​PARLIAMENT (Anglo-Lat.parliamentum, Fr.parlement, fromparler, to speak), the name given to the supreme legislature ofthe United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (For theold Frenchparlement, seeParlement; and for analogousforeign assemblies see the articles on their respective countries.)The word is found in English from the 13th century, first for adebate, then for a formal conference, and for the great councilsof the Plantagenet kings; and the modern sense has come to beapplied retrospectively. William the Conqueror is said in theChronicle to have had “very deep speech with his Witan”;this “deep speech” (in Latincolloquium, in Frenchparlement)was the distinguishing feature of a meeting between king andpeople, and thus gave its name to the national assembly itself.The Statute of Westminster (1275) first uses “parlement” ofthe great council in England.

The British Parliament consists of the King (or Queen regnant),the Lords spiritual and temporal, and the Commons^[1]; and itmeets in two houses, the House of Lords (the Upper or Secondchamber) and the House of Commons.

The Crown, pre-eminent in rank and dignity, is the legalsource of parliamentary authority. The sovereign virtuallyappoints the lords spiritual, and all the peerages of the lordstemporal have been created by the Crown. The king summonsparliament to meet, and prescribes the time and place of itsmeeting, prorogues and dissolves it, and commands the issueof writs for the election of members of the House of Commons.By several statutes, beginning with the 4 Edward III. c. 14,the annual meeting of parliament had been ordained; but thesestatutes, continually disregarded, were virtually repealed in thereigns of Charles II. and William and Mary (16 Ch. II. 31; 6 & 7Will. & Mary, 32). The present statute law merely exacts themeeting of parliament once in three years; but the annual votingof supplies has long since superseded obsolete statutes. Whenparliament is assembled it cannot proceed to business until theking has declared the causes of summons, in person or by commission;and though the veto of the Crown on legislation haslong been obsolete, bills passed by the two houses only becomelaw on receiving the royal assent.

The House of Lords is distinguished by peculiar dignities,privileges and jurisdictions. Peers individually enjoy the rankand precedence of their several dignities, and are hereditarycouncillors of the Crown. Collectively with the lords spiritualthey form a permanent council of the Crown; and, whenassembled in parliament, they form the highest court of judicaturein the realm, and are (in constitutional theory at all events) aco-equal branch of the legislature, without whose consent nolaws can be made (see below,House of Lords Question). Theirjudicature is of various kinds, viz. for the trial of peers; fordetermining claims of peerage and offices of honour, underreferences from the Crown; for the trial of controverted electionsof Scotch and Irish peers; for the final determination of appealsfrom courts in England, Scotland and Ireland; and lastly, forthe trial of impeachments.

The House of Commons also has its own peculiar privilegesand jurisdictions. Above all, it has the paramount right oforiginating the imposition of all taxes, and the granting ofsupplies for the service of the state. It has also enjoyed, fromearly times, the right of determining all matters concerning theelection of its own members, and their right to sit and vote inparliament. This right, however, has been greatly abridged,as, in 1868, the trial of controverted elections was transferred tothe courts of law; but its jurisdiction in matters of election, nototherwise provided for by statute, is still retained intact. Aspart of this jurisdiction the house directs the Speaker to issuewarrants to the clerk of the Crown to make out new writs forthe election of members to fill up such vacancies as occur duringthe sitting of parliament.

​Parliamentary Procedure.—It will be convenient here tosketch the general lines of procedure. On the day appointedby royal proclamation for the meeting of a new parliament bothhouses assemble in their respective chambers, when the LordsCommissioners for opening the parliament summon the Commonsto the bar of the House of Lords, by the mouth of Black Rod, tohear the commission read. The lord chancellor states that, whenthe members of both houses shall be sworn, the king will declarethe causes of his calling this parliament; and, it being necessarythat a Speaker of the House of Commons shall be first chosen,the Commons are directed to proceed to the appointment ofa Speaker, and to present him, on the following day, for HisMajesty’s royal approbation. The Commons at once withdrawto their own house and proceed to the election of their Speaker.The next day the Speaker-elect proceeds, with the house, to theHouse of Lords, and, on receiving the royal approbation, laysclaim, in the accustomed form, on behalf of the Commons, “totheir ancient and undoubted rights and privileges.” TheSpeaker, now fully confirmed, returns to the House of Commons,and, after repeating his acknowledgments, reminds the housethat the first thing to be done is to take and subscribe the oathrequired by law. Having first taken the oath himself, he isfollowed by other members, who come to the table to be sworn.The swearing of members in both houses proceeds from day today, until the greater number have taken the oath, or affirmation,when the causes of summons are declared by His Majesty inperson, or by commission, in “the King’s speech.” This speechbeing considered in both houses, anAddress (q.v.) in answer isagreed to, which is presented to His Majesty by the whole house,or by “the lords with white staves” in one house and privycouncillors in the other.

The debate on the Address being over, the real business of thesession now commences: the committees of supply and ways andmeans are set up; bills are introduced; motions are made;committees are appointed; and both houses are, at once, in fullactivity. The Lord Chancellor presides over the deliberationsof the Lords, and the Speaker over those of the Commons. Aquorum of the House of Lords, including the chancellor, is three(thirty for divisions); that of the House of Commons, includingthe Speaker, is forty.

Every matter is determined, in both houses, upon questionsput from the chair, and resolved in the affirmative or negative, orotherwise disposed of by the withdrawal of the motion, byamendments, by the adjournment of the house, by reading theorders of the day, or by the previous question. Notices arerequired to be given of original motions; and the different stagesof bills, and other matters appointed for consideration by thehouse, stand as orders of the day. Questions of privilege areallowed precedence of all the business on any day; but this rule,being liable to grave abuses, is guarded by strict limitations.Debates arise when a question has been proposed from the chair;and at the close of the debate (for the “closure” in the House ofCommons, see below,House of Commons,Internal Reforms) thequestion is put, with or without amendment, as the case maybe, and is determined, when necessary, by a division. Noquestion or bill, substantially the same as one upon which thejudgment of the house has already been given, may be againproposed during the same session.

Members claim to be heard in debate by rising in their places.When more than one member rises at the same time, in theLords the member who is to speak is called by the house, in theCommons by the Speaker. Every member, when called, isbound to speak to the question before the house; and calls toorder are very frequent. A member may speak once only toany question, except to explain, or upon a point of order, or toreply when a member has himself submitted a motion to thehouse, or when an amendment has been moved which constitutesa new question. He may not refer to past debates, nor todebates in the other house; nor may he refer to any other memberby name, or use offensive and disorderly language against theking, either House of Parliament, or other members. Membersoffending against any of the rules of debate are called to order bythe Speaker, or the attention of the chair is directed to the breachof order by another member. Order is generally enforced bythe authority of the chair; but in extreme cases, and especiallywhen obstruction is being practised, the offending member isnamed by the Speaker, and suspended by an order of the house,or otherwise punished at the discretion of the house.

At the conclusion of a debate, unless the motion be withdrawn,or the question (on being put from the chair) be agreed to ornegatived, the house proceeds to a division, which effects the twofoldpurpose of ascertaining the numbers supporting and opposingthe question, and of recording the names of members voting oneither side. On each side of the house is a division lobby; andin the Lords the “contents” and in the Commons the “ayes”are directed to go to the right, and the “not contents” or“noes” to the left. The former pass into the right lobby, atthe back of the Speaker’s chair, and return to the house throughthe bar; the latter pass into the left lobby, at the bar, and returnat the back of the chair. The opposing parties are thus keptentirely clear of one another. In each lobby there are twomembers acting as tellers, who count the members as they pass,and two division clerks who take down their names. After thedivision the four tellers advance to the table, and the numbersare reported by one of the tellers for the majority. In case of anequality of numbers, in the Lords the question is negatived invirtue of the ancient rule “semper praesumitur pro negante”;in the Commons the Speaker gives the casting vote.

The Anglo-Saxon Polity.—The origin of parliament is to betraced to Anglo-Saxon times. The Angles, Saxons and otherTeutonic races who conquered Britain brought to their newhomes their own laws and customs, their settled framework ofsociety, their kinship, their village communities, and a certainrude representation in local affairs. And we find in the Anglo-Saxonpolity, as developed during their rule in England, all theconstituent parts of parliament. In their own lands they hadchiefs and leaders, but no kings. But conquest and territorialsettlement were followed by the assumption of royal dignities;and the victorious chiefs were accepted by their followers askings. They were quick to assume the traditional attributesof royalty. A direct descent from their god Woden, and hereditaryright, at once clothed them with a halo of glory and withsupreme power; and, when the pagan deity was deposed, theking received consecration from a Christian archbishop, andwas invested with sacred attributes as “the Lord’s anointed.”But the Saxon monarch was a patriarchal king of limited authority,who acted in concert with his people; and, though hissuccession was hereditary, in his own family, his direct descendantwas liable to be passed over in favour of a worthier heir.Such a ruler was a fitting precursor of a line of constitutionalkings, who in later times were to govern with the advice andconsent of a free parliament.

Meanwhile any council approaching the constitution of aHouse of Lords was of slow growth. Anglo-Saxon society,indeed, was not without an aristocracy. The highest in rank ​were æthelings—generally, if not exclusively, sons and brothersof the king. The ealdorman, originally a high officer, having theexecutive government of a shire, and a seat in the king’s witan,became hereditary in certain families, and eventually attainedthe dignity of an earl. But centuries were to pass before theEnglish nobility was to assume its modern character and denominations.At the head of each village was an eorl, the chief ofthe freemen, or ceorls—their leader in war and patron in peace.The king’s gesiths and thegns formed another privileged class.Admitted to offices in the king’s household and councils, andenriched by grants of land, they gradually formed a feudalnobility.

