[395] Lord Waldegrave"s "Memoirs," p. 133.
On the third day of every session the question of the priority of members" claims to introduce Bills and motions is decided by ballot.
A member who is lucky, and has, if necessary, obtained the leave of the House, can introduce his Bill briefly and without debate. Taking his stand at the bar, he awaits the summons of the Speaker, when, advancing to the Table, he hands to the Clerk a "dummy" on which the t.i.tle of the Bill is written. This the Clerk proceeds to read to the House. The Bill is then considered to have been read a first time, and ordered to be printed, and a day is fixed for the Second Reading.
The First Reading is looked upon as a mere matter of form, and rarely opposed.[396] It is on the Second Reading, when the principle of the Bill is by way of being discussed, that any real antagonism begins to make itself felt. Opponents may negative the motion that the Bill be _now_ read a second time--in which case the motion may be repeated another day--or may adopt the more usual and polite method of moving that the Bill be read "this day six (or three) months"--the intention being to destroy the Bill by postponing the Second Reading until after the prorogation of Parliament. No Bill or motion on which the House has given such a decision may be brought up again during the same session, so that a postponement of the reading is merely a courteous way of shelving it altogether.[397]
[396] In June, 1835, however, a Mr. Fox Maule was refused permission to bring in a Bill "for the better protection of tenants" crops in Scotland from the ravages committed on them by several kinds of game."--Grant"s "Recollections," p. 38.
[397] Our ancestors were not always so well-mannered in their methods.
Once when a Bill had been returned to them from the Lords with an amendment to a money clause, they expressed their active disapproval by literally kicking it along the floor of the House, and so out at the door. "Parl. Hist.," vol. xvii. p. 515.
A Bill that has successfully weathered a Second Reading stands committed to a Committee of the Whole House, unless the House, on motion, resolves that it be referred to some other kind of Committee, viz., a Grand Committee, a Select Committee, or a Joint Committee of both Houses.
When the House is to resolve itself into Committee a motion to that effect is made in the Lords, to which an amendment may be moved; in the Commons the Speaker leaves the chair, and the Chairman of Committees at once presides, sitting in the Clerk"s chair at the Table. The Bill is then discussed clause by clause, and any number of amendments may be proposed to each line, and any number of speeches made by any member on each amendment. No limit is set to the number of amendments that may be moved, provided they are relevant and consistent with the policy of the Bill. This is therefore by far the most lengthy stage of the Bill, and it was in order to accelerate the progress of business that, in 1883, Standing Committees, consisting of from sixty to eighty members, were created to which Bills relating to Law and Trade were to be referred instead of to the Committee of the Whole House.
When the Bill has pa.s.sed through the Committee stage, it is reported to the House with or without amendments. In the former case, a day is fixed for the discussion of its altered shape, and on this "Report"
stage further amendments may be made. At the Third Reading a Bill may still be rejected, or postponed "for six months," or re-committed, but in the Commons no material amendments may be made to it. This stage is usually taken at once after the Report; but in the Lords the two stages must be on different days, and amendments may be made after due notice on the Third Reading.
When a Bill has safely pa.s.sed all its stages in the Lower House, the Clerk of the Commons attaches to it a polite message in Norman-French--"soit baille aux seigneurs"--and hands it to his colleague in the Lords. The latter lays it on the Table of the Upper House, where it lies until taken up by some peer--which must be done within twelve sitting days, if the Bill is not to be lost (though it may be raised from the dead by notice of a motion to revive it of the same duration)--when its subsequent treatment, with the few differences noted above, is very similar to that which it has already undergone.
[Ill.u.s.tration: THE Pa.s.sING OF THE REFORM BILL IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
FROM AN ENGRAVING AFTER THE PAINTING BY SIR J. REYNOLDS]
Should the Lords pa.s.s a Bill as it stands, a message to that effect is sent to the Commons. If, however, they have made alterations, the Clerk of the Parliaments writes, "A ceste bille avesque des amendemens les seignieurs sont a.s.sentus" across it, and returns it to the Clerk of the other House.[398] The Commons then proceed to consider the Lords" amendments on some future day. If the two Houses cannot agree, they must either summon a Conference--nowadays an unusual step to take[399]--or a Select Committee of the dissenting House sends a specially prepared message to the other Chamber, explaining the reasons for its disagreement. Numerous messages may pa.s.s in this way, for the purpose of coming to an agreement; but if they fail, the Bill is lost for the Session.
[398] It may be observed that among the many traditionary differences of opinion entertained by the two Houses is a divergence as to the proper spelling of the word "seigneurs."
[399] A Conference of both Houses has not been held since 1836.
