Personal in terest. Peers. Commons. When a protest has been drawn up, any peer may either subscribe it without remark, if he assent to all the reasons assigned in it; or he may signify the particular reasons which have induced him to attach his signature.1 In 1796, a general resolution was proposed in the lords, "That no peers shall vote who are interested in a question;" but it was not adopted. It is presumed, however, that such a resolution was deemed unnecessary; and that it was held, that the personal honour of a peer will prevent him from forwarding his own pecuniary interests by his votes in Parliament. In the commons, it is a distinct rule, that no member who is personally interested in a question shall be allowed to vote upon it; but this interest must be direct and peculiar, and not merely of a general or remote description. On the 3d June 1824, a division took place on a "Bill for repealing so much of an Act 6 Geo. 1, as restrains any other corporations than those in the Act named, and any societies or partnerships, from effecting marine insurances, and lending money on bottomry." An objection was made to the numbers declared by the tellers, that certain members who voted with the yeas, were personally interested in the passing of the bill, as being concerned in the Alliance Insurance Company; but it was decided that they were not so interested as to preclude their voting for the repeal of a Public Act.3 On the 20th May 1825 notice was taken that a member who had voted with the yeas on the report of the Leith Docks Bill, had a direct pecuniary interest in passing the bill. He was heard in his place; and having allowed that he had a direct pecuniary interest in passing the bill; that on that account he had not voted in the committee on the bill; and that he had voted, in this instance, through inadvertence, his vote was ordered to be disallowed.* In some cases, also, members who have been subscribers to undertakings, have voted in favour of bills before the house, for carrying them into effect; and when they have admitted that they were subscribers, their votes have been disallowed." 1 But the protest or reasons may be ordered to be expunged. 43 Lords' J. 82. 5 80 Com. J. 110. 91 Ib. 271. But it is not sufficient to be interested in a rival undertaking. On the 22d February 1825, a member voted against a bill for establishing the London and Westminster Oil Gas Company, and notice was taken that he was a proprietor in the Imperial Gas Light and Coke Company, and thereby had a pecuniary interest in opposing the bill. A motion was made that his vote be disallowed, but after he had been heard in his place, it was withdrawn.1 If any doubt should be entertained by the house whether a vote should be disallowed or not, the member whose vote is under consideration should withdraw immediately after he has been heard in his place, and before the question is proposed.2 Upon the same principle that every member should be free from any pecuniary interest in the votes he may give, it was resolved, on the 2d May 1695, "That the offer of any money, or other advantage, to any Offer of money. member of Parliament, for the promoting of any matter whatso ever, depending or to be transacted, in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanor, and tends to the subversion of the English constitution.”3 And, more recently, it has been declared contrary to the law and usage of Parliament, for any member to be engaged in the management of private bills for pecuniary reward.1 And, upon the same grounds, it was ordered, on the 6th Counsel. November 1666, “That such members of this house as are of the long robe shall not be of counsel on either side, in any bill depending in the Lords' House, before such bill shall come down from the Lords' House to this house."5 CHAPTER XIII. Mode of appointment. Chairman of lords' committees. Chairman of committees in the commons. A COMMITTEE of the whole house is, in fact, the house itself, presided over by a chairman, instead of by the speaker. It is appointed in the lords by an order "that the house be put into a committee," which is followed by an adjournment of the house during pleasure. In the commons it is appointed by a resolution, "That this house will resolve itself into a committee of the whole house;" after which a question is put by the speaker, viz.: "That I do now leave the chair;" and when that is agreed to, the speaker leaves the chair immediately, the mace is removed from the table, and the committee commences its sitting. The chair is taken, in the lords, by the chairman of committees, who is appointed at the commencement of each session, by virtue of the following resolutions of the 23d July 1800 "That this house will, at the commencement of every session, proceed to nominate a chairman of committees of this house. "That such lord as shall be nominated, do take the chair in all committees of the whole house, unless where it shall have been otherwise directed by this house." 1 If a In the commons the chair is generally taken by the chairman of the committee of ways and means. difference should arise in the committee concerning the election of a chairman, it must be determined by the house itself, and not by the committee. The speaker resumes the chair at once, and puts a question, "That a particular member do take the chair of the committee;" 142 Lords' J. 636. which being agreed to, the mace is again removed from the table, and the committee proceeds to business under the chairman appointed by the house.1 siness. The proceedings are conducted in the same manner as Conduct of buwhen the house is sitting." In the lords a peer addresses himself to their lordships, as at other times: in the commons, a member addresses the chairman, who performs in committee, all the duties which devolve upon the speaker in the house. He calls upon members as they rise to speak, puts the questions, and maintains order. mitted. A committee can only consider those matters which Matters comhave been committed to them by the house. If it be desirable that other matters should also be considered, an instruction is given by the house for that purpose.3 Motion not seconded in It is an understood rule that a motion in committee need not be seconded, which is observed in practice, committee. although it has never been distinctly declared, and its propriety is sometimes questioned. It derived confirmation from the former practice of appointing only one teller for each side on a division in committee; and, although two tellers are now appointed, without whom no division in the lobbies is allowed to proceed; a question is still put from the chair on the motion of one member. tion. A motion for the previous question is not admitted in Previous quescommittee; since the committee are only authorized to consider the matters which have been referred to them by the house, and of which the consideration should be preferred to a motion which is only offered for the purpose of excluding them from a decision. Motions, however, having the same practical effect, have sometimes been allowed in committees on bills.+ 19 Com. J. 386. 13 Ib. 794. 21 Ib. 255. 65 lb. 30. 3 Grey's Debates, 301. 2 Lords' S. O. Nos. 28, 29. 3 An instruction should always be moved distinctly after the order of the day has been read, and not as an amendment to the question for the speaker leaving the chair. 4 See Chapter XVIII., on Bills, p. 280. Q Questions of sums and dates. Members may speak more than once. To speak standing. House resumed. On the 3d November 1675, it was declared to be an ancient order of the house, "that where there comes a question between the greater and lesser sum, or the longer or shorter time, the least sum and the longest time ought first to be put to the question." This rule has more immediate reference to the committees of supply, and ways and means, but is also observed in other committees. The main difference between the proceedings of a committee and those of the house is, that in the former a member is entitled to speak more than once, in order that the details of a question or bill may have the most minute examination; or, as it is expressed in the standing orders of the lords, "to have more freedom of speech, and that arguments may be used pro et contra." These facilities. for speaking are not often abused so as to protract the debates; but are rather calculated, in ordinary cases, to discourage long speeches, and to introduce a more free and conversational mode of debating. When a member can speak only once, he cannot omit any argument that he is prepared to offer, as he will not have another opportunity of urging it; but when he is at liberty to speak again, he may confine himself to one point at a time. Members must speak standing and uncovered, as when the house is sitting, although it appears that, in earlier times, they were permitted to speak either sitting or standing. On the 7th November 1601, in a committee on the subsidy or supply, Sir Walter Raleigh was interrupted by Sir E. Hobby, who said, "We cannot hear you; speak out; you should speak standing, that so the house might the better hear you." To this Raleigh replied, "that being a committee, he might speak either sitting or standing." Mr. Secretary Cecil rose next, and said, "Because it is an argument of more reverence, I chuse to speak standing." 3 It was ordered and declared by the lords, 10 June 1714, "That when the house shall be put into a committee of the whole house, the house be not resumed without the unanimous 19 Com. J. 367. 2 Lords' S. O. No. 28. 34 Parl. Hist. 440. |