Certain privileges are accorded to members who by reason of their distinguished position, or long service in the House, have acquired a claim to particular seats. The two front benches on either side have long been reserved for the more prominent politicians. On the right of the Chair is the Treasury Bench, where Ministers sit; while the front seat facing them is occupied by the leading members of the Opposition.
It has been customary for Privy Councillors to sit on these two benches, and at the opening of Parliament the members for the City of London may claim a similar privilege.
The right of Cabinet Ministers to occupy front seats, now undisputed, was sometimes questioned in olden days. In 1601, as the outcome of complaints on this subject, Robert Cecil, then Secretary of State, offered to give up his place most willingly to any member who wished to sit near the Chair. "We that sit here," he said, "take your favours out of courtesy, not out of right."[209] Courtesy, has, indeed, generally been displayed by members on this particular question, though there have been occasional exceptions. That rough diamond, Cobbett, who was frequently complaining of the lack of s.p.a.ce in the House, occupied Sir Robert Peel"s accustomed seat one day, as a protest against the insufficient accommodation of the Chamber. No notice, however, was taken of his conduct, and his rude but legitimate methods have never since been emulated.
[209] D"Ewes" "Journal," p. 630.
A member who has been honoured by a parliamentary vote of thanks, or has grown grey in the service of the House, is usually allowed to retain his seat.[210] Hume, who attended every single debate during the period of his membership, for years occupied the same bench close to one of the pillars supporting the gallery above the Speaker"s Chair. "There is Joseph," remarked a wag who was not above making a pun, "always at his _post_!"[211]
[210] Sir George de Lacy Evans (1787-1870) was the last member honoured by being allowed to retain the seat in which he had received his vote of thanks.
[211] Grant"s "Random Recollections," p. 7.
Otherwise members may sit wherever they please, provided they have qualified by presence at prayers. Certain positions in the House have, however, come to be regarded as symbolical of the political views of their occupants. Supporters of the Government sit on the right and those of the Opposition on the left of the chair. The aisle or pa.s.sage that divides the House transversely has always acted as a sort of political boundary, and members who are independent of either party proclaim their freedom by sitting "below the gangway." Here on the Opposition side the Irish party has sat for many years; here, too, the Labour members mostly congregate.
On the opening day the Speaker"s Chair is, of course, vacant, and the mace reposes peacefully underneath the table. The duties of Chairman are undertaken by the Clerk of the House, who sits in his usual place, and presides in dumb show over the proceedings.
The clerkship of the House of Commons is an important post, and has been in the hands of many capable and distinguished men. Among the famous lawyers who have held this office may be instanced Elsynge--ridiculed in Hudibras as "Cler: Parl: Don: Com:"[212]--Hatsell, Erskine May, and Palgrave, all of whom have made valuable literary contributions to the annals of parliamentary history.
[212] "Hudibras," vol. i. p. 120. During the first years of the Long Parliament Elsynge brought so much distinction to the position that his authority was said to be greater than that of the Speaker (Lenthall). His abilities, "especially in taking and expressing the sense of the House," became so conspicuous that "more reverence was paid to his stool than to the Speaker"s chair."--Wood"s "Athenae Oxonienses," vol. iii. p. 363.
The post has also been temporarily filled by persons of considerably less eminence. In 1601, for example, Fulk Onslow, who was then clerk, was permitted to appoint his servant, one Cadwallader Tydder, to act as his deputy. Again, in 1620, the clerk being incapacitated by illness, his son was allowed to take his place, and it was advised that a lawyer should sit beside him "with a hat upon his head" to a.s.sist the youth in his unaccustomed _role_.[213] It is the Clerk"s duty to record the proceedings, edit the Journals, and sign any orders issued by the House. Up to the year 1649, when he was given an annual salary of 500, his income consisted of 10 a year (paid half-yearly!) and certain fees on private bills. A collection, amounting to about 25,[214] to which all members were expected to contribute sums varying from 5_s._ to 1, was also made for him at the close of the session. This sounds a paltry sum, but Hatsell is said to have made 10,000 a year while Clerk of the House, among his other perquisites being a _douceur_ of 300, which the Clerk a.s.sistant paid to his chief for the privilege of appointment. In those days the Clerk could also earn small sums by copying Bills or making extracts from the Journals of the House for members, who paid him at the rate of ten lines a penny, though if they declared upon oath that they were unable to pay this sum, no charge was made for the work.[215]
[213] Hatsell"s "Precedents," vol. ii. p. 251 n.
