lobby because they had had no chance to speak when the closure was moved
on a vote on account, were suspended; Hans. 4 Ser. XC., 692-96; and on
Aug. 5, 1904, the Welsh members refused to vote as a protest against the
use of closure on the Education (Local Authorities Defaults) Bill. After
they had persisted so far that the Chairman reported the matter to the
House, they consented to withdraw altogether, and no further steps were
taken against them. Hans. 4 Ser. CXXXIX., 1259-68.
[254:1] S.O. 30.
[255:1] The standing orders relating to private business are much more
elaborate and come far nearer to a code of procedure.
[255:2] This had not been the practice earlier; but the discussion of
changes in the standing orders has sometimes been very long. In 1882 the
new rules, which dealt with closure, the suspension of disorderly
members and the creation of standing committees, were debated for
thirty-three days. On the other hand, a change was made in 1901 on the
motion of a private member, at a single sitting. Hans. 4 Ser. XCII.,
555-75. In 1906 the changes were referred to a select committee and then
each of them adopted on a motion by the government. Hans. 4 Ser. CLV.,
197 _et seq._
[256:1] May, 145.
[256:2] _Ibid._, 145.
[256:3] S.O. 15.
[256:4] In his excellent _Recht und Technik des Englischen
Parlamentarismus_--the only systematic history of procedure in the House
of Commons--Dr. Redlich dwells on two tendencies in the evolution of the
standing orders since 1832. One of these consists in giving to the
ministry an ever greater control over the time, and hence over the
activity, of the House; the other in keeping the House more and more
strictly to its prearranged order of business for the day. Now the
manifestations of this last tendency, which he makes very clear, can
also be classed as changes made to save time or to arrange the
distribution of time. Whether in the form of forbidding motions to vary
the prescribed order of business, or to confine amendments and debate to
matters relevant to the main question, or to exclude dilatory motions
and others that open an indefinite field for discussion, they have the
effect either of preventing waste of time by debating trivial questions
or matters that the House does not care to take up, or of preventing the
use for some other purpose of time allotted to the government or to a
private member.
Since this was written Dr. Redlich's book has happily been translated
into English, but as the English edition has not yet been received the
references to the German edition are left unchanged.
[257:1] This is also Dr. Redlich's opinion, _Recht und Technik_, 246.
[258:1] May, 299.
[258:2] _Ibid._, 301.
[258:3] _Ibid._, 571.
[258:4] _Ibid._, 471.
[258:5] _Ibid._, 472-3.
[258:6] S.O. 36.
[258:7] S.O. 40.
[258:8] S.O. 32, 51.
[258:9] S.O. 53.
[258:10] _E.g._ S.O. 1 (7), 18, 26, 31, 91.
[258:11] S.O. 22, 23.
[259:1] May, 151.
[259:2] _Cf. ibid._, 150, note 3.
[260:1] S.O. 26.
[260:2] S.O. 23.
[260:3] S.O. 19.
[260:4] But the Speaker himself may submit a question to the judgment of
the House. May, 331.
[260:5] The action of the Speaker can be brought before the House only
by a motion made at another time after due notice, but this is, of
course, almost useless for the purpose of reversing the ruling
complained of: Hans. 3 Ser. CCLVIII., 10, 14. On the occasion when
Speaker Brand made this ruling he intimated that a member making on the
spot a motion to disagree with it would be guilty of disregarding the
authority of the chair, and liable to suspension under the standing
orders. _Ibid._, 9.
[261:1] The Lord Chancellor has far less power as presiding officer of
the House of Lords. May, 186, 296, 307, 331.
[261:2] S.O. 18. If a member who is suspended refuses to leave the
House, the Speaker may, on his own authority, suspend him for the
remainder of the session. _Ibid._
[262:1] In 1902 the provision, common in continental legislatures, which
authorises the Speaker to suspend the sitting, in case of grave
disorder, was embodied in S.O. 21. This has been used only once, on May
22, 1905, when the Opposition, thinking it was the duty of the Prime
Minister to give an immediate explanation, refused with great disorder
to hear another member of the government. (Hans. 4 Ser. CXLVI.,
1061-72.) One may hope that it will rarely be necessary to apply this
undignified process of taking off the lid to allow the tea-pot to cool
down.
[262:2] May, 348-49.
[262:3] May, 344-48.
[262:4] May, 361-62.
[263:1] May, 191; S.O. 81 (formerly S.O. 83).
[263:2] S.O. 81 (2). By S.O. 1 (9), the Speaker nominates a panel of not
more than five members to act as temporary chairmen of committees, but
this would seem to have been rendered less necessary by the new
provision for a deputy chairman.
[263:3] May, 198.
[263:4] May, 195.
CHAPTER XIII
PROCEDURE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
_Committees and Public Bills_
[Sidenote: The Committees.]
No great representative assembly at the present day can do all its work
in full meeting. It has neither the time, the patience nor the knowledge
required. Its sittings ought not to be frittered away in discussing
proposals that have no chance of success; while measures that are to be
brought before the whole body ought to be threshed out beforehand, their
provisions carefully weighed and put into precise language, objections,
if possible, met by concession and compromise, or brought to a sharp
difference of principle. In short, they ought to be put into such a
shape that the assembly is only called upon to decide a small number of
perfectly definite questions. To enable it to do so intelligently it may
be necessary also to collect information about doubtful facts. Modern
assemblies have sought to accomplish these results mainly by committees
of some kind; and in England where the parliamentary form of government
has reached a higher development than anywhere else, the chief
instrument for the purpose is that informal joint committee of the
Houses, known as the cabinet. But unless Parliament were to be very
nearly reduced to the role of criticising the ministers, and answering
yes or no to a series of questions propounded by them, it must do a part
of its work through other committees. The reasons why those committees
have not become--as in some other European nations that have adopted the
system of a responsible ministry--dangerous rivals of the cabinet, at
times frustrating its objects and undermining its authority, will be
discussed in the chapters on the relation between the cabinet and the
House of Commons. We must consider here their organisation and duties.
[Sidenote: The Committee of the Whole.]
The most important committee, the Committee of the Whole, is not in this
sense a committee at all. It is simply the House itself acting under
special forms of procedure; the chief differences being that the
Chairman of Committees presides, and that the rule of the House
forbidding a member to speak more than once on the same question does
not apply. But the fact that a member can speak more than once makes it
a real convenience for the purpose for which it is chiefly used, that
is, the consideration of measures in detail, such as the discussion and
amendment of the separate clauses of a bill, or the debates upon
different items of appropriations. The Committee of the Whole has had a
long history.[265:1] It is called by different names according to the
subject-matter with which it deals. For ordinary bills it is called
simply the Committee of the Whole. When engaged upon appropriations it
is called Committee of the Whole on Supply, or in common parlance the
Committee of Supply. When providing money to meet the appropriations it
is called the Committee of Ways and Means; and when reviewing the
revenue accounts of India it is named from that subject. The committees
of the whole called by these names are so far distinct that each of them
can deal only with its own affairs, and the House must go into committee
again in order to take up any other matter. But the simple Committee of
the Whole can take up one bill after another which has been referred to
it without reporting to the House and being reconstituted.[265:2]
[Sidenote: Select Committees.]
Of the real committees the most numerous are the select committees.
Their normal size is fifteen members, although they are often smaller,
and occasionally, by special leave of the House,[265:3] they are
somewhat larger. They may be nominated from the floor, and elected by
the House,[265:4] or chosen by ballot; but in order to avoid loss of
time, and to secure impartiality, the appointment of a part, at least,
of the members is usually intrusted to the Committee of Selection.
[Sidenote: Committee of Selection.]
Some of the select committees are appointed regularly every year, and
are therefore known as sessional committees. One of these, the Committee
of Selection, has already been mentioned. It has been enlarged from time
to time, and now consists of eleven members, chosen by the House itself
at the beginning of the session.[266:1] The members are, in fact,
designated by an understanding between the leaders of the two great
parties in the House. But the object is to create an impartial body, and
so far is this object attained that in the memoir of Sir John Mowbray,
who was its chairman continuously for thirty-two years, we are told that
divisions in the committee are rare, and never on party lines.[266:2]
Its duties, so far as public business is concerned, consist in
appointing members of select and standing committees. It appoints also
the committees on all private and local bills, and divides those bills
among them.[266:3] This is, indeed, the primary object of its existence,
but, together with a description of the various committees employed in
private bill legislation, it must be postponed to a later chapter. It
may, however, save confusion in the mind of a reader unfamiliar with
parliamentary practice to insist here upon the distinction between a
private member's bill and a private bill. The former is a bill of a
public nature introduced by a private member, whereas a private bill is
one dealing only with a matter of private, personal, or local interest.
[Sidenote: Other Sessional Committees.]
The remaining sessional committees are the Committee on Public
Accounts,[266:4] which goes through the report of the Auditor and
Comptroller General, considers in detail objections to the legality of
any expenditures by the public departments, examines witnesses thereon,
and reports to the House; the Committee on Public Petitions, appointed
to inspect the numerous petitions presented to the House;[266:5] and
the Committee on the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms, which has
importance for the members of the House, though not for the general
public.[267:1]
[Sidenote: Other Select Committees.]
[Sidenote: Their Object.]
The other select committees are created to consider some special matter
that is referred to them, either a bill, or a subject upon which the
House wishes to institute an inquiry.[267:2] In either case the chief
object of the committee is to obtain and sift information. Even where a
particular bill is referred to it the primary object is not to take the
place of debate in the House, and in fact by the present practice a
select committee saves no step in procedure, a bill when reported by it
going to the Committee of the Whole for discussion in detail, precisely
as if no select committee had been appointed.[267:3] Select committees
are the organs, and the only organs, of the House for collecting
evidence and examining witnesses;[267:4] and hence they are commonly
given power to send for persons, papers and records. They summon before
them people whose testimony they wish to obtain; but although a man of
prominence, or a recognised authority on the subject, would, no doubt,
be summoned at his own request, there is nothing in their procedure in
the least corresponding to the public hearings customary throughout the
United States, where anybody is at liberty to attend and express his
views--a practice that deserves far more attention than it has yet
received.
[Sidenote: Their Procedure.]
In select committees the procedure follows as closely as possible that
of a Committee of the Whole;[268:1] but they choose their own chairman,
who has no vote except in case of a tie. They keep minutes, not only of
their own proceedings, but also of all evidence taken before them; and
these, together with the report of their conclusions, are laid before
the House,[268:2] and published among the parliamentary papers of the
session. Strictly speaking, a minority report is unknown to English
parliamentary usage, although the habit of placing upon select
committees representatives of the various groups of opinion in the House
makes a disagreement about the report very common. Practically, however,
the minority attain the same object by moving a substitute for the
report prepared by the majority, and as the standing orders provide that
every division in a select committee must be entered upon its
minutes,[268:3] the substitute with the names of those who voted for it,
are submitted to the House, and have the effect of a minority report.
