by the Crown. There never was a period in
the history of the English Parliament when a president of the popular
assembly was assigned by the Crown as a matter of right, though, doubt-
less, in the mediaeval parliaments the choice of a Speaker was decidedly
1
See especially the seventh chapter in Henry Elsynge's "The Manner
of Holding Parliaments," which goes into great detail as to the office of
the Prolocutor Domus Communis.
2
In Edward Ill's time (1343) we find "Les chivalers des counteez et
"
les communes responderent par Monsieur William Trussel (Rot. Parl.,
vol. p. 136
ii., Elsynge, p. 156).
;
Hakewel, in a supplement to his book ("The Manner how Statutes

3
are Enacted in Parliament by Passing of Bills"), p. 199, gives a catalogue

of all the Speakers down to 1670. It appears from this that most of the
Speakers were lawyers gentlemen of the long robe.
HISTORY OF THE SPEAKERSHIP 157
1
influenced by the Crown. For instance, as Gairdner, the historian of
Richard points out with reference to the election of Speaker in 1484,
III,
"
the appointment of Catesby had in all probability been suggested by the
King himself for Catesby
;
was one of Richard's principal councillors." 1
Moreover, in the conduct of his office, the "Parlour et Procurateur" of
the Commons during the first centuries of parliamentary history appears
mainly as the link connecting Crown and Commons. The few available
sources of information respecting the inner life of the House of Commons
in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries enable us to see the frankly -'
If Parliament had to deal with a

political character of the office. strong
King the Speaker often seemed rather an advocate of Crown interests in
the House of Commons than the free chief of the latter. In consequence,
under Henry IV we already find a Speaker who received large material
proofs of royal favour, estates and official appointments. On the other
hand, when the King had need of the Commons, there were not wanting,
even in those days, self-reliant Speakers who could make long speeches
to the King interlarded with plenty of good advice. Some cases are
reported in which a Speaker had to resign his post on political grounds,
either because he did not please the King or because the Commons were dis-
satisfied with the manner in which he acted as their representative towards
the Crown. It is remarkable that in the whole period there is only one
case reported in which there was any direct infringement, by the authority
of the Government, of the legal privileges of the House personified in
the Speaker, and that one case occurred in a time of great political
ferment. 3
The authorities for the second period also show clearly the complete
dependence of the Speakership upon the Crown and the acknowledged v
political character of the office. The great power of the Tudor monarchs
was reflected in the subservient demeanour of the Speaker towards Crown
and Government. It became a custom for him to make repeated excuses
and to declare himself unworthy of election he would begin in the
;
House of Commons by making a show of physical resistance against

being led to the Chair, and would reiterate his declarations of reluctance .
to the Crown this custom, which had long degenerated into a farce, 4
;
was first abandoned by Arthur Onslow (1727-8 to 1761). The Speakers,

too, when submitting themselves for approval, began to hold forth in long
and solemn speeches, the contents of which were of their own devising,
whereas, in earlier days, as D'Ewes truly observes, Speakers had been wont
1
The request of the Crown to the Commons that they will choose a
Speaker appears for the first time 2 Henry IV, after which it occurs
regularly.By the time of Queen Elizabeth this formal proceeding by the

Crown appears to be regarded as indispensable. (Elsynge, pp. 162 sqq.)
"
History of Richard III," pp. 199, 200.
Gairdner,
*
This was the case of the imprisonment of Speaker Thorpe, during
an adjournment of Parliament in 1452, on the demand of the Duke of
"
York (see History of the House of Commons," vol. i., pp. 3, 4).
Townsend,
In the early years of Henry V's reign a resignation of office was forced
upon Speaker Stourton by the Commons, who were offended by his sub-
servience to the Crown (see Hakewel, p. 205).
4
D'Ewes (p. 42) describes the practice as " meerly formal and out
of modesty."
to say only what the Commons had authorised. In the times of Henry VIII
and Elizabeth, when Parliament bent without resistance to the power and
will of the Crown, even at times to the point of prostration, the Speakers ^
of the House, too, acted as if they were competing for a prize in humility
of attitude and Oriental submissiveness of speech. In the same period it
became a regular practice for the Speaker to receive from the Crown an
annual payment of ^loo. 1 In addition, he often held a Crown appointment.
Sir Richard Bell, the Speaker in Queen Elizabeth's fourth parliament, was
made Chief Baron of the Exchequer, which office he held along with his
Speakership. Sir Edward Coke was both Solicitor-General and Speaker
in 1593, and Sir Edward Phelips, who was Speaker from 1604 to 1611,
was King's Serjeant. The Speaker was regularly a paid servant of the
Crown. One of the contemporary reporters gives naive expression to the
"
fact of the Speaker's dependence on the Crown, writing, The Commons
choose their Speaker, who (though nominated by the King's Majesty) is
to be a member of that House." 2 And in 1625 Sir John Eliot, the first of the
champions of the House of Commons against Charles I, refers slightingly
"
to the Speaker's office, remarking that it had been too frequently filled by
nullities, men selected for mere Court convenience." The true state of
affairs is betrayed by the fact that the nomination of the Speaker was
always undertaken by some member of the House who was in the service
of the Crown.
No doubt there was even then a higher ideal of the Speakership in
some minds, as the report of so well-informed a contemporary as Hooker
informs us " During the time of the Parliament he ought to sequester
:
himself from dealing or intermeddling in any public or private affairs

and dedicate and bend himself wholly to serve his office and function.
Also he ought not to resort to any nobleman, counsellor, or other person,
to deal in any of the parliament matters, but must and ought to have
with him a competent number of some of that House, who may be
witnesses of his doings" (pp. 120-121). The practice was very different
"
from Hooker's theory In the Lower House the Speaker of the Tudor
:
reigns is in very much the same position as the Chancellor in the Upper
House he is the manager of business on the part of the Crown, and
;
probably the nominee either of the King himself or of the Chancellor. . . .
The result was that theSpeaker, instead of being the defender of the
liberties of the House, had often to reduce it to an order that meant
"
1
He
hath allowance for his diet one hundred pounds of the King
for Parliament.
every sessions of Also he hath for every private bill
passed both Houses and enacted, five pounds." (Mountmorres, vol. i., p. 121.)
2
Tract in Harleian Miscellany, vol. i., p. 246. Another tract says
"
drily as to the choice of the Speaker One of His Majesty's Council
:
doth use to propound that it is His Majesty's pleasure that they shall freely
choose a Speaker for them and yet commendeth, in his opinion, some
;
"
person by name (ibid., vol. v., p. 259). On the other hand, the description of
"
the Speaker's office by Hooker shows strong marks of idealising Also :
the King ought not to make any choice or cause any choice to be made
of any Speaker of the Common House,
. . . but they must be elected . . .
and chosen by the laws, orders and customs of the realm as they were
"
wont and ought to be, and the King's good advice yet not to be contemned
(Mountmorres, vol. i., p. 133).
obsequious reticence or sullen submission." Thus does the great consti-

tutional historian, Stubbs, characterise the Speakers of the sixteenth
century. The duty placed upon the Speaker of interpreting the will of
1
the Commons to the Crown in itself gave him ample scope for serving
the Government. In addition, the Speaker undoubtedly had a right,
at that time, upon the introduction of a bill into the House, to explain
by a speech the probable effect, in his opinion, of such an enact-
ment he had also a dominant influence upon the programme of the
;
day's business, as he could fix what bills were to come up for dis-
cussion and what votes were to be taken. Lastly, he had the power of
declaring bills to be out of order or of withholding them from the House
as being infringements of the royal prerogative, even at times as being
contrary to express royal commands. We may see how freely the six-
teenth century Speakers disposed of the records of the House by referring
to the instructive order of the iyth of May 1604, on which date it was
solemnly entered upon the journal as an order of the House that in future
the Speaker was not to send a bill to the King or any other person before
the House was made acquainted with it. 2 The incident proves how
strongly the Speaker of the day felt it his duty to keep the King and
Government well informed of all that was passing in the House of
Commons. Another instructive incident occurred in the parliament of
1607 the Speaker said with regard to the treatment of a certain petition
:
that the King had taken notice of it and he therefore pressed the House
not to have it read. About this time the Commons began to guard
itself against such invasions of the privileges of Parliament. Similar
occurrences in the parliaments of 1641 and 1642 and in Charles II 's time
led to the establishment of a principle which has never since been
disputed, namely, that it is a breach of privilege for the Crown to take

notice of any matter which is depending in either House. 1
The authorities give copious and eloquent information as to the
bearing of the Speaker and his manner of interposing for the manage-
ment of the House of Commons. On the 28th of February 1592-3 the
Speaker reported that he had been sent for to Court, where the Queen had
personally commanded him what he was to communicate to the House.
He was warned on his allegiance to allow no bills to be read which
concerned " matters of state or reformation in causes ecclesiastical."
1
During the 23rd of November 1601, Mr. Secretary Cecil

sitting of the
"
said, And you, Mr. Speaker, should perform the charge Her Majesty gave
unto you in the beginning of this parliament, not to receive bills of this
nature." 5
Stubbs, "Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediaeval and Modern

History," 1900, pp. 311, 312.
*
Parry, p. 246. In the Commons it is moved, touching a bill against
"
A. B.," which the. King had sent for and retained, " That it might not
be drawn into precedent for any Speaker being trusted by the House, to
deny to read a bill which he receiveth, to withdraw it out of the House,
to inform the King or any other, before the House be made acquainted
with it." (House of Commons Journals, vol. i., p. 212.)
Exceptions occur when the personal interests of the Crown are
3
affected by a bill or a motion in the House. See supra, Part iv., chaptet ii.
*
D'Ewcs, pp. 478, 479.
4
D'Ewes, p. 649.
i6o
The most instructive passage in any of the authorities is the speech

of Wentworth, an active opponent of the Government, in the parliament
of 1587, a speech which afterwards drew down upon him a long imprison-
ment. He delivered to the Speaker, in writing, a long string of questions
which he begged might be read carefully, and then answered. The questions
were " Whether this Council be not a place for any member of the same
:
here assembled, freely and without controllment of any person or danger of

laws, by bill or speech to utter any of the griefs of this Commonwealth ? . .
Whether there be any Council which can make, add to, or diminish from
the laws of the realm, but only this Council of Parliament ? Whether
it be not against the orders of this Council to make any secret or matter
of weight, which is here in hand, known to the Prince or any other,

concerning the high service of God, Prince, or State, without the consent
of the House ? Whether the Speaker or any other may interrupt
any member of this Council in his speech used in this House, tending
to any of the forenamed high services? Whether the Speaker may rise
when he will, any matter being propounded, without consent of the House,
or not ? Whether the Speaker may over-rule the House in any matter
or cause there in question ;
or whether he is to be ruled or over-ruled
"'
in any matter or not . . .
clearly show the posi-
.? Such complaints
tion of the Speaker in Parliament at the time they were made. 2 We
shall have to point out in another connection the effect of this situation
on the development of the order of business on one critical point.*
There can be no little doubt that the absolutist domination over Parlia-
ment by Henry VIII and his successors found its main support in the
subservience of the Speaker and his advocacy of the interests of the
Crown. 4
The first struggles of the self-reliant Parliament under the supremacy
of the Puritans soon made it clear that the Speaker's old attitude was
no longer tenable. Nothing shows this better than the record of the
memorable sitting of the 2nd of March 1629, the closing scene of parlia-
1
Parry, pp. 228, 229.

2
It cannot be said that Crown and Government ever left Parlia-
ment doubt as to their views. In the Lord Chancellor's speech of
in
the 23rd of February 1593, the answei to the request for confirmation of
"
the privileges of the House is very explicit. Priviledge of speech is
granted, but you must know what priviledge you have, not to speak
every one what he listeth, or what cometh in his brain to utter that ;
but your priviledge is I or No. Wherefore, Mr. Speaker, Her Majesties

pleasure is, that if you perceive any idle heads which will not stick to
hazard their own estates, which will meddle with reforming the Church
and transforming the Commonwealth, and do exhibite any bills to such
purpose, that you receive them not, until they be viewed and considered
by those, who it is fitter should consider of such things, and can better
judge of them." (D'Ewes, p. 460.)
3
See infra, pp. 207 sqq.
4
See the lively description of the Parliament of 1523 and the charac-
teristic manner in which the all-powerful Cardinal Wolsey bent the
Commons to his will through the Speaker, Sir Thomas More, in Stubbs,
"'
Seventeen Lectures," p. 314. Nevertheless the House offered a stubborn
resistance to the demands of the Crown for money and only granted
part (if the taxes that were asked for.
mentary life before the eleven years of Charles I's absolute government.
The King had decided to dissolve the House, whose resistance to the
Crown was growing continually plainer, and to prevent any business
being transacted before the end of the session had directed Speaker Finch
to deliver to the House a command to adjourn. The Commons, under Sir
John Eliot's leadership, were firmly resolved on resisting this unconstitu-
tional proceeding, and to prove that the House was entitled, until the
session was brought to an end, to continue or adjourn its sittings at its
own pleasure. They declined to comply with the King's command until
they had made a protest against his unconstitutional policy. When,
therefore, the Speaker wished to leave the chair, he was kept there, at first
by physical force and then by threats, and the House continued to sit. The
Speaker refused, however, to allow Eliot's proposed resolutions to be read
by the Clerk or to put them to the vote. In plaintive tones he called
"
out, What would any of you do if you were in my place ? Let not
my desire to serve you faithfully be my ruin." He protested that he
must obey the King's commands in reply he was told that it was his
;
duty to obey the commands of the House, on pain of being summoned

"
to the bar. The Speaker could see no way out of his dilemma. I am
"
not less the King's servant," he said, for being yours. I will not
say
I will not put the reading of the paper to the question, but I must
say I dare not." 1
So great was the Speaker's terror of his royal master !
There can be no doubt that, however much Finch's personal weakness

may have contributed to this scene, his conception of his own office was
but too closely in accordance with that which had long been accepted
and in the Government circles of the day.
as correct at the court of Charles
So long as the House of Commons was in unison with the Crown, as in
Elizabeth's time, there was no harm in the Speaker's regarding himself
as the Crown's obedient servant but the great constitutional struggle
;
between King and Parliament, which had become inevitable from the
time of the accession of James I, was bound to bring about a change in
the relation between Crown and Speaker corresponding with the profound
change in Parliament. Finch's tenure of office was the lowest point in
the line of the historical development of the office. It is true that the
Speakers of Charles's two later Parliaments of 1640 and 1641 were

actually selected by the Crown but the Speaker in the Long Parlia-
;
ment, Lenthall, was the first, after a long interval, to maintain a firm
attitude and a high conception of his office, as especially shown by
his conduct upon the day (4th January 1641-2), when Charles, defying
all law and tradition, broke into the House with his bodyguard to
arrest in person five leaders of the Opposition. When the King put the
question to the Speaker whether the members whom he sought, and
who had made their escape, were present, Lenthall fell on one knee and
"
answered, Sire, I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this
place, but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I here, am
and I humbly beg your Majesty's pardon, that I cannot give any other
answer than this, to what your Majesty is pleased to demand of me."*
Parry, p. 331; Rushivorth, vol. i., pp. 660-670; Gardiner, "History

of England," vol. vii., p. 68.
2
Gardiner, "History of England," vol. x., pp. 138-142. "Lenthall
"
was," says Gardiner (" History of England," vol. ix., p. 220), better fitted
This same Lenthall was also made Speaker of the House of Commons
called together by Cromwell in 1654. The Lord Protector on this
occasion, as on many others, took to himself royal privileges, inasmuch
as he reserved the right of nomination. In the Restoration period the
Speakers shared in no small degree in the Byzantinism of the time an ;
excellent illustration of their attitude towards the Crown may be found

in the speech of Sir Edward Turner at the close of the session of
1665, which is, at the same time, a good specimen of the style of state
orations of the day, turgid and full of quotations. 1
The crisis in the
history of the office began under the next Government. Sir Edward
Seymour had been Speaker in the parliament which was dissolved in
January 1678-9, and after the general election he was again presented to
the King for approval. But the confirmation of his election was now-
refused. To the amazement of the Commons, the Lord Chancellor
"
explained that the approbation which is given by His Majesty to
the choice of a Speaker would not be thought such a favour as it is,
and ought to be received, if His Majesty were not at liberty to deny
as well as to grant it." The Commons were desired to make another
choice. At the sitting of the House which followed, one of the members
for the post than Charles could have imagined. He was surpassed by
some in the in knowledge of parliamentary precedent, but he was
House
the first to realise the position of a Speaker in times of political con-
troversy. He would not, like Finch, in 1629, place himself at the service
of the Crown. Neither would he, like Glanville, in the Short Parliament,
take an active part in opposition to the Crown. He was content to
moderate and control, and to suggest the means of reconciling differences,
without attempting to influence the House in its decision." Hatsell
quotes a different characterisation of Lenthall the writer to whom he ;
refers attributes the maintenance of order in the Long Parliament chiefly

"
to the Clerk Elsynge, and calls Lenthall obnoxious, timorous and
interested," alleging that he was often confused in collecting the sense of
the House and drawing the debates into a fair question (Hatsell, vol. ii.,
3rd edn., p. 245, n. 4th edn., p. 260, n.). Townsend also (" History of the
;
House of Commons," vol. i., p. 22) pronounces a very unfavourable verdict

upon Speaker Lenthall, and gives examples of his lack of political
character. The following entries in the journal (House of Commons Journals,
vol. ii., p. 515) show the Commons to have been ready to reward Lenthall's
behaviour at the critical moment, and that he was prepared to take
advantage of his opportunities Petition of William Lenthall, Speaker,
:
concerning the great decay in his body and estate occasioned by his
continual employment here : order for payment of ^"6,000 as a voluntary
and free pp. 522, 523, Speaker Lenthall thanks the
gift :
ibid., House
for their great respect in voting him the sum of money.
Parliamentary History, vol. iv., 329 sqq. There is also an

1
inter-
esting debate in the House of Commons at the beginning of the session

of 1673 objection was raised to the new Speaker, Sir Edward Seymour,
:
from several quarters on the ground that he was a privy councillor, that
no instance of such an appointment since the Reformation could be
found, and that it endangered liberty of speech the proposed vote of ;
censure only obtained the support of a minority. (Parliamentary History,

vol. iv., 589 sqq.}
who had the King's confidence nominated Sir Thomas Meres as a candi-
date favoured by the Crown. These two steps by the King roused great
resentment and firm resistance among the Commons. In the long and
vehement debate which ensued, the confirmation of the Speaker's election
was characterised as a courtesy right, the exercise of which had long been
a mere form, and, by way of protest, the House adjourned. At the same
time a deputation was sent to the King with an address, in which it was
maintained that the free choice of a Speaker was an ancient right of
the House. The King stood firm so also did the Commons, who sent
;
another deputation and a second protest the only result was that
;
Parliament was prorogued. The new session which opened after a few
days interval found both sides willing to compromise. Both of the
candidates previously nominated were withdrawn William Gregory was
;
elected Speaker and accepted "without hesitation." The Commons had

not gained a complete victory, but since that time, neither Charles II
nor any other King has ventured to give the House of Commons express
commands as to the election of a Speaker. 1
The elections II's two last parliaments were, as a matter
in Charles
of quite free
fact, but Court influence lasted for some time longer and
;
survived the Revolution. It was, indeed, possible in 1689 for a venal
politician, such as Sir John Trevor, to hold the position of Speaker,

and, while in office, to attempt to win over the Tories to the side of
2
William III by corrupt means. Even in the parliament of 1721-1727
Walpole asserted that the way to the Speaker's Chair lay through the gate
of St. James's Palace. But as early as the election of Trevor's successor
in 1695 the attempt of a Court official to get a special candidate of the
King's appointed, was defeated, and the right of the House to free choice
asserted. The Speaker who was then elected was irreproachably inde-
pendent. His appointment may be regarded as the opening of the third
period, during which the present conception and position of the office of
the Speaker was, in the course of about a hundred years, to come to full
development.
The legal basis for the free choice of a Speaker had by this time been
firmly laid. It is true that Crown influence was actually exercised on
several subsequent occasions, especially under George III, whose attempts
to. restore the supremacy of the Crown by corrupting Parliament were
successful for a time, and extended to this branch of the House's activity.
But all his endeavours were unable to hinder the growth of the new
tradition and character which the Speakership was assuming. The chief
share in the process must be ascribed to Speaker Arthur Onslow, who for
1
See Parliamentary History, vol. iv., 1092-1112. The King's tech-
nical right to refuse to confirm the election of a Speaker has never been
abandoned, and is, in theory, still subsisting. It is instructive to find that
the whole episode of Seymour's election and refusal is omitted from
the journal of the House obviously in the hope of preventing its being
used as a precedent.
2
Trevor, who was proved in open debate in the House of Commons
to have accepted a bribe, is the only Speaker whom the House has declared
to have forfeited his membership and expelled (1694-5). See Townsend,
"
History of the House of Commons," vol. i., pp. 59-62 Parliamentary ;
History, vol. v., 906-908.

from 1727-8 to 1761, occupied his high office without a
thirty-three years,
break, stable and durable tradition. Until his time Speakers
and formed a
"
had been accustomed, though with diminishing frequency, to address the
House, by leave, while it was engaged in debate moreover, re-election
;
not being a recognised rule, the Speakers of former days had upon a dis-
solution re-entered the party lists and fought for their return. And it was
still looked upon as proper that the Speakership should be coupled
with a Crown appointment. In all these points Arthur Onslow raised
1
the conception of the Speaker's office to a new and higher level. He

looked upon himself in the first place as the president of the House in
the modern sense, as one who must not be in any degree a partisan of the
Government and their party, but must give equal rights to all members of
the House. He resigned the office of Treasurer of the Navy, which he held,
and contented himself for years with the income arising out of the fees
on private bills. He was a strict upholder of the rules his manner of
;
discharging the duties of his station and the influence exerted by him
on the development of the order of business have already been described
2
in another connection. After his time a strong reaction in the conduct
of the office set in.The confused party conflicts during the first half of
the reign of George III and their damaging influence on Parliament were
not without effect on the Speakership but on the whole the tradition
;
which had once been established continued. 3 An act of glaring partisanship

by Onslow's successor led to open rebukes in the House from members
of all parties, and he had to make his apologies. Speaker Norton, too
(1770-1780), repeatedly showed his party leanings by speeches in com-
mittee he was an avowed opponent of the King, and on one occasion,
;
in 1777, when presenting a money bill which placed a considerable sum

at the disposal of King George for his household, he went so far as to
"
say that the grant made was great beyond example," and that the
House hoped " that what they had granted liberally would be applied
1
Such was the custom for centuries : Sir Edward Coke was
Solicitor-General, Sir Edward Seymour Treasurer of the Navy, Harley, in
Queen Anne's time, was Secretary of State, and Spencer Compton Pay-
master-General. As early as the end of the seventeenth century public
opinion had pronounced strongly against such pluralism, as we may learn
from a pamphlet published in 1698 entitled " Considerations upon the
:
choice of a Speaker of the House of Commons in the approaching session."

(Parliamentary History, vol. v., Appendix xiv.)
2
Supra, vol. i., p. 55.
3
The description of the nature of the office of Speaker given in the
course of the debate of 1780 upon the election to the post is instructive :
"
To be capable of filling the Chair with dignity, the person proposed
must understand the constitution of the state, be well acquainted with
the law of the land, and, above all, be perfectly master of the law of
Parliament. He must have a zealous attachment to the rights and privi-
leges of the Commons of England, and a sufficient degree of ability and
integrity to support, maintain and defend them he must be diligent
;
without being precipitate, and firm and decisive without being rash, and
that which was a Speaker's most important duty was his conducting
himself with the strictest impartiality on every occasion." (Parliamentary
History, vol. xxi., 793.)
wisely."
1
The rejoinder of George III to this fatherly admonition was the
exertion of direct pressure upon the Government party to prevent Norton's
re-election in 1780; in his place a member belonging to the Court
party, Wolfran Cornwall, was chosen.
2
Under him and his successor con-
siderable deviations from the Onslow tradition took place, in so far as
both Speakers repeatedly showed themselves open partisans. Addington,
whose general conduct of business is described as impartial, allowed his
sentiments as a Tory and an adherent of Pitt to prevent his declaring
breaches of the rules which Pitt committed in the House to be out of
order. During the whole tenure of his post Addington was in direct
communication with George III, and he was transferred straight from
the Chair of the House to the office of Prime Minister (1801). On no
subsequent occasion has a Speaker exchanged his position for a leading
place in politics, and even at the time it was looked upon in many
quarters as irregular.
3
When Addington, after holding the premiership
for three years, once more made way for Pitt and returned to the House
as an ordinary member, he felt that the general sense of his fellow
members was opposed to an ex-Speaker taking such a position, and
himself begged for and obtained his transfer to the House of Lords, with
the title of Lord Sidmouth. At the opening of the nineteenth century,
then, the Speaker still was an active member of the House, and belonged
to a definite party such an attitude was not yet felt to be incompatible
;
with his Perhaps the best proof of this is the behaviour of

office.
Addington 's successor, Speaker Abbot (1802-1817); he repeatedly took an

active part in the discussions in committee, and on the most important
question of domestic policy then before the country, Catholic emancipa-
tion, showed himself a fanatical partisan, using the opportunity afforded
to him, when delivering a money bill at the bar of the House of Lords,
to make a political speech in opposition to the Catholic claims. This,
1
Parliamentary History, vol. xix., 213.
2
Theelection of Cornwall was the occasion of a sharp party contest.
Sir Fletcher Norton during his tenure of office had repeatedly shown his
leanings towards the Opposition the majority under Lord North deter-
;
mined to place a trustworthy party man in the Chair. The want of

deference towards the King which Sir Fletcher Norton had shown was
made a chief reason for the attitude taken towards him. The debate gave
plenty of opportunity for expressing the differences of view which existed.
It was maintained in forcible terms that the Speaker ought to be a
member for a real constituency not a placeman that he should hold

no Crown appointment (Parliamentary History, vol. xxi., 793 sqq.). Both
It is remarkable that the ex-Speaker
objections applied to Cornwall.
and candidate of the minority took part in the debate in person and indig-
nantly protested against the reason given by the Government for passing
him over, namely that his health was unsatisfactory. In the end Cornwall
was elected by 203 votes to 134. A few days later, however, the House
passed a vote of thanks to Sir Fletcher Norton for his self-sacrificing
work as Speaker.
a
See Porritt, vol. i., p. 461. At the beginning of the eighteenth
century, Harley, while occupying the Speaker's Chair, became Secretary of
State and leader of the Tory party in 1710 he became Prime Minister.
;
" "
See Roscoe, Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford (1902), pp. 28-46.
it is true, led proposal of a vote of censure in the House of
to the
Commons Abbot : defended his conduct and relied upon precedents, showing
the action of sixteenth century Speakers. The debate, in which nearly all
the prominent members of the House took part (22nd of April 1814),
showed a practically unanimous disapproval of Abbot's conduct. Though
the motion was rejected by the majority, for tactical reasons, both the
debate in the House and the general current of public opinion proved
that the independence of the Chair from all political parties had at last
come to be regarded as an indispensable postulate of parliamentary life. 1
Manners Sutton, Abbot's successor (1817-1835) regarded himself still as a

Tory when not actually officiating, and continued to share in the counsels
of his party; but this cost him his re-election in 1835 in spite of his
perfectly blameless conduct within the House.
The next Speaker but one after Manners Sutton, Shaw Lefevre, finished
in the nineteenth century what Onslow had begun in the eighteenth. He
is, to the present day, looked upon as the model for the conduct of the
Speakership, and it is to him that must be ascribed the completion and
permanent settlement of the doctrine of the Speaker's absolute impartiality.
He re-established the discipline of the House of Commons, which had
become somewhat lax during the struggles of the first years of the century,
and laid down the principle that the Speaker should refrain, without
exception, from all participation in politics, not only in the House, but
outside as well. It followed that the practice, which Manners Sutton was
the last to adopt, of joining in committee debates was thenceforward
recognised as unfitting. From the middle of the nineteenth century, then,
the Speaker has been independent of party as well as independent of the
Crown, and has had to regulate his whole action and conduct in
accordance with this principle.
So much for the external history of the Speakership, which will have
amply shown how slowly and with what difficulty the great political
principle of the Speaker's complete political impartiality, has fought its
way to full and undisputed recognition, though it now governs the
entire function of the Chair in the House of Commons, in its practical
application. The earliest conception of the office of the Speaker was

that of a link between Crown and Commons when he ceased to occupy
;
this position there was

a danger that the high judicial post, which
still
is entrusted to the president of the House of Commons, might, under

the influence of the growth and final mastery of the principle of party
government, be turned into a political organ of the majority. It must
be set down to the keen political sense of the English nation that
this danger was soon recognised and warded off by the formation of a
"
Plunkett, one of the leading Irish members, said I am free to
1
:
say
that the speech ....
was one of the most formidable attacks on the
constitution of Parliament that has occurred since the Revolution." And
"
Tierney, the Whig leader, declared When a bill was passed, it spoke for
:
itself. But if this discretion was

to be considered as vested in the Speaker
of adverting to the proceedings of the House, the Speaker of the House
of Commons must be a party man. There would be an end to every-
thing like a Speaker for a length of years, by whose experience in the
manner of conducting the business of the House they could derive advice
and instruction." (Hansard (27), 503, 517.)
strong tradition, which may now be looked upon as a firm protection

against the reappearance of any such tendency in the future. As the
emancipation of the Speakership from the Crown finds expression in the
right of free election, so does the escape of the Speaker from party ties
find expression in his renunciation of his rights as a member. It was at
a comparatively early date that it became a recognised principle that

the Speaker was not entitled to speak in the House upon bills and
motions which came before it, and that, except in the case of equality,
he was not to give a vote. The first important teacher of constitutional
law in England, Sir Thomas Smith, wrote " The Speaker hath no voice
:
in the House, nor they will not suffer him to speak in any bill to move
or dissuade it. But when any bill is read the Speaker's office is, as briefly
and as plainly as he may, to declare the effect thereof to the House."
This principle was laid down in emphatic terms during the last par-
liament of Queen Elizabeth (iGoi). And an order of the 27th of April
1
1604 directed: "That if any doubt arise upon a bill, the Speaker is to
explain but not to sway the House with argument or dispute."
2
The
idea was then current that the Speaker was not by speech or vote to
interfere in the House on behalf of any party, but it was far from being
accepted that in order to keep the Speaker from partisanship it was

necessary that he should discard all active membership. He was at
liberty to speak in committee whenever he thought fit. Hatsell, who
describes the practice of the second half of the eighteenth century, says
distinctly: "The Speaker is not obliged to be at committees of the
whole House when he is at a committee he is considered as a private
;
member, and has a voice accordingly."