[214] D"Ewes" "Journal," p. 688.
[215] "Modus Tenendi Parliamentum," p. 46.
The arrival of the messenger from the House of Lords is heralded in the lobbies by loud cries of "Black Rod!" The door of the House of Commons is flung open, and the Gentleman Usher, in full uniform and decorations, and bearing the wand of his office in his hand, advances in a stately fashion up the floor of the House and delivers his message. He then retires backwards as gracefully as possible until he reaches the Bar, where he awaits the arrival of the Clerk. The two now walk together, attended by as many members as care to accompany them, to the Bar of the House of Lords, where the Lords Commissioners are awaiting their advent.
As soon as the Commons" contingent appears, the Lord Chancellor orders the reading of the Letters Patent const.i.tuting the Commission for the opening of Parliament, and when this task has been performed by the Reading Clerk of the House of Lords, desires the faithful Commons to retire and choose a Speaker. With this purpose in view the members return forthwith to the Lower House.
The election of a Speaker is the most important part of the day"s business, for without it the House of Commons cannot be const.i.tuted, nor can members be permitted to take the oath.
Theoretically a Speaker leaves the Chair with the Parliament that elected him. Practically, nowadays, he is retained in office. He is reappointed with the usual ceremonies at the beginning of every Parliament, and it is rare for an incoming Ministry to supplant the occupant of the Chair, even though he may have been the nominee of political opponents. Manners Sutton was six times Speaker, Arthur Onslow five times, while Shaw Lefevre, Denison, and Peel each occupied the Chair in four successive Parliaments. Since their day an unwise and abortive attempt was made to replace Speaker Gully by a Conservative nominee in 1895, but it is unlikely that such an incident will recur.
The motion for a Speaker"s election is made by a member on the Government side of the House, and usually seconded by a member of the Opposition, both being called upon to speak by the Clerk who silently points his finger at each in turn. If it is intended to contest the election, the two candidates put forward are proposed and seconded separately by members of their own party. The question that the Government candidate "do take the Chair of this House as Speaker" is first put by the Clerk, and divided upon in the ordinary way. If a majority of the House is in favour of the election of this candidate, no further division is necessary. If not, the same proceeding is carried out with regard to the second candidate. In such cases it has been the custom for each nominee to vote for his opponent. The division is naturally one of intense interest. Perhaps the most exciting elections of a Speaker that have ever occurred were those that took place in 1835 and 1895. On the first occasion Abercrombie was elected to replace Manners Sutton, by the narrow margin of ten,[216] and in 1895 Speaker Gully"s majority only exceeded this by a single vote.
[216] Torrens" "Life of Graham," vol. ii. p. 30.
"When it appeareth who is chosen," says Elsynge, "after a good pause he standeth up, and showeth what abilities are required in the Speaker, and that there are divers amongst them well furnished with such qualities, etc., disableth himself and prayeth a new choice to be made. After which two go unto him in the place where he sits and take him by the arms, and lead him to the chair."[217] In old days it was customary for the Speaker-Elect to "disable" himself at great length and in the humblest possible terms. Christopher Wray, in 1570, spoke for two hours in this self-deprecatory style. Sergeant Yelverton, twenty-six years later, explained his unfitness for the post in a lengthy harangue in which he remarked that if "Demosthenes, being so learned and eloquent as he was, one whom none surpa.s.sed, trembled to speak before Phocion at Athens, how much more shall I, being unlearned and unskilful, supply this place of dignity, charge, and trouble to speak before so many Phocions as here be?"[218] Other Speakers put forward "a sudden disease," "extreme youth," or some similar disability as their excuse for escaping from the service of the Chair.
Even as late as the beginning of the eighteenth century Sir Spencer Compton thought it necessary to declare to the Commons that he had "neither the memory to retain, the judgment to collect, nor the skill to guide their debates."[219]
[217] Elsynge"s "Parliaments of England," pp. 160 and 161.
[218] D"Ewes" "Journal," p. 549.
[219] Townsend"s "History of the House of Commons", vol. i. p. 228.
This excessive humility on the part of a Speaker-Elect has now disappeared, together with the ridiculous old custom whereby it was considered correct for him to evince actual physical reluctance to take the Chair. It was once deemed proper for the newly elected Speaker to refuse to occupy the exalted throne that awaited him until his two supporters had seized him by the arms and dragged him like some unwilling victim to the scaffold. To-day, he "goes quietly," as the police say; the proposer and seconder lead him gently by the hand, and he gives his attendants no trouble at all.