The revival of the Christian Church, under the Anglo-Saxonrule, created another order of rulers and councillors, destinedto take a leading part in the government of the state. Thearchbishops and bishops, having spiritual authority in theirown dioceses, and exercising much local influence in temporalaffairs, were also members of the national council, or witenagemót,and by their greater learning and capacity were not longin acquiring a leading part in the councils of the realm. Ecclesiasticalcouncils were also held, comprising bishops, abbots, andclergy, in which we observe the origin of convocation. Theabbots, thus associated with the bishops, also found a placewith them in the witenagemót. By these several orders, summonedto advise the king in affairs of state, was formed acouncil of magnates—to be developed, in course of time, into anupper chamber, or House of Lords.

The rise of the Commons (seeRepresentation) as a politicalpower in the national councils, was of yet slower development:but in the Anglo-Saxon moots may be discerned the first germsof popular government in England. In the town-moot theassembled freemen and cultivators of the “folk-lands” regulatedthe civil affairs of their own township, tithing, village or parish.In the burgh-moot the inhabitants administered their municipalbusiness, under the presidency of a reeve. The hundred-mootassumed a more representative character, comprising the reeveand a selected number of freemen from the several townshipsand burghs within the hundred. The shire-moot, or shire-gemót,was an assembly yet more important. An ealdorman was itspresident, and exercised a jurisdiction over a shire, or districtcomprising several hundreds. Attended by a reeve and fourfreemen from every hundred, it assumed a distinctly representativecharacter. Its members, if notelected (in the modern sense)by the popular voice, were, in some fashion,deputed to act onbehalf of those whose interests they had come to guard. Theshire-moot was also the general folk-moot of the tribe, assembledin arms, to whom their leaders referred the decision of questionsof peace and war.

Superior to these local institutions was the witenagemót, orassembly of wise men, with whom the king took counsel inlegislation and the government of the state. This nationalcouncil was the true beginning of the parliament of England.Such a council was originally held in each of the kingdomscommonly known as the Heptarchy; and after their union ina single realm, under King Edgar, the witenagemót became thedeliberative and legislative assembly, or parliament, of theextended estate. The witenagemót made laws, imposed taxes,concluded treaties, advised the king as to the disposal of publiclands and the appointment and removal of officers of state,and even assumed to elect and depose the king himself. Theking had now attained to greater power, and more royal dignitiesand prerogatives. He was unquestionably the chief power inthe witenagemót; but the laws were already promulgated, asin later times, as having been agreed to with the advice andconsent of the witan. The witan also exercised jurisdiction asa supreme court. These ancient customs present furtherexamples of the continuity of English constitutional forms.

The constitution of the witenagemót, however, was necessarilyless popular than that of the local moots in the hundred or theshire. The king himself was generally present; and at hissummons came prelates, abbots, ealdormen, the king’s gesithsand thegns, officers of state and of the royal household, andleading tenants in chief of lands held from the crown. Crowdssometimes attended the meetings of the witan, and shoutedtheir acclamations of approval or dissent; and, so far, the popularvoice was associated with its deliberations; but it was at adistance from all but the inhabitants of the place in which it wasassembled, and until a system ofrepresentation (q.v.) had slowlygrown up there could be no further admission of the people to itsdeliberations. In the town-moot the whole body of freemenand cultivators of the folk-lands met freely under a spreadingoak, or on the village green; in the hundred-moot, or shire-gemót,deputies from neighbouring communities could readilyfind a place; but all was changed in the wider council of a kingdom.When there were many kingdoms, distance obstructedany general gathering of the Commons; and in the wider area ofEngland such a gathering became impossible. Centuries wereyet to pass before this obstacle was to be overcome by representation;but, in the meantime, the local institutions of the Anglo-Saxonswere not without their influence upon the central council.The self-government of a free people informed the bishops,ealdormen, ceorls and thegns who dwelt among them of theirinterests and needs, their sufferings and their wrongs; and,while the popular forces were increasing with an advancingsociety, they grew more powerful in the councils of their rulers.

Another circumstance must not be overlooked in estimatingthe political influence of the people in Anglo-Saxon times.For five centuries the country was convulsed with incessant wars—warswith the Britons, whom the invaders were driving fromtheir homes, wars between the several kingdoms, wars with theWelsh, wars with the Picts, wars with the Danes. How couldthe people continue to assert their civil rights amid the clash ofarms and a frequent change of masters? The warrior-kingsand their armed followers were rulers in the land which theyhad conquered. At the same time the unsettled condition ofthe country repressed the social advancement of its people.Agriculture could not prosper when the farm of the husbandmantoo often became a battlefield. Trade could not be extendedwithout security to property and industry. Under such conditionsthe great body of the people continued as peasants,handicraftsmen and slaves. The time had not yet come whenthey could make their voice heard in the councils of the state.

The Norman Conquest.—The Anglo-Saxon polity was suddenlyoverthrown by the Norman Conquest. A stern foreign kinghad seized the crown, and was prepared to rule his conqueredrealm by the sword. He brought with him the absolutistprinciples of continental rulers, and the advanced feudal systemof France and Normandy. Feudalism had been slowly gainingground under the Saxon kings, and now it was firmly establishedas a military organization. William the Conqueror at oncerewarded his warlike barons and followers with enormous grantsof land. The Saxon landowners and peasants were despoiled,and the invaders settled in their homesteads. The king claimedthe broad lands of England as his own, by right of conquest;and when he allowed his warriors to share the spoil he attachedthe strict condition of military service in return for every grantof land. An effective army of occupation of all ranks was thusquartered upon every province throughout the realm. Englandwas held by the sword; a foreign king, foreign nobles, and aforeign soldiery were in possession of the soil, and swore fealtyto their master, from whom they held it. Saxon bishops weredeposed, and foreign prelates appointed to rule over the EnglishChurch. Instead of calling a national witenagemót, the kingtook counsel with the officers of his state and household, thebishops, abbots, earls, barons and knights by whom he waspleased to surround himself. Some of the forms of a nationalcouncil were indeed maintained, and its counsel and consentwere proclaimed in the making of laws; but, in truth, the kingwas absolute.

Such a revolution seemed fatal to the liberties and ancientcustoms of Saxon England. What power could withstand theharsh conqueror? But the indestructible elements of Englishsociety prevailed over the sword. The king grasped, in his ownhands, the higher administration and judicature of the realm; ​but he continued the old local courts of the hundred and theshire, which had been the basis of Saxon freedom. The Normanpolity was otherwise destined to favour the liberties of the people,through agencies which had been designed to crush them. Thepowerful nobles, whom William and his successors exalted,became formidable rivals of the Crown itself; while ambitiousbarons were in their turn held in check by a jealous and exactingchurch. The ruling powers, if combined, would have reducedthe people to slavery; but their divisions proved a continualsource of weakness. In the meantime the strong rule of theNormans, bitter as it was to Englishmen, repressed intestinewars and the disorders of a divided realm. Civil justice wasfairly administered. When the spoils of the conquerors hadbeen secured, the rights of property were protected, industryand trade were left free, and the occupation of the soil byforeigners drove numbers of landowners and freemen into thetowns, where they prospered as merchants, traders and artificers,and collected thriving populations of townsmen. Meanwhile,foreign rulers having brought England into closer relations withthe Continent, its commerce was extended to distant lands, portsand shipping were encouraged, and English traders were at onceenriched and enlightened. Hence new classes of society weregrowing, who were eventually to become the Commons ofEngland.

The Crown,the Barons,the Church and the People.—Whilethese social changes were steadily advancing, the barons werealready preparing the way for the assertion of popular rights.Ambitious, turbulent and grasping, they were constantly atissue with the Crown. Enjoying vast estates and great commands,and sharing with the prelates the government of thestate, as members of the king’s council, they were ever readyto raise the standard of revolt. The king could always countupon barons faithful to his cause, but he also appealed for aidto the Church and the people. The baronage was thus brokenby insurrections, and decimated by civil wars, while the valueof popular alliances was revealed. The power of the peoplewas ever increasing, while their oppressors were being struckdown. The population of the country was still Saxon; they hadbeen subdued, but had not been driven forth from the land, likethe Britons in former invasions. The English language wasstill the common speech of the people; and Norman blood wasbeing mingled with the broader stream of Saxon life. A continuousnationality was thus preserved, and was outgrowing theforeign element.

The Crown was weakened by disputed successions and foreignwars, and the baronage by the blood-stained fields of civil warfare;while both in turn looked to the people in their troubles.Meanwhile the Church was struggling, alike against the Crownand the barons, in defence of its ecclesiastical privileges andtemporal possessions. Its clergy were brought by their spiritualministrations into close relations with the people, and theirculture contributed to the intellectual growth of English society.When William Rufus was threatened by his armed barons hetook counsel with Archbishop Lanfranc, and promised good lawsand justice to the people. His promises were broken; but, likelater charters, as lightly set aside, they were a recognition ofthe political rights of the people. By the charter of Henry I.restoring to the people the laws of Edward the Confessor, thecontinuity of English institutions was acknowledged; and thisconcession was also proclaimed through Archbishop Anselm,the church and the people being again associated with the Crownagainst the barons. And throughout his reign the clergy andthe English people were cordially united in support of the Crown.In the anarchic reign of Stephen—also distinguished by itsfutile charters—the clergy were driven into opposition to theking, while his oppressions alienated the people. Henry II.commenced his reign with another charter, which may be takenas a profession of good intentions on the part of the new king.So strong-willed a king, who could cripple his too powerfulnobles, and forge shackles for the Church, was not predisposedto extend the liberties of his people; but they supported himloyally in his critical struggles; and his vigorous reforms in theadministrative, judicial and financial organization of his realmpromoted the prosperity and political influence of the Commons.At the same time the barons created in this and the twoprevious reigns, being no longer exclusively Norman in bloodand connexion, associated themselves more readily with theinterests and sympathies of the people. Under Richard I. theprinciple of representation was somewhat advanced, but itwas confined to the assessment and collection of taxes in thedifferent shires.