3
As a matter of fact, till the time
of parliamentary reform, the Speakers of the eighteenth and the first
few years of the nineteenth century did take part in committee, though
no doubt rarely and only upon important occasions. The practice of the
years since the Reform Bill has not only prevented the Speaker from
exercising this form of activity, but has ended in treating all party
action by him as inadmissible, and has so worked out the modern type.
It has corrected the only serious fault of the English system of
parliamentary presidency judged by Bentham's statement of the rational
principles applicable to such an office. The whole discussion can
find no better epilogue than the following sentences in which, with deep
On the occasion of a division upon a certain ecclesiastical question

1
the votes were, ayes 105, noes 106, the Speaker not having voted. The
defeated party complained that one of their supporters had been pulled
back by the sleeve, and further called upon the Speaker to give his vote.
One member contended " When Her Majesty had given us leave to choose
our Speaker, she gave us leave to choose one out of our own number,
and not a stranger .... therefore he hath a voice." It was
answered by Sir Walter Raleigh, and confirmed by the Speaker, "That

he was foreclosed of his voice by taking that place and that he
. . .
was to be indifferent for both parties." Mr. Secretary Cecil supported

this view, saying in characteristic words, "The Speaker hath no voice;
and, though I am sorry to say it, yet I must needs confess lost it is, and
farewel it." (D'Ewes, pp. 683, 684.)
*
Hatsell, vol. ii., 3rd edn., p. 227 4th edn., p. 239.
;
3
Ibid., 3rd edn., p. 231 n. ; 4th edn., p. 243 n.
insight, the greatest of English Rationalists sums up the requirements for

a parliamentary president: "Throughout the whole business the grand
problem is to obtain, in its most genuine purity, the real and enlightened
will of the assembly. The solution of this problem is the end that ought
everywhere to be had in view. To this end everything that concerns the
president ought of course to be subservient. The duty and art of
. . .
the president of a political assembly is the duty and art of the accoucheur ;
ars obstetrix animorum, to use an expression of the first Encyclopedist
and his not
unworthy successors to ; assist nature and not to force her
to soothe upon occasion the pangs of parturition to produce in the
shortest time the genuine offspring, but never to stifle it, much less to
substitute a changeling in its room. It is only in as far as it may be
conformable to the will of the assembly, that the will of this officer can,
as such, have any claim to regard. If, in any instance, a person dignified
with any such title as president of such and such an assembly possess
any independent influence, such influence, proper or improper, belongs to
him, not in his quality of president, but in some foreign character. Any
influence whatever that he possesses over the acts of the assembly, other-
wise than subject to the immediate control of the assembly, is just so
much power taken from the assembly and thrown into the lap of this
1
single individual."
"
Essay on Political Tactics,"
1
Bentham, c. v., 4 (vol. ii., p. 330).
CHAPTER IV
THE SPEAKER'S DEPUTIES
the unavoidable absence of the Speaker a substitute

IN takes his place in the chair. The House of Commons
has not, as has been already observed, any presidential
college such as is found in Continental parliaments, and,

therefore, there are no vice-presidents who support the chair.
The function of always discharged by a single
president is
member. The
Speaker's deputy is, however, not chosen as
such : under the rules, another member, elected for the
"
performance of different duties, namely, the Chairman of
Committees," is ex qfficio deputy of the Speaker in the un-
avoidable absence of the latter his regular duties and the
:
mode of electing him will be described later. As the Chair-

man of Committees is elected at the beginning of a new
parliament for the whole period of its duration, his position
as Deputy Speaker is a
permanent one. To meet the case of
both Speaker and Chairman of Committees being unavoid-
ably prevented from attending the House, the Chairman's
substitute is, under Standing Order 81, authorised to act as
a second deputy of the Speaker. He also is chosen, at
the beginning of each parliament, to act for the duration
of the parliament and acts as Deputy Chairman, or Deputy
Speaker, if the need arises. In both cases the substitution

takes effect soon as the House is informed by the Clerk
as
that the Speaker is unable to be present or when (under
Standing Order i) the Speaker requests the Chairman or
Deputy Chairman to take the chair, it being unnecessary in
the latter case for any formal communication to be made to
the House. In both cases the substitute has the full powers
of the Speaker he is, in the case of the Speaker's unavoid-
:
able to " the duties and exercise the

absence, perform
authority of Speaker in relation to all proceedings of the
House . . . until the next meeting of the House, and so
on from day to day on the information being given to
like
the House, until the House shall otherwise order ; provided
II M
that if the House adjourn for more than twenty-four
shall
hours the Deputy Speaker shall continue to perform the
duties and exercise the authority of Speaker for twenty-four
hours only after such adjournment." All acts done by the
Deputy Speaker, whether under general or special rules of

the House, have the same effect as if they had been done by
the Speaker himself, with the sole exception that he cannot
appoint any person to an office for a longer period than

that during which his own office of Deputy Speaker lasts.
The Chairman of Committees receives in that capacity a
salary of .2,500 the Deputy Chairman is also paid. The
;
regular functions of the Chairman of Committees will be

described elsewhere ;
it is enough to note, in this place,
that hisduty is that of
chief taking the chair of the
House in Committee. When he is acting as Deputy Speaker
the resumption of the sittings of the House as such is
effected his leaving his place at the table and taking his
by
seat in the Speaker's chair. A
ruling of the Speaker has
established the propriety of repeated exchanges of chairman-
ship between the Speaker and his deputies during the same
1
sitting.
HISTORICAL NOTE
Till 1855 there was no provision for a deputy of the Speaker. If the
Speaker was ill or otherwise unavoidably kept away, the only thing to be
done was to adjourn the House or committee, or, in case of a prolonged

absence of the Speaker, to accept his resignation and elect a successor.
It is one of the curiosities of the House of Commons that this state of
the law could be borne without leading to any serious inconvenience.

In 1853, at length, a select committee was appointed to consider and
report upon the question of appointing a deputy for the Speaker the ;
growth of business and the lengthening of the sittings made it no longer

possible to dispense with an alteration of the old law. In May of the
same year the committee presented a very careful report " On the office
2
of the
Speaker." They began by referring to the hazard likely to
arise from the destruction or diminution of the prestige which had for
a century and a half at least attached to the office. "This confidence
and respect cheerfully paid to one man, selected by the House for the
office, cannot be expected to attach easily to another, who may be his
substitute for a few days." The Chair would suffer. " Your committee
would, therefore, regard with apprehension any plan which might lead
to the frequent absence of the Speaker." The very comprehensive historical
Deputy Speaker Act, 1855, 18 & 19 Viet. 84; Standing Order Si.
1
c.
*
Report from the select committee on the office of the Speaker, I2ih
May 1853 (No. 478).
investigation made by the committee showed how few difficulties had

ever been caused by the want of a pro tempore Speaker. From 1603 to 1
1660 the Speaker was only absent on nine occasions of these, five were
;
foran hour or two only between 1660 and 1688 there were two absences,,
;
from 1688 to 1760 only six, and from 1760 to 1853 only nine cases, all
of short absences. In every case the House had been able to get over
the difficulty by adjourning. The committee, however, remarked that it
was notorious that occasionally, out of consideration for the Speaker,
members had purposely abstained from making a House or had allowed
it to be adjourned almost as soon as made. On the other hand, they
drew attention to the great increase in the business of the House and the
greater inconvenience that would be caused by an adjournment. The
number of pages in the journal for 1818 was 427, that for 1848 was 1,013.
The committee proposed that the Chairman of Committees, as a member
already familiar with the proceedings of the House, should be appointed
the Speaker's deputy. This was approved by the House, and in the first
instance embodied in a standing order. But in order to enable the chair-
man to exercise all the functions of a Speaker, including those conferred
upon him by statute, it was necessary to supplement the standing order
by an act of parliament, the Deputy Speaker Act, 1855. The appoint-
ment of a second deputy was not ordered till the 2nd of May 1902, andi
was a part of the reform of the rules effected by the Balfour Cabinet-
In the debate on the proposal, which took place on the nth and i2th>
of February 1902 the necessity of the provision was recognised, the
Chairman of Committees being already, in modern times, overburdened
with business. It was, however, suggested from several quarters that the-
new presiding officer should receive a salary, so as to secure a material

guarantee of the independence of the Chair. He does now receive pay-
ment for his services, though at first the Government did not accede to
the proposal.
1
Hatsell had already remarked upon this circumstance seventy years
before. ("Precedents," vol. ii., 3rd edn., p. 212; 4th edn., p 223.)
M 2
CHAPTER V
THE OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS l
r
''HE staff of officers of the House of Commons now
I
A form a very numerous body. At their head stand the

Clerk of the House of Commons and the Serjeant-at-arms.
The office of the first named is the highest and most im-
portant official post in the House, and one of the most
respected in the whole English civil service its occupancy ;
has long been a personal distinction and the recognition

of eminent capacity. In the course of the seventeenth,
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries numerous holders of the

office have been eminent lawyers and leading authorities on
the law of Parliament and parliamentary history. Elsynge,
who made the procedure of the House of Commons the
subject of literary treatment, was Clerk ; Rushworth, to
whom we owe the great collection of materials for the
history of the Civil War, was Clerk Assistant, and as such, a

personal witness of the most important proceedings of the
Long Parliament. The two distinguished writers on whose
systematic works our whole acquaintance with the historic
and current law of Parliament is based, John Hatsell and
Thomas Erskine May, were both Clerks of the Commons
for long periods, and SirPalgrave, the excellent
Reginald
and indefatigable editor of May's treatise, to whom almost as
much praise is due as to May himself, held the same office
for many years. No one could give a better description of
the office than Sir Erskine May. He says :
"The House is appointed by the Crown, for life, by-

Clerk of the
which he is styled Under Clerk of the Parliaments, to
letters patent, in
'
attend upon the Commons.' He makes a declaration, under the Promissory

Oaths Act, 1868, before the Lord Chancellor, on entering upon his office
to make true entries, remembrances, and journals of the things done and
'
1
See Report from the joint select committee of the House of Lords
and the House of Commons, on the Houses of Lords and Commons per-
manent staff, 20 July 1899, No. 286.
THE OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 173
passed in the House of Commons.' He signs the addresses, votes of

'
thanks, orders of the House, endorses the bills sent or returned to the Lords,
and reads whatever is required to be read in the House. He is addressed by
members, and puts such questions as are necessary on an election of a
Speaker, and for the adjournment of the House in case of the absence of
a Speaker. He has the custody of all records or other documents, and is
responsible for the conduct of the business of the House in the official
departments under his control. He also assists the Speaker, and advises
2
members, in regard to questions of order and the proceedings of the House."
The salary attached to the office is .2,000 a year, and

an official residence
provided. is A fixed salary has been
paid since 1812 instead of the fees which had previously
formed the Clerk's remuneration. The Clerk of the House
is an officer of the Crown ;
his office is a patent office ;
he therefore, not appointed by the Speaker or by Parlia-

is,
ment, but by the Treasury, i.e., practically speaking by the

First Lord of the Treasury, the Prime Minister.
3
A Clerk
who has served the office and has retired, regularly receives
a substantial pension. The learned investigations of the
Clerks, and their accurate expert knowledge of the practice
of the House, have been of the greatest service in the
preliminary work of the different committees appointed to

consider procedure reforms. 4
The Clerk wears wig and gown and sits at the upper
end of the table of the House he leaves his place when ;
the Speaker leaves the chair. By the side of the Clerk, on

his left hand, and similarly attired, sit the two Clerks
Assistant, who act as Clerks both when the Speaker is in
the chair and when the House is in committee, the Clerk
Assistant being the Clerk to the committee. The appoint-
ment and terms of service of these two officers are regulated
by the House of Commons Offices Act, 1856 (19 20 Viet, &
c. i) ; they are appointed by the Crown, on the recom-
The to make private notes as to

1
clerks at the table are not allowed
events in the House. In the seventeenth century Rushworth, the Clerk
Assistant of the day, was expressly forbidden to do so.
2
May, "Parliamentary Practice," pp. 200, 201.
1
The higher officers of the Lords, viz., the Clerk of the Parliaments
and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, are also Crown officials :
Report (1899), Minutes of Evidence, Qq. 14-18, 255, 431-434.

4
See, in particular, Sir T. E. May's evidence before the committees
of 1848-1878.
mendation of the Speaker. The Clerks Assistant take minutes
of the proceedings at the sittings, at the conclusion of
which they are first printed as the report called the "Votes
"
and Proceedings and then collected together as the current
journal of the House. All notices of questions, amendments,
and motions are handed in by members to the Clerks at
the table, and under the directions given by
it is their duty,
the Government, prepare the "Notice Paper" which
to
announces the day's work set before the House. 1 The salary
of the Clerk Assistant is .1,800 a year, and of the second
Clerk Assistant, .1,200.
The rest of the official work of the House of Commons
and all the secretarial work in connection with the pro-
ceedings of committees is performed, under the direction
of the Clerk of the House, in several offices by a number
of officials and assistants. According to the system now
adopted these officials are appointed by the Clerk from
among the successful candidates at an examination conducted
by the Civil Service Commissioners. They are divided into
four classes principal, senior, assistant and junior clerks.
Their business is distributed among four
departments, the
Public Bill Office, the Journal Office, the Committee Office
.and the Private Bill Office. The pay of all the officers of
the House is regulated by a commission appointed in pur-
suance of the House of Commons (Offices) Act, 1812 (52
Geo. Ill c. n) and composed of the Speaker, the Secretaries
of Master of the Rolls, the Attorney-General and
State, the
the Solicitor-General, or such of them as are members of the
House of Commons.*
As to parliamentary papers see above, pp. 39 sqq. Continental stu-

1
dents of Parliament should take special note of the fact that the House of
Commons has never adopted the institution of secretaries chosen from its
midst. Indeed, there is a great deal to be said against wasting the strength
of representatives of the people in undertaking such merely technical work
as drawing up minutes. Members are elected for the purpose of settling
the matter of the proceedings, not for that of recording them.
1
The appointment of the officials is entirely in the hands of the Clerk
of the House ;
but his right, as Sir Reginald Palgrave himself pointed
out, is qualified by the fact that the commission is at liberty to pay the
persons so appointed, or not, as it pleases. It has, therefore, the "power
of the purse." Report (1899), Minutes of Evidence, Qq. 243-247.
The Serjeant-at-arms, usually a retired naval or military

officer, appointed by the Crown, his duty, as officially
is
stated, being "to attend upon His Majesty's person when

there is no parliament and at the time of every parliament,
;
to attend upon the Speaker of the House of Commons." After

his appointment, however, he is considered to be a servant
of the House, and may be removed for misconduct. His
position is described by May as follows :
"
His duties are to attend the Speaker, with the mace, on entering and
leaving the House, or going to the House of Lords, or attending his
Majesty with addresses. It is his duty to keep the gangway at and
below the bar clear, and to desire the members to take their places, and
not to stand with their backs to the Chair, nor to stand, nor remove from
their places, with their hats on, when the House is sitting. He takes
strangers into custody who are irregularly admitted into the House, or
who misconduct themselves there causes the removal of persons directed
;
to withdraw gives orders, to the doorkeepers and other officers under

;
him, to lock the doors of the House upon a division introduces, with ;
the mace, peers or judges attending within the bar, and messengers from
the Lords attends the sheriffs of London at the bar on presenting
;
petitions brings to the bar prisoners to be reprimanded by the Speaker,

;
or persons in custody to be examined as witnesses. For the better

execution of these duties he has a chair close to the bar of the House,
and is assisted by a deputy Serjeant. Out of the House he is entrusted
with the execution of all warrants for the commitment of persons ordered
into custody by the House, and for removing them to the Tower or
Newgate, or retaining them in his own custody.
1
He serves, by his
messengers, all orders of the House upon those whom they concern. He
also maintains order in the lobby and passages of the House.
"It another of the Serjeant's duties to give notice to all committees
is
when House is going to prayers. He has the appointment and super-

the
vision of the several officers in his department and, as housekeeper of
;
the House, has charge of all its committee rooms, and other buildings,
during the sitting of Parliament."-
Heentrusted with the care of the mace, the symbolic

is
significance of which has already been frequently referred

to. The police constables about the House are, so far
as necessary, at the disposal of the Serjeant-at-arms or his
deputy there is a considerable body of them, the charge

:
of guarding and maintaining order in the corridors and

staircases and at the numerous entrances and approaches to
the gigantic Palace of Westminster being in the hands of the
Newgate prison has now ceased

1
to exist.
*
May, "Parliamentary Practice," pp. ^04, 205.
Metropolitan Police they have exercised very careful super-

:
vision since the time of the Fenian dynamite scare. The

maintenance of order within the chamber itself is entrusted
to the messengers : in all, save one, of the few cases in
which refractory members have had to be removed, they
alone have been called upon to act. But the Serjeant-at-arms
would no difficulty if he called for the services of the
find
police. There has never been any special corps of parliamen-

tary watchmen, nor, according to English ways of thinking,
1
is there any need of such.
Besides the chief officials whom we have enumerated, and

whose offices have existed from the early and middle periods
of parliamentary history, there are a number of new official
posts which were only created during the course of the last
century, some of them in connection with the reforms in
private bill legislation. There is the chaplain, who reads the
daily prayers at the beginning of the sitting ; he is nominated
by the Speaker and has a salary of ^400 ; there are the
examiners, each of whom receives ^400 a year ; they make
preliminary investigation into the regularity of procedure

in of private bills ; and the special parliamentary
respect
shorthand writer, whose duty is to take down the evidence
of witnesses at the bar or in committee, and to record the
exact words of the Speaker for transcription into the journals.
A special salary is provided also for the Speaker's legal
adviser, the counsel to the Speaker. Lastly, we should men-
tion the staff of the very considerable library of the House
of Commons. A
special office for the taxation of costs in
private bill procedure must be mentioned in addition. The
whole number of officials, of all ranks, on the present footing,
is 126 the gross cost, including the salary of the Chairman,
:
was in 1903 the sum of ^55,576 : the Speaker's salary and

his predecessor's pension, being charged on the Consolidated
Fund, are not included.
The annexed table gives particulars as to the staff of the
House and the estimate of its cost for the year i9oo 2 :
1
It must be remembered that the Home Secretary is the responsible
chief of the London police, so that the force is entirely subordinate to
the parliamentary Ministry.
1
See Report (1899), pp. 42-45.
I. Chairman of the Committee of Ways and

Means, Salary 2,500
II. Department of the Clerk of the House :
A. Salaries :
i Clerk of the House - 2,000

i
i
Clerk Assistant
second Clerk Assistant ... 1,500
1,200
4 principal clerks (8 50-^1 ,000)
- -
3-825
-
6 senior clerks (^650-^800) - 45 J 7
5>4 2 T
- -
12 assistant clerks (3oo-6oo)
- -
12 junior clerks (îoo-25o) 2,118
-
i collector of fees on private bills 5
B. Allowances for special work (night work,
- - -
compiling indexes, &c.) 2,065
C. Subordinate officials :
i office clerk in committee office - 220

i office clerk in
4 senior messengers
journal
...
...
office - -
-
293
590
6 junior messengers 690
-
Allowances and expenses - -
670
25,609
50 persons.
- -
III. Department of the Speaker (18 persons) 9,244
Add for delivery of votes and parliamentary
papers 9r5
10,159
IV. Department of the Serjeant-at-arms (58 persons) 10,344

Incidental expenses 3,04
V. Witnesses and other committee expenses -
VI. Shorthand writers (for committees)

-
VII. Police and miscellaneous expenses -
Gross total -
Deduct for fees ...

Net total 28,269
HISTORICAL NOTE
The offices of Clerk of the House and Serjeant-at-arms date back to
the earliest period of parliamentary history. The first Clerk whose name
appears in the journals belongs to the time of Edward VI, but there can
be no doubt that from the time when the House of Commons took up
an independent position by the side of the House of Lords, it had a
special Clerk assigned to it
by the Crown. The office of Clerk Assistant
did not become permanent till 1640.' The Clerk's pay at first consisted
of 10 annually from the Treasury and certain fees on private bills :
this method of payment lasted down to the close of the eighteenth
century. In Queen Elizabeth's time it was still customary for all mem-
bers to make a present to the Clerk at the end of the session.
2
He had
to pay the other officers out of what he received, and also to provide
the office expenses. The balance was his income. It may be imagined
that the Clerks did their best to increase this balance, and that they
strove hard to widen the scope of the idea of a private bill, with its
accompanying fee. The difficulties caused by such efforts led, in 1751,
to the adoption of certain resolutions, which were intended to give
definite criteria for distinguishing public from private bills.* may We
see how lucrative this kind of payment was for the Clerks from the fact
that John Hatsell's income was estimated at 10,000 a year. Under the
act of 1812, above referred to, payment by fees was abolished, the Clerk
was placed upon a fixed salary, and the perquisites were transferred to
the Treasury. 4
Besides the sources of income above mentioned, the Clerk had at one
time a right to nominate his deputy, the Clerk Assistant, and to be paid
for the nomination. Hatsell estimated the price in the middle of the
eighteenth century at 3,000. He also states that the Clerk Dyson, in
George II's time, was the last from whom any payment was exacted.
Dyson himself nominated Hatsell as deputy without payment, and thence-
forward the post was no longer for sale. The appointment of the Clerk
Assistant, and of the second Clerk Assistant, whose office was instituted
at the time of the Union with Ireland, was transferred by statute to the
Crown. The Clerk of the House has the power of appointing his other
subordinates, subject to the conditions above referred to.
The Serjeant-at-arms, who has always been appointed by the Crown,
was also for a long time paid by fees. Certain fines were also payable
to him. 4 He has always been the executive organ of the House, assigned
to it by the Crown, and placed immediately under the Speaker.
1
Hooker knows only the Clerk of the House. "There is only one
clerk belonging to this House his office is to sit next before the Speaker
:
"
at a table upon which he writeth and layeth his books (Mountmorres,
vol. i., p. 122). Rushworth was the first Clerk Assistant (Hatsell, vol. ii.,
3rd edn., p. 249 4th edn., p. 263).
;
2 "
See D'Ewes, Journals, p. 688 The collection for the Clerk of twelve
:
pence apiece, according to Mr. Wingfield's motion yesterday, was made

and amounted to about twenty-five pounds." See further, Hatsell, vol. ii.,
3rd edn., p. 266 4th edn., p. 281 House of Commons Journals, vol. i., p. 351,
; :
"
&c. Ordered, That no man should depart without paying the ordinary
fee to the Clerk, 6s. 8d."
3
Fees for private bills had to be paid before second reading. If pay-
ment were omitted the officers were entitled to prevent the bill being
read a second time (Hatsell, vol. ii., 3rd edn., p. 272 4th edn., p. 288).;
Hatsell gives a full account of the growth of the fee system, vol. ii., 3rd edn.,
pp. 261-272 4th edn., pp. 276-288.
;
4
Report (1899), Minutes of Evidence, Q. 230.
*
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries penalties were imposed
for disorder and late attendance.
The chaplain of the House of Commons is a product of the Crom-

wellian parliaments. Originally there was no special service except at
the opening of Parliament. In 1563 the Speaker began to read daily
prayers: in 1659 a special preacher to the House was appointed with a
salary of 50. In the time of William III the custom of providing for
the chaplain at the termination of his office by obtaining for him from
the Crown an appointment to a benefice was adopted : it was abandoned
in 1835 owing to Hume's opposition. Since then the chaplain has been
nominated by the Speaker.
i8o PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
CHAPTER VI
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
services of the Speaker and his deputies, and those