The fact that men with all shades of opinions sit upon these committees,
and have an opportunity to examine the witnesses, lifts their reports,
and still more the evidence they collect, above the plane of mere party
documents, and gives them a far greater permanent value. Many committees
are not directly concerned with legislation, that is, with a bill
actually pending, but only with inquiry into some grievance, some
alleged defect in the law or in administration, yet their reports often
lay the foundation for future statutes; and, indeed, a large part of the
legislative or administrative reforms carried out by one or both of the
great parties in the state, have been based upon the reports of select
committees or royal commissions.
[Sidenote: Joint Committees.]
From obvious motives of convenience joint select committees from the
Lords and Commons have been occasionally appointed,[269:1] but owing to
the different standing of the two Houses they are used chiefly for
private bills, and for regulating the intercourse between the two
bodies.[269:2] The principal exceptions of late years have been the
joint committees on statute law revision bills and on the subject of
municipal trading.
[Sidenote: Standing or Grand Committees.]
As the pressure for time in the House of Commons grew more intense,
select committees that collected information were not enough. Something
was needed that would save debate in the House, and for this purpose
resolutions were adopted on Dec. 1, 1882, for setting up two large
committees on bills relating to law and to trade, whose deliberations
should take the place of debate in the Committee of the Whole. Such
committees were at first an experiment, tried for a couple of sessions,
but in 1888 they were revived by standing orders, and made permanent
organs of the House.[269:3] As distinguished from select committees,
which expire when they have made a report upon the special matters
committed to their charge, they were made standing bodies, lasting
throughout the session, and considering all the bills from time to time
referred to them; one of them being created to deal with bills relating
to law, courts of justice, and legal procedure; the other with those
relating to trade, shipping, manufactures, agriculture, and fishing.
They consist of not less than sixty nor more than eighty members of the
House, appointed by the Committee of Selection, which has power to
discharge members and substitute others during the course of the
session. In order to secure the presence of persons who may throw light
on any particular bill, the same committee can also appoint not more
than fifteen additional members for the consideration of that bill.
[Sidenote: Their Procedure.]
A peculiar provision was made for the designation of the chairman. At
the beginning of each session the Committee of Selection appoints a
chairman's panel of not less than four nor more than six members, and
this body selects from among its members the chairmen of the standing
committees[270:1]--a device intended to secure continuity of traditions
and experience in the presiding officer. For the rest, the standing
orders prescribed that the procedure in standing committees should be
the same as in select committees;[270:2] but it would be more accurate
to say, as May does,[270:3] that their proceedings were assimilated, as
far as possible, to those of a Committee of the Whole House, for they
were created to do precisely the same work.[270:4] They were to collect
no evidence, examine no witnesses, but simply to debate the clauses of
the bill in detail, being in fact a substitute for the Committee of the
Whole; that step in the procedure upon a bill being entirely omitted
when a bill goes to a standing committee. For this reason they are
miniatures of the House itself, representing all the parties there in
proportion to their numbers. They are samples that stand for the
complete House, and like the Committee of the Whole they do not report
their opinions, but report the bills referred to them with or without
amendments.
In one respect only does their position differ materially from that of a
Committee of the Whole. If the Committee of the Whole makes any
amendments in a bill, they can be considered again, and further
amendments can be made, upon the report stage. But if it makes no
amendments, there is no report stage. This was equally true of the
standing committees, so that if they did not amend a bill referred to
them, the House never had an opportunity to do so, but must pass or
reject the bill as first introduced; and, in fact, standing committees
have been charged with refraining from minor changes in order to prevent
amendments, which might hinder or delay the passage of the bill, from
being proposed in the House itself.[270:5] This raised so much objection
that in 1901 the standing orders were changed so as to require a report
stage in the House on all bills from standing committees whether amended
or not.[271:1]
[Sidenote: Kind of Bills Referred to Them.]
The standing committees were designed primarily to deal with a technical
class of bills, where the discussion of details would not be of general
interest.[271:2] For reasons that will be described hereafter, it has
been recognised that the bills referred to them ought to be of a
non-contentious nature, that contentious measures, which arouse strong
party feelings, are not suited for their consideration. This is the
general principle, not always observed in practice, and there is
sometimes a sharp difference of opinion upon the question whether a
particular bill is contentious or not.
[Sidenote: Their Utility.]
Within their limits the utility of the standing committees in
legislation cannot be doubted. On the average about one seventh of the
public bills enacted year by year have passed through their hands, and
the proportion has shown a slight tendency to increase.[271:3] Moreover,
the pressure for time in the House of Commons has become so great that a
bill has a better chance of getting through if referred to a standing
committee than if it has to undergo the ordeal of a long debate in
Committee of the Whole. Every year the government is obliged by lack of
time to drop something like one third of the bills it has introduced,
but those of its bills that are referred to the standing committees
rarely fail to be enacted. In the case of bills brought in by private
members the contrast is even more striking; for while scarcely one tenth
of all such bills become law, more than one half of those among them
fortunate enough to reach a standing committee are enacted.[271:4] In
fact these committees furnish by far the best chance of passing private
members' bills through the House of Commons.[272:1]
[Sidenote: Standing Committee for Scotland.]
When the two great committees were revived in 1888, motions were made to
create others to consider bills relating to Scotland and Wales. The
motions were all rejected at the time; but in 1894 the Liberal
government took the matter up in the case of Scotland, and in that year
and the next carried resolutions establishing such a committee for the
session. It consisted of all the members for Scotch constituencies,
seventy-two in number, and of fifteen or twenty others appointed by the
committee of selection. On each occasion the plan was vigorously
opposed,[272:2] the chief objections being; that it tended toward
legislative dismemberment of the United Kingdom; that such a committee
would not, like the other standing committees, reflect fairly the
proportion of the parties in the House, because two thirds of the Scotch
members were Liberals;[272:3] and that the bills referred to it would
not be exclusively of a non-contentious nature. When the Conservatives
came to power they quietly dropped this committee. Even had they felt no
other reason for doing so, it would, no doubt, have been enough that, in
spite of considerable losses at the general election of 1895, the
Liberals were still in a majority among the Scotch members. The creation
of such a body illustrates, however, the exceptional position of
Scotland in the British Parliament; and any one who has followed a
debate on an ordinary Scotch bill, and observed how largely it is
confined to Scotch members, will realise that practically the resolution
of 1894 did little more than sanction formally by means of a standing
committee the kind of discussion that habitually takes place in the
Committee of the Whole.
[Sidenote: The Four Standing Committees of 1907.]
With a view to enlarging the legislative capacity of Parliament a select
committee on Procedure in the House of Commons reported on May 25, 1906,
in favour of increasing the number of standing committees from two to
four, and making the reference of bills to them the normal, instead of
an exceptional, proceeding. In pursuance of this recommendation the
House on April 16, 1907, changed standing orders 46, 47, and 48[273:1]
so that there should be four standing committees, one of which is in
effect the former Scotch Committee, while the other three are to
consider any bills that may be referred to them, and not as heretofore
only those relating to law or to trade.[273:2] All bills, except money
bills and bills for confirming provisional orders, are to be referred to
one of the standing committees, unless the House otherwise order on a
motion to be decided without amendment or debate; and the bills are to
be distributed among the committees by the Speaker.
The object of the change was to give a better chance of enactment for
measures which there is not time to debate in Committee of the Whole;
and the provision that the House may vote not to send a bill to a
standing committee was designed chiefly for the great party measures of
the government which must always be debated in the House itself. The new
procedure has not been in operation long enough to judge of its effects,
but something will be said of its relation to the parliamentary form of
government in the chapter on the "Cabinet's Control of the Commons."
[Sidenote: The Procedure on Public Bills.]
The steps through which an ordinary public bill must still pass are very
numerous, but while formerly a debate and division might take place at
each of them, of late years the opportunity for this--and practically
the number of steps--has been much reduced by causing some of them to be
taken as a matter of course without a vote, and by permitting no debate
on others. This is well illustrated at the outset of a bill's career,
where, indeed, an old complex procedure and a later and simpler one
continue to exist side by side.
[Sidenote: Introduction and First Reading.]
A bill may be introduced in one of three ways. A motion may be made for
an order for leave to bring it in, accompanied by a speech explaining
its objects, and followed by a debate and vote. This was formerly the
only method, and debates lasting over several days have occurred at this
stage.[274:1] Amendments might be moved hostile to the provisions of the
bill. In fact the adoption of such an amendment to a militia bill caused
the fall of Lord John Russell's ministry in 1852. Now only important
government bills are introduced in that way; for by a standing order
adopted in 1888 a motion to bring in a bill may be made at the
commencement of public business, and after brief explanatory statements
by the mover and one opponent the Speaker may put the question.[274:2]
From the length of time taken by the speeches this is known as the
ten-minute rule. After an order to bring in a bill has been obtained in
either of these ways, the question that the bill be read a first time is
voted upon without amendment or debate.[274:3] Finally, in 1902, a still
more expeditious process was established. It permits a member to present
his bill, which is read a first time without any order or vote of the
House whatever.[274:4]
[Sidenote: Second Reading.]
The next step, and, except on great party measures, the first occasion
for a debate, is the second reading. This is the proper stage for a
discussion of the general principles of the bill, not of its details,
and amendments to the several clauses are not in order. The methods of
opposing the second reading are somewhat technical. The form of the
question is "that this bill be _now_ read a second time"; and a negative
vote does not kill the bill, because it does not prevent a motion to
read it being made on a subsequent day.[274:5]
In order to shelve the bill without forcing a direct vote upon it, the
habit formerly prevailed of moving the previous question;[275:1] but
this was open to the same objection, and had, in fact, the effect of the
American practice of moving to lay the bill upon the table. A similar
difficulty arises when an amendment is moved stating some special reason
for not reading the bill. It may express the sense of the House, but it
does not necessarily dispose of the measure. Of late years, therefore,
it has been customary to move that the bill be read this day six months,
or three months, the date being such as to fall beyond the end of the
session. On the general principle that a question which the House has
decided cannot be raised again, such a vote kills the bill. Nor does it
make any difference that the House happens to be sitting at the end of
six months, for that date is treated as a sort of Greek calends that
never comes.[275:2]
[Sidenote: Committee of the Whole.]
After the second reading a bill, until 1907, went normally to the
Committee of the Whole, with or without instructions,[275:3] and now it
goes there if the House so decides. When the order of the day for the
Committee of the Whole is reached the Speaker leaves the chair, and the
House goes into committee without question put.[275:4] This is the stage
for consideration of the bill in detail, and the clauses are taken up
one after another, the amendments to each clause being disposed of in
their order. Then new clauses may be proposed, and finally the bill is
reported back to the House.
[Sidenote: Reference to a Select Committee]
[Sidenote: or Standing Committee.]
