rEmwEno'usE
iiiMiL: MACDONAGH
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
Irish Life and Character
The Life of Daniel O'Connell
The Viceroy's Post-Bag
The Book of Parliament
Parliament : its Romance, Comedy, and Pathos
Sir Benjamin Stone's Parliamentary Pictures
rHK HOUSK OK I.OKDS IN ITIJ
(fHI'. SI'KAKKK AT TIIR HAR)
IROM AN KNGKAVINt; IIV JOHN I'lNR
THE SPEAKER OF
THE HOUSE
BY
MICHAEL MACDONAGH
WITH SIXTEEN ILLUSTRATIONS
METHUEN & GO. LTD.
36 ESSEX STREET W.G.
LONDON
<•■*
J'^.^
First Published in igi4
^
PREFACE
THIS book is based mainly on the parliamentary
records, original and official, especially as they
appear in the light cast upon them by scholarly
editors and commentators, supplemented by my own obser-
vation of the House of Commons from the Reporters'
Gallery, a deeply interesting study extending over twenty-
four years. The principal sources of information from
which I have largely drawn are, giving them in their
chronological sequence, the Rolls of Parliament^ the Journals
of the House of Commons, and the Parliamentary Debates,
the latter being popularly known as " Hansard."
The origin of the Speakership is to be found in " The
Good Parliament " held in 1376, the fiftieth year of the reign
of Edward III. The Rolls began in 1278, the sixth year of
the reign of Edward I., and ended in 1503, the nineteenth
year of the reign of Henry Vll. They consist of reports
by Chancery officials concerning the petitions, pleas, and
proceedings of Parliament, and were printed by order in
six folio volumes during the years 1767 to 1777 under the
title Rotuli Parliamentum. As the records in the early
volumes are given in a mixture of Norman- French, Latin,
and ancient English, the study of them is beset with many
difficulties. Happily they were unlocked to the general
student by a copious index in a folio volume of 1036 pages,
published in 1832 by order of the House of Lords, which
constitute an admirable guide to the information contained
5
vi THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
in these records. Much that is in them is shadowy and
obscure. Too often the entries are as brief as brief could be.
The most important and interesting events are treated with
an economy of words that is at times disappointing, if not
exasperating. But it would, of course, be too much to
expect to find a full and picturesque account of the doings
of Parliament in these ancient chronicles ; and with all their
brevity and incompleteness, they are of high value to the
historian.
While the printed Journals of the House of Lords com-
mence in 1509, the first year of the reign of Henry Vlii., the
printed Journals of the House of Commons do not begin until
1547, the first year of the reign of Edward VI. Not only
have the ofificial records of the Commons before 1547 dis-
appeared, but in the printed volumes there is a blank
between 1581 and 1603, the years of the latter half of the
ten Parliaments of Elizabeth, though fortunately much
information concerning them is to be found in The Journals
of all tJte Parliaments during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth,
compiled by the antiquary, Sir Symonds D'Ewes, who was
a Member of Parliament in the reign of Charles I., and seems
to have had access to the official records since lost, as well
as to many private sources of authority. The Commons
Journals now consist of 166 folio volumes, bringing the
ofificial report made by the Clerks of the House down to
the end of the year 1910. The opening volume carries the
record down to March 2, 1628, the fourth year of the reign
of Charles I. It has no date of publication. The fly-leaf
of the copy in the British Museum Library contains the
written inscription, " Presented by Order of His Majesty,
January 24, 1772," but it was in 1742 that the Journals were
first printed by order of the House of Commons. For the
purpose of this book the Journals are really invaluable.
They arc official and accurate, and are, besides, plentifully
PREFACE vii
interspersed, more especially in the earlier volumes, with
incidents described in the quaintest circumstantiality, which
help to present the first elections to the Chair in their
true colour and atmosphere.
The Parliamentary Debates down to the end of the year
1910 fill altogether 680 volumes. The first 36 volumes,
known as the Parliamentary History, — which we owe to
the enterprise of William Cobbett as a publisher, — contains
a narrative of Parliament from the earliest times to the
year 1803, when the reports of the debates, or "Hansard"
(so called from the printer), were commenced. The narrative
is not very accurate perhaps. Since its compilation in the
opening years of the nineteenth century we have had to
unlearn a good many things therein recorded, particularly
about the Parliaments of the Middle Ages, owing to the
numerous original sources of information of the greatest
interest and utility which have since become available.
But the value of the Debates is inestimable. These full
reports of the speeches and proceedings in both Houses are
quite beyond price to the parliamentary historian and
constitutional writer.
The other authorities to which I am indebted are far too
numerous to be set forth here in detail. They are mentioned,
as I quote from them, in the text.
Michael MacDonagh
CONTENTS
ROLL OF SPEAKERS .
I. HOW THE SPEAKER IS ELECTED
II. AT THE BAR OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
III. CONTINUITY OF THE OFFICE OF SPEAKER
IV. IN THE CHAIR
V, OCCASIONS OF CEREMONY
VI. GUARDIAN OF THE COMMONS' PRIVILEGES
VII. THE speaker's RESPONSIBILITIES .
VIII. PUNITIVE POWERS
IX. THE CASTING VOTE .
X. "like sad PROMETHEUS" .
XI. THE PRIZE OF THE CHAIR .
XII. EMOLUMENTS, PERQUISITES, AND HONOURS
XIII. SPEAKER'S HOUSE
XIV. MR. SPEAKER AS HOST
XV. THE SPEAKER'S LEAVE-TAKING
XVI. THE SEPARATION OF THE HOUSES .
XVII. THE COMMONS AND THE FIRST SPEAKERS
XVIII. A SUBSERVIENT SPEAKER
XIX. THE SPEAKER AS ORATOR .
XX. THE KING AND THE SPEAKER
XXI. FREQUENT PARLIAMENTS AND MANY SPEAKERS
XXII. LANCASTER AND YORK
XXIII. THE WARS OF THE ROSES .
XXIV. SPEAKERS EMPSON AND DUDLEY
PAGE
XV
I
8
i6
27
33
39
52
60
68
79
85
90
lOI
106
III
114
120
127
130
136
140
144
148
153
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
CHAP.
XXV. SIR THOMAS MORE AS SPEAKER .
XXVI. THE SPEAKERS OF HENRY VIII. .
XXVII. UNDER EDWARD VI. AND MARY .
XXVIII. THE ELIZABETHAN PARLIAMENTS
XXIX. THE FIRST ONSLOW AS SPEAKER
XXX. ELIZABETH AND THE COMMONS .
XXXI. TWO REMARKABLE DISABLING SPEECHES
XXXII, ELIZABETH'S LAST PARLIAMENT
XXXIII. WHEN THE SPEAKER WAS ILL
XXXIV. JAMES I. AND THE COMMONS
XXXV. HELD IN THE CHAIR BY FORCE
XXXVI. MR. SPEAKER LENTHALL .
XXXVII. CHARLES'S RAID ON THE COMMONS
XXXVIII. FLIGHT OF LENTHALL
XXIX. CROMWELL ENDS THE COMMONS' PRATING
XL. SPEAKERS DURING THE PROTECTORATE
XLI. RESTORATION OF THE MONARCHY
XLII. A PROUD SPEAKER
XLIII. THE KING'S POWER TO ADJOURN THE HOUSE
XLIV. REFUSAL OF THE ROYAL APPROBATION .
XLV. THE FIRST WELSHMAN AS SPEAKER
XLVI. THE REVOLUTION ....
XLVII. EXPULSION OF SIR JOHN TREVOR
XLVIII. ROBERT HARLEY AS SPEAKER
XLIX. THE MACE .....
L. RICHARD STEELE AND THE SPEAKERSHIP
LI. ARTHUR ONSLOW AS SPEAKER
LII. speaker's OFFICE OF PROFIT UNDER THE CROWN
LIII. A CHOLERIC SPEAKER ....
LIV. CANDIDATES FOR THE CHAIR SUPPORT EACH OTHER
LV. FIRST SPEAKER OF THE IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
LVI. A PARTISAN SPEAKER ....
LVII. MR. SPEAKER MANNERS-SUTTON .
LVIIl. AN HISTORIC ELECTION TO THE CHAIR.
CONTENTS
XI
CHAP.
LIX. A DISAPPOINTING SPEAKERSHIP .
LX. THE FIRST NON-PARTISAN SPEAKER
LXI. RISE OF THE NATIONALIST PARTY
LXII. THE LONGEST SITTING OF THE HOUSE .
LXIII. MR. SPEAKER BRAND'S COUP d'eTAT .
LXIV. MR. SPEAKER PEEL
LXV. THE MAINTENANCE OF ORDER AND DECORUM
LXVI. ATTACKS ON MR. SPEAKER PEEL
LXVII. "ON THE POUNCE"
LXVm, THE NIGHT OF THE BRAWL
LXIX. MR. PEEL'S GOOD-BYE
LXX. BITTER PARTY CONTEST FOR THE CHAIR
LXXI. POLICE SUMMONED TO THE SPEAKER'S AID
LXXII. MR, SPEAKER LOWTHER .
INDEX . . . . •
306
308
313
318
322
325
330
336
345
349
352
357
360
36s
377
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
The House of Lords in 1742 : The Speaker at the
Bar ....... Frontispiece
From an Engraving by John Pine
FACING PACE
James i. and his Parliament : The Commons presenting
THEIR Speaker . . . . . .10
From an Engraving
The House of Commons in 1742: The Speaker in the
Chair ....... 80
From an Engraving by JOHN Pine
The Speaker's House : Staircase . . . .102
From a Photograph by Reginald Haines
The Speaker's House : Dining-room . . . .110
From a Photograph by Reginald Haines
Sir Thomas More . . . . . . .156
From an Engiaving by T. Cheeseman after the Drawing in chalks by
Holbein at Windsor Castle
Sir Edward Coke ....... 190
After the Portrait by Janssen van Ceulen
William Lenthall . . . . . .212
From an Engraving after the Painting by S. COOPER
Cromwell's Expulsion of the Members . . . 224
From an Engraving after the Painting by Benjamin West
Sir John Trevor ....... 256
From an Engraving after the Drawing by T. Allen. (Collection,
A. Rischgitz)
xiv THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
FACraC PAGE
AjtiuuK Ohslow ....... 274
PhmiBigiMMR after ibeftritinebTH. Htsdcg
Mil Spbakex MANMERS-SmroiT (Viscount Cakterbury) . 300
Fraa aa Eagranqg after tbe P^indog bj A. E. Chalxtx. R~A.
(CdkctiaB. A. Rammiz)
The House of Commoks in 1844: Mr. Speaker Shaw-
LSFETRK REPROCANDIKG A PERSON AT THE BaR 310
Fran aa Eagawimg fay H. Mei.tili.£ after the Dcaviis by T. H.
SBkrksd
Mk. Sfeakkr Brahd (Viscomrr Hamfxnen) -3^
Ftqbb a Pbutugiatih bf Pkai»ixe ft TocHG
Ms. Speaker Peel and ms Train-bearer . 33c
Fraai a FHutugiaiii fay J. Rdsseu. ft Sots
Mr. Speaker Lowther vhth his Train-bearer, Private
Secketart, Deputy Sergeant-at-Ar>is, and Arch-
IKACOlf WILBERFORCE, CHAPLAIN OF THE HOUSE OF
CCMOfOHS . . . -3^
Fraai a Fhotogiaph by Sa- Bbxjamik Stoke
ROLL OF SPEAKERS
year and Pariiament in wfaidi he W2i
i -^^-
Cotaaiiaiifraics-.
'
PlriB»K&
I3J6
?■
r^-.
III Tim I— II ITiiwffli iffiMil
ViikAms
iSTI ff«-l 1
SkFHnrdelalfae .
1377 CObl)
";
Z-
fseoadten)
Sir Janes FicfaniBg
Wcstianarlaad
i3J« i
3
99
Sv Jdhn GoUynnM^ .
Eksex
ijto
4
W»
S^SA:
i^
5
99
Sir Jnaes FidDcnag
Yorioin:
I3li^
6
»»
{sBoaadtam}
SirJoteBn^ . .
LflHOlKAiR
»3W
:"
SirJoteClKBef .
QoBcesteidMe
|i3g9«Ocfi. 14.1
; ^
Esayrr.
ESSEK.
i3g9«OdLi5J)
Try, '!
Sk AntiASmxagt .\
f^, ..
2
» II
^Hoi^Kediiid
IfOK
4
99 11
am Amcid Swjige.
Kntf
MttftOa*.)
5
II
*» l|
(setnadltem) i
1
Sm'^KXtm^Omomr .
Deraa
:^ii r>r:^'?
f
!
SarJohBTiplaft .
r z re
~
S19
TloaKE ChinBB .
OsSmd^me
: .: "
§
w
VfaSmm Stamttm .
Doeet
- •^'- ' - - -~ ,
3 J
HgmfT.
JioIb DoRvood .
E«s
i4i3<fiBaeil
99
(sBoandtaal
^ Waber Ehngeifiad .
WBeAn
I
_
TVowsClBDMer .
OmfimlAaR
.^
(aecnadmrn)
Sir Rklwl Rnhi^pK .
YoA^Ur
HIS
4
^
Sir Walter WraTJOTy .
Wae^lK
l4i6(lbRk9
S
99
^vnger flower
5**-?-..
1416 fOUL}
6
RoserHantt.
I4»
9
S9
ThoBas Ghaaoer .
niifiiii^iTii 1
I^lfBfqrl
10
99
flftarilm)
KlBBBld iMjiiun .
B«H
MSiCDec)
II
aa
RaeerilmKT
Ri«lnd
MB
I]
Finayvi.
'?eCT!«^«--5»
XVI
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Speaker.
Constituency.
Year of
Election.
Parliament.
Sir John Russell
Herefordshire
1423
2 Henry VI.
Sir Thomas Wauton
Bedfordshire
1425
3
>>
Sir Richard Vernon
Derbyshire
1426
4
>>
John Tyrrel .
Herts
1427
5
,,
William Alington .
Cambridgeshire
1429
6
)j
John T}Trel .
Essex
1431
7
)>
(second term)
Sir John Russell .
Herefordshire
1432
8
>>
(second term)
Roger Hunt .
Huntingdonshire
1433
9
,,
(second term)
John Bowes .
Nottinghamshire
1435
10
>)
Sir John Tyrrel ,
Essex
1437 (Jan.)
II
>>
(third term)
William Burley
Salop
1437 (Mar.)
>>
William Tresham .
Northamptonshire
1439
12
>>
William Burley
Salop
1445
14
,,
(second term)
William Tresham .
Northamptonshire
1447
15
,,
(second term)
John Say
Cambridgeshire
1449 (Feb.)
16
j>
Sir John Popham .
Hants
1449 (Nov. 7)
17
,,
William Tresham .
Northamptonshire
1449 (Nov. 8)
>)
(third term)
Sir William Oldhall .
Hertford
1450
18
j>
Thomas Thorpe .
Essex
1453
19
>>
Sir Thomas Charlton .
Middlesex
1454
,,
Sir John Wenlock .
Bedfordshire
1455
20
>>
Thomas Tresham .
Northamptonshire
1459
21
>j
John Green .
Essex
1460
22
,,
Sir James Strange waies .
Yorkshire
1461
I
Edward iv.
John Say . . .
Hertford
1463
2
>>
(second term)
William Alington .
Cambridgeshire
1472
6
,,
John Wode .
Sussex
1483
8
,,
William Catesby .
Northamptonshire
1484
Richard III.
Thomas Lovel
Northamptonshire
1485
I
Henry Vli.
Sir John Mordaunt
Bedfordshire
1487
2
,,
Sir Thomas FitzWilliam
Yorkshire
1489
3
>>
Richard Empson .
Northamptonshire
1491
4
>>
Sir Robert Drury ,
Suffolk
1495
5
>>
Thomas Ingelfield.
Berkshire
1497
6
>»
Edmund Dudley .
Staffordshire
1504
8
>j
Sir Thomas Ingelfield .
Berkshire
1510
I
Henry vni.
(second term)
Sir Robert Sheffield
Lincolnshire
1512
2
>»
Thomas Neville .
Kent
1515
3
>>
Sir Thomas More .
Middlesex
1523
4
»
Thomas Audiey .
Essex
1529
5
,,
Humphrey Wingfield .
Suffolk
1533
,,
Sir Richard Rich .
Essex
1536
6
>>
Sir Nicholas Hare.
Norfolk
1539
7
>>
ROLL OF SPEAKERS
xvii
1
Speaker.
Constituency.
Year of
Election.
Parliament.
Sir Thomas Moyle
Kent
1542
8 Henry viii.
Sir John Baker
Huntingdonshire
1 547
I Edward vi.
James Dyer .
Cambridgeshire
1553 (Mar.)
2
John Pollard.
Oxfordshire
1553 (Oct.)
I Mary
Robert Brooke
London
1554 (April)
2 ,,
Clement Heigham .
West Looe
1554 (Nov.)
I Philip and Mar)
John Pollard (second term )
Chipenham
1555
2
William Cordell .
Suftblk
1558
3 >> '>
Sir Thomas Gargrave .
Yorkshire
1559
I Elizabeth
Thomas Williams .
Exeter
1563
2
Richard Onslow .
Steyning
1566
>)
Christopher Wray .
Ludgershall
1571
3
Robert Bell .
Lyme Regis
1572
4
John Popham
Bristol
1581
,,
John Puckering
Bedford Town
and Gatton
1584
5
Thomas Snagge .
Bedford Town
1589
7
Edward Coke
Norfolk
1593
8 „
Christopher Yelverton .
Northamptonshire
1597
9
John Croke .
London
1601
10
Sir Edward Phelips
Somerset
1604
I James i.
Sir Randolph Crewe
Brackley
1614
2 ,,
Thomas Richardson
St. Albans
1621
3
Sir Thomas Crewe
Aylesbury
1624
4
Sir Heneage Finch
London
1626
2 Charles i.
Sir John Finch
Canterbury
1628
3
John Glanville
Bristol
1640 (April)
4 ,, ("Short
Parliament")
William Lenthall .
Woodstock
1640 (Nov.)
5 Charles i. ("Long
Parliament ")
Henrj' Pelham (after
Grantham
1647 Quly 30)
>» »>
flight of Lenthall)
William Lenthall .
Woodstock
1647 (returned
Aug. 6)
(" Rump Parliament ")
Francis Rous
Devon
1653
(" Bare bones Parlia-
ment ")
William Lenthall .
Oxfordshire
1654
2 Oliver, Protector
(second term)
Sir Thomas Widdrington
Northumberland
1656
3 »
Bulstrode Whitelocke .
Buckinghamshire
1657 (Jan.)
Sir Thomas Widdrington
1657 (Feb.)
») >»
(returned)
Chaloner Chute
Middlesex
1659 (Jan. 27)
Richard, Protector
Sir LisJebone Long
Wells
1659 (Mar. 9)
>) >>
Thomas Bampfylde
Exeter
i659(Mar. 16]
>> u
William Lenthall .
Oxfordshire
1659 (May 7)
("Rump Parliament")
(recalled)
William Say .
Camelford
1660 (Jan. 13)
>> >>
William Lenthall .
1660 (Jan. 21]
(" Long Parliament "
(recalled)
restored)
Sir Harbottle Grimston .
Colchester
i66o(Apr. 25)
("Convention Parlia-
ment ")
xvni
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Speaker.
Sir Edward Turnour
Sir Job Charlton .
Edward Seymour .
Sir Robert Sawyer
EMward Seymour .
(second term)
Sir William Gregory
William Williams .
Sir John Trevor .
Henry Powle
Sir John Trevor .
(second term)
Paul Foley .
Sir Thomas Littleton
Robert Harley
John Smith .
Sir Richard Onslow
William Bromley .
Sir Thomas Hanmer
Spencer Compton
Arthur Onslow
Sir John Cust
Sir Fletcher Norton
Charles Wolfran Cornwall
William Wyndham Gren-
ville ....
Henry Addington .
Sir John Mitford .
Charles Abbot
Charles Manners-Sutton.
James Abercromby
Charles Shaw-Lefevre .
John Evelyn Denison .
Henry Bouverie Brand .
Arthur W, Peel .
William Court Gully
William J. Lowther
Constituency.
Hertford
Ludlow
Totnes
Wycombe
Totnes and
Devon
Weobley
Chester City
Denbigh Town
Windsor
Beeralston
Hereford
Woodstock
New Radnor
Andover
Surrey
Oxford University
Suffolk
Sussex
Surrey
Grantham
Guildford
Winchelsea
Buckinghamshire
Devizes
Northumberland
Woodstock
Scarborough
Edinburgh
Hampshire (N)
Nottinghamshire
(N)
Cambridgeshire
Warwick and
Leamington
Carlisle
Cumberland,
Penrith
Year of
Election.
1661
1673 (Feb. 4)
1673 (Feb. 18)
1678 (April)
1678 (May)
1679
1680
1685
1689
1690
1695
1698
1 701
1705
1708
1710
1714
1715
1728
1761
1770
1780
1789 (Jan.)
1789 (June)
1801
1802
1817
1835
1839
1857
1872
Parliament.
1895
1905
2 Charles I. ("Pei
sionary Parliament
3 Charles 11.
4 M
James II.
("Convention Parli
ment ")
William and Mary
2 William ill.
3
2 Anne
3 „
4 .,
5 ,.
I George I.
I George 11.
I George in.
2
4
5
7 ,',
>>
II ,,
4 William iv.
I Victoria
5 M
14
I Edward vii.
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
THE SPEAKER OF THE
HOUSE
CHAPTER I
HOW THE SPEAKER IS ELECTED
IN the Royal Proclamation dissolving Parliament the date
is fixed for the meeting of the new Parliament, after
the General Election. On the day appointed, Members
returned by the constituencies assemble at St. Stephens,
Palace of Westminster. But though ithe elected repre-
sentatives of the people are thus gathered together, the
House of Commons is not yet constituted. The great
Chair at the top of the chamber is unoccupied. The
Assembly is without a President. The House of Commons
is not constitutionally formed until the Members have
sworn allegiance, and they cannot subscribe to the oath,
and are voiceless, so far as public affairs are concerned,
until the Speaker — the " mouth " of the House — is elected.
The Clerk of the House of Commons, sitting in his chair
at the Table, in wig and gown, acts as moderator while the
Assembly is passing through this transitional stage to final
completion. But the Clerk cannot do this simply by virtue
of his office. He is powerless without the Mace, the symbol
of the Speaker's authority. It seems, indeed, that unless
the Mace is present there can be no election of Speaker.^
Accordingly, the Mace has been brought from the Tower
of London — where it is deposited for safe keeping during
' Hatsell, Precedents, vol. 2, p. 218 (1818 edition).
I
2 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
the parliamentary recess — and is placed, not upon the Table,
where it conspicuously rests, as will be seen later, when the
House is sitting and Mr. Speaker is in the Chair, but below
the Table, out of view.
It cannot yet be said, however, that the way is clear
for the Commons to carry out the election of a Speaker.
Both the theory and practice of the Constitution require
that before the Commons proceed to choose a Speaker they
must have received the assent of the Sovereign. It is
in the House of Lords that this authorization is given to
them. Black Rod, the messenger of the Lords, therefore
soon appears, carrying his ebony rod tipped with gold, and
conducts the Clerk and Members of the House of Commons
to the Bar of the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor
and four other peers are seated, in their scarlet and ermine
robes, on a form placed between the Throne and the
Woolsack. They are the Lords Commissioners appointed
by the King to conduct, in his absence, these preliminaries
to the State opening of the new Parliament. Addressing
both the Lords and Commons, the Lord Chancellor says : —
'* My Lords and Gentlemen, — We have it in command
from His Majesty, to let you know that His Majesty will,
as soon as the Members of your Houses shall be sworn,
declare the causes of his calling this Parliament ; and, it
being necessary that a Speaker of the House of Commons
shall be first chosen, it is His Majesty's pleasure that you,
gentlemen of the House of Commons, repair to the place
where you are to sit, and there proceed to the choice of
some proper person to be your Speaker; and that you
present such person whom you so shall choose here to-
morrow, at noon, for His Majesty's royal approbation."
Then the Clerk and the Commons — without a word
having been spoken on their side — return to their Chamber,
where they immediately proceed to the discharge of their
first duty, that of electing a Speaker. There is usually
no doubt as to the Commons' choice. The Speaker of the
last Parliament is again available, and in accordance with the
now well-established custom of re-electing the same Speaker,
HOW THE SPEAKER IS ELECTED 3
Parliament after Parliament, so long as he is willing and fit
to serve, the late Speaker is to be installed in the Chair again.
The Clerk resumes his seat at the Table. He it is who
has to guide and direct the House in the election of Speaker.
But he is not allowed to speak, unless in the case of a contest
for the Chair, when he has to put the question for decision
in the division lobbies. Everything else that falls to him
to do must be done in dumb show. All the arrangements,
however, have been made beforehand. So, rising from his
seat, the Clerk points with outstretched finger at the
Member who is to move : " That do take the Chair of
this House as Speaker." This motion has to be seconded
by another Member, and he also is indicated in the same
manner by the Clerk. The choice of the proposer and
seconder is regulated by certain recognized customs. In
the first place, they are such as are agreeable to the Speaker-
designate. A county and a borough Member are generally
selected, and selected from different sides of the House, at
any rate when the Speaker is re-elected without opposition.^
Above all, no Minister must be the proposer or the seconder.
So much is the election or re-election of a Speaker regarded
as the independent and unfettered action of the House that
the Government are supposed to have nothing whatever to
do with it. It has been an unwritten law that no Minister
shall propose a candidate for the Chair since John Hatsell,
Chief Clerk from 1768 to 1797, and author of Precedents
of the House of Commons, warned William Pitt in 1789
that it would be unfitting in him as Prime Minister to
nominate Henry Addington. " I think that the choice of
a Speaker should not be made on the motion of the
Minister," said Hatsell to Addington. " Indeed, an invidious
use may be made of it to represent you as the friend of the
Minister rather than the choice of the House." Pitt was
anxious to pay Addington the compliment of proposing
him, but he recognised the force of HatselTs point.- Since
^ May, Law and Usage of Parliament, 154 (nth edition, 1906).
^ Pellew, Life of Lord Sidmouth, 78, 79. Addington was raised to the
peerage as Lord Sidmouth.
4 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
then the candidate for the Chair has always been proposed
and seconded by distinguished unofficial Members.
There can be no doubt, however, that though the Speaker
is never proposed by a Minister, and theoretically the choice
is left freely to the House, the Government, in practice,
retain the control of affairs, even when the Speaker of one
Parliament is re-elected without opposition by another. When
John Evelyn Denison was re-elected to the Chair for the
third time, at the meeting of a new Liberal Parliament in 1 866,
both his proposer and seconder were Ministerialists, and
Disraeli complained of this departure from the usual course of
choosing the seconder from the Opposition. What happened
behind the scenes is explained by Denison in his Diary. Earl
Russell, the Prime Minister, wrote to him inquiring whether
he wished to select any person to nominate him for the
Speakership, or would prefer to leave the arrangements to
the Government. Denison appeared at the outset to favour
being proposed by a Liberal and seconded by a Conserva-
tive. But Gladstone, now for the first time Leader of the
House of Commons, was opposed to the taking of this
course, owing to the strained relations between Liberals and
Conservatives on the vexed question of Reform. He wrote
" That on this occasion, which was different from the
last, it would seem fitting that the Government should
propose the Speaker, and should not attempt to fetter or
compromise the House by an arrangement beforehand
with the Opposition side," and with this view Denison
concurred.^
It is traditional for the proposer and seconder to make
speeches in the grand manner. The highest note of eulogy
is struck in the stateliest of diction. The candidate for the
Chair is a hero, indeed, to his sponsors. They not only
endow him with every qualification for the office, but they
present him to the House as a " superman," quite the most
perfect specimen of the human kind. Sometimes this
splendid being is purely a thing imagined, the offspring of
an amiable ignoring of proportion, and good-natured
' Denison, Notes from My Journal^ 184.
HOW THE SPEAKER IS ELECTED 5
extravagance of praise. But happily in most cases it can
at least be said — such is the discernment of the House, or
the Ministry — that the candidate is the right man for the
place, the best of all possible selections. The Speaker-
designate, all the time that pleasant things are thus being
said of him, sits with the political Party to which he belongs,
whether it be on the Ministerial or on the Opposition side
of the House. And as he stands up in his place and
expresses his sense of the honour proposed to be conferred
upon him, and submits himself humbly to the House, his
words are touched with emotion. As there is no opposi-
tion, the Member proposed is called by the House to the
Chair without any question being put by the Clerk.^ The
unanimous call is expressed by cheers from all parts of the
House.
The Speaker-elect is then taken out of his place by the
proposer and seconder and conducted to the Chair. It was
formerly the custom for the Speaker-elect to make a
pretence of desiring to refuse the crown of bays. It was not
that he was oppressed by the sense of the petty emptiness
of things, of the illusions of authority and distinction. On
the contrary, he was dazzled by the brilliant lustre of the
glory which it was proposed to confer upon one so utterly
humble and unworthy. He made repeated protestations of
his unfitness for the post. He vowed that he possessed
none of the gifts, mental and physical, necessary for the
proper discharge of its duties. Therefore, with all due
acknowledgment of the kind and flattering intention of the
House, he begged to be excused. But the House, of old,
cried " To the Chair, to the Chair." Then as he was being
led to the Chair the Speaker-elect indulged in a show of
physical resistance. He disputed the ground with his
sponsors inch by inch and yard by yard. See him in the
seventeenth century : wriggling his shoulders, as if he were
struggling against captors leading him to the dungeon or
the stake ! And when at last he was placed in the Chair,
he appealed to the House, not for their congratulations on
^ May, Law and Usage of Parliament, 154.
6 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
having attained to a position of such high distinction, but
for their condolences on being compelled to accept a post
of difficulty and embarrassment for which he was most
unsuited.
This ludicrous comedy of mock modesty was repeated
at every election or re-election of Speaker for more than
four centuries. It began very early. Sir Richard Walde-
grave, the fifth of the long line of Speakers, who occupied
the Chair in 1381, was the first who thus "disabled " himself,
according to the meagre and imperfect records of the origin
of the Speakership. It continued down to the commence-
ment of the nineteenth century, though, as time progressed,
it dwindled in absurdity. The first Speaker boldly to decline
to say he was unfit for the office was Mitford, who was
elected in 1801.