THE of the permanent officers who are at the Speaker's
disposal are not the only auxiliaries to which the House has
recourse for the despatch of its work : with a view to the
efficient performance of its labours it is accustomed to
appoint temporary composite bodies from among its own

membership we refer to its Committees. No deliberative or
legislative body can conduct its business without having fre-
quently to lead up to and prepare for a final decision by
preliminary discussion nothing can be more natural than
;
to delegate such preliminary work to a representative body

chosen from among its members, and of smaller size than
the actual legislative assembly. This procedure is found in
all places where corporate bodies have to come to conclu-
sions, in the meetings of Estates in Continental countries

as well as in the early and middle stages of English con-
stitutional history. In Continental parliaments indeed the
formation of committees of members for detailed pre-
liminary discussion of all important matters, especially
of legislative projects, is an invariable rule. The House
of Commons however, a remarkable contrast to
presents,
Continental and American parliaments in its treatment of
this typical department in the organisation of work. It is
true that the House of Commons, from the earliest days,

has had committees of varying size, alw,ays, of course,
comparatively small ;
but they have performed functions
essentially different from those entrusted to the committees
of Continental legislative bodies. The reason is to be found
in a characteristic feature of the British Parliament com-
mon to both Houses that it has two forms in which each
House as a whole considers the subjects which are brought
before it. Each House discusses legislative projects twice
"
over, once in the House," in the technical sense of the
word, according to the forms and with the number of
readings prescribed by the rules, and once "in committee,"
as a committee of the whole House. The distinctive fact
is that both forms of discussion
place in plenary take
assemblies of all the members. But in the second case the
members discuss the question as " committees," i.e., as mem-
bers of a notional committee, only existing in a technical
sense, the peculiar mark of which is that all members of
the House are members of the committee. In a word, a
committee of the whole House is in reality not a committee
at all, but only House itself deliberating in another
the
form. The work which in Continental parliaments is done
by genuine committees or commissions, that of thoroughly
discussing financial and legislative proposals in detail, is
done in England by the House when acting in this form,
calling itself, but not really being, a committee. The ex-
planation is, of course, a historical one ;

it is to be found
in the parliamentary conditions of the past and will be
discussed at greater length in the next chapter.
The real committees of the House of Commons are
then, it is true, important auxiliary organs, but their func-
tion is only the preparation of legislative material for the
information of the House ; they are called upon to under-
take work which so large a body as the House of Commons
is incapable ofperforming, in particular to investigate con-
crete questions of fact or law, upon which the House wishes
to have definite information. In other words, subject to the
exceptions to be mentioned directly, English parliamentary

committees are organs with purely deliberative and prepara-
tory functions, and do not bring before the House complete
proposals as to the text of a legislative project.
The above remarks will show that the genuine com-
mittees of the House of Commons have a much smaller
scope than is given to the corresponding bodies in other
legislative assemblies.
But this characteristic is qualified by
the existence of certain important exceptions, which materi-
ally extend the scope

of the genuine committees two of :
these exceptions must be specially mentioned. One concerns

the modern institution of standing or grand committees, which
are large standing committees, properly so called, and to
which, in certain cases, the work of a committee of the

whole House is entrusted the other is connected with
:
an institution peculiar to the English parliamentary system,

the extremely important machinery of private bill legisla-
tion. For the present purpose it is enough to summarise
the nature of this branch of parliamentary activity by saying
that private bill legislation is, in the main, internal central
1
administration, carried on by Parliament by means of acts
of parliament. In this field the main activity of Parliament
is handed over committees appointed to deal

to the select
with the various proposals brought before the House.
The scope of the committees of the House of Commons
has now been pretty fully explained. From what has been
said it is what
generally called the committee
clear that is
work of the the whole House ought not

committee of
really to be spoken of by that name. The whole section
of the rules which applies to this most important form of
procedure will have to receive separate consideration. Of

committees proper there are three kinds, viz., (i) Standing or
Grand Committees, (2) Sessional Committees, and (3) Select
Committees.
i. STANDING COMMITTEES 2
At the beginning of each session two large standing
committees are appointed. One has to deal with bills re-
lating to law, courts of justice and legal procedure and ;
the other with bills relating to trade, agriculture, fishing,

shipping and manufactures. Each consists of not less than
sixty nor more than eighty members who are nominated
by a special committee of the House, the Committee of
Selection : 3 in their choice regard is to be had to the
political composition of the House, to the classes of bills
to be dealt with, and to the personal qualifications of the

members selected. As a rule, the number of members is
" "
internal central administration is meant that part of the
1
By
administration of the country by the central authority which consists in
the laying down of special regulations for different localities.
2 "
Standing Orders 46-50 Manual, pp. 72-76 May, Parliamentary
; ;
Practice," pp. 392-398. There has recently been a considerable extension

in the use of Standing Committees : see Supplementary Chapter.
3
See infra, pp. 185, 186.
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 183
sixty-seven, one-tenth of the House ;

this makes the selec-
tion easier. Sedulous care is taken to obtain a proportionate
representation of English, Scotch, Welsh and Irish members,
and of Conservatives, Liberals and Home-Rulers. 1 The Com-
mittee of Selection are further empowered to add not more
than fifteen members to a standing committee in respect of
any particular bill referred to it. The quorum of a standing

committee is twenty. The chairman is determined in a
somewhat circuitous way. At the beginning of each session
the Committee of Selection nominate a chairmen's panel,
consisting of not less than four nor more than six mem-
bers the panel appoint from among themselves the chair-
;
men of the two standing committees, and they have power

to change the chairmen so appointed. If a bill is to be
referred to a standing committee an order of the House to

that effect must be made on motion. The motion may be
proposed at any stage, even after the bill has been partly
considered in committee of the whole House if made ;
immediately after the second reading it does not require

notice. As soon as a bill has been referred to a standing
committee, the otherwise obligatory discussion in committee
of the whole House Upon a motion
falls to the ground. 2
to refer a bill
standingto committee
a debate must be
strictly confined to the question of such reference, general
debate on the merits of the bill not being allowed. There
is no rule that all bills dealing with the subjects of
legis-
lation laid down for the standing committees are to be
referred to them, nor is there any reference eo ipso of any
class of bills to these committees. A special order is always
needed. The form of deliberation and debate is the same
as in a select committee, and will be described under that
head. The usual time of sitting of the standing committees
is the morning ; they must not, without an order of the
House, sit after a quarter-past 3 two while the House is sitting.
See Mowbray, "Seventy Years at Westminster," p. 276. The three

1
party leaders are regularly left out on the other hand, the Secretaries of
;
State and the Presidents of the Board of Trade and the Local Govern-
ment Board are ex officio members of the standing committees.
J
See some further remarks in the Supplementary Chapter.
*
Now (1907) three o'clock : see Supplementary Chapter.
Their proceedings are public except by order of the com-

mittee anybody may be present.
;
It was hoped by the standing committees

institution of
to lighten the burdens of the House as a whole by dimi-
nishing the number of committees of the whole House.

This result has not yet been realised in practical working.
Tradition has proved too strong moreover, the standing ;
committees are so large, that any extensive activity on their

part would draw away so many members from the general
labours of the House as to produce a prejudicial effect on
its work as a whole. The practice at first was to refer to
these committees only non-contentious bills, or, at all events,
only such as raised differences of opinion as to details

rather than as to principle. In the last few years this rule
has been to some
disregarded, with the result of
extent
evoking prolonged debates divisions on the stage of

and
report from standing committee. Until recently the number
of bills annually disposed of by these committees has been
but small, and they have only had a trifling influence on
the practical arrangement of the work of the House.
2. SESSIONAL COMMITTEES l
In the large standing committees, intended

addition to
solely for legislative work, there are certain other regular

standing committees, consisting of a small number of mem-
bers, concerned with the internal organi-
which are chiefly
sation of the House. They are appointed at the beginning
of each session and hold office until its close. They are the
following :
(a) The Standing Orders Committee. It consists of eleven
members, and elects its own chairman from among its
members : five are a quorum. The function of the Standing

Orders Committee is to determine whether, and to what
extent, and under what conditions, compliance with standing
or sessional orders may be dispensed with in the case of
1
Standing Orders (private bills) 91-97, 99-104 Standing Orders
;
(private business) 75, 79; Manual, pp. 88-92, 293, 294; May, "Parlia-
mentary Practice," pp. 405, 716, 752.
private or hybrid bills, and to perform certain other duties

of a similar kind in relation to such bills.
The Committee
(6) of Selection, to which reference has
already been made in several places. This committee con-
sists of the chairman of the Standing Orders Committee,
who is ex-qfficio chairman, and ten other members three :
are a quorum. The work of the committee is continuous

organisation. It has to marshal the House for disposing of
private bills : it many committees as are

appoints as select
needed for dealing with them, nominates a chairman for
each committee, and makes arrangements for their sittings
and business. It has also, as mentioned before, to settle the
composition of the two standing committees on law and on
trade. It has not only to appoint the committees, but has
also to keep constant watch over their efficiency. It has,
upon the adequacy of the excuses made

therefore, to decide
by members who do not wish to act upon any committee.
The Committee of Selection is instructed to give any member
appointed to serve on a select committee seven days' notice
of the week in which he is to be in attendance and to send
to him, for signature and return, a blank form of declaration
that neither he nor his constituency is interested in the bill
referred to his committee. he does not sign and return
If
the declaration he is bound to send a sufficient excuse in :
case of his neglect, the Committee of Selection must report

his name to the House. The other functions of this com-
mittee connected with private bill legislation belong to a
description of that branch of parliamentary work what has :
been said is enough to show that it is one of the most impor-

tant organs of the House, and is a characteristic part of the
whole arrangement of its work. It therefore stands to reason
that only the oldest and most experienced members of the

House and those specially conversant with private bill legis-
lation are placed upon the Committee of Selection or upon
the Standing Orders Committee. They are technically chosen
by a free vote of the House, but, practically speaking, they

are agreed upon and nominated by the Leader of the House
and the Leader of the Opposition. The burden placed
upon the Committee of Selection, especially upon its chair-
man, has increased enormously in modern times, and the
II N
i86 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
task entrusted to it is of the highest importance. The
qualifications for
membership knowledge the are exact of
rules of the House and of its composition, and intimate
acquaintance with the personality of all its members the ;
greatest care has always to be taken to obtain for the work

of the select committees a proper representation of all
political parties, and other tendencies and

and of the local
interests which are to be found in the House. Eloquent
testimony to the manner in which the Committee of Selec-
tion has long done its work is to be found in the rarity
of the occasions upon which a vote has to be taken, and
1
in the entire absence of party cleavage in its deliberations.
(c) The Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, consisting

of about eight members, and its chairman are appointed by
the Committee of Selection ; it has, with respect to railway
and canal bills, certain functions resembling those of the
Committee of Selection with respect to other private bills.
(d) The Committee of Public Accounts consists of not less
than eleven members nominated by the House (five being
a quorum) ; their duty is to examine the accounts showing
the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet
the national expenditure.
The Committee on Public Petitions consists of fourteen
(e)
members they examine all public petitions after they have
;
been presented, and make periodical reports to the House.

(/) The Committee of Privileges should be mentioned here.
Following the tradition of centuries, at the commencement
of every session an order is made "that a committee of
privileges be appointed." But until quite recently no mem-

bers have been appointed, and no sittings are held until
some concrete case requires investigation. 2
(g) In 1903 a committee, which had been discontinued

for some years, was revived under the title of the Police and
Sanitary Committee : it is appointed by the Committee of
Selection. To this committee are referred all private bills
promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which
1
Mowbray, loc. cit., pp. 267 sqq. Sir John Mowbray was the chairman
of these two committees from 1807 to 1899.
1
As to the old committees of privileges see infra, pp. 207 sqq.
it is proposed to create powers relating to police or sanitary

regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the
provisions of the general law.
3. SELECT COMMITTEES 1
The third and most numerous class is that of select

committees. As mentioned before, the chief use of com-
mittees of this nature is to deal with the work
of private bill
legislation. But for the rest of the business of the House
also, itspublic business, select committees are indispensable,

serving the purposes indicated above. They are the special
part of the mechanism of the House which is set in motion
for the study of a subject and the devising of plans for its
treatment : till the nineteenth century the House had no

other appropriate organ. They are applicable to the con-
sideration of a proposal for legislation, or of an administrative
measure which needs to be discussed, or to ascertaining the
condition of national or imperial administration, or again,
to an inquiry into the procedure of the House itself. The
task of a select committee is accordingly investigation and
nothing more it stands in the sharpest contrast to the work

:
of a committee of the whole House. Still such committees
are indirect aids to legislation, inasmuch as they arrange

the material upon which legislative decisions
are eventually
based, and they help to focus the ideas of the House upon
matters of principle, or to work out the technical details of
some legislative course of action the principle of which has
been accepted. As, then, select committees are first and
foremost committees of investigation, they (and they alone
among committees) have regularly entrusted to them a group
of powers which as a rule are retained for exercise by the
House itself, namely, the right to require the attendance of
witnesses and to examine upon oath, the power of sending
for all documents, papers, and records relevant to the matters
referred to them, and that of insisting upon the production
of any such papers by witnesses.
Standing Orders 54-64 Manual, pp. 76-86; May, "Parliamentary

;
Practice," pp. 400-422. Rules and orders (1896), ss. 325-350.

N 2
Select committees may be divided into two classes, the

first including those appointed to consider particular private
bills, and the second all others. The committees in the two
classeshave different modes of composition, different pro-
cedures and different powers. As to committees connected
with public business the following rules as to mode of com-
position are to be observed. A motion for the appointment
of a select committee may be made at any sitting of the
House at a time fixed by the rules : in ordinary cases
previous notice is required. Further, any member intending

to move for the appointment of a select committee must
give a day's notice of the names of the members he whom

intends to propose as members of the committee, and must
endeavour to ascertain previously whether each of such mem-
bers is willing to attend. The names must be placed on the
notice paper and be posted in certain prescribed places in
the lobbies. 1 Motions to increase or diminish the number
of members on a select committee cannot be brought on
without notice on the paper.
There are, however, other methods of settling who are
to be the members of a select committee. At times the
House delegates the choice either wholly or in part to other
organs, especially, of late, to the Committee of Selection.
" "
This is the rule with respect to hybrid bills.
2
The
nature of these committees of
investigation, described, as
leads to their composition being as a rule independent of
political interests and of party considerations. The work

of the committees is, almost invariably, concerned with the
determination of questions of .fact, or with the formation
of definite, possibly even of contradictory, views and judg-
ments based upon facts and the opinions of experts. As a
rule, therefore, the dividing lines in a select committee are
1
Committees on matters of privilege and committees to draw up
reasons for disagreeing with Lords' amendments are not subject to the
rules about notice (Manual, p. 77). Motions for committees may be made
on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and, if set down by the Government, on
Mondays and Thursdays also (Standing Order n).
*
A hybrid bill is a public bill, which affects private interests in such
a way that if it were a private bill it would require preliminary
notices the procedure on such a bill is of a special kind, partly based
:
on the private bill procedure.

drawn with reference to the particular matter in hand :
mere political party fights seldom occur there. They are

not intended to serve the ends of party tactics, but to be
work of the House.
of real assistance to the
The number of members on a select committee is not,
without the leave of the House, to be more than fifteen ;
but for special reasons such leave may be given.

1
The
quorum is fixed by the House at the time of
appointment :
'
as ^3. rule five is the number.

any time during the
If at
sitting the quorum is not present, the clerk of the committee

must call the attention of the chairman to the fact, and the
chairman must thereupon either suspend the proceedings
until a quorum present, or adjourn the committee.
is The
chairman is appointed by the committee at its first sitting.
Lists of all members serving on the various select committees
are affixed in conspicuous places in the committee office,
and in the lobby (Standing Order 58). The procedure ob-
served in the deliberations of a select committee is generally
modelled on that of the House. There is, however, one
all-important difference ; in committee members are allowed
to speak more than once on each point. Such a rule is
obviously necessary for carrying on a committee, the very
purpose of which is the elucidation of all differences of
1
The following table shows the number of select committees of the
House of Commons from 1878 to 1903, and the number of members who
served on them :
opinion and the thorough discussion of every detail. In

respect of motions, amendments, putting questions and taking
votes, the chairman has to observe strictly the methods laid
down by the House in its rules as interpreted by the
Speaker. This does not apply to select committees on
private bills, which work under special rules applicable to
them only.
Except that a committee may not, without special leave,
meet upon a day when the House is not sitting, a select
committee has full control over the time and length of its
sittings, and may terminate them or adjourn at its own
discretion. Sometimes, too, a committee is authorised to
change its place of meeting for the purpose of making local
investigations at different places.

The effect of the sittings of the House upon those of
select committees has been entirely changed in recent times.
It used to be the rule that at the moment when the House
went to prayers, the sittings of all committees must come to
an end, any decisions arrived at or proceedings taken there-
after being null and void. To warn committees of their
approaching termination, the Serjeant-at-arms was instructed
to announce in a loud voice, as he preceded the Speaker
to his seat before the opening of business, that the House
was about to proceed to the daily prayers. The warning
is still given, though its cause no longer exists. According
to the present rules, the practice is precisely inverted ; select
and all other committees except the two standing com-
mittees may sit whilst the House is sitting, and may continue
even when an unexpected adjournment takes place. Com-
mittees are, however, not allowed to begin a sitting on any
day after the House has adjourned ; though by special
leave a committee may sit even during the time of an
1
adjournment.
As alreadystated, select committees are appointed for
the purpose of considering the merits of some question
referred to them, of taking evidence on the subject, and of
making recommendations to the House on the strength of

such evidence and of any further advice and assistance
1 "
May, Parliamentary Practice," p. 413 ; Manual, pp. 79, 80.
which may have been procured. 1 Occasionally a public

bill is referred to a select committee but the practice, so ;
customary on
Continent, of handing over a whole
the
legislative project, before or after second reading, to a special

committee, to be discussed and put into proper shape, is
practically unknown to the House of Commons. In Eng-
land the function of thoroughly discussing a draft law and
settling all its details has for the last two hundred years
been by a committee of the
almost exclusively performed
whole House by one of the two
or, in recent years,
standing committees on Law and on Trade. When there is
a reference of a public bill to a select committee, its report
is again only of an informing nature, and does not con-
stitute a stage in the legislative process. It is, therefore, the
rule that such a bill must be sent back to the House, to

be thence
again referred to a committee, either of the
whole House or a standing committee. A second committee
stage must be gone through before the bill is ripe for third
2
reading.
The main connection between the work of select com-
mittees and legislation is that bills are often framed by the
Government or by private members in accordance with the
recommendations of a report, or upon some line indicated
in the course of such a document. It is not surprising,
when we consider the inquisitorial function exercised by
parliamentary committees, to learn that power is frequently
given to them to summon witnesses and examine documents
and papers, whenever it is required for the investigation of
a matter referred to them. Such a power is not inherent in
'The given by the Manual (p. 76) is as follows: "A

definition
select committee composed of certain members appointed by the House
is
to consider or take evidence upon any bill or matter and to report their
opinion for the information and assistance of the House." Before the
adoption, in 1875, of Standing Order 63 select committees had to obtain
special permission in every case to report their opinion and the minutes
of evidence taken before them.
*
The only public bills which are referred at times to select com-
mittees are those dealing with a number of concrete details. Chief among
these are the collective bills for the confirmation of provisional orders laid
before the House by different ministers, and only technically regarded as
public bills.
a committee, but in most cases it is given as a matter of
course. 1
This seems to be a suitable place to sketch in outline the
law as to the calling of witnesses by the House of Com-
mons. 7 The House can at any time call upon any British
subject to appear before it at the bar, either as a witness or
to answer an accusation. A select committee may also, by
delegation, have a like power. An order to attend is signed
by the Clerk of the House, or the chairman of the com-
3
mittee : in the course of the nineteenth century the calling
of a witness to attend at the bar of the House gradually fell
into disuse ;
the
at present day examination before a com-
4
mittee is the rule. If a person summoned as a witness
fails an appearance the committee report the fact
to put in
to the House
he is in prison the Speaker can, in pur-
;
if
suance of an order of the House, issue a warrant to the

keeper of the prison requiring him to bring the prisoner in
safe custody to be examined. If a witness refuses to appear
he is guilty of a contempt and is liable to the punishment

attached to a breach of the privileges of the House. He
can be taken into custody and called to immediate account.
The House and its committees may administer an oath
to any witness examined before them. If any person so
examined wilfully gives false evidence he is liable to the

penalties for perjury. The oath may be administered by the
Speaker or by a person appointed for that purpose either by

him or by any standing or other order of the House. In
practice it is generally the chairman or clerk attending the
committee who % discharges
this function. All rules pro-
tecting the purity of evidence given before a court of justice,

and all penalties applicable thereto, have been extended to
cover evidence in Parliament. 5 Persons summoned to give
1
Such a power would only be refused to a committee if it appeared
that the cost would be disproportionate to the importance of the subject.
2
Standing Orders 86 and 87 Manual, pp. 197-201.
;
*
a witness should
If be in custody the Speaker's warrant to the
"
keeper or sheriff must be strictly complied with. (May, Parliamentary
Practice," p. 425.)
4
We
may here note that power to compel the attendance of witnesses
is not, as a rule, conferred on private bill committees.
Parliamentary Witnesses Oaths Acts, 1871 (34 & 35 Viet. c. 83).
5
evidence are carefully protected against any evil effects from

their fulfilling their duty to speak the truth. A special act
of parliament, the Witnesses (Public Inquiries) Act, 1892
(55 & S^ Viet. c. 64), threatens fine and imprisonment to
anyone who threatens, punishes, damnifies, or injures any
person giving evidence to a committee (or a royal
for
commission) or on account of the evidence given by him ;

and a sessional order of the House declares that tampering
with a witness or endeavouring to deter or hinder any per-
son from appearing or giving evidence is a " high crime or
misdemeanour" and "that this House will proceed with the
utmost severity against such offender." *
It will easily be believed that, with such an equipment,
special committees have for hundreds of years been able to

collect most valuable material for the promotion of legislation,
to digest it and place it at the disposal of the House. The
importance of parliamentary committees in this particular
direction has, however, been materially lessened during the
nineteenth by the growing popularity of royal
century
commissions means for conducting enquiries. Though
as
members of both Houses of Parliament take a prominent
part in the work of such commissions, they are not appointed
by Parliament, but by the Government. Almost all the great
reforms of the nineteenth century in internal administra-
tion, taxation, education, labour protection and other social
questions, have been based on the full investigations made
by royal commissions, often continued over a space of many
years, and on their reports which, with the evidence col-
lected, are laid before Parliament. A royal commission has
many advantages over a parliamentary committee it can, ;
while a parliamentary committee cannot, prolong its work

beyond the limits of a session, if necessary even for years ;
and it is possible to appoint scientific experts as members so

as to secure a completely impartial treatment of the subject ;
the consequence is that commissions have largely super-
seded parliamentary committees when elaborate enquiries
have to be made.
1
Manual, p. 289. It may easily be imagined how important such
provisions may be in the case, for instance, of an enquiry into the
relations between employers and workmen.
In addition to work of this nature, which, so far as
legislation is concerned, merely preliminary, select com-
is
mittees have a no less important sphere of usefulness in

the investigation of grievances of a public nature, raised
either by public opinion, or by some definite motion in
Parliament. Chief among these are complaints as to par-
ticular branches of administration ;
but there are also, from
time time, special public occurrences to be studied,
to
either in the interests of the state or in compliance with
the wishes of the House. At the present day this is the
main function of select committees if we leave out of con-
sideration those upon private bills.
1
When making their
enquiries select committees act in a quasi- judicial manner,

and their right to summon witnesses, administer oaths and
call for papers such cases, of the highest
is therefore, in
importance. They are also empowered, for such objects, to

hear advocates on behalf of persons whose interests may
be affected by their investigations.
There is one obvious limit to the power of a committee
to demand the production of documents any papers or ;
documents which the House itself could only obtain by the

method of an address to the Crown cannot be called for
by a committee.
The evidence of witnesses examined by a committee is
taken down in shorthand, printed day by day and supplied
to the members of the committee the witnesses also have ;
copies sent to them for any grammatical or verbal revision

that may be needed. To every question asked of a witness
under examination in the proceedings of any select com-
mittee, there must be prefixed, in the printed minutes of the
evidence, the name of the member asking the question.
This ensures full publicity to the transaction. The names
of the members present each day must be entered on
the minutes and reported to the House ;
as also, in the
event of any division, the question proposed, the name of
1
The following Select Committee on the Imprisonment
are instances :
of a Member, 1902 ;Committee on the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors

Select
to Children Bill, 1901 Select Committee on the Future Civil List of the
;
Sovereign, 1901 Select Committee on the Cottage Homes Bill, 1899

; ;
Select Committee on the Aged Deserving Poor, 1899, &c., &c.

the proposer and the respective votes thereon of all the

members present. What takes place in committee is by rule
kept strictly private until a report is made by the committee

to the House. In particular, no clerk or officer of the
House, or shorthand writer employed to take minutes of
evidence, may give evidence elsewhere respect of any
in
proceedings or examination before any committee without

the special leave of the House. 1
The rules of the House as to the presence of strangers
at meetings of committees are very liberal ; until the com-
mittee withdraws for deliberation, while witnesses or experts
are being examined, the proceedings are public. 2 Members
of the House who are not upon the committee would, if they
stood upon their rights, be entitled to stay for the discussion,
but it is a strict rule of parliamentary etiquette that they also
should withdraw before it begins. Now and then a secret
committee is appointed ;
when this is done everybody who
is not a member
of the committee, even a member of the
House, is kept out.