Normally a bill goes either to the Committee of the Whole or to a
standing committee, but after it has been read a second time a motion
may be made to refer it to a select committee. Such a reference simply
adds a step to the journey of the bill, for when reported it goes to a
standing committee or to the Committee of the Whole. A standing
committee, on the other hand, is, as already explained, a substitute for
the Committee of the Whole. It deals with the bill in precisely the same
way, reporting it back to the House amended or unchanged.
[Sidenote: Report.]
When a bill has been reported from the Committee of the Whole with
amendments,[276:1] and when it has been reported from a standing
committee whether amended or not,[276:2] it is considered by the House
in detail, upon what is known as the report stage. The object is to give
the House an opportunity to review the work done in committee, and see
whether it wishes to maintain the amendments there adopted. But the
House is not restricted to confirming or reversing the changes made in
the bill, and although the process of going through the measure clause
by clause is not repeated, fresh amendments may be proposed and new
clauses added.[276:3]
If the bill is reported from a Committee of the Whole without
amendments, it is assumed that the details are satisfactory to the
House, and there is no report stage.
[Sidenote: Third Reading.]
The next, and now the last, stage of a bill in the House of Commons is
the third reading. Like the second reading, this raises only the
question whether or not the House approves of the measure as a whole,
and the moves for compassing its defeat are the same. Verbal amendments
alone are in order, and any substantial alteration can be brought about
only by moving to recommit.
Usually the several steps in the enactment of a bill are taken on
different days,[277:1] but there is nothing in the rules of the House of
Commons to require this, and urgent measures have at times passed
through all their stages in both Houses in one day. The last case was
that of the Explosive Substances Bill passed in 1883 under the pressure
of the dynamite scare.[277:2]
[Sidenote: Lords' Amendments.]
When a bill passed by one House is amended by the other, it is sent back
for the consideration of those amendments. If they are agreed to, the
bill is ready for the royal assent. If not, the bill is returned, and a
committee is appointed to frame a message to the other House, stating
the reasons for disagreement.[277:3] The other House may, of course,
waive its amendments, insist upon them or modify them, and the bill
might thus, with new changes, go back and forth between the Houses
indefinitely. Formerly it was the habit, when the Houses failed to
agree, to appoint managers to hold a conference, but this practice has
fallen into disuse,[277:4] and in the case of government bills--almost
all important bills to-day are government bills--negotiations are
carried on between the ministers and the leading peers who oppose them.
[Sidenote: Summary of the Procedure.]
Leaving out of account the first reading, which rarely involves a real
debate, the ordinary course of a public bill through the House of
Commons gives, therefore, an opportunity for two debates upon its
general merits, and between them two discussions of its details, or one
debate upon the details if that one results in no changes, or if the
bill has been referred to a standing committee. When the House desires
to collect evidence it does so after approving of the general
principle, and before taking up the details. Stated in this way the
whole matter is plain and rational enough. It is, in fact, one of the
many striking examples of adaptation in the English political system. A
collection of rules that appear cumbrous and antiquated, and that even
now are well-nigh incomprehensible when described in all their involved
technicality, have been pruned away until they furnish a procedure
almost as simple, direct and appropriate as any one could devise. Many
old forms remain, but they have been shorn of their meaning, and often
amount to nothing but entries in the journal. Even the first reading,
which seems anomalous, has its use. A real debate at that stage occurs
only in the case of great party measures, where both sides of the House
want to be familiar with the scope of the bill, the objections that may
be made to it, and the way it strikes the public, before the first
effective debate upon its merits opens. The procedure upon money bills,
which appears at first sight still more arbitrary, and complex, is
perfectly rational also, and the differences from the method of passing
ordinary measures arise from the nature of the case. There can be no
doubt about the general principle of the annual appropriation bill.
Supplies must be voted to carry on the government, and the only
questions arise over particular grants. Hence there is no object in
opening with a first or second reading, and the procedure begins in
committee. But in order to understand how this works out one must again
go back to the technical rules.
FOOTNOTES:
[265:1] _Cf._ Redlich, 474-78.
[265:2] S.O. 33.
[265:3] _Cf._ S.O. 55.
[265:4] _Cf._ S.O. 56-57.
[266:1] Standing Orders (relative to private business), 98.
[266:2] "Seventy Years at Westminster," 267 _et seq._
[266:3] _Ibid._, 103-15.
[266:4] S.O. 75.
[266:5] S.O. 76-80.
[267:1] "At the commencement of every session an order is made 'That a
committee of privileges be appointed,' but no members have been
nominated to it since 1847." "Manual of Procedure of the House of
Commons," prepared in 1904 by Sir Courtenay Ilbert, Clerk of the House,
Sec. 110. There are also a couple of sessional committees whose work is
wholly concerned with private bills and are described therewith.
[267:2] The question often arises whether inquiry shall be conducted by
a committee of the House, or by a commission appointed by the
government. When the matter is distinctly political a committee of the
House is the proper organ; but when the judgment of outside experts is
needed the other alternative is obviously preferable, several members of
Parliament being often included in such cases. Naturally enough, the
ministry and the members chiefly interested in pushing an inquiry do not
always agree about the matter. One instance of a dispute on this point
has already been referred to--that in relation to the grievances of Post
Office employees. Another famous example occurred upon the charges made
by _The Times_ against Parnell in connection with the forged Pigott
Letters.
[267:3] May, 469-70.
[267:4] The private bill committees to be described in a later chapter
are select committees.
[268:1] May, 383-89, 471.
[268:2] S.O. 59-61, 63.
[268:3] S.O. 61.
[269:1] May, 398-99.
[269:2] Redlich, 463.
[269:3] S.O. 46-50; May, 371-77.
[270:1] S.O. 49.
[270:2] S.O. 47.
[270:3] May, 374.
[270:4] As in the House itself, the attendance during debate is
sometimes small. Complaints are heard of this, and of the practice of
fetching members in to take part in divisions. Hans. 4 Ser. XCII., 570.
The divisions, by the way, are taken by roll-call.
[270:5] Hans. 4 Ser. XCII., 562, 566.
[271:1] S.O. 50. _Cf._ Hans. 4 Ser. XCII., 555-75.
[271:2] See the remarks of Gladstone in proposing them in 1882, Hans. 3
Ser. CCLXXV., 145-46.
[271:3] In the sixteen years from 1888 (when these committees were
revived) through 1903, 1080 public bills were enacted, of which 109
passed through their hands. During the eight years from 1896 to 1903,
this was true of 73 bills out of the 446 enacted.
[271:4] From 1888 to 1903, 77 of the 83 government bills referred to a
standing committee were enacted; from 1896 to 1906, 48 were so referred,
and all but two of them were enacted. From 1888 to 1903, 32 out of 58
private members' bills so referred were enacted; and from 1896 to 1903,
27 out of 41. _Cf._ Return in Com. Papers, 1902, LXXXII., 229, and the
Annual Returns for 1901-03.
[272:1] _Cf._ Hans. 4 Ser. XCII., 563, 567.
[272:2] _Cf._ Hans. (1888) 3 Ser. CCCXXIII., 403 _et seq._, 474 _et
seq._; (1894) 4 Ser. XXII., 1116 _et seq._, 1487 _et seq._; XXIII., 648
_et seq._, 991 _et seq._, 1589 _et seq._; (1895) XXXIII., 822 _et seq._;
XXXIV., 170 _et seq._
[272:3] This objection was partially met by a provision in regard to the
additional members. Hans. 4 Ser. XXIII., 1613; XXXIV., 1881.
[273:1] _Cf._ Hans. 4 Ser. CLXXII., pp. lxxix-lxxx.
[273:2] A committee to which a bill relating exclusively to Wales and
Monmouthshire is referred must comprise all the members from that part
of the kingdom. In order to provide chairmen enough, the maximum of the
chairmen's panel was raised from six to eight.
[274:1] May, 437, note 1.
[274:2] S.O. 11.
[274:3] S.O. 31. This is also true when a bill is brought from the
Lords.
[274:4] S.O. 31.
[274:5] _Cf._ Hans. 4 Ser. CLVII., 744.
[275:1] Until 1888 the form of the motion was "that that question be now
put," and the mover voted in the negative; but after the closure was
introduced with a motion in these same words, the previous question was
changed, and put in the form "that that question not be now put." May,
269. If under either form the House decided in favour of putting the
question, the vote upon the second reading was taken without further
debate. May, _Ibid._ But as the previous question was itself subject to
a discussion which might cover the principles of the bill, it did not
have the effect of cutting off debate. (_Cf._ Report of Com. on Business
of the House. Com. Papers, 1871, IX., 1, Qs. 54-55.)
[275:2] May, 446.
[275:3] By S.O. 34, committees of the whole are instructed to make such
amendments, relevant to the bill, as they think fit. The object of a
special instruction is merely to empower the committee to make
amendments, within the general scope and framework of the bill, which it
would not possess under the standing order. Ilbert, "Manual," Secs.
175-76.
[275:4] S.O. 51. Adopted in 1888.
[276:1] S.O. 39.
[276:2] S.O. 50.
[276:3] _Cf._ S.O. 38-41. Unless a motion is made to recommit, the bill
is considered on report, when reached, without question put. S.O. 40.
[277:1] Except that the third reading often follows immediately upon the
report stage. May, 472.
[277:2] May, 487. In the Lords this requires a suspension of the rules.
Some kinds of bills are subject to special forms of procedure which it
seems hardly necessary to mention. A bill for the restitution of honours
begins in the Lords, and in the Commons is referred to a select
committee which takes the place of a Committee of the Whole. A bill for
a general pardon originates with the Crown, and is read only once in
each House. May, 435-36.
[277:3] May, 479; Ilbert, "Manual," Sec. 209.
[277:4] May, 412-16; Ilbert, Sec. 250 note.
CHAPTER XIV
PROCEDURE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
_Money Bills and Accounts_
The procedure in the case of financial measures differs in important
respects from that followed in passing other bills. It will be
remembered that, with some exceptions already described, all the
national revenues are first paid into the Consolidated Fund, and then
drawn out of it to meet the expenditures of the government. The
financial work of Parliament, like that of the administration, turns,
therefore, upon the processes of getting money into and out of that
fund. The second process comes first in the order of parliamentary
business, and its nature is fixed by two standing orders, which date
from the early years of the eighteenth century. One of them, adopted in
1707, provides that the House will not proceed upon any petition or
motion for granting money but in Committee of the Whole House;[279:1]
the other, that it will not receive any petition, or proceed upon any
motion, for a grant or charge upon the public revenue unless recommended
from the Crown.[279:2]
[Sidenote: The Rule that Appropriations Require Consent of the Crown.]
