(_Concluded from_ vol. xvii.)
In 833, a parliament was held at London, in the presence of King
Egbert, with his son Ethelwolf, and Withlaf, the tributary King of
Mercia, and most of the prelates and great men of the realm, to
deliberate on the best means they could adopt to prevent the Danes
from invading England.
In 1210, King John summoned a parliament to meet him at his palace in
St. Bride's parish, London; where he exacted of the clergy and
religious persons the sum of 100,000_l._, and 40,000_l._ in particular
from the white monks. The present hospital of Bridewell stands on a
part of that palace.
In 1294, Edward I., in order to raise funds for the invasion of
Scotland, addressed writs to the sheriffs, directing them to send
"representatives for every city and borough in their bailiwicks." Many
of the boroughs at this time, on account of the expense of paying
their representatives, declined to send members; but the King took
care for his own purposes that the Royal and other boroughs where his
influence extended, should send members: hence in Cornwall and the
other counties on the same coast, where the King's power and property
chiefly lay, on account of the mines and tallages, almost every
village sent representatives.
In 1414, the fifth year of the reign of Henry IV., the Commons
proceeded in their design of regulating the King's household, with
whom the Lords accorded; and they required that four persons should be
removed out of the King's house,--namely, the Abbot of Dore, the
King's confessor, with Durham and Crosbie, gentlemen of his chamber.
On February 9, 1414, the confessor, Durham and Crosbie, came into the
parliament before the King and the Lords, when his Majesty took
occasion to excuse those officers himself, saying, that he knew no
cause why they should be removed, but only because they were hated by
the people: yet he charged them to depart from his house, according to
the desire of his Commons, and would have proceeded in the same manner
against the Abbot of Dore, had he been present. The printed roll of
Parliamentary proceedings adds these remarkable expressions:--"And our
Lord the King moreover said that he would see that the Same measures
were taken with regard to any one about his Royal person, who might
incur the hatred or indignation of his people." A proceeding similar
to this took place in 1451, when Henry VI., at the request of the
House of Commons, removed from his court and presence several
individuals of either sex, against whom there was universal noise and
clamour.
On November 27, 1621, the House of Lords sentenced John Blount to
pillory, imprisonment, and labour for life, for counterfeiting a
Lord's protection. This was the first case of imprisonment beyond the
session, by the House of Lords. The first precedent for their
infliction of fines appears about two years afterwards, when they
sentenced one Morley to pay 1,000_l._, and condemned him to the
pillory for a libel on the Lord Keeper.
The number of Bishops having seats in the House of Lords is thirty;
namely, the two English archbishops, twenty-four English bishops, and
four Irish bishops; and they all sit in the house, not as churchmen,
or peers representing the clergy, in their various grades, (for these
are all represented with the commonalty in the lower House,) but as
soldiers, that is, as barons holding certain land by military
tenure--tenants _in capite per baroniam_; and therefore compelled,
under the feudal system, by which they were created, to furnish their
quota of knights, or men-at-arms, and do other military service to the
crown.
The following account of the manner of speaking and voting by the
Lords and Commons, is given in _A Key to both Houses of Parliament_:
"In the House of Lords, the Peers give their votes or suffrages, by
beginning with the lowest baron; and so on with the rest, _seriatim_,
until all have expressed their opinions; each one answering apart,
'Content,' or 'Not Content.' If the affirmatives and negatives should
happen to be equal in number, the question is invariably presumed to
be in the negative, (semper praesumitur pro negante,) and the Not
Contents have the effect of an absolute majority. In the House of
Commons, the members vote by _Ayes_ and _Noes_, altogether: but if it
be doubtful which is the greater number, the House _divides_. If the
question be whether any bill, petition, &c. is to be brought into the
House, then the _Ayes_, or approvers of the same, go out; but, if it
be upon anything which the House is once possessed of, the _Noes_ go
out. Upon all questions where the House divides, the Speaker appoints
four _tellers_--two of each opinion; who, after they have told or
numbered those within, place themselves in the passage between the Bar
and the door, in order to tell those who went out; who, till then, are
not permitted to re-enter the House. This being done, the two tellers
who have the majority take the _right_ hand, and all four placing
themselves within the bar, make three reverences as they advance
towards the table, where they deliver the written numbers, saying,
'the _Ayes_ that went out are so many: the _Noes_ who remain are so
many:' and _vice versa_ as it may happen. This the Speaker repeats,
declaring the majority.