The framing of the report of a committee is the last
stage of its work. The chairman usually drafts the report,
but an alternativemay be submitted by any other member.
A draft report when submitted is taken as read. The chair-
man then puts the question that his draft be now taken
into consideration upon this an amendment may be moved
;
to consider an alternative draft. When the draft for con-

sideration has been decided upon, it is taken paragraph by
paragraph and debated and voted upon ;

and amendments
may be moved and taken to a division. last question The
put is "that this report (or this report as amended) be the
"
report of the committee ;
this corresponds to the third
reading. Very often a minority report is made as well as the
majority report. The chairman presents the report of the

"
1
See resolution of the 2ist of April 1837 in " Rules and Orders (1896),
s. 349 ;
House of Commons Journals, vol. xcii., p. 282; see May, "Parlia-
mentary Practice," p. 416. Leave is sometimes given to parties appearing
before a select committee to print the evidence from day to day.
*
See May, " Parliamentary Practice," p. 408. Ruling of the Speaker,
"
It is open to any select committee to exclude strangers at its own dis-
cretion, but they cannot exclude members of this House without first
obtaining the order of the House to that effect." (Hansard (247), 1958.)
committee to the House by bringing it to the table. To
this report, which is the proper object of the committee's
work, there are generally added the shorthand minutes of
evidence, and there is often an appendix, containing extracts
from the writings, papers and records, on which the text
of the report itself is based. With the permission of the
House, interim reports may be presented from time to time,
winding up with a final report at the end of the inquiry.
The consideration of a report and any decisions consequent
thereon are put down upon the notice paper as an order of
the day. When this comes on a motion may be made to
refer the report back and recommit the matter. The ordinary
course is for the House to receive the report and to order
it to lie upon the table and be printed.
It remains, finally, to explain the legal relation of a
committee to the House as a whole. The main principle
to be attended to is that a. committee only exists, and only
has power to act, so far as expressly directed by the order
of the House which brings it into being. This order of
reference is a firm bond, subjecting the committee to the
will of the House ;
the reference is always treated with
exactness and must be strictly interpreted. A select com-
mittee therefore always acts under a special, not a general,
authority. The House may at any time dissolve a committee

or recall its mandate, and it follows from the principle
laid down that the work of every committee comes to an
absolute end with the close of the session. It has often
happened that a committee has been appointed in a subse-
quent session with an identical purpose but the reappointed ;
committee is considered to be a new body and may not

base its report upon the uncompleted material collected in
the previous session ;
at most, it
may print it as an
appendix to its
report. ownis, however, possible for
It
the House
to evade the strict interpretation of the isolation
of sessions, by ordering the material which has not been
worked up into a report to be laid before the new com-
mittee, and then specially directing such new committee to
report upon what is thus brought up.
The relation of mandator and mandatory, which subsists
between the House and a committee, is most clearly
expressed in the parliamentary institution knownas an

instruction. The close confinement of committee to its
a
special authority may lead to difficulty in two ways it
may :
prove desirable to extend the scope of action com-

of the
mittee in some specified direction, or, on the other hand,
it
may appear to the House that the reference, in spite of
its special wording, is too wide and needs limiting in some
direction. An instruction provides the remedy in both cases ;
it is a motion which, as its name implies, gives the committee

a specific direction as to its work. A motion of this kind
requires notice, and must be made an order of the day. If
adopted, it binds the committee strictly.
JOINT COMMITTEES
1
4.
Lastly, short reference must be made to one more variety

of committee, which, properly speaking, lies without the sphere
of the House of Commons. This is a joint committee
formed by the two Houses from delegations out of both.
Such a committee is made up of equal numbers of Lords
and Commons. The foundation for a joint committee is
laid by a message from the Commons to the Upper House,
and the acceptance of the suggestion by the Lords, or vice
versd. From the nature of such a committee it follows that
no binding commission can be given to it by either House
alone. 5 The time and place of meeting are fixed by the
House of Lords, and the procedure is that observed in select
committees of the Lords. If a bill is referred to such a
committee, reported must go again before a
the bill as
committee of the whole House, and pass through all the
other stages of the process of legislation. Committees of
this kind are rare ; practically speaking, they are chiefly made
use of for the discussion of private or hybrid bills, or of
the provisions regulating the communications between the two
Houses. At times, too, the House of Commons authorises
a select committee to act in union with a similar committee
appointed by the other House.
Manual, pp. 86-88. As an example of such a committee, see Report

1
of joint committee on the presence of the Sovereign in Parliament, 1901.

*
May, "Parliamentary Practice," p. 421.
5. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE l
To complete our survey of the organisation of the House

from a legal standpoint we must return to our remark that
the House of Commons as a whole has two different forms
of debate. The historical account of this arrangement will
occupy us elsewhere ;
herewe are only concerned with
existing rules ;
all that we have to do is to show in what
respects the second, the committee procedure of the House,
differs from that in the House strictly so called. It is
especially important explain in what way the committee

to
procedure regulated by the rules, and what position it

is
occupies in the general arrangement of work.

The procedure, as the name implies, consists in the House
regularly, in one matter after another, appointing itself a
committee, so that though no physical alteration is made
in the deliberating body, its legal character is changed. To
all outward appearance the committee is only a form, a legal
fiction the great change which takes place on the House
;
resolving itself into a committee is effected by a few special

rules which come into force and govern the debate and the
deliberations of members.
As to the occasion for constituting such a committee,
i.e., for changing the House into a committee, and as to the
limits of action of such a committee, we may say, at once,
that no single subject of discussion is, on principle, outside
the purview of a committee of the whole House. But nine-
teenth century practice has laid down a definite limit to the
competency of these committees. Their proper function is
to decide after debate, not, as frequently in earlier days, to
investigate some particular state of affairs.
2
On certain
points a debate in committee is

specially prescribed ; it is
an express rule that all proposals as to taxes or grants, or,
indeed, any matter concerning the income or expenditure of
the nation, must be considered in a committee of the whole
House, before the measures for giving effect to them are
brought before the House. Lastly, it is the rule that every
1
Standing Orders 51-53; Manual, pp. 66-72; May, "Parliamentary
Practice," pp. 380-392.
1
See the latest instances from the beginning of the nineteenth century
"
in May, Parliamentary Practice," pp. 382, 383.
public bill of first class importance must be discussed in
committee of the whole House. 1

The beginning of a committee of the whole House must,
by its nature, be a merely formal act. In the actual course
of events it is day's work of the House,
a piece of the
and, consequently, an item in the list of business forming

the programme for the sitting. It may come about in two
ways. The constitution of such a committee may be a part

of the order of business previously fixed for the sitting, or
a motion may be brought forward without notice, in the
course of a debate proceeding in a regular way, that the
House do at once take up the discussion of some subject
in the form of such a committee.
It is, no doubt, theoretically possible to form a committee
of the whole House at any moment, but the chance of doing

so is very materially diminished by the rules fixing the order
of sittings and the daily programme. As a rule, the resolving

of the House into committee takes place in accordance with
the day's programme ; there are, again, two ways in which
this can take place (i) there is the case of an order having
:
been made that the House will resolve itself into committee
on a fixed future day to consider some subject ; in this case
the committee stands as an order of the day on the day so
fixed ; (2) there is also the case that, under certain general
rules, certain definite subjects have to be dealt with by com-
mittees of the whole House without any special motion.
The latter case includes the whole action of the House in
dealing with the estimates and all bills dealing with taxes
and state disbursements. More detailed statements on these
subjects may be deferred to the chapters on the day's
programme and on financial procedure.
The passage from the House to committee stands the
more in need of definite acts to mark the instant of its
occurrence, because, to outward appearance, it is

nothing
but a legal fiction. The chief accompanying circumstances
in attaining this object are three.
i. The chairman is changed. In place of the Speaker
the permanent Chairman of Committees, chosen at the
'
See Supplementary Chapter.
beginning of a new parliament, presides. The Speaker and

the Clerk of theHouse leave the chamber.
2. Another symbol of the change is the removal of the
mace. When the House resolved into a committee, the
is
mace, which till then has been lying, visible to all, upon the
table, is placed in a receptacle below it and hidden from view.
3. The Chairman
takes his place at the upper end of the
table in ordinary dress, wearing neither wig nor gown. The
Speaker's chair remains empty.
a sitting lasts for a long time the chair may be vacated
If
by the permanent Chairman ; so far as the rules go, any

member may then be called to the chair, and it is customary
for some minister who happens to be present to propose a
chairman. The new rules, however, as already mentioned,
provide for a permanent deputy for the Chairman.

The quorum for the House, as a committee, is the same
as before, namely, forty. The procedure in committee is
1
the same as that of the House except in three points (i) no :
seconder is required for a motion ; (2) the "previous ques-

tion" cannot be moved; 2 (3) members are not confined to
one speech on each question. Closure in committee can
only be applied when the Chairman or Deputy Chairman is
presiding. In the absence of the Chairman of Committees
the chair is ordinarily taken either by the Deputy Chairman
or by one of the temporary chairmen, but is occasionally
taken by some other member ;
in the last case, if any
objection is taken to the member proposed acting as chair-
man, the Speaker resumes the chair and a chairman is

3
appointed by the House.
The
duration of the sitting of a committee of this kind
is subject, like any other sitting of the House, to the general
provisions of the rules. In addition, there is a special pro-
cedure by which the sitting of a committee may be closed
Memorials," p. 36) mentions this rule in 1670.

1
Scobell ("
2
See as to the "previous question," infra, p. 227.
3
Till 1800 there was no salaried Chairman of Committees but it had ;
been customary from the time of the Revolution onwards for the chairman-
ship of the two most important committees Supply and Ways and Means
to be entrusted to the same person for several years. Since the middle
"
of the eighteenth century his title has always been the Chairman of
Ways and Means."
and the committee re-transformed into the House proper.

The principle applicable is, that a committee of the whole
House is not entitled on its own authority to close or
adjourn its
sitting or debate. This, of course, is another
fiction, for the House and the committee are composed of
the same persons. Moreover, in this rule we have a devia-
tion from the ordinary committee type, for, as stated above,
committees in general can always adjourn their sittings.
The reason is thatsingle respect the committee is
in this
considered to be equivalent to the House, and to be sub-
ject to the old rule, only recently modified, calling for a
definite order of the House end to a sitting.
to put an
The fiction of absolute
dependence, which is thus
expressed,
leads to yet another fiction, that of a "report" to the House
with the further request for leave to resume its sittings.
The end of a sitting of the committee, therefore, is marked
by the Chairman making a report to the House, and asking
for leave to sit again. There is a fictitious assumption that
the House must be informed of the proceedings of the
committee in order to justify, from the report made, the
grant of leave to resume work. These formalities, which, by
reason of the House and committee being in fact composed of
the same persons, seem almost comical and useless ceremonies,
serve the purpose of marking off distinctly the committee
stage of a matter from the rest of the business of the House.
But their real object, as will be shown later when we come
to deal with the discussion of legislative projects, is to serve
as occasions and opportunities for the parliamentary tactics
of the parties in the House. To
a certain extent they are
pegs upon which to hang important parliamentary functions.

The resumption of the sitting of the House is marked
by the return of the Speaker, and the replacing of the mace
on the table ; the report of the Chairman to the House as
to what has taken place in the committee concludes its pro-
ceedings. There is a fictitious assumption that the Chairman
in making his report, is giving the House information which
it does not
already possess. The customary motion in com-
mittee to report progress is equivalent to a motion to bring
the sitting of the committee to an end. It has to be moved
in a strictly prescribed form of words, namely,

" that
the
n o
Chairman do report that the committee has made progress
and ask leave to sit again." This form is analogous to a
motion in the House for an adjournment of the debate if ;
it accepted the proceedings of the committee are merely

is
suspended, not terminated. The mode in which the report

is made is that the Chairman turns to the Speaker and
makes the formal communication that "the committee has
made progress and asks for leave to sit again on a future
day." There is also another motion which may be brought
forward in committee at any time, and which also has the
effect of bringing its sitting an end, namely, " that the
to
Chairman do now leave the chair." The carrying of such
a motion has a more far-reaching effect ;
it causes the order
of the day for the discussion of such and such a subject in
committee of the whole House to drop entirely a renewed
;
order for the constitution of the committee must be made

by the House before the discussion can be resumed. In the
former case the request to the House for leave to sit again
and its being granted, secure the continuance of the com-
mittee's work. If the request for leave to sit again were left
out of the first formula the same result would be reached

as produced by the second, i.e., complete stoppage of the
is
committee proceedings. The motions referred to are made

and decided in the committee itself, or, as it might perhaps
be more accurately stated, in the House when wearing its
committee aspect. 1 Practically speaking they are, as already
stated, the technical machinery for changing from the one
form to the other.
The constant alternation of

1
these two motions
they could not be
moved twice in succession used one of the regular methods of
to be
obstruction ;
but this has been checked by the new rules.
HISTORY OF HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEES 203
CHAPTER VII
HISTORY OF COMMITTEES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
development of the committee organisation of the House of Com-

THE mons, the present stage of which we have just been sketching, is
one of the most remarkable chapters in the story of Parliament, and has
been deeply influenced by some of the most important events in English
constitutional history. The earliest period of the House of Commons
yields unquestionable though scanty information as to the co-operation of
committees in the work of Parliament. The regular choice of Triers and
Examiners of petitions, which began in Edward I's reign, and of which
we have already said all that is necessary, may be looked upon as a first
stage towards the appointment of committees. The first duty, however, for
the discharge of which a committee seems to have been regularly appointed
by the Commons, was the drawing up of statutes to carry into effect the
prayers of petitions introduced in Parliament and acceded to by the Crown.
Thus in 1340 a joint committee of Lords and Commons was appointed for
this purpose. In 1406 it was requested that "certeins de les communes"
1
should be present upon the engrossing of statutes. 2 In 1341 a committee

was appointed to investigate the accounts showing how the last subsidy
had been spent.* From the very beginning of the journals and reports
of the sittings of the House of Commons, i.e., from the middle of the
sixteenth century, committees appear as regular parts of the machinery
of the House. The usual course was to entrust one or two members
with legislative proposals, for report or formulation. 4 Contemporaneously
we find special committees appointed for conferences with the Lords, to
investigate questions of fact or law, or, as for instance in the first year of
Queen Mary's reign, to consider the eligibility of a member One charac-
teristic feature of the parliamentary usage of those days was the election
of committees to revise the text of bills upon which the House had
agreed, and which had to be brought before it again for ratification in
the improved form devised by the committee. Sir Thomas Smith, in
the excellent which he lays down the practice of Parliament
work in
about the middle of the sixteenth century 5 gives this information and
goes on to describe exactly the position of the committees. "It chanceth
"
sometime," he says, that some part of the bill is allowed, some other
part hath much controversy and doubt made of it and it is thought if ;
it were amended it would go forward. Then they choose certain com-
1
Rot. Parl. t vol. ii., p. 113.
1
Ibid., vol. iii., p. 585.
*
Ibid., vol. ii., p. 130.
4
For an instance see House of Commons Journals, vol. i., p. 5, "the bill
for levying of fines in the county palatine of Chester, committed to
Mr. Hare, &c."
* "
Commonwealth of England," book ii., chapters 1-3.
O 2
mittees' ofthem who have spoken with the bill and against it to amend
it and bring it in again so amended as they amongst them shall think
meet and this is before it is ingrossed
:
yea, and sometime after. But ;
the agreement of these committees is no prejudice to the House. For at

the last question they will either accept it or dash it as it shall seem
good, notwithstanding that whatsoever the committees have done." This
"
description is supplemented by Hooker's report When any bill is com- :
mitted, the committees have not authority to conclude, but only to order,
reform, examine, and amend the thing committed unto them and of their ;
doings they must give report to the House again, by whom the bill is
to be considered." 2 In 1571 the journal for the first time records the
3
reference of a bill to a real committee. But the quotations just given
bear internal evidence of dealing with an institution of old parliamentary
standing. Indeed, we find in D'Ewes's reports that committees were an
indispensable requisite of parliamentary work and were applied to a variety
of ends. D'Ewes describes the reference of a bill to a committee, and the
composition of this body as follows (he is speaking of a bill which is
before the House for second reading): "The Clerk of the House having
read the title, and the bill aforesaid, standing, kissing his hand, delivered
the same with a breviate (containing the substance of the bill) annexed
unto it, unto the Speaker who thereupon, standing up uncovered, and
;
' '
reading both the title and the breviate said, This is the second reading ;
and then, having paused awhile and (as it is likely) none speaking against
the bill, he put the question for the committing thereof as followeth."
Then comes a description of putting the question, which was carried.
"And thereupon every one of the House that listed, did name such other
members of the same, to be of the committee, as they thought fit and ;
the Clerk either did, or ought to have written down as many of them
as he conveniently could and when a convenient number of the com-
;
mittees named were set down by the Clerk, then did the Speaker move
name the time and place when and where they should meet,
the House to
which the Clerk did also doubtless then take a note of, and did also
It is important to attend to the double sense in which the word

1
" "
committee is used in old parliamentary language. In early days
it is not the body as a whole but each single member that is meant by
"
the term the body is described as the committees to whom the bill is
;
committed." The formation of the word is the same as that of many

other English words which denote the recipient in a bilateral relation
of obligation, such as trustee, lessee, nominee, appointee. The body is
usually referred to in the old authorities as "the committees." But it
was not long before it became usual to describe the totality of those to
whom a bill was referred as a "committee," in an abstract sense. In
both cases the English word emphasises the idea of delegation and not
that of representation which the German word Ausschuss expresses.
1
Mountmorres, vol. i., pp. 147, 148.
1
House of Commons Journals, vol. i., p. 83. Under date i6th of May
1572 we
"the bill against fraudulent conveyances and secret estates
find
of lands. The second reading and committed unto Sir Henry Gates,
;
Sir Nicholas Arnolde, Mr. Recorder, Mr. Monson, Mr. Fenner, Mr. Edward
Stanhope, Mr. Snagge to meet in Lyncoln's Inn Hall this afternoon at
;
two of the clock and to return the bill tomorrow." (Ibid., p. 95.)
;
(silence being made in the House) read out of that book or paper (in
which he entred them) the committees' names, with the time and place
1
of their meeting."
We learn likewise from D'Ewes of a remarkable rule applied to the
composition of committees in his time. He reports a debate held (1601) in
Queen Elizabeth's last parliament in which the principle was laid down
that it was against the rules of the House to appoint any man who had
spoken against the bill as a whole to be a member of a committee on the
bill but that it was not improper for one who had been on the committee
;
to vote against the bill afterwards. For, as one of the members said, "By
committing of a bill, the House allowed of the body thereof, though they
disallowed of some imperfections in the same, and therefore committed it
to some chosen men of trust to reform or amend anything therein which
they found imperfect. And it is to be presumed that he that will give his
No to the committing of a -bill, will be wholly against the bill. And there-
fore, the House allowing of this bill to be committed, are (in my opinion)
to disallow any that will be against the body of the bill for being
committees." 2
It may be clearly seen from these words and the order of the House
which followed, in what way a committee was regarded at the time,

namely, as an investigating technical auxiliary to the House, not as an
element in arriving at a decision. Besides, we find committees appointed
for all possible kinds of bills, and for the most diverse purposes committees ;
to draw up reasons for declining a conference with the Lords upon an

extraordinary subsidy for war purposes, to discuss amendments made by
the Lords, to decide disputed elections, to discuss bills for keeping corn
within the realm, for the erecting of houses of correction, and numerous
3
other subjects. In short, committees in Queen Elizabeth's parliaments
were looked upon as indispensable tools in all branches of legislation, with
jurisdiction to make enquiries and obtain information. 4 These were all
proper committees, select committees. Their entire dependence on the

House was clearly brought out in one of the debates, in which a committee
was described as being " an artificial body framed out of us who are the
general body and therefore that which is spoken at the committees
;
. . .
is gone when the body which is the commitment is dissolved and then ;
1
D'Ewes, p. 44.
2
Ibid., p. 634.
1
Ibid., pp. 486, 559, 569, 593, &c., &c.
*
On searching through D'Ewes's Journals we find that at that time
the only bills which were exempt from commitment were those sent down
from the Lords. D'Ewes states the rule as follows: "When a bill hath
once passed the Upper House in which besides the Lords the greater part
of the judges of the realm are commonly assistants, there shall need no
consideration thereof either for addition or mutation for either House ;
doth ever, for the most part, show itself so careful to keep firm corre-
spondency with the other, as that when a bill hath passed either of the
said Houses and is sent to the other, it doth for the most part pass, and
is neither dashed nor altered without very great cause upon mature deli-
beration and usually also not without conference desired, and had there-
upon that so, full satisfaction may be given to that House from which
;
the bill so rejected or altered was sent." D'Ewes, p. 186.

every particular committee is no more a part of the artificial body but
of us, the general body." At first committees met outside the House,
'
in various state buildings (e.g., in the Star Chamber, in Whitehall) or in

the lawyers' quarters (the Temple or Lincoln's Inn). Before long, however,
we a special room set apart in the House, called the " committee
find
chamber." Soon the procedure acquired all the marks which characterise
committee work to this day, especially the distinction between debate in
the House and in committee, as to speaking more than once to the same
question. The quorum was at first half of the membership, later on
eight was fixed. The last step in a committee's proceedings was its
report. Not infrequently the committee proposed an entirely new bill,
which then had to undergo first and second reading. The committees
had power to appoint sub-committees. They generally met in the after-
2
noon, so as not to clash with the sittings of the House.
The size of the committees varied considerably, but we may distinguish
between two principal classes in the first we have committees with
:
three, four, six, ten, up to fifteen members ; in the second, committees of

thirty or forty, with the addition of definite classes, e.g., all the lawyers
in the House (gentlemen of the long robe), all the members in the House
who were of the Privy Council (these appear in nearly all cases of this
kind), the for London or for Yorkshire, or all the knights of
members
the shires. Often geographical assignments were made for instance, all
members from north of the Trent, or from the Cinque Ports, &c. The
large committees were only formed to discuss highly important affairs.
But after a short time we see another point of distinction between
them and the smaller committees namely, a sessional reference to such
large committees of a definite class of bills or a definite department of
the business of the House. For the first time in 1571 a committee was
" "
appointed for the subsidy," also a committee for matters of religion,"
"
and a third for motions of griefs and petitions." 3 In addition, all
election disputes were referred to a special committee with nine members./
These committees contained the seed of what afterwards bore fruit in
" "
the three historic grand committees on religion, on grievances, and
on elections. 4 As early as 1581 a committee was appointed for the whole
1
D'Ewes, p. 635.
House of Commons Journals, vol. pp. 150, 153, 273, &c. On the
2
i.,
24th of March 1604 we find (p. 153) "Note, that committees being once
:
named, and a place appointed for their meeting by the House, may, from
time to time, until the report of the proceedings be made, adjourn and
alter their place and time of meeting, and select such sub-committees from
amongst themselves as they shall find cause, for any particular purpose
or service, to be assigned by themselves, or the House, upon their report."
3
House of Commons Journals, vol. i., p. 83 D'Ewes, pp. 156-159.
;
Singularly enough D'Ewes (p. 179) reports the appointment, during this
session, of a special committee to arrange the order of sequence of bills to
be considered. A similar committee to regulate the business of the House
is recorded in 1625 (" Commons' Debates, 1625," edited by S. R. Gardiner,
p. u).
4
See the elaborate dissertation on this subject in Prof. Jameson's
"
Origin of the Standing Committee System in the American Legislative
Body." ("Political Science Quarterly (Columbia College)," 1894, p. 245.)
207
session to deal with all disputed election returns. In each of the par-'
liaments of 1584, 1585, 1586, 1587 and 1588 a committee touching matters
of privilege was appointed for the session. These committees were still
comparatively small in numbers. In the parliament of 1589 we find a

committee on privilege and one on " writs and returns," i.e., election
disputes. From 1592 onwards both of these undertakings are assigned to
one and the same large committee, consisting of the privy councillors
and thirty or more named members.
1
Side by side with these committees, which, however they might differ in
size, were all proper select committees, we find another form in which the
House debated, sometimes called " general committee," sometimes " grand
committee," and which was a committee with as many members as the
House itself. 2 But for a long time this form of action remained in the
background. In the parliaments of James I and Charles I, and even later, it
was the rule for bills to receive preliminary discussion in select com-
still
mittees,and then to be discussed in the House only upon the footing of the
reports made.
3
The proceedings in the small committees might be
attended by all members but only those deputed by the House had
;
voices in the committee. 4 The right of some committees to summon

witnesses was expressly recognised; thus in 1640 we read: "Ordered,
all committees of the whole House to have power to send for parties." 5
For the transaction of business the presence of one-half of the members
nominated was required. 8 The report consisted of the bill and the
amendments adopted by the committee. As a rule the House would
only allow these last to be read and discussed as a whole.
7
Re-com-
mittal of particular clauses was not allowed 8 the rule was that the ;
so, too, in 1597 and 1601

1
D'Ewes, p. 471 ; (ibid., pp. 552, 622).

*
The statement made in many popular accounts that a committee
of the whole House was first employed for the discussion of the bill of
attainder against the Earl of Strafford (1641) is a pure legend.
3
See the description of the procedure in Scobell's "Memorials," pp. 46
"
sqq. :If the question for committing the bill pass in the affirmative,
then a committee is to be named of which all those that took excep-

;
tions against any particulars in the bill (but not those who spake
against
the whole bill) are to be, and any members, that please, may name one
apiece, but not more to be of that committee." Here, again, we find the
above quoted rule, as to the who are opposed on prin-
exclusion of those
"
ciple to the bill, in operation. He
Committees upon bills have
continues :
not usually been less than eight, sometimes twenty, seldom more in former
times, which engaged them to attend it and speed it."
"
Any member of the House may be present at any
*
Scobell, p. 49 :
select committee, but is not to have any vote, unless he be named to be

of the committee."
4
D'Ewes, p. 436 (1589).
7
(p. 52) that, on the 4th of June 1607, AS an excep-
Scobell reports
tionalmeasure, when the amendments to the Bill of Union oetween
England and Scotland were reported, the whole bill was by order of the
House first read, and then the amendments by themselves.
Scobell, p. 58.
208
work of discussing the details of a bill was carried on in the select

committee. No doubt there was also in the early part of the seventeenth
century a second mode of procedure with bills, namely, discussion by
committee of the whole Hoiise. Thus we read in Scobell (p. 49), " Some
bills of great concernment, and chiefly in bills to impose a tax, or raise
money from the people, are committed to a committee of the whole

House to the end there may be opportunity for fuller debates, for that
;
at a committee the members have liberty to speak as often as they shall

see cause, to one question and that such bills, being of general concern-
;
ment, should be most solemnly proceeded in, and well weighed and ;
sometimes when a bill of that nature hath been conceived fit to be

made, the House hath thought fit to resolve themselves into a committee,
and either there or in the House to vote some heads for direction of
such as shall be imployed to prepare the bill." This passage shows
clearly the practice in the time of transition. A select committee was the
traditional form for detailed consideration of bills, but the procedure of
committee of the whole House was beginning to be regarded as the proper
one for taxes and important transactions. 1
We may ascribe this result to an important change which had taken

place in the meanwhile namely, the elaborate systematising of the
standing committees which was completed in the early parliaments of
the seventeenth century. To the above-mentioned committees on privi-
leges and elections there were added, in 1621, a standing committee
on trade and another on courts of justice, that is to say, on grievances
against the administration of the law in such courts. With these the
system of standing committees, as it was to remain for two
great
centuries, was brought
to completion. They were called standing com-
mittees, and were distinguished from others which were appointed as
occasion required and expired when the special business referred to them
had been These grand committees, or standing committees,
done."
served, as the matters within their jurisdiction indicate, for the dis-
cussion of the burning political questions of the time they were the ;
battle formation adopted by the nation, as represented by Parliament,

for its defensive war against the attacks of the Crown on the
Protestant religion and on the privileges of the House, and against its
incursions into the spheres of the courts of law and of taxation. It was
clearly desirable that all measures bearing upon these great questions
should be discussed in the closest combination, so that the whole House
might join in a plan of united action. The political origin of the
1
A
special note in one of the earlier journals shows that this form of
proceeding was felt to be an innovation. It is reported that a certain
committee met and sat till 11.30, "the Speaker from nine sitting in the
Clerk's chair, the Clerk standing at his back, and Mr. Recorder, the
moderator of the committee, sitting on a stool by him." (House of Com-
mons Journals, vol. i., p. 414.)
2 "
Scobell (" Memorials," p. 9) expressly states In Parliament there
:
have usually been five standing committees appointed in the beginning of

the Parliament and remaining during all the session other committees ;
were made occasionally and dissolved after the business committed unto
them was reported. The standing committees are for privileges and
elections, religion, grievances, courts of justice, trade."
standing committees produced, however, a further and most important

effect. The standing committees, which, as we have seen, had been deve-
loped out of the old large committees of the Elizabethan parliaments,
became without exception grand committees in the fullest sense, i.e.,
committees of the whole House. In earlier days certain committees had
been made very large, in order to allow a great number of members to
contribute to the discussion of affairs in the committee stage the same ;
idea was operative in the disturbed times of James I and Charles I and
led to the name and
procedure of a committee being preserved, while every
member House was given his share in the work.
of the There was the 1
further consideration, which appears to have had some weight, that

the traditional method of forming committees, by calling out names,
gave no security against partisanship in their composition. Complaints
were repeatedly made that members whose seats were far from the
Speaker's chair could not make the names of their nominees heard,
and were therefore unable to secure their appointment. 2 A remedy was
sought by making it customary to allow committees to add to their
number by co-optation, and a further step was taken when the proviso
" "
all who come to have voices began to be added to the orders by
which such large select committees were appointed. In 1621, the mean-
ing of this proviso was discussed at length, and an order was made
" that when
limited, all, that will come, shall have voice, that they, in
*
that case, they come, are committees, as well as those nominated."
if
The only exception to the enlargement of the standing committees was in

the case of the Committee of Privileges, which always remained a select
committee. 4 Private bill legislation, however, was not affected by the
The process can be plainly traced in the journals. In 1626 a com-