This last rule, first adopted by a resolution in 1706, and made a
standing order in 1713,[279:3] was designed to prevent improvident
expenditure on private initiative. It has proved not only an invaluable
protection to the Treasury, but a bulwark for the authority of the
ministry.[280:1] Its importance has been so well recognised that it has
been embodied in the fundamental laws of the self-governing
colonies;[280:2] while some foreign countries, like France and Italy,
that have copied the forms of parliamentary government, without always
perceiving the foundation on which they rest, have suffered not a little
from its absence.[280:3]
Even in England the rule has been at times evaded. About the middle of
the last century, it was the habit to bring in bills involving the
expenditure of public funds, and avoid a violation of the rule by
inserting a clause that the expenses incurred should be "defrayed out of
moneys to be hereafter voted by Parliament." But a vote in favour of
such a bill was clearly an expression of opinion that well-nigh
compelled the ministers to include the expense in their next estimates.
This practice was stopped in 1866 by changing the standing order so as
to provide that the House will not "proceed upon any motion for a grant
or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the
consolidated fund, or out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, unless
recommended from the Crown."[280:4] The change, however, does not
absolutely prevent the House from forcing the hands of the government. A
resolution can be passed in abstract and general terms in favour of a
certain kind of expenditure, the construction of harbours of refuge, for
example; or an address to the Crown can be adopted asking for an
expenditure, and promising "that this House will make good the same," a
procedure followed in erecting statues on the death of great leaders of
the House.[281:1]
As late as 1877 Mr. Gladstone lamented the loss of financial control by
the Crown, complaining that, by addresses, resolutions, and even bills,
the House pledged itself to expenditure for local claims or the
interests of classes and individuals, and that the government was
morally bound to redeem the pledges. This he thought was carried so far
as to be a great public mischief.[281:2] Whether such a statement was an
exaggeration at that time or not, it would hardly be repeated now; for
on the one hand the control of the cabinet over the House, and on the
other the obstacles encountered by private members in passing measures,
have increased so much that it is very difficult, without the help of
the Treasury Bench, to get the House to adopt anything to which there is
serious opposition.
[Sidenote: The Rule Prevents Increase of the Estimates.]
Although in terms the rule applies only to a motion for making a grant,
it has been construed to cover any amendment for increasing a grant
beyond the amount recommended from the Crown,[281:3]--an extension
certainly needed to protect both the Treasury and the authority of the
ministers. When, therefore, the minister moves that a sum of money be
granted for a definite purpose, no amendment is in order either to
increase that sum or to alter its destination.[281:4] But the rule does
not forbid a reduction. It follows that if any member deems the sum
named too small, his only course is to move to reduce it in order to
draw attention to its insufficiency. Reductions of one hundred pounds
are, in fact, constantly moved to make an occasion for discussing some
grievance connected with the service in question, and they afford a
ready means of protest, free from peril to the Treasury.[282:1]
[Sidenote: The Rule is Applied to Taxes.]
A still greater extension of the rule is made in its application to
taxes; but this depends not upon the standing order, but upon a general
constitutional principle which has gradually been evolved therefrom. The
principle has, in fact, been expanded until it may be stated in the
general form that no motion can be made to raise or expend national
revenue without a recommendation from the Crown, or to increase the sum
asked for by the Crown. The government has accordingly the exclusive
right to propose fresh national taxation, whether in the form of new
taxes or of higher rates for existing ones,[282:2] and no private member
can move to augment the taxes so proposed.[282:3] He can, however, move
to reduce them, and he is even free to bring in a bill to repeal or
reduce taxes which the government has not proposed to touch.[283:1]
Moreover, as the principle merely forbids him to urge an increase of the
burdens upon the people beyond the point at which they stand, or the
point at which the ministers propose to place them, he can, when the
government suggests a reduction of a tax, move an amendment to reduce it
less,[283:2] and when the government brings in a plan for a revision of
taxation, he can move to substitute a somewhat different tax for the one
proposed, provided the amount of revenue yielded will not be
greater.[283:3] But these rights are seldom used, and almost never with
success; otherwise they would, no doubt, be found objectionable and
swept away.
The House of Commons, at the present day, certainly stimulates
extravagance, rather than economy; but this is done by opinions
expressed in debate, not by specific proposals made by the members. It
is done by criticising the administration, by complaints, for example,
that the Army and Navy are insufficient for the defence of the empire.
The result is a growth in the budgets prepared by the ministry; but this
is a very different thing from expenditure directly caused by the
irresponsible action of private members. The former is deliberate and
reflects public opinion, the latter may originate in personal or local
feelings, and then be adopted through heedless good nature or skilful
log-rolling.
[Sidenote: Committee of Supply.]
As grants of money can be taken up only in Committee of the Whole, and
only on the recommendation of the Crown,--that is, of a minister--the
House resolves itself, early in the session, into Committee of the Whole
on Supply, to consider the estimates submitted by the government.[283:4]
[Sidenote: Consolidated Fund Charges.]
[Sidenote: Estimates for the Supply Services.]
Now it will be remembered that certain charges, such as the interest on
the national debt, the royal civil list, and the salaries of the judges,
are payable by statute out of the Consolidated Fund, and hence do not
require an annual vote of Parliament, or come before the Committee of
Supply. The estimates for the rest of the expenditures for the coming
year, known as the supply services, are divided into three parts,
relating to the Army, the Navy, and the civil services. The last of the
three is divided into classes, and all of them are divided into grants
or votes, which are in turn subdivided into subheads and items. Each
grant is the subject of a separate vote in Committee of Supply, and
amendments may be moved to omit or reduce any item therein.
[Sidenote: Votes on Account.]
The English financial system aims at precision. It is deemed of great
importance that the estimates should be as accurate as they can be made,
and hence they must be prepared as short a time as possible before going
into effect. They are made up in the several departments late in the
autumn, then submitted for revision to the Treasury, and laid before
Parliament shortly after it meets about the middle of February. But as
the financial year begins on April 1, it is manifest that the Committee
of Supply cannot finish its discussion of them by that time. With the
work it must do in passing upon supplementary estimates for the current
year, it can, in fact, make little progress with those of the coming
year during March, and yet money must be spent, and there must be legal
authority to spend it, especially as the unspent balances of
appropriations lapse at the close of the financial year in which they
are voted. The committee, therefore, passes votes on account to cover
the time until the regular appropriations are made. The reader will,
perhaps, recall the fact that in the military and naval services an
excess on one grant may, with the approval of the Treasury, be used to
cover deficiencies on other grants, and hence it is the habit in the
case of those services to vote in March the grant for the pay and wages
of the men for the whole year, and use the money so obtained for all
purposes until the appropriations have been completed. In the civil
services, where this is not allowed, votes on account are passed for all
the grants, large enough to carry on the government for four or five
months.
[Sidenote: Supplementary Grants.]
With the utmost effort at accuracy in the estimates they will always
prove to be insufficient in some branch of the service, or an unexpected
need for expenditure will arise; and to provide funds in such cases
supplementary estimates must be presented and voted before the close of
the financial year.
[Sidenote: Excess Grants.]
There may also be other expenses outside the estimates, which have, by
the authority vested in the Treasury, been temporarily met by advances
from the Civil Contingencies Fund or the Treasury Chest Fund, or from
extra receipts of the department. These do not require an immediate
appropriation; but they are reported to the Committee on Public Accounts
at the next regular session after the close of the financial year, and
then presented to the Committee of Supply to be covered at once by an
excess grant.
Before the end of March, therefore, the Committee of Supply must pass
the supplementary grants for the year then coming to a close, the excess
grants for the preceding year, the votes on account for the coming year,
and make such progress as it can with the regular estimates for that
year.
[Sidenote: Consolidated Fund Acts.]
But the committee merely passes and reports to the House resolutions in
favour of those grants, and the money cannot be paid out of the
Consolidated Fund without the authority of a statute. The next step is
taken in the Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means, where on the
motion of a minister another resolution is passed, that to make good the
supply already voted, the sum required be granted out of the
Consolidated Fund. This in turn must be reported to and confirmed by the
House.[285:1] A bill called a Consolidated Fund Bill is then brought in
to give effect to the resolution. The bill, with the separate grants
annexed in a schedule, goes through the ordinary stages; but the time
spent upon it is short, because its only object being to authorise the
issue of money to cover the supply already voted, no amendment can be
moved to reduce the amount, or change the destination, of the
grants.[286:1]
[Sidenote: The Appropriation Act.]
The first Consolidated Fund Act must be passed in time to receive the
royal assent before April 1. One or two more follow from time to time as
the Committee of Supply makes its way slowly through the
estimates.[286:2] Finally, after the whole supply for the year has been
voted, the Appropriation Bill is brought in, which sums up and embodies
all the grants for the services of the year, prescribes their
application by means of the schedules annexed, and authorises their
payment out of the Consolidated Fund. This is usually passed on the last
day of the session.
[Sidenote: The Budget.]
So much for the process of getting money out of the Consolidated Fund.
That of getting money into the fund goes on at the same time, but
independently. It is usually early in April that the Chancellor
introduces his budget in the Committee of Ways and Means. In an
elaborate speech he reviews the finances of the past year, comparing the
results with the estimates, and dealing with the state of trade and the
national debt. He then refers to the estimates already submitted, and
coming to the gist of his speech, and the part of it that is awaited
with curiosity, he explains how he proposes to raise the revenue
required to meet the expenditures. As he could have no right to take the
floor without a motion before the House, he concludes by moving one or
more of a series of resolutions containing the changes in taxation, or
the continuation of temporary taxes, that he desires.
About three quarters of the revenue is derived from permanent taxes,
which are rarely changed, and require no action by Parliament from year
to year. But in order to adjust the income closely to expenses, certain
taxes are voted for a year at a time, their rates being raised or
lowered as may be required to balance the budget. For many years the
only imposts so treated were the income tax and the duty on tea; one of
them being regarded as a direct tax levied upon property, and the other
as an indirect tax resting upon the mass of the people. Recently,
however, the duties on tobacco, beer and spirits, and the corresponding
excises on beer and spirits, have been increased, and the additions so
made have been voted from year to year.
The budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is followed by a
general discussion of the questions he has raised, and either at once,
or on subsequent days, by debates and votes upon the resolutions he has
brought in. The resolutions when adopted are reported to the House for
ratification, but as in the case of supply, they have no legal effect
until enacted in the form of a statute. Perhaps it would be more correct
to say that they have no legal validity; because in order to prevent
large importations made to avoid a projected increase in a duty, it is
customary to prescribe in the resolution a date near at hand when the
tax shall take effect, and to collect it from that date if the
resolution has been agreed to by the House on report. The collection is
quite unauthorised by law at the time, but it is afterward ratified by a
statute which fixes the same date for the operation of the tax; and this
gives the transaction complete legal validity, because Parliament has
power to pass a retroactive law. If for any reason the provision for the
tax fails of enactment, the duties that have been collected are, of
course, refunded.
[Sidenote: The Finance Act.]