In our days the Speaker-elect surrenders himself to his
sponsors deferentially, but without any of the old pretence
of reluctance to be called to the Chair.
They take him each by a hand, and, conducting him
through the narrow passage between the Treasury Bench
and the Table, only leave him when he stands on the dais
of the Chair and faces the House. Here again the Speaker-
elect expresses his " grateful thanks " and his " humble
acknowledgments " for " the high honour the House has
been pleased to confer" upon him. And well may he feel
proud and elated. He has come into the rich and brilliant
heritage of a great historical post ; his name has been im-
perishably added to the long and unbroken line of Speakers
of the House of Commons, stretching back from the
twentieth century to the fourteenth. Then amid the
renewed acclamations of the House he takes his seat in
the Chair. The Serjeant-at-Arms comes up the floor from
his place by the Bar and lays the Mace in the position
it occupies on the Table when the House is ordinarily
sitting for business. Congratulations to the Speaker-elect
are offered by the Leader of the House and the Leader of
the Opposition. The House then adjourns. The motion
for adjournment is put by the Speaker-elect, and when he
HOW THE SPEAKER IS ELECTED 7
declares it carried he leaves the Chamber. The first stage
of the election of the Speaker is completed.
Though the Commons have chosen one of their number
to take the Chair as Speaker, the person selected has to
submit himself at the Bar of the House of Lords for the
Sovereign's approbation before he can enter upon the duties
of his office. Until the royal ratification has been signified
he continues to be styled " the Speaker-elect."
Thus it would seem as if the Commons cannot elect their
Speaker without first having got the leave of the Sovereign ;
and secondly, as if their choice is ineffective until it has
received the royal approbation. Ever since the institution
of the office, almost, this has been the custom. Nevertheless,
there have been several instances of a Speaker having of
necessity been appointed without either the Sovereign's con-
sent or the Sovereign's approval. There were the cases of
the Speakers elected during the Commonwealth, when there
was no King. There were the cases, also, of the Speakers
of the Convention Parliament of 1660, which restored
Charles II. to the Throne, and of the Convention Parliament
of 1 68 8, which declared the Throne vacated by the flight of
James II., neither of whom received the hall mark of the
Crown. There has been one instance of these formalities
having been dispensed with even when there was a King.
On the death of Mr. Speaker Cornwall, in 1789, George III.
was mentally incapacitated from attending to any business,
and William Wyndham Grenville was elected to the Chair
without any attempt to assume even the appearance of the
royal sanction.
Only once has the Sovereign exercised the veto on the
choice of the Commons for the Chair. This was the case of
Edward Seymour, who though he had served as Speaker in
one of the Parliaments of Charles II. failed to receive the
approval of that monarch when he was re-elected in a new
Parliament, and another Member had to be chosen in his stead.
Whether the veto of the Crown on the Speakership is now
operative is extremely problematical. Perhaps it has gone,
and for ever, like the veto of the Crown in legislation. The
8 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
last time the royal assent was refused to a Bill which
passed both Houses was, as is well known, in the reign of
Queen Anne. That prerogative of the Crown is now
generally regarded as being as dead as Queen Anne, which
is as much as to say that it is as dead as dead can be. It
may be said, in like manner, that the royal veto on the
Speakership is as dead as Charles II., which should be still
more the death from which there is no resurrection ; and that
consequently the choice of the Speaker is the exclusive and
absolute right of the Commons, uncontrolled by any outside
authority whatever.^
CHAPTER II
AT THE BAR OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
THE ancient forms are, however, strictly adhered to.
The King gives his consent to the faithful Commons
to choose their Speaker, and having made their
selection the Commons, faithful still, submit their nominee
for the royal approval. The second day sees the observ-
ance of this formality, which completes the full ritual of
election to the Chair of the House of Commons on the
assembling of a new Parliament. The Speaker-elect
ceremoniously enters the chamber by the main door, under
the clock, attended by the Serjeant-at-Arms. It is obvious
that his evolution as " Mr. Speaker " is not yet completed.
He is still, as it were, in the chrysalis state. He appears
only half made up, so far as his distinctive or ofificial
costume is concerned. He wears the usual Court dress
' Hatsell, writing in 1776, says the Sovereign's consent to the election of
Speaker and approbation of the choice of the Commons are founded upon pre-
cedents'from the earliest accounts of the House of Commons, and remains in
operation, the instances quoted to the contrary notwithstanding {Precedents, vol.
2, p. 220).
On the other hand, Sir William Anson, writing in 1889, says "the approval
of the Speaker-elect by the King is not seemingly a legal necessity " (Law and
Custom of the Constitution, vol. i. p. 76, 4th edition).
AT THE BAR OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS 9
— cut-away coat, ruffles, knee-breeches, silk stockings, and
silver-buckled shoes — but not his full flowing black robe,
and on his head there is a small bob-wig, instead of the
customary large and ample wig, the wings of which fall
over his shoulder, in which he is seen when he presides over
the House of Commons.
May's standard and official work on the Law and Usage
0/ Pa7'liameni says nothing on the subject of the Speaker's
dress. It simply records that "The House meets on the
following day, and Mr. Speaker-elect takes the Chair and
awaits the arrival of Black Rod from the Lords Com-
missioners."
Here, then, arises one of many questions which beset the
inquirer into parliamentary habits and customs, to which
it seems no definite answer can be returned. What is the
real significance of this bob-wig, — when was it first worn,
— was its use originally restricted to Speakers-elect who
had been "bred to the law"? The inquiry is suggested
by a curious entry in the Diary of Mr. Speaker Denison.
Referring to his re-election on February 2, 1866, he
writes : " I had intended to have gone to the House of
Lords without my small wig, but it occurred to me that in
walking through the long courts and passages I should
catch cold in my head, so I did wear the small wig, to which
I have no claim or title, not being a lawyer."^
It is noticeable, too, that the Serjeant-at-Arms does not
bear the Mace in the usual fashion, sloped upon his right
shoulder. He carries it as if it were a baby, resting in
the curve of his left arm. This is another indication that
something is still wanting to make ftnal the election of the
Speaker. The Mace is not to be borne shoulder high before
the Speaker until his appointment has been approved by
the Sovereign. The Members of the House of Commons,
however, stand up in their places with uncovered heads, as
the Speaker-elect walks slowly up the floor, making three
obeisances to the Chair, and sits in the Clerk's place at
the Table.
^ Denison, Notes from My Jourual , 185.
lo THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
The Peers assemble on this, the second, day of the new
Parliament, at the same hour as the Commons ; and Black
Rod is at once dispatched to invite the attendance of the
elected representatives of the people in the House of Lords
to hear the royal will in regard to their selection for the
Speakership. Black Rod is never allowed free admittance to
the House of Commons. As on the first day, so too on this
the second day, the door of the Chamber is closed and barred
by the Serjeant-at-Arms, and not until Black Rod humbly
knocks three times is he given admission. Walking to the
Table with many lowly bows, he delivers his message,
desiring the attendance of " this honourable House " in the
House of Lords, and, having done so, retires backwards to
the Bar. There he is joined by the Speaker-elect and the
Serjeant-at-Arms, who still carries the Mace rather awk-
wardly in the hollow of his left elbow, and they proceed to the
House of Lords followed by the general body of Members.
The Speaker-elect stands in the centre of the railed-in
pen, known as "the Bar," of the House of Lords, with
Black Rod to his right, the Serjeant-at-Arms to his left,
and his proposer and seconder immediately behind him.
Something is missing. Where is the Mace ? If the Commons
lock their door in the face of Black Rod, the Lords on their
part do not permit the sight of the Mace of the Commons to
affront them in their Chamber. So the Serjeant-at-Arms
leaves the symbol of Mr. Speaker's power and authority
with one of his messengers at the portals of the House of
Lords. But elaborate courtesies are exchanged between the
representatives of the King and Commons. The Speaker-
elect bows to the Lords Commissioners, who are again
seated, in all the glory of scarlet and ermine, on the form in
front of the Throne, and they acknowledge the salutation
by raising their cocked hats. Then the Speaker-elect
addres.ses them as follows : —
" I have to acquaint your Lordships that, in obedience
to his royal commands, His Majesty's faithful Commons
have, in the exercise of their undoubted right and privilege,
proceeded to the choice of a Speaker, Their choice has
^^litu PtmnjnmiJ'fijrgmh. ,'tuu v»i«f .-ifruij^. ja'Ziwyrri h'Ummi mtrm-'-- ..■■uhtuirv, Pn..o<-utjii:iii ..-ijii.-.tmu;^
JAMES I AND HIS PARLIAMENT
THE COMMONS PRESENTING THEIR SI'EAKER
AT THE BAR OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS ii
fallen upon myself, and I therefore present myself at your
Lordships' Bar, humbly submitting myself for His Majesty's
gracious approbation."
To this the Lord Chancellor thus replies, addressing
the Speaker-elect by name : —
"We are commanded to assure you that His Majesty
is so fully sensible of your zeal for the public service, and
your undoubted efficiency to execute all the arduous duties
of the position which his faithful Commons have selected
you to discharge, that he does most readily approve and
confirm your election as Speaker."
Thereupon Mr. Speaker submits himself " in all
humility" to His Majesty's royal will and pleasure; and
entreats that if, in the discharge of his duties and in main-
taining the rights and privileges of the Commons, he makes
any mistake, " the blame may be imputed to him alone."
During the ten or fifteen minutes that the Speaker,
surrounded by the Commons, stands at the Bar of the
House of Lords, he holds a significant historical colloquy
with the Lord Chancellor, not as the President of the House
of Peers, but as the representative of the Sovereign, which
has been repeated, with some slight changes of form and
substance, at every election of Speaker, on the assembling
of a new Parliament, practically since the fourteenth century.
For the next duty of the Speaker is to lay claim on behalf
of the Commons, by humble petition to the King, "to all
their ancient and undoubted rights and privileges," and, pro-
ceeding to specify the more important, he adds, "particularly
that their persons and servants may be free from arrest and
molestation, that they may enjoy liberty of speech in their
debates, that they may have access to His Majesty whenever
occasion may require, and that all their proceedings may
receive the most favourable construction."
In the twentieth century this assertion and vindication
by the Speaker of the ancient rights and privileges of the
Commons is solemnly reiterated, as if the Sovereign were
predominant, absolute, and autocratic, still the ultimate and
12 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
supreme arbiter of the country's liberties, and as if the
Commons had reason still to guard themselves and the
people against the evil consequences of the royal dis-
pleasure or caprice. It was for some hundreds of years
a solemn pronouncement by the Commons on a matter
fateful to the nation. Without this protestation, on the
assembling of every new Parliament, it would have been
difficult to define and maintain the privileges of the repre-
sentatives of the people over a long period of time, and
before constitutional liberty was fully and definitely
established.
But in these days it is far removed from the reality of
things. Liberty of speech is as valuable as ever it was to
the elected representatives of the people in Parliament
assembled, but it is not in the smallest danger of being
abrogated, except by the action of the Commons them-
selves. The other immunities claimed in the Speaker's
petition have either been expressly abrogated or limited
by statute, tacitly abandoned or dropped into disuse. The
privilege of freedom from arrest was originally of very ex-
tended scope. Not only the persons of Members, but their
goods were protected ; and as this privilege extended also
to their servants, many abuses and injustices suffered by
tradesmen went unredressed. Gradually the privilege was
reduced by legislation within narrow limits. It was abolished
as regards servants of Members in 1770.^ The freedom from
arrest still enjoyed by Members themselves does not exempt
them from the processes of the criminal law. It is limited to
civil cases, and since the abolition of imprisonment for debt
generally it has been shorn of most of its utility. But should
a Member be arrested on a commitment for contempt,
the Court is required immediately to inform the Speaker of
the nature of his contempt, and the letter is read on the
first opportunity to the House. The claim of access to the
Sovereign has also in practice been considerably modified
by the development of constitutional Government. Ministers
can, of course, see the King on public business whenever
' 10 Geo. III. c. 50.
ii
AT THE BAR OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS 13
occasion may arise, and one of them is usually in attendance
on His Majesty when he is out of London.
Why, then, should a declaration which arose out of
battles long ago continue to be made centuries after these
conflicts, and the causes involved in them, have been decis-
ively lost and won ? Has it degenerated into a mere form,
mechanically repeated by the Speaker without any genuine
heart-felt emotion? For one thing, that ceremony at the
Bar of the House of Lords shows how strong is the appeal
and sway of antiquity and precedent in Parliament. It
has its uses also. It revives historical memories, proud and
inspiring, and that must be to the good in stimulating
Members of Parliament in zeal for the public service.
Yet different Speakers seemingly take different views of its
importance and utility. It is cold and empty, as it is said
by some Speakers, but as said by others it is an epitome of
the long struggle for constitutional liberty. I have heard a
Speaker — lacking in the historical imagination, or perhaps
too self-conscious — gabble through it shamefacedly, as if
he were oppressed with the ridiculousness of having in the
twentieth century to pose in quite a sixteenth-century
role. From his lips the words sounded meaningless and
dead. But coloured and warmed by the feelings of a
Speaker of serious mind and intensity of view, and finely
declaimed with an appealing gravity of tone, this ancient
demand, shorn of most of its significance though it be, was
transformed into a still great and still living issue; and to
the new Members, no doubt, it resounded with that explicit
fullness and force which constitutional development have
invested it, giving them their first parliamentary inspiration.
At any rate, all these claims are readily granted by the
Sovereign, speaking through the Lord Chancellor. " His
Majesty," says the Lord Chancellor, " is pleased to grant
and confirm them in as full and ample a manner as they
have ever been granted or confirmed by himself or by
any of His Majesty's royal predecessors." This ends the
ceremonial. The Speaker and the Commons return to
their Chamber as they came. But, see, the Mace is now
14 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
borne high on the shoulder of the Serjeant-at-Arms. And
up through St. Stephen's Hall come the sound of joy bells.
It is the custom, which has been observed through many
generations, for the bells of St. Margaret's Church across
the way — the official parliamentary place of worship — to
ring a joyous peal immediately after the royal ratification
of the Speaker's election has been communicated to the
Commons.
On his return from the House of Lords the Speaker goes
straight to his private room. A few minutes elapse, and he
reappears in the House of Commons. And lo, he is in the
full dress of his office. He has discarded the bob-wig for
the full-bottomed wig, and over his Court dress he wears
the customary long and flowing black silk gown. From the
Chair the Speaker reports what took place in the House of
Lords. It is one of the curious customs of Parliament that
the Speaker always assumes that he has been to the House
of Lords alone, and that the Commons are in absolute
ignorance of what has happened there. Without the slightest
tremor of emotion or the faintest indication of satisfaction,
at least on the part of the old Members, the Commons learn
that their " ancient rights and undoubted privileges " have
been fully confirmed by the Sovereign. The solemn
announcement hardly evokes even a solitary cheer. But
there is loud applause upon the Speaker thus finally con-
cluding:—
" I have now again to make my grateful acknowledg-
ments to the House for the honour done to me in placing
me again in the Chair, and to assure it of my complete
devotion to its service."
Thus finishes the ancient and picturesque ceremony of
the election of Speaker. From this moment the House
of Commons of the new Parliament may be said really to
begin its corporate existence. It has got its " mouth," to
use again the term so often found in the most ancient of
the parliamentary documents.
The next business is the taking of the oath of allegiance.
I
AT THE BAR OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS 15
The Speaker is the first to swear. Standing on the upper
step of the Chair he declares : " I, , swear by Almighty
God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His
Majesty King George v., his heirs and successors accord-
ing to law." He is required by statute to be in the Chair
when Members are being sworn, in like manner to bear true
and faithful allegiance to the Sovereign. By Acts passed
in the reigns both of Charles II. and William III. it is pro-
vided that the oath is to be taken by Members at the Table,
in the middle of the said House, and whilst a full House of
Commons is there duly sitting with the Speaker in his
Chair.^ When these Acts were passed the oath was a
profession of faith as well as a protestation of loyalty, and
was intended first to keep Papists — and subsequently
Jacobites as well as Papists — out of the House of Commons.
It was therefore provided that the oath should be taken in
as public a manner as possible, so as to avoid any chance
of evasion. But religious tests at the door of the House of
Commons were finally abolished in the last quarter of the
nineteenth century, and the oath was reduced to a simple
and brief declaration of allegiance. Still, it has to be taken
while Mr. Speaker is in the Chair. The custom has acquired
a new value of the greatest utility. At the opening of a new
Parliament, as each Member is sworn and signs the Roll,
he is introduced by the Clerk to the Speaker. Thus the
Speaker is enabled to obtain an acquaintance, by sight and
^ 30 Chas. II. Stat. 2, and 13 Will. ill. c. 6. This provision is repeated by
sect. iii. of the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866.
On June 5, 1855, some Members took the oath while the Chair was occupied
by the Chairman of Ways and Means as Deputy Speaker. Doubts were then
raised in regard to the legality of the oath when administered in the absence of
the Speaker, and to remove them an Act was passed (18 & 19 Vict. c. 84) to
establish the validity of these, and other proceedings, transacted while the
Deputy Speaker was in the Chair. At this time the authority empowering the
Chairman of Ways and Means to take the Chair as Deputy Speaker was only a
standing order and had not been confirmed by statute. On the assembling
of Parliament, consequent on the death of King Edward vii. in May 1910,
Members took the oath of allegiance to the new Sovereign in the presence of
the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Emmot), who presided owing to the absence abroad
of Mr. Speaker Lowther.
i6 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
name, with the new Members. That is rather an important
matter. When the debates begin the Speaker will have to
call in turn those whom he selects to speak ; and one of his
most difficult tasks is to be able to associate, at a moment's
notice, the name of a newly elected Member with his features.
Therefore the Speaker, as he shakes each new-comer by the
hand, eagerly scans his appearance for future identification.
CHAPTER III
CONTINUITY OF THE OFFICE OF SPEAKER
THE procedure, then, that is followed at the opening of
a new Parliament is that the Speaker of the late
Parliament is, in accordance with invariable practice,
re-elected to the Chair. But what is more interesting and
important is what happens when the Chair becomes vacant
by death or resignation and a new Speaker has to be
chosen. It is a curious fact that, in the long history of the
Chair of the House of Commons, only two Speakers have
died in harness. The latest instance is so far back as 1789.
A vacancy in the Chair is caused as a rule by the resignation
of the Speaker during the progress of a session.^
The election of a new Speaker in this eventuality differs
in certain particulars from the re-appointment of the late
Speaker at the opening of a new Parliament. The form in
which the assent of the Sovereign is intimated to the
Commons is different. The Commons are not summoned
to the Bar of the House of Peers to hear from the Lord
Chancellor the King's will and pleasure that they should
elect a Speaker.
A Minister, usually the Leader of the House, rises and
' On the resignation of Peel, Mr. Speaker Gully was elected on the day upon
which the House adjourned for Easter in 1895, ^"^ ^^ the resignation of Gully,
Mr. Speaker Lowthcr was elected on the day of the adjournment for Whitsuntide
in 1905, and in each case the Speaker-elect was presented for the Sovereign's
approval on the first day of the meeting of Parliament after the holidays.
CONTINUITY OF THE OFFICE OF SPEAKER 17
states that His Majesty "gives leave to the House to
proceed forthwith to the choice of a new Speaker " ; and
when the new Speaker has been elected, the same Minister
acquaints the House that it is the King's pleasure that they
should present their choice the next day in the House of
Peers, for His Majesty's approbation.^
How is the Member who is to be nominated for the
Chair selected in these circumstances ? In the first place,
no Member can be proposed who has not taken the oath
and his seat. On the occasion of the election of Mr. Speaker
Mitford, on February 11, 1801, during the existence of a
Parliament, Richard Brinsley Sheridan desired to nominate
Charles Dundas ; but William Pitt, the Leader of the House,
pointed out that as Dundas had not taken the oath and his
seat he was disqualified.^ The Chair has always been
regarded as the legitimate prize of the Party in office or in
power when it becomes vacant by resignation. The Speaker
therefore, on his first election, has invariably been the nominee
I of the Government of the day. The Government select for
'the Chair a fit and proper person from among their
supporters in the House, although his formal nomination is
made and seconded, not by Ministers, but by private
Members. But while the new Speaker is thus, in fact,
chosen and appointed by the Government, it has always
been customary for the name of the choice of the Ministry
to be first submitted privately to the Leader of the
Opposition, before being made public, with a view to ensuring,
if possible, the unanimous call to the Chair of some Member
acceptable to both sides of the House.
Rarely, indeed, is there a contest. Only on two occasions
in the nineteenth century was opposition offered to the
Government nominee for the Chair when it fell vacant by
resignation, and on each occasion it was unsuccessful. These
were the elections of Charles Shaw-Lefevre, Whig, over
Henry Goulburn, Tory, in 1839, and of William Court Gully,
Liberal, over Sir M. White Ridley, Conservative, in 1895.
^ May, Law and Usage of Parliament, 157.
- Parliamentary History, vol. 35, p. 591.
1 8 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
When there is a contest a debate takes place on the
respective merits of the rival candidates, and at its close the
Clerk puts the question ^ that the first Member proposed —
the Government nominee — do take the Chair as Speaker.
In the division the Government and Opposition Whips tell
on each side, as they do in all divisions on matters of first-
class Party importance. "According to usage," says May
in Law and Usage of Parliammt, " the two Members who
are proposed for the Chair take part in the division, each
Member giving his vote in favour of his rival." This had
been the practice until 1895 when a new departure was
made, and a precedent set which will probably be followed
in any future contests. At the contested election for the
Speakership in 1895, neither Court Gully nor White Ridley
took part in the division. While the House was dividing, the
candidates remained together in one of the rooms behind .
the Speaker's Chair. ^
When a Speaker-elect, chosen during the existence of a
Parliament, presents himself at the Bar of the House of
Peers to receive the royal approbation no deeply moving
historic memories are revived by his address. On such an
occasion it is the custom to omit the prayer for liberty of
speech and freedom from arrest, which, having been granted
at the commencement of the Parliament, holds good, accord-
ing to constitutional authorities, until the Dissolution.
In 1566, Richard Onslow, being elected Speaker in the
middle of a Parliament, omitted the petition for liberty of
speech, freedom from arrest, and access to the Sovereign.
On February 5, 1673, Sir Job Charlton, chosen in similar
circumstances, claimed all the privileges. But, in expressing
the view that this course was wrong, Hatsell in his Precedents
draws attention to the action of the House, which in 1695
itself directed Paul Foley not to make the usual petitions,
"it being said that those petitions were demands of right,
and ought to be made but once, at the beginning of a
Parliament." Therefore a Speaker appointed to the Chair
' On thcFe occasions it is always recorded in the Journals of the House of
Commons that the Clerk put the question by *' order of the House."
CONTINUITY OF THE OFFICE OF SPEAKER 19
for the first time in the course of a session simply expresses
a hope that if, in the discharge of his duties and the main-
tenance of the rights and privileges of the Commons, he is
led into inadvertent error, the blame may be imputed to
him alone ; whereas, at the next meeting of a new Parlia-
ment, when he is re-elected, he formally lays claim, on behalf
of the people's representatives, to all their ancient and un-
doubted rights and privileges.
What is the tenure of the Speaker's office ? A Speaker,
when elected by the Commons and approved by the Crown,
continues in office during the whole of the Parliament. The
tenure of the office of Speaker does not, however, expire
with the Parliament. An Act of William iv., and another
passed early in the reign of Queen Victoria, provide that in
case of a Dissolution the then Speaker shall be deemed to be
the Speaker until a Speaker has been chosen by the new
Parliament.^ But the provision is only for the purposes of
these Acts. And what are their purposes ? The first of the
statutes was passed to authorize the quarterly payments of
the Speaker's salary out of the Consolidated Fund ; and the
second relates to the lodgment of the fees formerly paid to
various officers of the House of Commons in the Bank of
England and the rendering by the Collector of a full and
true account of the moneys he receives to the Speaker. It
therefore follows that while the occupancy of the office does
not expire with the Parliament, the Speaker continues to be
Speaker from the Dissolution until the assembling of a new
Parliament practically only for the purpose of drawing his
salary, and that in the interval he has no authority to per-
form any of the duties that fall to him when Parliament is
not sitting, save that of requiring an account from the
Collector of fees in the House of Commons. For instance,
he is unable to issue writs for the filling of seats which may
become vacant after a General Election and before the new
Parliament meets.
Such is the statutory tenure of the Speakership, But
whether the Speaker is first designated by the Government,
1 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 105 ; 9 & 10 Vict. c. 77.
20 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
and generally accepted, or is carried by the majority of the
Government, in a division challenged by the Opposition as
a protest against some feature or element of the selection,
once he is elected the Chair is his by right unchallenged
so long as he chooses to retain it. He is re-elected without
question on the assembling of every new Parliament, even
though the Party to which he belongs and the Government
on whose nomination he was originally appointed to the
Chair have sustained defeat at the polls. Only once was
this principle of the continuity of the office violated in the
course of the nineteenth century. In 1835 the Whigs set
aside the Tory, Charles Manners-Sutton — first appointed
Speaker in 1817 — and chose a Whig, James Abercromby, in
his place. The Whigs had re-elected Manners-Sutton to
the Chair in 1832. They dismissed him in 1835 on the
ground, as they alleged, that in the conflicts over the Reform
Bill, and after, he had laboured to thwart their policy. On
every other occasion since then, when a General Election
has effected a shifting of the balance of Parties in the House
of Commons, the Speaker of the old Parliament has been
re-elected in the new. By a curious coincidence the Whigs
or Liberals were in office every time the Chair became
vacant from the passing of the Reform Bill to the opening
of the twentieth century. In fact, only three of the nine
Speakers of the nineteenth century were chosen from the
Conservative Party — Sir John Mitford (1801); Charles
Abbot (1802), and Charles Manners-Sutton (1817). Still,
the Conservatives, on each of their returns to office, during
this period refrained from making a Party question of the
Chair and reappointed the Liberal Speakers then in possession
— Charles Shaw-Lefevre in 1841, Henry Bouverie Brand in
1874, Arthur Wellesley Peel in 1886, and William Court
Gully in 1895. ^Y the appointment of James William
Lowther in 1905, on the resignation of Gully when the
Unionists were in office, a Conservative occupied the Chair
after an interval of seventy years.
The circumstances of the election of William Court
Gully as Speaker have given both to the principle that the
CONTINUITY OF THE OFFICE OF SPEAKER 21
Chair is above the strife and the prejudices of Party, and
the precedent of the continuity of the office, an accession of
strength which makes them decisive for all time. Gully had
sat in the House as a Liberal for ten years when, on the
retirement of Mr. Speaker Peel in May 1895, he was
nominated for the Chair by the Liberal Government. The
Unionist Opposition proposed Sir Matthew White Ridley,
a highly respected Member of their Party, and a man of
long and varied experience in parliamentary affairs. On a
division Gully was elected by the narrow majority of eleven.
The voting was : Gully, 285 ; White Ridley, 274.^ It was
publicly declared at the time that, as the Unionist Party
disapproved the candidature of Gully as the Government
nominee in a moribund Parliament, they held themselves
free to dismiss him from the Chair should they have the
majority in the next new Parliament, to which all the indica-
tions pointed. x'\ few weeks later the Liberal Government
was defeated in the House of Commons, and a Dissolution
followed.
It is the custom to allow the Speaker a walk-over in his
constituency at the General Election. But Gully's seat at
Carlisle was contested in 1895. Since the Reform Act of
1832 there is only one other instance of a Speaker having
been opposed when s.eeking re-election to the House of
Commons on the Dissolution of Parliament. This was the
previous case of Mr. Speaker Peel, to whom opposition was
offered in the General Election of 1885, the year after his
appointment to the Chair. In the General Election of 1880
he was returned as a Liberal for the borough of Warwick.
By the Redistribution Act of 1885, Leamington was in-
corporated with Warwick, and the explanation of the
Conservatives, in opposing Mr. Speaker Peel, was that they
desired to test the political opinions of the new constitu-
ency. Peel was elected by a majority of 372. In this
contest he refrained from touching upon political questions.
In 1886 he was returned unopposed, and by the forbearance
of both political Parties in the constituency he was not
' Parliamentary Debates (4th series), vol. 32, pp. 1369-96.
22 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
asked for any public expression of his views on Home
Rule, the question upon which the General Election was
fought.
Why, then, was the seat of Mr. Speaker Gully contested,
in violation of precedent? His opponent received from Mr.
Arthur Balfour, the Leader of the Unionists, a letter warmly
endorsing his candidature and wishing him success.
Speaking at a public meeting in Carlisle during the General
Election, Mr. Asquith denounced the opposition to Mr.
Speaker Gully as " a departure from the finer and better
traditions of English public life." ^ Two days later a letter
appeared from Mr. Balfour, in which the reasons for
opposing the Speaker were set forth. The Liberal Govern-
ment had not consulted the Opposition on the choice of a
Speaker when they nominated Mr. Gully. They forced
their man on the House by the narrow Party majority of
eleven. Mr. Gully's seat at Carlisle was insecure. Not to
oppose him would mean the making to the Government the
present of a safe Unionist seat. It was for the Government
to provide the Speaker with a constituency in which there
was an undoubted Liberal majority. So wrote Mr. Balfour.^
In his address to the constituents Mr. Gully made no
allusion to politics. He was Speaker of the House of
Commons, and as such he could have nothing to say to
Party controversy. Like his predecessors, he recognized
that a Speaker cannot descend into the rough strife of the
electoral battle, not even to canvass the electors, without
impairing the independence and the dignity of the Chair of
the House of Commons. But he addressed a public meeting
in Carlisle, and gave the following reasons why the Speaker
should not be opposed when seeking re-election : —
" The first reason was that the English people were in
the main lovers of fair play, and that it had struck them as
being a somewhat unfair spectacle to see some one who, in
the public interest, was disabled from protecting himself by
the ordinary weapons of political warfare, exposed to an
attack and unable to defend him.self A Speaker could not
' The Times, July lo, 1895. - Jbid., July u, 1895.
CONTINUITY OF THE OFFICE OF SPEAKER 23
withdraw from the political arena. On the contrary, he
must be a Member before he was a Speaker, but he was
disarmed. It had occurred to our fathers and forefathers
that it was unfair to put a man disarmed in the middle of a
ring, and that the proper course was not to subject him to
the conditions of a contest. That appeared to some people
of the present day to be a quixotic piece of generosity. He
hoped there would be some generosity left still in public life."^
Happily, the contest ended in his re-election by a
substantial majority. In the previous General Election he
polled 2729 votes, or 143 more than his Unionist opponent.