1
mittee for religion was appointed, with a declaration that all who came
should have voices (House of Commons Journals, vol. i., p. 817). In 1625
this plan was opposed as new, and a select committee was indicated as
the regular form. In 1628 all the standing committees (except that on
privileges)were made into committees of the whole House, and also in

the Short Parliament and the Long Parliament (1640). Four of the five
standing committees were from that time regularly committees of the
whole House, and at the same time they received power to send for
persons and papers, i.e., the whole power of the House for investigation.
2
See the debates in the parliament of 1601, in D'Ewes's "Journals."
3
" "
4
Scobell, Memorials," p. 10 : But the committee
for privileges and
elections hath alway had the precedence of all other committees ....
This committee is constituted of particular members named by the House."
As to the committee on trade Scobell reports that it "hath sometimes
been a select committee particularly named, and all such members, as
should come to it, to have voices .... sometimes a grand committee of
"
the whole House as 21 Jacobi (p. 9). It is noteworthy that in the
seventeenth century the power of appointing sub-committees was expressly

given to grand committees. See the entries in the journals for 1640
(House of Commons Journals, vol. ii., pp. 17, 21); in the second case cited,
however, it is noted that the House considered the power to be incident
to them without special order.
tendency to allow the co-operation of members not expressly named in ;
1624 it was provided "that, in private bills, there shall not be that general
1
clause, for all, that will come, to have voice." In 1628 the development
was completed and the organisation of the grand standing committees,
as retained till the nineteenth century, became fixed. In 1625 there was
still some hesitation. On the advice of Sir Edward Coke, it was decided
to abstain from appointing the three standing committees. In answer to
many who wished to have them set up, Sir G. More affirmed the custom
to be quite recent, and said that in Queen Elizabeth's time no such
2
^committees had been appointed except upon particular occasions. The
revolutionary Long Parliament which assumed all the powers of adminis-
tration and government to enable it to carry on its war with Charles
and to maintain the Commonwealth, did not find this form of com- '
mittee practicable. The House was no longer a body united against

the Crown, but was torn asunder by internal dissensions committees ;
of the whole House were therefore highly inconvenient to the ruling

party, the Puritans, inasmuch as they afforded their opponents equal
rights with themselves in the detailed discussion in committee. Besides, the
mainly executive, governing activity of the revolutionary House of
Commons called for the formation of small committees capable of ad-
ministrative business. Hence in place of committees of the whole House,
a series of special committees were appointed from the members of the
majority, and these committees carried on the government of the country
without check till Cromwell's assumption of personal rule. Cromwell's
parliaments, it is instructive to observe, began at once to return to the
former state of affairs. With the Restoration the old order of business
was re-established, and from 1661 to 1832, at the beginning of each
session of Parliament, the four above-mentioned standing committees were
appointed as committees of the whole House for the duration of the
session. A whole group of the heaviest and most important duties of
the House were thus practically removed from the sphere of true com-
mittee action, and the name alone of committee was retained for what
was simply another and more elastic form of deliberation by the House
as a whole. Thus the habit of withdrawing all legislative work from
select committees became more and more familiar it became a matter ;
of course to refer all bills to the grand committee, i.e., the House in
committee form, for detailed discussion after second reading. The
same need was also felt in the case of the grant of public taxes and
loans. There can be little doubt what gave the first impetus to this
remarkable development, namely, the one great advantage of committee .
debate, the opportunity for thorough consideration of every detail given

*
by each member being allowed to speak as often as he wished. But, in
addition, some weight must be assigned to the influence of the idea that
in this way every member of the House had an equal chance of sharing
and the amendment of legislative proposals.
in the discussion
From about 1700 onwards the form of committee of the whole House
almost completely took the place of that of real committees in respect

1
" "
2
Commons' Debates in 1625 (edited by S. R. Gardiner). Camden
Society Publications, 1873, p. 12.
of bills and financial proposals. From that date real committees have
1
been only applied to investigation and preliminary work, and as organs

in the direct legislative process have been smitten with atrophy. A further
consequence of the wholesale adoption of the system of discussion in
committee of the whole House was the practical destruction of the powerful
machinery of permanent large expert committees appointed to consider
definite classes of legislative proposals and administrative conditions ;
from time they ceased to have any active functions and were only
this
appointed as matter of form.

This leads to the consideration of an extremely important point in the
procedure of the House of Commons, one which is of great importance
in English constitutional law. We have already seen what took place at
the moment when Parliament, during the Civil War, seized the whole power
of the state, and particularly all its executive functions with astonishing
;
speed ability it made a change in its organisation, corre-

and great
sponding to the constitutional change that had taken place, splitting up
into a number of small special committees to carry on the revolutionary
government. The Restoration, which fully and unreservedly replaced the
Crown in its old constitutional position, brought the forms of the House
of Commons back to their old shape. Half a century later the Revolution
and its political and constitutional results once more, but this time
gradually and peacefully, had borne fruit in a second transfer to Parlia-
ment of the whole political sovereignty and it would not have been
;
surprising had the organisation of the House been changed to one like
that of the Long Parliament. Two great facts in English constitutional
history prevented this in the first place the rise of the system of parlia-
entary party government, and in the next place the establishment of the
Cabinet as the chief organ of government, and its absorption of all the
functions which in theory appertain to the Crown. The same end was
attained as before, namely, the subordination of the whole conduct of the
affairs of the state to the will of the House of Commons ; but no standing
administrative committees such as those of the Long Parliament were
formed a different scheme was devised.
: Not only the whole power of
government, but also the practical exercise of the royal prerogative, fell
into the hands of a body of men who bore the title of servants of the
Crown, but were in deed and truth a "joint committee" of the two
Houses of Parliament. After the repeated explanations in earlier chapters
of the system of parliamentary party government, we need not stop here
to analyse this arrangement it is enough to point out that these two facts,
;
fully developed by the beginning of the nineteenth century, have a deep

seated and intimate connection with the shaping of the arrangement of
work House of Commons. If we recognise why England, unlike
in the
the United States and unlike other European countries, has refused to avail
itself of a system of standing committees for legislative purposes, and
has retained the singular form of committees of the whole House, we shall
gain fresh and vivid light upon what is the pivot of the modern English
constitution, namely, parliamentary cabinet government.
1
Before the procedure committee of 1854, Sir Erskine May said of
the practice referring public bills to committees of the whole House
of
as a matter of course was " modern to this extent it has prevailed since
;
the Revolution." Report (1854), Minutes of Evidence, Q. 270.

Wemust, in conclusion, cast a glance upon the changes in the com-
mittee organisation of the House made by the reforms of the nineteenth
century. It is characteristic that, in the various select committees appointed
to prepare suggestions for reform in procedure, a wish to return to the old
practice was repeatedly expressed, and proposals were made to refer the
detailed discussion of legislation to select committees, at all events par-
tially. Thus before the committee of 1854 Sir (then Mr.) Erskine May
suggested the omission of the committee stage for certain bills, and
further that some bills might be committees for discussion
referred to select
on the understanding that this should take the place of discussion in
committee of the whole House, unless an express motion were made in
the House for recommittal of the bill. Neither measure appeared of
much importance, even on May's own showing, the first suggestion being
applicable to perhaps twenty, and the second to seven or eight, bills in
the course of a year. The committee doubted the utility of the proposals
1
and did not recommend their adoption by the House they also declined ;
to endorse May's other proposal for a rescission of the old standing orders
which required that bills relating to religion or trade should originate in
a committee of the whole House, instead of being introduced upon a
simple motion in the House itself. May considered this provision anti-
quated and recommended its abolition but he was unable to convince the
;
committee.2 Not tillthe 2gth of February 1888 was the old rule actually
done away with. Further, the Holise of Commons has decidedly set its
face against suggestions for limiting or abolishing the form of committee
of the whole House. The idea of depriving any member of his share
in the detailed and elastic discussion in committee has always been, and is
3
still, unwelcome. Before the committee of 1861, Speaker Denison made
a forcible appeal for a partial dispensation with committee discussion by
the whole House. He urged that it would often be sufficient to deal
with certain clauses or divisions of a bill in the whole House, on the lines
laid down by a previous report from a select committee. 4 On this occasion
the committee in their report recommended the acceptance of the proposals
"
made by the Speaker. They said, The precise nature of this proposal is
worthy of close attention. If a motion be made that a bill after the
Report (1854), Minutes of Evidence, Qq. 197, 262, 272 and 276.
1
Mr. Shaw Lefevre expressed a similar view (Q. 457), but he suggested
stronger select committees for the purpose.
2
Sir Erskine May's remarks on this point are worth reproducing He
"
said These preliminary committees were supposed to be additional
:
safeguards in respect to bills of special importance but it seems to me ;
that bills of far greater importance are, by the present rules of the House,
brought in without any such preliminary committee. Bills may be brought
in for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, for the restriction of the
liberty of the subject or the liberty of the press bills for disfranchisement
; ;
even the Act of Succession itself might be repealed, and the entire con-
stitution of Church and State subjected to fundamental alterations
without any preliminary committee and yet, in these two particular
;
cases of trade and religion, a preliminary committee is required." Report

(1854), Minutes of Evidence, Q. 197.
3
But see Supplementary Chapter.
4
Report (1861), Minutes of Evidence, Q. 155.
second reading be referred to a select committee, the House on each occa-

sion will have the opportunity of exercising its judgment, whether the
principle and details of the measure are so much intermixed as to render
the reference to a committee upstairs inexpedient. The controlling power
of the House over each bill will in no degree be compromised. The
decision to refer or not to refer will remain entirely in their own hands ;
and when the report comes down from the select committee the House
will have an ample opportunity of revising the proceedings and the
decisions of the select committee. If they be sanctioned, the delay and the
unnecesssary step of a reference to a committee of the whole House will
be avoided if it be deemed necessary or wise to reconsider the amend-
;
ments, on motion the bill will be recommitted, and an appeal will thus be
given to the judgment of the whole House. Without recommitting the
whole bill, there may be frequently great advantage in recommitting
certain clauses only." In spite of this expression of opinion by the
'
committee, the House refused to sanction the innovation, even in the

experimental form in which it was brought forward.
Turning to select committees, the chief changes have been in the
method of their appointment and the diminution in their size. The
composition of such committees, usually of twenty-one members, by elec-
tion in the House itself was, early in the nineteenth century, felt to be
an arrangement with little to recommend it, as it often led to long and
dreary debates and divisions. In 1836 a decided improvement was brought
about by reducing the normal membership to fifteen, and at the same
time directing the regular publication of the names of members of com-
mittees ;
it was also ordered that the name of every member putting a
question to a witness or expert should be prefixed thereto in the short-

hand minutes. The advantages of this reform were stated by Sir Erskine
May to the 1854 procedure committee it increased the responsibility of
;
members of committees, made the evidence more intelligible and

the
consistent, and, by reason of the increase in publicity given to the pro-
ceedings of a committee, brought a healthy public opinion to bear upon
its work. He suggested a further diminution in number, to eleven, with
a quorum of five, and proposed to hand over their composition to a
special Committee of Selection, pointing out the success of a similar measure
in private bill legislation.
2
Speaker Shaw Lefevre supported these views.
The committee, however, did not fall in with the schemes of these two
"
authorities. It expressed a fear that there would be some risk of lessen-
ing the weight and authority which ought to attach to the report of
committees."
With regard to the mode of selection of members of the committees
the report of 1854 acknowledged the force of the objections to the prac-
tice then in use, but it expressed a doubt whether any other mode would
be more free from objection. The difference between the principles on
which members should be chosen for committees on public bills and for
"
those on private bills was very great, and while the latter may safely
and beneficially be placed in the hands of a small committee of selection,
without any appeal from their decision, your committee apprehend that
the adoption of a similar practice with regard to ordinary public com-
Report (1861), p. viii.

*
Report (1854), Minutes of Evidence, Qq. 373-375.
2I 4
mittees wruld fail to give satisfaction to the House or to the public."

Strange to say, the remedy suggested by the report was a greater for-
bearance on the part of members in moving for the appointment of
committees.
Before the committee of investigation in 1861, Speaker Denison spoke
with somewhat uncertain voice as to the diminution in strength of select
committees he fully recognised that it worked well in the case of private
;
bill legislation, but was not sure that the same considerations applied
to committees on public bills. He acknowledged the force of the argu-
ment that the smaller the number of members on a committee the greater
was the feeling of responsibility felt by each, and the better and quicker
each worked. He was opposed to the suggestion that committees on
1
public bills should be chosen by the Committee of Selection. The com-

mittee itself did not make any recommendation on this head, and it
therefore never came before the House. But before very long the House
found itself compelled to adopt this method as the regular, though not
exclusive, way of appointing select committees. By the end of the
seventies the practice had been tacitly adopted without any specific rule
2
having ever been laid down.
Report (1861), Qq. 176-194 and 219-226. Sir George Grey drew
1
attention to the great distinction between the judicial procedure in a

private bill committee, and the action of a committee appointed to con-
sider and report upon some question of a political character. It would
be practically impossible in the latter case to constitute a non-partisan
committee as was easily and properly done for private bills.
2 "
See May, Parliamentary Practice," p. 404 ; also loth edition, p. 381,
note 6.
PART VII
The Forms of Parliamentary Work
I. MOTIONS 1
parliamentary activity is directed to the definite

ALLformulation of the united will of an assembly of many
persons. The aim of a parliamentary body is to proceed,
in a prescribed manner, to focus the will of a majority of
its members, to which the will of the minority must give
way, so as to give an answer to a definite question brought

before it by one of the body, and formulated according to
certain rules laid down in advance. It follows that motion
and resolution are the two fundamental forms of parlia-
mentary deliberation. Logically regarded, the whole activity
of every parliamentary body is made up of motions and
resolutions and -the same is true if we look at the actual
;
development of any particular parliament. For the

historical
House of Commons this may be summed up in the following
"
A matter requiring the decision of the House
statement :
is decided by the answer given by the House to a question

2
put by the Speaker on a motion proposed by a member."
Looked at from the standpoint of form, a bill, a legislative
proposal, may be analysed into a series of motions. Its
component parts are so considered, each of its clauses being

made the subject-matter of a motion and of a resolution or
decision upon the same.
The House of Commons has, in the first place, a
series of general rules which apply to all motions, including
those incidental to the discussion of a bill. There are
1
Manual, pp. 96-103. May, "Parliamentary Practice," pp. 238-246.
Cf. Bentham, Works, vol. ii., pp. 334 sqq.
2 "
A matter requiring the decision of the House, or of a committee, is
decided by means of a question put from the Chair on a motion proposed
by a member." (Manual, p. 96.)
2l6
also a group of special rules applicable to the discussion

of a bill as a matter siti generis and as an entirety. The
bill being the sole form in which Parliament exercises
its supreme function of legislation, its treatment is not only
the most important, but also the most complicated trans-
action in parliamentary procedure it must therefore receive
:
separate discussion. For our immediate purpose, that of

taking a survey of the elementary forms of procedure, a bill
is be regarded as an aggregate, composed of a

simply to
group of motions. To employ a simile, a motion is like a
cell, and a bill like a body composed of cells : it is all-
important to begin with a study of the simple cell.

As a general rule in the House of Commons every
motion must be supported by some member other than its
in other words, must have a
" seconder " if a
proposer ;
:
motion is not seconded it falls to the ground and is

regarded as non-existent, though it may not be otherwise
defective in point of form. There are various exceptions,
however, to the rule. It does not apply to motions of a
purely formal character, nor to motions set down as orders
of the day, nor to motions in committee of the whole
House and it is, by etiquette, waived with respect to
;
motions from the " front benches." An important distinction

between motions is that which divides those which require
previous notice from those which may be moved without
notice. Motions which lay before the House any question
of require, as a rule, to be made known in
substance
advance the notice may be given in writing, 1 or, under
:
certain circumstances, orally. The rule as to notice is

connected with the arrangement \vhich provides a printed
agenda paper for each sitting, delivered to every member
of House before its commencement
the this programme:
is drawn up so as to show all the items of business for the
1
Notice in writing has to be given at the table during a sitting of the
House. For this purpose sittings of the House in committee are treated
in the same way as other sittings. A member may also give oral notice
of an intended motion, either before the commencement, or after the
conclusion, of public business the former is the more usual time in ;
such a case, however, the exact terms of the motion, with the name of
the mover and the date upon which it is to be brought forward, must
be sent in again in writing. If a member desires to vary the wording of
MOTIONS 217
day's sitting in the permanent order laid down by the rules.

One of 'the first headings in the permanent order is the
announcement of notices of motion for future sittings. The
order of precedence for motions of which notice has been
given and the length of the interval between giving notice

and actual moving are settled by a special procedure, the
rules of which will be more conveniently described in our
discussion of the daily programme.
A motion 'of which notice has been given is subject to
the further provision that only the member in whose name
it stands is entitled to move it when its turn arrives. The
only members whose favour an exception, on obvious
in
grounds, is made are those who are ministers of the Crown :
a motion in the name of one minister may be made by

one of his colleagues There are also two
in his place.
classes of motions which may be moved by one member
on behalf of another who has given notice of them one :
class is that of motions for granting leave of absence to
members, the other is that of motions for returns by a

Government department when no objection is made either by
the department concerned, or by any member of the House
(unopposed returns).
The
rules for determining whether notice is needed or
not cannot be stated in any precisely logical form. There
are, in the first place, a certain number of cases in which
express provisions standing of orders or long-established
usage have made notice necessary : the list is as follows ;
namely, motions
1. For the introduction of a new clause upon the report
stage of a bill ;
2. For the nomination of members to serve upon a
select committee ;
a motion the terms of which appear in the notice paper, he may do so by

giving at the table an amended notice, the amended notice being given,
at latest, during a sitting of the House preceding the day appointed for the
motion. The proper officers of the House, under the supervision of the
Speaker, are charged with the duty of correcting or withdrawing from
the notice paper any irregular notice, or one which contains unbecoming
expressions. This function has to be exercised with great tact, as it gives
the Speaker a kind of censorship whereby he can suppress motions and
questions the wording of which is out of order or unsuitable.
II P
3. For constituting a select committee of more than

fifteen members ;
4. For adding members to a committee ;
5. For circulating a petition with the notice paper ;
6. For granting leave of absence to a member ;
7. To discharge a member from attendance on a select

committee when not moved pursuant to the report
of a committee ;
8. To amend the question for the House going into

Committeeof Supply ;
9. To rescind a resolution of the House, or to expunge

" Votes and
or alter the form of an entry in the
"
Proceedings ;
10. To add to the number of days allotted to supply ;

11. To present a bill without an order of the House;
12. For an instruction a committee, or the enlarge-
to
ment of the scope of an instruction already given. 1
In addition to these specific classes of motions, most sub-

stantialmotions have to be prefaced by notice. There are,
however, certain exceptions to this general rule which may
now be considered.
A main class of exceptions springs from the proviso
1.
that no notice is required of a motion which is only an

amendment, i.e., a subsidiary motion proposing to change the
form of the question which some member has brought
before the House.
2
An exception to this exception is to be
found under the eighth heading above.
2. Notice may be dispensed with by the general con-
currence of the House. It is not to be supposed that this
encourages any laxity in requiring notice in the case of
"
See May, Parliamentary Practice," p. 246.
Practice, however, has, during the last ten years or so, made the
2
giving notice of all serious amendments, especially those to important legis-

lative proposals, a matter of necessity. The two great bills of 1903 the Irish
Land Bill and the London Education Bill may serve as examples. The
notice paper for the yth and 8th of May 1903 contained on no less than
fourteen folio pages (pp. 433-447) all the amendments proposed up to that
date on the Irish Land Bill. Although the Education Bill consisted of but
a few clauses, there were ten folio pages of amendments (pp. 455-464) in
the notice paper for the nth of May 1903.
MOTIONS 219
substantial matters. There are only a few cases in which,

on very special grounds, the House will give leave to intro-
duce motions on the spur of the moment.
3. A
motion "for the adjournment of the House, made
for purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent
the
public importance" (the only form of urgency motion which

is permissible) not subject to notice being given.
is Nor are
4. Motions raising questions of privilege, nor

5. Motions for appointing committees to prepare reasons
for disagreeing with a Lords' amendment.
The reason, in both the two last cases,
for dispensing
with notice may, perhaps, be found in the fact that they arise
out of the intervention of some external agent unconnected
with the House.
6. Certain motions of a formal or uncontentious nature
do not require notice such are motions
:
(a) For the first reading of a bill from the House of

Lords ;
(6) For the consideration of Lords' amendments forth-

with or on a future day ;
(c) For the postponement, discharge, or revival of an
order of the day ;
(d) For the appointment of a committee of the whole
House on a future day ;
(e) a minister for the immediate presentation of papers
By ;
(/) For the issue of a new writ to fill a vacancy.
7. The motions connected with the normal deliberation

on a bill are prescribed by rule or custom they are the :
indispensable framework of parliamentary action, and conse-

quently do not need prior notice.
8. A motion for the adjournment of the House or oi
the debate, or, in committee, a motion to report progress
or that the chairman leave the chair, does not need prior
notice. The object of such motions is generally to deal
with some situation which has suddenly arisen, or in some
other way to accommodate
the proceedings to the course of
the discussion to require notice would be to deprive nearly
:
all of them of their reason for existence, to defeat them in
advance. They are the principal weapons of parliamentary

P 2
tactics, and are, for that very reason, subject to provisions

of special application, limiting their use. We had better
postpone our discussion of them until we reach the con-

sideration of the daily programme.
One special limitation upon the right to introduce a
motion deserves
particular attention. There are certain
exalted personages and officials whose conduct is not allowed
to be made the subject of political discussion in the House
except in a
prescribed way. To prevent motions calling
in question the conduct of such persons being sprung upon
the House, custom has long laid down an express pro-
hibition any such discussion except upon a motion of
of
which written notice has been given according to the rules.
The persons whose conduct is thus protected from sudden
challenge are the Sovereign, the heir to the throne, the
Viceroy of India, the Lord Lieutenant Ireland, the

of
Speaker, the Chairman of Committees, members of either

House of Parliament and the Judges of the Superior Courts.
The natural way of disposing of a motion is putting
it to the House as a question, and the ascertaining of
the answer of the House by its vote. Question and vote
together make the decision of the House. Without a vote
there is no regular decision of a question. Moreover, it
is important to observe, there can be no vote and no decision
without a precisely framed question. A question is an in-

dispensable preliminary to a decision, and therefore to every
act of volition by the House. Before, however, we go
on to consider the manner of putting the question there
are certain irregular methods of disposing of a motion to
which reference must be made.
There are two questions to answer (i) Can a motion :
once moved be withdrawn, and does the same rule apply

to motions of which previous notice has been given as to
others ? (2) Is the Speaker bound to put every motion
to the vote ?
The answers to the two questions are characteristic of

the House of Commons.
A
motion cannot be simply withdrawn by its proposer.
The English rule is that a duly proposed motion when
once before the House is from that moment no longer the
MOTIONS 221
property of the mover, but is in the possession of the

House. For the withdrawal of a motion the consent of
the House is required. Nay more, the House must be
unanimous on the point. 1
The possibility of the Speaker's refusing to allow a
motion to be voted upon can only arise in the case of
motions which are out of order either in their subject
matter or in their form. Such are motions which contain
unbecoming expressions, infringe the rules of the House or
contain reflections upon a vote of the House. Irregularities
of this kind may, under the Speaker's authority, be corrected
by the clerks at the table or, by his direction, irregular ;
motions may be withheld from publication on the notice

paper.
2. PUTTING THE QUESTION
When a motion is duly proposed and comes up for con-
sideration, it is debated ; at the end of the debate the regular

mode by means of a question stated
of disposing of it is
to the House by the Speaker in a form based upon the
wording of the motion by the answer to this question the