When a Bill has pa.s.sed both Houses, nothing remains but to give it the Royal a.s.sent, which is done by the Clerk of the Parliaments.[400]
[400] The Clerkship of the Parliaments is an ancient office, dating from the commencement of the fourteenth century. It was originally held by an ecclesiastic, to whom were a.s.signed, in times when the two Houses sat together, the clerical work of Parliament. The Clerk of the Parliaments is appointed by the Crown under Letters Patent, and can only be removed by the Crown on an address from the House of Lords. Up to the year 1855, the post was a lucrative sinecure, worth about 7000 a year, the actual duties of the office being performed by the Clerk a.s.sistant. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Clerk of the Parliaments enjoyed the privilege of nominating and appointing all the clerks on the House of Lords establishment, but in 1824 the appointment of the two other Clerks at the Table was transferred to the Lord Chancellor. He still, however, appoints all the other clerks, regulates and controls the duties and promotion of the staff, appoints the Librarian and his a.s.sistant, and exercises superintendence over the Library and the Refreshment Department of the House. It is his duty to attend all the sittings of the House, to call on the Orders of the Day, and to invite peers to bring forward their Bills or Motions.
He also performs functions a.n.a.logous to those of the Speaker in the Commons, when he signs Addresses to the sovereign, other Addresses of thanks or condolence, the minutes of the daily proceedings, and all the returns ordered by the House. As registrar of the Court of Final Appeal, he takes the instructions of the judicial authorities upon all questions relating to appeals, and keeps a record of all judgments, etc. Lastly, and this is perhaps not the least important of his duties, he gives the Royal a.s.sent to Bills.
The Royal a.s.sent is nowadays a mere formality--a final ceremonial which marks the last stage of a Bill"s progress ere it becomes law. It is usually given by the Lords Commissioners, who act as representatives of the Crown, though there is nothing to prevent a sovereign from performing this duty himself. On August 2, 1831, when the Bill making separate financial provision for Queen Adelaide received the Royal a.s.sent, both the King and Queen attended in Parliament, and the latter acknowledged her indebtedness by bowing thrice, presumably to King, Lords and Commons. As a rule, however, the sovereign is not present on these occasions, his place being taken by a Commission. This consists of the Lord Chancellor and two other Lords, who take their seats, prior to the ceremony, upon a form placed between the Throne and the Woolsack. The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod is then commanded to summon the faithful Commons, and, on the arrival of the latter at the bar of the Lords, the t.i.tles of the various Bills are read aloud by the Clerk of the Crown, and the Royal a.s.sent is given by the Clerk of the Parliaments in old-fashioned Norman-French. In the case of a Money Bill, brought up by the Speaker of the Commons, and received by the Clerk of the Parliaments, who bears it to the Table bowing, the formula runs as follows:--
"Le Roi remercie ses bons sujets, accepte leur benevolence, et ainsi le veult."
In the case of a Public or Private Bill, the respective phrases, "Le Roi le veult" or "Soit fait comme il est desire" are subst.i.tuted, though, as a matter of practice, the latter phrase is only used for Estate, Naturalisation and Divorce Bills.
In olden days, when the Crown was often in the habit of refusing to consent to the pa.s.sing of particular Bills, the words used by the Clerk of the Parliaments to signify the royal veto were "Le Roi s"avisera." In this way Queen Elizabeth quashed no less than forty-eight Bills that had pa.s.sed through Parliament, and William III.
similarly declined to a.s.sent to the Parliamentary Proceedings Bill of 1693, much to the annoyance of the Commons. But never since Queen Anne vetoed the Scotch Militia Bill, in 1707, has any sovereign refused the Royal a.s.sent.
All questions before Parliament are decided by the voice of the majority. And though, as Gladstone once said, decision by majorities may be as much an expedient as lighting by gas, it is an expedient that answers very well in practice, and for which an effective subst.i.tute has yet to be found. Majority may sometimes seem a clumsy argument, but it always remains "the best repartee."
The procedure in either House for ascertaining the general opinion upon any measure or motion differs but slightly in form, and not at all in principle. At the end of every debate the question under discussion is laid before the House by its Speaker or Chairman. This he does by rising in his place and saying, "The question is that ..."
(here follows the exact words of the motion). "As many as are of that opinion say "Aye!"; as many as are of the contrary opinion say "No!""
(In the Lords the words "Content" and "Not Content" are subst.i.tuted for "Aye" and "No.") Members or peers thereupon express their views in the required manner, and the Speaker (or Chairman), gathering what is called the "sense of the House" by the volume of sound proceeding from either party, says, "I think the Ayes (or Noes)"--or, in the Lords "the Contents" or "Not Contents"--"have it!"