Magna Carta (q.v.).—It was under King John that the greatestprogress was made in national liberties. The loss of Normandyserved to draw the baronage closer to the English people; andthe king soon united all the forces of the realm against him. Heoutraged the Church, the barons and the people. He couldno longer play one class against another; and they combined toextort the Great Charter of their liberties at Runnymede (1215).It was there ordained that no scutage or aid, except the threeregular feudal aids, should be imposed, save by the commoncouncil of the realm. To this council the archbishops, bishops,abbots, earls and greater barons were to be summoned personallyby the king’s letters, and tenants in chief by a generalwrit through the sheriff. The summons was required toappoint a certain place, to give 40 days’ notice at least, andto state the cause of meeting. At length we seem to reachsome approach to modern usage.

Growth of the Commons.—The improved administration ofsuccessive kings had tended to enlarge the powers of theCrown. But one hundred and fifty years had now passed sincethe Conquest, and great advances had been made in the conditionof the people, and more particularly in the population,wealth and self-government of towns. Many had obtainedroyal charters, elected their own magistrates, and enjoyedvarious commercial privileges. They were already a powerin the state, which was soon to be more distinctly recognized.

The charter of King John was again promulgated underHenry III., for the sake of a subsidy; and henceforth the Commonslearned to insist upon the redress of grievances in returnfor a grant of money. This reign was memorable in the historyof parliament.^[2] Again the king was in conflict with his barons,who rebelled against his gross misgovernment of the realm.Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, was a patriot in advanceof his age and fought for the English people as well as for hisown order. The barons, indeed, were doubtful allies of thepopular cause, and leaned to the king rather than to Simon.But the towns, the clergy, the universities and large bodies ofthe commonalty rallied round him, and he overthrew the kingand his followers at Lewes. He was now master of the realm,and proclaimed a new constitution. Kings had made promises,and granted illusory charters; but the rebel earl called an Englishparliament (1265) into being. Churchmen were on his side,and a few barons; but his main reliance was upon the Commons.He summoned to a national council, or parliament, bishops,abbots, earls and barons, together with two knights from everyshire and two burgesses from every borough. Knights hadindeed been summoned to former councils; but never until nowhad delegates from the towns been invited to sit with bishops,barons and knights of the shire.

In the reign of Edward I. parliament assumed substantiallyits present form of king, lords and commons. The irregular andunauthorized scheme of Simon de Montfort was fully adopted;and in 1295 the king summoned to a parliament two knights from ​every shire chosen by the freeholders at the shire court, and twoburgesses from every city, borough and leading town.^[3] Therebel earl had enlarged the basis of the national council; and,to secure popular support, the politic king accepted it as aconvenient instrument of taxation. The knights and freeholdershad increased in numbers and wealth; and the towns, continuallyadvancing in population, trade and commerce, had becomevaluable contributors to the revenue of the state. The grantof subsidies to the Crown, by the assembled baronage andrepresentatives of the shires and towns, was a legal andcomprehensive impost upon the entire realm.

Secession of the Clergy.—It formed part of Edward’s policyto embrace the clergy in his scheme for the representation ofall orders and classes of his subjects. They were summonedto attend the parliament of 1295 and succeeding parliamentsof his reign, and their form of summons has been continued untilthe present time; but the clergy resolutely held aloof from thenational council, and insisted upon voting their subsidies intheir own convocations of Canterbury and York. The bishopsretained their high place among the earls and barons, butthe clergy sacrificed to ecclesiastical jealousies the privilege ofsharing in the political councils of the state. As yet, indeed,this privilege seemed little more than the voting of subsidies,but it was soon to embrace the redress of grievances and theframing of laws for the general welfare of the realm. Thisgreat power they forfeited; and who shall say how it might havebeen wielded, in the interests of the Church, and in the legislationof their country? They could not have withstood the Reformation;they would have been forced to yield to the power of theCrown and the heated resolution of the laity; but they mighthave saved a large share of the endowments of the Church, andperhaps have modified the doctrines and formularies of thereformed establishment.

Reluctance of the Commons to Attend.—Meanwhile the Commons,unconscious of their future power, took their humbleplace in the great council of the realm. The knights of theshire, as lesser barons, or landowners of good social standing,could sit beside the magnates of the land without constraint;but modest traders from the towns were overawed by the powerand dignity of their new associates. They knew that they weresummoned for no other purpose than the taxing of themselvesand their fellow townsmen; their attendance was irksome; itinterrupted their own business; and their journeys exposed themto many hardships and dangers. It is not surprising that theyshould have shrunk from the exercise of so doubtful a privilege.Considerable numbers absented themselves from a thanklessservice; and their constituents, far from exacting the attendanceof their members, as in modern times, begrudged the sorrystipend of 2s. a day, paid to their representatives while on duty,and strove to evade the burden imposed upon them by theCrown. Some even purchased charters, withdrawing franchiseswhich they had not yet learned to value. Nor, in truth, did therepresentation of towns at this period afford much protectionto the rights and interests of the people. Towns were enfranchisedat the will or caprice of the Crown and the sheriffs; theycould be excluded at pleasure; and the least show of independencewould be followed by the omission of another writ ofsummons. But the principle ofrepresentation (q.v.), once established,was to be developed with the expansion of society; andthe despised burgesses of Edward I., not having seceded, likethe clergy, were destined to become a potential class in theparliaments of England.

Sitting of Parliament at Westminster.—Another constitutionalchange during this reign was the summoning of parliament toWestminster instead of to various towns in different parts ofthe country. This custom invested parliament with the characterof a settled institution, and constituted it a high court forthe hearing of petitions and the redress of grievances. Thegrowth of its judicature, as a court of appeal, was also favouredby the fixity of its place of meeting.

Authority of Parliament recognized by Law.—Great was thepower of the Crown, and the king himself was bold and statesmanlike;but the union of classes against him proved too strong forprerogative. In 1297, having outraged the Church, the barons,and the Commons, by illegal exactions, he was forced to confirmthe Great Charter and the Charter of Forests, with furthersecurities against the taxation of the people without their consentand, in return, obtained timely subsidies from the parliament.Henceforth the financial necessities of a succession of kingsensured the frequent assembling of parliaments. Nor were theylong contented with the humble function of voting subsidies,but boldly insisted on the redress of grievances and furthersecurities for national liberties. In 1322 it was declared bystatute 15 Edw. II. that “the matters to be established forthe estate of the king and of his heirs, and for the estate ofthe realm and of the people, should be treated, accorded, andestablished in parliament, by the king, and by the assent of theprelates, earls and barons, and the commonalty of the realm,according as had been before accustomed.” The constitutionalpowers of parliament as a legislature were here amply recognized—notby royal charter, or by the occasional exercise of prerogative,but by an authoritative statute. And these powers weresoon to be exercised in a striking form. Already parliamenthad established the principle that the redress of grievancesshould have precedence of the grant of subsidies; it had maintainedthe right of approving councillors of the Crown, andpunishing them for the abuse of their powers; and in 1327 theking himself was finally deposed, and the succession of his son,Edward III., declared by parliament.

Union of Knights of the Shire and Burgesses.—At this periodthe constitution of parliament was also settling down to its laterand permanent shape. Hitherto the different orders or estateshad deliberated separately, and agreed upon their severalgrants to the Crown. The knights of the shire were naturallydrawn, by social ties and class interests, into alliance with thebarons; but at length they joined the citizens and burgesses,and in the first parliament of Edward III. they are foundsitting together as “the Commons.”

This may be taken as the turning point in the political historyof England. If all the landowners of the country had becomeunited as an order of nobles, they might have proved too strongfor the development of national liberties, while the union of thecountry gentlemen with the burgesses formed an estate of therealm which was destined to prevail over all other powers.The withdrawal of the clergy, who would probably have beenled by the bishops to take part with themselves and the barons,further strengthened the united Commons.

Increasing Influence of Parliament.—The reign of Edward III.witnessed further advances in the authority of parliament, andchanges in its constitution. The king, being in continual needof subsidies, was forced to summon parliament every year, andin order to encourage its liberality he frequently sought itsadvice upon the most important issues of peace or war, andreadily entertained the petitions of the Commons praying forthe redress of grievances. During this reign also, the adviceand consent of the Commons, as well as of the Lords spiritual andtemporal, was regularly recorded in the enacting part of everystatute.

​Separation of the Two Houses.—But a more important eventis to be assigned to this reign,—the formal separation of parliamentinto the two houses of Lords and Commons. There isno evidence—nor is it probable—that the different estates evervoted together as a single assembly. It appears from the rollsof parliament that in the early part of this reign, the causes ofsummons having been declared to the assembled estates, thethree estates deliberated separately, but afterwards delivereda collective answer to the king. While their deliberations wereshort they could be conducted apart, in the same chamber;but, in course of time, it was found convenient for the Commonsto have a chamber of their own, and they adjourned theirsittings to the chapter-house of the abbot of Westminster,where they continued to be held after the more formal andpermanent separation had taken place. The date of this eventis generally assigned to the 17th Edward III.

The Commons as Petitioners.—Parliament had now assumedits present outward form. But it was far from enjoying theauthority which it acquired in later times. The Crown was stillparamount; the small body of earls and barons—not exceeding40—were connected with the royal family, or in the service ofthe king, or under his influence; the prelates, once distinguishedby their independence, were now seekers of royal favour; andthe Commons, though often able to extort concessions in returnfor their contributions to the royal exchequer, as yet held aninferior position among the estates of the realm. Instead ofenjoying an equal share in the framing of laws, they appearedbefore the king in the humble guise of petitioners. Theirpetitions, together with the king’s answers, were recorded in therolls of parliament; but it was not until the parliament hadbeen discharged from attendance that statutes were framed bythe judges and entered on the statute rolls. Under such conditionslegislation was, in truth, the prerogative of the Crownrather than of parliament. Enactments were often found inthe statutes at variance with the petitions and royal answers,and neither prayed for by the Commons nor assented to by theLords. In vain the Commons protested against so grave an abuseof royal authority; but the same practice was continued duringthis and succeeding reigns. Henry V., in the second year of hisreign, promised “that nothing should be enacted to the petitionsof the Commons, contrary to their asking, whereby they should bebound without their assent;” but, so long as the old methodof framing laws was adhered to, there could be no security againstabuse; and it was not until the reign of Henry VI. that the introductionof the more regular system of legislating by bill andstatute ensured the thorough agreement of all the estates in theseveral provisions of every statute.