After the Speaker has taken the Chair, the mace is laid upon the table before him, the leaders of either Party offer their congratulations, and the business of the day is over.
When Parliament meets once more, on the following afternoon, the Chancellor and his four fellow Lords Commissioners, attired as before, in their robes, resume their seats upon the bench in the House of Lords, and Black Rod is again commanded to summon the Commons. This time his task is not so simple. When the messenger from the Lords arrives at the door of the House of Commons, he finds it barred against him, nor is it opened until he has knocked thrice upon it and craved permission to enter. This custom of refusing instant admittance to the Lords" official dates from those early times when messages from the Crown were regarded by the jealous Commons with feelings bordering on abhorrence.
The Speaker-Elect, clad in his official dress, but without his robe, and wearing upon his head a small bob-wig in place of that luxuriant full-bottomed affair which he is so soon to don, has already taken his seat in the Chair, making three profound obeisances to that article of furniture as he advances towards it.
When Black Rod has delivered his message, the Speaker-Elect, surrounded by his official retinue, proceeds at once to the House of Lords. Here he is politely received by the Lords Commissioners, who raise their hats three times in acknowledgment of his three obeisances. After acquainting the Lords Commissioners of his recent election, he humbly submits himself to the royal approbation. The Lord Chancellor thereupon expresses His Majesty"s approval of the Commons"
choice, and the election of the Speaker is confirmed. In former days the sovereign was in the habit of undertaking this duty in person. On January 27, 1562, Queen Elizabeth came to Westminster in her state barge, "apparelled in her mantles open furred with ermine and in her Kyrtle of crimson velvet closed before, and close sleeves, but the hands turned up with ermine. A hood hanging loose round about her neck of ermine. Over all a rich collar set with stones and other jewels, and on her head a rich call."[220] Thus attired, she proceeded to give the royal a.s.sent to the election of the Speaker. This nowadays is a mere formality--it has indeed only once been refused, in 1678, when Charles II. declined to sanction the election of Sir Edward Seymour--and is given by the Lords Commissioners on the sovereign"s behalf.
[220] "The Order for Proceeding to the Parliament" (from the MS. at the College of Arms).
In the days when the sovereign was in the habit of being present in the House of Lords to ratify the choice of Speaker, the latter would often excuse himself to his monarch in terms even more abject than he had used in the Lower House. Before the election of Sir Richard Waldegrave, in 1381, Speakers did not excuse themselves at all, and until Henry VIII."s time they do not seem to have done so as a matter of etiquette, but merely from personal motives, wishing to ingratiate themselves with the sovereign in whose pay they were and to whom they looked for advancement. But towards the middle of the sixteenth century they began regularly to address the king in a fulsome fashion.[221] In 1537, for instance, we find Speaker Rich grovelling in abject prostration at the royal feet, and comparing the King to Solomon, Samson, Absalom, and most of the other heroes of Old Testament history. Even among the Speakers of that day, however, there were men who refused to demean themselves to this form of flattery, and Queen Elizabeth was once forced to listen patiently while Richard Onslow, who declared himself to be "a plain speaker, fit for the plain matter, and to use plain words," delivered to Her Majesty an "excellent oration," which lasted for two solid hours.[222]
[221] For a particularly servile speech of this kind see "The Sovereign"s Prerogative," p. 7.
[222] "Observations, Rules and Orders collected out of Divers Journals of the House of Commons," p. 25.
This practice is fortunately extinct, but one other custom of Henry VIII."s time still obtains. To-day the Speaker, on receipt of the royal approbation, takes the opportunity of at once demanding the "ancient and undoubted rights and privileges of the Commons"--freedom from arrest, liberty of speech, access to the royal person, and that a favourable construction be put upon their proceedings--and on his own behalf begs that whatever error may occur in the discharge of his duties shall be imputed to him alone, and not to His Majesty"s faithful Commons.
These ancient rights and privileges having been confirmed by the King, through his Lords Commissioners and by the mouth of his Lord Chancellor, the Speaker withdraws to the Lower House. There he acquaints the Commons of the result of his recent pilgrimage, and gratefully a.s.sures them once more of his complete devotion to their service. After retiring for a few moments to make the necessary alterations in his costume, he returns, clad in his robe and wearing his full-bottomed wig, and is now a complete and perfect Speaker.
