[381] Pellew"s "Life of Sidmouth," vol. i. p. 76.
In the year 1640, a prolonged session was the cause of many members absenting themselves from their places in the House of Commons. In order to ensure a more general attendance it was then determined that the Speaker should not take the Chair unless there were at least forty members present in the House. This rule still holds good, and to-day, if a quorum of forty is not obtainable before four o"clock, the sitting is suspended until that hour. Should the same difficulty arise after four o"clock, the House is adjourned until the next sitting day.[382] An exception is made in favour of the hour between 8.15 and 9.15, but if a division be taken during that hour in the absence of a quorum, the business in debate must be postponed and the next business brought on. When, too, a message from the Crown is delivered, the House of Commons is held to be "made" even though forty members are not present. On such an occasion the business of the day can be proceeded with so long as no notice is taken of the absence of a quorum.
[382] The right of "counting out" the House was not exercised until 1729. On May 19, 1876, the Commons failed to "make the House" for the first time since April 4, 1865. See Irving"s "Annals of Our Time,"
vol. ii. p. 197.
It is not the Speaker"s (or Chairman"s) duty to notice the absence of a quorum, but if his attention is drawn to it by a member he must at once rise in his place and proceed to count the House. There is a well-known story of a prolix member speaking to empty benches in the Commons who referred sarcastically to the packed audience hanging upon his words, and was interrupted by the Speaker, who at once proceeded to "count out" the House, and put an end to the sitting as well as to the member"s oration. The Speaker"s inability to count the House out of his own accord has occasionally given rise to inconvenient situations. Lord George Gordon once rose and requested permission to read from a book, which was granted. He then proceeded to read the Bible until the House dwindled from upwards of four hundred members to two, namely, the Speaker and Lord George himself, who had the indecency to keep the former in the Chair till the candles were "fairly in the socket."[383]
[383] Pearson"s "Political Dictionary," pp. 23-4.
In the House of Lords three peers form a quorum. If, however, thirty lords are not present on a division upon any stage of a Bill, the question is declared to be not decided, and the debate is adjourned until the next sitting. Lord Rosebery, in 1884, recalled an occasion when a n.o.ble lord, Lord Leitrim, addressed a quorum of the House, consisting, besides himself, of the Lord Chancellor and the Minister whose duty it was to answer him, for four mortal hours. Another instance of the same kind is supposed to have occurred when Lord Lyndhurst was on the Woolsack and a n.o.ble lord spoke at considerable length to an audience of even smaller proportions. After a time the Chancellor became very weary and could scarcely conceal his impatience. "This is too bad," he said at length, "can"t you stop?"
Still, the peer prosed on, showing no sign of reaching his peroration.
Finally, Lyndhurst could stand it no longer. "By Jove," he cried, suddenly inspired with a brilliant idea, "I will count you out!" As he and the speaker only were present in the House at the time, the Chancellor was able to do this, and the long-winded n.o.bleman was effectually silenced.
In early times the daily sittings of Parliament were preceded by Ma.s.s held in St. Stephen"s Chapel. Later on it became the custom for the lords to repair to the Abbey, and the Commons to St. Margaret"s Church, for a brief morning service. In the Parliaments of Queen Elizabeth the Litany was read daily, and a short prayer offered up by the Speaker at the meeting of the House. Prior to 1563, no regular daily prayers were held, but on the first five days of any Parliament "an archbishop, bishop or famous clerk, discrete and eloquent,"
preached to the House.[384] This practice long continued, and we read of "Dr. Burgesse and Master Marshal," preaching to Parliament on a fast day in the year 1640 for "at least seven hours betwixt them"[385]--an occasion when their eloquence seems to have outrun their discretion.
[384] "The Manner of Holding Parliaments Prior to the Reign of Queen Elizabeth." "Somers Tract," p. 12.
[385] "Diurnall Occurrences," p. 8.