If the judgment of the Chair be unchallenged, the question is deemed to be resolved in the affirmative or negative, as the case may be, and nothing further remains to be done. Should, however, either party question the correctness of the Chairman"s opinion, recourse is had to a division, and certain necessary formalities have to be observed before the matter is definitely settled one way or the other.
When a division is challenged in the House of Commons, the Speaker (or Chairman) orders the Sergeant-at-Arms to "Clear the lobby," and the tellers" doors leading from the lobbies, as well as the door leading from the Central Hall, are immediately locked. After the lapse of two minutes, during which the loud division-bells are set ringing all over the building to summon breathless members to the Chamber, the question is again put from the Chair. If once more challenged, the Speaker names two members of either party to act as "tellers." Should no one be found willing to undertake this duty, a division cannot take place, and the Speaker declares that the "Noes" have it. If, however, tellers are duly appointed, they take their place at the exit doors leading from the two lobbies, which are now unlocked. After another interval, this time of four minutes" duration, the doors leading from the House to the lobbies are locked. Meanwhile, all members who wish to vote have left the Chamber, and are streaming through their respective lobbies, where their names are recorded by clerks, while the tellers count them as they pa.s.s through the lobby doors.
In the old days of St Stephen"s Chapel, the "Ayes" used to remain in the House, while the "Noes" withdrew, and were counted on their return. This practice led to endless difficulties, many members refusing to go out for fear of losing their seats, while others were forcibly detained by their friends. In Elizabeth"s time, Sir Walter Raleigh admitted that he often held a fellow-member by his sleeve, and others were accused of pulling each other back, as Cecil said, "like a dog on a string."[401] Later on, it was decided that members who gave their votes for the introduction of "any new matter" should alone withdraw, while the votes of those who remained behind were recorded.
This system also had its disadvantages. In 1834, for instance, when a certain Whig member, Colonel Evans, fell asleep in one of the side galleries during a division, he woke to find that he had been counted among the Tories, much to his disgust. Finally, two years later, the practice of clearing the House altogether for a division was first inst.i.tuted, and continued in force until the establishment of the modern method in 1906.[402]
[401] D"Ewes" "Journal," p. 683, and Townshend"s "Proceedings of Parliament," p. 322.
[402] In 1810, another system was temporarily introduced, the members ranging themselves on either side of the House and being counted by the tellers. Croker, when Ministerial teller, once accidentally missed out a whole bench full of Government supporters, thereby reducing the Ministerial majority by about forty. The Opposition teller watched the error with a smile, but did not feel called upon to correct it. See "The Observer," March 11, 1810.
When all members who desire to vote have filed through the lobbies, and are once more rea.s.sembled in the House, the four tellers advance together to the Table. The senior teller of the party having a majority, walks on the right, bearing in his hand a slip of paper, on which are written the numbers of the division. By the position of the teller it is thus possible to gauge the result of a division before it has been officially announced, and his advance to the Table in the place of honour is usually the signal for an outburst of cheering from his own victorious party. He proceeds to report the result of the division to the Clerk at the Table, who writes the numbers on a piece of paper, which he hands back to him. This the teller pa.s.ses to the Speaker, who, in turn, announces the numbers to the House. The doors are then unlocked, and the division is at an end.
On one famous occasion the tellers failed to agree in their reports of the figures. This happened on May 10, 1675, when the House in Committee had divided on a motion with regard to the English regiments serving in the French army. The tellers" difference of opinion gave rise to a scene of great confusion, during which one member spat in another"s face, and a free fight would probably have ensued but for the sudden arrival of the Speaker.
The amount of time spent in dividing has always been a source of annoyance to earnest politicians, more especially when divisions are made use of as a recognised form of obstruction, and the progress of parliamentary business thereby much impeded. In 1902, to name a recent example, the opponents of the Deceased Wife"s Sister Bill, which had already pa.s.sed a Second Reading, deliberately walked so slowly through the lobbies during four divisions that there was no time left to move that it should be sent to a Grand Committee. Members naturally grudge the precious hours wasted in trudging through the lobbies; but it seems impossible to invent any scheme that shall further expedite matters, the present system being apparently as perfect as the mind of man can devise.[403]
[403] In the Session of 1881 the number of divisions was about 400; in 1908, including the autumn Session, the number was 463, and in 1909 the House of Commons divided 918 times.
When a division is called in the House of Lords, the procedure is very similar in character to that of the Commons. The Chancellor (or Lord on the Woolsack) orders strangers to withdraw by saying, "Clear the bar!" and the Clerk of the Parliaments thereupon turns a two-minute sand-gla.s.s.