In the General Election of 1895 he increased his poll to
3167, and his majority to 314.
The Unionists came back triumphant from the country.
There was a feeling still in the Party, though, indeed, it did
not prevail to any wide extent, that the Speaker of the new
Parliament should be chosen from its ranks. It was pointed
out that for sixty years there had not been a Conservative
Speaker, and, apart altogether from the legitimate ambition
of the Conservatives to appoint a nominee to the Chair, it
was argued that in building up the body of precedents which
guide, if they do not control, the duties of the Speakership,
Conservative opinion ought to have its proper share, if these
precedents are truly to reflect the general will of the House
as a whole. But the influence of the tradition and practice
of the continuity of the Speakership was too powerful to
be overborne by those who wished the new Speaker to be
selected from the Unionist ranks. At the first meeting of
the new Parliament, in August 1895, Gully was unanimously
re-elected to the Chair. This historical incident in the
history of the Speakership was characterized by magnanimity
and graciousness on the part of the Unionists. Sir John
Mowbray, the oldest and perhaps the most influential
private Member of the Conservative Party, who had stood
sponsor for Sir Matthew White Ridley in opposition to
Gully in May, now proposed Gully ; and when the motion
was unanimously endorsed by the House, Mr. Arthur
^ The Times, July 12, 1895.
24 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Balfour, as Leader of the House, heartily congratulated
Gully, and paid a graceful and well-deserved compliment
to the dignity, tact, and impartiality — the three chief qualities
of a Speaker — which he had displayed even during his brief
occupancy of the Chair in the last Parliament.^ Thus was
marked homage paid to the tradition that the Speaker is not
the choice of a Party, or even of a majority, but of the whole
House, and that, once he has been elevated to the Chair, he
is re-elected as such without respect to the political opinions
he may have advocated before he donned the wig and gown
of the Speakership.
All this goes to show how the splendid principle has
been established in the House of Commons that the man
who occupies the high office of Speaker is outside and above
all Party conflict. Like the Sovereign, the Speaker, as such,
has no politics. It is true that he is returned to the House
of Commons originally as a political partisan. It is true also
that it is as a party nominee he is first appointed to the
Chair, for the Speakership remains one of the principal
prizes of political life. But as he is being ceremoniously
conducted by his proposer and seconder from his place on
the benches to the Chair he severs the ties that bind him
to his Party, he doffs his vivid Party colours, be they buff
or blue, crimson or yellow, and wears instead the white
flower of a neutral political life ; and once in the Chair he
is regarded as the choice of the whole House, from which
his authority is derived and in whose name it is exercised.
It is said that after his appointment he never enters a
political club. He migrates from the Carlton or the Reform
to the Athenaeum. " So anxious is he to appear absolutely
impartial," wrote the Quarterly Reviezv in 1878, "that
though in the House of Commons necessarily chosen from
one of the great Parties in the State, we believe we are
accurate in saying that no one of the three most recent
occupants of the Chair ^ has ever entered the political club
of his Party after accepting his high office." ^
^ Parliamentary Debates (4th series), vol. 36, pp. 3-10.
' Shaw-Lefevre, Denison, and Brand. * Quarterly Review, vol. 146, p. 190.
CONTINUITY OF THE OFFICE OF SPEAKER 25
It may now be regarded as settled that the Speaker is
to be free from the storm and stress of a contested election.
In 1905 there was talk of opposing Mr. Speaker Lowther for
the representation of the Penrith division of Cumberland. At
a meeting of the Mid-Cumberland Liberal Association, held
before the General Election, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, M.P., a
distinguished Liberal, strongly urged the taking of this
course of action. He expressed his great personal regard for
Mr. Lowther, and said a better Speaker could not be found
in the ranks of the Tories, but for the sake of paying a well-
deserved compliment to a friend they should not neglect
their duty as Liberals. The suggestion, however, found no
support. The gentleman who had been selected to contest
the seat for the Liberals, before Mr. Lowther's appointment
to the Chair, declined to go forward in the altered circum-
stances, or, as he said, to imitate the example of the Tories
in opposing Mr. Gully at Carlisle.^ Accordingly Mr. Lowther
was returned unopposed in January 1906. He rode into
Penrith for his nomination in pink on his way to a meet.
The forbearance and courtesy due to the Speaker was also
recognized by the Liberals of Penrith at subsequent General
Elections. An interesting suggestion was made in the
constituency at the General Election of January 1910. It
was that a division returning a Member who is elected
Speaker should be allowed to send another representative
to the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker Lowther, following
precedent at each General Election, offered himself as a
candidate in a written communication in which he refrained
from touching on political questions. In the course of his
first address to the electors of Penrith after his appointment
to the Speakership he said : —
" More than ten years ago I was unanimously adopted by
the House of Commons to preside over its deliberations in
Committee as Chairman of the Committee of Ways and
Means ; during two Parliaments it was my privilege and
good fortune to discharge the duties of that office, and on
June 8, 1905, I was unanimously elected to be the Speaker
1 The Times, September 27, 1905.
26 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
of the House of Commons, one of the most distinguished
and dignified offices open to one of His Majesty's subjects.
" I trust that you will consider my record and qualifica-
tions to be of such a character as to justify you in continuing
to return me as your representative, an honour of which I
have been deeply sensible in the past, and for which in the
future I shall be very grateful. The Speaker, as you know,
has no politics, and I forbear therefore from entering upon
a discussion of any of the current topics of political
controversy, but I hope and believe that in my hands your
interests will be safe, and I can promise that my best
endeavours will be put forth to serve you." ^
Thus it is that Mr. Speaker sits high above the Party
conflicts that are waged on the floor of the House of
Commons. Such is his indifference, or impartiality, in
regard to politics, that it is impossible to say to which
side of the question under debate he is inclined. But can
he really divest himself so completely of the deep-seated
influences of the political associations and teachings of a
lifetime ? He may retain his political opinions, he may have
his prejudices still — even in the wig and gown of the Speaker
what is there but a man ? — but in his general decisions or in
his treatment of individual Members no trace of them, as a
rule, are to be found.
In fact, to act fairly as between all Parties is so much the
ruling motive in the breast of every Speaker that there is
little or no room left for political bias. The greatest and
most honourable tradition of the Chair of the House of
Commons is its absolute impartiality. It is the rock, broad
based and deeply set, upon which at once the influence of
the Speaker and the confidence reposed in him are founded.
And that being so, the Speaker remains Speaker, with the
concurrence of both sides of the House, until he decides to
resign or is removed by death.
* The Times, January 9, 1906.
IN THE CHAIR 27
CHAPTER IV
IN THE CHAIR
" T_T ATS off!— Way for the Speaker!" With these
X 1 words the opening of every sitting of the House of
Commons is heralded. They strikingly emphasize
the supremacy of the Speaker, and the deference paid to his
exalted position, which are so noticeable in the proceedings
at St. Stephens. The command is uttered in the Lobby,
or ante-chamber of the House, by the inspector of the police
of the House of Commons, just as the Speaker emerges from
the corridor leading from his residence to the chamber at
the hour appointed for the meeting of the House.
This approach of the Speaker to the House is marked
by a ceremonial of simple dignity, which has been witnessed
from day to day through the sessions of Parliament, and
from year to year for some centuries, with unerring uniformity.
First comes an usher. Then the Serjeant-at-Arms, in Court
dress with a sword by his side, carrying the great silver-gilt
Mace on his shoulder. He is followed by a couple of door-
keepers apparelled, like the usher, in low-cut waistcoats,
short jackets, knee breeches, and silk stockings. Next
comes the Speaker in his big wig and his flowing black robe,
— which is held up by a trainbearer, — and carrying his
three-cornered beaver hat in his right hand. He is accom-
panied by his Chaplain in cassock and bands. Behind
these are two more doorkeepers. The stately little procession
slowly wends its way across the bright tessellated pavement
of the Lobby, while the spectators stand with heads respect-
fully uncovered. Its sombre hue — all the figures in it being
garbed in sober suits of solemn black — is brought out by the
ornate frame in which it is set — the richly moulded grey
walls, the wonderful oak carving, the stained-glass windows ;
the fretted roof, with its multi-coloured grooves and its
dependent electric-light chandeliers in heavy brass ; all of
which help to make this famous vestibule of the House of
28 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Commons one of the most beautiful architectural features
of the Palace of Westminster. The procession disappears
through the open portals of the House, the Members in the
Lobby crowd in after it, and the cry of the principal door-
keeper, " Speaker at prayers," is echoed through corridors
and rooms by policemen on duty.
As the Speaker slowly walks up the floor he sees before
him his big carved-oak seat, prominently set on its dais at
the head of the Table, and between the two Front Benches.
He bows his head three times, and as he makes these re-
verential obeisances to the Chair there is in his eyes a serious-
ness amounting almost to devotion, and in his whole
demeanour is reflected the traditional glory of his office.
Then mounting the two steps of the platform he stands by
the Chair during the recital of prayers by the Chaplain, and
gives the responses in the appeals to the Almighty that the
outcome of the deliberations of the Commons may be the
public wealth, peace, and well-being of the Realm.^
While the Chaplain retires backwards, bowing to the
Chair, to the Bar, where he turns round and disappears through
the swing-doors, the Speaker takes his seat, places his feet
on the sloping footstool, and arranges his robe around him.
The Chair partakes rather of the character of a throne.
It is of brown oak, carved with lightness, taste, and grace.
Over it is an awning which serves the double purpose of a
sounding-board and a shade from the glare of the electric
light which falls through the orange-tinted glass ceiling of
the Chamber. On either side are spacious arms or ledges
for books and papers, which are further provided with ink-
holes, rests for pens and pencils, drawers for writing materials,
and there is also a switch for turning on or off a jet of
electric light set in the recess of the Chair.
The Speaker holds a copy of the Orders of the Day — the
agenda of proceedings — in his hand. He is ready for
business as the guide as well as the mouth of the House
of Commons. He is to some extent responsible for the
' In ihe temporary absence of the Speaker's Chaplain those prayers are read by
the Speaker.
IN THE CHAIR 29
arrangement of the proceedings. He is consulted by both
the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition,
and by their Whips, when their plans are in the making, and
communications pass between him and other sections of the
House continuously, it being part of his task to make the
parliamentary machine run smoothly in the interest of all
with due observance of the customs and regulations. He
has nothing to do with the initiation of Government policy
or legislation. In these matters the Leader of the House
is supreme. But in the control of business, once it is laid
before the House, so far as it is affected by the Standing
Orders, the voice of the Speaker is supreme, and to it even
the head of the Government must bow. The Speaker may
decline to submit to the House a motion — no matter by
whom it is moved — which he deems to be out of order, and
in the decision of the question whether or not a motion is
in harmony Mfith the rules and usages of the House he alone
is the judge. \ The Speaker, in a word, is the helmsman of
the Commons. The direction in which the ship is to go is
laid down by the Leader of the House, but its guidance is in
.the hands of the Speaker,
The Speaker is always accessible. He is the friend of
every Member and every section of the House. His ex-
perience and counsel are at the service of all in doubt or
difficulty about a point of order, a motion or a Bill.
Questions may be publicly ad dressed to the Speaker regard-
ing the practices and privileges of the House, but the giving
of notice of such inquiries — such as having them printed on
the Notice Paper, as is done with questions addressed to
Ministers — is not permissible. In like manner, appeals can
only be made to the Chair on points of order as they arise
in the course of the proceedings. But if a Member is in
trouble about anything he can go at once to the Speaker
and privately get his advice. Constantly during a sitting
Members may be observed coming to the Chair for a
conference with the Speaker on points of procedure, or as to
the action properly to be taken in some matters of business,
or as to their claims to be called upon to address the House
30 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
in a particular debate, which they can only do if they are
permitted by the Speaker to catch his eye. It may be
noticed that they generally approach the Chair deferentially
and with an apologetic air. Gladstone in an autobiographical
note, referring to his early parliamentary experiences in
1833, but written in the late days of his life, says : " The first
time that business required me to go to the arm of the Chair
to say something to the Speaker, Manners-Sutton — the first
of seven whose subject I had been — who was something of a
Keate,^ I remember the revival in me bodily of the frame of
mind in which a schoolboy stands before his master." ^ Such
is the traditional awe of Mr. Speaker ! Yet it may also be
observed that Members retire, after the consultation with
the Speaker, obviously satisfied by their wreathed smiles and
many bows of thanks. In truth the Speaker, with his air
that at once seems to invite confidence and to expect sub-
mission, is like a good old father confessor. He listens to
everything, and gives excellent advice.
All this time the debate is in full swing. The Speaker
must follow it with the closest attention. It is his duty to
confine the talk within the limits of relevancy without inter-
fering with the freedom of discussion. He does not himself
take part in the debates. As " Mr. Speaker " he speaks only
as the mouth of the House. He never addresses the House
except from the Chair, in the discharge of his presidential
duty. The chief function of the ofifice is to secure to the
House the twin blessings of order and free speech. It is
with this object in view that he controls and guides
debates, that he keeps the discussion strictly to the subject
at issue, that he decides points of order, that he enforces the
rules of the House by which all its proceedings are re-
gulated ; and that he selects, often from many competitors
who claim to be heard in debate by rising in their places
the Members who are to speak.
Debate arises only when a question has been put from the
Chair by Mr. Speaker. If there is no question before the
' The famous whipping Headmaster of Eton.
'Morley, Life of Gladstone , vol. i, p. 100.
IN THE CHAIR 31
House there can be no discussion. At the close of the
debate the motion — if it is not talked out at the hour
appointed for opposed business to cease, or is not otherwise
disposed of by withdrawal with the leave of the House, or
resolved in the affirmative or negative by general agreement
— is determined by a division. Therefore, at the end of the
discussion, the Speaker rises from the Chair and puts to the
House the question for its decision. On April 9, 1866, Mr.
Speaker Denison, on returning to the House after an illness,
said he should claim the indulgence of sitting while putting
the question : ^ "The question is that " In 1614 it was
agreed " that nothing pass by order of the House without a
question." 2 It was an ancient practice for the Speaker,
when he thought fit, to frame out of the debate the question
for the decision of the House.^ This was open not only to
misconception, but to abuse. Speakers were not above
putting the question in a form they thought would help the
side which they favoured. The last instance of the custom
was on February 15, 1770, by Fletcher Norton, on the
Sudbury Election petition.^ Since then the motion is framed
by the mover, and the duty of the Speaker is confined to
reading it to the House at the end of the discussion.
The Speaker has to perform many other duties which
lie outside the regulation of debate. He issues the warrants
to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery in Great Britain, and
to the Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper in Ireland to make
out new writs for the election of Members to fill vacancies
caused during the sitting of Parliament by death, bankruptcy,
elevation to the House of Lords, or the acceptance of an
office of profit under the Crown. This is done on the
application of one of the Whips of the Party by which the
seat was held. The motion, however, must be endorsed by
the House. By the statute 10 Geo. III. c. 41 — passed in
1770 — the Speaker was empowered to issue warrants for
the making out of new writs for the filling of vacancies
caused by death during a Parliamentary recess — without,
^ Commons Journal, vol. I2I, p. 197. ^ Ibid., vol. I, p. 464.
' Hatsell, Precedents, vol. 2, p. 1 12. ^ Cavendish Debates, vol. i, p. 458.
32 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
of course, the immediate authority of the House of
Commons — so as to secure the speedy election of Members
of Parliament. By the 15 Geo. III. c. 36 — passed in 1775
— he was empowered to act likewise in the case of vacancies
created by elevations to the peerage, on a certificate signed
by two Members of the House of Commons, and after
fourteen days' notice published in the London Gazette.
These statutes were confirmed by the 24 Geo. III. c. 26,
passed in 1784, and the Speaker was further authorized to
appoint, at the commencement of every Parliament, a panel
of Members of the House of Commons, to issue warrants
for the filling of seats that have been vacated in similar
circumstances, should he himself happen to be out of the
realm, or in the event of his death, during a recess of
Parliament.
These powers of the Speaker were enlarged as time
progressed. By an Act passed in 1812 — 52 Geo. III. c. 144
— he was authorized to issue during a recess warrants for
the filling of seats of Members declared bankrupts by a
Commission of Bankruptcy, and by the 21 & 22 Vict,
c. no, passed in 1858, his authority in that respect was
extended to seats vacated by the acceptance of office in the
Government, or the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds,
a nominal post at the disposal of Members who desire to
resign, though in regard to the latter he may reserve the
matter for the House in any case which appears to him
doubtful. The certificate of two Members is required also
in these instances, and, in addition, the official announce-
ment of the appointment in the London Gazette. But by the
26 & 27 Vict. c. 20, passed in 1863, six days' notice was
substituted for the original fourteen days' notice in the
London Gazette of the intention to issue the writ in regard
to a seat vacated for any of the prescribed causes during
a parliamentary recess. By the Bankruptcy Act, 1883,
section 33, similar powers are given to the Speaker in the
event of a seat becoming vacant during a recess by the
bankruptcy of a Member. In this case the Speaker acts
upon the certificate of the Court of Bankruptcy.
OCCASIONS OF CEREMONY 33
These powers of the Speaker are operative only during
a recess caused by an adjournment or prorogation of
Parliament. As I have already indicated, when dealing
with the question of the statutory tenure of the Speakership,
no provision has been made to authorize the Speaker to
issue warrants for the filling of vacancies after a Dis-
solution in the interval between the close of the General
Election and the meeting of the new Parliament.
CHAPTER V
OCCASIONS OF CEREMONY
THE Speaker also communicates the thanks of the
House when it is voted to an eminent public servant,
or to a great soldier or naval commander who has
asserted the power of the nation in war. More frequently
has he to convey the censures of the House. The person
adjudged guilty by the House of a false and scandalous
libel on Members, or of a breach of its privileges, stands
at the Bar to receive the judgment of the House as
expressed by the Speaker. If the delinquent is in the
custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms he is reprimanded. If he
is not in custody, appearing in answer to a summons, he is
only admonished. On these occasions, when a person is at
the Bar, with the Serjeant-at-Arms by his side carrying
the Mace, no Member can speak, only the Speaker.^ It is
the Speaker who issues warrants for the bringing up of
persons who refuse to attend on a summons to the Bar, or
to appear to give evidence before a Committee of the House
sitting upstairs, and warrants for the commitment of
prisoners of the House — whether Members or strangers —
to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, or the keeper of a
prison.
The authority of the Speaker to issue such warrants has
^ Denison, Notes from My Journal, 25.
3
34 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
been established in the courts of law. Gale Jones, as
president of a political society in 1810, published resolutions
passed by the society in reference to the proceedings of the
House on the Expedition to the Scheldt. For this he was
summoned to the Bar of the House, and committed to
Newgate for breach of privilege. Sir Francis Burdett, the
well-known Radical Member, in a letter published in
Cobbett's Weekly Register, denied the power of the House
to commit to prison any one but its own Members. The
answer of the House was to direct the Speaker to issue a
warrant for Burdett's imprisonment in the Tower. Denying
the legality of the Speaker's warrant, Burdett refused to
surrender to it. The Serjeant-at-Arms, aided by the police
and military, broke into his house in Piccadilly, arrested him,
and conveyed him to the Tower, where he was kept in
custody until the prorogation of Parliament set him free.
He then brought an action against the Speaker and the
Serjeant-at-Arms in the King's Bench, and the Court gave
judgment for the defendants. The question was carried by
Writ of Error to the Court of Exchequer, and afterwards,
on appeal, to the House of Lords, and in each case
the verdict for the Speaker and Serjeant-at-Arms was
upheld.
There are also ceremonious occasions on which the
Speaker appears as the representative of the Commons
outside the walls of St. Stephens. He goes to Buckingham
Palace in his State robes — a more elaborate dress than the
gown he ordinarily wears — in a great gilded coach, accom-
panied by the Serjeant-at-Arms vrith the Mace, his Chaplain,
and the Clerk, and attended by a single trooper of the
Guards as escort. When a joint address is presented to the
Sovereign by both Houses of Parliament, the Lord Chancellor
and the Speaker advance side by side towards the Throne,
followed by Lords and Commons, and the address is read
by the Lord Chancellor and presented by him to the
Sovereign on bended knee.^ But when an address is pre-
sented by the Commons separately, the Speaker reads it,
* May, Law and Usage of Parliament , 455 {ilth edition).
Dne,
sH
OCCASIONS OF CEREMONY 35
and presents it, kneeling on the right knee.^ The Sovereign
reads his reply, which the Speaker, again kneeling,
receives.2
In 1858 the House of Commons voted an address to
Queen Victoria, to be presented by the whole House. On
the day appointed Mr. Speaker Denison asked for a copy
of the address which he was to read to the Queen. He
got a paper commencing, " Resolved, netnine contradicente."
" I cannot take up such a thing as this to the Queen," said
he. " We have voted an address to be presented by the
whole House. I must present an address, and not a
resolution that an address should be presented." The
officers of the House assured him the resolution was the
correct form ; but just then Lord Eversley — who, as Shaw-
Lefevre, preceded him in the Chair — appeared, and he agreed
that there must be an address. Denison accordingly had
the resolution altered into an address, beginning, " Most
gracious Sovereign, we, your Majesty's dutiful and loyal
subjects . . ." " I went," says Denison in his Journal, " in
gold gown, and — as the Court was in mourning, without
ruffles — black buckles and bands." " I read the address
; in this form to the Queen," he continues, " and presented it
kneeling on the right knee to the Queen on the Throne.
The Queen read her answer, which, again kneeling on the
right knee, I received." On coming down the stairs of
Buckingham Palace, Denison met the Lord Chancellor, who,
on learning that the Speaker had presented an address
while he had presented a resolution, exclaimed, " What
^ Denison, Notes from My Journal, ii.
- On these occasions the Lords attended the King in levee dress ; but the
Commons, in assertion of their privilege of free access to the Throne, wear
ordinary attire, — "hodden gray, an' a' that," as Robert Burns would say. They
are not, however, permitted to enter the royal presence with sticks and
umbrellas. The Speaker and the Commons were also entitled by privilege or
custom to approach Buckingham Palace in their carriages by the royal central
drive of the Mall of St. James's Park. But the substitution of one broad drive
in the new Mall — over which all and sundry have free access — for the centre and
two side drives of the old Mall, which were abolished about 1905, brought to an
end, unlamented or, indeed, unnoticed, one of the "ancient and undoubted
rights " of the House of Commons.
36 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
a horrible blunder I have made." Denison adds joyously,
" I condoled with the Lord Chancellor." ^
Mr. Speaker Denison also records that he was invited
to be present at the opening of the International Exhibi-
tion on May i, 1862, as one of the Royal Commissioners
representing Queen Victoria. He wrote to Lord Eversley
inquiring how he ought to dress for the occasion, and got
the reply, " plain black gown and wig," which he wears in
the House of Commons. He decided, however, to go in his
" gold gown," but not to ride in the ancient State coach,
which could only lumber along at a foot's pace. " I borrowed
a good London coach of Lord Chesham," he says ; " I put
my coachman and two footmen in their State liveries ; I
added good cloths and bows and ribbons to my horses'
furniture." So he went to Buckingham Palace, taking the
Serjeant-at-Arms with the Mace and his Trainbearer in the
carriage with him. He lead the procession from the Palace
to the Exhibition. " Royal processions," he points out,
*' move in the inverse order of precedency, the lowest in
rank going first." The carriage went at a fair trot. He
asks : " Where should I have been in my gold coach, leading
the way at a foot's pace?" In the building a procession
was arranged. " I was to walk first, as I led the way in
my carriage," says Denison. "Lord Palmerston was desired
to walk by my side. He said, ' No, the Speaker should
walk alone ; I will follow.' I said, ' Of course, as you please ;
but I should think it a great honour if we might proceed
together.' Lord Palmerston said, ' Oh, if you wish it,
certainly.'" ^
Denison was also present at the marriage of the Prince
of Wales and Princess Alexandra of Denmark, on March
10, 1863, at St. George's Chapel, Windsor. "I went in
my black velvet suit," he says. "The Lord Chamberlain
said that was the proper dress. He told this to the Lord
Chancellor, who, however, would go in his gold gown and
his wig. The Lord Chamberlain said we had no function to
perform, we had no part to play in the ceremony, we were
^ Denison, Notes from My Journal, lo-ii. - Ibid,, 1 14-15.
i
OCCASIONS OF CEREMONY 37
invited guests like others. I followed the advice of the
Lord Chamberlain ; the Lord Chancellor went in his gold
gown. '■
The Speaker is also inspector of standard weights and
measures. This is a duty which falls to few Speakers, as it
is discharged but once every twenty years. The legalized
imperial standards of weights and measures are in safe
keeping at the Standards Office, Old Palace Yard. As a
precaution, copies are kept at other places, including the
Houses of Parliament, so that in the event of the originals
being lost or injured new standards can be authentically
provided. The Parliament copies are placed in a cavity in
the wall on the right-hand side of the second landing-place
of the steps leading to the committee rooms of the House
of Commons, which is marked by a brass tablet with the
inscription : " Within this wall are deposited standards of
the British yard measure and the British pound measure."
The receptacle is opened every twenty years, in the presence
of the Speaker and the President of the Board of Trade, and
the copies are taken out and compared with the originals,
which are brought from the Standards Office. The
ceremony last took place in April 1892, when Peel was
Speaker.^
One duty which the Speaker discharges at the prorogation
of Parliament is of high constitutional significance. That is
the special presentation of Money Bills, on behalf of the
Commons, at the Bar of the House of Lords for the Royal
Assent. Government Bills, other than Finance Bills, after
they have passed the House of Lords, remain in that House
for the Royal Assent. But arising out of disputes between
Lords and Commons on the subject of taxation in the
seventeenth century, it was established in 1628 that the
preamble of a Bill granting aids and supply to the Crown
should be : " We, the Commons, have given and granted to
Your Majesty " ; and ever since all Money Bills, on passing
the House of Lords, are returned to the hands of the Speaker,
* Denison, Notes from My Journal, 129.
^ H. J. Chancy, Our Weights and Measures (1897), 9, 10.
38 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
who presents them personally for the assent of the
Sovereign.
An ancient duty or custom of the Speaker at prorogation
has, in this connexion, fallen into disuse. At the close of a
session the Speaker, on presenting subsidies or Finance Bills
at the Bar of the House of Lords, by immemorial usage,
addressed the Sovereign on the merits of the legislative
measures which had received the sanction of Parliament.^
This speech was delivered only when the Sovereign was
present. The prorogation of Parliament by the Sovereign
in person was a common occurrence up to the middle of the
nineteenth century. It may now be regarded, perhaps, as
a thing of the past. Parliament is always prorogued by
commission. Queen Victoria, in the early years of her
reign, adhered to the long-established practice of proroguing
Parliament in person ; and on each occasion the Speaker
dilated upon the work of the session before Her Majesty
read her Speech from the Throne.
The last time that Queen Victoria was present at
prorogation was on August 12, 1854. Mr. Speaker Shaw-
Lefevre then delivered the usual address. It was the end of
a long series of sessional speeches by the Speaker, stretching
back, as we have seen, through many centuries, for it was the
last occasion that Parliament was prorogued by the Sovereign
in person. Is the practice ever likely to be restored ? The
point is an academic one. But even were the Sovereign
to determine at any time to revive the ancient custom of
' The Jour tt ah of the House of Comvions contain the following account of the
dissolution of the second and last Parliament of Edward vi. in 1553 : " Between
the hours of five and seven in the afternoon the King's Majesty, in his royal
seat in the waiting chamber in his Palace of Westminster, after the ornate
oration by Mr. Speaker, exhibiting therein the subsidy, the King gave his Royal
Assent to seventeen Acts and dissolved this his Parliament" (vol. i, p. 26).
The custom had been in operation long before this. The Rolls of Parliament
which preceded ihc Journals record little else than the laws that were made, — as
has been pointed out already, — and omitted matters of form and ceremony. It
was the practice also to insert those speeches in the Journals. The address of
Mr. Speaker Arthur Onslow to King George il., on May 2, 1745 {Commons
Journals, vol. 25, pp. 8, 9), was llie last prorogation speech to be entered at
length in [.he Journals.
GUARDIAN OF THE COMMONS' PRIVILEGES 39
proroguing Parliament in person, instead of by Royal
Commission appointed for the purpose, it is doubtful
whether the Speaker would consider there was an obligation
upon him also to revive the procedure of telling the Sovereign
of the work of Parliament during the session, a matter upon
which enlightenment has not been needed, at least since the
coming of the parliamentary reporter.
CHAPTER VI
GUARDIAN OF THE COMMONS' PRIVILEGES
OF what may be called the higher duties of the Speaker,
the principal are the guardianship of the ancient
privileges of the House, the maintenance of its
authority, dignity, and honour, and the protection of the
rights of minorities. The Speaker is the judge of breaches
of privilege. Amendments made by the Lords in a Bill sent
to them by the Commons are submitted to him by the
Minister if they are regarded as infringing on the exclusive
right of the Commons to impose a charge on the tax-payers
or rate-payers, and upon occasions he calls the attention of
the House to such amendments himself, and declares them
breaches of privilege. He also gives judgment upon
breaches of privilege by outsiders which are brought to his
notice in the House.
Then there are the rights of Members. Spencer Compton,
who was Speaker from 17 15 to 1728, was once appealed
to by a Member who met with considerable interruptions
to obtain him the hearing which he asserted was his by
right : " No, sir," answered the Speaker ; " you have a right to
speak, but the House have a right to judge whether they
will hear you." In this, says Hatsell, " the Speaker certainly
erred. The Member has a right to speak, and the House
ought to attend to him, and it is the Speaker's duty to
endeavour for that purpose to keep them quiet." ^
^ Hatsell, Precedents, vol. 2, p. 107.