Nineteen years later Richard Cromwell appointed the first regular chaplain to relieve the Speaker and the discreet and eloquent prelates and clerks of their duties. This official enjoyed no fixed emoluments, but was upheld and nourished by the consciousness of duty n.o.bly done and the hope of subsequent preferment. His counterpart to-day is appointed by the Speaker and paid by the House, and his duties consist in reading the three brief prayers with which each daily session of the House commences.[386] In the Lords this task is undertaken by the bishops in rotation.
[386] In 1909, during the temporary absence of the Chaplain, the Speaker read prayers himself.
When prayers are over in the Lower House any "private business" that has to be taken is called on, and Private Bills pa.s.s through the initiatory stages of their career. The procedure in this case is, as a rule, purely formal, and lasts but a short time.
The dispatch of private business is immediately followed by the oral presentation of pet.i.tions by those members who have informed the Speaker of their intention to do so.
In these days of open courts of justice, a free Press, and wholesale publicity the need for pet.i.tions is not so great as it was in times when the voice of the people could not always obtain a hearing. To-day the papers are only too ready to lend their columns to the airing of any grievance, real or imaginary, and politicians are not unwilling to make party capital out of any individual instances of apparent injustice or oppression that may be brought to their notice.
A hundred years ago all pet.i.tions were read to the House by the members presenting them, and lengthy discussions often ensued. Much waste of time resulted from this practice, and the frequent arrival at Westminster of large bodies of pet.i.tioners caused great inconvenience, and sometimes led to rioting. In 1641, a huge crowd of women completely blocked the entrance of the House. They were led by a certain Mrs. Anne Stagg, "a gentlewoman and brewer"s wife," and their object was to present a pet.i.tion directed against the Popish bishops.[387] The Sergeant of the Parliamentary Guard appealed to the House for advice as to how he should treat these women, and was told to speak them fair and send them away. This he accordingly proceeded to do, but not without much difficulty.
[387] "Parl. Hist." ii. 1072. Butler refers to them in "Hudibras":
"The oyster women lock"d their fish up, And trudg"d away to cry "No Bishop!""
Two years later three thousand other "mean women," wearing white ribbons in their hats, arrived at Westminster with another pet.i.tion.
"Peace! Peace!" they cried, in a manner which was little calculated to gain that which they were seeking. "Give us those traitors that are against peace, that we may tear them to pieces! Give us that dog Pym!"
The conduct of these viragoes at length became so unruly that the trained bands were sent for, and the order was eventually given to fire upon the mob. "When the gentle s.e.x can so flagrantly renounce their character, and make such formidable attacks on the men," says a contemporary historian, "they certainly forfeit the polite treatment due to them as women"--and in this case their forgetfulness cost them the loss of several lives.[388]
[388] Noorthouck"s "A New History of London," p. 180. Scenes of a similar character occurred in the reign of George III., when the Gordon rioters stormed the Houses of Parliament, shouting "No Popery!"
In 1871, a mob of matchmakers marched to Westminster to protest against a tax on matches, and were dispersed by the police. In still more recent times female deputations in favour of Woman"s Suffrage, accompanied by a mob of inquisitive sightseers and a section of the criminal cla.s.ses, have besieged the Palace of Westminster in a vain attempt to gain admittance to the House of Commons.
To-day, under the provisions of the One Mile Act of George III.--the result of an attack made upon the Regent on his way from the opening of Parliament in 1817--no a.s.sembly of pet.i.tioners or public meeting is allowed within a mile of the Palace of Westminster. Pet.i.tions themselves are treated in a summary manner which permits of little time being wasted. No debate is permitted upon the subjects raised by pet.i.tions, and the formal method of presentation has given place to a more satisfactory (if somewhat perfunctory) fashion of dealing with them.