:
House gives its decision. Let us, in the first place, ignore
any complications introduced during the course of the
debate, and take the simplest case of a motion which
undergoes no change. There are two stages in laying a
question before the House. First of all it is
"proposed"
by the Speaker ; thereupon follow the debate, if any, the
motions for amendment, if any, and any debates upon them.
The end of a debate comes when no more members rise
to speak, or when a closure motion is proposed and
2
carried. It is stages have been gone
not till all these
through that the second part of the Speaker's task arrives,

his final laying of the question before the House, " putting
" "
1
Parliamentary Practice," p. 280.
May, The Speaker asks Is it :
"
your pleasure that the motion be withdrawn ? If no one dissents the
withdrawal is allowed. A motion which has been withdrawn may be

afterwards renewed. For this reason permission to withdraw is often
refused.
2
See infra, Part ix., as to the closure.
the question." The form in which the decision of the
House is taken is invariable. The Speaker rises from the
chair and " The is that ..." then come
says, question
the exact words of the motion. The House may make its
decision knownone of two ways, by voice or by division.
in
These are the only two forms, handed down from imme-
morial antiquity, in which a vote can be taken.
The first named is the primary. Upon the request of
the Speaker those who are desirous that the motion shall be
"
accepted call out Aye," and then those who are opposed
to it call " No." When the two parties have thus expressed
their wishes by their voices the Speaker, judging from the
sound, declares whether in his opinion the ayes or noes
" I think the
are the stronger, saying ayes (or noes) have
it." If his opinion is not challenged, the question is consi-
dered to have been answered, and said to be "resolved in
is
" "
the affirmative or " in the negative as the case may be.
If, however, the party against whom Speaker has

the
given his opinion challenge its correctness, the second

method of taking a vote comes into play : after an interval,
to allow members not already House to come in, the
in the
question is put for a second time, and a division takes

place. The regulations and customs governing this method
of ascertaining on which side the majority lies will be best
described after the form of amendments has been discussed.
The result of ascertaining the will of the
House, collected
in thisway, may be an expression of either command or
wish, an order or a resolution. There is no third form
of parliamentary action. The essential difference between
the two is that resolutions are directed to the outer world,
and orders to the internal affairs of the House.
The House can only give orders within its jurisdiction,
to its members and officers, to its committees and to itself it :
may direct itself to take up certain questions or to abstain

from considering them ; further, it can give directions to itself
as to the conduct of its business, and as to its procedure.
1
1
The House can also give orders to its executive officers, above all
to the Serjeant-at-arms ; by so doing it can indirectly reach into the
world outside. But this anomalous infringement of the principle that
PUTTING THE QUESTION 223
These directions may be general and permanent, or they

may be special and temporary in their character. The de-
scription (orders of the day) given to the items of the daily
programme, and the name (standing and sessional orders)
given to the express rules made by the House for the
conduct of its business, both indicate clearly the consciousness
of the House of this power of giving commands as to
its own work. The decisions of the House, however, have
to dispose of all the tasks which are set before it. They
may be decisions of a concrete legislative or financial kind,
or purely political :
again, they may be of an abstract nature
expressing the House on some matter of

opinion of the
public concern, intended to inform the Crown or the
Ministry of the views of the House as to what ought to be
done or, lastly, they may be decisions arrived at during
:
the course of the deliberation upon some bill, and aimed

at producing rules of law to be embodied in the expres-
sion of the legislative will. But rules of law can only be

brought into existence when the decision of the House upon
them takes the form of an act of parliament. It is a cardinal
rule of constitutionallaw that neither decisions of the House

of Commons
alone, nor decisions of the House of Lords
alone have legal efficacy upon the outer world. 1 Parliament
can only produce an effect beyond its own walls in the
shape of an act of parliament. It is only by joining in
theproduction of a formal statute that the House of
Commons can legislate, even in the administrative sphere to
which earlier reference has been made. Acts of parliament
are the only means by which Government departments and
judges can legally be made to change their modes of action,
the only instruments for imposing a legal duty of any kind
the orders of the House only deal with internal matters is confined to
the sphere in which the House is alone entitled to protect its rights
directly against all theworld namely, the sphere of the privileges of the
Commons and the special jurisdiction appertaining thereto. It may be
said, also, that the House indirectly passes beyond its internal jurisdiction
"
when the Speaker issues " warrants under parliamentary or statutory
authority.
1
The judicial decisions and judgments of the House of Lords, when act-
ing as the highest court of appeal, are, of course, upon a different footing ^
whatever upon the subjects of the realm. The House of
Commons has no power of taking administrative action
beyond its own borders to carry out a decision at which it
has arrived. Such an act would be no mere breach of the
rulesof the House, it would be an infringement of a
fundamental principle of the British constitution.
This is one of the few and, to my mind, insufficiently
appreciated arguments in favour of the proposition that the
principle of the separation of powers, at all events to a certain
extent, is found operating in the law of Parliament
to be
in England both Houses are strictly forbidden to exercise
;
any executive power. Executive action is theoretically and

formally reserved for the courts of law and the various
bodies deriving authority from the Privy Council. But if
we are not to be led into serious error, we must not fail
to observe that this principle of separation of powers is here
only applied in a purely technical sense. As a matter of

Parliament, and ultimately the House of Commons, has
fact,
a paramount power of guiding the executive, and that by
two different methods ;
in the first place by means of the
institution of parliamentary cabinet government, and in the
second place by means of the unlimited legislative com-
petence, which, both theoretically and practically, belongs
to the British Parliament. The Government, i.e., the superior
and inferior officers of the Crown, are, under the existing
constitution, all members of one or other of the two Houses
of Parliament, and, both by the theory of the constitution
and as a result of the practical sanctions which support
that theory, are unable, except temporarily, to carry on the
executive government after the majority of the House of
Commons withdraws support from their policy and adminis-
tration. It will be seen, therefore, that the House of
Commons is able not merely to bring strong pressure to
bear on the policy and administration of the Government,
but it can at any moment simply make its will into the will
of the Government. It may be urged that the influence of
Parliament upon administration when exerted in this way

is purely political ;
but the second means of influence is
one which rests upon a firm juristic foundation. There is

no principle of the British constitution which prevents the

House of Commons from throwing into the shape of a
bill any scheme of external action which it may desire to
1
see carried out.
Nodoubt any such bill, before it became law, would
require the concurrence of the House of Lords and the
Crown, and though the consent of the Crown is no longer
more than a ceremony, the House of Lords is still a real
factor in legislation. However true it may be that, in a
political sense, or even as regards the living constitution,
the House of Commons is the ultimate legislative sovereign,
if we go to the strict legal theory, the House of Commons
is only equal, not superior, to the other components of the
legislature. Without taking into account the now obsolete
veto of the Crown, the resistance of the House of Lords,
so frequently offered even in our own days, produces at
all events a dilatory effect upon the proposals of the other
House ;
it is, therefore, quite correct to assert that in the
sharp division between orders and resolutions we have a

constitutionaland political fact of great practical importance.
It is expression of the principle that the House of
an
Commons, as a rule, can only bring its unrestricted powers
into play in the form of an act of parliament.
Amotion and the question founded upon it can,
however, be disposed of in other ways than by a decision.
There are four irregular modes in which this can be done.
They have one common result, that of preventing the ques-
tion proposed by the motion being actually presented for
1
This is, perhaps, the most sharply defined juristic difference between
the parliamentary government of Great Britain and the constitutions of
Continental states. There is no department of government in which
under the British constitution, the will of the state can only be expressed
by means of royal ordinance or ministerial edict the doer of any act of
:
government is always responsible, directly or indirectly, to Parliament,

especially to the House of Commons. The sole theoretical exception
is the sphere of the royal prerogative. From a strictly legal point of
view the previous consent of the Crown is needed to enable Parliament
to affect the prerogative. But, practically speaking, there is no risk, even
here, of any conflict it is the very essence of the system of parliamentary
:
government that the royal prerogative is only exercised upon the advice
of the responsible Government.
decision it is
formally evaded, by being replaced by another
:
question, so that the first question and the motion which it

incorporates are superseded.
A
motion may be superseded by a motion for adjourn-
1.
ment. This must be moved as a distinct question in the

form "That this House do now adjourn." We shall have
later to discuss how far such a motion is admissible at any
stage of a sitting. If, however, a motion for adjournment is
duly proposed and carried, the principle of strict adherence

to the day's programme, peculiar to the House of Commons,
and one of the chief features of its present procedure, pro-
duces the result that the motion previously under discussion
is put on one side without a vote. Before a motion, during
the debate on which a motion for adjournment has been
carried, can be reintroduced, notice has to be repeated and
the whole procedure has to be started afresh. Practically
speaking there is but little chance of bringing the motion
on again.
A "count out" for want of a quorum when the House
is engaged upon the discussion of a motion has exactly the
same effect. The motion and question are got rid of for the
sitting and can only be reintroduced by beginning again.
A motion to adjourn the debate, if carried, has no such
effect it simply defers the question to a future day to be
:
fixed by the House.

2. The result upon a motion of another
way of super-
seding it is very similar. It is permissible while a motion
is before the House to move "That the orders of the day
benow read." This motion was at one time common, but is
now seldom made use of. The reason for its

infrequency
is found in the application of
to be the rule of adherence
1
to the day'sprogramme.
3. A motion which has been duly brought before the
House may be superseded by an amendment. By virtue of
the regulations as to amendments, to be described shortly, it
is possible to propose the omission of any word or words
In the French Chamber, on the other hand, this form of motion

1
has acquired great importance both in regulating the course of business

and in arriving at political decisions.
in the question, or even to move that the whole of such

words word
that be omitted, with a view to inserting
after the
others in their place, possibly of a tenor exactly opposite to
those proposed to be left out. If such an amendment be
carried, the original motion disappears, and the question to

be decided is changed.
4. The fourth method is that of carrying what is called
the "previous question." This method of procedure is both
simple and ingenious. The traditional rules of the House
allow the interposition, before the putting of the question
on a substantive motion, of a formal preliminary motion,
viz., "that that question be not now put." 1 This is the
"
"previous question which may be placed like a barrier in
the way of the determination of the question on the original
motion. If it is carried the effect upon the original motion
is the same
a motion had been carried for the adjourn-
as if
ment of the House. There is nothing in the rules to pre-

vent the motion being brought forward again, after a fresh
notice, at a later sitting. The object, therefore, of moving the
previous question is to provide a means by which the House
can avoid a direct decision on a subject submitted to it.
If, however, the previous question is not carried, the
motion has a further effect. The original question must be
put at once, and no further debate or motion for amend-
ment is permissible. The previous question is therefore, it
will be seen, a double-edged weapon of opposition. For
this reason there are further limitations on its applicability.
It may not be moved on a motion relating to the transac-
tion of public business or the meeting of the House, or in

any committee or on any amendment. 2
To
conclude, except in the case of one of the irregular
methods of disposing of a motion, as just enumerated, the
question to be put must correspond exactly with the motion
of the previous question in the House of Commons is

The form
1
now negative in other parliaments, e.g., in the American House of

;
Representatives, it is positive.
*
The previous question was, till 1882, the only approach in the
House of Commons to any kind of closure it was then a venerable
;
institution of the House. See May's evidence before the select com-
mittee of 1871, Minutes of Evidence, Q. 54; also Maa/, pp. 69, 107, 108.
brought forward, and must be put to the vote. The only

possible hindrances in the way are those of the provisions
in the rules for the interruption of business at certain
specified hours. There are, of course, the customary minor

interruptions to the debate on a motion common to all
proceedings in the House : these are chiefly caused by

communications from the House of Lords or from the
Crown.
3. AMENDMENTS 1
Another of the chief forms of parliamentary proceeding,

which, at bottom, is no more than a variety of motion in
the widest sense of the term, is amendment. An amend-
ment is a subsidiary motion, i.e., a motion for fundamental
or partial change in, curtailment of or addition to, a motion
already before the House. There are a number of important
regulations as to the manner of using this form of parlia-
mentary action. In the first place, it is clear from the

amendments that,
subsidiary nature of theoretically speaking,
they do not require previous notice. But there are im-
portant exceptions to this rule. In the following cases
notice of an amendment is necessary :
1. When the amendment takes the. form of proposing

new clauses on the report of a bill. 2
2. When the amendment concerns the nomination of
members for service on select committees. 3
3. When the amendment is one to a proposed instruc-
tion to a committee. 4
4. When it is proposed to move an amendment of a

substantive character, political or other, to the formal
motion for going into committee of supply. 5
The reason for the last exception is easily seen. The
principal motion is a recurring formality prescribed by the
1 "
May, Parliamentary Practice," pp. 289-299 ; Manual, pp. 104-107 ;
Standing Orders Nos. 39, 41 and 42.

1
May, ibid., p. 246.
3
May, ibid., pp. 246, 405.
4
May, ibid., pp. 482, 483.
May, ibid., pp. 246, 609.
AMENDMENTS 229
rules, and the amendment is only technically subsidiary to

it, being really a main question itself it is therefore dealt
:
with as if it were the main subject for discussion. It is
noteworthy that an amendment, unlike an original motion,

even though it may have been the subject of written notice,
may be moved by a member other than its first proposer.
In point of time an amendment is strictly dependent on
the main question. It cannot be moved before the Speaker
has proposed the main question. The order of succession

in which amendments, if there are more than one, to a
motion are to be brought forward is determined entirely by
the order in which those who wish to speak are called
upon by the Speaker. A member who is speaking may
always conclude by making any motion which is in order
at the moment. No precedence is accorded to amendments
of which notice has had to be given, and which are printed
in the notice paper, except that the Speaker may be expected
to watch for the rising of the members in whose names
they stand. The order of speakers determines, therefore, the
succession of the different stages in the discussion of the
subject matter, as indicated by the different amendments.
The most important rule as to amendments is that they
must be relevant to the question upon which they are
moved. It follows from the nature of an amendment, as a
motion subsidiary to the main question, that its contents
ought to have some bearing upon the subject introduced
by the principal motion further, every amendment must
:
be drawn up so as to leave the question, if altered in

accordance therewith, in an intelligible form.
The moving of amendments is restricted by the rule that
prohibits any proposal inconsistent with a decision arrived

at in the debate upon the subject before the House. Thus
no proposal to alter any words in a motion which have
already been agreed to is permissible. It is also inad-

missible to move any amendments to a formal motion other
than such as have been recognised by the tradition of the
House. For instance, a motion that a bill " be now read
"
a second time can only be met by certain recognised
amendments, the most usual of which is to substitute for
" now " the words " this "
day six months a motion that ;
the House or the debate be adjourned cannot be amended ;
a motion that theHouse at its rising do adjourn to a future
day can only be amended by a proposal to adjourn to some

other time. 1 It is also forbidden to introduce by way of
amendment whicha motion by rule has to be brought
forward as a substantive motion after notice. 2 Lastly, no
amendment may be moved which anticipates a motion or
amendment of which notice has been given or matters
contained in an order of the day.
By English parliamentary law, therefore, an amendment
is, even in its wording, strictly dependent upon the letter of
the main question. 3 No amendment can be proposed except

a proposal to make additions to, omissions from, or changes
in the words of the principal question. Three cases are
possible :
1. Amendment by the omission of words.

2. Amendment by leaving out certain words in order to
insert or add others, giving a new meaning to the
question.
3. Amendment by adding or inserting words, leaving the
original text otherwise unchanged.

Amendments
are disposed of by means of question and
vote, just like substantive motions. Of course the subsidiary

question has to be decided first. Whether this is carried or
not, the main question must always be put. If the amend-
ment is carried themain question submitted to the House
See May, "Parliamentary Practice," p. 294. This is an instance of

1
the application of a general principle that a recognised formula for the

advancing of a piece of parliamentary business by one of the stages
through which it has to pass can only be met by an acknowledged
formula of amendment. The provisions thus established form a striking
" "
group in which the characteristic parliamentary mark of fair play is
plainly to be seen.
Especially the motions above enumerated as to the conduct of the
2
Sovereign, the Speaker, the Chairman of Committees, &c.

3
The whole technique amendments with its refinements, that strike
of
a Continental observer so strangely, has been copied by all deliberative
asserr blies in the country it is as strictly observed in town, county and
;
district councils as in the House of Commons. See Palgrave, "Chairman's

Handbook."
AMENDMENTS 231
is the original question as modified by the amendment which

has been passed. If the amendment is lost, it quits the
stage, and the main question in its original form is once

more proposed.
There are definite rules as to the method of putting the
question in all three cases they are all based on the idea
:
that there is a presumption in favour of retaining the

principal question.
In case No. I (simple omission of words) the subsidiary
" that the words
question is, proposed to be left out stand
part of the question."
In case No. 2 putting the question is more complicated,
as two subsidiary questions may required. The first
be
thing to be done is to decide, as in case No. i, whether
the words proposed to be left out shall be retained or not.
If thispasses in the negative, a second question is put "that
the words proposed to be inserted be there inserted." It
follows that, if this is affirmed, a third question becomes

necessary, namely, whether the principal motion as amended
is to be accepted or not. If the first
subsidiary question is
answered in the affirmative one question is saved.
In the third case there are only two divisions : the first
as to the addition or insertion of the proposed words, and

the second upon the main question either in the original
form or as amended.
Of course it often happens that several amendments are
moved to the same motion. In addition to the formal
order given by the succession of speakers, there is a further
principle, dependent upon the subject matter, which governs
the order of the discussion of such amendments. The rule
is that theymust be taken in the order in which the words
of original motion affected by them appear in that
the
motion. If any words in the text of a motion have been
amended it is not possible to change any part of such text

as precedes them. If therefore a motion to amend any
part of a motion has been proposed and it is desired to
alter an earlier phrase, the of bringing about what
only way
is wanted is to obtain (with the consent of the House), the
withdrawal of the amendment under discussion : this can,
of course, only be done if the mover consents.
If a motion is amended, the altered motion has to be
dealt with as a principal question, and disposed of by a
question. Thence arises the possibility of a sub-amendment,

a subsidiary motion in the second degree, which can be
interposed between the proposal of the question on the

amendment and the final putting
first of this question.
An amendment to an amendment, then, is in order. 1 The
procedure is precisely analogous to the procedure on amend-
ments to motions. All confusion is avoided by strict
adherence to the order of succession :

first, the proposal to
amend the amendment is taken, then the amendment itself
as amended, and finally, the original question, as altered
by the amendment in its final form, is put and decided by

the vote.
There are two ways, other than the regular mode of
question and vote, by which an amendment may be dis-
posed of :
1. It may be withdrawn. The same rules are applicable

as in the case of a motion which it is desired to with-
draw.
2. The Speaker may rule it to be out of order. The
reason for such a ruling may be its irrelevance to the prin-
cipal motion, or that its adoption would cause the question
to become meaningless, or again, that it infringes some one
of the rules above laid down as to anticipating motions on
the paper, &c.
These rules in themselves give the Speaker, by the help
of the weapon of interpretation, no inconsiderable power of
removing from the course of business amendments of a
merely dilatory kind. But the general authority of the

Speaker to maintain order and to conduct the business
of Parliament strengthens him still further. Amendments
which by their substance or
wording unbecoming, are
and such as are mere negatives are also forbidden by the
Speaker.
A study of the debates of the lastten years in the House
of Commons will furnish many examples of the plenary
power of the Speaker which he exercises unflinchingly to

AMENDMENTS 233
prevent the abuse of the right of members to move amend-

ments at all times.
There are special and more far-reaching rules, as to the
mode of applying amendments to the discussion of bills,
but we must return to these in Part x., where they will be

more fully described.
4. DIVISIONS 1
In parliamentary bodies the formation of a state will is
accomplished by means of the acceptance or rejection of

the motions submitted to them. The combination of the
individual volitions of the units who compose the assem-
bly into a joint will, which gives a decision, is effected, in
accordance with the principle that the will of the majority is
to be deemed the will of the whole, by taking a vote. The

practice in the popular governing assemblies of Greece and
Rome was to obtain the affirmation or negation of a definite,
formulated question ;
the House of Commons has adopted
the plan, and all Continental parliaments have followed
same
its in this respect.
example An argumentative vote is not
allowed in the House of Commons, but, curiously enough, in
the House
Lords any peer is at liberty to make a written
of
statement of his dissent to any measure passed by the House
and of his reasons for objecting such protest, together with
;
the names of all who concur in it, is entered at full length

in the minutes of the day's sitting. A vote in the House of
Commons must be given personally. The same rule applies
now in the House of Lords, but down to 1868 absent peers
were entitled by ancient usage to vote by proxy on certain
questions.
The steps leading up to the taking of a division have
already been described. To understand what happens during
the division itself it is necessary to recall for a moment the
arrangement of the House of Commons and its meeting

chamber. The rectangular chamber is bordered by the
"division lobbies," which communicate by doors one with
another, and with the remoter rooms used for the various
1
The rules as to the method of taking divisions have recently been

considerably altered : see Supplementary Chapter.
'I Q
political parties and for other purposes connected with the

House. The chamber has six doors, one at each end
and two on each of its sides, all of which lead into these
lobbies.
As soon as the Speaker's opinion as to the result of the
vote by voices has been stated and has been challenged by
at least two members, the Speaker takes the first step towards
a division by directing strangers to withdraw.
all This
direction only applies to those who are in the strangers' seats
behind the bar those who are in the galleries are allowed
:
to remain in their places.

An now comes into operation. By the
important rule
rules of House
the no member is entitled to take part in
a division who was not actually present in the House
when the question was put, the space between the double
doors at the ends being for this purpose reckoned as part
of the House. Properly speaking, only such members as
were in the House at the first attempt to take the voices
ought to be allowed to vote in the division. But a short
period of grace is given during which the bells in the
various lobbies and rooms ring continuously, and members
have a chance of reaching the House in time to give their
votes.
Such members as wish to abstain from voting must,
while the bells are ringing, withdraw both from the House
and the division lobbies. The interval is two minutes long
and is measured by a sand-glass, which is turned by one
of the clerks at the table at the moment when the Speaker
directs strangers to withdraw. The members who come
into the House during these two minutes are both entitled and
bound to vote. When
the sand has run out the Serjeant-
at-arms, having previously cleared the lobbies, on a signal
from the Speaker closes and locks all the doors leading into
the House. The question is then put a second time and
the voices taken as before. It is still possible to avoid a
division, though it is not often that this happens. As a rule

the party against whom the
Speaker declares his opinion
again challenge and the division takes its course. During
the taking of the voices the second time no member is
entitled to speak, and there is no possibility of reopening

DIVISIONS 235
the debate. The Speaker gives the direction "the Ayes

to the right, theNoes to the left," and when Government
and Opposition are face to face calls upon the two Whips
on either side to act as tellers if the division is not
;
on party lines he names other members for the office. If

either side can find no teller or only one no division
takes place. Four tellers are absolutely necessary for a valid
division.
Every member who is within the doors when they are

closed is bound, when the two pairs of tellers have sta-
tioned themselves at the doors leading from the lobbies,
to leave the House for one lobby or the other, and so
declare himself an aye or a no. Refusal to vote, i.e.,
1
remaining in the House, is forbidden. Declining to leave
the House has been punished as a serious breach of order.
When the House has been emptied as described the members
return to it
through the end doors, which have meantime
been opened.
The two pairs of tellers stand at the doors, one from
each party officiating at each door. They count the mem-
bers as they return into the House from the two lobbies,
and thus discover on which side the majority is to be found.
But this is not the whole of the enumeration. Each of the
two lobbies into which the different parties stream serves
as a voting room.
In each lobby there is a table at which two of the
clerks sit, each with a list of members, one having a list of
those whose names begin with one of the letters from A
to M, and the other a list going from N to Z. One by
one the members pass by these tables on the side deter-
mined by the initial letter of their surnames, and give their
names to the clerks, who mark them upon their lists.
1
Under the new system of taking divisions it is now (1907) no longer
necessary for all members present in the House to record their votes
(see Supplementary Chapter). Remaining in the House during a division

used to be a serious parliamentary offence every member within the locked
;
doors was bound to vote. A case of disobedience to this rule occurred

on the 5th of March 1901. Several Irish members refused to go into the
lobbies as a protest against the neglect of Irish interests in the discussion
of the estimates. They were all suspended and forced to leave the House.
(Parliamentary Debates (90), 691 sqq.)
Q 2
Thus only counted by the tellers at
the votes are not
the doors they are recorded, and it can be ascertained how
;
each member has voted in every division. The division lists

for each sitting areprinted at once, and included in the
minutes which appear on the following day they afford :
material for control of members by their constituents, a

control often very sharply enforced. The whole process,
though it seems complicated, is gone through very quickly :
a normal division lasts on an average some ten or fifteen
minutes only in; exceptional cases does it take much

1
longer.
The result of the division is made known by the tellers
according to a strict routine. They give the numbers to the

Clerk at the table, who writes them down on a slip of paper,
and hands them to the principal teller of the victorious side.
This symbolic act at once informs the House of the result
of the vote,and on occasions when great issues are decided,
the of the House expresses itself immediately by
tension
loud cheers and counter-cheers. Then the four tellers range
themselves in line before the table, the tellers for the
majority on the Speaker's left, and the others on his right ;
they bow to the Speaker and the senior teller reads out in
a loud voice, " Ayes to the right, so many ; Noes to the left,
so many." If the tellers cannot agree as to the numbers, or
if the count appears otherwise doubtful, there must be a

second division. If a member strays into a wrong lobby,
and therefore gives a vote contrary to his intention, his vote

is governed by the old seventeenth century rule, that what
he has done is conclusive, and overrides the intention which
he has wrongly expressed. 2
The
process of division is bound to take place if the
Speaker's statement of opinion as to the result of taking the
The less the difference in strength between the two sides, the
1
quicker does a division come to an end the work of the tellers at the
;
doors, and of the clerks who take the names in the lobbies, is then more
evenly divided. When divisions are forced by small sections of the
House, they last, of course, much longer sometimes as much as half-an-
;
hour. See the Report of the 1871 procedure committee, Minutes of

Evidence, Qq. 338-245, and 302-306, evidence of Sir Erskine May and
Speaker Denison.
*
For a recent instance see Parliamentary Debates (121), 431.
DIVISIONS 237
voices is
challenged. There is one exception under recent
regulations. Till a short time ago, according to a practice
which had lasted for centuries, the call of two members for
a division was a sufficient challenge of the Speaker's state-
ment, and required to be tested by a division. The misuse
of this right in the
obstruction period led to the adoption
of Standing Order No. 30, which runs as follows :
Mr. Speaker or the Chairman may, after the lapse of two minutes
as indicated by the sand-glass, if in his opinion the division is frivolously
or vexatiously claimed, take the vote of the House, or committee, by
calling upon the members who support, and who challenge his deci-
sion, successively to rise in their places, and he shall thereupon, as he
thinks fit, either declare the determination of the House or committee, or
name tellers for a division. And is no division, the Speaker
in case there
or Chairman shall House or committee the number of
declare to the
the minority who had challenged his decision, and their names shall
be thereupon taken down in the House, and printed with the lists of
divisions.
is made for the case of an equality in

Special provision
numbers, and involves the right of the Speaker or
this
Chairman to vote. Neither of these officers is, as a general
rule, permitted to vote ; but in case of an equality of votes
"
the duty of giving a " casting vote is thrown upon them.
When this happens they are entitled to give their decision

as they think fit, as freely as any other members it is, how- ;
ever, an unwritten custom that the Speaker gives his vote,

if possible, in such a way as to prevent the decision which
it
brings about being final, and so as to adjourn the ultimate
disposal of the subject before the House to another time ;
it also usual for the Speaker to state shortly the reasons
is
which govern his vote. 1

While discussing the form in which votes are taken it
may be well to allude to a problem of constitutional impor-
tance, which receives an answer under the rules of the
House ;
how far are members prevented by special regulations
from voting freely when their personal interests will be
The case of an equality of votes is, in parliamentary language,

1
"
spoken of as a tie." As to the Speaker's function on such an event,
see Speaker Denison's remarks in his Diary (pp. 95-99) upon his vote of
the igth of June 1861, whereby he postponed for several years the
settlement of the Church rates question.
affected by the result of the division ? In both Houses of
Parliament there is an old rule which forbids a member
to use his vote to further his own direct interests. The
nature of such a direct interest was stated on the zyth of
July 1811 by Speaker Abbot in the following terms :
" This interest must be a direct

pecuniary interest, and
separately belonging to the persons whose votes were
questioned, and not in common with the rest of His
Majesty's subjects, or on a matter of state policy."
l
On
the strength of his ruling a motion for disallowing the
votes of certain bank directors upon the Gold Coin Bill
was negatived. 2 As a rule the decision
of any question as
to the disallowance of a member's vote on the score of his
being interested is left to the Speaker. The same rules
apply to votes in committee as to votes in the House, and
their chief application is to questions upon private bills,
both in the House and in the select committees to which
such bills are referred. 3 The propriety of a vote, on the
ground of personal interest, cannot be questioned by
anyone other than the member himself, except upon a sub-
stantive motion. As in all cases when the personal
position of a member is brought before the House, it is a
strict rule that the member concerned is to be heard in his
place, before the question affecting him is proposed to the

House, and that then he must withdraw and allow the
subsequent proceedings to take place in his absence. It
seems remarkable that a member who is disqualified by

personal interest from voting is entitled to propose motions
or amendments. There are other cases in which members
might be expected to abstain from voting, not on grounds
of pecuniary interest, but from motives of self-respect or
respect to the House. There is no rule applicable to such
1

The question how far the holding of a directorship in a public
2
company is compatible with a place in the Ministry has often been raised
of late years in the House of Commons, but no definite rule has been
laid down.
3
In composition of committees on private bills the strictest
the
attention paid to the exclusion of all members who have any pecu-
is
niary or local interest which is affected. See the Report of the select
committee upon public business of 1848.
DIVISIONS 239
circumstances, but a substantive motion to disallow a vote

on such special grounds might be proposed, if a member
did not see for himself the impropriety of voting. 1
5. PETITIONS
The venerable institution of petition, the oldest of all
parliamentary forms, the fertile seed of all the proceedings

of the House of Commons, has but little life at the present
day. It is, no doubt, the birthright of every British subject
to address petitions to the House of Commons and the

House of Lords as it was fifty years ago, and thousands of
petitions are annually sent up to the House of Commons.
Thanks, however, to the ample development of courts of
justice and administrative
bodies, the value of petition as
a protection against denials of right has disappeared. So, too,
petition as a means for calling attention to public grievances
has lost much of itsimportance with the modern growth of
the press, and the freedom of combination and assembly
which now exists. The clearest testimony to the diminished
importance of petitions is the change that took place during
the nineteenth century in the rules affecting them. In the
early decades it was the practice for petitions to be read by

the member who
presented them to the House, and they
often gave occasion for protracted debates. In 1833 and
still more in
1842 efforts were made to stop this waste of
time,and thenceforward the period devoted to petitions has
been continually shortened till now it is completely done
2
away with.
The rules of
the present day provide as follows :
(i) as
to form and character of petitions ; (2) as
the to their
presentation and treatment.