40 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker Lowther also emphatically dissented from
this ruling of his predecessor. In September 1908 he was
presented with the freedom of the city of Carlisle, the capital
town of Cumberland, for the Penrith division of which he
sits in Parliament ; and in the course of a speech acknow-
ledging the honour, he said that Parliament, as its name
implied, was a place where one spoke one's mind. He
therefore considered it was his first duty to see that all
Members of such an assembly were free, subject to the rules
of the House, to speak their mind without let or hindrance,
" however disagreeable their sentiments might be to their
fellow-members." " I do not think," said Mr. Lowther, after
quoting the declaration of Spencer Compton, "that is the
function of the Speaker." Having called upon a man to
speak because he believes him to be entitled to give his
opinion to his fellow-members, the Speaker's function and
duty is, said he, " to do all he can, by every fair and proper
means, to make sure that that man shall have a fair and
impartial hearing. For freedom of speech is what has made
our Parliament the greatest Parliament in the world." ^
That is well said. But the fact remains, I think, that
Spencer Compton was right after all. Some of the most
illustrious Members of the House have been howled down.
Edmund Burke met that fate on April 17, 1769, in the angry
debate on the famous motion for declaring Colonel Luttrell
Member for Middlesex instead of John Wilkes. He was
making a powerful speech against the motion in the midst
of a continuous noise, when he stopped in the course of his
argument to exclaim angrily : " I will be heard. I will
throw open the doors and tell the people of England that
when a man is addressing the Chair on their behalf the
attention of the Speaker is engaged." Sir Henry Cavendish,
in his report of the speeches, gives the explanatory note :
" There was at this time a great noise in the House, and
some Member was whispering to the Speaker." ^ The
Speaker was Sir John Cust, and apparently he was
' The Times, Seplember 23, 1908.
* Cavendish Debates, vol. I, p. 399.
4
GUARDIAN OF THE COMMONS' PRIVILEGES 41
unable or — as Burke imagined — unwilling to stop the
interruptions.
During my own experience in the Reporters' Gallery I
can recall at least four instances of Members having been
shouted down. In each case, despite all the exertions of the
Speaker to restore order and obtain him a hearing, the
Member was finally compelled by the clamour to give up the
attempt to speak. The most celebrated case occurred on the
night of May 22, 1905, when the Liberal Opposition refused
to hear Mr. Lyttleton, the Colonial Secretary, demanding
that Mr. Balfour, the Prime Minister, should speak instead ;
and Mr. Lowther, who happened to be in the Chair as
Deputy Speaker — owing to the illness of Mr. Speaker Gully
— was compelled, owing to the great disorder, to declare the
sitting at an end, as he was empowered to do by the
Standing Orders. The truth is, that even a small section of
the House, organized and determined, may by continuous
cries of " Vide, Vide, Vide " prevent a Member, whose speech
or interposition in the debate is obnoxious to them, from being
heard. In each of the other instances I refer to the Member
was denied a hearing by the Nationalists, and the appeal of
the Speaker or Chairman of Committee on his behalf was
unavailing, for it fell, not upon deaf ears, but upon closed
minds. Indeed, the limitation to the powers of the Speaker
in such a case is recognized even by Hatsell, for he thus
qualifies the declaration as to the duty of the Chair which I
have quoted : " But where the love of talking gets the better
of modesty and good sense, which sometimes happens, it
is a duty very difficult to execute in a large and popular
assembly," and he goes on to say that if a member finds the
House disinclined to hear him, it would be prudent in him
to submit to its pleasure and sit down.^
The calling on a Member to speak seems simple enough,
and yet it is really one of the most delicate tasks which the
Speaker has to discharge. At times there is quite a fierce
competition to catch the eye of the Speaker, that most
elusive of all organs of vision. A number of Members
^ Hatsell, Precedents, vol. 2, pp. 107-8.
42 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
jumped to their feet, each leaning forward towards the Chair
in an attitude of urgent appeal and expectation. Which
shall be chosen ? The answer lies with the Speaker. He
selects one of the number to continue the debate by calling
him by his name. This power of selection, or recognition,
vested in the Speaker, is the practical method by which,
in a body of 670 Members, dozens of whom may be
simultaneously desirous of speaking, it is determined which
particular one of the competitors shall be heard on the
question at issue and in continuation of the debate.
It is not an absolute or arbitrary power. It is set aside
when a Minister rises, or a prominent Member of the front
Opposition bench. These men of office and leadership may,
as a rule, speak when they please. That is, the Speaker sees
them and calls upon them, in preference to other Members
seeking to catch his eye. There is discrimination also in the
exercise of his power of recognition in regard to the competing
occupants of the back benches. The Member who rises first
does not necessarily always catch the Speaker's eye. In
other words, the Speaker does not always call upon the
Member whom he first observes among those who have risen
in their places to speak. A new Member is, as a matter of
courtesy, called upon to make his " maiden speech " in pre-
ference to others rising to speak at the same time. In case
the Speaker might not be aware that there is a new Member
among the competitors to catch his eye, there are usually
cries of " New Member " to direct his attention to the fact.
This privilege will not be conceded by the Speaker unless
claimed within the Parliament to which the Member was
first returned. On March 25, 1859, during the discussion
of the Representation of the People Bill, several Members
rose at the same time to address the House. Among them
were Mr. Cardwell, an ex-Minister, and a private Member
named Beaumont who had not made his maiden speech.
The Speaker called " Mr. Cardwell." Thereupon there were
cries of " Beaumont," and Mr. Bentinck, rising to order, asked
the Speaker whether it was not the practice of the House to
give precedence to a new Member ? Lord Palmerston then
GUARDIAN OF THE COMMONS' PRIVILEGES 43
rose and inquired whether, when Mr. Speaker had called
upon a Member to address the House, it was regular for any
Member to prevent his proceeding and insist upon another
Member being heard ? Mr. Speaker Denison does not seem
to have replied to either question. He again called upon
Mr. Cardwell, and that gentleman addressed the House.^ It
was, however, understood that the Speaker declined to give
precedence to Mr. Beaumont to make his maiden speech, on
the ground that he had sat in the previous Parliament, and
that the privilege lapses with the Parliament in which a
Member first sits.
The Speaker may also be guided in his selection by the
weight and interest of the opinions of a particular Member on
the subject of debate. Shaw-Lefevre was asked how, when
twenty Members started to their feet, he singled out his man.
" Well," he humorously replied : " I have been shooting rabbits
all my life, and I have learnt to mark the right one." The
Speaker does his best to give the ear of the House to those
Members whom the Plouse is most desirous of hearing. He
is sometimes guided by the Whips of the different Parties in
the House. This means that on the occasion of an important
debate the chief advocates on each side are, as a matter of
convenience, selected beforehand by agreement between the
Liberal and Conservative Whips, and that these Members
are usually called by the Speaker when they rise in the order
thus previously arranged. In like manner, if the Irish Party
or the Labour Party have selected a spokesman to express
their views, his name is given to the Speaker, and he is called
when the appropriate time comes for him to address the House.
On February 26, 1872, observations were made concerning
this " Whips' List " by which the choice of the Speaker was
said to be governed, with the result that independent Members
were deprived of a hearing. Denison had just retired from
the Chair, and his place was taken by Brand. The matter
was raised by Mr. J. Bentinck, who called attention as a
question of privilege to the statement, in TJie Alorning
Advertiser of February 5, that a list of Members who were
1 Parliamenia>y Debates (3rd series), vol. 153, p. 839.
44 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
desirous of taking part in debate was drawn up by Mr. Glyn,
the Chief Liberal Whip, in consultation with the Chief Con-
servative Whip, and that, furthermore, the Liberal Members
on the list were selected by the Prime Minister, Mr. Gladstone.
" This list," the newspaper went on to say, " is given to the
Speaker, with injunctions that no Member is to speak whose
name is not upon it." They could not conceive — they
added — a greater mockery than a House of Representatives in
which freedom of speech was practically not allowed. Mr.
Speaker Brand, who had acted as Liberal Whip for years,
said he had never seen such a list. " I shall endeavour on
all occasions," said he, " to call upon hon. Members to speak
according to their respective claims, in a spirit aitd with a
desire of fairness and impartiality, and with a view of eliciting
the several opinions which prevail in the House on the
subject before it." Such a list was also disclaimed by
Gladstone, on behalf of himself and the Liberal Whip.
Curiously enough, when the subject was subsequently
raised at the same sitting by Mr. Bentinck, both Mr. Glyn
and Mr. Noel, the Government and Opposition Whips, are
represented as having admitted what seems to have been
denied by Gladstone, that they had been in the habit of
supplying Mr. Speaker Denison with such lists for his assist-
ance. But they disowned the intention of using the lists to
gag independent Members, and insisted that the Speaker's
selection of Members to take part in a debate was not in
the least controlled or even influenced by the Hsts.^ What-
ever may have been the custom in 1872, it has long been a
well-known practice for the Whips to draw up such lists for
submission to the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees on
important occasions when many Members desire to speak and
the time available is limited. It is found to be a convenient
practice for all Parties. But the discretion of the Speaker
remains quite unfettered. He has the right, of course, to alter
these arrangements as he thinks best. He can neither be per-
suaded nor intimidated into calling any Member in particular.
Apart from this action of the Whips in submitting to the
' Parliamentary Debates (3rd scries), vol. 209, pp. 1032-4, and pp. 1036-9.
I
GUARDIAN OF THE COMMONS' PRIVILEGES 45
favourable consideration of the Speaker a selection of their
followers who desire to join in a debate, it is not unusual for
Members themselves to intimate personally to the Speaker
their wish to be afforded an opportunity to express their
views on the subject at issue. The occasion may not be of
sufficient moment to call for the preparation of a Whips'
List, or, if it be so, these Members may perhaps be out of
favour with the Whips, on account of independence of spirit
or idiosyncrasy of temperament. But it is undoubtedly the
fact that every effort to meet their desires is made by
the Speaker, having regard to the exigencies of time and
the claims of others. Yet it has been asserted in the House
of Commons, that the action of the Whips, favoured as it
is by the Speaker, has the effect of placing a gag on
independent Members.
The complaint gave rise to a remarkable and wholly
unprecedented scene in the House of Commons. At the
assembling of the Liberal Parliament, on January 31, 191 1,
Mr, J. W. Lowther was proposed and seconded as Speaker
for the fourth time, and, thinking that the proceeding was
to take its customary formal and ceremonious course, he
rose from the seat he occupied as a private Member — on the
second bench above the gangway on the Opposition side —
to submit himself to the House, when Mr. Laurence Ginnell, a
Nationalist Member, sitting below the gangway, unexpectedly
intervened, and broke the calm and harmony of the occasion
by a speech acrid in spirit and harsh in tone. It was an un-
mitigated attack on the system of " Whips' Lists " as sub-
versive of the rights of independent Members. The hon.
Member had differences with his colleagues oa questions
of policy which led to his exclusion from the Irish Party. ^
Consequently his name was absent from any lists v/hich may
have been sent to the Speaker and Chairman of Committees
by the Nationalist Whips during the previous Parliament.
Here is an extract from his speech : —
" The election of Speaker and of the Chairman of Com-
mittees itself had become one of the greatest shams. (' No,
no.') No man was fit for either of those positions who did
46 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
not firmly maintain the absolute right of every Member, from
the greatest to the humblest, to an impartial opportunity of
addressing the House within the limits of time and order.
The right of a private Member to speak was a right which it
was the special function of the Speaker and of the Chairman
to maintain. Mr. Lowther in practice and effect denied the
right of a private Member to an impartial opportunity of
addressing that House. (' No, no,') Having been himself
denied that right for five years, and not having been allowed
to open his lips in debate during the whole of the last
Parliament (loud and prolonged laughter and ironical cheers),
he was bound to enter his protest against that public scandal.
(Renewed laughter.) It was very unfortunate that the Party
system, which might be admirable if worked for legitimate
Party purposes, had been perverted into a number of more
or less rival machines devoid of scruple, devoid of conscience,
devoid of honour, and turned from public and even from
Party purposes to the suppression of free opinions, to the
gratification of personal spite, and to the sordid personal
advantage of the machine workers. (Cries of ' No, no.')
The Speaker of the House of Commons allowed himself to
be controlled by this vile mechanism. (* No, no.') " ^
As the interruptions to which the hon. Member was
subjected clearly indicate, his bitter reproaches of Mr.
Lowther offended the sense of the House. They were
repudiated subsequently by Mr. John Redmond, the leader
of the Nationalists. By^universal admission, Mr. Lowther,
as Speaker, was dignified and urbane, firm yet courteous,
with the rarer gift of being able instantly to dissolve a
dangerous parliamentary situation into genial laughter by a
remark of healing humour. He met this onslaught with his y .
customary tactful urbanity. " In so far as the criticisms of the y^/
\\,Hon. Member are deserved I will note them," said hcr'^trtv
""hie most curious feature of the incident, perhaps, \ras that
there was no one to call Mr. Ginnell to order for this attack
upon the impartiality and independence of the Chair. The
duty of Sir Courtenay Ilbert, who as Clerk of the House
presided, was confined to pointing with his finger at the
Members who proposed and seconded the election of the
' 77ie 7'/mtn, PYbruary i, 191 1.
J
GUARDIAN OF THE COMMONS' PRIVILEGES 47
Speaker and joined in the debate. The rules of order were
not, however, inoperative, because the Speaker, incarnating
the authority of the House, had not yet been elected. Sir
Reginald Palgrave, a famous Clerk of the House, held that
the House was vested with inherent power to check or
punish disorder during the election of a Speaker, and that if
a resolution were moved for that purpose he, as Clerk, would
be entitled to put it to the House, just as he would put the
question in the event of a contest for the Chair.
The Speaker's call, as between two Members rising at the
same time, may be disputed by a motion that the other
Member " be not heard." This has been done in the past
when in the opinion of a section of the House there was
another Member up before the Member called upon to speak,
or when they considered some other Member had the first
claim on the attention of the House. There was a curious
instance of questioning the decision of the Speaker on March
12, 1771. The subject of discussion was the proceedings
instituted by the House against the printers of newspapers
for publishing its debates in breach of its privileges. Two
Members rose, Colonel Barre, Whig, and George Onslow,
Tory, and the Speaker, Sir Fletcher Norton, called upon the
latter. The House had just divided on a motion by Barre,
who had intimated that after the division he would go on
with another part of the question. Accordingly he contended
he had the right to speak first. " I stood up, and, in the
common acceptation of the term, I was in your eye," he said
to the Speaker. " How I got out of your eye, and the hon.
Member in, I cannot conceive." Then he put this poser to
his opponents: "Now, having proved that 1 was in the
Speaker's eye, it is incumbent upon the gentlemen on the
other side to show how the hon. Member got into it." It
was, however, the Speaker that answered. He said : " I give
the hon. Member my word of honour too that he was not
so much in my eye as the other gentleman " ; and added, " I
wish my action to be under the control of the House, If
I do not see gentlemen as I ought to see them, I hope the
House will express their sense upon it."
48 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
In order to take the sense of the House, William Burke
— the intimate if not the kinsman of the great Edmund —
who was on the side of Barre, moved the curiously worded
question : " That Mr. Onslow, not being first up, do now
speak." Edmund Burke, speaking in support of the motion,
asserted that the decision as to who was first up lay solely
in the House. " The novel doctrine of the Speaker's eye,
now growing up into an order, is," said he, " improper,
irregular, and unparliamentary. The Speaker may have his
eye upon one side of the House rather than the other."
This opinion was ridiculed by Colonel Luttrell. " The eye
of the Speaker is the eye of the House," said he. " He
decides for individuals who cannot decide for themselves.
Some gentlemen are near-sighted, some might decide through
partiality: no man can see behind him. You, sir, from your
place in the Chair, are more able to decide who was first
up than the House collectively could possibly do." Ulti-
mately the motion was withdrawn and Onslow was left in
possession.^
The most interesting modern instance — and the latest —
occurred on April 22, 183 1. It was the historic day on which
King William iv. went in State to Westminster to prorogue
Parliament with a view to a Dissolution and an appeal
to the country by the Whig Government on the question
of Reform. There were tumultuous proceedings in both
Houses while they awaited the coming of the King. In
the House of Commons a petition for the Reform of
Parliament was being debated. Sir R. Vyvyan, the Member
for Cornwall, who was speaking, sat down when the report
of the guns announcing the arrival of His Majesty re-
sounded through the Chamber. The scene which followed
was most extraordinary. Sir Robert Peel, the Leader of
the Opposition, and Sir Francis Burdett, the eminent Radical,
rose at the same moment to continue the debate. Peel
was received with " loud shouts, groans, laughter, and cries
of ' Bar ' " from the Ministerial benches, which were responded
to from the Opposition benches by shouts of " Order " and
' Cavendish Debates, vol. 2, pp. 385-8.
GUARDIAN OF THE COMMONS' PRIVILEGES 49
" Chair." Lord Althorp, the Leader of the House, was now on
his feet, competing with Peel and Burdett for a hearing. The
Speaker also rose and, after a long interval of confusion,
succeeded in restoring order sufficiently to enable him to
explain the position of affairs. Peel had caught his eye,
and thereupon Lord Althorp moved that Burdett be first
heard. It therefore remained for him to put the question
" That Sir Francis Burdett be now heard," and upon that
motion he ruled that the Leader of the Opposition had an
undoubted right to speak. Peel accordingly proceeded to
address the House, but he spoke with difficulty, so clamorous
were the Ministerialists, and in a few minutes the scene was
terminated by the knocking of Black Rod at the door to
summon the Commons to the House of Lords.^
The decision is now left to the Speaker, as, indeed, it
must be, if order is at all to be maintained. It sometimes
happens, especially towards the close of a big debate, when but
little time is left before the division, that shouts are raised
for a Member other than the Member called upon by the
Speaker. If the Member in possession gives way, well and
good, but if he insists upon his right to address the House
the choice of the Speaker is not further questioned. The
truth, therefore, is that the Speaker remains dictator in the
choice of those who shall take part in a debate. And here
his impartiality comes into play. His discrimination is
always regulated by the principle that the two sides shall
be heard alternately, that an opponent or critic must follow
a friend or advocate of the subject of debate.
As may be supposed in these circumstances, the Speaker
unwittingly arouses animosities in the discharge of this
presidential function. There are men of bright intellect
and keen sensitiveness whose vanity and pride are hurt
because they are not called upon to speak ; there are sullen
and obstinate men who fancy they have been deliberately
overlooked. The African explorer, Sir H. M. Stanley,
was returned for a London borough as a Conservative in
the General Election of 1895. He did not take kindly to
^ Parliamentary Debates (3rd series), vol. 3, pp. 1819-22.
4
so THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
parliamentary life, and at the Dissolution refused to stand
again. In his Autobiography he writes: —
" I would not stand again for much. I have never been
quite free, after I understood the parliamentary machine,
from a feeling that it degraded me somewhat to be in
Parliament. I have, as a Member, less influence than the
man in the street. On questions concerning Africa, Dilke
or some other wholly unacquainted with Africa would be
called upon to speak before me. . . . Any illusions that
I may have had, illusions that I could serve the Empire,
advance Africa's interests, benefit this country, were quickly
dispelled. The Speaker's eye could not be caught ; he
would call on some glib talker who really knew very little
of his subject, and in this respect also I felt there was some
degradation for me, sitting there to listen to such futilities,
so I am glad at the prospect of retiring and being quit of
it all." 1
The Speaker needs to have a thick skin, or, better still,
a serene disposition, to enable him, when he is criticized
or nagged at or traduced, just to grin and bear it. He
cannot retaliate. Such things must be endured in
silence with the support afforded him, not so much by
toughness of grain, as by a clear conscience and a mag-
nanimous mind. He is also liable to be misunderstood
in his granting or refusal of the closure which lies within his
discretion. The closure is rarely refused to a Minister in
charge of a Bill who thinks that progress is slow and desires
to accelerate the pace. Still, the Speaker, even in such a
case, is bound scrupulously to consider whether or not the
views of the Opposition have been adequately expressed
before he decides to put from the Chair that motion which
brings all discussion to an end : " The question is that the
question be now put" Sometimes the closure is applied
by the Speaker on the motion of a private Member who has
moved a resolution on the second or third reading of a Bill,
and desires to make certain that the House shall express
its opinion upon it, when there is an obvious intention on
■ Autobiography of Henry M. Stanley, pp. 504-5.
GUARDIAN OF THE COMMONS' PRIVILEGES 51
the part of his opponents to stave off a division by talking
the matter out.
The "guillotine" is different from the closure. It means
that whole stages of Government Bills — such as the second
reading, the Committee stage, and the third reading — are
carried according to a fixed time-table cunningly contrived
by Ministers and previously submitted by them to the
House, and approved by their Party majority. In such
a case the Speaker has no discretion. He simply carries
out the will of the House as expressed by the majority, by
letting fall at the hour appointed the knife which operates
mechanically and automatically. But in the application of
the closure the Speaker is more or less a free agent, and
therefore his reputation for judgment and impartiality is
at the mercy of the unaccountable impulses and tempera-
ments, the unreasoning whims and caprices, of a large
and democratic assembly of men. A man who is stung
to the quick by angrily reproving cries is unsuitable for
the Chair of the House of Commons. Not every pachy-
dermatous man is fitted to preside over the Grand Council
of the nation. But certainly every Speaker must be
pachydermatous.
What are the character and attainments, then, which make
a successful President of the representative Chamber ? *' Go
and assemble yourself together, and elect one, a discreet,
wise, and learned man, to be your Speaker," said a Lord
Chancellor in the reign of Elizabeth to a new House of
Commons. The order in which the qualities deemed
essential for the Chair are here arranged is not without
significance. Discretion comes first. It might also be given
the second place and the third. Ability of the highest order
is by no means indispensable in a Speaker, for intellectually
his work is not difficult. But in the twentieth century, as in
the sixteenth, the faculty of the highest importance in the art
of the Speakership is circumspection, sagacity, tact, in which
is implied an imperturbable temper, a careful observation of
the peculiarities of individual character, and a common
sense in judgment. He must also have a fair gift of speech
52 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
and a strong commanding voice. He must be capable of
saying the right thing at the right time. If he can say it
in a stately fashion so much the better. Even a touch
of pomposity would not be amiss ; for by long tradition
something of the grand manner is expected of the Speaker.
But the most precious attribute of the Chair of the House
of Commons is impartiality, and the highest and most
inspired personal quality of a Speaker is command and
influence over men.
CHAPTER VII
THE speaker's RESPONSIBILITIES
JOHN EVELYN DEN I SON had sat in the House for
more than thirty years when, in 1857, he- was chosen
Speaker. Yet naturally he was awed by the responsi-
bilities of the Chair. In such a position, about which the
light of publicity beats so fiercely, timorousness or irre-
solution would be fatal. To Denison the prospect was not
made less inviting by the reply which he got from his
predecessor on inquiring whether there was any one to whom
he could go for advice and assistance on trying occasions.
" No one," said Shaw-Lefevre ; " you must learn to rely
entirely upon yourself" " And," proceeds Denison in his
Jownal, " I found this to be very true. Sometimes a friend
would hasten to the Chair and offer advice. I must say, it
was for the most part lucky I did not follow the advice. I
spent the first few years of my Speakership like the captain
of a steamer on the Thames, standing on the paddle-box,
ever on the look-out for shocks and collisions." ^
But these " shocks and collisions " are rarely uncommon
or unfamiliar. The House of Commons has not had a life
and grow ih of many centuries without providing an abund-
ance of precepts and examples for the guidance of its
Speaker. It may be said that whatever occurs in the House
' Notes from AJy Journal, 2-3.
THE SPEAKER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 53
of Commons has happened there before. Almost every
contingency that can possibly arise has had its antecedent
parallel, and is accordingly covered by a precedent, and
a Speaker cannot go far astray in a decision if he be
thoroughly acquainted with the forms and procedure of the
House and the rulings of his predecessors, which hedge his
course. Nor is it quite the fact that there is no one to whom
he can go for advice. It is the custom for Members to give
the Speaker private notice of questions on points of order,
unless, of course, such as arise unexpectedly in debate ; and
for aid in the decision of these cases the Speaker has a
counsel specially engaged to direct him on points of law,
and the Clerks who sit at the Table below him to refer to,
if necessary, with regard to custom and procedure. There
is a story told of Mr. Speaker Denison which, if true, would
indicate that he was not himself very ready or resourceful,
and that in coping with a difficult situation he could not
always rely upon the advice of the Clerk of the House.
Once when a storm seemed brewing, Denison stooped from
the Chair and asked Sir Denis le Marchant, then Chief Clerk,
what on earth he would recommend him to do. " I should
recommend you, sir, to be very cautious," whispered Le
Marchant, and then vanished by the back of the Chair.
However that may have been, Denison was most in-
dustrious and painstaking. " I used to study the business
of the day carefully every morning," he says in his Journal^
" and consider what questions could arise upon it. Upon
these questions I prepared myself by referring to the rules,
or, if needful, to precedents."^ It is also the practice for the
Clerks at the Table to have an audience with the Speakei
in his library every day before the House meets, to draw his
attention to points of order likely to arise which he might
be called upon to settle, and to confer generally with him
on the business of the day.- Furthermore, the Speaker has
the advantage of the ripe experience and advice of his
predecessor in office. Denison, as his Journal shows, was
^ Denison, Notes from My Journal, 3.
"^ Note by Archibald Milman (Assistant Clerk) in \y^m%oxi% Journal, 36.
54 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
in constant communication on matters relating to procedure
with Lord Eversley, who as Shaw-Lefevre preceded him in
the Chair. Therefore it is not often that a question of order
arises for which the Speaker is unprepared.
It must not, however, be supposed that smooth and easy
is the way of the President of the House of Commons. The
whole art of the Speakership does not consist in presenting
a dignified, ceremonial figure, in wig and gown, on a carved
and canopied chair, having a mastery of the technicalities
of procedure, calling "Order, order" now and then, and
graciously permitting Members to catch his eye. For the
Speaker to be brought suddenly face to face with quite an
unprecedented situation is certainly a very rare experience.
Still, as it has happened before, so it may happen again. It
is by no means improbable or unlikely that at any moment
the Speaker may be called upon to take action in a most
unexpected emergency. It is certain to be an occasion of
excitement and passion. Indeed, there is nothing more
surprising in the House of Commons than the uncertainty
of its moods. There is no barometer to herald the approach
of a parliamentary storm. All of a sudden a hurricane
bursts upon the House out of what seemed to be just a
moment before the most tranquil of situations. It is these
sudden emergencies — the sharp contact of strong character
and untoward circumstances — that show the stuff of which
the Speaker is really made ; these sudden emergencies when
human passions are fiercely aroused, and with him, and him
alone, lies the task of subduing them.
The Speaker, in such a situation, is unable to consult the
authorities, or the rulings inspired by the experience and
wisdom of his predecessors. The decision must be instantly
taken ; the decisive word must be instantly spoken. What
avails him then is a thorough knowledge not only of the
orders of the House, but also of its unwritten traditions,
customs, and usages, backed by his own innate qualities of
self-possession and cool judgment. It is easy enough for
the Speaker to decide .such small points of order as are
constantly being raised. But is his the magic of calming
THE SPEAKER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 55
disturbances by the noble appeal, or the happy jest, or by
the sheer impressiveness and domination of his personality ?
That is the supreme test. The sudden emergency unveils
him, and he stands forth a weakling or a great man.
There are two classes of scenes in the House of
Commons. In one, the most dangerous — the sudden emerg-
ency— all the fury, by some unhappy twist of events, rages
round the Chair. The other arises from a personal en-
counter between two Members, or a passionate Party conflict
between the two sides of the House. In the latter case
there is no feeling directed against the Speaker. Then arises
the factor of the Speaker's relations with the different
sections of the House. Is he studiously and strictly im-
partial between them all ? This situation, which tests, though
perhaps not so severely as the other, the mettle of the Speaker,
is one that not infrequently happens when he is expected to
stand forth on the dais of the Chair, the one calm and serious
personality looming above the exciting Party conflict of
noise and recrimination which surges on the benches below,
and affording in the contrast between his wise tranquillity
and the fretful folly of the Members, in a state of Party
excitation, a fine and inspiring lesson in self-control. It is
not great intellectual ability that is then the indispensable
quality in the Speaker. More to the purpose, for the con-
trolling and the moderating of the inevitable and natural
passions of a popular assembly, are the minor gifts of an
impressive presence, an air of authority, a ready tongue, and
a resonant voice. But in the end the control of the House
in this common situation will depend not so much upon the
appearance and elocution of Mr. Speaker, as upon the
measure of the confidence and respect of Members which he
has won by more sterling qualities ; and, as I have already
indicated, the quality above all upon which the trust of the
House of Commons in its Speaker reposes most securely
and abidingly is strict impartiality.
No doubt it is difficult for the Speaker to appear
impartial at all moments and to all sections of the House.
Some passing feeling or soreness is certain to be aroused
56 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
among Members censured, or placed at a disadvantage in
Party engagements, by decisions of the Chair. But if the
Speaker has not impressed the House generally with his
discretion and judgment, with belief in the impartiality of
his rulings, with the conviction that he esteems himself the
guardian of the House, and does not intentionally lend him-
self to be the instrument of the Party leaders in occupation
of the Treasury Bench, that feeling of soreness will not be,
as it ought to be, brief and transient, and the Speaker will
find on such an unexpected crucial occasion as I have indi-
cated above that the House has slipped from his control.
Certainly the Speaker has no temptation to be anything
but strictly impartial. In succeeding to what Mr. Speaker
Denison happily called "the well-ordered inheritance" of
the Chair of the House of Commons, he has reached the
utmost height of his ambition. He has no need further to
toil for title and place. A peerage and a pension are
secured to him at the end of his term of office. Motives
of self-seeking and advancement can make no appeal to
him. He has therefore nothing to gain by favouring any
political Party or any statesman. But he has much to gain
in the way of making his position easy by winning the
confidence and esteem of the House generally. It is an
office, too, in which unworthy resentments are unlikely to
find a place. As the Speaker sits in the Chair he is raised
above all Party and personal considerations, and all ambitions
save the desire of showing himself to those who sit around
him as one infused with the historic spirit of his high
position and moved by its great traditions, and that while
strictly impartial and fearless he is careful to act within the
exact sphere and limits of his authority.
When the Speaker finds himself in a difficulty he has
the immense advantage of being able, as the supreme ruler
of the House, to impose his will unquestioned upon all con-
cerned, even should he have gone unintentionally beyond
his exact functions as the director of debate, the preserver
of order, the protector of the rights of Members. His word
is law within the Chamber. His decision is final. Once the
!