Increasing Boldness of the Commons.—The Commons, however,notwithstanding these and other discouragements, were constantlygrowing bolder in the assertion of their rights. Theynow ventured to brave the displeasure of the king, withoutseeking to shelter themselves behind powerful barons, uponwhose forwardness in the national cause they could not reckon.Notably in 1376 their stout Speaker, Peter de la Mare, inveighed,in their name, against the gross mismanagement of the war,impeached ministers of the realm, complained of the heavyburdens under which the people suffered, and even demandedthat a true account should be rendered of the public expenditure.The brave Speaker was cast into prison, and a new parliamentwas summoned which speedily reversed the resolutions of thelast. But the death of the king changed the aspect of affairs.Another parliament was called, when it was found that thespirit of the Commons was not subdued. Peter de la Mare wasreleased from prison, and again elected to the chair. Thedemands of the former parliament were reiterated with greaterboldness and persistence, the evil councillors of the late reignwere driven out, and it was conceded that the principal officersof state should be appointed and removed, during the minorityof Richard II., upon the advice of the lords. The Commons alsoinsisted upon the annual assembling of parliament under thestringent provisions of a binding law. They claimed the right,not only of voting subsidies, but of appropriating them, and ofexamining public accounts. They inquired into public abuses,and impeached ministers of the Crown. Even the king himselfwas deposed by the parliament. Thus during this reign allthe great powers of parliament were asserted and exercised.The foreign wars of Henry IV. and Henry V., by continuingthe financial necessities of the Crown, maintained for a whilethe powers which parliament had acquired by the struggles ofcenturies.

Relapse of Parliamentary Influence.—But a period of civilwars and disputed successions was now at hand, which checkedthe further development of parliamentary liberties. Theeffective power of a political institution is determined, not byassertions of authority, nor even by its legal recognition, butby the external forces by which it is supported, controlled oroverborne. With the close of the Wars of the Roses the life ofparliament seems to have well-nigh expired.

To this constitutional relapse various causes contributed atthe same period. The Crown had recovered its absolute supremacy.The powerful baronage had been decimated on thebattlefield and the scaffold; and vast estates had been confiscatedto the Crown. Kings had no longer any dread of their prowessas defenders of their own order or party, or as leaders of thepeople. The royal treasury had been enriched by their ruin;while the close of a long succession of wars with France andScotland relieved it of that continual drain which had reducedthe Crown to an unwelcome dependence upon parliament. Notonly were the fortunes of the baronage laid low, but feudalismwas also dying out in England as on the continent. It was nolonger a force which could control the Crown; and it was beingfurther weakened by changes in the art of war. The mailedhorseman, the battle-axe and cross-bow of the burgher andyeoman, could not cope with the cannon and arquebus of theroyal army.

In earlier times the Church had often stood forth againstthe domination of kings, but now it was in passive submissionto the Throne. The prelates were attracted to the court, andsought the highest offices of state; the inferior clergy had longbeen losing their influence over the laity by their ignorance andwant of moral elevation at a period of increasing enlightenment;while the Church at large was weakened by schisms and a widerfreedom of thought. Hence the Church, like the baronage, hadceased to be a check upon the Crown.

Meanwhile what had become of the ever-growing power ofthe Commons? It is true they had lost their stalwart leaders,the armed barons and outspoken prelates, but they had themselvesadvanced in numbers, riches and enlightenment; they hadoverspread the land as knights and freeholders, or dwelt inpopulous towns enriched by merchandise. Why could theynot find leaders of their own? Because they had lost the liberalfranchises of an early age. All freeholders, or suitors presentat the county court, were formerly entitled to vote for a knightof the shire; but in the eighth year of Henry VI. (1430) an actwas passed (c. 37) by which this right was confined to 40s.freeholders, resident in the county. Large numbers of electorswere thus disfranchised. In the view of parliament they were“of no value,” and complaints had been made that they wereunder the influence of the nobles and greater landowners; buta popular element had been withdrawn from the county representation,and the restricted franchise cannot have impairedthe influence of the nobles.

As for the cities and boroughs, they had virtually renouncedtheir electoral privileges. As we have seen, they had nevervalued them very highly; and now by royal charters, or by theusurpation of small self-elected bodies of burgesses, the choiceof members had fallen into the hands of town councils andneighbouring landowners. The anomalous system of close andnomination boroughs, which had arisen thus early in Englishhistory, was suffered to continue without a check for fourcenturies, as a notorious blot upon a free constitution.

All these changes exalted the prerogatives of the Crown. Amidthe clash of arms and the strife of hostile parties the voice ofparliament had been stifled; and, when peace was restored, a ​powerful king could dispense with an assembly which mightprove troublesome, and from whom he rarely needed help.Hence for a period of two hundred years, from the reign ofHenry VI. to that of Elizabeth, the free parliaments of Englandwere in abeyance. The institution retained its form and constituentparts; its rights and privileges were theoreticallyrecognized, but its freedom and national character were littlemore than shadows.

Parliament under Henry VIII.—To resume the history ofparliament at a later period, let us glance at the reign ofHenry VIII. Never had the power of the Crown been greaterthan when this king succeeded to the throne, and never had amore imperious will been displayed by any king of England.Parliament was at his feet to do his bidding, and the Reformationenormously increased his power. He had become a popeto the bishops; the old nobles who had resisted his will hadperished in the field or on the scaffold; the new nobles were hiscreatures; and he had the vast wealth of the Church in his handsas largesses to his adherents. Such was the dependence ofparliament upon the Crown and its advisers during the Reformationperiod that in less than thirty years four vital changeswere decreed in the national faith. Each of the successivereigns inaugurated a new religion.

Queen Elizabeth and her Parliaments.—With the reign ofElizabeth commenced a new era in the life of parliament. Shehad received the royal prerogatives unimpaired, and her hand wasstrong enough to wield them. But in the long interval sinceEdward IV. the entire framework of English society had beenchanged; it was a new England that the queen was called uponto govern. The coarse barons of feudal times had been succeededby English country gentlemen, beyond the influence of thecourt, and identified with all the interests and sympathies oftheir country neighbours. From this class were chosen nearlyall the knights of the shire, and a considerable proportion of themembers for cities and boroughs. They were generally distinguishedby a manly independence, and were prepared touphold the rights and privileges of parliament and the interestsof their constituents. A change no less remarkable had occurredin other classes of society. The country was peopled withyeomen and farmers, far superior to the cultivators of the soilin feudal times; and the towns and seaports had grown intoimportant centres of commerce and manufactures. Advancesnot less striking had been made in the enlightenment and cultureof society. But, above all, recent religious revolutions hadawakened a spirit of thought and inquiry by no means confinedto questions of faith. The Puritans, hostile to the Church,and jealous of every semblance of Catholic revival, wereembittered against the state, which was identified, in their eyes,with many ecclesiastical enormities; and stubborn temper wasdestined to become a strong motive force in restoring theauthority of parliament.

The parliaments of Elizabeth, though rarely summoned,displayed an unaccustomed spirit. They discussed the successionto the Crown, the marriage of the queen, and ecclesiasticalabuses; they upheld the privileges of the Commons and theirright to advise the Crown upon all matters of state; and theycondemned the grant of monopolies. The bold words of theWentworths and Yelvertons were such as had not been heardbefore in parliament. The conflicts between Elizabeth andthe Commons marked the revival of the independence of parliament,and foreshadowed graver troubles at no distant period.

Conflicts of James I. with the Commons.—James I., withshort-sighted pedantry, provoked a succession of conflicts withthe Commons, in which abuses of prerogative were stoutlyresisted and the rights and privileges of parliament resolutelyasserted. The “remonstrance” of 1610 and the “protestation”of 1621 would have taught a politic ruler that the Commonscould no longer be trifled with; but those lessons were lost uponJames and upon his ill-fated son.

Charles I. and the Commonwealth.—The momentous strugglesbetween Charles I. and his parliaments cannot be followed inthis place. The earlier parliaments of this reign fairly representedthe earnest and temperate judgment of the country.They were determined to obtain the redress of grievances andto restrain undue prerogatives; but there was no taint of disloyaltyto the Crown; there were no dreams of revolution. Butthe contest at length became embittered, until there was no issuebut the arbitrament of the sword. The period of the GreatRebellion and the Commonwealth proved the supreme powerof the Commons, when supported by popular forces. Everythinggave way before them. They raised victorious armiesin the field, they overthrew the Church and the House of Lords,and they brought the king himself to the scaffold. It alsodisplayed the impotence of a parliament which has lost theconfidence of the country, or is overborne by mobs, by an army,or by the strong will of a dictator.

Political Agitation of this Period.—It is to this time of fiercepolitical passions that we trace the origin of political agitationas an organized method of influencing the deliberations ofparliament. The whole country was then aroused by passionateexhortations from the pulpit and in the press. No less thanthirty thousand political tracts and newspapers during thisperiod have been preserved. Petitions to parliament weremultiplied in order to strengthen the hands of the popularleaders. Clamorous meetings were held to stimulate or overawe ​parliament. Such methods, restrained after the Restoration,have been revived in later times, and now form part of theacknowledged system of parliamentary government.

