페이지 이미지
PDF

chapter equal, voted in favour of a resolution regarding the practice XIIL of the house in cases of bribery at elections, because the resolution was merely declaratory of what are the powers, and what is the duty of the house.1

(8) On a motion for an address to the Crown in behalf of political offenders, 25th May, 1841, Mr. Speaker declared himself with the noes, as "the vote, if carried, would interfere with the prerogative of the Crown." 2

(4) On a question for referring a petition, complaining of bribery at Bridport, to a committee of inquiry, 19th May, 1846, the numbers being equal, Mr. Speaker declared himself with the noes, because the house had no better means of forming a judgment upon the question than a committee, who had declined to entertain it, and it was open to an elector of the borough, under the provisions of the Act 5 & 6 Vict. c. 2, to present another petition to the house.3

(5) The numbers being equal on the third reading of the Church Bates Abolition Bill, 19th June, 1861, the Speaker gave his casting vote against the bill, stating that it appeared to him that a prevailing opinion existed in favour of a settlement of the question, different, in some degree, from that contained in the bill; and that he thought he should best discharge his duty by leaving to the future judgment of the house to decide what change in the law should be made, rather than to take the responsibility of the change on his single vote.4

(6) On the 24th July, 1862, the numbers being equal on a question for disagreeing to a Lords' amendment, the Speaker said he should support the bill, as passed by this house.6

(7) The numbers being equal upon a proposed resolution • relative to Trinity College (Dublin), 24th July, 1867, Mr.

Speaker stated " that this was an abstract resolution, which, if agreed to by the house, would not even form the basis of legislation: but undoubtedly the principle involved in it was one of great importance, and, if affirmed by a majority

1 81 C. J. 887. vote "noe " on second reading of a

'96 ib. 844. bill, 2nd April, 1821, 7G ib. 229.

* 101 ib. 731. s 168 H. D. 3 8. 785.

'116 ib. 282. See also Speaker's

of the house, it would have much force. It should, how- chapter

XIII

ever, be affirmed by a majority of the house, and not merely L_

by the casting vote of its presiding officer. For these reasons he declared himself with the noes."1 Speaker's But while in the chair the Speaker is thus restrained, by cCmiuee" usage, in the exercise of his independent judgment, in a committee of the whole house he is entitled to speak and vote like any other member. Of late years, however, he has generally abstained from the exercise of his right. This punctilious impartiality was not formerly observed by Speakers. Among the earliest examples are those of Mr. Speaker Glanville, on the 4th May, 1640, upon the granting of twelve subsidies to the king;2 and of Mr. Speaker Lenthall, on the 22nd January, 1641, against the " brotherly gift" to the Scottish nation.3 Sir Fletcher Norton spoke strongly on the influence of the Crown, on the 6th April, 1780; and Mr. Speaker Grenville, on the Regency question, on the 16th January, 1789.4 On the 17th December, 1790, Mr. Speaker argued, at length, the question of the abatement of an impeachment, by a dissolution of Parliament, and cited a long list of precedents.6 On the 4th December, 1797, Mr. Speaker Addington addressed the committee on the assessed taxes, from the gallery.6 The same Speaker also addressed a committee on the union with Ireland, in 1799;7 and again, 6th May, 1800, spoke in the committee upon the Inclosure Bill.8 In committee on the charges against the Duke of York, 16th February, 1809, Mr. Speaker Abbot moved the commitment of Captain Sandon, a witness, for prevarication.9 Again, on the 1st June, 1809, he made a •speech in committee on Mr. Curwen's bill for preventing the

1 122 C. J. 395. On two occasions ■the Speaker has voted for the postponement of a proceeding to a future day, 9th Aug. 1878, 142 H. D. 3 s. 1712; 25th July, 1887,142 C. J. 397.

'1 Lord Clarendon, Hist. 242.

3 D'Ewes, Notes on Long Parlia-
ment; Harleian MSS. (162), p. 160.

* 27 Pari. Hist. 970.
28 ib. 1043.

• 1 Lord Colohester's Diary, 121.

'12th Feb. 1799, 1 Lord Sidmouth's Life, 219. 225; 1 Lord Colchester's Diary, 175; and see 34 Pari. Hist. 448; 2 Plowden's Hist, of Ireland, 909.

• 1 Lord Colohester's Diary, 203.

• 12 H. D. 1 s. 743; 2 Lord Colchester's Diary, 166.