THE SPEAKER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 57
Speaker has ruled, there is no more to be said. Before that
fiat all must bow. It is permissible to those Members who
think he is wrong to point out to him respectfully where
he is at fault, as it appears to them ; but if he adheres to
his decision it must be accepted without question. At least,
no discussion is allowed. It may be obviously wrong to a
large section of the House, but it cannot be disputed by
argument. The fact that the Speaker says a thing and
sticks to it makes that thing right, at least for the time
being or for the purposes of immediate action. There is
no appeal there and then from his verdict. No stay of
execution can be applied for, then and there. The only
way in which Members aggrieved can give vent to their
disagreement and displeasure, at the moment, is by shouts
of protest ; and these, if indulged in, are properly regarded
as highly disorderly and very offensive to the Chair. Most
Members recognise that in such a contingency it is best
for them to tame their hearts of fire and bow their heads
in silence and obey. It will avail them nothing to protest
there and then against the decree of the Speaker.
The Speaker's conduct may, however, be subsequently
brought to the judgment of the House. The occasion upon
which a Minister may be indicted is when his salary is
being voted in Committee of Supply. But no such oppor-
tunity is provided for calling the Speaker to account. His
salary is a fixed charge on the Consolidated Fund, and,
like all such charges with respect to the Throne and the
Bench, is thereby removed from the criticism in which
Members are free to indulge in reference to the Estimates
presented in Committee of Supply. Consequently no oppor-
tunity arises in Committee of Supply for challenging any
action of the Speaker which has evoked a sense of injustice
or a feeling of Party resentment. It can only be done by
means of a vote of censure of which due notice has been
given, and for the discussion of which the Government have
agreed to allot a day. There are only three modern in-
stances on record of such motions of censure. In none was
the motion carried.
58 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
The first was moved in respect of the action of Mr.
Speaker Abbot, who in the course of the customary speech
to the Sovereign, on presenting the Supply Bills of the
year for the Royal Assent at the Bar of the House of
Lords at the prorogation of 1813 — a procedure which, as I
have already indicated, has long since been abolished — de-
livered a harangue in opposition to the movement for Catholic
Emancipation. The debate on the motion, which took place
on April 22, 1814, shows that the feeling of the House was
strongly in disapproval of Abbot's conduct, on the ground
that the Speaker should be impartial in matters of political
controversy, though for tactical reasons the motion was
rejected.^
The second case was remarkable. Mr. Speaker Brand
was charged by Charles Stewart Parnell, in 1879, with having
himself violated the privileges of the House. Parnell and his
small band of Nationalist supporters were then strenuously
opposing the Army Discipline Bill, with a view to the
abolition of flogging, as well as in furtherance of their policy
of obstructing the proceedings of the House. One night a
stranger was observed in one of the side galleries reserved
for Members, making notes of the names and observations of
the Nationalists, which evoked an angry scene of protest.
It was regarded by the Nationalists as the preliminary to
punitive action being taken against them. The House
was then in Committee on the Army Bill. Brand was sent
for and came, under the rule which provides that if any
sudden disorder should arise in Committee, Mr. Speaker will
resume the Chair without any question being put. He then
explained that the note-taker was an official of the House
acting under his directions. He pointed out that minutes
are regularly taken by the Clerks at the Table and published
daily under the title " Votes and Proceedings," and suggested
that the note-taking in the gallery was but an extension of
this practice. " As lately it had come to my notice." he
proceeded, " that there had been great and unexpected delay
in the progress of the Army Discipline Bill in Committee,
' Parliamentary History, vol. 27, pji. 467-520.
i
THE SPEAKER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 59
on my own responsibility, and for my own information, I
desired that minutes should be taken of the proceedings on
the Bill of a more full character than those which are taken
from day to day." He added that this action had no
reference whatever to any particular section of the House,
and that the note-taker gave an account of all Members
impartially.^
This was on July 10. On the following day Parnell
moved a resolution to the effect that the action of the Speaker,
" without the previous order or sanction or knowledge of the
House," was without precedent in the customs and usages of
Parliament, and was a breach of its privileges. In supporting
his resolution Parnell contended that the Speaker has no
original power or jurisdiction. " He is the interpreter of the
Rules and Orders of the House," said he, " and in matters of
debate he is the guide and the director and the preserver of
order ; but it is not within his power to do anything which
has not been previously ordered or sanctioned by the House,
or which is not a rule of the House." An amendment was
moved by Sir Stafford Northcote, the Leader of the House,
seconded by Lord Hartington, the Leader of the Opposition,
and supported by Gladstone, declaring that as the notes were
taken by an officer of the House under the direction of the
Speaker and for his confidential information, the proceeding
was justified. After a full night's debate the Speaker was
vindicated by 42 1 votes to 29, or a majority of 392, one of
the largest on record.^
The Irish Members were also the movers of the other
vote of censure upon the Speaker. On March 20, 1902, Mr.
Chamberlain, the Colonial Secretary, speaking in reference
to the then concluding stages of the South African War,
quoted a saying of Vilonel, the Boer general, that the enemies
of South Africa were those who were continuing a hopeless
struggle. " He is a traitor," interjected Mr. John Dillon ;
and Mr. Chamberlain retorted, " The hon. gentleman is a
good judge of traitors." Mr. Dillon appealed to the Chair
^ Parliamentary Debates (3rd series), vol. 248, pp. 47-76.
" Ibid.^ vol. 248, pp. 164-249.
6o THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
whether the expression of the Colonial Secretary was not
unparliamcntar)'. " I deprecate interruptions and retorts,"
replied Mr. Speaker Gully, "and if the hon. gentleman had
not himself interrupted the right hon. gentleman he would
not have been subjected to a retort." " Then I desire to say
that the right hon. gentleman is a damned liar," ex-
claimed Mr. Dillon. " The hon. Member must withdraw
that expression," said the Speaker. " I cannot withdraw it,"
replied Mr. Dillon. " I must name the hon. Member," said
the Speaker, " for disregarding the authority of the Chair."
The hon. Member was thereupon, on the motion of Mr.
Arthur Balfour, the Leader of the House, suspended from the
service of the House.^ On the following May 7, Mr. J. J.
Mooney, a member of the Irish Parliamentary Party, moved
that the Speaker ought to have ruled that the words applied
by the Colonial Secretary to Mr. Dillon were unparliamentary,
and accordingly have directed Mr. Chamberlain to withdraw
them. Mr. Gully presided at the debate, but did not inter-
vene. On a division the action of the Chair was supported
by 398 votes to 63, or a majority of 335.2
CHAPTER VIII
PUNITIVE POWERS
THE House of Commons is, on the whole, a most
orderly assembly, and the relations between
Members and the Chair are always the closest and
most cordial. But consider for a moment the elements of
which the elective Chamber of the Legislature is made up.
Here are 670 Members, of all sorts and conditions, chosen
from all parts of the United Kingdom to proclaim and
defend widely divergent political views. In such a varied
body of men some of the failings of human nature are bound
^ Parliai/ietilary Debates (4th series), vol. 105, pp. 591-4.
'^ /bid., vol. 107, pp. 1020-54.
T I
PUNITIVE POWERS 6i
occasionally to find v-ent, as well as all its virtues. Many
of the representatives of the people hold their opinions with
a conviction that is passionate and uncompromising. And
in the heat of political controversy some of them, unre-
strained by any sentiment of awe, are not disposed to
regulate the expression of their views by the codes of
etiquette and rules of St. Stephens, though those codes may
have the sanction of centuries.
If a Member refers insultingly to another Member, or
in any other way offends the dignity of the House, it is
the Speaker who calls upon him to withdraw the disparag-
ing words or make an apology. It may happen that
the Member, irascible and headstrong perhaps, loses his
temper and becomes recklessly defiant of, or indifferent
to, the censures of the Chair. Such undisciplined men are
prone to kick against rules of order which they regard
as harsh and arbitrary, circumscribing unduly their inde-
pendence of expression and action ; and their resentment
is likely to be vented upon the Speaker, as if he were
the malign concocter of the rules, and not simply their
impartial administrator.
To keep a rein on such a varied team, especially in their
touchy and unmanageable moods, demands tact, patience,
as well as firmness of the highest kind. The Speaker must
not be too stern in action or demeanour. I have witnessed
many violent scenes in the House of Commons, and have
noticed that, in a clash of will and tempers, courteous
expostulation and entreaty is more potent than an over-
bearing manner in the Speaker in the restoration of order.
It is true that the sharp and decisive cry, " Order, Order,"
of Mr. Speaker Peel, and the look of stern rebuke with which
it was accompanied, often subdued and cowed Members
disposed to be recalcitrant. But this was a wonderful exhibi-
tion of the force of a rare personality. It would be perhaps
unsafe for a Speaker, differently endowed, to try the game
of erring on the side of severity. He must not think too
much of his own importance. He must not exaggerate the
dignity of his office or strain its powers. Nor must he be
62 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
impatient of the commonplace and eccentric. He has to
deal with men of emotic^nal and impulsive temperaments, led
by their feelings often into unpremeditated acts and unthink-
ing utterances, and, if he is a broad-minded man, with a kindly
feeling for the waywardness of human nature, he will under-
stand and forgive. In a word, the Speaker should have a
genial and wise tolerance of the extravagant and weak in
personality and character, which is bound to appear in an
assembly of 670 men, of the most varied types, and which,
indeed, makes the House of Commons a place of inex-
haustible interest, and there are times when a deaf ear
would be as convenient to him as a blind eye was to
Nelson.
Moreover, the House will not tolerate the despot or the
master in an officer of its own creation. There could not
be a greater mistake than to suppose that the Speaker is
independent of the House. He cannot ignore or withstand
the wishes of the House, as well implied as deliberately
expressed. It is true that he wields great controlling
powers, and, as I have already said, his rulings on points
of order and procedure must be accepted as final, at least
for the time being. But, after all, the will which he imposes
upon the House is not his personal will. It is the law of the
House itself. For everything he does must be in accordance
with rule and precedent which have been accepted by the
House, and which the House may at any time alter or
abrogate if dissatisfied with their working. The initiative,
in many things, lies with the House. The Speaker in
many things proceeds by its authority, which is not given
to him until the very moment for action. He cannot leave
the Chair, even at the close when all business is transacted,
without a motion being made by a Minister and agreed
to by the House. The will of the House must prevail in
all things. And therefore in all he does the Speaker
is naturally restrained by the desire to have his action fully
endorsed by those from whom he has derived his position
and powers.
The Speaker enforces order generally by reprimand or
PUNITIVE POWERS 63
admonition. If a Member is indisposed to recognize the
authority of the Chair, different courses are open to the
Speaker for dealing with him. He may direct the Member,
under a Standing Order passed in 1888, to withdraw from
the House and its precints for the remainder of the night's
sitting. If the conduct of a Member is grossly disorderly,
and he is openly defiant of the authority of the Chair,
the Speaker may " name " him. He simply says : " I name
Mr. Blank for disregarding the authority of the Chair."
Thereupon the Leader of the House, or the Minister in
charge of the business then in hand, immediately rises and
moves that Mr. Blank be suspended from the service of
the House. The motion cannot be discussed. It is put
forthwith from the Chair, and if challenged by a division
must, of course, be endorsed by a majority.
The " naming " of a disorderly Member is a very old
procedure. Formerly it seems to have been the custom,
when Members became noisy, for the Speaker to cry
" Order, order, or I shall name names."
The story is told that John Wilkes asked Mr. Speaker
Arthur Onslow, about the middle of the eighteenth century,
what would be the consequences of his naming names.
" The Lord in heaven only knows " was the reply. Charles
James Fox once related to the House of Commons that
he put the same question to Sir Fletcher Norton, who
occupied the Chair subsequently to Onslow, and got for
an answer : " Happen ? Hang me, if I either know or care ! " ^
However, the procedure in regard to " naming " was adopted
as long ago as 1693, during a Parliament of William and
Mary. To ensure that all debates should be grave and orderly,
and that all interruptions should be prevented, it was " ordered
and declared " — " That no Member of this House do presume
to make any noise or disturbance whilst any Member shall
be orderly debating, or whilst any Bill, Order, or other
matter shall be in reading or opening. And in cases of
such noise or disturbance, that Mr. Speaker do call upon
the Member 'by name,' making such disturbance, and
^ Pellew, Life of Lord Sidinouthy vol. I, p. 69.
64 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
that every such person shall incur the displeasure and
censure of the House." ^
An illustration of the manner in which the House dealt
with a disorderly Member of old is afforded by an unpleasant
scene which occurred in the early years of the nineteenth
century. On February 27, 18 10, a Committee of the
House appointed to inquire into the expedition to the
Scheldt reported that a Member named Fuller had mis-
behaved himself during their sitting by making use of
profane oaths and otherwise disturbing their proceedings.
Fuller, on being asked by the Speaker for an explanation
of his conduct, aggravated his offence by repeating the
language which shocked the Committee with greater lurid-
ness and volubility. Mr. Speaker Abbot "named " him, and
he was directed to withdraw. It was immediately ordered
by the House that he be taken into the custody of the
Serjeant - at - Arms. But when the Serjeant - at - Arms
endeavoured to arrest him in the lobby, Fuller rushed into
the House swearing dreadfully and, shaking his fist at the
Speaker, protested that "the little fellow in the Chair"
should not put him down. On the order of the Speaker
the Serjeant-at-Arms dragged him by force out of the
Chamber.-
This custom or rule of "naming" was made a Standing
Order on February 28, 1880. On November 22, 1882, fixed
penalties were provided. The suspension on the first
occasion lasted a week; on the second, for a fortnight; and
on any subsequent occasion in the same session for a month.
In 1902 the Standing Order was reconsidered and amended.
The three periods of suspension were struck out with a view
to the substitution of others of greater length, but owing to
the pressure of public business the revision was adjourned,
with the result that the blanks were never filled up. It is
now the practice for the suspension of a Member who
has been " named " to continue for the session, unless
the House by resolution terminates it sooner. Suspension
' Hatsell, Precedents, vol. 2, p. 131 (1818 edition).
* Contmons Journals, vol. 65, p. 134.
PUNITIVE POWERS 65
carries with it exclusion from the precincts of the
House.^
Gladstone, supporting, as Leader of the Opposition, the
nomination of Peel to the Chair, for the third time, on
August 5, 1886, said: "There was a time, sir, when the
chief function of the Speaker was to defend the privilege of
the House against external attack. Dangers of that kind
have passed away, and the chief function of the Speaker —
one may say, almost practically, the exclusive function of
the Speaker — is to defend the House against itself. That is
to say, to vindicate its authority against every individual
Member who may not be sufficiently sensible of his duty.
And that function, I am afraid, in modern times, has become
still more arduous and difficult than was the original office
of defence against aggression from outside."
This is well and truly said. Happily, the rules of order
on the whole seem now to be adequate for the purposes for
which they have been framed, from time to time, in the
light of fresh experience. Moreover, there is the great
factor of the corporate devotion of the Members, as a body,
to the honour and dignity of the House, an influence of
tremendous import which in moments of real crisis rallies
them to the support of the Speaker as the guardian of order
Indeed, the Speaker does not always himself detect violations
of the rules of debate. His attention is often directed to a
breach of order by another Member, animated sometimes by
the partisan desire of discomposing a political opponent, but
more often, perhaps, by a genuine desire to preserve the
decorum of the House. The Chair, too, is regarded with a
respect so profound as to be akin almost to reverence and
worship. As we have seen, Mr. Speaker himself, as he walks
solemnly up the floor at the opening of every sitting, makes
three low obeisances to the Chair, and the ceremony inspires
Members, susceptible as they are in the main to the historic
traditions of the House, immemorial and splendid, with a
sort of awe of the Chair.
More than that, the Chair is exalted by the written rules
* May, Law and Usage of Parliament, 341.
5
66 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
of the House as well as by tradition and etiquette. One of
the rules enjoins that a Member " must enter and leave the
House with decorum," which has been interpreted to mean,
not only that he must uncover, but that he must also " make
an obeisance to the Chair " when passing to or from his
place. It is a serious breach of order to pass between the
Member addressing the House and the Chair. This offence,
committed though it be in ignorance or forgetfulness, is
invariably greeted with loud and angry cries of " Order " and
" Chair " from the body of Members. When the Speaker
rises the Member in possession must sit down. The
Speaker must always be heard in silence. It is considered
disrespectful for a Member to leave his seat while the Speaker
is addressing the House. On May lo, 1897, while Mr
Speaker Gully was on his feet, several Members passed down
the floor. There were cries of "Order" and "Chair." Sir
Henry Fowler, an old Member, interposed to ask whether it
was not the rule that when the Speaker rose from the Chair
every Member should remain seated. "That is the rule,"
replied the Speaker, " and it is important in the interests of
the order and decency of the proceedings of the House that
it should be observed." ^
One result of all this awe and reverence is that every
occupant of the Chair comes in time to be regarded as
Speaker by right divine, and to command the admiration
and the loyalty of the House. At his resignation — as any
one may see who reads the high-sounding eulogies which
in accordance with custom are then delivered — the House
kneels at his feet and offers him incense. This is, of course,
as it should be. Nothing contributes so much to the
authority of the Chair as the conviction that the Speaker
is a superior being, benign until thwarted, and then a being
of awful wrath and thundering majesty. Disraeli declared
of Shaw-Lefevre that even " the rustle of his robes," as he
rose to rebuke a breach of order, was sufficient to awe an
unruly Member into submission. The splendid outcome of
this feeling is obedience to the rulings of the Chair. It is
' Parliamentary Debates (4th series), vol. 49, p. 122.
PUNITIVE POWERS 67
but natural that Members who are the victims should
occasionally chafe against them, and for the moment feel
disappointed and aggrieved. But such is the confidence in
the impartiality of the Speaker that the ultimate verdict of
calm consideration is usually that these decisions are just
and proper.
But supposing a Speaker, who, of course, puts his own
interpretation on precedents and orders, finds that he has
made a wrong ruling, which the House has not discovered,
what ought he to do in the way of rectifying it ? Thomas
Moore records in his Diary an extraordinary discussion
on this point, perhaps academic, with Mr. Speaker Manners-
Sutton after dinner one evening in 1829 at the Speaker's
House. " Dwelt much on the advantages of humbug,"
writes Moore, referring to Manners-Sutton ; " of a man
knowing how to take care of his reputation, and to keep
from being found out, so as always to pass for cleverer than
he is." Moore says he argued that such a policy denoted,
not an impostor but a wise man. If by that line of policy a
man induced his fellow-men to give him credit for being
cleverer than he really was, the fault could not be his, so
long as he did not himself advance any claims to this credit.
The moment he pretended to be what he was not, then began
humbug, but not sooner. The poet then goes on, still refer-
ing to Manners-Sutton : —
" He still pushed his point, playfully but pertinaciously,
and in illustration of what he meant put the following case :
' Suppose a Speaker rather new to his office, and a question
brought into discussion before him which Parties are equally
divided upon, and which he sees will run to very inconvenient
lengths if not instantly decided. Well though entirely
ignorant on the subject, he assumes an air of authority and
gives his decision, which sets the matter at rest. On going
home he finds that he has decided quite wrongly : and then,
without making any further fuss about the business, he
quietly goes and alters the entry on the Journals.' "
Moore again insisted that wisdom, and not humbug, was
the characteristic of such an action. " To his supposed case
68 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
all I had to answer," the poet writes, "was that I still thought
the man a wise one, and no humbug ; by his resolution in a
moment of difficulty he prevented a present mischief, and
by his withdrawal of a wrong precedent averted a future
one." 1
CHAPTER IX
THE CASTING VOTE
THE Speaker on his election to the Chair forfeits —
actually, though perhaps not theoretically — his rights
as the representative of a constituency. He is
practically disqualified from speaking in the debates and
voting in the divisions. The constituency which he re-
presents is therefore in a sense disfranchised. But no con-
stituency has ever objected to its Member accepting the
Chair. No doubt it feels there is compensation in the dis-
tinction which it acquires by returning the Speaker of the
House of Commons.
When the House goes into Committee, whether for the
consideration of Supply or the clauses of a Bill, the Speaker
vacates the Chair, and the Chairman of Committees presides.
The Chairman, however, does not take the Chair. He
sits at the Table, in the low seat of the Chief Clerk, who,
like the Speaker, leaves the Chamber when the House is
in Committee. In days gone by it was customary for the
Speaker to join in Committee debates and divisions. When
the Bill for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland was in
Committee, Mr. Speaker Addington, on February 12, 1799,
declared that while he was in favour of the plan, he was
against the proposals of amelioration with which Pitt was
disposed to accompany it. If it were a question, he said,
between the re-enactment of all the Popery laws or the
Union, coupled with Catholic Emancipation, as a means for
the pacification of Ireland, he would prefer the repressive
' Moore, Diary , vol. 6, pp. 33-4 (1854).
THE CASTING VOTE 69
measures of old. Again, during the Committee stage of the
Bill introduced by Henry Grattan, in 18 13, to qualify Roman
Catholics for election as Members of Parliament, an amend-
ment to omit the vital words, " to sit and vote in either House
of Parliament," was moved by Mr. Speaker Abbot (who was
strongly opposed, like Addington, to the removal of the
Catholic disabilities), and having been carried by the narrow
majority of four votes was, of course, fatal to the measure.
Manners-Sutton also exercised his right to speak in
Committee twice on such highly controversial questions
as Catholic Emancipation/ and once on the claims of
Dissenters- to be admitted to the universities, to both of
which reforms he, like his predecessors in the Chair, answered
an uncompromising " No." But so high has the Chair been
lifted in recent times above the conflicts of Party politics,
that partisanship so assertive and aggressive would not now
be tolerated in a Speaker. On the last two occasions that
a Speaker interested himself in proceedings in Committee
the questions at issue had no relation whatever to Party
politics. In 1856, Shaw-Lefevre spoke in defence of the
Board of Trustees of the British Museum, of which he was
a member;^ and in 1870 Denison, helped to defeat in the
division lobbies a proposal in the Budget of Robert Lowe
imposing a licence duty on farm horses employed in carting
materials for the repair of parish roads.* On that night of
June 9, 1870, a Speaker was seen for the last time in the
division lobbies. It is probable that never again will a
Speaker either speak or vote in Committee. Indeed, Mr.
Speaker Gully signalized his tenure of office by directing
that his name should be omitted from the printed lists
with which the clerks in the division lobbies are furnished
for the purpose of recording the names of Members and how
they voted. This precedent, however, has not been followed.
^ Parliamentary Debates (2nd series), vol. 4, p. 1451 {1821), and vol. 13,
p. 434(1825).
- Ibid. (3rd series), vol. 24, p. 1092 (1834).
' Ibid. (3rd series), vol. 141, p. 1352.
* Ibid. (3rd series), vol. 201, p. 1815.
70 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
The introductioti of the Budget is one of the few
occasions on which it is usual for the Speaker, when not
in the Chair, to remain in the Chamber as an interested
Hstener to the financial statement of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. When the Chairman of Ways and Means is
presiding over the House in Committee in which the Budget
is introduced, the place occupied by the Speaker is at the
lower end of the Treasury Bench, close to the Chair, where
he sits in his wig and robes.
The Speaker's disqualification from voting while in the
Chair is a very ancient one, as the records show. In the
year 1601, and in the last Parliament of Queen Elizabeth,
the voting on a Bill to make it compulsory to go to church
on Sunday was 105 for and 106 against. The supporters
of the measure declared they had the voice of Mr. Speaker
Croke on their side, which made the voting equal. " And
it grew to a question," says the chronicler, " whether he had
a voice." Sir Edward Hobby said that as the Speaker was
the mouth of the House and not a stranger, therefore he
had a voice. " To which he was answered by Sir Walter
Raleigh, and confirmed by the Speaker himself, that he
was foreclosed of his voice by taking that place, and that
he was to be indifferent to both Parties, and withal showed
that the Bill was lost." " The Speaker hath no voice," said
Mr. Secretary Cecil, " and tho' I am sorry to say it, yet I
must needs confess lost it is, and so farewell to it."^
The only vote which a Speaker now gives is a casting
vote, should the numbers prove equal in a division taken
while he is in the Chair. This also is an old custom. On
March 29, 1673, a debate took place on the printing of
addresses to the King, Charles II., in relation to certain
grievances arising out of the quartering of soldiers. On a
motion to adjourn the debate the numbers were equal —
105 on each side. The Speaker, Edward Seymour, gave
his casting vote for the adjournment, and, according to the
Parliamentary Histoiy^ jestingly said, " he would have his
reason for his judgment recorded, viz., because he was very
' Parliamentary History, vol. 4, p. 497.
THE CASTING VOTE 71
hungry."^ The joke, however, is not to be found in the
Journals. " And Mr. Speaker giving his vote with the
Ayes " — so runs the official entry — *' it was resolved in the
affirmative." ^
On May 12, 1792, Mr. Speaker Addington stated certain
principles which guided him in giving his casting vote,
and these have generally been acted upon since. A Bill
relating to succession duty on real estate was before the
House. The question that the Bill be " now " read a third
time was decided in the negative. There was a majority
also against a motion for the rejection of the Bill. Then
it was moved that the Bill be read a third time " to-morrow " ;
and for this there was an equality of votes. The Speaker
gave his casting vote with the "Ayes." In doing so, he
said " that upon all occasions when the question was for
or against giving to any measure a further opportunity of
discussion, he should always vote for the further discussion,
more especially when it had advanced so far as a third
reading; and that when the question turned upon the
measure itself — for instance, that a Bill do or do not pass
— he should then vote for or against it, according to his
best judgment of its merits, assigning the reasons on which
such judgment would be founded."^
Happily, perhaps, for the peace of mind of Mr. Speaker,
a tie is a very rare occurrence in the House of Commons.
Charles Abbot was placed by one in a dramatic and painful
situation, arising out of an incident most exceptional in our
public life — a charge of malversation against a Minister of
the Crown. In the report of a Commission appointed to
inquire into the management of the naval departments,
charges of malpractices were brought against Henry Dundas,
Lord Melville, First Lord of the Admiralty in Pitt's last
administration, and the right-hand man and intimate friend
of the Prime Minister. That was in 1805. It was established
* Parliamentary History, vol. 4, p, 584.
^ Commons Journals, vol. 9, p. 281.
^ Ibid., vol. 51, p. 764. May's Law and Usage of Parliament (1906)
pp. 364-5.
72 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
that during Dundas's tenure of office as Treasurer of the
Navy in the Shelburne Administration, as far back as 1782,
his Paymaster, Trotter, who was also his private agent,
withdrew large sums of public money from the account of
the Treasury in the Bank of England, and, lodging them in
a private bank, appropriated the accruing interest ; and
Lord Melville admitted, in his examination before the
Commission, that as advances of money had been made to
him by Trotter at the time, he might have made use of this
public money unwittingly for his own private ends. On
April 8, 1805, Samuel VVhitbread brought forward in the
House of Commons a series of resolutions setting out the
case against Lord Melville as disclosed by the investi-
gations of the Commission. Pitt thereupon moved the
previous question, but promised that if this motion were
carried he would propose that the report of the Commission
be referred to a Select Committee. There was a good deal
of Party malice in this action of the Whigs against the
Tory Minister. With their zeal for the purity of the ad-
ministration of public affairs the Opposition mixed a desire
to annoy a political antagonist and embarrass the Govern-
ment. After a long and heated debate a division was taken
on Pitt's motion. It resulted in a tie. For the motion, 216;
against the motion, 216. The painful issue depended upon
Mr. Speaker Abbot's casting vote ! No wonder the Speaker
was overcome by the deepest distress. For a long time he
sat in the Chair, pale and trembling, in view of the crowded
and deeply excited but silent House, before he could master
his emotion and gather sufficient composure and strength of
mind to rise and deliver his decision. It was against Lord
Melville ! It is said that Pitt crushed his hat over his eyes,
to hide his tears for the fate of his friend and colleague.
At that time the public galleries were always cleared
before a division. On the return of the reporters the House
was found debating Whitbread's resolutions, so that there
is no report in Hansard of what the Speaker may have said
in explanation of his vote. " The numbers being thus
equal," says the simple record, " the Speaker gave his
THE CASTING VOTE 73
casting vote in favour of Mr. Whitbread's motion, thereby
making a majority of one." Abbot, however, in his Diary ^
briefly sets out the explanation of his vote which he gave
to the House. He said that as the charges of " conniving
at the profits illegally made by Mr. Trotter for his own
private use out of the public moneys " were " confessed and
established, and fit for the immediate judgment of the
House," he should give his vote for the Ayes.^ This
decision appears to be somewhat in conflict with the prin-
ciple which usually guides the Speaker in giving a casting
vote, — namely, that he should not judge for the House, but
should give the House the opportunity of coming itself to
a more definite conclusion — for Abbot decided that two of
the charges against Melville had been proved by Melville's
own admissions at the inquiry, leaving uncertain the charge
that Melville had participated in Trotter's profits. Whit-
bread's resolutions were carried ; - Melville accordingly was
impeached for " high crimes and misdemeanours " before
his peers, the House of Lords ; but, after a trial of fifteen
days, his defence, that he had not connived at Trotter's use
of the public money for his own private emolument, was
accepted by thirty-one votes to twenty-seven, and thus he
was acquitted of personal corruption. It was the last im-
peachment of a Minister, the last application of an ancient
procedure for calling a Minister to account.
In the discharge of this delicate duty of deciding a tie
— a duty that is usually momentous, considering the great
issues that often hang on divisions in the House of Commons
— the Speaker may, in theory, vote like any other Member,
without assigning a reason ; but custom and precedent have
established the rule that, with a view to preserving the
impartiality of the Chair from even the breath of imputation
and doubt, he should vote in such a way as not to make
the decision of the House final, and should also state why
he does so, which explanation is entered in the Journals.
This is made clear by the most recent instances of ties.
' Colchester, Diary, vol. i, p. 548.
^ Parliamentary History, vol. 4, pp. 255-371.
74 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
John Evelyn Denison, who was Speaker in the " sixties,"
gave three casting votes. Matters of considerable import-
ance were each time at stake. The first occasion was on
June 19, 1 861, when, in the division on the Bill for the
exemption of churches from local rates, the numbers proved
exactly equal — Ayes, 274 ; Noes, 274. The incident was
somewhat dramatic. What was about to happen had been
foreseen by the Speaker. The Clerk, Sir Denis le Marchant,
said to him, " They don't expect much discussion ; I dare
say it will be over by four." " No," replied the Speaker,
who tells the story in his Diary, " it will go on longer than
that, and about half-past five I shall be called upon to give
a casting vote."