When the sand has run out of the gla.s.s, the doors are locked, and the question is once more put to the House. If the Lord Chancellor"s decision is challenged he at once says, "the "Contents" will go to the right by the Throne, and the "Not Contents" to the left by the bar."
Each party then pa.s.ses through its own lobby, the "Contents"
re-entering the House on the right of the bar, the "Not Contents"
through the door on the left of the Throne, their votes being duly recorded by clerks in the lobbies. The subsequent procedure resembles that in vogue in the Lower House.
Until 1857, when the present system was adopted, the "Contents"
remained within the bar, while the "Not Contents" went below the bar.
Peers, who through infirmity, or other causes, are disabled from leaving the House, may by its permission be "told" in their seats, and those who do not wish to vote at all are allowed to go within the railings on the steps of the Throne.
In old days the practice of voting by proxy was habitual in the House of Lords. During the reign of Edward I., n.o.bles who were unable to attend in person invariably sent messengers to act for them. Peers were permitted to appoint any individuals to represent them, either permanently or on special occasions, and, up to the fifteenth century, these proxies did not even have to be peers themselves. In the time of Henry VIII. the custom of allowing peers to represent one another was first inst.i.tuted, and in Charles I."s day we find the Duke of Buckingham holding no less than fourteen proxies. Such a custom naturally led to many abuses, and an order was eventually pa.s.sed forbidding any peer to hold more than two proxies. Finally, in 1868, the House of Lords realised that the practice was reprehensible, and pa.s.sed a Standing Order whereby the system of calling for proxies on a division was discontinued.
To-day, peers are in some ways even more particular than their colleagues in the Commons, and do not allow any one of their number to take part in a division unless he has himself been in the House when the question was put. In other respects they enjoy a wider lat.i.tude.
If a lord occasionally strays into the wrong lobby, he may refuse to be counted by the tellers, and his vote may afterwards be recorded as he desires. A member of the House of Commons who commits a like indiscretion is required to bear the consequences, and can neither alter nor rescind his vote.
In the event of an equal number of votes being recorded on either side in a division the procedure differs in the two Houses. In the Lords the question is invariably resolved in the negative, in accordance with the ancient rule of the Law: "semper praesumitur pro negante." In the Commons the Speaker has to decide it by a casting vote, which he generally gives in such a manner as to leave the question open for another division. This, however, is not always an easy task; indeed, it is often a most invidious and unpleasant one. In April, 1805, Speaker Abbot was compelled to give a casting-vote on the resolution leading to the impeachment of Lord Melville. After ten minutes"
distressing hesitation, while the House remained in a state of agonized suspense, Abbot reluctantly gave his vote against Lord Melville, and thus secured the defeat of Pitt.[404]
[404] Only fifteen ties are known in the history of Parliament On April 3, 1905, Speaker Gully gave a casting vote on the Embankment Tramways Bill, as did Speaker Lowther, on July 22, 1910, on the Regency Bill.
This is by no means the only instance of a momentous question such as the life of a Government being decided by a single vote. The Second Reading of the Reform Bill in 1831 was carried by a majority of one; the House on that occasion presenting a sight which, as Macaulay said, was to be seen only once and never to be forgotten. "It was like seeing Caesar stabbed in the Senate House, or seeing Oliver taking the mace from the Table." When the tellers announced the majority the victorious party shouted with joy, while some of them actually shed tears. "The jaw of Peel fell; and the face of Twiss was as the face of a d.a.m.ned soul; and Herries looked like Judas taking his necktie off for the last operation." In 1854 Lord Russell was defeated and Sir Robert Peel returned to victory on the crest of an equally diminutive wave; and a century earlier Walpole"s administration was overthrown by a small majority of three.
A minority of one is more unusual, but not altogether unknown. At the end of the eighteenth century, when the Duke of Somerset divided the House of Lords on a question of war with France, he walked alone into the Opposition division lobby. The same fate befell Dr. Kenealy in 1875, when his motion on behalf of the Tichborne Claimant was defeated by 433 votes to 1. On July 16, 1909, when a division was taken on an amendment to reject a Bill prohibiting foreign trawlers from landing their catches at British ports, the Noes numbered 158 while there was but a solitary Aye. And on July 18, 1910, on a motion for the adjournment of the House, there was but a single No.
No secrecy is maintained as to the voting of peers or members in divisions. In the old Journals of the Lords the division lists used always to be entered, but in 1641 this practice was abandoned, and the minority could only record an adverse vote by a formal protest of dissent.[405] Division lists were not regularly printed in the Commons until 1836, and the Lords followed suit about twenty years later.
[405] This right of protest recorded in the Journals of the House is still occasionally exercised.