1840.] Francesco Francia before the St. Cecilia of Raphael. In the gloom Of the apartment stood fair groups of young Bright with the sunlight of the enraptured soul— The deep enchantment of those beings who All forms of beauty, and had stored them there- Before them stood, Baring, in the dim light, his silvered brow, The master. Silently he stood and long, As if a phantom of the glorious past Had risen radiantly before his eyes- Had opened to his vision, and he seemed Dashed from before him, as a fairy dream Around about him, with their rainbow hues,- Had dwelt 'mid its effulgence. Long he gazed Him slowly from its sunny light away, Heart-broken-wrecked in spirit! On his couch How strangely fashioned is the human heart, Under the burden of pale want, and still Oh! At midnight, by the dim lamp's glimmering light- Which warns us that our days were spent in vain! RAPHAEL. November, 1839. ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THE following paper, drawn up by Mr. Garland, Clerk of the House of Representatives, will be found worthy of attention, from the clear view which it presents of the Common Law of Parliament, as applicable to the organization of the House of Representatives. This is the same document of which so many erroneous ideas are afloat, in consequence of the severe denunciation which the Whigs at the commencement of the present Congress bestowed upon it in advance, in order to prevent its being read. Instead of the "partisan diatribe concocted by a presumptuous subordinate," " which it was described to *"Presumptuous subordinate." This language, applied by a member of Congress to the Clerk of the House, is something more than mere calling of names. The public sense will reprove in it not alone the indecency of the expressions-for that soils only him who uses it--but the higher offence in this country of attempting to stigmatize a man's occupation, and the necessary implication of the words that there are some positions and employments which, for the time being, render one be by those who neither knew nor would know any thing of it, it will be found to be a judicial and historical investigation of a question possessing the highest national interest, and executed in a manner to which no one of those who so clamorously denounced it can take exception. We preserve it with pleasure in the Democratic Review, not merely for the enduring interest of its subject, but because of its bearing upon the New Jersey question, which has so strongly engrossed the public attention, and with the merits of which our readers are already fully acquainted. Fortunately, as one fruit of its painful experience in this matter, the country now is able to judge exactly how far the course here proposed to be pursued was right-how far it would have been best as an alternative, and how justly it will compare with the method proposed, and tried by the Whigs, in the great essentials of moderation, propriety, justice, and efficiency. Congress having adopted no general law to ascertain the title of those who claim a seat in the House of Representatives, nor any rule to organize the House itself in the meaning of the Constitution, the following investigation is undertaken, with a view of eliciting from former precedents in past usage, those general principles of parliamentary law which should be received and acknowledged until modified by positive enact ment. The Commons House of Parliament in Great Britain, from time immemorial, has been organized after the strictest mode of legal processes. Whenever a Parliament was to be called, the King gave warrant to the Lord Chancellor to summon the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and to issue writs of election for the several counties, cities, and boroughs, directed to the sheriffs of the same. By virtue of this authority, the sheriffs sent their precepts to the election officers, commanding them to hold elections in those places entitled to representation in Parliament. Returns of the elections in the form of indenture were sent to the sheriff, and by him attached to the original writ and forwarded to the Crown office, whence they originated, and were there filed. From these, in one authentic book, the names of all the knights, citizens, and burgesses were certified to the Clerk of the House of Commons, on the day the writs were returnable, (being the day for the meeting of Parliament.) The Lord Steward of the King's household, in an ante-room, attended by the Clerk of the Crown and Clerk of the Commons, with the rolls of such names of the Commons as were returned, commanded the rolls to be called, and those who answered to man above another, and better than another. There is in this light something in the use of such contemptuous expressions, that strongly tends to show how far some people might forget themselves, morally and politically, did not the perpetual check of public opinion at once apply the corrective by making them ridiculous. This ceremony com their names received the oaths required by law. pleted, the members took their seats in the House, and waited a summons from the King to come into his presence. After hearing the King's speech, leave was then granted them to assemble in their usual place of meeting, and to make a choice of one from among themselves to be their "mouth and Speaker." The nomination was generally made by one of the King's officers, and agreed to without a division; if, however, others were named, the House proceeded to the question, and directed the Clerk "sitting at the Board, (as the order is before the Speaker be chosen,) to make the question." From this