Every petition must be couched in the form of a
i.
request and must state precisely what the petitioners desire.
1
The number of divisions in the course of the nineteenth century
fluctuated very much. The annual average for the decennium 1845-1854
was 207, and for subsequent ten-year periods, 289, 186, 283, 325. In
1896 there were 419 divisions; subsequent years, down to 1903, gave
367, 310, 381, 298, 482, 648, and 263.
1
See supra, vol. i., pp. 76, 77.
Petitionsmust not be printed or lithographed, and must be
signed by at least one person on the sheet on which the
petition is written. The name of the member who pre-
sents a petition must be personally signed by him upon the
first page. forgery or fraud in the preparation of peti-
Any
tions,especially as regards the signatures, is considered a
breach of privilege ; a petition so tainted is considered as
null and void and is refused a hearing. The language of a
petition must be respectful and must not refer to a debate in
Parliament. Any disrespectful expressions referring to the
Crown, to Parliament, to religion, to the courts of justice, or
other constituted authorities, will make a petition unparlia-
mentary and prevent its reception.
2. Petitions must be presented by a member of the
House, unless they come from the Corporation of London

or from the Corporation of Dublin, which have the special
privilege of presenting petitions by their corporate officers.
A member who is asked to present a petition is bound to
peruse for the purpose of seeing that it appears to be in
it
conformity with the rules and orders of the House.

Petitions may be
presented informally at any time, but
there is only one period of a sitting at which formal presen-
tation may be made, namely, immediately after the close of
private business. In strictness a member is entitled, when he

presents a petition, to state from what parties it comes, the
number of signatures attached to it, the material allegations
contained in it and the prayer. 1 No debate is allowed. The
Speaker may allow petitions to be read by the Clerk at the
table, but members are not entitled to read out the whole
or even a large part of the petition. 2 There is only one
exception. If a petition complains of some present personal
grievance, an immediate remedy for which is urgently

needed, the matter contained in such petition may be debated
at once. This exception is to be construed strictly, and the
question whether any particular case falls within it is one
which has to be decided by the Speaker alone. 3 It is very
1 2
Standing Order 76. Standing Order 77.
'
Standing Order 78.
PETITIONS 241
rarely that he does so decide ;

even personal presentation of
1
petitions has quite gone out of fashion.
The informal method of presentation is the usual one.
A bag is
provided for the purpose of receiving
petitions.
It hangs behind the Speaker's chair, and at any time during
the sitting a petition may be placed in it. Thence it is
taken by the officials of the House straight to the Com-
mittee on Public Petitions ; and this committee publishes,
from time to time, classified lists of the petitions with a
statement of their general objects. Such reports do not give
rise to any further proceedings upon the subjects dealt with
by the petitions.
2
6. QUESTIONS
Though the House of Commons does not make use of

" "
the expression interpellation in Continental
so familiar
parliaments, the institution itself exists. Requests for informa-

" "
tion, Questions are regularly addressed by members of
the House to the Government, and at times to the Speaker
or to private members. A question addressed to the Speaker
must have reference to a point of order, and one to a
private member must some item of business for
relate to
which he is personally responsible. Such questions, how-
ever, are so unusual, that there is no need for us to concern
ourselves with them. On the
ordinary other hand, the
questions put to the members of Government play a very
important part in the proceedings of the House of Com-
mons, and give the whole institution the great significance
which it possesses.
" "
Asking questions is a modern method, developed by
recent parliamentary practice, of supervising the general policy
and the administrative acts of the Ministry. The chief object
which they serve is the explanation to the public of the
meaning of political events, and it is permissible to frame
questions so as to draw from the Government statements of

their intentions or plans as to particular matters of public
"
Manual, pp. 55-61.
concern. Further, they are often arranged by the Govern-
ment itself, so as to give them an opportunity of making
announcements in a somewhat informal way. Questions,
like motions, need previous notice, and must be made known
at least a day before they are asked.
Information may be requested upon any subject of
home or foreign policy, or of domestic, imperial or colonial
administration. It has long ceased to be customary to
give
oral notice the questions are drawn up in writing and
:
handed to the Clerk they are then printed in the notice

;
paper for the day on which they are to be asked. When

they are reached the text of the question is not read out.
The Speaker calls in succession upon the members who
have put down questions, and they rise and ask their ques-
tions by reference to the numbers prefixed to them on the
notice paper. Thereupon the minister to whom they are
addressed, or his deputy, rises and replies without any
attempt at oratory.
This was the regular procedure in all cases till 1902 :
but it was still felt to take up too much time. In that year
the present rule was adopted ;
it is now provided that
any member who wishes to have an oral answer must
mark his written notice with an asterisk if he does not :
do so he is taken to intimate that he will be satisfied

with a written answer. He receives it by the minister's
reply being printed and published in the "Votes and
Proceedings" on the day after the sitting at which the ques-

tion is asked. There was, of course, a danger that only
a few members would show sufficient restraint to dispense
with an oral answer the latest rules, therefore, provide
:
(i) that the time for answering questions shall be strictly

limited :
questions are to begin at 2.15 and end at 2.55 ;
and (2) that questions are only to be put at afternoon

1
sittings.
Questions not answered before the time for closing this
part of the sitting do not receive an oral reply ; they are
answered in writing as described above, even though an
oral reply had been asked for. The same fate befalls questions
Standing Order 9 : see Supplementary Chapter.

QUESTIONS 243
set down by members who fail to rise when called upon to

ask their questions. The only exceptions are answers to
questions not answered by reason of the absence of the

ministers to whom they are addressed, and questions which
have not appeared on the notice paper, but which are of
an urgent character, and relate either to matters of public
importance or to the arrangement of business.
A question must be precisely formulated and must be
addressed to the minister who is officially connected with the
matters to which it relates. Its object must be to obtain,
not to give information : it
may, therefore, contain no state-
ment which is not necessary to make it intelligible
of fact :
nor may contain

it any argument, inference, imputation or
ironical expression. Further, we have another application of
the rule that the conduct of certain persons can only be
challenged on a substantive motion no question reflecting :
upon the character or conduct of any such person may be

put. Nor may a question seek information about the pro-
ceedings in a committee which has not yet made its report
to the House. Irregular questions are dealt with by the
Speaker in the same way as irregular motions and amend-
ments. 1 He has also a general power to prevent members
from asking an excessive number of supplementary questions.
Lastly, he excludes all questions reflecting upon the Crown,
or upon the influence of the Crown on any measure of
Government.
A minister may decline to answer without stating the
reason for his refusal. Insistence on an answer is out of
order. It is, however, within limits, permissible to ask supple-
mentary questions when
points in an answer that
certain
has been given need clearing up. A question which has
once been answered may not be exactly repeated. Finally
from a Continental standpoint the most important rule
of all no debate upon an answer is allowed. There is now-
1
For instance, in 1887, many long-winded questions were put by
Irish members for obstructive purposes ;
they overloaded the notice paper
and took a long time to read. The Speaker directed them to be sub-
stantially abridged and spoke severely about unseemly questions. (Hansard
(3i8), 42.)
adays, in the House of Commons, no possibility of a member,

who is dissatisfied with the answer he receives, initiating an
interpellation debate.
1
One of the principal sources of delay
in business in many Continental parliaments is entirely
2
absent from the House of Commons.
7. ADDRESSES TO THE CROWN 3
We have lastly to consider the special forms in which

communications between the Crown and either the Commons
separately or the two Houses in conjunction is carried on.
This is done by means of an address which is an expression
of the collective will of the House, based upon a motion
and directed towards the Crown. It may be either spon-
taneous or by way of answer. We will deal with the latter
kind first.
Communications from the Crown to Parliament may be
made either directly and ceremoniously or indirectly and
informally. Indirectly the Crown is in constant touch with

both Houses of Parliament by the medium of the ministers
of the parliamentary cabinet in their double capacity of
:
1
No doubt, refusal to answer or the giving of an unsatisfactory answer
"
at times leads to an urgency motion," and often gives occasion for a
debate in Committee of Supply.
1
The French rules as to interpellations are of a totally different
"
character. See Esmein, Elements de droit constitutionnel francais et
compare," pp. 722-729.

The following table shows the extraordinary development of the
practice of questions in the House of Commons :
No. of No. of
Year.
Questions. Questions.
- - - -
1847 129 1890 4,407
1848
- - 222
1850 - - 212 1897 - -
4,824
i860 699 1899 - -
4,521
- - -
1870 I,2O3 5,106
l88o - -
1,546
- -
6,448
-
1885 3,354
In1902 there were, down

to the 5th of May, when the Standing
Order was altered, 2,917 questions; after the change there were 2,415
answered orally, and 1,836 in writing, a total for the session of 7,168. In
1903 there were 2,544 answered orally and 1,992 in writing total, 4,536.
3 "
May, Parliamentary Practice," pp. 444-457.
ADDRESSES TO THE CROWN 245
Privy Councillors of the Crown and members of one or

other of the two Houses, they are the natural channels of
communication. Direct intercourse between the Crown and
the House of Commons only takes place on the ceremonial
state occasions of opening and closing Parliament when
the speech from the throne is brought to its notice, and
when the royal assent is given to bills. In these cases
the sovereign may appear in person, and then he forms
the central figure of a brilliant court assemblage in full
mediaeval pomp : or he may exercise his right by deputy,
by a commission of members of the Privy Council with the

Lord Chancellor at their head.
Besides these regular forms of communication, there are

in the course of parliamentary business other special means
by which the Crown may enter into relations with the two
Houses.
1. The form
first is that of a written message under the
royal sign manual. Such a message is brought by a
member of the House who is either a minister of the Crown
or one of the royal household. Its subject may be a
request by the Crown for provision for the royal family or
for a gift to some distinguished public servant who has
deserved well of his country, or again, it may be designed
to call the attention of Parliament to important public events
such as the calling out for service of the militia or the
reserves. The royal messenger, always a member of the
House, and in the nineteenth century invariably a minister,
appears at the bar and informs the Speaker that he is the

bearer of a royal message ;
at the request of the Speaker he
delivers it to him. The Speaker then reads it aloud, all
the members remaining uncovered while he does so.
Another form is the communication of the royal

2.
" This is used to invite the Commons to appear
pleasure."
at the bar of the House of Lords, on the occasion of the
election of a Speaker, when the King's Speech is to be
read and at the opening and close of the session.
There is also what
3.
is known as a "recommendation
from the Crown." This is important constitutionally and
practically, as it is a necessary preliminary to the introduction
of bills or motions which involve public expenditure or a
1
grant of money.
4. The royal consent has to be given to motions for
leave bring in bills or amendments to
to bills which by
their contents affect the royal prerogative.
Finally there is the noteworthy form by which the

5.
Crown " " at
places its interests," in some particular matter,
the disposal of Parliament."
In the three last-mentioned cases a minister of the
Crown acts as messenger. Each of the different forms of
communication is acknowledged in an appropriate way.
The financial demands of the Crown are answered by grant
or refusal, the intimation of royal consent to the introduc-
tion of a bill by taking the bill into consideration. It is
only to formal communications solemn messages from the

Crown that the House replies by means of an address.
Besides
using addresses
answering the requests of
for
the Crown, the House may adopt this form of communica-
tion when it desires spontaneously that some resolution on a
subject may be brought before the Crown in a

particular
solemn manner, and not by the usual method in so doing, ;
it may act either singly or in concert with the Lords. It
is, of course, impossible to enumerate all cases in which

an address is appropriate. There is no definite sphere of
applicability ;
the common element is a desire on the part
of the House, as representing the nation, to record its views
on some event in a peculiarly impressive manner. This may
be desirable as to events both of domestic and of foreign
concern. There seems to be only one direction in which
any limitation has been laid down no address may be pre-
;
sented in relation to any depending in either House.

bill
In earlier times an address was applied to the important

political end of assuring the Ministry of the confidence of
the House of Commons ;
at the present day this procedure
has ceased to be of practical use.
"
1
The ascription of the recommendation to " the Crown is now, of
course, a mere form, as the Sovereign has long ceased to intervene in
financial matters. Its maintenance both gives an administrative advantage
to the Ministry in dealing with the House of Commons and places on the
Ministry direct responsibility for all proposals involving expenditure of
public money.
ADDRESSES TO THE CROWN 247
The most important and most frequent occasion for the

presentation ofan address is the King's Speech. 1 This is
always replied to by an address. Until recently it was
customary to draw up the reply as a kind of echo to the

speech itself. But nowadays the following simple form is
customary :
"
Most gracious Sovereign, We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal
subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and
Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to

your Majesty for the gracious speech which your Majesty has addressed
to both Houses of Parliament."
In the event of a new parliament being returned with

a majority holding political views differing from those of
the Government, an amendment would be moved to the
Government has no longer the confidence of
effect that the
the House of Commons, and the acceptance of this amend-
ment would seal the fate of the Ministry in office. 2
Other customary occasions presenting an address
for
are : Cases of national or international mourning, the birth
of an heir to the throne, betrothals in the royal family and
the like ; in short, occurrences as to which the House
desires to give adequate expression to the feelings of the
nation.
Special mention should be made of one case of consti-

tutional importance. An address to the Crown is the form
in which Parliament may ask for the dismissal of a judge.
Addresses used to be presented in state by the Speaker,
or, in the case of a joint address of both Houses, by the
Lord Chancellor and the Speaker. Members of the House
were entitled to accompany the Speaker to the palace and
to appear with him before the King. But it is now usual,
in the case of the reply to the speech from the throne to
have the address presented by two members of the Govern-
ment belonging to the royal household.
There are, in addition to addresses, other less cere-
monious modes of making communications to the Crown,
namely, messages which members of the House belonging to
1
See supra, pp. 59 sqq.
*
In recent times it has become customary for a Ministry to which
the elections have given a fatal blow to resign without waiting for the
procedure of an amendment to the address.
the royal household are desired to lay before the Crown ;
such messages are sometimes sent on special occasions, such

as royal marriages or deaths. The answers to such messages
are brought to the knowledge of the House by members.
8. ADJOURNMENTS AND URGENCY MOTIONS x
We have already, in connection with the opening and

closing of the parliamentary session, discussed the rules
concerning adjournment as one of the necessary arrange-

ments in any system of parliamentary law we have now :
to return to adjournment in another sense. A motion for

adjournment may be used as one of the expedients of parlia-
" "
mentary tactics, and it is then referred to as a dilatory
motion, one meant to cause delay. As we have seen, the
right to move at any time that the House shall adjourn is
one of the fundamental rights of a representative assembly,
essential to its life, and one never to be called in question.
So far as concerns the freedom of the House to dispose
of its work and its time as it thinks best its right to
adjourn has never been assailed. But we have also seen

that the formal moving of the adjournment of the House as
a tactical method of introducing new matter into the day's
work has during the nineteenth century been gradually but
steadily discouraged by the rules of the House. The new

principle of fixity in the day's programme, which has con-
tinually gained strength, is diametrically opposed to the old
principle of freedom of debate secured by motions for
adjournment, and, as we have learnt, the more modern
principle has proved the stronger. Without again tracing the
course of the struggle we will content ourselves with stating
the result.
The proposal of a formal motion for adjournment may

come about in one of two ways it may be moved during
:
the discussion of some subject, and be either for adjourn-

ment of the House or for adjournment of the debate which
is in progress or it may be moved before the House
;
takes up the work appearing on its programme. Under the
Standing Order 10
1
; Manual, pp. 61-64.
ADJOURNMENTS AND URGENCY MOTIONS 249
present rules there is not much opportunity for interruptin

the discussion on the merits of a question by a formal
motion for adjournment. Standing Order 22 contains the
following provisions on the subject :
When a motion is made for the adjournment of a debate, or of the

House during any debate, or that the chairman of a committee do
report progress, or do leave the chair, the debate thereupon shall be
confined to the matter cf such motion and no member, having moved
;
or seconded any such motion, shall be entitled to move, or second, any

similar motion during the same debate.
And Standing Order 23 adds :
Mr. Speaker, or the chairman of a committee of the whole House,

If
shall be of opinion that a motion for the adjournment of a debate, or

of the House during any debate, or that the chairman do report progress,
or do leave the chair, is an abuse of the rules of the House, he may
forthwith put the question thereupon from the Chair, or he may decline
'
to propose the question thereupon to the House.
It is obvious that these provisions completely put an end

to the plan of using formal motions for adjournment as a
means of obstruction. On the other hand, it is quite clear
that the House of Commons cannot entirely dispense with
motions for adjournment or some equivalent method of
obtaining an immediate debate on some subject outside the

prearranged scheme of work. When, therefore, reform was
decided upon the simplest plan, that which would cause
the least disturbance, appeared to be to allow the intro-
duction of an extraneous subject at one point only in the
programme, namely, before the House took up the orders
of the day. But even a limitation to a single point seemed
an insufficient protection to the main
principle of the
new rules, the of the daily programme.
fixity As a further
precaution, the right of members to move the adjourn-
ment of the House for the purpose of discussing the merits
of some particular question, though not entirely abolished,
was seriously curtailed it was reduced to: a right to pro-
pose an urgency motion. Such motions are therefore quite
modern institutions in the House of Commons. They
became both possible and necessary when the precedence
given by the old procedure to notices of motion over
orders of the day was done away with and the new fixed
1
For an instance of the application of this rule by the Speaker in
1887 see Hansard (311), 1647.
II R
arrangement of the work of the House adopted, and when,

further, the House determined to abolish the former unre-
stricted power of every member to move the adjournment
of House before the beginning of the regular day's
the
work and so to obtain a debate and division upon any
subject which he wished to bring forward. As it was not

possible to deprive members of all opportunity of ousting
the subjects arranged for discussion, by bringing forward
other matters of great importance, the form by which such
special questions could be technically raised on a motion
1
for adjournment had to be preserved in certain cases.
By the present rules such a motion for adjournment

can only be permitted in cases of special urgency under
the following provisions, and
upon the following terms :
An urgency motion can only be made upon written notice

to the Speaker given at the beginning of the afternoon
sitting,at the end of the time devoted to questions and

before the orders of the day or notices of motion have been
entered upon. 2 The application must exactly fit the formula :
to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for

the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public
importance upon which must follow the statement of the

;
matter referred to,"the issue of an order sanctioning

e.g.,
the immigration of Chinese labourers into the Transvaal."
The request for leave must, as a rule, be supported by
forty members but if more than ten though less than forty
;
members support it, the House may, upon a vote taken

forthwith, give leave to move. In either case the motion is
allowed to be made but it does not come on at once
: it ;
The old practice by which a formal motion for adjournment could

1
be used before the commencement of business, to bring in a fresh subject

for debate arising upon an answer to a question was aptly referred to by
"
the Speaker in the Session of 1879 As the House is aware, every
:
member of this House has the privilege of moving the adjournment of

the House at the time of Questions but I am bound to say, that if the
;
privilege of moving the adjournment of the House, when a member is

not satisfied with the answer which he receives, should become a
practice, that privilege will have to be restrained by the House." (Hansard
(247), 697.)
1
See the Supplementary Chapter for the alterations made in 1906 to
adapt the rules about urgency motions to the altered time-table then
adopted.
ADJOURNMENTS AND URGENCY MOTIONS 251
stands over to the evening sitting on the same day, and

thus becomes itself an item in the day's programme.
The motion, however well supported, is bound to be of
an urgent character. The practice of the last twenty years
has fixed upon the requisite of urgency and interpreted
the right to move in a restrictive sense. 1 It is true that
the urgency of the matter which forms the occasion for the
i
motion is not taken too literally ;

it is enough that the
mover considers his subject to be urgent, and is able to
give a plausible appearance of urgency, provided always

it
that the nature of the subject is not of such a kind as
plainly to make such

a description an abuse of language.
Nevertheless, the Speaker has repeatedly refused to allow
a member to move the adjournment of the House on the
ground that the matter proposed to be brought up by

him was obviously not important or not urgent. He has
no general power of suppressing motions for adjournment :
his authority only extends to preventing an abuse of the rule
by refusing to accept a motion which he considers im-

proper. On the whole the Speaker's practice in exercising
his discretion has leant towards favouring the minority ;
he has never forgotten that the opportunity of moving the

adjournment is an indispensable expedient of party tactics
now only available in a much weaker form than in earlier
days. But a series of rulings have absolutely excluded a
large number of subjects from being used for the occasion
of urgency motions for adjournment. In the first place,
nothing can be brought up on such a motion which is for-

bidden by the general rules of debate for instance, any ;
question already discussed during the session, or any matter

which is pending before a court of law. Again, all questions
and subjects which have already been placed upon the order
book of the House are protected from anticipation by a
motion for adjournment. Questions of order or privilege,
questions relating to the debates of the House, reflections
upon the conduct of the persons specially protected against
" "
1
The
requisite of definiteness is strictly interpreted by the
Speaker ;
an instance of his interposition to insist upon this quality may be found
in Hansard (319), 95.
R 2
censure without notice, are none of them available as founda-
tions for a motion for adjournment. Further, a matter which
has once been brought before the House as a question of
urgency cannot be revived for a second time. And lastly,
what blunts the weapon of urgency motions more than any
other rule, not more than one such motion can be made at
any one sitting. As a matter of fact, as statistics show, the
use made of motions for adjournment in the House of
Commons is very moderate. Any attempt to turn them
into engines of obstruction would be met at once by the
Speaker's absolute refusal to allow them to be moved.

1
9. BILLS
Having taken a survey of all the simple forms of pro-
cedure, we can now make a few explanatory remarks upon

the form into which all the legislative work of Parliament
is thrown that of bills. By a bill we are to understand a
legislative project generally divided into several clauses or

at times into parts and clauses. It is unnecessary to dilate
upon the extreme elasticity which such a form must

possess in order to be able to adapt itself to the countless
1
The following table gives a summary of the application of urgent
motions for adjournment from 1882, when the standing order was
adopted, down to 1903 :
Year.
BILLS 253
subjects which Parliament may have There to undertake.

is nothing to be gained for a theory of parliamentary form
by attempting even an approximate classification of the

immense range of subjects which parliamentary work has
to reduce into the shape of bills. All we have to do is to
endeavour to make a careful analysis of the form.
A bill is composed of a series of constituent parts,
some of which are essential, some optional. Among the
essential parts, now, as ever, is the title. In the older
period of legislation, down to the early years of the nineteenth
century, there was at the beginning of most bills another
part ; the introduction or preamble, in which the principal
reasons for the enactment were set forth. For public bills
there is now no need to have a preamble, and the use of
one is looked upon as unpractical. In its place there is
sometimes prefixed to the text of a bill a short statement
called a memorandum, which corresponds, though not very
closely, to the statement of motives often annexed to Con-

tinental legislative projects. But such a memorandum is no
part of the text of the bill, and is not intended to be
included in the resulting statute, as the title and preamble,
1
if any, would be.
A bill has often two titles, one complete and one known
as the short title.
2
The second serves as a convenient name
for the law, and is very often placed in the first clause.
The first describes the law and its relation to previous
legislation ;
but in addition it has great importance to a
bill from the point of view of procedure. The rules of
business have never treated the title as a casual or un-
important matter ; they have always given to it a special
significance in the discussion of the bill. It has always been
regarded as a settled principle that the provisions and powers
This has the important result that both title and preamble may be
1
taken into consideration when a judicial construction has to be put upon

a statute. It is therefore proper to move amendments to the title of a
"
bill when it is being discussed before Parliament. See Ilbert, Legis-
lative Methods and Forms," p. 269.
2
By special enactments, the two Short Titles Acts of 1892 and 1896
(55 & 56 Viet. c. 10, and 59 &
60 Viet. c. 14), short titles were provided
for all statutes passed union with Scotland, which were
since the still
in force and had not already been given short titles.

contained in a bill must all be logically covered by the
description given by the title. If some of them go beyond
it, and the excess is pointed out by a member, the bill
must be withdrawn. Further, it is requisite that all amend-

ments and instructions which are proposed must also fit
into the framework provided by the title. There are, then,
two considerations to be borne in mind in drawing up the
title of a bill it should be wide enough to allow the
:
proposer of the bill to include all the matter he wishes to

bring forward ;
and it should not be so vague as to give
easy opportunities for irrelevant amendments, with their
consequent delays.
At present, the preamble having been dropped, the text
of a bill begins at once with the formula of enactment, the
enacting words by which the completion of the legislative

process is testified. The formula is invariable :
"Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with

the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and
Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of
1
of the same, as follows."
text of a modern bill is usually elaborately articu-

The
lated. For instance, the important scheme embodied in
the Local Government Bill of 1893 was divided into five
parts, each of the parts being again sub-divided under

separate headings, the bill being altogether composed of
eighty-three clauses. The clauses themselves are often still
further divided into sub-sections. The technical drafting of
bills for specially intended to suit the method
Parliament is
of parliamentary discussion and to give the widest scope

to amendments without disturbance to the wording of the
draft generally.
The formula for money

1
expresses the different attitude of the
bills
Crown it runs " We, your
;
:
Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects,
the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in
Parliament assembled, towards raising the necessary supplies to defray
Your Majesty's public expenses and making an addition to the public
revenue, have freely and voluntarily resolved to give and grant unto your
Majesty the several duties hereinafter mentioned, and do therefore most
humbly beseech Your Majesty that it may be enacted and be it enacted," ;
&c. (as before). If a preamble, the enacting words sometimes are

there is
"be it therefore enacted," &c. See Anson, "Law and Custom of the Con-
stitution," vol. ii., p. 275.
BILLS 255
Many bills have one or more appendices at the end,

called schedules, containing detailed provisions for working
out the principles laid down in certain clauses and they :
usually contain also a summary of the effect which the bill

is intended to produce on prior legislation, a list being given
of all acts or clauses which it is proposed and intended to
repeal. The bill above referred to (the Local Government

Bill of 1893) proposed wholly or partially,
to repeal, either
no lessthan forty-five earlier acts of parliament.
Almost all bills contain, either at the beginning or at
the end, clauses in which the technical expressions used
in the bill are defined, and particulars are given as to
the part of the kingdom where it is to be put in force
and as to the time when it is to begin to take effect.
To a German jurist most remarkable

this is one of the
features of English legislation, but it is not a mere matter
of technical detail it is bound up with the whole nature
;
of an English act of parliament. The aim in drawing up

such a document is to take the matter which has to be
dealt with and ^to analyse it as much as possible into
its elements hence the text of an act of parliament at
:
times carries detailed arrangement to the point of casuistry :
by so doing it is hoped to restrict in advance, as far as

possible, all discretionary exercise of the portion of public
authority regulated by the new statute. Any student of
English legal history will know how much scope, in spite
of all
precautions, is left to the acute and independent
interpretation of the judges. It is necessary to remember
" formal law "
that the nature of a in England, the whole
1
To take an example, the London Government Act of 1899 provides
in the last clause but one (s. 34) as follows :In this Act, unless the con-
" "
text otherwise requires, the expression administrative vestry means a
vestry having the powers of a vestry elected for a parish specified in
Schedule A. to the Metropolis Management Act, 1855 and the expression ;
" "
elective vestry means any vestry elected under the Metropolis Manage-
ment Act, 1855; the expression "rateable value" shall include the value
of Government property upon which a contribution in lieu of rates
is paid; the expressions "powers," "duties," "property," "liabilities,"
and "powers, duties and liabilities" have respectively the same meanings
as in the Local Government Act, 1888; the expression "adoptive Acts"
means the Baths and Washhouses Act, 1846 to 1896, the Burial Acts, 1852
to 1885, and the Public Libraries Acts, 1892 and 1893, &c.
notion of the scheme of an enactment, is totally different
from what "
prevails upon the Continent. If the contents
of the public statute book are analysed it will be found
that the proportion of its enactments which alter rules or
principles of the common law is very small, and that the

object of by far the greater part of them is to make some
l
alteration in the administrative machinery of the country."
English legislation does not aspire to the establishment
of far-reaching legal principles or the statement of great
juristic dogmas : it contents itself with a ceaseless stream of
administrative decrees and the construction of administrative
arrangements, with satisfying varying social wants by count-
less legislative amendments of details in the existing Jaw. 2
The division of bills, according to their general character,
into public and private bills is of the highest importance
in procedure. The assignment of a bill to its appropriate
division determines completely the form of procedure which
is adopted, and the method in which it is discussed. In the
arrangement of the text the only distinction is that a private
bill is bound to have a preamble further, a private bill must:
always be brought before the House by means of a petition.