Parliament after the Restoration.—On the restoration ofCharles II. parliament was at once restored to its old constitution,and its sittings were revived as if they had suffered nointerruption. No outward change had been effected by thelate revolution; but that a stronger spirit of resistance to abusesof prerogative had been aroused was soon to be disclosed inthe deposition of James II. and “the glorious revolution”of 1688. At this time the full rights of parliament were explicitlydeclared, and securities taken for the maintenance ofpublic liberties. The theory of a constitutional monarchy and afree parliament was established; but after two revolutions it iscurious to observe the indirect methods by which the Commonswere henceforth kept in subjection to the Crown and the territorialaristocracy. The representation had long become anillusion. The knights of the shire were the nominees of noblesand great landowners; the borough members were returnedby the Crown, by noble patrons or close corporations; eventhe representation of cities, with greater pretensions to independence,was controlled by bribery. Nor were rulers contentwith their control of the representation, but, after the Restoration,the infamous system of bribing the members themselvesbecame a recognized instrument of administration. The countrygentlemen were not less attached to the principles of rationalliberty than their fathers, and would have resisted furtherencroachments of prerogatives; but they were satisfied with theRevolution settlement and the remedial laws of William III.,and no new issue had yet arisen to awaken opposition. Accordingly,they ranged themselves with one or other of the politicalparties into which parliament was now beginning to be divided,and bore their part in the more measured strifes of the 18thcentury. From the Revolution till the reign of George III. theeffective power of the state was wielded by the Crown, theChurch and the territorial aristocracy; but the influence ofpublic opinion since the stirring events of the 17th century hadgreatly increased. Both parties were constrained to defer to it;and, notwithstanding the flagrant defects in the representation,parliament generally kept itself in accord with the generalsentiments of the country.

Union of Scotland.—On the union of Scotland in 1707important changes were made in the constitution of parliament.The House of Lords was reinforced by the additionof sixteen peers, representing the peerage of Scotland, andelected every parliament; and the Scottish peers, as a body,were admitted to all the privileges of peerage, except the rightof sitting in parliament or upon the trial of peers. No prerogative,however, was given to the Crown to create newpeerages after the union; and, while they are distinguishedby their antiquity, their number is consequently decreasing.To the House of Commons were assigned forty-five members,representing the shires and burghs of Scotland.

Parliament under George III.—With the reign of George III.there opened a new period in the history of parliament. Agitationin its various forms, an active and aggressive press, publicmeetings and political associations, the free use of the right ofpetition, and a turbulent spirit among the people seriouslychanged the relations of parliament to the country. And thepublication of debates, which was fully established in 1771,at once increased the direct responsibility of parliament to thepeople, and ultimately brought about other results, to whichwe shall presently advert.

Union of Ireland.—In this reign another important changewas effected in the constitution of parliament. Upon theunion with Ireland, in 1801, four Irish bishops were added tothe lords spiritual, who sat by rotation of sessions, and representedthe episcopal body of the Church of Ireland. But thosebishops were deprived of their seats in parliament in 1869, onthe disestablishment of the Church of Ireland. Twenty-eightrepresentative peers, elected for life by the peerage of Ireland,were admitted to the House of Lords. All the Irish peers werealso entitled to the privilege of peerage. In two particularsthe Irish peerage was treated in a different manner from thepeerage of Scotland. The Crown was empowered to create anew Irish peerage whenever three Irish peerages in existenceat the time of the Union have become extinct, or when thenumber of Irish peers, exclusive of those holding peerages ofthe United Kingdom, has been reduced to one hundred. And,further, Irish peers were permitted to sit in the House ofCommons for any place in Great Britain, forfeiting, however,the privilege of peerage while sitting in the lower house.

At the same time one hundred representatives of Irelandwere added to the House of Commons. This addition raisedthe number of members to six hundred and fifty-eight. Parliamentnow became the parliament of the United Kingdom.

Schemes for Improving the Representation.—By the union ofScotland and Ireland the electoral abuses of those countrieswere combined with those of England. Notwithstanding adefective representation, however, parliament generally sustainedits position as fairly embodying the political sentimentsof its time. Public opinion had been awakened, and could notsafely be ignored by any party in the state. Under a narrowand corrupt electoral system the ablest men in the countryfound an entrance into the House of Commons; and their rivalryand ambition ensured the acceptance of popular principlesand the passing of many remedial measures. As societyexpanded, and new classes were called into existence, thepressure of public opinion upon the legislature was assuminga more decisive character. The grave defects of the representationwere notorious, and some minor electoral abuses had beenfrom time to time corrected. But the fundamental evils—nominationboroughs, limited rights of election, the sale of seatsin parliament, the prevalence of bribery, and the enormousexpense of elections—though constantly exposed, long heldtheir ground against all assailants. So far back as 1770 LordChatham had denounced these flagrant abuses. “Before the endof this century,” he said, “either the parliament will reform itselffrom within, or be reformed with a vengeance from without.”In 1782, and again in 1783 and 1785, his distinguished son,William Pitt, condemned the abuses of the representation,and proposed schemes of parliamentary reform. In 1793Mr Grey (afterwards Earl Grey) submitted a motion on thesame subject; but the excesses of the French Revolution,political troubles at home, and exhausting wars abroad discouragedthe supporters of reform for many years. Undermore favourable conditions the question assumed greaterproportions. Lord John Russell especially distinguished himselfin 1820, and in several succeeding years, by the ableexposure of abuses and by temperate schemes of reform. Hisefforts were assisted by the scandalous disclosures of briberyat Grampound, Penryn and East Retford. All moderateproposals were rejected; but the concurrence of a dissolution,on the death of George IV., with the French Revolution in 1830,and an ill-timed declaration of the duke of Wellington that therepresentation was perfect and could not be improved, suddenlyprecipitated the memorable crisis of parliamentary reform. Itnow fell to the lot of Earl Grey, as premier, to be the leaderin a cause which he had espoused in his early youth.

The Reform Acts of 1832.—The result of the memorablestruggle which ensued may be briefly told. By the ReformActs of 1832 the representation of the United Kingdom wasreconstructed. In England, fifty-six nomination boroughsreturning one hundred and eleven members were disfranchised;thirty boroughs were each deprived of one member, and Weymouthand Melcombe Regis, which had returned four members,were now reduced to two. Means were thus found for theenfranchisement of populous places. Twenty-two large towns,including metropolitan districts, became entitled to returntwo members, and twenty less considerable towns acquiredthe right of returning one member each. The number of countymembers was increased from ninety-four to one hundred andfifty-nine, the larger counties being divided for the purposesof representation.

​The elective franchise was also placed upon a new basis. Inthe boroughs a £10 household suffrage was substituted for thenarrow and unequal franchises which had sprung up—therights of freemen, in corporate towns, being alone respected.In the counties, copyholders and leaseholders for terms ofyears, and tenants at will paying a rent of £50 a year, wereadded to the 40s. freeholders.

By the Scottish Reform Act the number of members representingScotland was increased from forty-five, as arrangedat the union, to fifty-three, of whom thirty were assigned tocounties and twenty-three to cities and burghs. In countiesthe franchise was conferred upon owners of property of £10a year, and certain classes of leaseholders; in burghs, upon £10householders, as in England.

By the Irish Reform Act, no boroughs, however small, weredisfranchised; but the franchise was given to £10 householders,and county constituencies were enlarged. These franchises,however, were extended in 1850, when an £8 household suffragewas given to the boroughs, and additions were made to thecounty franchises. The hundred members assigned to thatcountry at the union were increased to one hundred and five.Notwithstanding these various changes, however, the totalnumber of the House of Commons was still maintained atsix hundred and fifty-eight.

The legislature was now brought into closer relations withthe people, and became more sensitive to the pressure of popularforces. The immediate effects of this new spirit were perceptiblein the increased legislative activity of the reformedparliament, its vigorous grappling with old abuses, and itspreference of the public welfare to the narrower interests ofclasses. But, signal as was the regeneration of parliament,several electoral evils still needed correction. Strenuous effortswere made, with indifferent success, to overcome bribery andcorruption, and proposals were often ineffectually made torestrain the undue influence of landlords and employers oflabour by the ballot; improvements were made in the registrationand polling of electors, and the property qualification ofmembers was abolished. Complaints were also urged thatthe middle classes had been admitted to power, while the workingclasses were excluded from the late scheme of enfranchisement.It was not till 1867 however that any substantialadvance was made.

Increased Power of the Commons.—Prior to the reign ofCharles I. the condition of society had been such as naturallyto subordinate the Commons to the Crown and the Lords. Afterthe Revolution of 1688 society had so far advanced that, undera free representation, the Commons might have striven withboth upon equal terms. But, as by far the greater part ofthe representation was in the hands of the king and the territorialnobles, the large constitutional powers of the Commons wereheld safely in check. After 1832, when the representationbecame a reality, a corresponding authority was asserted bythe Commons. For several years, indeed, by reason of theweakness of the Liberal party, the Lords were able successfullyto resist the Commons upon many important occasions; butit was soon acknowledged that they must yield whenever adecisive majority of the Commons, supported by publicopinion, insisted upon the passing of any measure, howeverrepugnant to the sentiments of the upper house. And itbecame a political axiom that the Commons alone determinedthe fate of ministries.

Later Measures of Reform.—In 1852, and again in 1854, LordJohn Russell introduced measures of parliamentary reform;but constitutional changes were discouraged by the CrimeanWar. In 1859 Lord Derby’s Conservative government proposedanother scheme of reform, which was defeated; and in1860 Lord John Russell brought in another bill, which wasnot proceeded with; and the question of reform continued inabeyance until after the death of Lord Palmerston. EarlRussell, who succeeded him as premier, was prompt to redeemformer pledges, and hastened to submit to a new parliament,in 1866, another scheme of reform. This measure, and theministry by whom it was promoted, were overthrown by acombination of the Conservative opposition and the memorable“cave” of members of the Liberal party. But the popularsentiment in favour of reform, which had for some years beeninert, was suddenly aroused by the defeat of a Liberal ministryand the triumph of the party opposed to reform. Lord Derbyand his colleagues were now constrained to undertake thesettlement of this embarrassing question; and by a strangeconcurrence of political events and party tactics a schemefar more democratic than that of the Liberal governmentwas accepted by the same parliament, under the auspices of aConservative ministry.