While this is going on, the Upper House has temporarily adjourned to unrobe, and afterwards resumes to enable the Lords to continue taking the Oath, which is meanwhile being administered to the Commons.
Prior to the sixteenth century, members of Parliament were not required to swear; the Lords did not do so until 1678. But the Act of Supremacy of 1563 made it necessary for all members of the Commons to take the oath, and in 1610 were introduced further oaths of Allegiance and Abjuration which were maintained until 1829. The old oaths aimed at excluding Roman Catholics from Parliament, and the regulation which in 1614 ordered every member to take the sacrament in St. Margaret"s Church on the Opening Day was but another means of ensuring the religious loyalty of the Commons.
Members of the Lower House cannot take the oath until their Speaker has been approved and sworn; the Lords may do so as soon as Parliament opens. In the Upper House the oath may be taken at any convenient time when the House is sitting; in the House of Commons likewise it may be taken whenever a full House is sitting at any hour before business has begun.
The Lord Chancellor leads the way in the House of Lords. When he has presented his writ of summons, repeated the formal words of the Oath of Allegiance after the Clerk, kissed the New Testament, and subscribed to the Test Roll, he resumes his seat on the Woolsack. The peers then succeed one another in rapid rotation at the table, handing their writs of summons to the Clerk, and following the Chancellor"s example.
In the Commons the Speaker first takes the oath in a very similar fashion, and writes his name in the Roll of Members. After this ceremony is accomplished, members come up to the table in batches of five, and are sworn simultaneously. They then shake hands with the Speaker, and can now consider themselves full-fledged members of Parliament.
Up to the middle of the last century three oaths had to be taken by every member of either House: the oaths of Allegiance, of Supremacy, and Abjuration. There was further a declaration against transubstantiation which effectually excluded Roman Catholics. But in 1829 these last received relief, though the final words of the Oath of Abjuration still kept out the Jews.[223] In 1849 Baron Lionel de Rothschild was excluded from the Commons because of his failure to swear on "the true faith of a Christian." He accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, but was again returned to Parliament by the City of London.
And though he once more failed to obtain permission to vote in the House, he was allowed to sit there until 1857.[224] Six years before this latter date another Jew, Alderman Salomons, insisted upon taking his seat and voting in a division. He was forcibly ejected by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and subsequently fined 500 in the Exchequer Court as a penalty for voting without having previously taken the oath. In 1858 an Act was pa.s.sed subst.i.tuting a single oath for the former three, and giving both Houses power to deal with the Jewish difficulty by resolution, but it was not until 1866 that the words referring to Christianity were finally omitted from the oath.
[223] A peer in support contended that otherwise a Jew might become Lord Chancellor. "Why not?" asked Lord Lyndhurst, in an undertone.
"Daniel would have made a very good one!" (Atlay"s "Victorian Chancellors," vol. i. p. 61.)
[224] Failure to take the oath only prevents a member from sitting within the Bar, voting in divisions, and taking part in debate. It does not disqualify him from the other privileges of membership, nor does it render his seat vacant.
The refusal of Quakers and atheists to take the oath disturbed for many years the peace of mind of Parliament, and was the subject of frequent legislation. In 1832 the Quaker Pease was elected for a Durham division, and claimed the right of affirming instead of taking the oath. A Committee was appointed to consider the validity of such an affirmation, and came to the conclusion that this form might be subst.i.tuted harmlessly for the more usual oath.
The case of the atheist Bradlaugh, which lasted for nearly ten years, was a much more complicated affair, and presented endless difficulties to the parliamentary mind.
We have grown more broad-minded during the last fifty years, and the story of Bradlaugh"s persecution sounds incredible to modern ears.
This unfortunate man was hounded and hara.s.sed with a degree of intolerance which was almost mediaeval in its ferocity. Politicians of every grade combined to insult and bait him; he became the b.u.t.t of Parliament, and evoked from men who had hitherto shown but little zeal in their faith a religious ardour of the most fanatical and bigoted description.
Bradlaugh was returned to Parliament as member for Northampton in 1880. As an atheist it was against his principles to swear upon the Bible. When, therefore, he presented himself in the House of Commons with the intention of taking his seat, he asked to be allowed to affirm instead of taking the oath. The fact of his being entirely devoid of any religious beliefs or scruples rendered an affirmation in the form usual in Parliament practically valueless. His request was accordingly refused, and when he declined to withdraw from the House, he was committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.