It was formerly the habit to include in the fiscal resolutions based
upon the budget, and in the act to give them effect, the annual and
temporary taxes alone; the permanent taxes, and especially those imposed
rather for economic reasons than for the purpose of revenue, being dealt
with by special acts.[287:1] But the use of taxation for revenue only,
and still more a quarrel with the House of Lords, brought about a change
of system. In 1860 the government determined to repeal the paper duties,
which hindered the publication of cheap newspapers, and were decried as
a tax on knowledge. The loss of revenue was taken into account in the
financial plans of the year; but according to custom the repeal of the
duties was contained in a separate bill by itself. The Lords, after
passing the act to give effect to the rest of the budget, rejected this
bill. At the moment the Commons could do nothing save express their
opinions; but the next year they included the repeal of the paper duties
in the annual tax bill, and the Lords were constrained to pass it; for
although the Peers do not formally admit the claim of the Commons that
they must accept or reject money bills without alteration, they never
venture to amend them. The policy of including all the taxes in one bill
has developed into a permanent practice, and under the name of the
Finance Bill this now includes all fiscal regulations relating both to
the revenue and to the national debt.[288:1]
[Sidenote: The Public Accounts.]
The whole initiative, as regards both revenue and expenditure, lies with
the government alone. The House has merely power to reject or reduce the
amounts asked for, and it uses that power very little. Financially, its
work is rather supervision than direction; and its real usefulness
consists in securing publicity and criticism rather than in controlling
expenditure. It is the tribunal where at the opening of the financial
year the ministers must explain and justify every detail of their fiscal
policy, and where at its close they must render an account of their
stewardship. This last duty is highly important. The House receives
every year reports of the administration of the finances from three
independent bodies, or to be more accurate, it receives two distinct
sets of accounts and one report.
[Sidenote: The Finance Accounts.]
As soon as possible after the close of the financial year, the Treasury
submits the Finance Accounts, which cover all receipts paid into, and
all issues out of, the Consolidated Fund, giving the sources from which
the revenue was derived and the purpose for which the issues were
made.[289:1] As these accounts are based, not upon the sums expended by
the different branches of the government, but upon the amounts
transferred to their credit at the Banks of England and Ireland, they
can be compiled quickly; and, in fact, they are laid before Parliament
near the end of June, about three months after the close of the
financial year to which they relate.
[Sidenote: The Appropriation Accounts.]
Meanwhile the Comptroller and Auditor General--who holds his office
during good behaviour, with a salary paid by statute directly out of the
Consolidated Fund, and who considers himself in no sense a servant of
the Treasury, but an officer responsible to the House of
Commons[289:2]--examines the accounts of the several departments. This
is a matter requiring much time, and it is not until the opening of the
next regular session that he presents what are known as the
Appropriation Accounts,[289:3] covering in great detail the actual
expenditures in all the supply services, with his reports and comments
thereon.[289:4]
[Sidenote: The Committee of Public Accounts.]
His accounts and reports are referred to the Committee of Public
Accounts, which consists of eleven members of the House chosen at the
beginning of the session,[289:5] and includes the Financial Secretary
of the Treasury, some one who has held a similar office under the
opposite party, and other men interested in the subject. It inspects the
accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General's notes of the reason
why more or less than the estimate was spent on each item. It inquires
into the items that need further explanation, examining for the purpose
the auditing officers of the departments, and other persons; and it
makes a series of reports to the House, which refer in detail to the
cases where an excess grant must be made by Parliament, or a transfer
between grants in the military departments must be approved.[290:1]
The Committee of Public Accounts has undoubtedly great influence in
keeping the expenditures very strictly within the appropriations, and
from time to time it expresses its opinions strongly about any laxity in
that respect--remarks that are not forgotten by the officials. But there
has been much complaint that the House itself, while criticising the
administrative conduct of the government freely in the discussion of the
estimates, takes little interest in their financial aspect; and,
therefore, the recent Committee on National Expenditure has suggested
that one day, at least, should be set apart for the discussion of the
report of the Committee on Public Accounts.[290:2]
[Sidenote: Indian Revenue Accounts.]
There are a couple of anomalous cases where, by statute, the estimates
for a service are not voted by Parliament, but the accounts are
afterward submitted to it for approval. This is true of India; and the
provision is a wise one, for it allows the government of that country to
be conducted by the authorities on the spot, who are alone competent to
do it, and yet it reserves to the House of Commons an opportunity for
supervision and criticism. On one of the last days of the session a
motion is made to go into Committee of the Whole to consider these
accounts, and on that motion a general debate on Indian affairs is in
order. In the committee itself only a formal motion is made certifying
the total revenue and expenditure, and debate is confined to the
economic and financial condition of the dependency.[291:1] In the same
way the expenses of Greenwich Hospital are, by statute, defrayed out of
its revenues, but the accounts are submitted to the House annually, with
a resolution for their approval.[291:2]
FOOTNOTES:
[279:1] S.O. 67.
[279:2] S.O. 66. May (527) points out that these two rules, together
with S.O. 68, adopted in 1715, that the House will receive no petition
for compounding a revenue debt due to the Crown without a certificate
from the proper officer stating the facts, were for more than a century
the only standing orders of the House.
[279:3] Todd, "Parl. Govt. in England," 2 Ed., I., 691.
[280:1] As an illustration of the fact that the rise of the authority
exerted by ministers over Parliament was contemporary with the loss by
the King of personal legislative power, Todd (II., 390) remarks that
this rule was first adopted in 1706, and the last royal veto was given
in 1707.
[280:2] British North Amer. Act, Sec. 54. Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act, Sec. 56.
After the government of India was transferred from the East India
Company to the Crown, in 1856, the rule was extended to motions for a
charge upon the Indian revenue. S.O. 70.
[280:3] For France, _cf._ Dupriez, _Les Ministres_, II., 416-17, 421-30;
Lowell, "Govts. and Parties," I., 116-17; for Italy, Dupriez, I.,
316-19; Lowell, 207-9. Owing to the greater cohesion of parties, and to
the fact that the expenditures are contained in a series of separate
acts which can hardly be changed without disturbing the financial
equilibrium, Belgium has suffered little from this cause. Dupriez, I.,
249-52.
[280:4] Todd, I., 692-96. When the main object of a bill is the creation
of a public charge, a resolution for that charge must be passed in
Committee of the Whole upon a recommendation from the Crown before the
bill is introduced. But when the charge is merely subsidiary or
incidental, the bill can be brought in previously, the clauses or
provisions creating the charge being printed in italics. The words so
printed are regarded as mere blanks with an indication of the way they
are eventually intended to be filled, and they cannot be considered by
the House until a Committee of the Whole has passed the necessary
resolutions on a recommendation from the Crown. May, 528-29, 539.
[281:1] May, 538-40; Todd, I., 699-701. By S.O. 69 an address of this
kind must be adopted in Committee of the Whole.
[281:2] "Gleanings of Past Years," I., 81.
[281:3] May, 532, 580.
[281:4] _Ibid._, 580-81. Todd, I., 753.
[282:1] Such reductions are sometimes carried. There was the famous case
in 1895 when a motion was made to reduce the salary of the Secretary of
State for War to draw attention to the alleged lack of supply of
cordite. The defeat of the government in this case furnished the
occasion for the resignation of Lord Rosebery's cabinet. (Hans. 4 Ser.
XXXIV., 1685-1711, 1742.)
In 1904 Mr. Redmond, the leader of the Irish Nationalists, moved to
reduce by 100_l._ the appropriation for education in Ireland, and
obtained a majority of 141 to 130. Mr. Balfour, declining to treat the
matter seriously, remarked that the Irish leader had succeeded in
reducing the grant to Ireland by 100_l._; to which the latter replied
that defeating the government at a cost of 100_l._ was money well spent.
(Hans. 4 Ser. CXXXI., 1141-47.)
Again in 1906 a motion to reduce by 100_l._ the appropriation for the
Irish Land Commission was carried by a vote of 199 to 196. (Hans. 4 Ser.
CXLIX., 1459-86.) After some reflection the government decided that it
was not a sufficient cause either for resignation or dissolution,
although the ministry was undoubtedly losing its hold upon the country.
In each of these three cases the defeat of the government was an
accident, the result of a "snap vote."
[282:2] May, 532-33, 589. Todd, I., 709-12. But this does not apply to
local taxation for local purposes. May, 565-67; Todd, I., 710.
[282:3] May, 533, 589; Todd (I., 711) says that a motion can be made to
increase a tax proposed by the government, but of the two precedents he
cites, one (Hans. 3 Ser. LXXV., 1020) was a motion by the minister to
restore in a sugar duties bill the rate of duty which had been proposed,
but reduced in Committee of Ways and Means; the other (Hans. 3 Ser.
CCXVIII., 1041) was a motion to renew the existing rate of 3_d._ for the
income tax, the government having proposed to reduce it to 2_d._
[283:1] May, 540, 567; Todd, I., 713 _et seq._ Provided the bill does
not incidentally increase some other tax. May, 533.
[283:2] May, 533-35.
[283:3] _Ibid._, 589; Todd, I., 711.
[283:4] S.O. 14 provides that the Committees of Supply and Ways and
Means shall be set up as soon as the address in reply to the King's
speech has been agreed to.
[285:1] On the procedure in the Committee of Ways and Means, and on
Report from Committee of Supply and of Ways and Means, see May, 588 _et
seq._
[286:1] May, 526; Ilbert, "Manual," Sec. 245, note.
[286:2] In order to provide money enough in the Consolidated Fund in
anticipation of receipts from taxation, each of these bills authorises
the Bank of England to advance the sums required, and the Treasury to
borrow on Treasury bills. May, 558, n. 3; Ilbert, Sec. 244.
[287:1] May, 556-57; Todd, I., 791.
[288:1] The name Customs and Inland Revenue Act was changed to Finance
Act in 1894 when the death duties were included in it. In 1899 the
provisions for the sinking-fund were also included. Courtney, "The
Working Constitution of the United Kingdom," 26-28; and see the recent
Finance Acts.
[289:1] In the case of the consolidated fund services the separate
items, _e.g._ the individual salaries, are given. In the case of the
supply services only the amounts issued on account of each grant are
given for the civil service; and for the Army and Navy only the total
amounts.
[289:2] See his evidence before the Com. on Nat. Expend., Com. Papers,
1902, VII., 15, Qs. 764-69, 831.
[289:3] Thus the Parliamentary Papers for 1903 contain the Finance
Accounts for the financial year ending March 31, 1903, and the far more
elaborate Appropriation Accounts for the year ending March 31, 1902.
[289:4] He presents also separate accounts of the consolidated fund
services, and other matters, with reports upon them.
[289:5] S.O. 75. For a brief history of the system of audit, and the
laying of accounts before Parliament, see the memorandum by Lord Welby.
Rep. Com. on Nat. Expend., Com. Papers, 1902, VII., 15, App. 13. See
also the description by Hatschek, in his _Englisches Staatsrecht_
(495-500), of the introduction into England of double entry and the
French system of keeping the national accounts.