Behind the Speaker"s Chair hangs a large bag. In this a pet.i.tion may be placed, at any time during a sitting, by the member in charge of it. Thence it is sent to the Committee on Public Pet.i.tions, and presumably never heard of again. Pet.i.tions sometimes contain so many signatures, and are consequently so bulky, that no earthly bag could possibly contain them. In 1890, for instance, a pet.i.tion eight miles in length, in favour of the Local Taxation Bill, was presented to Parliament, and in 1908 another, almost as voluminous, provided a material protest against the Licensing Bill. Pet.i.tions of such proportions are carried into the House on the shoulders of stout officials, and, after reposing for a brief s.p.a.ce upon the floor, are presently borne away to be no more seen or remembered.
When pet.i.tions have been disposed of, motions for unopposed returns are taken, and other formal business; and then follows question-time, perhaps one of the most important hours of the parliamentary day, when a hitherto languid House begins to take some interest in the proceedings.
Politicians would appear to be among the most inquisitive individuals on the face of the globe; their thirst for general information is as insatiable as it is amazing. The time spent by various Government officials in pandering to this craving for knowledge on the part of legislators is very considerable: it has even been hinted that the clerks at the Irish Office are employed exclusively upon the task of answering conundrums set by members of the House of Commons. Nothing is too insignificant, no matter is too sacred, to be made the subject of a question in the House. But, although any member has a perfect right to apply for a return, or to ask any question he pleases, within certain bounds, a Minister of the Crown may always refuse to supply the return, or decline to answer the question; nor need he give any reason for so doing. This rule provides a loophole for a Minister who is confronted with an awkward question to which it would need the powers of subtlety and casuistry of a Gladstone to find a non-committal reply.[389]
[389] When during Garibaldi"s visit to London, some one suggested that he should marry a wealthy widow with whom he spent much of his time it was objected that he already had a wife living. "Never mind," said a wag, "we will get Gladstone to explain her away!"
A member of Lord Aberdeen"s Ministry in 1854 was attacked for not rendering a certain return that had been applied for. He made no comment at the time, but on a subsequent occasion produced and laid on the Table of the House a huge folio volume weighing 1388 lbs. and containing seventy-two reams of foolscap. The compilation of this return, as he informed the House, had caused the dispatch of 34,500 circular letters and the cataloguing and tabulating of 34,500 replies.
The result of the figures mentioned therein had not been arrived at, the Minister went on to explain, as it would have taken two clerks a whole year to add them up. Further, he added, the return, if completed, would afford no information beyond that which the House already possessed.[390]
[390] Palgrave"s "House of Commons," p. 41.
Ever since 1902, a written instead of an oral reply can be rendered to all questions that are not marked with an asterisk by the member who asks them. No questions may be asked after a certain hour, and the answers to those that have not been reached at that hour, as well as to those that are not marked with an asterisk, are printed and circulated, thus saving a great deal of valuable time.
Questions must be brief and relevant. No member may ask an excessive or unreasonable number, nor may he couch them in lengthy terms. They may not be framed argumentatively nor contain personal charges against individuals. The Speaker is empowered to disallow any question if he thinks fit, and often interposes to check supplementary questions which are not relevant, or which const.i.tute an abuse of the right to interrogate Ministers; and the latter are always at liberty to refuse an answer on the grounds that a reply would be contrary to the public interest. Whenever our relations with foreign Powers are in any way strained, certain members seem to take a delight in asking questions calculated to hamper the movements of the Foreign Office, or to provide other nations with all the secret information they desire. And it is not always expedient or easy for Ministers to refuse to satisfy the thirst for knowledge of their friends or opponents, or to try and choke off the inquisitive or importunate with evasive answers. It was always said that "Darby Griffith destroyed Lord Palmerston"s first Government," by asking perpetual questions which the Premier answered with a "cheerful impertinence which hurt his parliamentary power."[391] And the amount of patience and tact displayed by modern Ministers in replying to frivolous or petty queries is always a subject of admiration to the stranger.
[391] Bagehot"s "English Const.i.tution," p. 181.