The Reform Acts of 1867–1868.—By the English ReformAct of 1867 four corrupt boroughs were disfranchised, andthirty-eight boroughs returning two members were henceforthto return one only. A third member was given to Manchester,Liverpool, Birmingham and Leeds; a second member toMerthyr Tydfil and Salford; the Tower Hamlets were dividedinto two boroughs, each returning two members; and ten newboroughs were created, returning one member each, with theexception of Chelsea, to which two were assigned. By thesechanges twenty-six seats were taken from boroughs, while amember was given to the university of London. But beforethis act came into operation seven other English boroughswere disfranchised by the Scottish Reform Act of 1868, theseseats being given to Scotland. Thirteen new divisions ofcounties were erected, to which twenty-five members wereassigned. In counties the franchise of copyholders and leaseholderswas reduced from £10 to £5, and the occupation franchisefrom £50 to £12. In boroughs the franchise was extended toall occupiers of dwelling-houses rated to the poor-rates, and tolodgers occupying lodgings of the annual value of £10 unfurnished.

By the Scottish Reform Act of 1868, the number of membersrepresenting Scotland was increased from fifty-three to sixty—threenew members being given to the shires, two to the universities,and two to cities and burghs. The county franchisewas extended to owners of lands and heritages of £5 yearlyvalue, and to occupiers of the rateable value of £14; and theburgh franchise to all occupiers of dwelling-houses paying rates,and to tenants of lodgings of £10 annual value unfurnished.

By the Irish Reform Act of 1868 no change was made inthe number of members nor in the distribution of seats; butthe boroughs of Sligo and Cashel, already disfranchised, werestill left without representation. The county franchise wasleft unchanged; but the borough franchise was extended tooccupiers of houses rated at £4, and of lodgings of the annualvalue of £10 unfurnished.

That these changes in the representation—especially thehousehold suffrage in boroughs—were a notable advance uponthe reforms of 1832, in the direction of democracy, cannot bequestioned. The enlarged constituencies speedily overthrew theministry to whom these measures were due; and the newparliament further extended the recent scheme of reformby granting to electors the protection of theballot (q.v.), forwhich advanced reformers had contended since 1832. Norwas the existing representation long suffered to continuewithout question. First, it was proposed, in 1872, to extendthe household franchise to counties, and this proposal foundfavour in the country and in the House of Commons; but, theConservative party having been restored to power in 1874, nomeasure of that character could be promoted with any prospectof success. At the dissolution of 1880 a more general revisionof the representation was advocated by leading members ofthe Liberal party, who were soon restored to power. (T. E. M.;H. Ch.) 

Acts of 1884–1885.—The Reform Act of 1884 was ultimatelycarried with the goodwill of both of the great political parties.The Conservatives resisted Mr Gladstone’s attempt to carrya great extension of the franchise before he had disclosed hisscheme of redistribution, and the bill was thrown out by theHouse of Lords in August 1884. But after a conference ofMr Gladstone with Lord Salisbury, to whom the whole scheme ​was confided, an agreement was reached, and the bill waspassed in the autumn session. In the following session (1885)the Redistribution Act was passed.

A uniform household and lodger franchise was establishedin counties and boroughs. If a dwelling was held as partpayment for service, the occupier was not deprived of his votebecause his home was the property of his master. The obligationwas thrown on the overseers of ascertaining whether anyother man besides the owner was entitled to be registered asan inhabitant occupier, and the owner was bound to supplythe overseers with information. The Registration Acts wereotherwise widely amended. Polling-places were multiplied,so that little time need be lost in recording a vote. Theseand other beneficial changes went a long way towards givinga vote to every one who had a decent home. By the Redistributionof Seats Act 1885 all boroughs with less than 15,000inhabitants ceased to return a member. These small townswere merged into their counties, and the counties were subdividedinto a great number of single-member constituencies,so that the inhabitants of the disfranchised boroughs votedfor the member for the division of the county in which theywere situated. Boroughs with less than 50,000 inhabitantsreturning two members were in future to return only one, andtowns of over 100,000 were divided into separate constituencies,and received additional members in proportion to their population.The members for the City of London were reduced totwo, but Greater London, including Croydon, returned sixty.Divided Liverpool returned nine, Glasgow seven, Edinburgh,Dublin and Belfast each four, and so on. Six additional seatswere given to England and twelve to Scotland, so that, allowingfor a diminution by disfranchisement for corruption, the numbersof the House of Commons were raised to 670 members.

Results of Reform since 1832.—From a constitutional standpointit is important to recognize the results of the successiveReform Acts on the working of parliament as regards the positionof the executive on the one hand and the electorate on the other.Before 1832 the functions of ministers were mainly administrative,and parliament was able to deal much as it pleasedwith their rare legislative proposals without thereby deprivingthem of office. Moreover, since before that date ministerswere, generally speaking, in fact as well as in theory appointedby the king, while the general confidence of the majority inthe House of Commons followed the confidence not so muchof the electorate as of the Crown, that house was able onoccasions to exercise an effective control over foreign policy.Pitt, after 1784, was defeated several times on foreign anddomestic issues, yet his resignation was neither expected nordesired. In 1788, when the regency of the prince of Walesappeared probable, and again in 1812, it was generally assumedthat it would be in his power to dismiss his father’s ministersand to maintain the Whigs in office without dissolving parliament.This system, while it gave to ministers security of tenure,left much effective freedom of action to the House of Commons.But the Reform Act of 1832 introduced a new order of things.In 1835 the result of a general election was for the first timethe direct cause of a change of ministry, and in 1841 a Houseof Commons was elected for the express purpose of bringing aparticular statesman into power. The electorate voted forSir Robert Peel, and it would have been as impossible for thehouse then elected to deny him their support as it would befor the college of electors in the United States to exercise theirprivate judgment in the selection of a president. As time wenton, and the party system became more closely organized inthe enlarged electorate, the voting power throughout thecountry came to exercise an increasing influence. The premierwas now a party leader who derived his power in reality neitherfrom the Crown nor from parliament, but from the electorate,and to the electorate he could appeal if deserted by his parliamentarymajority. Unless it was prepared to drive him fromthe office in which it was elected to support him, that majoritywould not venture to defeat, or even seriously to modify, hislegislative proposals, or to pass any censure on his foreign policy,for all such action would now be held to be equivalent to a voteof no confidence. From the passing of the Reform Act of 1867down to 1900 (with a single exception due to the lowering ofthe franchise and the redistribution of seats) the electoratevoted alternately for the rival party leaders, and it was thefunction of the houses elected for that purpose to pass themeasures and to endorse the general policy with which thoseleaders were respectively identified. Thecabinet (q.v.), composedof colleagues selected by the prime minister, hadpractically, though indirectly, become an executive committeeacting on behalf of the electorate, that is to say, the majoritywhich returned their party to office; and the House of Commonspractically ceased to exercise control over ministers exceptin so far as a revolt in the party forming the majority couldinfluence the prime minister, or force him to resign or dissolve.Meanwhile, the virtual identification of the electorate withthe nation by the successive extensions of the franchise addedimmensely to its power, the chief limitation being suppliedby the Septennial Act. The House of Lords, whatever itsnominal rights, came henceforth in practice to exercise restrictionrather on the House of Commons than on the will of theelectorate, for the acquiescence of the upper house in the decisionof the electors, when appealed to on a specific point of issuebetween the two houses, was gradually accepted by its leadersas a constitutional convention.

The history of parliament, as an institution, centres in thislater period round two points, (A) the friction between Lordsand Commons, resulting in proposals for the remodelling ofthe upper house, and (B) the changes in procedure withinthe House of Commons, necessitated by new conditions ofwork and the desire to make it a more business-like assembly.These two movements will be discussed separately.

A.House of Lords Question.—In the altered position of theHouse of Lords, the occasional checks given by it to the Houseof Commons were bound to cause friction with the representativesof the people. In the nature of things this was a matterof importance only when the Liberal party was in power andmeasures were proposed by the Liberal leaders which involvedsuch extreme changes that the preponderantly Conservativeupper house could amend or reject them with some confidencein its action being supported by the electorate. The frequentdifferences between the two houses during the parliamentof 1880–1885, culminating in the postponement by the upperhouse of the Reform Bill, caused the status of that houseto be much discussed during the general election of 1885, andproposals for its “mending or ending” to be freely canvassedon Radical platforms. On the 5th of March 1886 Mr Laboucheremoved a resolution in the House of Commons condemning thehereditary principle. This was resisted by Mr Gladstone, thenprime minister, on the ground that he had never supportedan abstract resolution unless he was prepared to follow it upby action, and that the time for this had not arrived. Ona division the motion was negatived by 202 votes against 166.The question of the constitution of the House of Lords wasmuch agitated in 1888. The Conservatives were again inpower, but many of them thought that it would be prudentto forestall by a moderate reform the more drastic remediesnow openly advocated by their opponents. On the otherhand, Radicals were disposed to resist all changes involvingthe maintenance of the hereditary principle, lest they shouldthereby strengthen the House of Lords. On the 9th of March MrLabouchere again moved his resolution in the House of Commons.Mr W. H. Smith, the leader of the house, in resisting the motion,admitted that some changes were desirable, and agreed witha previous speaker that it was by the Conservatives that suchchanges ought to be effected. On the 19th of March in the sameyear Lord Rosebery, in the House of Lords, moved for a selectcommittee to inquire into the subject. He took the opportunityto explain his own plan of reform. While he did notwish to abolish the hereditary principle, he desired that no peer,outside the Royal family, should be a member of the houseby right of birth alone. To the representatives of the peers ​he proposed to add other men who had achieved distinctionin a public career. He attached a high importance to theexistence of a second chamber. His motion was negativedby 97 votes against 50. On the 26th of April Lord Dunraven withdrewa bill for the reform of the House of Lords on the promiseof the government to deal with the matter, and on the 18th ofJune Lord Salisbury fulfilled this pledge. He introduced a billon that day to provide for the creation of a limited numberof life peers and for the exclusion of unworthy members from thehouse. Under this measure a maximum of five life-peeragesin any one year might be created, but the total number wasnever to exceed fifty. In respect of three out of these fivelife-peers the choice of the Crown was restricted to judges,generals, admirals, ambassadors, privy councillors and ex-governorsof colonies. The two additional life-peers were tobe appointed in regard to some special qualification to be statedin the message to the house announcing the intention of theCrown to make the appointment. Power was also to be givento the house to expel members for the period of the currentparliament by an address to the Crown praying that their writsof summons might be cancelled. The bill was read a secondtime on the 10th of July, but it met with a cold reception and wasdropped. The only outcome of all that was written and saidin this year was that in 1889, after the report of a select committeeset up in 1888, the Lords made a few changes in their standingorders, among which the order establishing a quorum of thirtyin divisions and those for the constitution of standing committeeswere the most important.