[290:1] All the reports of the Committees on Public Accounts from 1857
to 1900, with the minutes made in consequence by the Treasury, have been
collected and printed together from time to time in blue books. There
are now three of these published in 1888, 1893, and 1901, the last
containing an index of all three (Com. Papers, 1888, LXXIX., 331; 1893,
LXX., 281; 1901, LVIII., 161).
[290:2] Rep. Com. on Nat. Expend., Com. Papers, 1903, VII., 483, p. v.
[291:1] May, 564. On July 20, 1906, an amendment to the motion that the
Speaker leave the chair was proposed, to the effect that the salary of
the Secretary of State for India ought to be placed among the regular
Treasury estimates, in order to give a better chance to discuss the
government of India. One of the chief objections made to this was that
it would tend to bring the Indian administration into party politics,
and the amendment was rejected by a large majority. (Hans. 4 Ser. CLXI.,
589-610.)
[291:2] May, 565.
CHAPTER XV
PROCEDURE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
_Closure_
[Sidenote: The Need of Closure.]
Almost all great legislative bodies at the present day have been forced
to adopt some method of cutting off debate, and bringing matters under
discussion to a decisive vote. They have been driven to do so partly as
a defence against wilful obstruction by minorities, and partly as a
means of getting through their work. Although following the path with
great reluctance, the House of Commons has been no exception to the
rule. With the evolution of popular government it has become more
representative and less self-contained. Formerly an important public
measure gave rise to one great debate, conducted mainly by the leading
men, and the vote that followed was deemed to settle the question. The
case had been argued, Parliament had rendered its verdict, and that
ended the matter. But now every one has his eye upon the country
outside. The ordinary member is not satisfied to have the case argued
well; he wants to take part in the argument himself. He wants the
public, and especially his own constituents, to see that he is active,
capable, and to some extent prominent.[292:1] He watches, therefore, his
chance to express his views at some stage in the proceedings.
Moreover, the strategy of the leaders of the Opposition has changed.
They are not trying merely to persuade the House, or to register their
protests there. They are speaking to the nation, striving to convince
the voters of the righteousness of their cause, and of the earnestness,
devotion, and tenacity with which they are urging it. Hence they take
every opportunity for resistance offered by the rules, and fight
doggedly at every step. Just as in war the great battle that settled a
campaign has been replaced by a long series of stubborn contests behind
intrenchments; so in the important issues of parliamentary warfare, the
single conclusive debate has given way to many struggles that take place
whenever the rules afford a means of resistance. This may not be done
for the sake of obstruction or delay, but it consumes time, and it has
made some process of cutting off debate and reaching a vote an absolute
necessity.
[Sidenote: First Used in 1881.]
The first resort to such a process was brought about by deliberate
obstruction. This had been felt to be an evil for a dozen years,[293:1]
and was made intolerable by the tactics of the Irish members in opposing
the introduction of the coercion bill of 1881. Several nights of debate
were followed by a continuous session of forty-one hours; when the
Speaker, on his return to the chair, of which he had been for a time
relieved by his deputy, interrupting the discussion, said that the
dignity, the credit and the authority of the House were threatened, and
that he was satisfied he should but carry out its will by putting the
question forthwith.[293:2] His action was not authorised by standing
order or by precedent, but whether justifiable or not, it marked an
epoch in parliamentary history.
[Sidenote: The Urgency Resolution of 1881.]
Brand, the Speaker, had not come to his decision without consulting
Gladstone, then Prime Minister; and had made his action conditional upon
the introduction of some regular process for coping with
obstruction.[293:3] Gladstone at once gave notice of an urgency
resolution, which was speedily adopted, thanks to the suspension of all
the Irish members for interrupting debate contrary to the orders of the
chair. The resolution enabled a minister to move that the state of
public business with regard to any pending measure was urgent. This
motion was to be put forthwith without debate, and if carried by a
majority of three to one in a House of not less than three hundred
members, was to vest in the Speaker, for the purpose of proceeding with
such measure, all the powers of the House for the regulation of its
business.[294:1]
[Sidenote: Urgency Rules.]
[Sidenote: Closure Rule of 1882.]
The language was vague, but the intent was clear. The urgency resolution
sanctioned for the future the authority recently assumed by the chair.
The Speaker, however, not wishing to make what might appear to be an
arbitrary use of his new powers, laid before the House a number of rules
by which he should be guided;[294:2] and these have furnished the
suggestions for much of the later procedure for curtailing
debate.[294:3] The one dealing with the primary object of the resolution
provided that when it appeared to the Speaker, or to the Chairman in
Committee of Supply or Ways and Means, to be the general sense of the
House that the question should be put, he might so inform the House, and
then a motion made to that effect should be voted upon without debate,
and if carried by a majority of three to one, the original question
should be put forthwith. The urgency motion was used at once to push
through a couple of bills relating to Ireland; but the resolution
expired with the session, and after being revived for a short time the
next year, it was replaced in the autumn of 1882 by a standing order
based upon the Speaker's rules.[295:1] The new order made, however, two
changes in the procedure. Instead of being applicable only after urgency
had been voted, on a motion by a minister, in regard to some particular
measure, it could be used at any time; and instead of requiring a vote
of three to one, it required either a bare majority, if two hundred
affirmative votes were cast, or one hundred affirmative votes, if there
were less than forty votes against it. Instead, therefore, of being a
weapon that could be used only in cases of exceptional obstruction by a
small group, it became a process applicable at any time to limit debate
by the minority. But although apparently a regular part of the procedure
of the House, the motion to cut off further debate could be made only on
the suggestion of the Speaker, and this vested in him an arbitrary
initiative which he was loth to exercise. The standing order was, in
fact, put into operation on two occasions only, on Feb. 24, 1885, and on
Feb. 17, 1887.
[Sidenote: Closure Rule of 1887.]
The difficulty that had been felt in using the procedure was avoided by
the adoption in 1887 of a new standing order[295:2] transferring the
initiative to the members of the House, while securing fair play to
minorities by leaving with the Speaker a power of veto. The rule
provides that any member may claim to move that the question pending be
now put, "and unless it shall appear to the chair that such motion is an
abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the
minority," it shall be put forthwith. If carried, the pending question,
and following it the main question before the House, with all others
depending upon it, must be put without further amendment or
debate.[295:3] The process, now entitled for the first time "closure,"
was modified in 1888, so that the only requirement about the size of
the majority was that one hundred votes must be cast in the affirmative.
In this form it has ever since remained, and it has been freely used,
having been actually applied from one score to four score times each
year.[296:1]
[Sidenote: The Speaker's Consent.]
The requirement of the Speaker's assent has proved to be no mere
formality. This is especially true where closure has been moved by
private members, for his consent, or that of the Chairman of Committees,
has been refused in one third of such cases.[296:2] Largely for that
reason, no doubt, the use of closure by private members has become far
less common than it was formerly. During the first ten years after 1887
it was moved by private members on the average about forty times a year,
but since that period the average has been only twelve. Even in the case
of motions made by a minister, consent has often been withheld. It
happened very frequently during the earlier years, but of late has been
much less common.[296:3] Evidently the Treasury Bench and the Speaker
have come to adopt very nearly the same standard for determining when a
matter has been sufficiently debated. To a spectator in the gallery the
discussion seems to proceed until the House must be thoroughly weary of
it before closure is moved; and, indeed, the House itself very rarely
rejects the motion when it gets a chance to vote upon it--a fact which
shows that if the Speaker had not power to withhold his consent, the
majority would cut short debate more drastically than it does now. But
although debate may have gone on until the House is weary, and the
benches are nearly empty, until the speeches consist mainly of the
reiteration of arguments in less incisive form, yet there are almost
always members who are longing in vain for a chance to make a few
remarks. In great debates the order of the chief speakers on each side
is commonly arranged between the whips, and given to the presiding
officer; who usually follows it, though not without occasional
exceptions. For the rest he gives the preference, among the members who
try to catch his eye, to those who have the ear of the House, or who are
likely to say something worth hearing, not forgetting to call on a new
man who rises to make his maiden speech. By seizing on the dull hours,
when the House is not full, an undistinguished member can often get his
chance. Still, there are many men who sit impatiently with what they
believe to be effective little speeches ready to be fired off upon an
appreciative public, and see their chance slipping away.[297:1] Perhaps
they are bores, but on them the closure falls as a blight, and they
raise the bitter cry of the curtailment of the rights of private
members.
[Sidenote: Closure at the End of a Sitting.]
The closure can be moved at any time, even when a member is speaking,
but perhaps its most effective use is at the close of the sitting. A
standing order adopted in 1888 provides[297:2] that when the hour
arrives for the cessation of debate--technically known as the
interruption of business,--the closure may be moved upon the main
question under consideration, with all others dependent upon it. This
gives an opportunity of finishing a bit of work without appearing to cut
off discussion arbitrarily, and it is especially valuable now that the
new rules of 1902 have established on four days of the week[297:3] two
regular sittings with an interruption at the end of each.
[Sidenote: The Guillotine.]
While the closure is effective in bringing to an end debate on a single
question, or in getting past some one particularly difficult point in
the career of a bill, it is quite inadequate for passing a great,
complicated government measure that provokes relentless opposition. Here
it is as useless as the sword of Hercules against the Hydra. Amendments
bristle by the score at every clause, and spring up faster than they can
be cut off. The motion that certain words "stand part of a clause," or
that a "clause stand part of the bill," was intended to work like the
hero's hot iron, because if the motion is adopted no amendment can
afterward be moved to that word or that clause. But in practice such
motions cannot be used ruthlessly. The government discovered the
insufficiency of the closure under the Standing Order of 1887, during
the debates on the very bill whose enactment it had been adopted to
secure, and resorted to a procedure which had already been used by Mr.
Gladstone on a couple of Irish coercion bills in 1881.[298:1] Five days
had been consumed on the first reading of the Irish Crimes Act of 1887,
seven on the second reading, and fifteen days more had been spent in
Committee of the Whole on four out of the twenty clauses of the bill;
when the government moved that at ten o'clock on June 17, being the end
of the next week, the Chairman should, without further debate, put all
questions necessary to bring the committee stage to an end.[298:2] The
motion was adopted, and from its trenchant operation the process was
known as the "guillotine." It served its purpose, but from the point of
view of parliamentary deliberation it was a very imperfect instrument,
for all the clauses after the sixth were put to vote without amendment
or debate.[299:1]
[Sidenote: Closure by Compartments.]
The defect of the guillotine, that it resulted in needlessly long
discussions on a few early clauses, to the entire neglect of the rest,
was largely remedied in the case of the Home Rule Bill of 1893. After
twenty-eight nights had been spent in committee on the first four
clauses, the House, on June 30, adopted a resolution that debate on
clauses five to eight should close on July 6, on clauses nine to
twenty-six on July 13, on clauses twenty-seven to forty on July 20, and
on the postponed and new clauses on July 27.[299:2] This form of
procedure, sometimes called closure by compartments, has the merit of
distributing the discussion over different parts of the measure, and of
affording at least a probability that any provision exciting general
interest will receive some measure of attention. It was used again on
the Evicted Tenants Bill in 1894,[299:3] and the Education Bill in
1902;[299:4] and may now be said to have become a regular, because a
necessary, practice in the case of difficult and hotly contested
measures. But save in the case of supply, it has been the subject of a
special resolution passed for a particular bill, under what have been
treated as exceptional conditions, and it has found no mention in the
standing orders.[299:5]
[Sidenote: Closure of Supply.]