Members no doubt feel it their duty to provide their const.i.tuencies with some material evidence of their parliamentary labours, and no easier method can be imagined than the asking of questions on subjects in which they possibly take not the slightest interest. Some politicians openly confess that their secretaries have orders to make out a regular weekly list of conundrums which they can hurl at the heads of unoffending Ministers, with no other purpose than that of showing their const.i.tuents that they are taking an active interest in the affairs of the nation. The criticism made by a parliamentary writer fifty years ago is equally applicable to-day. "It would seem to be the chief amus.e.m.e.nt of some members diligently to read the newspapers in the morning, and to ask Ministers of State in the afternoon if they have read them too, and what they think of them."[392]
[392] "Edinburgh Review," January, 1854, p. 254.
The growth of this yearning for information is very clearly shown by a glance at the parliamentary statistics for the last hundred years. In 1800 not a single question was put during the whole of one session. In 1846 the number of questions asked with due notice was sixty-nine. In 1850 the number had risen to 212, in 1888 to 5000; in 1901 over 7000 questions were put, and to-day the number is still steadily increasing.
At four o"clock, or earlier if questions have been disposed of, the House proceeds to the consideration of its public business and the "orders of the day," and the real business of Parliament begins.
CHAPTER XIV
PARLIAMENT AT WORK (II)
The modern system of legislating by Bill and Statute dates from the reign of Henry VI. In earlier days legislation was effected by means of humble pet.i.tions presented to the Crown by the Commons, and granted or refused according as the King thought fit.
Every Act of Parliament commences its existence in the shape of a Bill. As such, it may be introduced in either House, though the Commons have the undoubted monopoly of initiating financial measures, and Bills for the rest.i.tution of honours and blood must originate with the Lords. In the Upper House, any peer may introduce a Bill without notice, but in the Commons a member must give notice of his intention either to present a measure or move for leave to do so. A Bill whose main object is to impose a charge upon the public revenue must first be authorized by a resolution of a Committee of the Whole House.
Bills may be roughly cla.s.sified under the two headings of Public and Private, according as they affect the general interest or are framed for the benefit of individuals or groups of individuals, though there also exist hybrid Bills which cannot be rightly placed in either category. But whatever their nature, Bills must pa.s.s through five successive stages. In the House of Lords, however, the Committee and Report stages are occasionally negatived in the case of Money Bills, and the Committee stage of Private Bills is conducted outside the House either before the Chairman of Committees or, in case of opposition, by a Select Committee of the House.
In ancient days the proceedings were not so lengthy as they afterwards became, a Bill being sometimes read three times and pa.s.sed in a single day;[393] but nowadays the pa.s.sage through Parliament of a Controversial Bill is a tedious affair.
[393] Hakewell"s "Modus Tenendi Parliamentum," p. 142.
It will be sufficient for the purposes of this chapter to take the example of a Public Bill introduced in the House of Commons, and follow it from its embryonic state along the course of its career until, as an Act of Parliament, it finally takes its place in the statute-book of the land.
By obtaining the permission of the House, a Member of Parliament may bring in a Bill upon any conceivable subject, but it is not always possible for him to find the necessary opportunity for doing so, unless he happens to be exceptionally favoured by fortune.[394] In these days, when the time at the disposal of Parliament is altogether inadequate to the demands made upon it by legislation, the chances of pa.s.sing a Bill without the support of the Government are for a private member extremely small. Even with official a.s.sistance this is not always an easy matter. It is perhaps as well that the pa.s.sion for legislation latent in the bosom of every politician should to some extent be curbed. George II. said to Lord Waldegrave that Parliament pa.s.sed nearly a hundred laws every session, which seemed made for no other purpose than to afford people the pleasure of breaking them, and his opinion that the less legislation effected by Parliament the better for the country is still popular in many quarters.[395]
[394] Bills of the most fantastic kind are from time to time introduced, though they seldom see the light of a Second Reading. In 1597 a member, Walgrave by name, brought in a Bill to prevent the exportation of herrings to Leghorn, "which occasioneth both a very great scarcity of Herrings within the Realm and is a great means of spending much b.u.t.ter and Cheese, to the great inhancing of the prices thereof by reason of the said scarcity of Herrings."--D"Ewes"
"Journal," p. 562.