The parliament which met at Westminster in August 1892was more democratic in its tendencies than any of its predecessors.At the beginning of the session of 1893, in the courseof which the Home Rule Bill was passed by the House ofCommons, government bills were introduced for quinquennialparliaments, for the amendment of registration, and for thelimitation of each elector to a single vote. The introductionof these bills served merely as a declaration of governmentpolicy, and they were not further pressed. On the 24th of Marcha resolution in favour of payment of members was carried by276 votes against 229, and again in 1895 by 176 to 158. Butthe rejection of the Home Rule Bill by the House of Lords,with the apparent acquiescence of the country, combinedwith the retirement of Mr Gladstone to weaken the influenceof this House of Commons, and small importance was attachedto its abstract resolutions. In the ensuing session of 1894 anamendment to the Address condemning the hereditary principlewas moved by Mr Labouchere, and carried by 147 to 145.The government, however, holding that this was not the wayin which a great question should be raised, withdrew the Address,and carried another without the insertion. In his last publicutterance Mr Gladstone directed the attention of his party tothe reform of the House of Lords, and Lord Rosebery endeavouredto concentrate on such a policy the energies of his supportersat the general election. But the result of the dissolution of1895, showing, as it did, that on the chief political issue of theday the electorate had agreed with the House of Lords andhad disagreed with the House of Commons, greatly strengthenedthe upper house, and after that date the subject was but littlediscussed until the Liberal party again came into power tenyears later. The House of Lords claimed the right to resistchanges made by the House of Commons until the will of thepeople had been definitely declared, and its defenders contendedthat its ultimate dependence on the electorate, now generallyacknowledged, rendered the freedom from ministerial controlsecured to it by its constitution a national safeguard.

In 1907, under the Radical government ofSir H. Campbell-Bannerman(q.v.), the conflict between the Commons and theLords again became more acute. And the prime minister inMay obtained a large majority in the lower house for a resolution,on which a bill was to be founded, involving a complicatedmethod of overriding the will of the Lords when the Commonshad three times passed a bill. But no further immediate stepwas taken. In 1908 a strong committee of the House of Lordswith Lord Rosebery as chairman, which had been appointedin consequence of the introduction by Lord Newton of a billfor reforming the constitution of the upper house, presentedan interesting report in favour of largely restricting the hereditaryelement and adopting a method of selection.

So the question stood when in 1909 matters came to a headthrough the introduction of Mr Lloyd George’s budget. It hadalways been accepted as the constitutional right of the House ofLords to reject a financial measure sent up by the Commons butnot to amend it, but the rejection of the budget (which was, inpoint of form, referred to the judgment of the electorate) nowprecipitated a struggle with the Liberal party, who hadpersistently denied any right on the part of the upper house toforce a dissolution. The Liberal leaders contended that, even ifconstitutional, the claim of the House of Lords to reject a budgetwas practically obsolete, and having been revived must now beformally abolished; and they went to the country for a mandateto carry their view into law. The elections of January 1910 gavean unsatisfactory answer, since the two principal parties, theLiberals and the Unionists, returned practically equal; but theLiberal government had also on their side the Irish Nationalistand the Labour parties, which gave them a majority in the Houseof Commons if they could concentrate the combined forces on theHouse of Lords question. This Mr Asquith contrived to do; andhaving introduced and carried through the House of Commons aseries of resolutions defining his proposals, he had also tabled abill which was to be sent up to the House of Lords, when thedeath of the king suddenly interrupted the course of the constitutionalconflict, and gave a breathing-space for both sides toconsider the possibility of coming to terms. In June Mr Asquithtook the initiative in inviting the leaders of the Opposition to aconference with closed doors, and a series of meetings betweenfour representatives of each side were begun. The governmentwere represented by Mr Asquith, Mr Lloyd George, Mr Birrelland Lord Crewe. The Unionists were represented by Mr Balfour,Lord Lansdowne, Mr Austin Chamberlain and Lord Cawdor.

The situation on the Radical side at this juncture may be bestunderstood by setting out the resolutions passed in the Houseof Commons, and the text of the parliament bill of whichMr Asquith had givennotice:—

Meanwhile, in the House of Lords, Lord Rosebery had carriedthree resolutions declaring certain principles for the reform ofthe second chamber, which were assented to by the Unionistleaders; the policy opposed to that of the government thusbecame that of willingness for reform of the constitution ofthe Upper Chamber, but not for abolition of its powers.

During the summer and autumn the private meetingsbetween the eight leaders were continued, until twenty hadbeen held. But on the 10th of November Mr Asquith issued abrief statement that the conference on the constitutionalquestion had come to an end, without arriving at an agreement.Within a few days he announced that another appealwould at once be made to the electorate. The ParliamentBill was hurriedly introduced into the House of Lords, with astatement by Lord Crewe that no amendments would beaccepted. The dissolution was fixed for the 28th of November.Time was short for any declaration of policy by the Unionistpeers, but it was given shape at once, first by the adoption ofa further resolution moved by Lord Rosebery for the remodellingof the Upper House, and secondly by Lord Lansdowne’sshelving the Parliament Bill by coupling the adjournment ofthe debate on it with the adoption of resolutions providingfor the settlement of differences between a reconstitutedUpper House and the House of Commons.

The general election took place in December, and resultedpractically in no change from the previous situation. Bothsides won and lost seats, and the eventual numbers were:Liberals 272, Labour 42, Irish Nationalists 84 (8 being “independents”following Mr William O’Brien), Unionists 272.Thus, including the doubtful votes of the 8 IndependentNationalists, Mr Asquith retained an apparent majority of 126for the ministerial policy, resting as it did on the determinationof the Irish Nationalists to pave the way for Home Rule bydestroying the veto of the House of Lords.

B.House of Commons Internal Reforms.—We have alreadysketched the main lines of English parliamentary procedure.Until the forms of the House of Commons were openly utilizedto delay the progress of government business by what becameknown as “obstruction” the changes made in the yearsfollowing 1832 were comparatively insignificant. They consistedin (1) the discontinuance of superfluous forms, questionsand amendments; (2) restrictions of debates upon questions ofform; (3) improved arrangements for the distribution of business;(4) the delegation of some of the minor functions of thehouse to committees and officers of the house; and (5) increasedpublicity in the proceedings of the house. But with the entryof Mr Parnell and his Irish Nationalist followers into parliament(1875–1880) a new era began in the history of the Houseof Commons. Their tactics were to oppose all business ofwhatever kind, and at all hours.

It was not until February 1880 that the house so far overcameits reluctance to restrict liberty of discussion as to pass, in itsearliest form, the rule dealing with “order in debate.” Itprovided that whenever a member was named by the Speakeror chairman as “disregarding the authority of the chair, orabusing the rules of the house by persistently and wilfullyobstructing the rules of the house,” a motion might be made,to be decided without amendment or debate, for his suspensionfrom the service of the house during the remainder of the sitting;and that if the same member should be suspended three times ​in one session, his suspension on the third occasion shouldcontinue for a week, and until a motion had been made uponwhich it should be decided, at one sitting, by the house, whetherthe suspension should then cease or not. The general election,which took place two months later, restored Mr Gladstone topower and to the leadership of the house. Mr Parnell returnedto parliament with a more numerous following, and resumed hisformer tactics. In January 1881 the Protection of Persons andProperty (Ireland) Bill was introduced. For twenty-two hoursParnell fought the motion giving precedence to the bill, and forfour sittings its introduction. The fourth sitting lasted forty-onehours. Then Mr Speaker Brand intervened, and declinedto call on any other member who might rise to address thehouse, because repeated dilatory motions had been supportedby small minorities in opposition to the general sense of thehouse. He added: “A crisis has thus arisen which demandsthe prompt interposition of the chair and of the house. Theusual rules have proved powerless to ensure orderly and effectivedebate. An important measure, recommended by Her Majestynearly a month since, and declared to be urgent in the interestsof the state by a decisive majority, is being arrested by theaction of an inconsiderable minority, the members of whichhave resorted to those modes of obstruction which have beenrecognized by the house as a parliamentary offence. The dignity,the credit, and the authority of this house are seriously threatened,and it is necessary they should be vindicated. . . . Futuremeasures for ensuring orderly debate I must leave to the judgmentof the house. But the house must either assume moreeffectual control over its debates, or entrust greater powers tothe chair.” The Speaker then put the question, which wascarried by an overwhelming majority. Then followed thedecisive struggle. Mr Gladstone gave notice for the next day(Feb. 3) of an urgency rule, which ordered, “That if thehouse shall resolve by a majority of three to one that the stateof public business is urgent, the whole power of the house tomake rules shall be and remain with the Speaker until he shalldeclare that the state of public business is no longer urgent.”On the next day a scene of great disorder ended in the suspensionof the Nationalist members, at first singly, and afterwards ingroups. The urgency rule was then passed without furtherdifficulty, and the house proceeded to resolve, “That the stateof public business is urgent.” The Speaker laid upon the tablerules of sufficient stringency, and while they remained in forceprogress in public business was possible. During this session theSpeaker had to intervene on points of order 935 times, and thechairman of committees 939 times; so that, allowing only fiveminutes on each occasion, the wrangling between the chair andmembers occupied 150 hours.