As already stated, these two classes of bills comprise the
two great directions in which the legislative action of Parlia-
ment is displayed it may either be directed to the production
:
of a public general act that is to say, a law affecting the

whole public, one which belongs to the jus generate publicum
or it may lay down, in the form of an act of parliament,
some special rule affecting only a special section of the
"
1
Ilbert, Legislative Methods and Forms," p. 239.
1
Sir C. Ilbert, in the passage just indicated, gives a striking descrip-
"
tion of the problems which thus arise for an English lawgiver. Among
"
the questions which the framer of the proposed measure," he says, will
have to consider are What powers and duties already exist for the
:
purpose contemplated ? By whom are they exercised or performed ?

What is the appropriate local authority ? What is the appropriate central
authority ? What should be the relations between them ? What kind
and degree of interference with public or private rights, either by the
local or the central authority, will be tolerated by public opinion ? is How
the money to be found ? How
is the change to be introduced so as to
cause the least interference with existing rights and interests, the least
"
friction with existing machinery ?
BILLS 257
nation, what may be called jus particulare. We are only

concerned here with the formal differences between public
and private bills, and the manner in which the difference
between them operates generally on procedure. 1
There has never been a sharply drawn legal distinction
between the two classes of bills. It must be sufficient to
say that a private bill is one which is founded upon a
petition from the person or persons in whose special
interests requested to lay down certain legal
Parliament is
rules or to confer certain privileges, while a public bill is

introduced into Parliament as a measure affecting the whole
community, as a transaction in the life of the state,
and originates with one or more members of the House.
Speaking generally, therefore, the distinction rests upon the
purely external difference between the manner in which bills
of the two classes are brought before the House and the
consequent difference in procedure. In practice, of course,

in spite of the want of any precise technical distinction,
it
generally very easy to say whether a bill ought to be
is
2
treated as public or private. There are necessarily bills
which lie very close to the border line they may be princi- :
pally concerned with the regulation of private interests, but

for some reason or other may have public importance and
affect general interests : for such bills a third kind of pro-
cedure combining parts of both methods of treatment has
been devised we have therefore a third class of what are
:
called hybrid bills. They are bills discussed both as private

and as public bills.
The classification of bills just referred to must not be

confused with the classification of acts of parliament appear-
ing in the statute book. Since 1868 the statute book has
distinguished three classes of laws :
(i) Public General
Statutes ; (2) Local Acts ; (3) Private or Personal Acts. The
As to the number of public and private bills introduced

1
into the
House of Commons during the nineteenth century, see the statistical
tables in the Append ix.
*
In case of doubt the Speaker decides. See the statement made in
1902 (Parliamentary Debates (102), 974): "The question whether a bill

should be introduced as a public bill or a private bill is a matter for
Mr. Speaker to decide and not for the House."
firstclass includes all Public Acts affecting England, Scot-
land, or Ireland, either separately or together, and Acts passed

for the colonies. By a Local Act is meant any legislative-
provision affecting only some definite locality (town, parish,
district). The third class, that of Private Acts, contains

all such Acts as affect by means of legislative enactments
the rights or status of individuals (Naturalisation Acts,
Divorce Acts, &c.). In current phraseology, when Private
Acts are spoken of it is generally those in the second class
that are meant, to the exclusion of those in the third,
which are technically entitled to the name. This happens
all the more as the acts in the third class are not printed
and published, and are not therefore assumed to be known

by the courts of law without their attention being specially
called to them.
Comparing the two classifications, we see that the first
class of statutes is entirely subject to Public Bill procedure,

and the last to that of Private Bills. The second class,
besides including the overwhelming majority of the acts
resulting from Private Bill legislation, contains a consider-
able number of laws introduced as Public Bills, for instance,

all the Provisional Orders Confirmation Acts.
1
We see, then,
that the two classifications do not exactly correspond. 2
HISTORICAL NOTES
I PARLIAMENTARY FORMS
In no department of House of Commons procedure has so little change

been made during the nineteenth century as in that of its elementary
forms motion, amendment, question and division are to be found as far
;
back as the sixteenth century, and in the seventeenth their form was in
same as at the present day. Such is the result
all essentials precisely the
of a study of the proceedings of the House as presented by the records
in the journals and in the collections of D'Ewes it is completely con- ;
firmed by the description which Scobell, a most accurate reporter, gives
1
In case of opposition being made to these, they would be discussed
as they were private bills.
if
2 "
See on this point the precise rules given in Ilbert, Legislative
Methods and Forms," pp. 26-35, an d rny remarks in Grunhnt's Zeitschrift
fur privates und offentliches Recht, vol. xxx., pp. 754 and 755. As to
"
technical details in framing legislation, see Bentham, Essay on Political
"
Tactics chapter x., Of the drawing up of Laws.
;
2 59
of the practice of his day. 1 He informs us " when a motion hath been
made the same may not be put to the question until it be debated, or
at least have been seconded and prosecuted by one or more persons
standing up in their places as aforesaid. When a motion hath . . .
been made that matter must receive a determination by a question, or

be laid aside by the general sense of the House before another be
2
entertained."
old days the duty of framing the question was placed upon the
In
" "
Speaker. It was the ancient practice," says Hatsell, for the Speaker
to collect the sense of the House from the debate, and from thence to
form a question on which to take the opinion of the House." 3 And Scobell
"
reports, After some time spent in the debate, the Speaker, collecting the
sense of the House upon the debate, is to reduce the same into a question,
which he is to propound." But Hatsell goes on to tell us that in his day
the practice had been long discontinued and that it had become usual for
a member to put his motion into writing and deliver it to the Speaker.
The established rules as to amendments had been adopted by Scobell's
"
time, Without general consent no part of the question propounded may
be laid aside or omitted and although the general debates run against
;
it, yet if any member before the question be put without that part, stand
up and desire that such words or clause may stand in the question, before
the main question is put, a question is to be put, whether those words
4
or such clause shall stand in the question."
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries amendments were often called
provisos, tracing back their pedigree to the conditions, called by that
name, by which the Crown had at times limited its assent to petitions.
After the form of bills was evolved the commonest use of the word proviso
was to describe an alteration made by the Lords to a bill sent up to
them by the Commons. Such alterations by the Upper House were usually
brought to the Commons in the form of "riders" attached to the bill.
1
By far the greater part of procedure in Queen Elizabeth's Parlia-
ments was by way of There were motions, too, upon which, as at
bill.
present, great questions of policy were debated. For instance, we find,

on the 6th of February 1563, "A motion was made by Mr. Winter that
the House would have regard, by some bill, to the Navy." Again, in
1566, the question of the Queen's marriage was brought up by means of
a motion (D'Ewes, p. 128). In the same session, "Paul Wentworth, by
way of motion, desired to know whether the Queen's command and
inhibition, that they should no longer dispute of the matter of succes-
"
sion, were not against the liberties and priviledges of the House (ibid.).
Other instances of motions may be found, ibid., pp. 167 (1571), 220, 677,
685, &c.
2
Scobell, p. 21. See House oj Commons Journals, vol. i., p. 248, aSth
June 1604) also (4th December 1640) " Ordered that, till the business in
;
agitation be ended, no new motion of any new matter shall be made

without leave of the House." Further " Ordered that nothing to pass :
by order of the House without a question and that no order without a ;
question affirmative and negative." (1614: House oj Commons Journals,

vol. i., p. 464.)
1
Hatsell, "Precedents," vol. ii., 3rd edn., p. 105; 4th edn., p. 112.
4
Scobell, p. 22.
In Queen Elizabeth's time a distinction used to be drawn between provisos,
in the strict sense of the word, i.e., alterations operating by the insertion
of new matter into a bill, and
amendments proper, changes in the text. 1
Both provisos and amendments had then been long in use in the House
of Commons. 1
As to the process of putting the question and voting Scobell reports,
"
Every question is to be put first in the affirmative viz., as many as
:
are that (repeating the words of the question) say Yea.

of opinion And
then the negative thus As many as are of another opinion say No.
: To
which question every member ought to give his vote one way or other,
and the Speaker is to declare his opinion, whether the Yeas or the Noes
have it, which is to stand as the judgment of the House. But if any
member before any new motion made shall stand up and declare that he
doth believe the Yeas or Noes (as the case shall be) have it, contrary to
the Speaker's opinion, then the Speaker is to give direction for the House
*
to divide declaring whether the Yeas or the Noes are to go forth."
The division was carried out by those who voted one way leaving the
chamber and being counted on their return, while at the same time the
strength of those who

stayed behind was ascertained. The Speaker had
to nominate two pairs of tellers, each of whom while officiating had
a staff in his hand' (presumably for the purpose of scoring the numbers).
The taking of a division seems at the end of the sixteenth century to
have been looked upon as an unusual and important matter, though from
5
parliament to parliament the number of instances steadily increased. The
method described seems to have been inconvenient to many of the members,
and the question was repeatedly raised whether the A yes or Noes ought to
leave the House to be counted. In the old days the question was not
without practical importance. For, as was once testified in the House, the
party which had to go out was liable to lose votes, many members refusing
to move out of their seats for fear of forfeiting them. 8 And it happened
at times that attempts were made, when a division took place, to induce
members to remain in the House at times even by the use of physical
These a being worked out for
7
force. difficulties led to definite principle
1
See the interesting debate in Parliament in 1597, reported D'Ewes,
PP- 575-577-
2
Further particulars as to amendments will be given in the chapter
upon bills, as the practice of amendment was really worked out in
connection with legislative work.
3
Scobell, p. 24.
4
Scobell, p. 26.
*
See D'Ewes, pp. 134, 573, 626, 662, 667, &c.
*
D'Ewes, p. 675.
7
An important division on a church question took place on the I3th
March 1601, the votes being 106 to 105. A complaint was made that
one of the members who, following his conscience, wished to go out with
the "Noes," had been held back by another member. Sir Walter Raleigh
"
said, Why, if it please you, it is a small matter to pull one by the
sleeve, for so have I dons myself sometimes." On this there was a
great tumult in the House. Some members wished to have Raleigh placed
at the bar and Cecil had to soothe the House by a judicious speech.
See D'Ewes, pp. 683, 684.
THE HISTORY OF PARLIAMENTARY FORMS 261
deciding which party was bound to go out. Scobell states the rule thus :
"
Upon the dividing of the House, those are to go forth who are for varying
from or against the constant orders of the House (as that a question shall
not be put, or not be now put, it being the course of the House, that after
a debate the same should be determined by a question or the like) or against
any positive order made by the House, or for the passing any new thing,
as reading a petition or bill, and committing, ingrossing, or passing such
1
bill, or the like."

By we find the principle elaborated to the finest detail by
Hatsell's time
the help of an elaborate system of casuistry which he expounds. In the
end he is bound to admit that he cannot always see rational grounds for
making the Ayes go out at one time and the Noes at another.* For "
"
instance, he says,That a petition be brought up is a question intro-
ducing new matter, and therefore the Ayes go out but if a motion is ;
made that any member shall take the chair at a committee, inasmuch as
every member is supposed to be proper and equal to the duty imposed
upon him, those who are against any member, must go out, &c. The old
procedure on divisions lasted until the building of the Westminster Palace
in the nineteenth century, when the modern system was adopted. But in all
other respects we find in Hatsell the present customary law already formed.
He states the principle that it is the duty of every member who finds
himself within the closed doors to vote also the rule that if any person
;
by mistake votes in opposition to his true intention his outward conduct

binds his vote.
II THE MAJORITY PRINCIPLE

A subject of great importance in the history of Law arises in connection
with the external matters to which we have just been directing our atten-
tion. The whole procedure of voting and division depends, according to
the most ancient testimonies which the authorities give, upon an unques-
tioned assumption that the "judgment of the House" is to be learnt by
ascertaining the majority as shown by a vote. The question may now
be asked When did this notion first prevail ? From what period has
:
it been a self-understood and inviolable principle that the will of the
majority of the House of Commons represents the will of the whole body
and consequently the will of the country? If a German teacher of
"
constitutional law can say, the history of the majority principle has
not yet been written," he might have been referring to the special instance
of its history in the House of Commons. The completeness with which
the majority principle has been for centuries accepted is no greater than
the obscurity of the origin of this basis of modern representative govern-
ment, adopted, along with constitutionalism itself, in Europe, America
and Australia, as the foundation of all parliamentary systems. In our
1
Scobell, p. 24. This principle was, as early as 1597, described as
being "according to the ancient former usage of the House" (D'Ewes,
P- 573)' See further, the order of the loth December, 1640. "It was
declared for a constant rule, that those, that give their votes for the pre-
servation of the orders of the House, should stay in and those, that give
;
their otherwise, to the introducing of any new matter, or any

votes
alteration, should go out." (House of Commons Journals, vol. ii., p. 49).
2
"Precedents," vol. ii., 3rd edn., p. 197; 4th edn., p. 207.
own time, when the importance of protection for minorities is being
increasingly recognised, it is a matter of special interest to obtain clear
ideas as to the nature of the majority principle and it might a priori
;
be expected that the native land of Parliament could give some clue to
1
its rise.
As we shall see directly, the acceptance of the principle that a majority

decides came comparatively early in the history of the House of Commons.
This is the more remarkable by reason of the contrast with the rule in
the oldest representative body known to the law and constitution of Eng-
land, the jury, in which a decision by majority has never been adopted.
Professor F. W. Maitland, in his masterly way, has shown definitely what
the reasons were which, notwithstanding temporary fluctuations in the
stages of the development, led in early times to the establishment of
first
the necessity for unanimity in a jury. 2 He points out as one of the

causes that, from the first, the verdict of the juratores was regarded not
merely as that of twelve men, that it contained a communal element, and
"
was looked upon '
the verdict of a pays, a country,' a neighbourhood,
as
"
a community further, that when the jury system was settling down
;
men had not yet accepted the dogma that the voice of a majority binds the
community. The English conception was founded on the Teutonic theory
that the formation of a corporate will must always be unanimous because
3
the minority gives way and conforms its will to that of the majority.
Professor Gierke has discussed the question in the two sections of his
"
upon the theory of corporations in the Corpus
Genossenschaftsrecht,"
Juris Civilis, and upon that which is found among the Canonists two
of the most admirable chapters in this great work of modern juristic
investigation. He has there shown that in Roman Law
the majority
principle as a basis of corporate decision rested on a strict political foun-
dation, and, further, that the canon law had developed the theory in a
curiously spiritualised way, and so extinguished the traces which the older
jus canonicum showed of the Teutonic idea of unanimity. The canon law
invented the theory that sanioritas was required for corporate decisions,
and linked it to the Roman doctrine, by contending that the act of a
majority raised a presumption of sanioritas.* Professor Maitland has shown

that these doctrines as to the admissibility of the decision of a majority
were not wholly without influence upon the English county courts of the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries. 5
The idea suggests itself at once that the conception of the majority
principle, thus provided by the canon law, may possibly have had some con-
1
A recent treatise on the history of the majority principle is that of
G. Jellinek, "Das Recht der Minoritaten." Vienna, 1898.
"
2
Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law," vol. ii., pp. 621-626.
1
Thus Gierke (" Deutsches Genossenschaftsrecht," vol. iii., p. 323) writes,
"Although we can find in the older canon law traces of the notion that
the majority principle was taken in the sense of Teutonic law (i.e., only
as a means by which to arrive at the requisite unanimity, through the
duty of submission incumbent on the minority), the developed theory of
the canonists makes the validity of the majority principle depend upon a
legal fiction."
4
Gierke, ibid., vol. iii., pp. 152-157, 323-330.
*
Pollock and Maitland, vol. i., p. 539.
THE HISTORY OF THE MAJORITY PRINCIPLE 263
stitutional effect in England owing to the influence of the Chancellor and

other high officers. On searching the oldest authorities for information
as to the application of the principle to constitutional matters we find
the following facts.
" "
The earliest document which can be cited is the Articuli Baronum
of 1215, which formed the basis for Magna Carta. In the section deal-
ing with the appointment of a committee of twenty-five barons for

"
securing peace and liberties we read, In omnibus autem, quae istis xxv
baron ibus committuntur exsequenda, si forte ipsi xxv praesentes fuerint et
inter se super re aliqua discordaverint, vel aliqui ex eis vocati nolint
vel nequeant interesse, ratum habebitur et firmum quod major pars ex eis
provident vel praeceperit, ac si omnes xxv in hoc consensissent."
l
In
"
Magna Carta itself the corresponding passage reads, In omnibus autem,
quae istis viginti quinque baronibus committuntur exsequenda, si forte
ipsi viginti quinque praesentes fuerint et inter se super re aliqua discor-
daverint, vel aliqui ex eis summoniti nolint vel nequeant interesse, ratum
habeatur firmum, quod major pars eorum, qui praesentes fuerint, pro-
et
viderit vel praeceperit, ac si omnes viginti quinque in hoc consensissent ;
et praedicti viginti quinque jurent quod omnia antedicta fideliter observa-

2
bunt, et pro toto posse suo facient observari." Characteristically, the con-
temporaneous documents as to elections contain no reference to decisions
by majorities. Thus in the oldest town charters, those of Northampton
and Lincoln (1200), we find, "Volumus etiam quod in eodem burgo per
commune consilium villatae eligantur quattuor de legalioribus et discre-
tioribus de burgo." Neither then nor at any later date do the writs of
summons for elections refer to any choice of representatives by the vote
"
of a majority. On the other hand, we find in the Provisions of Oxford,"
which, like the Articuli Baronum, were meant to settle the organisation
of the power ofgovernment, an express recognition of the majority
principle in formation of a corporate decision.
the Under the head
" "
Ceo jura le Chanceler de Engletere they contain the following " Ke :
il .... ne enselera dun .... ne de eschaetes, sanz le assentement del grant

cunseil u de la greinure partie ne ke il ne enselera ren ke seit encontre
:
le ordinement, ke est fet et serra a fere par les vint et

quatre, u par la
greinure partie."
*
So also in the provision as to the election of the King's
"
Council by the twenty-four barons E ces quatre unt poer a eslire le
:
cunseil le rei, et quant il unt eslu, il les mustrunt as vint et quatre ; et la

"
u la greinure partie de ces assente, seit tenu." In the title Des parlemenz,
"
quanz serrunt tenuz it is laid down as to the choice of the members of
"
the council by the regency of twenty-four, E serrunt cunfermez par les
avant dit xxiv u par la greinore partie de els." Finally as to these
"
councillors, E si il ne poent tuz estre, ceo ke la greinure partie fra,
serra ferm et estable."
This evidence makes it clear that decisions of the magnum concilium
were arrived at by a majority long before representatives of towns and
counties were regularly called to a parliamentum in union with the
magnum concilium. The conclusion seems natural that this fundamental
rule must have been transferred without force and without resistance from
the older and superior organ of the state to the younger House of Com-
1 *
Stubbs, "Select Charters," pp. 295, 296. Ibid., p. 305.
1 4
Ibid., p. 311. Ibid., p. 389.
mons. As has already been explained elsewhere, the appearance of regular
opposition is a relatively late product of parliamentary development.
The mediaeval House of Commons showed little differentiation either
socially or individually. In the ordinary course of things there would be
no great difficulty in adhering to the Teutonic conception which repre-
sented all decisions of the corporate body as unanimous by reason of the
minority giving way to the majority. As soon as we are able to follow
the proceedings of the House in detail we find the majority principle
old-established and uncontested, never again to be disputed. Thus
Hooker says: "If the whole House or the more part do affirm and allow
the bill, then the same is to be sent to the higher House." '
And Sir
"
Thomas Smith : The more part of them that be present, only makes
the consent or dissent." No doubt from the very first, the necessity of the
acceptance of the principle of deciding by majorities was felt instinctively :
it was not till a long development had taken place, and the nation had
become politically differentiated, not until deep irreconcileable antagonisms

had made their appearance, that it came to be recognised that even the
majority principle depended upon certain conditions, and that in their
absence its serious deficiencies come to light. Even in our own day we
can find in the English parliamentary system traces of the old conception
that decisions of a majority become, by the submission of the minority,
unanimous declarations of the will of the House. Thus Mr. Gladstone
during the debates on procedure reform in 1887 described as one of the
chief causes of the difficulties in which the House was placed, the fact
"that the individual member has not that degree of respect, that degree
of veneration I may almost say that degree of awe for the general
and manifest will of the House which in my early days used . . .
to be universal."
2
One of the greatest English political theorists of the
nineteenth century, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, himself a representative
of classic parliamentary government, has aptly pointed out the analogy
between a decision by the majority of a political body and a battle
between the armies of two independent nations the one is an appeal
:
3
to physical force, the other is an appeal to moral force. There must
always ultimately be an element of domination in a corporate decision
which places a legal compulsion upon the minority. It is this
very
ingredient of domination in the decisions and acts of volition of indi-
viduals, just as much as of aggregates of persons, which converts them
into specifically political acts only a feeble and cloistered state philosophy
:
could ignore or deny this. But one of the chief aims of modern states-
manship is the framing of such constitutional arrangements as will convert
the necessary domination as much as possible into an indirect act of the
dominated, thus moulding the form of government of the nation to a
shape in which it may truly be called self-government. ^
1
2
See Hansard (311), 1286.
"
3
Cornewall Lewis, The Influence of Authority in Matters of Opinion,"
p. 149-
-Pi University of Toronto
05
OO Library
DO NOT
o;
REMOVE
03 THE
CD 1
3 CARD
oj
FROM
^1
00 C
O <U
co Io THIS
^ O o
to i-o O;
h
04 POCKET
O;
Acme Library Card Pocket

rn.lcr Pat. "Ref. Index File"
Vade by LIBRARY BUREAU

Procedures of The House of Commons (Redlich 1908 Vol.2)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Procedures of The House of Commons (Redlich 1908 Vol.2)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Procedures of The House of Commons (Redlich 1908 Vol.2)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

.

With an Introduction and a Supplementary Chapter by

SIR COURTENAY ILBERT, K.C.S.L

BOOK II MODERN PROCEDURE

LEX ET CONSUETUDO PARLIAMENT! 3

ORIGINAL AUTHORITIES AND LITERATURE :

I LIST OF AUTHORITIES ... ... ... ... 10

THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE BUILDING AND THE

THE MEETING PLACE AND ARRANGEMENT OF SEATS ... 21

PUBLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS AND REPORTS OF DEBATES... 28

I THE ADMISSION OF STRANGERS ... ... ...

THE SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

OPENING OF THE SESSION AND CONSTITUTION OF THE

PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION ... 65

MAKING AND KEEPING A HOUSE AND THE ARRANGEMENT

THE RELATION OF THE Two HOUSES AND ITS EFFECT ON

THE CROWN, THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE HOUSE OF

THE PARTIES AND THE RULES 103

THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ...

THE SPEAKER AND HIS OFFICE 131

THE FUNCTIONS AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE SPEAKER... 140

THE HISTORY OF THE SPEAKERSHIP ... ... ... 156

I PARLIAMENTARY FORMS ... ... ... ...

Authorities and Literature

"OEFORE proceeding to discuss the details of the pro-

customary law, the second the express enactments as to the

plaining that the former is, to this day, the foundation of

in some preliminary remarks, the relation between the two

LEX ET CONSUETUDO PARLIAMENTI

House of Commons has never known an "order

reduced to a code, though for hundreds of years there have

too, there has never been any comprehensive legislation

Custom, then, was the original source of the internal law

Now the custom of Parliament, as Coke goes on to tell us,

by precedents and continual experience. It is the basis

upon which, as our historical account has shown, the most

derived from it. 3 Even now a large proportion of the

the common law is quarried, so do they form for Parlia-

though not in the form of statute law, it is written case law.

ment the source of the consuetude parliamentaria. The

investigating their significance and adopting them as guides.

long observed without giving rise to any definite decision of

parliamentaria, by which we understand the aggregate of

House. In the first sense an order is the commonest act

are abstract regulations.

more or less permanent. Such orders, each of which is at

procedure. As we have already seen, from the beginning

procedure rules known as sessional orders has grown up.

a number of rules not belonging to either of the foregoing

classes, never expressly endowed with either short or long

the table of the House, and may, therefore, be regarded as

nomy of the House of Commons in matters of procedure,

and, of- course, similar powers of self-government are

mentary condition, an element of legislation and an element

Consequently to annul this force there should be required, in

be invited by a simple motion to set aside, with respect to

some special business, certain standing orders which affect

requirement. Still further, the House has an indirect method

standing order with permanent validity. Neither the notice