CHAPTER XXII. PROCEEDINGS ON OPPOSED BILLS:-HEARING BY SELECT COM- COMMITTEES OF APPEAL. Three stages WHEN Committees on petitions for Bills reported favourfor hearing opposed Bills. ably, and the Bills were introduced, opposing petitioners, according to old practice, might be heard at the bar, in Committee of the whole House, or before Select Committees. Both Houses used their discretion in fixing the stage for hearing, and varied it according to convenience or the circumstances of each case. With other points of procedure, however, this will be more conveniently treated in the next chapter, along with the employment of counsel in Parliament. Here the system of constituting Committees on private Bills will be mainly considered. Lords' Committees not always peers. References of these Bills to Committees by either House are among the earliest entries in the Journals, and no doubt are of still more ancient date. But members of Committees in the Lords were not always peers. In 1511 a private Bill was referred by this House to Serjeants-at-law, who appear to have reported that a new Bill was necessary.1 In the same Session five peers were appointed to consider a Bill for abolishing the corporation of stock-fishmongers and investigate complaints against this body. Two commoners, John Fyneux and Robert Reed, were named on the Committee. No description of them is given, and no reason for nominating them. At this period, and down to the present century, the Assisted by Judges and Judges, who were "assistants," and the Serjeants, who, with Serjeants. the Masters in Chancery, were "attendants," in the House of Lords, were frequently appointed to Committees on private Bills, no doubt to advise the peers upon legal points. King's counsel ordered "to attend on the woolsacks were "never to be covered" while the House was sitting, whereas the Judges so attending might be covered on receiving leave from the House, conveyed through the Lord Chancellor.3 In Committees neither Judges nor counsel were allowed to sit or be covered, "unless it be out of favour for infirmity. ."4 Judges also acted as assistants to Committees on Judges attending and public Bills. On December 6, 1641, a Bill "for the relief advising of captives taken by the Turkish and Moorish pirates, and to prevent the taking of others in time to come," was referred Bills. to a Committee of eighteen prelates and peers, with Justice Reeves, Justice Foster, and Justice Malett as assistants.5 Committees on public Committees. As early as 1640-2 we find directions given by the House Notice of of Commons for due notice of the sittings of Committees. Time of meeting. Place of meeting. All chairmen were "required to set up notes at the door of the times and places when the several Committees do meet." Similar directions were given by the House in 1657 and 1660, the duty being then delegated to the clerk, "that persons may take notice when they sit." In 1699 Committees were ordered not to sit "without a week's public notice thereof set up in the lobby." The early hours kept by ancient Parliaments extended to their Committees. In 1648 it was ordered that no Committee of the House of Commons should sit in the morning after nine o'clock, and the House was "enjoined to meet every day at nine a.m."4 A different method was adopted in 1694, when it was ordered "that no Committee sit in the morning without special leave of the House." Even then no Committee authorized to sit in a morning was to do so after ten o'clock. In 1699 Committees were directed not to meet at any time" until two hours after the rising of the House."" But this rule was abandoned in favour of the old practice, by which Committees met before the House sat. A rule of 1620 enjoins Commons' Committees not to sit on Saturday afternoons.8 Accommodation seems to have been wanting in the House of Commons for the meetings of Committees. They used to deliberate in the Star Chamber, the Treasurer's Chamber, the Chequer Chamber, using rooms commonly appropriated for other purposes. In default of space when these rooms were occupied, the Committees between the years 1571 and 1580 were frequently appointed to meet in the Temple Church.9 Another place of meeting was at the Savoy. The Guildhall was frequently used for Commons' Com 1 2 Com. Journ. 67, A.D. 1640. Ib. 549; April 30, 1642. 2 Ib. January 21, 1657; May 26, 1660. 3 13 Ib. 6. * Com. Journ. February 12, 1648. Ib. November 19, 1694. Revived February 9, 1697, and November 29, 1710. 6 Ib. February 18, 1697. 7 Ib. April 19, 1699. 8 1 Ib. 513. 9 Ib. 85 et seq. mittees upon Bills relating to trade or affecting the City, as the Free Grammar School at Tonbridge; a Bill introduced in 1572" against injuries offered by Corporations in the City of London to divers foreign artificers"; a Bill "touching the making of woollen cloths"; and another "for cutting and working tanned leather." In 1604, and for many years afterwards, the Middle Temple hall, then just rebuilt, was frequently appointed for inquiries by Committees of the House. The Inner Temple, Lincoln's Inn, and Goldsmiths' halls were also used for the same purpose. Besides occasional want of accommodation, there was another reason why Committees had these distant places of meeting. Inconvenience arose from the attendance of strangers at Committees within the precincts of the House. It was therefore ordered in 1650 “that such Committees of the House who shall have occasion to call any other persons to attend them upon any Bill, or other business to them referred, do from henceforth forbear to sit in any of the rooms within the doors of the Parliament-House, called the Speaker's Chamber, but that they sit in such other place as they shall think fit.”3 During the Commonwealth, or perhaps earlier, a practice Abuse of appears to have grown up, by which Committees took upon Committees. themselves to issue directions and impose conditions which derogated from the authority of Parliament. In the year 1641, one Theophilus Man petitioned the House of Commons, setting forth that a Committee, over which Mr. King presided, had passed a resolution, signed by the chairman, directing the petitioner not to take any fees in his office as searcher until further orders. Thereupon the House declared “that no Committee ought by vote to determine the right and property of the subject, without first acquainting the House therewith."4 Some days afterwards there was further debate upon this question, and it was resolved "that no vote passed at a Committee of this House, and not reported or confirmed by the House, shall be any rule or direction in any court of 1 1 Com. Journ. 97, 106-7. 2 Ib. 154-5. 3 Com. Journ. Dec. 20, 1650. 4 Ib. July 28, 1641. powers by Business of justice in Westminster Hall, to ground any proceedings upon." Some authority, however, must then have attached to orders of Committees, for in 1651 the House of Commons resolved, “that every order made by any Committee of Parliament shall from henceforth be signed by so many at the least of the members of that Committee as are of the quorum of that Committee." As a means of making a House, it was usual for the suspended at Serjeant-at-Arms to go into each Committee Room, with the meeting of House. Mace on his shoulder, whereupon all members were bound to proceed at once to the House, because private must always give way to public business. Repeated directions to this effect were given to Committees; when the Serjeant came to any Committee and announced that the House had met, the chairman must "immediately come away."3 A special order from the House was declared necessary for any breach of this "constant rule." To prevent infractions, which seem to have been frequent, the House declared, in 1699, that "what Committees shall do after the sitting of the House be void." 5 This order was repeated in 1701 and 1707,6 and was extant in 1846. Committees in the Lower House are now warned by a doorkeeper when " Mr. Speaker is at prayers," but their proceedings afterwards are no longer deemed invalid if merely prolonged for a few minutes. When the sitting Some results is continued, permission is obtained from the House. of the old rule. Attempt to defeat Bills A point often and hotly discussed, was whether the chairman of a Committee might put the question for adjournment after receiving the Serjeant's message, and before the Speaker was actually in his place. This difficulty was generally avoided by settling the question of adjournment early in the sitting. If it were not so disposed of, the Committee, not having appointed a day for their next meeting, ceased to exist, unless revived by order of the House, and the Bill might be lost. Sometimes the question of adjournment was vexatiously 1 Com. Journ. August 6, 1641. 2 Ib. May 1, 1651. 3 2 Ib. 191; A.D. 1642. 4 11 Ib. 126; A.D. 1693. Ib. 714; 15 Ib. 448. |