The guillotine has been applied more systematically to supply. Formerly
the estimates were taken in their order, with the result that much time
was wasted early in the session over trivial matters, like the repairs
of royal palaces in Class I.; while great appropriations of important
departments were rushed through at the fag end of the session.[300:1]
But at the instance of Mr. Balfour a sessional order was passed in 1896
allowing in that session twenty days for supply, with a provision for
taking a vote, without further debate, on every grant left when the days
expired, the time allowed being, he thought, about the average amount
heretofore devoted to the subject.[300:2] As the grants in supply,
unlike the clauses of a bill, can be brought before the House in any
order that the minister may choose, there was not the same need of a
closure by compartments; but in order to remove any fear that the
government might hold back certain appropriations, Mr. Balfour said that
the important grants, and those which any group of members wanted to
discuss, would be taken first.[300:3] The resolution was renewed from
year to year[300:4] until by the new rules of 1902 it was permanently
embodied in the standing orders.[300:5]
As the rule now stands, twenty days,[300:6] all to come before Aug. 5,
are allotted for the consideration of the estimates,[300:7] and on the
days so allotted no other business can be taken before midnight.[300:8]
At ten o'clock on the last day but one the Chairman must put to vote
every question needed to dispose of the grant under consideration; and
then put in succession all the outstanding grants by classes, those in
each class being taken together and put as a single question. At ten
o'clock on the last day the Speaker follows the same process for closing
the report stage of the estimates.
The real object of the debates in supply at the present day is not
financial discussion, but criticism of the administration of the
departments, their work being brought under review as their estimates
are considered.[301:1] In that light the new procedure has worked very
well. Complaint has been made that the government no longer cares what
grants are brought forward for debate--leaving that to the
Opposition,--or how long the discussion upon them may take, or whether
it ends with a vote upon them or not, knowing very well that all these
grants must be adopted under closure when the twenty days expire.[301:2]
This is perfectly true; but on the other hand the procedure gives the
fullest opportunity for criticising the administration, and forcing a
discussion of grievances, the matters to be criticised being selected by
the critics themselves. Although the Opposition, as in duty bound,
resisted the adoption of some portions of the rule, it may be safely
said that the rule itself will not be repealed by any government that
may come to power.
FOOTNOTES:
[292:1] Lecky attributed what he called "the enormous and portentous
development of parliamentary speaking" partly to the scenes of violence
and obstruction, which have weakened both the respect for the House and
the timidity that imposed a restraint on idle speech; partly to the
growth of the provincial press which reports members in full in their
own constituencies; and partly to the vast increase in stump oratory
which has given nearly all members a fatal facility. ("Democracy and
Liberty," I., 146-47.) A traveller is struck both by the universal
fluency, and by the ephemeral character, of public speaking in England,
at the present day.
[293:1] Hans. 3 Ser. CCLVII., 1141-42.
[293:2] Hans. 3 Ser. CCLXVI., 2032-33.
[293:3] Morley, "Life of Gladstone," III., 52-53.
[294:1] Hans. 3 Ser. CCLVIII., 155-56.
[294:2] _Ibid._, 435-38, 1070-71, 1343-44; CCLIX., 888-90; also
published in Com. Papers, 1881, LXXIV., 1-9.
[294:3] Such as that debate on dilatory motions should be confined to
the motion; that the House should go in and out of committee without
question put; that divisions frivolously claimed, and dilatory motions
made for delay might be refused by the chair; and most striking of all,
a provision for stopping debate altogether upon a certain stage of a
bill by putting all outstanding amendments and clauses at a fixed
time--a shadow of the future guillotine. This process was, indeed,
employed by Mr. Gladstone to pass two Irish bills in that very session.
[295:1] A number of new rules were added at this time, and the standing
orders were rearranged and put into their present sequence. Com. Papers,
1882, LII., 139, 243. The standing order on this subject became No. 14.
[295:2] The Standing Order of 1882 was not repealed until 1888.
[295:3] In the same way a motion may be made to put forthwith the
question that certain words stand part of a clause, or that a clause
stand part of the bill, and this cuts off summarily all amendments to
those words or that clause. These standing orders are now Nos. 26 and
27.
[296:1] Owing partly to the extension of an automatic form of closure,
to be explained hereafter, the applications in 1903 fell to thirteen.
[296:2] From 1887 to 1905, inclusive, the closure was moved by private
members 517 times, and consent was refused in 178 of these cases. The
proportion of refusals is almost uniform throughout the period, rather
increasing during the last few years.
Closure has failed for lack of 100 affirmative votes only once in the
last ten years. That was in 1905.
[296:3] From 1887 to 1896, inclusive, the closure was moved by the
government 313 times, and consent was withheld in 52 of these cases.
From 1897 to 1905 it was so moved 338 times, but consent was withheld
only 23 times.
[297:1] _Cf._ Palgrave, "The House of Commons," Ed. of 1878, 41-42.
[297:2] Now S.O. 1 (4).
[297:3] It is commonly stated that closure cannot be used in a standing
committee, (Ilbert, "Manual," Secs. 80, note, 135 note); but it was done
on July 12, 1901, in the Standing Committee on Law; and although the
persons aggrieved stated that they should bring the matter to the
attention of the House, they did not feel confidence enough in their
case to do so. (See _The Times_, July 17, 1901, and the Political Notes
in the number for July 13. Curiously enough the incident is not
mentioned in the report of the meeting of the committee in that number.)
For other statements of its use in a standing committee, _cf._ 2d Rep.
of Sel. Com. on House of Commons (Procedure), May 25, 1906, Qs. 418,
420.
Since this was written closure in standing committees has been
sanctioned by a change in the standing orders; twenty affirmative votes
being required.
[298:1] After giving notice of his intention to do so, he moved, on Feb.
21, 1881, that all clauses and amendments of the Protection of Life and
Property (Ireland) Bill should be put to vote in Committee of the Whole
at twelve o'clock that night. This was done, and repeated upon the
report stage of the bill (Hans. 3 Ser. CCLVIII., 1092, 1344, 1392, 1472,
1608, 1665, 1672-75). The same process was adopted a few days later for
the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill. (Hans. 3 Ser. CCLIX., 657, 659,
691-95,697, 740, 762-65.)
[298:2] Hans. 3 Ser. CCCXV., 1594.
[299:1] Hans. 3 Ser. CCCXVI., 484-88.
[299:2] Hans. 4 Ser. XIV., 590.
[299:3] Hans. 4 Ser. XXVII., 1410-46. In this case, for the first time,
the report stage was included in the original motion.
[299:4] Hans. 4 Ser. CXIV., 735-38.
[299:5] One of the latest and most elaborate examples of its use was on
the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill of 1907. Hans. 4 Ser. CLXXIII.,
1367-70, 1463-66.
[300:1] _Cf._ Hans. 4 Ser. XXXVII., 727.
[300:2] _Ibid._, 732.
[300:3] _Ibid._, 728-730.
[300:4] It may be assumed that the House will never reject any of the
outstanding grants, but a useless number of divisions might be forced in
voting upon them. As the number of such grants is usually little short
of one hundred, the time wasted in walking through the lobbies on the
last night might be monstrous. To avoid this a rule was adopted in 1901
that when the allotted time expired, all the remaining grants in any one
class should be put to vote together. Hans. 4 Ser. XCVIII., 1619-20.
[300:5] S.O. 15.
[300:6] Three more days may be added by special order.
[300:7] These include the votes on account, but only one day can be
given to each of the three votes on account, and only one sitting, or
half a day, to the report of such a vote. Days devoted to supplementary
estimates or votes of credit are not included; nor are those days on
which the question must be put that the Speaker leave the chair, because
those days are really occupied not by the votes of supply, but by
general criticism of the government. (See Chap. XVIII., _infra_.) The
short sitting of Friday counts as half a day.
This does not apply to private bills, questions, and the other matters
that are taken up in the first hour, before the regular orders of the
day are reached.
[301:1] Mr. Balfour said this frankly in the debate on the rule in 1896.
(Hans. 4 Ser. XXXVII., 724-26.)
[301:2] Hans. 4 Ser. XCVIII., 1548.
CHAPTER XVI
PROCEDURE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
_Sittings and Order of Business_
[Sidenote: Sittings of the House.]
After describing the processes of legislation, a word must be said about
the order of business for each day and for the session as a whole. On
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday the House now meets at a
quarter before three, and sits until half-past eleven, when it is
automatically adjourned unless business specially exempted is under
consideration. But the sitting is divided by the mystic hour of a
quarter past eight into two parts which are reserved on certain days for
quite different kinds of business. On Friday the House sits from noon
till half-past five, and on Saturday it does not meet at all unless by
special vote on very rare occasions.[302:1]
[Sidenote: Interruption of Business.]
With the exception to be noted in a moment, all business upon which the
House may be engaged is interrupted at half-past five o'clock on Friday,
and eleven on other days; but unopposed business may still be taken up
until the hour arrives for adjournment. During that interval the orders
of the day are read, and each of them may in turn be debated and even
voted upon, unless a division is challenged, or some member
objects.[303:1] In short, work can be done after the time for
interruption only by universal consent, a single member having power to
prevent the consideration of any measure to which he is opposed. Yet a
certain amount of business is transacted at these times; and, in fact, a
private member's bill would stand little chance, even if no one had any
serious objection to it, unless it could pass through some of its stages
in this way.
[Sidenote: Exceptions Thereto.]
To the rule that no opposed business can be taken after eleven o'clock
there is an important exception. A minister may move at the beginning of
the afternoon sitting that any specified business shall not be
interrupted at that hour, and the question must be put without amendment
or debate. This is often done toward the close of the session, and
results in sittings that run far into the night. Bills originating in
Committee of Ways and Means, and proceedings taken in pursuance of a
statute[304:1] or standing order, are also exempted from the rules about
interruption, about taking up no opposed business after eleven o'clock,
and about adjournment at half-past eleven o'clock.[304:2] It must be
remembered also that closure may be moved after the hour for
interruption has struck.[304:3]
[Sidenote: Order of Business for the Day.]
The first sitting of each day is opened with prayer. The Speaker then
takes the chair, and certain formal or routine business that occupies
little time is taken up in the following order.