Chapter sale of seats in Parliament;1 and on the 4th February, 1811, in committee on the Lords' resolution for a commission for giving the royal assent to the Regency Bill.4 Finally he addressed a committee on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, in 1818, and carried an amendment excluding Catholics from Parliament, whtch caused the abandonment of the Bill.8 On the 26th March, 1821, Mr. Speaker Manners Sutton spoke in committee on the Roman Catholic Disability Bill;4 and again on the 6th May, 1825, in committee on a similar bill;5 and on the 2nd July, 1834, in committee on the bill for admitting dissenters to the universities, he spoke against the principle of the bill.6 On the 4th August, 1848, Mr. Speaker Shaw Lefevre spoke in committee of supply on a point of order,7 and on the 21st April, 1856, in the same committee, the management and patronage of the British Museum by the principal trustees having been called in question, he spoke in defence of himself and his colleagues, with great applause.8 And lastly, on the 9th June, 1870, Mr. Speaker Denison spoke and voted in committee on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, in support of a clause exempting horses kept for husbandry from licence duty, if used in drawing materials for the repair of roads.9

After the division, the division lists are examined by the Publication clerks, and sent off to the printer, who prints the marked listsTM'TM names in their order; and the division lists are delivered on the following morning, together with the " Votes and Proceedings " of the house.10 If an error occurs in marking the Clerical name of a member upon the division list, the error is corrected upon application made at the table of the house, or to one of the division clerks, by a memorandum published, at the earliest opportunity, in the "Votes and Proceedings."

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Divisions in In committees of the whole house, divisions were formerly chapter committee-taken by the members of each party crossing over to the XIIL opposite side of the house: but the same forms are now observed in all divisions, whether in the house or in committee. A division in committee cannot be taken unless there be two tellers for each side, as in the house itself.1 Divisions It is in the power of two members, when a-question is put daime"S'} from the chair, to compel the house to take a division thereupon; and experience proved the necessity of placing this power under some restraint.2 By standing order 27th November, 1882, power was given to the chair, under certain restrictions, to take the vote of the house upon dilatory motions, such as a motion to adjourn a debate, by calling upon the members who challenged the decision of the chair, to rise up in their places. This standing order was *w "Ps. o. 3o, repealed during the session of 1888; and a standing order to a division Appendix!. vM pag8e^ thereby the Speaker or the chairman, if in his Jofw/' °' opinion a division is frivolously or vexatiously claimed, may P- 253>n-3take the vote of the house or committee, by calling upon the members who support, and who challenge his decision, to rise successively in their places; and he, thereupon, as he may think fit, either declares the determination of the house or the committee, or names tellers for a division. In case there is no division, the number of the minority who have risen is declared from the chair,8 and their names, having been taken down in the house, are printed with the lists of divisions,4 but the record of these names is not numbered in the list as if it were a division.3 Proiies In the Lords, not only those peers who are present may (Lords). Toj.e jn a division, Dufc on certain questions, absent peers

1 105 C. J. 364. 3 Members who have proceeded to

2 In the American House of Re- the lobby, before the question has presentatives it is a rule that "No beeu put a second time, intending to division and count of the house shall vote with the minority cannot claim be in order, but upon motion seconded subsequently to have their names by at least one-fifth of a quorum of added to this list, 135 Pari. Deb. 4 the members." See also the author's s. 707.'

pamphlet on Public Business in Par- 4 145 C. J. 580; 146 ib. 476; 147

liament, 1849, 2nd edit. p. 29, and ib. 102, &c.

the report of the committee on publio s 48 Pari. Deb. 4 a. 1248; 135 ib.

business, in 1878. 721.

are entitled, by ancient usage, regulated by several standing orders, to vote by proxy.1 In 1867, however, a Lords' committee recommended that the practice of using proxies should be discontinued; and on the 31st March, 1868, by standing order No. 34, the house agreed to discontinue the practice of calling for proxies, and resolved that two days' notice must be given of a motion for the suspension of the standing order.

No attempt has since been made to suspend this order, and the practice, though capable of being revived on any occasion, at the pleasure of the house, may be regarded as in abeyance.

A practice, similar in effect to that of voting by proxy, has P*ii for many years been resorted to in both houses. A system known by the name of "pairs," enables a member to absent himself, and to agree with another member that he also shall be absent at the same time.2 By this mutual agreement, a vote is neutralized on each side of a question, and the relative numbers in the division are precisely the same as if both members were present. The division of the house into distinct political parties facilitates this arrangement, and members pair with each other, not only upon particular questions, or for one sitting of the house, but for several weeks or even months at a time. There can be no parliamentary recognition of this practice, although it has never been expressly condemned;8 and it is therefore conducted privately by individual members, or arranged by the gentlemen known as "the whips," who are entrusted by their political parties with the office of collecting their respective forces on a division.

1 During the king's illness, in 1811, it was doubtful whether proxies were admissible; see 18 H. D. 976.

2 On an occasion when, the House of Commons, having met on Monday, sat until half-past one o'clock On Tuesday afternoon, members who paired on Monday for " the night" voted in divisions which took place after nine o'clock on Tuesday morning, because, as they had not paired for "the sitting," but for "the

night," it was held that the compact terminated on Tuesday morning. Doubts having arisen regarding this course of action, a memorandum was drawn up by the "whips" for the government and for the opposition, for their guidance, if a similar occasion arose.

3 A motion condemning this practice, Gth March, 1743, was negatived, on division, 24 C. J. 602.

« 이전계속 »