“Then the Speaker stood up and said, ‘… All that will have a man
that hath been against the Body of the Bill to be a Committee, let
them show their opinions by saying _Yea_.’ And not one said _Yea_.
‘All that will not, say _No_.’ And all said _No_.”
I take this important precedent from Townshend’s “Historical
Collections: or, An Exact Account of the Proceedings of the Four Last
Parliaments of Q. Elizabeth,” pp. 208, 209. The same account is found
also in D’Ewes’s “Journals of all the Parliaments during the Reign of
Queen Elizabeth,” pp. 634-35.
Thus, on submission of the question by the Speaker, the House
unanimously decided that they would “not have a man that hath been
against the Body of the Bill to be a Committee.” According to the
report, “All said _No_”; and that unanimous “No” is the voice of
Parliamentary Law, repeated ever since. The phrase “against the Body
of the Bill” is strong and suggestive, showing the purpose to exclude
those who were unfriendly to the measure.
Following the history of the rule, we meet it again, as stated by
Hakewel in his “Modus tenendi Parliamentum,” published in 1671:--
“He that speaketh directly against the body of the bill may not
be named a committee; for he that would totally destroy will not
amend.”[31]
Here again is the declared purpose to save the measure from the hands
of enemies.
Then follows a case remarkable for words which have become familiar
in Parliamentary Law. It was that of Colonel Birch, who, February 11,
1677, brought into Parliament a Bill for Settling a Public Register for
Lands in the several Counties, and in his remarks said:--
“I begged you formerly _not to put the child to a nurse that cared
not for it_. For it was formerly committed to two lawyers, and the
thing was lost.”[32]
Here the commitment of a bill for reform in law to “two lawyers” was
condemned, because they were a nurse that did not care for it; and the
casual remark of the author of the bill has become historical. There
is good law as well as sense in his saying, that a child is not put
to a nurse that cares not for it. Parliamentary Law, in the creation
of special committees, always seeks those who care for the business,
whatever it may be. One against an inquiry, or believing that there is
no occasion for it, is repudiated by this rule, so just and benign, and
also so venerable with years.
The preparation of articles of impeachment against the Earl of Danby,
Lord High Treasurer in the reign of Charles the Second, December 21,
1678, presented the same rule in another aspect. It was no longer a
bill, but an inquiry or investigation, when the Speaker said:--
“No man, by the ancient rules of the House, is to be of a committee
of a _thing_ he is against.”[33]
Here the language is somewhat broadened, though in entire keeping with
the other cases. A man cannot be on a committee “of a _thing_ he is
against.” In other words, if he is against the inquiry for which a
committee is created, he cannot be on it. And here again good faith
requires that the rule should be observed not merely in form, but in
substance.
These cases were analyzed and adopted by Mr. Jefferson in his
authoritative “Manual”; so that they have become American Parliamentary
Law, as obligatory here as in England. Speaking always by their
essential reason, but with the weight of precedent also, they are not
less binding than if promulgated with an enacting clause.