So it turned out. The four tellers came back to the
House from the two lobbies together — always an indication
that the division has been a close thing — and one of them,
before the numbers had been publicly announced at the
Table, whispered that there was a tie. The Speaker thought
at first the teller had said not "tie," but "five," and in the
belief that there was a majority on one side or the other he
sat back in the Chair in the ease of relief. But when the
numbers were proclaimed he found that his anticipation of
a tie had proved correct. " The excitement became intense,"
he writes. " I sat still for a moment to let it subside. I
had quite made up my mind, and was quite prepared.
Indeed, I was the only person in the House who was not
taken by surprise. I gave my reasons for the vote, I gave
my voice with the Noes." His principal reason was that
he desfred, according to precedent, to give the House another
opportunity of considering the question.^ With this
incident, which Gladstone has described as being enacted in
breathless silence, began the long and bitter struggle on the
question whether or not churches should be free of rates,
which was ultimately answered years afterwards by the
passing of the Bill.
Denison refers in his Journal to the many compliments
he received from prominent Members for the way he had
' Denison, Notes from My Journal y 94-9.
THE CASTING VOTE 75
acted his part, and with an apology he adds : " I hardly
like to write these self-laudations. Some time it may be
pleasant to look back to the day, perhaps. Mr. Disraeli," he
j goes on, " came to my Chair and said he wished to express
I the unqualified admiration with which he, and all around
him, had listened to what I had said. That there was but
one feeling and one opinion about the admirable manner in
I which I had performed my part, both in manner and as to
! its substance. What a remarkable moment it had been,
I what a striking scene ; he would not have missed it for anj-
, thing in the world."
There was another tie on the third reading of the Tests
i Abolition (Oxford) Bill, on July i, 1864. The object of the
i Bill was to complete the work of throwing open Oxford
! University to Nonconformists by admitting them to the
I higher as well as the lower degrees without having to subscribe
i to the Thirty-Nine Articles. The rejection of the Bill was
moved and supported by those who desired to restrict the
j governing body of the university and colleges to persons
: of the Established Church. It was defeated by 150 votes
against 140. The question " That this Bill be now read a
j third time" was next put after a brief debate; and, a large
' number of other Members having^ come to the House in the
I meantime, the voting was 170 for and 170 against. The
Speaker gave his casting vote for the Ayes. At present
the last stage of a Bill in the House of Commons is the third
I reading. But at that time there was a further stage, namely,
I the motion " That this Bill do now pass," which was purely
j formal, and, while abolished in the Commons, still survives
in the Lords. In giving his casting vote for the Ayes, Mr.
' Speaker Denison said he afforded the House another
opportunity of deciding the question for itself, as a division
could be challenged on the motion " That this Bill do now
pass." This was accordingly done, though as a rule the
stage was never contested. It was also done immediately.
Yet the voting was again entirely different. The Bill was
thrown out by a majority of two, 171 being for it and 173
against it. It was not until 1871 that Gladstone's first
y6 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Administration carried a Bill which abolished the last of
the religious tests, that of subscribing to the Thirty-Nine
Articles, at both Oxford and Cambridge.^
The third occasion of Mr. Speaker Denison's casting
vote — of which, strangely enough, he makes no mention in
h.\s Journal- — was on another motion raising, like the other
two, a question of religious controversy. It declared it was
undesirable that the fellowship and foundation scholar-
ships of Trinity College, Dublin, should be exclusively
appropriated by persons of the Established Church, and was
moved on July 24, 1867, The numbers in the division
being equal, the Speaker stated that the principle involved
in the resolution was one of great importance, and if affirmed
by a clear majority of the House would have much force.
It should, however, be affirmed by a clear majority of the
House, and not merely by the casting vote of the Speaker.
For these reasons he declared himself with the Noes. In
this case, again, the casting vote of the Speaker put off a
final decision by the House on the question at issue.'-
Mr. Speaker Peel had occasion to give his casting vote
but once during his eleven years' tenure of the Chair. It
was on the Marriage Confirmation (Antwerp) Bill, July 25,
1887. The object of the measure was to confirm marriages
solemnized at Antwerp by a Dr. Potts, who was chaplain to
a British and American sailors' bethel at that port from
1880 to 1884, which marriages were supposed to be invalid
on account of a technicality. The tie occurred on a motion
for the adjournment of the debate at two o'clock in the
morning, and Mr. Speaker Peel gave his casting vote in
favour of the adjournment.^ In this case the Bill was not
heard of again, for no opportunity of proceeding with it was
available during the session.
Mr. Speaker Gully's experience in this respect was very
singular. Me once gave his casting vote when, as it turned
out afterwards, no tie had really occurred. It was on May
' Dcnison, Notes from A fy Journal, 167-8.
" Commons Journals, vol. 122, p. 395.
* Parliamentary Debates (3rd series), vol. 317, pp. 2011-15.
THE CASTING VOTE jy
II, 1899, in connexion with the second reading of the
Vehicles (Lights) Bill. " The tellers for the Ayes and the Noes
came up to the Table almost at the same time," said Mr.
Gully, describing the incident. " One of the tellers gave his
number as forty, and the teller for the Ayes was then turned
to and asked his number. In point of fact, the teller of the
Ayes had succeeded by a majority of three. His number
should have been forty-three, but he was so elated at hearing
of a victory which he had not expected that at the moment
he only repeated what the other Member had said, and he
said 'forty,' whereupon there was a tie. I then gave my
vote for the Ayes, doing that which a Speaker always did
on such occasions, although I do not think I had formed
any opinion at all upon the Bill. Still, in doing what I did
I pursued the proper course, because it gave the opportunity
on the third reading for the expression of a decided opinion
on the Bill." The mistake was discovered on the publication
of the official division lists the following day.
The only actual tie during Mr. Speaker Gully's term of
office happened on April 3, 1905. A Tramways Bill of the
London County Council was before the House at the second
reading stage, and an instruction to the Committee was moved
to omit the clauses authorizing the laying of lines across
Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges and along the Victoria
Embankment. On a division there were 171 both for and
against the instruction.
" In the circumstances," said the Speaker, " in order that
this matter may be disposed of in Committee and to give the
House another opportunity of dealing with it and settling it
in a more decisive manner, I shall give my vote for the Noes."
The instruction was accordingly rejected.^ Subsequently
the Bill passed through the House of Commons, but it was
rejected by the Lords. It was re-introduced in the following
year, however, and then passed into law.
Mr. Speaker Lowther had been five years in the occupancy
of the Chair before he was called upon by an indecisive
division to give his casting vote. It was on July 22, 19 10.
* Commons Journals, vol. i6o, p. 105.
78 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
On an amendment to the Regency Bill on the report stage,
moved by a Conservative Member (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson),
the division resulted in a tie — 6i for, 6i against, Mr.
Lowther, after stating that this was the solitary occasion
on which as Speaker he had an opportunity of giving a
casting vote, said he would give it in favour of the Bill
as originally introduced. So he voted " Aye " and declared :
" The Ayes are 62, the Noes 61."
As originally introduced by the Government, Clause 4
of the Bill contained the identical words which the Scotch
Conservative proposed to add to it on the report stage.
During the Committee stage these particular words were
deleted. Mr. Churchill, the Minister in charge of the Bill,
mentioned that the Government attached no importance to
the words, but he made it clear that he himself saw no reason
to reverse the decision. As amended in Committee, Clause 4
read : " The Regent shall not give or have power to give the
Royal Assent to any Bill for repealing, changing, or in any
respect varying the order or course of succession to the
Crown of this realm, as established by the Act of Settlement."
To this Mr. Mitchell-Thomson now proposed to add the
words : " or to any Bill for repealing or altering an Act
of the fifth year of the reign of Queen Anne, made in
Scotland, intituled 'An Act for securing the Protestant
religion and Presbyterian government.'" As the result of
the division, and through the Speaker's casting vote, the
words quoted were restored to their original place in the
Bill.i
I have said it is usual for the Speaker, when prac-
ticable, to give his casting vote in such a manner as not
to make the decision of the House final. That course
appears, in this instance, to have been impracticable. There
was a general understanding that the Bill should that day be
passed through its remaining stages. Moreover, the Speaker's
vote only restored the Bill to the form in which it was
originally presented by the Government.
' Parliamentary Debates (5th series), vol. 19, pp. 1696-17 17.
"LIKE SAD PROMETHEUS" 79
CHAPTER X
" LIKE SAD PROMETHEUS "
IT must be hard, indeed, upon the Speaker to sit in
the Chair hour after hour, during a long sitting, and
night after night, for a protracted session, bound to be
there and bound to Hsten to every discussion, bound to let
nothing escape his attention, a necessarily silent and a
necessarily watchful observer of what goes on : " Like sad
Prometheus fastened to a rock." He must not have too
high a conceit of himself The virtue of modesty and self-
abnegation must be his in a large measure, for otherwise
his soul might rise in revolt against the petty and trivial,
and even mean and sordid, wranglings in which occasionally
those who sit beneath his sway indulge.
It is a motley assembly, the House of Commons. What
strange characters are to be seen there ! How varying are
the roles they fill ! All the powerful motives and passions
which practically influence human character and conduct —
self-interest, ambition, jealousy — find vent in the rivalries
and intrigues of the Assembly. What does the Speaker
think of it all? What are his feelings in the Chair? Does
he hold a private inquisition into the temperaments and
qualities of hon. Members, studying their faces and manners,
making a mental note of every gesture, of every intonation,
that gives a hint of character ? Certainly, a Speaker with
a sense of humour or a satirical vein might derive much
amusement and refreshment, in the dull hours, by watching,
as he sits throned on high, the exhibitions of earnestness and
fervour which are dissipated in the defence of, or opposition
to, things trivial or matters that seem of no importance.
Happy man, if there be no extravagance with which he is
incapable of sympathy. But if he is not of that enviable
disposition, how jaded he must feel at times ! How hollow
these platitudes and irrelevancies — endlessly repeated — must
sound in his weary ears !
8o THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
When the House is the scene — as it often is — of a great
conflict on some moving political question, in which the chief
gladiators on both sides take part, the lot of the Speaker
seems happy. He sits above it all in his elegant and
spacious Chair, full of comfort and rest, into which he leans
back in excess of contentment, and listens. In that arena of
oratorical conflict, where talk, talk, talk goes on all the time,
the Speaker says little, argues still less, and indulges in
political disputation not at all. But everything that is said
is said to him. To him all the speeches, great and little, are
spnkfin .
/ "Mr. Speaker," each Member begins. It may be that in
reality it is not the Speaker who is addressed at all. It may
be that it is not even the House. Perhaps it is the represen-
tatives of the Press, who sit up aloft in the Reporters' Gallery,
that are talked to, or, rather, through them the electorate, in
the hope of influencing public opinion. At any rate, the
speeches are interlarded with a good deal of exclamatory
remarks which are directed straight to the occupant of the
Chair. " Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker." " I ask you, Mr.
Speaker." " Mr. Speaker, is it not the fact ? " " How comes
it to pass, Mr. Speaker? " " Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will
agree with me when I say." In fact, he is appealed to and
reasoned with as if he were brimming over with interest in
the subject under discussion. The Member on his feet asserts,
protests, explains, argues, laying bare all his emotions and
aspirations, as if Mr. Speaker had on his knees the destiny
of all things, besides the settlement of political controversies,
and that it were well not only to convince but to propitiate
and stand well with one so powerful.
The Speaker listens to it all. He listens, but he gives no
sign as to how he is personally influenced by this expounding
and deducing, this triumphant confuting of each side by the
other, apparently for his benefit alone. He listens, but it is
to be feared that it is not with the desire to discover what is
true and what is false in the views which are laid before him,
not with the laudable intention even of improving his mind
by extending the range of his political ideas. To each
THE HOUSK OF COMMONS IN lT4.i
(the speaker in the chaik)
from an engraving by john 1-lne
"LIKE SAD PROMETHEUS" 8i
talker he gives his ear but not his countenance, for the ex-
pression of his face is to his thoughts an impenetrable disguise.
He gives his ear not as a sign of sympathy with the opinions
expressed, but in order to ensure that the hon. Member in
his argument — however puerile and ridiculous it may be —
keeps strictly to the point of the debate and wanders
not afield. The Speaker is deeply concerned in an affair
which, to him at least, is of the supremest importance — being,
in fact, the main and primary object of his office — that is, the
due regulation of business according to rule and precedent,
and it absorbs all the attention of his mind to such a degree
that probably the political arguments of the debate make
no impression whatever upon him. Let the hon. Member on
his feet but trangress any of the rules of the House, and he
will find the Speaker, who is listening to him with such placid
intentness, transformed into a stern and reproving judge.
It is a common thing for Members to slumber in the
Chamber, but has a Speaker ever been detected asleep in
the Chair? Once, at least, jaded nature asserted itself over
the watchful President of the House of Commons, and the
eye of the Speaker was caught napping. The Speaker was
Manners-Sutton, and the occasion was one of the debates in
the first reformed Parliament. Winthrop Mackworth Praed,
the political satirist, who sat in the House as a Conservative,
saw the lids of the Speaker, overweighted with weariness and
langour, close in slumber, and he made the incident the sub-
ject of some genial lines which first appeared in the Morning
Post of March 6, 1833. This is the opening stanzas : —
" Sleep, Mr. Speaker, — it's surely fair,
If you don't in your bed, that you should in your Chair ;
Longer and longer still they grow,
Tory and Radical, Aye and No ;
Talking by night and talking by day :
Sleep, Mr. Speaker, sleep while you may ! "
His sense of responsibility and trust tends to keep the
mind of the Speaker continually upon the stretch.
It is possible, of course, during a dull discussion, for him
to grow weary, then indifferent, then absent-minded, and
6
82 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
finally to lose himself in thought to the extent of a complete
unconsciousness of his surroundings, with the mind sunk
deep in the pleasure of dreamy contemplation, wandering
far away from St. Stephens. Only this state of being can
explain an incident which not unfrequently happens. The
Member addressing the House unexpectedly finishes and
resumes his seat. Instantly lialf a dozen others jump to
their feet eagerly straining themselves on the attention of
the Speaker. There is a pause of a few seconds. The
Speaker does not call upon any of the competitors for his
notice and selection. He seems to have been suddenly
summoned out of a reverie, and in the un preparedness of
the moment is unable to think of the name of any of the
Members on their feet. The suspense is ended only by one
of the Members boldly starting on his speech without the
preliminary call of the Speaker. Once I saw a Speaker
aroused from introspection and self-communion to decide a
point of order laid before him by two contending Members
on opposite sides of the House. Obviously he had not
recovered his wandering thoughts in time to understand
the matter at issue. He had the bewildered look of one
upon whom a situation has come with suddenness and
surprise. Yet with an air of profound solemnity, quickly
assumed, he declared that if neither was precisely right,
in his opinion neither was precisely wrong.
But it is not often that the Speaker is thus discovered in
a brown study, lost in his own reflections. As a rule he is
alertly on the look out, keeping both his eyes and ears open.
It is marvellous how quickly he develops a perfect appre-
ciation of the position of affairs, when he appears to be
all unconscious of what is going on, and pulls together his
straggling team and makes them subservient to his will with
a cry of " Order, Order ! "
Sir Fletcher Norton, who was Speaker from 1770 to 1780,
took no pains to conceal his boredom in the Chair. During
a tedious debate he would often cry aloud, " I am tired ! I
am weary ! I am heartily sick of all this ! " ^
* May, Consliluliotial History, vol. I, p. 503 (Note).
"LIKE SAD PROMETHEUS" 83
Thomas Moore records in his Diary that, dining with
Mr. Speaker Manners-Sutton on September 23, 1825, he
related that Lord Sidmouth — Henry Addington — told him
the only time his gravity was ever tried in the Chair was
once when Brook Watson, speaking on some subject con-
nected with North and South, said : " Mr. Speaker, it is
impossible at this moment to look to the north-east without
at the same time casting a glance at the south-west." The
Speaker stood this pretty well, but hearing some one behind
the Chair say : " By God, no one in the House but Wilkes
could do that," he no longer could keep his countenance, but
burst into a most undignified laugh. John Wilkes squinted.
Moore adds : " Felt my story to be rather awkward before
I was half through it, as the Speaker squints a little."
Manners-Sutton, in return, told Moore of the only occasion
he had ever laughed while occupying the Chair. It was
during a debate in which Members of the Opposition had
been squabbling fiercely together, when a large rat issued
from beneath the front Opposition bench and walked
deliberately across to the Government side of the House.^
Not until 1855 was provision made for a Deputy Speaker
in the unavoidable absence of the Speaker. Before that
year it was the custom, when the Speaker fell ill, for the
Clerk to announce the fact, and for the House immediately
to adjourn. On the recommendation of a Select Committee,
which was appointed to consider and suggest a means for
obviating the inconvenience caused by such interruptions of
public business, the House adopted a Standing Order, on
July 20, 1855, empowering the Chairman of Committees
to preside as Deput}^ Speaker. It is provided that when-
ever the House shall be informed by the Clerk at the Table
of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker the Deputy
Speaker shall take the Chair, and so on from day to day
on the like information being given to the House, until
the House shall otherwise order.^ The Standing Order
subsequently received statutory authority so as to provide
' Moore, Diary, vol. 4, p. 320.
"^ Standing Order 81, Manual of House of Commons Procedure (1904).
84 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
against the validity of acts done or proceedings taken
during the absence of the Speaker being afterwards
questioned.^ In 1902 a Deputy Chairman of Committees
was appointed. He not only presides in Committee, when
the Chairman of Ways and Means is unable to be present,
but he may take the Chair also in the absence of both
Speaker and Deputy Speaker. The Chairman and Deputy
Chairman are not elected by the House. Both posts are
Party appointments, and, unlike the Speakership, their
occupants change with every alteration of Government, j It
has, however, become a custom for the Chairman and
Deputy Chairman, by reason of their official position, to refrain
from taking part in Party conflicts inside the House or out-
side; and, following the example of the Speaker also, they
are now never seen in the division lobbies. In the Chair
they wear ordinary evening clothes, without wig and gown, and
may be said, without disparagement, to enjoy but a pale
reflection of the prestige and authority of the more exalted
Speaker whose place they occasionally fill.
By an arrangement made in 1906, during Mr. Speaker
Lowther's tenure of office, the interval of twenty minutes
during which the proceedings of the House were suspended
to enable the Speaker to obtain refreshments was abolished,
and the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman was em-
powered temporarily to relieve the Speaker when requested
to do so by him at the dinner hour.
But even when the House is deliberating for the night
in Committee of Supply or in Committee on a Bill, the
Speaker is not thereby set free to take a walk abroad. He
is tied to his abode, and has to sit in the library, still
clothed in his official robes, ready to return to the House
at any moment in response to a summons. At the close
of an all-night sitting in Committee the appearance of the
Speaker to adjourn the House has always a touch of the
dramatic, and is invariably emphasized with cheers, which
are largely an expression of relief. In 1870, Denison, when
there was a prospect of the House sitting late in Committee,
» 18 & 19 Vict. c. 84.
THE PRIZE OF THE CHAIR 85
arranged with the Chairman of Ways and Means to take
the Chair as Deputy Speaker, when progress was reported,
and adjourn the House at the end of the proceedings.
"This sitting- up," he writes, " merely to adjourn the House
and put out the lights is not only useless as a matter of
business, but it really impedes business, knocks up the
Speaker, and renders him inefficient for the following day.
This liberty of withdrawing when the House is going to
pass the whole night in Committee, and when there are
no contested Orders of the Day, ought to be more fre-
quently allowed to the Speaker." ^ Nevertheless, it is rarely
availed of.
Even though the House be up, something else remains
for the Speaker to do before he can go to bed. He peruses
and signs the nightly record of " Votes and Proceedings "
which are prepared during the sitting by the Clerks, and,
being printed, are left at the residences of Members by the
messengers in the morning.
CHAPTER XI
THE PRIZE OF THE CHAIR
BUT responsible though it be, the Speakership has its
compensations. The Speaker has a salary of ;^5000
a year, and a fine residence in a wing of the Palace
of Westminster, close to Westminster Bridge. Every night
that the House is in Committee, and this often occurs in
the session, he is relieved, as we have seen, by the Chair-
man of Committees. He has also the inestimable advantage
of four or five months' holiday every year, during what is
known as the Recess. And after ten or twelve years' service
he retires with a peerage and a pension of ;^4000 a year.
The dignity of the position is also high. The Speaker
is the First Commoner of the Realm, and therefore has
^ Denison, Notes from My Journal, 255.
86 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
precedence of all the Commonalty, that mighty crowd out-
side the peerage. This rank of the Speaker was determined
by an Act of Parliament that was passed in 1688, after the
Revolution. The object of the Act was to enable the
Lords Commissioners for the Great Seal to execute the
office of Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper ; and in a section
of this statute, thus passed for an entirely different purpose,
it is incidentally provided that the Speaker's place in the
order of precedence is next after the peers of the Realm.^
The Speaker has also precedence at the Council Table
among Privy Councillors.^
No wonder, then, that the Speaker's Chair has become
one of the highest prizes of political ambition. For honour
and dignity, in the public eye, the office ranks next, perhaps,
to that of the Prime Minister. Indeed, Speakers of former
days have aspired to rule not the House of Commons, but
the nation itself. Four of them became Prime Ministers
after leaving the Chair. At the opening of the eighteenth
century the Speaker was Robert Harley, who ultimately
reached the very top of the Government as the Earl of
Oxford. Spencer Compton, who was Speaker during the
entire reign of George I., vacated the Chair to become the
Prime Minister of George II. Henry Addington, after being
Speaker for twelve years, was called from the Chair by
George III., in 1801, to form an Administration in succession
to William Pitt, who resigned owing to the King's rooted
objection to Catholic Emancipation. William Wyndham
Grenville, who was Speaker in 1789, led the Ministry of
"All the Talents" in 1806. Probably the only position for
which the Speakership would be relinquished to-day is
that of Prime Minister. Sir John Mitford, who followed
Addington in the Chair, resigned after a year's service to
become Lord Chancellor of Ireland ; but he did so only at
the earnest solicitation of the King and the solatium of a
salary of ;^ 10,000 per year and a peerage as Lord Redesdale.
The Lord Chancellorship of Ireland is a high and honour-
' I Will, and Mary, c. 21.
* Hatsell, Precedents t vol. 2, p. 179.
THE PRIZE OF THE CHAIR 87
able position, but it is unlikely that nowadays any one
would sacrifice for it the Speakership of the House of
Commons, Charles Abbot resigned the Chief Secretaryship
for Ireland — a post of greater political importance than that
of the Lord Chancellorship — so as to succeed Mitford as
Speaker in 1802. Abbot refused the offer of a Secretary-
ship of State from Perceval, the Prime Minister, in 1809,
during his occupancy of the Chair ; and Manners-Sutton
could have been, if he wished, Home Secretary in the
Administration formed in 1827 by Canning.
So eagerly is the position sought for that even Ministers
have been willing to give up their portfolios for the Speaker's
Chair. Thomas Spring Rice, Chancellor of the Exchequer
in one of the Melbourne Administrations, had his heart set
on that coveted office. He was in the running for the
Speakership in 1833, when Manners-Sutton was reappointed
by the Whigs, and in 1835, when James Abercromby was
elected by them. Abercromby himself had been a Cabinet
Minister, When Abercromby retired in 1839, Spring Rice
again urged his claim, but it was found he was not
acceptable to the Radicals, and Shaw-Lefevre was selected
in order to maintain the unity of the Party and preserve
the Liberal succession to the Chair. Again, on the resigna-
tion of Arthur Wellesley Peel in 1895, Sir Henry Campbell-
Bannerman was disposed to lay down his portfolio as
Secretary for War in the then Liberal Government for
the object of his ambition — the Speakership ; and it is
said that it was reluctantly he yielded to the urgent repre-
sentations of his colleagues that the Party could ill spare
his services. His sacrifice was well rewarded, for he lived
to become Prime Minister in 1905.
Still, this most exalted position has, as a rule, fallen to
unofficial Members, or to Members who have held sub-
ordinate Ministerial appointments. Denison, in the opening
passages of his Diary, states that on April 8, 1857, he
was seated in his library at Ossington when the letters
were brought in, and among them was the following: "94
Piccadilly, the 7th of April' 1857. My dear Denlson,—
88 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
We wish to be allowed to propose you for the Speakership
of the House of Commons. Will you agree? — Yours
sincerely, Palmerston." Denison says the proposal took
him by surprise. "Though," he writes, "I had attended
of late years to several branches of the private business,
and had taken more part in the public business of the
House of Commons, I had never made the duties of
the Chair my special study." The case of William Court
Gully is, in this respect, remarkable. He had been ten
years in Parliament before his elevation to the Speaker's
Chair, but he was one of that large, modest band of " silent
Members" who, confining themselves to voting on the issues
in the division lobbies, are unknown in debate, and conse-
quently are never mentioned in the newspapers. Moreover,
being a busy laywer, Mr. Gully was indifferent to the routine
work of the House, and had no experience in serving on
Committees upstairs, which is supposed to be the best of
all trainings for the Speakership. Indeed, the Chair may
be regarded as the one great prize that is open to the
occupants of the back benches — to the privates in the rear
rank — who possess the necessary physical as well as mental
qualities. Personal appearance is undoubtedly a powerful
factor in the selection of candidates. This includes the
possession of clear vision. A Speaker with spectacles would
look incongruous in an Assembly where the competition to
catch his eye is so keen. He needs to have long sight, the
Speaker of the House of Commons. Most of the Speakers
have been gentlemen bred to the law. The overwhelming
majority of them, also, have been Englishmen. Two or
three came from Wales. One only was a Scotsman, James
Abercromby, the Speaker of the Melbourne Administrations.
Not a single Irishman has sat in the Chair. Spring Rice,
whose case I have just alluded to, was the one Irishman,
with an ambition to preside over the House of Commons
who had the prize almost within his grasp, only to lose it
in the end. On the resignation of Abercromby in 1839, he,
being then Chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote pleadingly
to Melbourne for the fulfilmerit of what he deemed to be the
I THE PRIZE OF THE CHAIR 89
' binding pledge of the Government, that he should be their
■ candidate for the Chair when it became vacant. The
Prime Minister, writing to him on behalf of the Cabinet,
I ... . . .
said: "The opinion is that if you continue to wish it you
I shall be our candidate for the Chair." ^ But it was not to
I be. The opposition of the Radical section of the Party to
: him was too strong to be overcome. Ultimately Lord
I John Russell, as Leader of the House of Commons, wrote
I to him : " We are of opinion that your being proposed for
the Chair would only lead to disappointment on your part,
I and cause embarrassment to the Party. I say this with
I great regret, knowing how much your own wishes were
( directed to this object, and feeling that you are in every
) way qualified to preside over our debates,"-
I It was a sad case of an ambition long cherished only to
I be cruelly frustrated at the close. To many a Speaker the
I honour came when it was unsought for. Upon others it was
: thrust unexpectedly. Others again accepted it with fear
^ and trembling, and, such was their self-distrust or their
I exaggerated view of the difficulties of the position, would
I have been glad if it passed them by. But here was a man
i who had set himself out, from his first appearance in the
I House, to aspire to reach the Chair, who for seven years,
j though a Cabinet Minister, longed and longed for the office,
I and was so trifled with by fortune that three times when
his face was set towards the Chair he was turned aside and
I doomed never to attain to it.
I The term of office of Mr. Speaker is usually short,
[ Arthur Onslow, who was elected in 1728, continued in
possession of the Chair for thirty-three years, through five
successive Parliaments, apparently without ruffling a hair of
; his wig. So long an occupancy is now perhaps impossible.
For one thing, the duties of Mr. Speaker are physically more
responsible and irksome. The sessions are longer, the
j sittings of the House more protracted, and the fatigue of
I the prolonged and often tedious hours in the Chair must be
I ^ Torrens, Memoirs of Viscount Melbourne, 477 (1890).
^ Ibia. 479.
90 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
most severe mentally and physically. Besides, there has
grown up of late a preference for a certain maturity of age
in the Speaker. Arthur Onslow was only thirty-six when
he was called to the office. Henry Addington, who occupied
the Speaker's Chair at the opening of the nineteenth century,
was thirty-two only on his appointment. William Court
Gully, who was in possession of the Chair at the opening of
the twentieth century, had passed his sixtieth year on his
election. The occupancy of the office must be comparatively
brief if men are appointed to it only when they are in the
decline of life. Of the last three Speakers, Henry Bouverie
Brand sat for twelve years, Arthur Wellesley Peel eleven
years, and William Court Gully ten years.
CHAPTER XII
EMOLUMENTS, PERQUISITES, AND HONOURS
IT is not known exactly at what time the practice of re-
munerating the Speaker for his services began, but it
can be traced far back in the history of the Chair. In
the sixteenth century he had, at least, an allowance from the
Crown of ;{^ioo a session. At that period sessions were
brief, and a pound was eight times its present value. Sir
Thomas More, who was Speaker in 1523, under Henry VIIL,
was paid this emolument. It is also clear that the Speaker
was additionally compensated, if he were not remunerated
principally, by means of fees paid by the promoters of
Private Bill, or Bills affecting not the community generally
but individuals, corporations, or districts. John Hooker, the
antiquary, who sat in the House of Commons for a time in
the reign of Elizabeth, prepared a statement of procedure
and usages at Westminster for the guidance of the Irish
Parliament, of which he subsequently became a Member, and
enumerating the emoluments of the Speaker in the sixteenth
century he wrote: "He hath allowances for his diet, one
I
«
EMOLUMENTS, PERQUISITES, AND HONOURS 91
hundred pounds of the King for every session of Parliament ;
also he hath for every Private Bill passed both Houses and
enacted five pounds." ^ Towards the close of the seventeenth
century it would seem that the allowance of i^ioo a session
from the Sovereign was abolished, and in its place was
substituted a grant out of the Civil List of ^5 for every day
the House of Commons sat.^
The Speaker was thus remunerated by fees and allow-
ances until the year 1790. In that year an Act was passed
" for better supporting the dignity of Speaker of the House of
Commons," by which the salary of the office was fixed at the
clear yearly sum of ^6000.^ In the course of the debate on
the Speaker's Allowance Bill it was stated that on an average
of ten years the fees from Private Bills amounted to ^^"1232,
and the allowances from the Civil List to ;^i68o, so that the
total profits of the office was less than ;^3O0O per annum, a
sum altogether inadequate, it was contended, to maintain the
" splendour and importance " of the " First Commoner of the
Kingdom." In order to supplement this income it had been
the practice previously to confer upon the Speaker an office of
profit under the Crown, such as the Paymaster of the Navy
or the Treasurer of the Navy. Arthur Onslow — the great
Speaker of the eighteenth century — was the last to hold
such a sinecure. He resigned the post of Treasurer of the
Navy because the opinion was openly expressed in the
House of Commons that the indebtedness of the Speaker to
the Crown for favours was inconsistent with the independ-
ence of the Chair.* The Speaker's Allowance Bill, which
fixed the annual salary of the Chair at ;i^6ooo a year, also in-
capacitated the Speaker, for the time being, from holding
any office or place of profit under the Crown. The new
fixed yearly salary was to be derived, in part, from the
allowance of £s a day out of the Civil List and the fees
payable on Private Bills, as before, and in part from a grant
^ Mountmorres, Aiuient Parliaments of Ireland^ vol, i, p. 21.