mode of procedure, two important conclusions are to be drawn: first, that the Commons were regularly organized and constituted a House, capable of propounding and deciding questions before the election of a Speaker. When the roll had been called, members had answered to their names, taken the oaths prescribed by law, and seated themselves in their usual place of meeting, there was then a House of Commons. The appointment of one to be their mouth-piece was important for their own convenience, but not necessary to constitute a House. There were Parliaments before Speakers is an ancient and significant phrase. Indeed, we are told by historians that at first there were no Speakers; but some person was selected as "Spokesman," for each particular occasion; that then the same individual was nominated for the entire session--qui avait les paroles par les Communes; and not until the time of Richard II. was he styled parlour pur les Communes, or Speaker of the Commons. A memorable case occurred in the time of James II. in 1678, when the Commons were without a Speaker for an entire week, and at last prorogued without having made an election. They at first had selected Sir Francis Seymour, and presented him to the King for confirmation, supposing the ancient usage in that respect to be a mere ceremony; but the King, wishing to test the strength of his prerogative, refused to sanction the nomination. They then returned to their own House without any one at their head, Sir Francis not making his appearance. This occurrence was on Friday, and until the next Thursday, the House were engaged in long and warm discussions on various subjects, adjourning at the same time from day to day. Propositions were made to appoint a chairman, and rejected. Committees were appointed to hold conferences with the King; others with the House of Lords; others again to search the records for precedents to guide their proceedings; and after a week thus spent in fruitless efforts, they were disbanded, without coming to a conclusion among themselves, or an agreement with the King. This case is to be found in Grey's Debates, vol. 6, page 404. The old Colonial Assemblies, having the British Parliament as a model, were organized in the same way; and our State Legislatures also, varying only in a few unimportant particulars. Whenever, at the time appointed, members presented themselves at the seat of government, assembled in heir usual place of meeting, took the oaths prescribed by law, and ascer tained a quorum to be present by the calling of a roll-there was then duly constituted a House, competent to entertain and decide all propositions touching the privilege of members, the claim to contested seats, and whatever else might appertain to their more complete organization. There are doubtless many gentlemen here present who remember cases similar to the one referred to in the British Parliament, where their own Legislatures were engaged for days in discussing and deciding questions before the election of Speaker, that office being regarded, as it undoubtedly is, a mere instrument, a labor-saving machine to themselves. The second conclusion to be drawn from an observation of the mode of organizing Parliament, is the extreme liability to fraud, and the imposition of spurious members. None but those whose names are recorded on some return, filed in the Crown office, are permitted to take their seats. It is obvious, therefore, that two officers alone, or either one-the Sheriff of the county, who makes the return, and the Clerk of the Crown who files it--have it in their power to make such returns as they please. Perceiving the great advantage he possessed, the King, at an early period, attempted to interfere and dictate who should be returned to the Commons. In 1603 Sir Francis Goodwyn was elected from the county of Berkshire, returns were made in due form, and sent to the Crown office; the King pronounced him ineligible, and ordered the Chancellor to issue a new writ, which was done. Sir John Fortesque, one of the King's Council, was elected, the returns filed, and his name placed on the rolls of Parliament. The sturdy and free-hearted yeomanry of those old days promptly resisted this procedure, and in process of time succeeded in wresting from the King his assumed prerogative of interfering with the returns of members filed in his office of chancery. Driven from this strong-hold, he resorted to the next, which proved to be the most vulnerable point. By means of secret agents and emissaries, he completely effected his object, in bribing and suborning the sheriffs and their assistants. The books of law, and the reports of parliamentary decisions, are absolutely filled with cases of defective and partial returns, double returns, and false returns, knowingly and fraudulently made by those who had taken an oath to act justly and impartially, but who could not resist the rewards or the threats of a monarch and his nobility. So thoroughly corrupt had Parliament become, in consequence of the frauds practised on the returns of its members, that a rule was adopted in process of time by which those returns were very little regarded. Perceiving that a rigid adherence to legal processes and technicalities had not only broken down the character and integrity of the Commons, but was fast becoming the means of undermining the liberties of the people, they soon learned to draw a just and obvious distinction between a civil and political process-holding that a strict interpretation of the one might screen the community from the grinding exaction of creditors, while a strict adherence to the other |