"In a committee of the whole House, the way of dividing is by changing
sides, the _Ayes_ taking the _right_, and the _Noes_ taking the _left_
hand of the Speaker's chair. On such occasions there are but two
tellers.
"In each House the act of the majority binds the whole. This majority
is openly declared, and the votes, with the names of their authors
attached, are generally published in the newspapers; so that the
people at large are well enabled to judge of the conduct of their
legislators and representatives. This notoriety doubtless produces a
very beneficial effect in preserving the integrity of the members of
both houses. It is true that when the House of Commons is about to
_divide_, the speaker orders the gallery to be cleared, and all
_strangers_ are compelled to withdraw, that the members may be free
from popular influence in giving their votes. But, as tellers are
appointed to count the votes on each side, there can be no collusion
or deception in the decision of any question; at the same time, this
method is attended with sufficient publicity for every constitutional
purpose. Indeed, it has ever been held the law, rule, and usage of the
House of Commons, that all strangers are there only by sufferance,
consequently, whenever a member gives notice to the Speaker that he
perceives a stranger or strangers, it is the invariable custom of the
latter to order them to withdraw; otherwise the sergeant-at-arms will
take them into custody, and so enforce the Standing Orders of the
House for their exclusion. The publication of the speeches and votes
delivered in Parliament is a modern practice, and certainly a breach
of the privileges of the members; consequently it may at any time be
prohibited by the enforcement of the Standing Orders of either House.
"In the House of Commons, the Speaker never speaks to any question,
except the House be in a committee; nor does he even vote, unless the
number of votes on both sides of the House be equal; when his casting
vote decides the majority. In the Lords, if the Chancellor be desirous
of giving his opinion, he must leave the woolsack, and go to his place
among that rank of nobility to which he belongs. If he be not a peer,
he may neither speak to the question, nor vote upon it; but if a peer,
he has a vote on every question. The Speaker of the Commons is
prohibited by the rules of that House from persuading or dissuading
the members in the passing of any bill: his duty is merely to make a
plain and short narrative of its objects. When any member of the
Commons is desirous of speaking on a bill before the House, he stands
up in his place; uncovered, and directs his speech to the Speaker. In
the House of Peers, on the contrary, the orator addresses himself to
the Lords generally, only. In either case he may remain on his legs
for an indefinite length of time: using whatever arguments, and
entering into as many details, as he pleases; but, having once sat
down, he is not permitted, unless personally reflected on, to speak
again on the same day, to the same matter; or on the same reading of
the same bill, even although his arguments be confuted by another
member: but, if the whole house should be turned into a committee on
any business, then any member may reply as often as he pleases, or as
the chairman of the said committee may judge expedient. If it happen
that any member of either House should utter words offensive to the
King's majesty, or to the House itself, he is immediately called to
the bar: in the House of Commons he sometimes, on his knees, receives
a reprimand from the Speaker, and is obliged to apologize: if the
offence be great, he may, by the Speaker's warrant, be sent to the
Tower, or even to Newgate. When a member, during the heat of debate,
happens to be betrayed into intemperate language towards another
member he is merely called to 'Order' by the Speaker, and this call
has generally the desired effect of quelling all animosity between the
parties; but if, as sometimes has happened, anything should be uttered
amounting to a challenge to settle the dispute 'out of doors,' the
Speaker invariably insists upon a pledge from both, 'upon their
honour,' that there shall be no fight, and generally succeeds in
making them shake hands; otherwise, he has it in his power to commit
the would-be combatants to the safe-keeping of the sergeant-at-arms,
and to bind the mover to keep the peace. If any member,
notwithstanding the call to 'Order,' persist in being disorderly, it
is customary for the Speaker to name him; by which indication he is
sure to incur the displeasure or censure of the House."