^ Parliamentary History, vol. 5, p. 889.
' 30 Geo. III. c. 10.
'' Parliamentary History, vol. 28, p. 506.
92 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
out of the Consolidated Fund sufficient to bring the amount
so obtained up to i^6ooo.
At this time the Speaker was in the enjoyment of several
valuable perquisites which were unaffected by the doubling
of his salary. At the opening of every new Parliament,
when, as now. there was a fresh election to the Chair, the
Speaker received ;^iooo "equipment money" to provide
himself with an outfit, and a new service of silver plate of
4000 ounces, or about ^1400 in money in lieu of it. Both
these grants were made to the same Speaker as often as he
might be elected to the office. He was also allowed two
hogshead of claret annually, and a sum of ;^ioo a session
for stationery. The Dissolution brought a perquisite to the
Speaker that was curious and quaint, indeed. It was usually
a new Chair to which the Speaker was led by his sponsors
at the assembling of a new Parliament. At the close of each
Parliament the Speaker took away as a memento the Chair
in which he sat as President of the House of Commons.
Moreover, he had an official residence, in the Palace of
Westminster, free of rent and local charges, together with
"coals and candles," the cost of which then amounted to
;^500 a year.i
The Allowance Act of 1790 was repealed in 1832, and
another Act was passed abolishing the allowance and fee
system, and providing for the payment of the Speaker's
annual salary of ;^6ooo out of the Consolidated Fund, clear
of all taxes, impositions, and fees whatsoever.- In the
following year a Select Committee was appointed by the
House of Commons to take into consideration and report
upon the establishment of the Speaker. In their report
they state that as the result of a revision of the emoluments
of Ministers a salary of ;^5ooo a year had been assigned to
each of the Secretaries of State ; and considering that that
amount was also a fitting salary for the Speakership, they
recommended that at the next election to the Chair it
' Parliamentary History, vol. 28, pp. 515-18. See also " Report of the Select
Commitlce on the Estahlishincnt of the Speaker" (1833).
«2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 105.
I(
EMOLUMENTS, PERQUISITES, AND HONOURS 93
should be fixed at that amount, ^5000 per annum, with the
official residence free of rates and taxes, but without any-
other allowance except the sum of ;^iooo for outfit on the
first election only. They further advised that a sum of
;^6ooo be expended in the purchase of a permanent service
of plate for the Speaker's residence, and that the usual
allowance of plate at each election of Speaker be discon-
tinued. Accordingly in 1834 an Act was passed providing
that from and after the next election of a new Speaker the
salary of the office was to be ;^5000 a year, paid out of the
Consolidated Fund.^
The Select Committee had been appointed mainly
through the labours of Joseph Hume, that jealous guardian
of the public purse, and with characteristic tenacity of
purpose he urged the carrying into effect of their other
economical recommendations. In March 1835 he was
assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that on the
appointment of the then Speaker — James Abercromby,
who a few weeks before had succeeded Manners-Sutton in
the Chair — the report of the Select Committee was referred
to him, and as he approved of their suggestions, " as being
both advantageous to the Speaker and economical to the
public," the Government intended to carry them into effect.^
Next year, accordingly, there appeared in the Estimates
submitted in Committee of Supply two items of ^6000 " to
provide a service of plate," and ;^iooo " allowance for outfit,"
with the note : " The service of plate to be permanently
appropriated to the office of Speaker." ^ Thus was provided
the plate now in use at the Speaker's official residence.
In 1907 some of the silver plate which belonged to Sir
Thomas Hanmer, one of the Speakers of the reign of Queen
Anne, came into the market and was sold in London by
public auction. Though he was a man of considerable wealth
and great property, and filled the office of Speaker only for
twelvemonths, Hanmer took the official service of plate with
^ 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 70.
^ Parliamentary Debates (3rd series), vol. 26, p. 603.
^ Estimates for 1836.
94 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
him on his retirement. The lots constituting " The Speaker's
Plate" which came under the hammer, and the prices
obtained for them, were as follows: —
A pair of Queen Anne ice-pails, chased with bands of
drapery, festoons, tassels, rosettes, ribbons, and foliage, each
engraved with the royal arms, 9} in. high, by Lewis
Mettayer, 1713, 235 oz. 7 dwt., at 80s. per oz. — ;^94i, 8s.;
a Queen Anne large circular dish, the centre engraved with
the royal arms, the border chased with shells, foliage, and
strapwork, 26\ in. diameter, by Lewis Mettayer, 17 13, 236
oz., at 82s. per oz. — £[)6y, 12s.; a Queen Anne plain
octagonal caster, engraved with the royal arms, garter
motto, crown and cipher of Queen Anne, 8| in. high, by
Thomas Farren, 1713, 13 oz. 12 dwt., at 115s. per oz. — ^^78,
4s.; another, similar, 7 in. high, by the same, 171 3, 8 oz.
9 dwt., at 160s. per oz. — £6y, I2s. ; four table-candlesticks,
chased with lions' masks and ribbons, on circular plinths,
engraved with the royal arms, crown, and ciphers of Queen
Anne and George I., 9 in. high, by Lewis Mettayer, 17 14,
107 oz. II dwt., at 60s. per oz. — ^322, 13s.; three Queen
Anne table-candlesticks, similar, engraved with the crest of
Sir Thomas Hanmer, 9 in. high, by David Willaume, 171 3,
86 oz. 6 dwt, at 35s. per oz. — £1^1, os. 6d. ; and twelve
Queen Anne three-pronged silver-gilt dessert forks, engraved
with the crest of Sir Thomas Hanmer, by David Willaume,
17 1 3, 164 oz., at 80s. per oz. — £6y}
Chairs of the House of Commons, as well as the official
plate of Speakers, are to be found scattered in English
country houses, and even so far off as the Antipodes. Dean
Pellew, in his biography of Lord Sidmouth (Henry Adding-
ton), relates that in the dining-room of White Lodge,
Richmond Park — a house assigned to Sidmouth by George
III. in appreciation of his services to the Crown — there were
" two old and bulky arm-chairs standing guards, one at each
side of the fire-place : they were chiefly remarkable for their
lumbering size and gaunt, inconvenient form," and that
visitors always were curious as to their history. They were
' 7'Ac 2'imcs, July 5, 1907.
EMOLUMENTS, PERQUISITES, AND HONOURS 95
Chairs of the House of Commons in which Sidmouth had
sat as Speaker. It appears that he originally possessed
three of these Chairs, having presided over the House of
Commons in three consecutive Parliaments, but one had
disappeared, and the mystery of its fate was never solved.^
To Arthur Onslow five Chairs should have fallen in the
course of his tenure of the Speakership, from 1728 to 1761.
But it is a curious circumstance that none of those Chairs
is to be found at Clandon Park, Surrey, — the seat of his
descendants, the Earls of Onslow, — nor has the family any
record of them.'^ Probably the Speaker had the alternative
of taking a money allowance instead of the Chair.
But this perquisite was abolished in the thirties of the
nineteenth century. The last Speaker to carry off the Chair
as well as the official plate was Manners-Sutton, who, having
been Speaker in seven Parliaments, from 18 17 to 1834, had
as many as seven Chairs and seven services of silver all
to himself The last Chair of his term of office — it was
the one provided after the destruction of the Houses of
Parliament by fire in 1834 — had a curious history. It was
brought out to Melbourne by his son, who was Governor of
Victoria, and presented by him to the Legislative Assembly
of that colony, whose Speakers sat in it for years. The
story of the Chair was either forgotten or failed to appeal to
the Members of that Assembly, for in the course of time
they replaced it with a chair more in accordance with their
tastes. The Chair occupied by the Speaker of the first
reformed English House of Commons was subsequently
found, neglected and decayed, in one of the lumber rooms.
Now, however, it is in use — with a suitably inscribed brass
plate — in the Commonwealth Parliament House.
The grant of ;^iooo for equipment is still given to the
Speaker on his first appointment. Lord Colchester (Charles
Abbot) states in his Diary that he paid his predecessor in
the Chair, Sir John Mitford, ^^1060 for the State Coach
which was built in 1701, more than a century before. Mr.
^ Pellew, Life of Lord Sidmouth, vol. i, p. 68.
2 Graham, The Mother of Parliaments, 132.
96 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Speaker Peel rode in this great lumbering equipage to
Buckingham Palace — its last public appearance, when it was
dragged by a couple of huge brewer's dray horses — to
present to Queen Victoria the address of the Commons on
her Golden Jubilee in 1897. Abbot further states that he
also paid Mitford ^1000 for wine, and ;^500 for house
furniture.^ This passing on of chattels and effects from one
Speaker to another, for a consideration, has probably been
always in vogue. Sir Thomas Hanmer had a letter from
his predecessor in the Chair, William Bromley, dated
September 22, 1713, in which, after asking him to reappoint
Dr. Pelling as Chaplain, the writer says : " You'll smile at
the transition from a chaplain to coach-horses. I have a
pair that drew my great coach, and believe you cannot be
better fitted, and I offer them to you before I dispose of
them ; one specially is a very fine horse of better than
sixteen hands high. You shall have him, or them, on
reasonable terms." ^
It will thus be seen that formerly the Speaker needed a
large sum for his equipment, though he got his money back,
probably with interest, on his retirement from his successor.
In these days, among the things with which the Speaker
has to provide himself, apart from the familiar black silk
gown and horse-hair wig, in which he appears in the House
of Commons, is the state robe of his office, which is worn
only on a few great ceremonial occasions outside Parliament.
It is a long loose garment with train, made of black satin
damask, richly embroidered in gold, and with tucks and
ruffles of the finest lace. It costs about ;^iSo. A similar
robe is also worn as a dress of state or dignity by the Lord
Chancellor, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Master of
the Rolls, and the Lord Justices of Appeal. The full-
bottomed wig which the Speaker wears is made of white
horse-hair, and costs twelve guineas. The Speaker also
provides himself with a three-corner hat of beaver, which he
' Diary and Correspondence of Lord Colchester, vol. I, p. 285.
* 7 he Correspondence of Sir Thomas Hanmer (edited by Sir Henry Bunbury),
149-50.
EMOLUMENTS, PERQUISITES, AND HONOURS 97
carries folded in his hand as he enters the House to take the
Chair, but which is never seen on his head. The only use
which he seems to make of the hat is that of a pointer when
he counts the House to see if the required quorum of forty
Members are present.
1 It is clear, however, from the prints of the House of
Commons in the eighteenth century, that it was formerly
i the custom for the Speaker when in the Chair to wear the
j hat over his big wig, not abaft the head as the three-
'' corner hat is worn by State grandees and military and naval
1 officers, but athwart or across the head. It is thus worn
I also by the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords on
\ ceremonial occasions, when he raises it in acknowledgment
) of the bows of the Speaker standing at the Bar with the
{ Commons at the opening and close of a session. No one
j now enters the House of Commons, or appears at its Ban
[ to whom the Speaker need lift his hat. But it was not
: always so. On the occasion of the delivery of a message
' from the Lords to the Commons, in the reign of James I.,
j Mr. Speaker Richardson was told by a Member of the
I House that he was too courteous, that he should not remove
1 his hat till " the third conge," or the third salute of the
messengers. In these days Black Rod comes frequently
I during a session with a message from the Lords to the
! Commons, and as he walks from the Bar to the Table to
I deliver it he makes, as of old, three obeisances to Mr.
I Speaker, but the Speaker does not lift his hat even at " the
I third conge " ; for it is not on his head, but is laid folded on
i the wide arm of the Chair at his elbow. Probably the
I Speaker discontinued the wearing of the three-corner hat
' a-top his wig what time bowing and scraping came to an
! end in the House of Commons.
I Of the many ancient perquisites of the Speaker only
I two now survive. A buck and a doe killed in the royal
' preserves at Windsor are annually sent to him, and the
! Clothworkers' Company of London present him at Christmas
with a generous width of the best broadcloth. But one
curious privilege the Speaker possesses, which he enjoys
I 7
98 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
exclusively with Royalty. That is, to ride or drive through
the Archway of the Horse Guards between Whitehall and
the Mall. The privilege is perhaps without any practical
value, now that there is access to the Mall to the general
public riding or driving to or from the Palace of Westminster
by Storey's Gate of St. James's Park, and by the Arch at
Trafalgar Square. But when the privilege was first granted
to the Speaker early in the eighteenth century it would seem
as if the Mall could only be reached from Westminster by
the roundabout way of Piccadilly and Constitution Hill. At
any rate, an incident occurred in 1831 which shows the
convenience of the privilege at that time, and how narrowly
it was restricted.
The newspapers of the time gave sensational prominence
to accounts of how Lord Chancellor Brougham forced his
carriage through the Horse Guards, despite the efforts of the
King's Guard to stop him. The matter was brought before
the House of Lords on March 17, 1831, by the Marquis of
Londonderry, and statements were made by the Commander-
in-Chief and Brougham. A Drawing-room was held that
day in St. James's Palace, and Brougham, who had been
delayed by the protracted hearing of a lawsuit in the House
of Lords, directed his coachman not to drive to the Palace
by Piccadilly and Constitution Hill, but to go the short
and direct way through the Horse Guards. The carriage
got into the yard fronting the Archway on the Whitehall
side before it could be stopped by the soldiers on duty.
Brougham explained that he was the Lord Chancellor, on
his way to the Drawing-room. This, however, availed him
not. He was told by the officer of the Guard that no one
but the Speaker of the House of Commons was allowed
to pass through, except Lord Shaftesbury, the Chairman of
Committee in the House of Lords, who had obtained special
leave for that day only. Brougham then said, " We must go
back," and the sentinel let go his hold of the reins. But instead
of turning back the coachman whipped his horses and drove
the carriage through the Arch, scattering the soldiers right
and left. Brougham declared in the House of Lords that
EMOLUMENTS, PERQUISITES, AND HONOURS 99
the coachman misunderstood his directions, and that for his
part he was never more astonished in his life than when he
found himself through the Arch and on his way to the Mall.^
He confessed to Creevey, however, that when he heard that
his "own man," his "actual bootjack," Lord Shaftesbury,
had the entree, it was more than flesh and blood could
bear.2
The Speaker receives a pension of ^^4000 a year. No
retiring allowance was paid until the eighteenth century
was more than half-way through. The first Speaker upon
whom a pension was bestowed was Arthur Onslow. When
he resigned in 1761, after a long and brilliant service of
thirty-three years, George III., in replying to the address of
the Commons praying him to confer on Onslow "some signal
I mark of honour," allowed the ex-Speaker a pension of ^^"3000
I during his life and that of his son, George Onslow. But no
[ peerage was given to Onslow. The earldom of the family
i was conferred on the ex-Speaker's son. A peerage as well
( as a pension was first bestowed on Charles Abbot, who on
I retiring in 18 17 was made Baron Colchester. It is true that
' his predecessors in the nineteenth century had also been
i raised to the peerage, but they got their titles for services
i other than those rendered in the Chair. The Viscountcy of
' Sidmouth was not conferred upon Addington in 1801 when
he stepped down from the Speaker's Chair to become Prime
I Minister. He received his title in 1805. The barony of
! Redesdale was bestowed upon Mitford not as ex-Speaker,
but as Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
I The rank of the peerage to which the Speaker is now
raised on his retirement is that of a Viscount. Speaker
Abbot, as I have said, was made a Baron, the lowest order of
nobility. But Speaker Manners-Sutton, on his compulsor>'
retirement in 1835, was made Viscount Canterbury; while
his successor. Speaker Abercromby, was in 1839 rewarded
only with a barony, — that of Dunfermline. This, however,
was the last barony granted to a retiring Speaker. On the
* Parliamentaiy Debates (3rd series), vol. 3, pp. 490-4.
' Creevey Papers, vol. 2, p. 222.
lOO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
resignation of Shaw-Lefevre in March 1857, Palmerston,
who was then Prime Minister, sent the following letter to
Queen Victoria : —
"Viscount Palmerston begs to state that the Speaker
has chosen the title of Eversley, the name of a small place
near his residence in Hampshire, all the large towns in the
county having already been adopted as titles for Peers.
The ordinary course would be that Your Majesty should
make him a Baron, and that is the course which was followed
in the cases of Mr. Abbot made Lord Colchester, and Mr.
Abercromby made Lord Dunfermline ; but in the case of
Mr. Manners-Sutton a different course was pursued, and
he was made Viscount Canterbury. The present Speaker is
very anxious that his services, which, in fact, have been
more meritorious and useful than those of Mr. Manners-
Sutton, should not appear to be considered by Your Majesty
as less deserving of Your Majesty's Royal favour ; and as the
present Speaker may justly be said to have been the best who
ever filled the Chair, Viscount Palmerston would beg to sub-
mit for Your Majesty's gracious approval that he may be
created Viscount Eversley. It will be well, at the same time,
if Your Majesty should sanction this arrangement, that a
record should be entered at the Home Office stating that this
act of grace and favour of Your Majesty, being founded on
the peculiar circumstances of the case, is not to be deemed
a precedent for the cases of future Speakers." ^
Nevertheless, a Viscountcy is the rank of peerage which
has since been conferred upon all retiring Speakers. It was
not much of a distinction for the First of the Commons to be
made merely the last of the peers. Another honour which
the Speaker enjoys is that of trustee of the British Museum.
This, however, is received not on retirement, but on election.
Appointment to the Speakership carries with it a seat at
the Museum's board of trustees.
In addition to the pension of ;^4000 a year to the ex-
Speaker, there was formerly granted a reversion of ;^3000
a year to the next male heir to the title. The last Speaker
whose heir received the reversion was Manners-Sutton.
' Queen Victoria's Letters, vol. 3, p. 292,
I SPEAKER'S HOUSE loi
Denison, who retired after fifteen years' service on February
i 7, 1872, declined the pension. "Though without any
I pretensions to wealth," he wrote to Gladstone, the Prime
I Minister, " I have a private fortune which will suffice, and
1 for the few years that remain to me I should be happier in
! feeling that I am not a burden to my fellow-countrymen."
! He was created Viscount Ossington, and died without
i issue on March 7, 1873.
CHAPTER XIII
speaker's house
HENRY ADDINGTON, on his election to the Chair
in 1789, not only had his salary raised from ^^3000
to £6000 a year, but he was the first Speaker to be
I given an official residence within the Palace of Westminster.
I Apartments were first appropriated to the use of the Speaker
' by warrant of George III. in 1790.
■ Speaker's House then adjoined, as now, the House of
! Commons. We get an interesting glimpse of it with its
I gardens by the Thames in Thomas Moore's Diary, under
j date May 19, 1829, the day that Daniel O'Connell made his
j notable appearance at the Bar of the House to claim the seat
j for Clare which was denied him as a Roman Catholic: —
I
j " Went to the House of Commons early, having begged
[ Mr. Speaker yesterday to put me on the list for under the
gallery. An immense crowd in the lobby, Irish agitators,
etc. ; got impatient and went round to Mr. Speaker, who
sent the trainbearer to accompany me to the lobby, and
after some little difficulty I got in. The House enormously
full. O'Connell's speech good and judicious. Sent for by
Mrs. Manners-Sutton at seven o'clock to have some dinner ;
none but herself and daughters, Mr. Lockwood, and Mr.
Sutton. Amused to see her in all her state, the same hearty,
lively Irish woman still. Walked with her in the garden ;
the moonlight on the river, the boats gliding along it, the
towers of Lambeth rising on the opposite bank, the lights of
I02 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Westminster Bridge gleaming on the left ; and then, when
one turned round to the House, that beautiful Gothic
structure, illuminated from within, and at that moment
containing within it the council of the nation — all was most
picturesque and striking." ^
The Speaker then gave his official dinners in the crypt
under the old House of Commons, now the beautiful crypt
chapel beneath St. Stephen's Hall. Before the Reformation
the old Chamber was a chapel, called after St. Stephen, in
which the Mass was regularly celebrated ; and it was
Edward VI. who, about the year 1547, gave the chapel to
the Commons, whose meeting place had previously been the
Chapter House of Westminster Abbey. Under the chapel
was a beautiful crypt, anciently styled St. Mary-in-the-
Vaults, which after the Reformation was first used as a
lumber room, then as a coal-cellar, and when Addington
took up his abode in the Palace it was an appendage of the
kitchen. Addington had the crypt transformed from a
scullery into a dining-room, for the entertainment of the
representatives of the people at those rude and heavy meals
which were the vogue in his time.
The Speaker's House is, of course, a part of the Palace
of Westminster, which is vested in the Crown ; and as such
is lent by the King to the House of Commons for the
accommodation of its Speaker. From the time when the
Speaker began to reside within the Palace it was the custom,
on the dissolution of Parliament, for the Speaker to ask at
a private audience of the Sovereign the royal permission to
occupy the Speaker's House until the assembling of the new
House of Commons and the new election to the Chair. In
1 83 1, Manners-Sutton was informed that the King, William
IV., intended to occupy the Speaker's House " as part of his
Royal Palace of Westminster" for two days before his
coronation in Westminster Abbey, and accordingly the
Speaker had for a time to obtain lodging elsewhere.^
' Moore, Diary ^ vol. 6, p. 32.
' Kcjiorl of the Select Committee on the I^osses of the late Speaker by the
Fire (1837), 3, 4. Parliamentary Debates (3rd scries), vol. 26, p. 20.
THK SPKAKKkS HOL'SK, SIAIRCASK
SPEAKER'S HOUSE 103
Manners-Sutton reported to King William, after the fire
of 1834, the damage which had been done by the conflagration
to the Speaker's House, which with His Majesty's gracious
permission he inhabited. And arising out of the sleeping of
the King in the State bedroom of the Speaker's House, the
night before his Coronation in 1831, a curious claim was
made by Manners-Sutton which was the subject of
considerable public interest at the time, and incidentally
throws additional light on the strange perquisites which
even great officials of the State were not above receiving.
Among the duties of the Lord Great Chamberlain was that
of undressing the King the night before his Coronation and
dressing him in the morning. For this service all the
furniture of the chamber in which the King slept, including
the night apparel of the Sovereign and the silver basin in
which he washed, became by immemorial usage the property
of the Lord Great Chamberlain, In 1831, Lord Gwyder,
who was deputy Lord Great Chamberlain, accordingly laid
claim to the effects in the State bedroom of the Speaker's
House. His title to them having been allowed by the Board
of Claims, which sat for the settlement of disputed accounts
arising out of the Coronation of William IV., he took
possession of eight tapestry chairs, two tapestry sofas, and
two tapestry screens.
This furniture was the property not of the Speaker, but of
the State, but it was bought back from Lord Gwyder by
Manners-Sutton, and the latter, in making a claim on the
Crown for ;^50oo compensation for loss and damage
sustained by the fire of 1834, offered to let the State have
it back again — for it had escaped destruction — for 500
guineas. In 1837 the Commons appointed a Select
Committee to investigate this claim, and similar claims for
compensation made by other officials of the House, and in
the course of the proceedings an independent valuer,
commissioned by the Commons, valued the bedroom furniture
at ;^48o, a sum which Manners-Sutton, or Lord Canterbury
as he then was, agreed to accept. The Treasury, however,
before sanctioning the bargain, asked for Lord Gwyder's
104 A'HE SrEAKER OF THE HOUSE
receipt for the sum which Manners-Sutton paid in redemption
of his claim on the furniture. To this Lord Canterbury
replied : " As to the transfer to me by Lord Gwyder of these
articles, amongst others to which his Lordship became
entitled after the Coronation, I have the paper signed by
Mr. Fellowes, as the Great Chamberlain's secretary, and
I have no doubt an entry of it will be found amongst the
Great Chamberlain s Coronation papers." Then the Treasury
decided that no effects should be purchased for the Speaker's
House until it was decided in what manner the new official
residence was to be furnished, and Lord Canterbury, greatly
to his annoyance, had the bedroom tapestries left upon his
hands.^
The claim of Lord Canterbury for compensation in
respect of his furniture, books, prints, plate, and other effects
destroyed by the fire was also disputed by the Crown. The
ex-Speaker took no action to enforce this claim until 1842,
when the Tories were in office. In that year he presented
a Petition of Right to Queen Victoria, alleging that as his
losses had arisen in a Royal Palace from the negligence of
servants of the Crown, he was entitled to compensation from
the Crown. The fire, it should be explained, was caused by
workmen, employed in the Palace of Westminster by the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests, overcharging the
flues for heating the building by stuffing into them a large
quantity of old wooden tallies that had been discarded by
the Exchequer. The Queen gave the answer to the petition,
" Let right be done." Canterbury's claim was for i^io,ooo, —
furniture and plate, ^7000; and other property, ;{J^3C)00.
The case was argued before Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst by
very able and distinguished lawyers, and was opposed by
the Attorney-General on behalf of the Government. The
judgment of Lyndhurst was that the claim was unsustain-
able, as the Crown could not be held liable for the negligence
of its agents. " The wonder is," writes Lord Campbell,
himself an ex-Lord Chancellor, " that men of eminence at
' Appendix of the Report of the Select Committee on the Losses of the late
Speaker by the l"'irc (1837).
SPEAKER'S HOUSE 105
the Bar should have ever advised a proceeding so prepos-
terous and hopeless." ^
After the fire of 1834 a temporary residence was provided
for the Speaker in Eaton Square. The new Speaker's House
is that conspicuous wing of the Palace of Westminster, with
its carved stonework and Gothic windows, extending from
the Clock Tower to the river, close to Westminster Bridge
and along a part of the Terrace. It was first occupied by
John Evelyn Denison in 1857. Entrance to it is obtained
from a quiet spacious courtyard off New Palace Yard. A
beautiful staircase, with wide red-carpeted steps and brass
balustrade and lamps, leads to the reception-rooms, — the red
drawing-room, the blue drawing-room, and the dining-room —
which are furnished elegantly if not ornately by the State.
There are fine carvings in oak and stone, decorated ceilings,
lofty mirrors, hangings of the richest silk, luxurious couches,
glistening cabinets inlaid with precious woods, but most
valuable and interesting of all the possessions of the
Speaker's House is its collection of portraits of occupants of
the Chair. The galleries which go round three sides of the
house are lit with stained-glass windows, emblazoned with
the coats-of-arms of all the Speakers. As a connecting link
between the Speaker's House and the House of Commons is
the library, overlooking the Terrace, where the Speaker,
while the House is in Committee, may be seen by Ministers
as to the course of public business, or by private Members
on points of order or procedure. On the writing-table are
three or four slim, well-worn little volumes. They are always
at the Speaker's elbow, for they embody the rulings of the
Chair for the past sixty years.
From the great windows of the reception-rooms there are
fine views of the ever-changing life and animation of the
river, the solid and ancient permanency of the grey towers
of Lambeth Palace on the other side, and far beyond them
may be seen, when the day is clear and sunny, the wooded
slopes of the Surrey Hills.
^ Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, vol. 8, pp. 135-8.
io6 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
CHAPTER XIV
MR. SPEAKER AS HOST
THE Speaker has social functions to discharge as well
as parliamentary. He gives several official enter-
tainments. There are two full-dress levees and
seven full-dress dinners during the Parliamentary Session.
To the first dinner all the Ministers, or Members of the
Government, sitting in the House of Commons are invited.
At the second the leading Members of the Opposition
are entertained. To the third are bidden Privy Councillors
and Members of former Administrations who were not
included in the guests at one or other of the former
dinners. Then there are three of those dinners to private
Members, at each of which there is an amicably mixed
attendance of Ministerialists and Opposition ; and finally,
the officials of the House of Commons dine with the
Speaker.
The levees are socially noteworthy. They are import-
ant events in fashionable society ; for Peers and foreign
Ambassadors and Ministers and others are invited, as well
as M.P.s and their ladies. As the invitation list is a long
one, there is usually a crush at these receptions. The scene
presented in the drawing-rooms of the Speaker's House
is brilliant indeed — the rich uniforms and gold-embroidered
dress of the gentlemen vying in colour with the varied tints
of the ladies' gowns.
Attendance at a full-dress levee, by a private or back-
bench Member of Parliament, is followed by an invitation to
one of the three official banquets given to the rank and file of
the representatives of the people. To dine with Mr. Speaker
is by no means an ordinary function. It is a great social
distinction. Indeed, the invitation is supposed to carry with
it something of the command with which the subject is bidden
by the King to attend a royal function, in which case death
or possibly a serious illness is the only excuse for absence.
MR. SPEAKER AS HOST 107
By immutable regulations, as well as long-established custom,
the guests are required to come either in uniform or Court
dress. Privy Councillors wear their dark blue uniforms with
lavish decorations of gold lace. Other Ministers are in the
Windsor uniform with red collar and cuffs. Private Members
of the House of Commons are in levee dress. The host
himself is a dignified and picturesque figure attired in a black
velvet Court suit, knee-breeches with silk stockings, a sword
by his side, and lace ruffles adorning his cuffs and the front
of his shirt.
The State dining-room is a long narrow apartment, with
fine oak carvings and painted ceiling. It is hung with a
stately array of portraits of past Speakers, the place of
honour over the mantelpiece being given to Charles Shaw-
Lefevre (Lord Eversley), who is regarded as one of the
greatest Speakers of the nineteenth century. The table, at
which forty guests can be comfortably seated, is a glitter
of silver and glass and graceful candelabra and banks of
exquisite flowers, and the courses and wines are served
by gorgeous flunkeys in bright livery and shoulder knots.