The events of the session of 1881 and the direct appeal of theSpeaker to the house proved the necessity of changes in the rulesof procedure more drastic than had hitherto beenproposed. Accordingly, in the first week of thesession of 1882 Mr Gladstone laid his proposals on the table,and in moving the first resolution on 20th February, he reviewed,The Closure.in an eloquent speech, the history of the standing orders. Itwas his opinion, on general grounds, that the house shouldsettle its own procedure, but he showed that the numerouscommittees which, since 1832, had sat on the subject, had failedfor the most part to carry their recommendations into effectfrom the lack of the requisite “propelling power,” and heexpressed his regret that the concentration of this power in thehands of the government had rendered it necessary that theyshould undertake a task not properly theirs. He noted two mainfeatures in the history of the case: (1) the constantly increasinglabours of the house, and (2) its constantly decreasing power todespatch its duties; and while he declared that “the fundamentalchange which has occurred is owing to the passing of the firstgreat Reform Bill,” he pointed out that the strain had notbecome intolerable till the development in recent years of obstructivetactics. He defined obstruction as “the dispositioneither of the minority of the house, or of individuals, to resistthe prevailing will of the house otherwise than by argument,” andreached the conclusion that the only remedy for a state of thingsby which the dignity and efficiency of the house were alikecompromised, was the adoption in a carefully guarded form of theprocess known on the Continent as the “clôture.” He explainedthat in his early years the house was virtually possessed of aclosing power, because it was possessed of a means of sufficientlymaking known its inclinations; and to those inclinations uniformdeference was paid by members, but that since this moralsanction had ceased to be operative, it was necessary to substitutefor it a written law. The power to close debate had been ofnecessity assumed by almost all the European and Americanassemblies, the conduct of whose members was shaped by notraditional considerations; and the entry into parliament of abody of men to whom the traditions of the house were as nothingmade it necessary for the House of Commons to follow thisexample. He proposed, therefore, that when it appeared to theSpeaker, or to the chairman of committees, during any debate tobe the evident sense of the house, or of the committee, that thequestion be now put, he might so inform the house, and thatthereupon on a motion being made, “That the question be nowput,” the question under discussion should be forthwith put fromthe chair, and decided in the affirmative if supported by morethan 200 members, or, when less than 40 members had votedagainst it, by more than 100 members. This resolution wasvehemently contested by the opposition, who denounced it as anunprecedented interference with the liberty of debate, but waseventually carried in the autumn session of the same year, aftera discussion extending over nineteen sittings.

On the 20th of November the standing order of the 28th ofFebruary 1880, providing for the suspension of members whopersistently and wilfully obstructed the business of the house ordisregarded the authority of the chair, was amended by the increaseof the penalty to suspension on the first occasion for oneweek, on the second occasion for a fortnight, and on the third,or any subsequent occasion, for a month. The other rules,framed with a view to freeing the wheels of the parliamentarymachine, and for the most part identical with the regulationsadopted by Mr Speaker Brand under the urgency resolution of1881, were carried in the course of the autumn session, andbecame standing orders on the 27th of November.

Mr Gladstone’s closure rule verified neither the hopes of itssupporters nor the fears of its opponents. It was not put intooperation until the 20th of February 1885, when the Speaker’sdeclaration of the evident sense of the house was ratified by amajority of 207—a margin of but seven votes over the necessaryquorum. It was clear that no Speaker was likely to run the riskof a rebuff by again assuming the initiative unless in the faceof extreme urgency, and, in fact, the rule was enforced twice onlyduring the five years of its existence.

In 1887 the Conservative government, before the introductionof a new Crimes Act for Ireland, gave efficiency to the rule byan important amendment. They proposed that any memberduring a debate might claim to move, “That the question benow put,” and that with the consent of the chair this questionshould be put forthwith, and decided without amendment ordebate. Thus the initiative was transferred from the Speakerto the house. Mr Gladstone objected strongly to this alteration,chiefly on the ground that it would throw an unfair burden ofresponsibility upon the Speaker, who would now have to decideon a question of opinion, whereas under the old rule he was onlycalled upon to determine a question of evident fact. Thealternative most generally advocated by the opposition was theautomatic closure by a bare majority at the end of each sitting,an arrangement by which the chair would be relieved from aninvidious responsibility; but it was pointed out that under such asystem the length of debates would not vary with the importanceof the questions debated. After fourteen sittings the closure rulewas passed on the 18th of March and made a standing order.

In the next session, on the 28th of February 1888, the rulewas yet further strengthened by the reduction of the majoritynecessary for its enforcement from 200 to 100, the closure ruleremaining asfollows:—

​

The closure, originally brought into being to defeat the tacticsof obstruction in special emergencies, thus became a part ofparliamentary routine. And, the principle beingonce accepted, its operation was soon extended.The practice of retarding the progress of governmentmeasures by amendments moved to every line, adoptedThe Guillotine.by both the great political parties when in opposition, ledto the use of what became known as the “guillotine,” forforcing through parliament important bills, most of theclauses in which were thus undiscussed. The “guillotine,”means that the house decides how much time shall be devotedto certain stages of a measure, definite dates being laid downat which the closure shall be enforced and division taken. Onthe 17th of June 1887, after prolonged debates on the CrimesBill in committee, clause 6 only having been reached, theremaining 14 clauses were put without discussion, and the billwas reported in accordance with previous notice. This was thefirst use of the “guillotine,” but the precedent was followed byMr Gladstone in 1893, when many of the clauses of the HomeRule Bill were carried through committee and on report by thesame machinery. To the Conservatives must be imputed the inventionof this method of legislation, to their opponents the useof it for attempting to carry a great constitutional innovationto which the majority of English and Scottish representativeswere opposed, and subsequently its extension and development(1906–1909) as a regular part of the legislative machinery.

The principle of closure has been extended even to the debateson supply. The old rule, that the redress of grievances shouldprecede the granting of money, dating from a timewhen the minister of the Crown was so far fromcommanding the confidence of the majority in the House ofCommons that he was the chief object of their attacks, neverthelessSupply Rule.continued to govern the proceedings of the house in relationto supply without much resultant inconvenience, until the periodwhen the new methods adopted by the Irish Nationalist partycreated a new situation. Until 1872 it continued to be possibleto discuss any subject by an amendment to the motion for goinginto supply. In that year a resolution was passed limiting theamendments to matters relevant to the class of estimates aboutto be considered, and these relevant amendments were furtherrestricted to the first day on which it was proposed to go intocommittee. This resolution was continued in 1873, but wasallowed to drop in 1874. It was revived in a modified form in1876, but was again allowed to drop in 1877. In 1879, on therecommendation of the Northcote committee, it was providedin a sessional order that whenever the committees of supply orof ways and means stood as the first order on a Monday, theSpeaker should leave the chair without question put, except onfirst going into committee on the army, navy and civil serviceestimates respectively. In 1882 Thursday was added to Mondayfor the purposes of the order, and, some further exceptionshaving been made to the operation of the rule, it became astanding order. The conditions, however, under which theestimates were voted remained unsatisfactory. The mostuseful function of the opposition is the exposure of abuses in thevarious departments of administration, and this can best beperformed upon the estimates. But ministers, occupied withtheir legislative proposals, were irresistibly tempted to postponethe consideration of the estimates until the last weeks of thesession, when they were hurried through thin houses, the membersof which were impatient to be gone. To meet this abuse, andto distribute the time with some regard to the comparativeimportance of the subjects discussed, Mr Balfour in 1896 proposedand carried a sessional order for the closure of supply, a maximumof twenty-three days being given to its consideration, ofwhich the last three alone might be taken after the 5th ofAugust. On the last but one of the allotted days at 10 o’clockthe chairman was to put the outstanding votes, and on the lastday the Speaker was to put the remaining questions necessaryto complete the reports of supply. In 1901 Mr Balfour soaltered the resolution that the question was put, not withrespect to each vote, but to each class of votes in the CivilService estimates, and to the total amounts of the outstandingvotes in the army, navy and revenue estimates.

It is only possible here to refer briefly to some other changesin the procedure of the house which altered in various respectsits character as a business-like assembly. The chiefof these is as regards the hours. On Mondays,Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays the housemeets at 2.45 p.m., “questions” beginning at 3 and endingOther Changes in Methods.(apart from urgency) at 3.45; and opposed business ends at 11.On Fridays the house meets at 12 noon, and opposed businessis suspended at 5 p.m.; this is the only day when governmentbusiness has not precedence, and private members’ bills have thefirst call, though at 8.15 p.m. on Tuesdays and Wednesdays upto Easter and on Wednesdays up to Whitsuntide the businessis interrupted in order that private members’ motions may betaken. These arrangements, which only date from 1906,represent a considerable change from the old days before 1879when the standing order was formed that no opposed business,with certain exceptions, should be taken after 12.30 a.m.,or 1888 when the closing hour was fixed at midnight. In factthe hours of the house have become generally earlier. Anotherimportant change has been made as regards motions for theadjournment of the house, which used to afford an opportunityto the private members at any time to discuss matters of urgentimportance. Since 1902 no motion for the adjournment of thehouse can be made until all “questions” have been disposed of,and then, if forty members support it, the debate takes place at8.15 p.m. This alteration has much modified the character ofthe debates on such motions, which used to be taken when feelingswere hot, whereas now there is time for reflection. In otherrespects the most noticeable thing in the recent evolution of theHouse of Commons has been its steady loss of power, as anassembly, in face of the control of the government and partyleaders. In former times the private members had far largeropportunities for introducing and carrying bills, which now haveno chance, unless the government affords “facilities”; and thegreat function of debating “supply” has largely been restrictedby the closure, under which millions of money are voted withoutdebate. The house is still ruled by technical rules of procedurewhich are, in the main, dilatory and obstructive, and hamper theexpression of views which are distasteful to the Whips or to thegovernment, who can by them arrange the business so as to suittheir convenience. It is true indeed that this dilatory characterof the proceedings assists to encourage debate, within limits;but with the influx of a new class of representatives, especiallythe Labour members, there has been in recent years a ratherpronounced feeling that the procedure of the house might wellbe drastically revised with the object of making it a morebusiness-like assembly. Reform of the House of Commons hasbeen postponed to some extent because reform of the House ofLords has, to professed reformers, been a better “cry”; butwhen reform is once “in the air” in parliament it is not likelyto stop, with so large a field of antiquated procedure before it asis represented by many of the traditional methods of the Houseof Commons. (H. Ch.)