1. Private business, that is, bills relating to private or local
matters. Private business, which is unopposed, and therefore takes no
appreciable time, is taken up first. Opposed private business is not
taken up at all on Friday, and if not finished by three o'clock on other
days is postponed to a quarter past eight on such day as the Chairman of
Ways and Means may determine.[304:4]
2. Presentation of public petitions (if presented orally instead of
being dropped silently into a bag behind the Speaker's chair). As a rule
no debate is in order, and hence this process is also short,[304:5] and
must be finished by three o'clock.[304:6]
3. At that hour, on the afternoon sittings, the important business of
putting questions to ministers begins.[305:1] The character and
political effect of these questions will be examined in Chapter XVIII,
but from the point of view of parliamentary time it may be noted that
the practice has grown so much during the last thirty years as to
require some limitation. In 1901 the questions asked numbered 7180, and
consumed 119 hours, or the equivalent of fifteen parliamentary days of
eight hours each.[305:2] The new rules of 1902 sought to check the
tendency in two ways; by giving the option of requiring an oral or a
written answer, the question in the former case being marked in the
notice paper with an asterisk; and by fixing a strict limit to the time
consumed. Forty minutes are allowed for putting questions, the answers
to those not reached by a quarter before four, like the answers to
questions not starred, being printed with the votes of the day.[305:3]
4. If there is a vacant moment before three o'clock, or between the time
questions come to an end and a quarter before four o'clock, it may be
used by motions for unopposed returns, for leave of absence, or for
similar unopposed matters that would otherwise have to be taken up after
the interruption of business.[305:4]
5. Immediately after questions, a member rising in his place may make
the portentous motion "for the adjournment of the House for the purpose
of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance."[305:5]
This is usually, but not necessarily, made in consequence of a highly
unsatisfactory answer that has just been given to a question. It may
seem strange to move to adjourn before serious business has begun, but
as such a motion has not been carried for nearly a score of years that
feature is unimportant, and its real significance in giving a chance to
discuss at short notice some action of the government will be explained
in Chapter XVIII. Formerly the debate upon the motion took place
immediately; but now the member merely obtains--by the support of forty
members, or by vote of the House--leave to make his motion, while the
debate itself is postponed to a quarter past eight o'clock.
6. Then come what are called "matters taken at the commencement of
public business." These are the presentation of bills without an order
of the House or under the ten-minute rule, and motions by a minister
relating to the conduct of business to be decided without amendment or
debate.
7. Finally comes the regular business of the sitting, in the form of
notices of motions or orders of the day. The distinction between these
two classes of business is not easy to explain with precision;[306:1]
but for our purpose it is unimportant, except so far as one class has
precedence over the other. Now the government has authority to arrange
the order of its own business as it pleases;[306:2] and in relation to
private members, orders of the day practically mean bills, and notices
of motion mean resolutions and other matters that are not bills. The
application of the distinction comes, therefore, to this, that of the
sittings set apart for private members, Friday is reserved for their
bills, and Tuesdays and Wednesdays after a quarter past eight o'clock
for their other motions.[306:3]
[Sidenote: Order at Evening Sittings.]
At a quarter past eight o'clock the first business is a motion for
adjournment on an urgent matter of public business, in the occasional
instances where leave has been obtained at the afternoon sitting to make
it. Next follows any postponed private business that may have been
assigned to that evening; and then come the notices of motions and
orders of the day.
By the new arrangement with its definite time for certain business, the
work of the House is better distributed. There is no longer the same
danger that the discussion of a private bill or of a motion to adjourn,
or an interminable series of questions, will unexpectedly cut a great
piece out of the hours when the House is most crowded, and the leading
men are waiting to debate a great public measure. At the afternoon
sitting the regular business of the day is reached at a quarter before
four, or very little later, and it proceeds without interruption until a
quarter before eight. After that hour--unless there is an opposed
private bill, which does not often take long, or by chance a motion to
adjourn--the regular business, which may not be the same as at the
afternoon sitting, begins again, and goes on until eleven. With the
habits of slack attendance when nothing is expected, and the necessity
for a presence in force when a division that touches the Treasury Bench
may be taken, it is a matter of no small import to be able to forecast
the business of a sitting.
The severe pressure for time has thus brought about a minute allotment
of the hours at each sitting for definite kinds of business, and the
same cause has produced a similar, although less exact, distribution in
the work of the session as a whole.
[Sidenote: Order of Business for the Session.]
The regular session of Parliament opens about the beginning of February,
and the first business is the address in reply to the King's speech.
Formerly it was an elaborate affair, which referred to the clauses of
the speech in succession, but since 1890 it has taken the form of a
single resolution expressing simply the thanks of the Commons for his
Majesty's most gracious speech. Amendments are moved by the various
sections of the Opposition in the shape of additions thereto, pointing
out how the government has done things it ought not to have done, and
left undone things it ought to have done; and even members of the
majority, who are disgruntled because their pet hobbies have been left
unnoticed, follow the same course. The debates on the address take
practically the whole time of the House for two or three weeks.[308:1]
As soon as they are over, the Committee of Supply is set up, and sits
one or two days each week, the rest of the sittings being taken up with
government measures, and with business introduced by private members.
Hope springs eternal in the legislative breast, and every assembly
undertakes more work than it can accomplish thoroughly. In some
legislatures this results in a headlong rushing through of measures
almost without discussion at the end of the session. But while, under
closure by compartments and the supply rule, this may be true in England
of certain clauses of bills and of large parts of the appropriations, it
is not true of bills as a whole. Parliament is, primarily, a forum for
debate, rather than a machine for legislation, and bills that cannot be
discussed at some length are dropped. After the Whitsuntide recess every
year, the leader of the House announces that owing to lack of time the
government has found it necessary to abandon such and such measures, a
proceeding familiarly known as the slaughter of the innocents. But it is
not their own bills alone that the ministers are obliged to slay. In
order to get through their own remaining work they have long been in the
habit of taking by special order, after the Easter recess, a part of the
sittings reserved for private members, and of seizing all the rest soon
after Whitsuntide. The practice was regulated and made systematic by the
new rules of 1902; but this brings us to the relation of the cabinet and
of private members to the work of the House, which forms the subject of
the following chapter.
FOOTNOTES:
[302:1] Until 1888 the regular hour of meeting on Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday, and Friday was a quarter before four o'clock; but as there was
no provision for adjournment at any fixed hour, debate on a subject
might go on indefinitely; and, in fact, all-night sittings were common.
In 1879 a standing order had been adopted that no opposed business, not
specially exempted, should be taken up after half-past twelve; but this
did not put a stop to a business in hand at that hour. Owing to the
fatigue caused by late sittings (Temple, "Life in Parliament," 184-85),
a standing order was adopted in 1888 changing the hour of meeting on
those four days to three o'clock, and providing that at midnight the
business under consideration should, unless specially exempted, be
interrupted; that no other opposed business should thereafter be taken
up; and that the House should adjourn not later than one o'clock. The
hours of sitting on Wednesday were left as before at from noon to six
o'clock.
For some time it had been the habit, especially in the latter part of
the session, to break the day occasionally into two sittings, the
earlier one beginning at two o'clock, and being called a morning
sitting. After 1888 these two sittings were held from two until seven,
and from nine until twelve (S.O. of March 7, 1888), the days being
commonly Tuesdays and Fridays.
Now although the system of two sittings a day, with a considerable
interval for dinner, involved beginning at an hour in the afternoon
inconveniently early for men in the active work of a business or
profession, it had certain manifest advantages, and was made the
universal practice in 1902. At that time the standing orders were
extensively revised, and in particular the subject of the sittings, with
the order of business thereat, was remodelled. For the sake of giving
members a chance to pass what is known as the week-end in the country,
the short day was transferred from Wednesday to Friday, the House
meeting on that day at twelve, and adjourning automatically at six (S.O.
2); while each of the other four working days was divided into afternoon
and evening sittings, the first from two until half-past seven, and the
other from nine until one (S.O. 1). Finally in 1906 another change of
hours was made, without, however, any essential alteration in the method
of doing business. The inconvenience of early attendance at the House
was avoided by changing the hour of meeting on Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday to quarter before three, while the hour for the
adjournment was changed to half-past eleven, and a part of the time then
lost was made up by abolishing the formal interval of an hour and a half
for dinner. But although there is now one continuous sitting on each of
these days, the order of business arranged for the two sittings has been
retained, the break coming at a quarter past eight. The hour of
adjournment on Friday was changed at the same time to half-past five.
[303:1] May, 209. Business which is merely formal, or which follows as
of course from action already taken by the House, may be transacted in
spite of objection. May, 210.
[304:1] Under this head is included action upon statutory orders, where
the act provides, as it usually does, that the order shall be laid
before Parliament, and shall not go into effect if either House adopts
an address with that object. Without this exception to the rule the
House would have no real opportunity to adopt such an address, unless
the government chose to give part of its time for the purpose. Ilbert,
"Manual," Sec. 36 note.
[304:2] S.O. 1 (2), (3), (5), (7), (8). Ilbert, Secs. 35-39. The Annual
Army Bill has always been treated as exempted business. _Ibid._, Sec. 36
note.
[304:3] S.O. 1 (4). A division in progress is not interrupted. Ilbert,
Sec. 35 note.
[304:4] Such postponed private business must be distributed as equally
as may be between the days allotted to the government and to private
members. S.O. 8; Ilbert, Sec. 50. The procedure on private bills will be
described in Chap. xx. _infra_.
[304:5] Ilbert, Secs. 51-54, 47 n. S.Os. 76-80.
[304:6] Except in the rare cases where debate is allowed on the ground
that an urgent personal grievance is involved. Ilbert, Sec. 53 (6).
[305:1] S.O. 9. Ilbert, Secs. 55-60. It is not usual to ask on Friday
questions requiring an oral answer. Ilbert, Sec. 56 note.
[305:2] Hans. 4 Ser. CI., 1353.
[305:3] Unless the minister was not present to answer, or the question
did not appear on the notice paper, and is of an urgent character. S.O.
9 (3).
[305:4] In practice a motion for a new writ of election is usually made
before questions, and the introduction of a new member follows them.
Ilbert, Sec. 47 note.
[305:5] S.O. 10.
[306:1] Ilbert, Sec. 41 note. Technically an order of the day is a
matter which is set down for a particular day by an order of the House;
a notice of motion is a motion set down for the day by notice given by a
member without any order of the House; but under the present rules an
order of the House is made in many cases without any actual vote, or
even the opportunity for a vote, the proceedings being in fact much the
same as in the case of a notice of motion. The distinction remains,
however, as a means of classifying different kinds of business.
[306:2] S.O. 5.
[306:3] S.O. 4.
[308:1] As Redlich remarks (_Recht und Technik_, 315-16), the speech
having a general political character, debate and amendment are not
limited by any rule of relevancy, but stray over every kind of political
grievance or aspiration and the whole foreign and domestic policy of the
government. He points out that until 1880 the debate rarely took more
than a couple of days, but since that time the number of sittings
devoted to it has run from six to sixteen.
CHAPTER XVII
THE CABINET'S CONTROL OF THE COMMONS
[Sidenote: A Body of Men can say only Yes or No.]