Grace is said by the Speaker's Chaplain. There are no
speeches. Only one toast is proposed, that of " The King,"
which is given by the Speaker without remark. The dinners
are intended principally to bring Members together, not
for the interchange of political views but for the free and
easy flow of light conversation and jest, and though the
board is environed by many Speakers, standing out from the
canvas wigged and gowned, with dignified and solemn aspect,
the geniality of the host — who lays aside his terrors with his
Speaker's robes — puts the diners in the happiest vein, and the
chatter and laughter are delightfully incessant.
The rule which debars ordinary evening attire at these
functions and makes uniform or Court dress indispensable,
is rigidly enforced, with the result that some eminent
Parliamentarians, such as William Cobbett, Joseph Hume,
Richard Cobden, and John Bright — all of whom objected
to wear Court dress — never had the pleasure of sitting at
table with Mr. Speaker. On the occasion of the re-election
io8 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
of John Evelyn Denison to the Chair, in 1866, Bright protested
in the House of Commons against this restrictive sumptuary
regulation. The custom, he thought, was a little out of date,
especially among the Members of a popular assembly.
Moreover, it was expensive. He remembered an hon.
Member who held the rank of Colonel in the Army
complaining that it had taken fifty guineas " to put him
inside a suitable dress in which to appear at the Speaker's
table." " If," he continued, " there be any country gentleman
who likes to appear in decorated apparel, or if there be any
homely manufacturer from the North who is gratified by
figuring in the blazing garments of a deputy lieutenant,
I do not object in the least. I should like every man to
please himself in the matter. But if there are some of us, as
is the case with myself, and I believe many more who would
like to make their appearance in a quiet costume, with less
that is gorgeous and astounding about them, why should not
their taste be gratified also ? " Cobden during his twenty-
four years in the House of Commons, from 1841 to 1865 — as
Bright mentioned in this speech — felt constrained for the
same reason to refuse the Speaker's invitation to dinner.^
The only departure from this sartorial rule was made by
Mr. Speaker Peel. As it operates most hardly on working-
class representatives, whom it is difificult to conceive in Court
dress or uniform, Mr. Peel, during one session of the short
Liberal Parliament of 1893-5, made a graceful and happy
innovation on this ancient custom, by inviting the twelve
Labour Members then in the House to dine with him. It
was not on one of the formal occasions when private
Members take their turn to dine with Mr. Speaker, but on
a pleasant evening off, and for this separate dinner party
there was no restriction whatever as to dress ; although, to
avoid the appearance of invidiousness, the Speaker tactfully
included in the company several of his private friends.
The experiment, by all accounts, proved highly successful.
There were no speeches, of course, but William Abraham,
the miner representative of Rhondda Valley, sang in Welsh
' Parliamentary Debates (3rd series), vol. 181, p. 10.
MR. SPEAKER AS HOST 109
"The March of the Men of Harlech," with fine effect. It
would be interesting to know the reflections of those solemn
Speakers of the long past on the strange scene upon which
they looked down from their gilt-framed elevation above
the festive board. How did the grim Francis Rous, Speaker
of the " Praise - God Barebone's Parliament, " in the
Commonwealth period, appreciate the ringing chorus of the
Welsh national song? x^bove all, what did the proud and
haughty cavalier Sir Edward Seymour, of the gay days of
Charles II., think of those knights of the shire and citizens
and burgesses who came, not from the squire's hall or the
town mansion of the merchant, but from the factory and
coal mine, to sit in the House of Commons and help to
make the laws of the land !
This precedent, at least, has not been followed at
Westminster. Shortly after the assembling of the famous
Liberal and democratic Parliament of 1906 a memorial,
signed by sixty-four Ministerialists, was presented to Mr.
Speaker Lowther requesting that they might be allowed to
wear ordinary dress at his levees. They stated that they
had every desire to pay their respects to the Speaker and
to show their deference to his high office, but that they
objected to the observance of the custom of wearing Court
dress. In his reply to the memorial, the Speaker said :
" While regretting that I am unable to accede to the request,
I shall hope to find some opportunity, as the session
advances, of meeting those who signed the letter other
than on the formal and official occasions of a levee." Since
then the Labour Members are entertained at luncheon by
the Speaker.
To his first sessional dinner to Members of the
Government the Speaker always invites the proposer and
seconder of the Address of the House of Commons in reply
to the Speech from the Throne. Charles Fenwick, the
trade union organizer, who represented for many years the
Wansbeck division of Northumberlaad, seconded the Address
at the opening of the new Liberal Parliament in 1910.
Though it is time-honoured etiquette to appear in uniform or
no THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Court dress on such occasions, he wore ordinary attire ; but
he was unable to accept the Speaker's invitation to dinner, as
in that case no evasion of the rule with respect to costume
is allowed.
The Irish Nationalist Party have also declined to
attend those parliamentary functions at the Speaker's House
since 1880; but not, however, on account of the obligation
to wear uniform or Court dress. Previous to the General
Election of 1880, at which the Nationalist Party, under the
leadership of Charles Stewart Parnell, was first constituted,
the Irish Home Rule Members observed the immemorial
usage of attending the Speaker's levees. Even Joseph
Gillies Biggar, who invented Obstruction and by his tactics
of impeding the progress of public business in the later
seventies led to a complete revolution of the procedure of
the House of Commons, was present at one at least of Mr.
Speaker Brand's levees in full dress. He used to tell the
story of the incident with great gusto and self-satisfaction.
He hired the Court dress and sword for two guineas, which
was an enormous expenditure to one of his frugal disposition,
and, determining to spend as little more as possible on his
pleasure, he used the tramcar to bring him from his humble
lodgings at Clapham to Westminster Bridge Road, and
walked over the bridge to the Speaker's House, always a
quaint and original figure, — made ungainly by a malformation
of his right shoulder, — but savouring of the ludicrous in
black velvet cutaway coat and smalls, and silk stockings and
lace ruffies. However, in the .session of 1881 it happened
that most of the Nationalist Members were suspended by
Mr. Speaker Brand for wilful obstruction and defying the
authority of the Chair, and ever since the Party have ab-
stained from attendance at the Speaker's levees.
The Speaker's wife not only assists at all these functions,
but has special social duties of her own to discharge. She
has the disposal of the seats in the Speaker's Gallery, a
small and reserved section of the gallery for the accom-
modation of ladies. The trials that accompany the exercise
of this patronage is thus described in an appreciation of
i
THE SPEAKER'S LEAVE-TAKING in
Lady Selby (Mrs. Gully) which appeared in The Times:
" No woman has more steadily arduous patronage to exercise
than the Speaker's wife in her gallery. She may enter into
that darkened room and view the grille, and think with
premature exultation that, in there at least, she is mistress
of all she surveys ; but the millstone of recurring sessions
will soon grind any premature self-satisfaction into an early
revelation of the frailties of human nature. Some dozen
desirable chairs, and some dozen not so desirable, are what
her hand has to give daily, and for those four-and-twenty
sittings a large world enters into competition. Justice
tempered by mercy, Party claims and minority representa-
tion : the individual who asks at the eleventh hour, and
believes it impossible no seat can be left for her ; the other,
who can only hear if she sees, and therefore perceives not
that this is no special claim for the best place ; the one who
comes to rustle and talk, and to depart in half an hour, but
who has failed to inform that her request is only for a given
period ; the Royalty or the Embassy that at the last minute
prefers a request not to be refused ; the wife who has eyes
and knowledge for only one in the motley herd below the
grille, who still takes up one of the few seats, but whose
gentle emotions must not be crushed, — unending, unstable,
unreasonable, and imperative, it needs the heads of all the
departments put into one to be the Speaker's wife." ^
CHAPTER XV
THE speaker's LEAVE-TAKING
THE Speaker retains the Chair as long as he feels
physically and mentally fit to discharge its dutes
and bear its responsibilities. . When he decides to
retire he announces his decision to the House personally.
If the Chair becomes vacant by the protracted illness or the
death of the Speaker, the Clerk informs the House of the
' The Times, November 21, 1906,
1 1 2 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
fact by reading the Speaker's letter of resignation or
announcing his death, and the House is immediately
adjourned on the motion of a Minister of the Crown till
the leave of the King is obtained for the election of another
Speaker. But the occasion of the announcement of his
retirement by the Speaker himself attracts a crowded and
deeply interested House. Then, when he has stated the
cause which compels him to say good-bye to the House,
he usually leaves the Chair, and business proceeds for the
rest of the sitting under the presidency of the Deputy
Speaker.
Next day the Speaker takes the Chair again, and hears
with pride and satisfaction — not unmixed with the sorrow
that attends occasions of parting for all time — the eulogistic
terms in which the Leader of the House and the Leader of
the Opposition vie with each other in felicitously extolling
his merits and expressing their regrets for the loss which
the Chamber is about to endure, while moving the customary
vote of thanks for his valuable services, and asking the
Sovereign to confer upon him " a signal mark " of royal favour.
His personal qualities are enlarged upon, and his achieve-
ments in the Chair are quoted as incontestable proofs of his
greatness as Speaker, and are loudly applauded on all sides
as being to the purpose and full of point.
Thus the grateful House unites in paying him the last
homage. He is assured, in the common form of panegyric
adopted on those occasions, that the House " fully
appreciates the zeal and ability with which he has dis-
charged his duties," and entertains the strongest sense not
only "of the firmness and dignity with which he has
maintained its privileges," but also of " the urbanity and
kindness which have uniformly marked his conduct in the
Chair, and which have secured for him the esteem and
gratitude of every Member of the House." Every one feels,
for the moment, that the retiring Speaker is irreplaceable.
As time goes on it will, happily, be found that his successor
invariably turns out to be equally good, if not better. But
as he quits the Chair for the last time Members on both
THE SPEAKER'S LEAVE-TAKING 113
sides of the Chamber rise and salute him, in farewell, as the
greatest of Speakers.
Thus the Speaker goes out on the full and flowing tide
of honour, with a wreath of laurel on his brow. What a
different ending to that of the great head of the State, the
Prime Minister, who too often terminates his career of
splendid public service, defeated and overthrown, baffled,
perhaps, in the realization of his most cherished political
hopes, like a vanquished general in warfare obliged to
surrender his sword for ever !
The resignation of the Speaker involves his immediate
parting from the House of Commons, for he is at once
raised to the peerage ; and this, of course, renders his seat
vacant. The last Speaker who, on quitting the Chair,
continued to sit in the House of Commons was Henry
Addington. He succeeded Pitt as Prime Minister in 1801.
He gave place to Pitt in June 1804. Yet he continued in
the House of Commons as a private Member. He regarded
his position as unsatisfactory, not because he was an ex-
Speaker, but because he was an ex-Premier without a post
in the new Administration. In a letter to Pitt dated
December :8, 1804, he said his continuance in the House
" without being connected with the Government is open to
strong and most serious objection." In 1805 he was created
a peer.^ Since then every Speaker on resigning the Chair
says good-bye to the House of Commons. Though he goes
, out with all the honours, the occasion has the inevitable
sadness which attends the end of all human things that has
the element of glory or happiness. For the last time the
Speaker's eyes sweep the Chamber, not for the purpose of
calling on a Member, but to take in a parting impression
of the great scene. He steps down from the Chair for the
last time. Ah ! that the first time he ascended it and was
acclaimed Speaker could be recalled !
The ex-Speaker, then, goes to the House of Lords as a
Viscount — the signal mark of the Sovereign's favour — with
a pension of ;^4000 a year. But he is Speaker no longer ;
' Pellew, Life of Lord Sidpnouth, vol. I, p. 336.
114 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
another presides in his place ; and what a shadowy personage
he seems, even as a peer, compared with the resounding
fame and distinction that were his in the glorious years
when he filled with pomp and dignity the Chair of the
House of Commons! Still, there arc compensations. In
the first place, he has time for sleep. The ordinary lot of
the peers is set forth in a letter of 1872 from the then Lord
Salisbury to Roundcll Palmer, newly created Lord Chancellor
Sel borne. " Whether I can safely congratulate you on
coming to the House of Lords I much doubt," wrote Lord
Salisbury, whose own memories of a livelier other place
were still fresh. " But there are consolations," he added,
"even in this case. When I was condoling with the late
Speaker upon his elevation to the peerage, he replied : ' At
least it is a place from which one can get to bed.' And
there is much that is consoling in that thought."^
Moreover, there remains to the ex-Speaker the happy
thought expressed by Horace, which consoles for the transi-
toriness of human honours —
" Not Heaven itself o'er the past hath power,
For what has been, has been, and I have had my hour."
CHAPTER XVI
THE SEPARATION OF THE HOUSES
SUCH, then, is the Speakership of the House of Commons,
its position, powers, and dignity. How did it come to
be established, and when ? What originally was its
aim and object? These are questions that cannot be
answered positively. But it was not a splendid constitu-
tional invention that sprang full blown from the brain of a
statesman of creative genius, who had in view the restriction
of royal prerogative, and the expansion of popular liberties,
the two democratic ideals which have been associated longest
' Sclborne, Personal and Political Memorials, vol. 2, p. 290.
THE SEPARATION OF THE HOUSES 115
with the Chair of the House of Commons. To assign the
work of its creation to any series of minds even, is impossible.
Those who laid the foundations, ancient and deep, upon
which the office has been erected, did so perhaps unwittingly,
and, at any rate, were far from being concerned with such
noble and lofty abstractions as freedom and independence.
It was the result rather of a series of happy accidents than
of definite scheme or design. Nor was it developed during
any one epoch. Slowly have its powers and duties been
evolved through the centuries, being added to or taken
away according as the chances or the needs of the time
might happen to suggest.
There is even a doubt as to who was really the first of
the Speakers. In the list of Speakers which is commonly
accepted by historians, the premier place is given to Sir
Thomas Hungerford. The Rolls of Parliament, the first of
the official records, commence with the sixth Parliament of
Edward I. in 1278. But close on a hundred years pass
away before there is any mention of a Speaker in the Rolls.
In the account of the last Parliament of Edward III., which
met in January 1377, the Speaker is referred to for the first
time, and the distinction certainly belongs to Sir Thomas
Hungerford.^ Yet in the immediately preceding Parliament,
which sat in 1376, Sir Peter de la Mare was undoubtedly
chosen by the Commons to be their spokesman or president.
He is not expressly described as Speaker, or rather " Pro-
locutor " or " Parlour " — the form of the title which was
first employed — in the Rolls of Parliament. But so far as
can be gathered from other records he was the first to fill
a position in the House of Commons indistinguishable from
that of a Speaker, according to the first crude idea of the
oflfice.-
It is often true that the origin of an ancient custom
antedates — in the absence of full, clear, and explicit docu-
mentary evidence — any individual whose name is first
associated with it in the Records. Indeed, the compilers
of the index to the Rolls of Parliament (published in 1832
* Rot. Pari., vol. 2, p. 374. '^ Rot. Pari., vol. 2, pp. 322-29.
ii6 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
by order of the House of Lords) give, in the Hst of names
that follow the heading "Speakers," the first place to "William
Trussel." It so happens that in the parliamentary annals of
the first half of the fourteenth century two persons of that
name figure as spokesmen of the Commons. In January
1327, William Trusscll — the name in this instance is spelt
with two " Is " — acting as proctor or procurator, not of the
Commons only, but of the whole Parliament, at Berkeley
solemnly renounced allegiance to Edward II. — defeated in
his efforts to loose himself from the dominance of the barons
— and the Crown passed to the deposed King's son, as
Edward III. It is, however, the second William Trussel —
with one " 1 " in his name — who is mentioned in the index
to the Rolls of Parliament as the first of the Speakers. The
reference to him in the record itself sets forth that in the
Parliament of 1343 the Commons, having consulted apart
on a matter submitted to them by the Lords, made answer
by " Monsieur William Trussel."^
At the time of the first Speakers the ancient period of
Constitutional history — the conferences of wise men and
warriors, whom the King summoned for deliberation on
questions legislative and financial, military and judicial —
had come and gone, and Parliament was not only looming
more distinctly out of the shadowy and almost mystic past,
but it had definitely adopted its modern shape of two Houses
sitting and deliberating apart. This division of the Estates
into two distinct groups — the Lords, consisting of the great
landowners and the prelates, and the Commons, consisting
of the lesser landlords and the lawyers representing the
counties and the merchants and traders sitting for the cities
and boroughs — had in fact taken place between forty and
fifty years before the officially recorded appointment of a
Speaker in the lower House. The first mention in the Rolls
of Parliament of separate deliberations by Lords and
Commons occurs in the record dealing with the year 1332.^
The division may be said to have solidified and become
permanent about the year 1340.
' Hot. Pari., vol. 2, p. 136. - Rot. Pari., vol. 2, p. 66.
THE SEPARATION OF THE HOUSES 117
The assembling of the three Estates, the Lords spiritual
and temporal, and the Commons, with the King pi-esiding,
took place in the Painted Chamber of the Palace of West-
minster— so called for its elaborate embellishments of gilding
and colours — at the opening of Parliament, or on great and
important occasions during the session. But the Commons
met for their separate and private deliberations sometimes
in the Refectory of the Abbey of Westminster, just over
the way^but usually in its Chapter House, which was lent
to them by the Abbot for the purpose, the Speaker sitting
in the Abbot's stall, and the Members on forms arranged on
the floor.
Possibly, therefore, other Members of the House of
Commons, like Trussel, preceded de la Mare and Hungerford
in the discharge of the functions, though perhaps not in the
formal title of Speaker, notwithstanding the silence of the Rolls
on the point. The object of the ancient writers of the Rolls
of Parliament seems to have been solely to note the decisions
of the King, Lords, and Commons ; and greatly to the loss of
posterity they did not trouble themselves about matters of
form and ceremony, such as the appointment of a chairman
or prolocutor by the Commons. There are frequent
omissions of the names of the Speakers from the Rolls
of Parliament even after Hungerford, deficiencies which
fortunately have been supplied in some cases from other
sources.
The other two chief Officers of the House of Commons,
the Clerk and the Serjeant-at-Arms, are first heard of
about the same time as the Speaker. It is probable that
when the Estates sat together there were two Clerks, the
Clerk of the Parliaments and an under Clerk, and that when
the separation into two Houses took place the assistant Clerk
went with the Commons. At any rate, the Clerk of the
House of Commons appears as a person of established
position in 1388,^ which is only twelve years later than the
first recorded appointment of a Speaker in the person of
Sir Peter de la Mare. At this time the Clerk was officially
' Stubbs, C(ynstitutioiial History, vol, 3, p. 469,
ii8 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
known as " under Clerk of the Parliaments attending^ upon
the Commons." ^ Then, as now, he was appointed by the
Crown. His place in the House, according to the earliest
glimpses we are afforded of the Commons at work, was at
the Table beneath the Speaker, which is still his place. The
Serjeant-at-Arms has also existed since the separation of
the Houses. From the first he was appointed by the Crown
to act as the executive officer of the Commons in carrying
out their instructions and directions ; and his station, as now,
was at the door.
There may, accordingly, have been a Speaker since the
first institution of the Commons as an assembly apart from
the Lords. On the other hand, the Commons may, for a
period, have debated the granting of taxes, with which at
first they chiefly concerned themselves, without feeling the
need of a head or director. Could they have adhered to the
point in their deliberations and reached a conclusion when
there was no chairman to guide and direct them and keep
the proceedings in order ? It is not impossible. Even in the
twentieth century the House of Lords possesses no head,
director, or authority for the regulation of its debates. It
was comparatively late in their development as a separate
and organized assembly that the peers came to recognize the
necessity of having some one to put the question for dis-j
cussion in a definite form before them, and to obtain theii
decision upon it at the end of the discussion. But the Lord]
Chancellor who discharges this function is, even to-day,j
powerless to rule whether or not an argument or even a speed
is relevant to the question at issue, for he is vested with noj
authority to call another peer to order. There is always
point to keep to in debates in the House of Lords, as else-
where, but the peers need not, and indeed do not, always
keep to the point.
It is not at all unlikely that when the Commons set u\
a House for themselves in the middle of the fourteenth!
century, it did not strike them as nece.ssary to elect one ol
their number to rule over them, in any way to control the
' Halscll, PrecedenU of Proceedings, vol. 2, p. 207.
THE SEPARATION OF THE HOUSES 119
expression of their views, to moderate their differences, or
even to keep order. Certainly, it is clear that the Speaker
was not originally appointed for the mere sake of orderliness
in debate. The purpose of the office was then simple enough.
The Speaker was in fact nominated by the Commons to act
as their official mouthpiece in all their relations with the
Crown. When the chroniclers afforded us our first glimpse
of the Speaker in the Chair of the House of Commons — or
rather in the Abbot's stall of the Chapter House — he' is not
represented to us presiding over the knights and burgesses
solely with a view to the preservation of regularity in their
deliberations. He is the spokesman of the Assembly rather
than its chairman. All the remarks and comments of
Members are addressed to him. He listens attentively to
everything that is said ; but his object is not so much to
secure that the talk is relevant to the matter under discus-
sion, as that he may gather clearly the opinions and wishes,
the desire or the will, of the House as a whole in regard
to subsidies or grievances, and lay them rightly before the
King.
This, then, was the prime cause of the origin and founda-
tion of the Speakership — the necessity felt by the Commons
of having a member of their body authoritatively to give
voice to their wishes to the King. The original purpose of
the House of Commons was consultative. Accordingly, the
original function of the Speakership was expressive. It was
to tell the King what the Commons, as the representatives
of the people — or rather of their own orders, the country
gentry, and the city merchants — desired he should do, to
give him advice and guidance in affairs of State, by the light
of their wider experience. And for a long period the office
retained its primitive simplicity. The Speaker listened and
assimilated, and then spoke for the Commons to the King.
As the House of Commons developed in organization and
representative character, and advanced in power and freedom,
the scope of the office was extended, and adapted to the
growing needs of the Assembly. Its evolution was not
guided and shaped with any definite intent and purpose, but
I20 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
was solely determined by the changing influences of day
after day, by the march of time and circumstances. At every
stage of its growth its duties were jealously limited and
conditioned. The House was far from desiring to have a
dominating and overbearing personality as its head. What
it wanted was a subservient and exact mouthpiece, a voice
that would repeat to the King and the Lords exactly what
it was told. Just that, no more and no less.
Two scholarly qualifications were essential. The Speaker
should speak French well, and be able to read Latin. French
was the language of the upper classes, — English being spoken,
as a rule, only by the common people, — and it was the
language in which the debates of the early Parliaments were
conducted. All parliamentary and legal documents were
usually issued in Latin.
CHAPTER XVII
THE COMMONS AND THE FIRST SPEAKERS
THE Parliament of 1376, in which the Speaker first ap-
peared, is known in history as " The Good Parliament."
In it was laid the groundwork of a great institution.
But it is not on that account that the Parliament is regarded
as beneficent. Not only had the founders of the Speakership
no conception of its potentialites, but centuries were to pass
before the importance and real value of the office came fully
to be recognized. The work done by the Parliament of 1376
which made it good, was the reform of abuses in the adminis-
tration of the affairs of the Realm.
There is extant a very full and graphic account of its
proceedings, written in Latin at the time by a chronicler in
the Benedictine Abbey of St. Albans.^ Edward I. was
prematurely decrepit. The " Black Prince," who as Prince of
' "Chronicon Angliae, 1328-88," published in ihe Roll series, The Chronicles
and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland durini:; the Middle Ages (1874),
with an Introduction by E. Maunde Thompson.
THE COMMONS AND THE FIRST SPEAKERS 121
Wales was heir to the Throne, was lying stricken by a mortal
disease, and John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, as the King's
next surviving son, held the control of affairs. The House
of Commons was hostile to John of Gaunt. He was sus-
pected of a design to set aside the rii^ht of the boy Richard
— son of the Black Prince — to the succession, and seize the
Crown himself on the demise of the King ; a suspicion which
seems to have been mainly inspired by the dying Prince
of Wales.
The Estates of the Realm assembled on April 28, 1376,
in the Painted Chamber of the Palace of Westminster. On
the calling of the roll many of the Commons failed to answer
to their names. This happened not unfrequently at that
period, chiefly because Members were delayed on the road,
or the Sheriffs failed to send up the returns to the writs, but
for the reason also that some who were unwillingly elected
to the National Council tried to shirk the duty of attending
its meetings. An adjournment accordingly took place until
8 o'clock the following morning, — at which hour it was long
the custom of Parliament to meet, — when it was announced
that fines would be imposed on all who were not in
attendance.
Next day, in the absence of both the King and the Prince
of Wales, John of Gaunt presided over the assemblage. The
causes of the summoning of Parliament were declared by the
Chancellor, Sir John Kenynett, to be the provision of supplies
for the continuance of the war with France, and for the peace
and good government of the kingdom. The two Houses
then separated. The Commons proceeded to the Chapter
House of Westminster Abbey. This is the first occasion on
which it is believed the Chapter House was used as the
meeting-place of the Commons. And there, deliberating
behind locked doors, they selected Sir Peter de la Mare,
one of the knights of the shire for his native county of
Herefordshire, and Seneschal of the Earl of March — a lead-
ing opponent of John of Gaunt in the House of Lords — to
voice their discontent with the condition of the Realm.
On the following day the Estates assembled together
122 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
once more in the Painted Chamber, with John of Gaunt again
filling the place of the King. De la Mare stated the demands
of the Commons in a vigorous and independent speech.
They were grievously oppressed by taxation. This, however,
they would take in good part, nor grieve at it, if the money
were properly spent, but it was evident that neither the King
nor the Realm had any profit thereby. They therefore
insisted upon an inquiry into expenditure, and removal from
ofllice or from the Court of certain close advisers of the King,
to whose misdemeanours they attributed the existing public
abuses.
The demands of the Commons were granted. Lord
Latimer — the friend and creature of the Duke of Lancaster
— was deprived of his office of Chamberlain. Richard Lyons,
who in collusion with Latimer lent money at exorbitant
usury to the King, was sent to the Tower ; and Alice Ferrers,
the King's mistress, who had enriched herself with many
spoils in the way of jewels, money, and estate, was banished
from the Court.
The next Parliament assembled at Westminster on
January 27, 1377. In the interval the scene had been
completely transformed. The Black Prince was dead. John
of Gaunt's influence was predominant. He recalled Latimer
to office. He set Lyons free. He allowed Alice Ferrers to
return to Court and to stay with the King during the few
months of life which now remained to him. More than that,
the outspoken de la Mare was a prisoner in Nottingham
Castle ; and thus he was not only the first Speaker, but the
first martyr to the cause of freedom of speech in Parliament.
The new House of Commons was packed with supporters
of John of Gaunt. They selected as Speaker, Sir Thomas
Hungerford, one of the knights of the shire for Wilts, who
was in the service of the Duke of Lancaster and owed to him
his knighthood and his fortune.^ Hungerford is the first
person mentioned in the official records as holding the office
of Speaker. "Monsieur Thomas de Hungerford, chevalier,"
he is styled in the Rolls of Parliament, " qui avoit les
' S. Amiitage-Smith,y<7A« of Gaunt, 145 (1904).
I
THE COMMOx\S AND THE FIRST SPEAKERS 123
paroles pur less communes d'Angleterre en cet Parliament." ^
It is known as the " Bad Parliament." By it all the Acts of
the " Good Parliament " were revoked.
King Edward III. died on June 21, 1377, and was
succeeded by his grandson — the son of the Black Prince — as
Richard II. In the first Parliament of the young King,
which met at Westminster on October 13, 1377, a large
proportion of the knights of the shire who had sat in the
" Good Parliament " were returned. Among them was Sir
Peter de la Mare, who had only recently been discharged
from Nottingham Castle by order of the new King. He was
selected by his colleagues again to be their Speaker ; and his
second term of office was signalized by the setting of a
precedent which has been followed at the assembling of
every new Parliament from the fourteenth century to the
twentieth. This is the request of the Speaker that if in his
statement of the desires of the Commons to the King and
Peers he should fall inadvertently into error, the blame might
be imputed to his ignorance alone.
According to the brief record in the Rolls of Parliament,
when de la Mare appeared with the Commons in the Painted
Chamber, where the prelates and peers, presided over by the
boy King, were assembled, he commenced his speech by
saying that what he was about to declare was from the whole
body of the Commons, and therefore if he should happen to
speak anything without their consents it ought to be amended
after he had done.^
In the record of the next Parliament, which met in the
great hall of the Abbey of Gloucester on October 22, 1378,
there is a fuller report of the early forms of the " protestation,"
as it was called. The Speaker was Sir James Pickering, one
of the knights of the shire for Westmorland, and the
preface to his speech is given as follows : —
" First, if he should utter anything to the prejudice,
damage, slander, or disgrace of the King or his Crown, or in
lessening the honours or estates of the great Lords, it might
not be taken notice of by the King, and that the Lords should
^ Rot. Pari., vol. 2, p. 374. ^ Rot. Pari., vol. 3, p. 5.
124 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
pass it by as if nothint^ had been said, for the Commons
highly desired to maintain the honour and the estate of the
King and the rights of the Crown, as also to preserve the
reverence due to the Lords in all points. Then, as for his
own person, he made protestation that if by indiscretion he
spoke anything which, by common assent of his fellow-
members, was wrong, it might, either then or afterwards, be
amended by them."
For the guidance, no doubt, of the Speakers who were to
follow, the speech was ifiserted on the Rolls of Parliament}
What motive was it that originally inspired the Commons
of the fourteenth century thus to safeguard themselves against
the consequences of the Speaker saying, whether intentionally
or by a slip, something to the King and Lords which he had
no authority to say? Probably we shall never learn for
certain the reason why the Commons, on creating the office
of Speaker, thought fit to hedge it round with restrictions.
Their decisions and understandings we know, but there is
nothing to show how or why they came to these under-
standings and decisions. In the early contemporary
documents which have been discovered, there is not a
single passage which opens the locked and strictly guarded
doors of the Chapter House of Westminster Abbey and
enables us to peep in, and .see and hear, even for a moment,
the Commons in deliberation. But it is obvious that the
House of Commons was at its very beginning — as it is
indeed to-day — ^jealous of the interpreter of its claims, its
privileges, its rules, lest he should attempt to assume a power
or authority which it was unwilling to allow him. The
Speaker was the representative of the Commons, deputed by
them to act on their behalf. They did not, however, permit
him to enter alone the presence of the King and the prelates
and the peers in the Painted Chamber. They went with him
in a body, in order to ensure that in voicing their desires or
intentions he should not say a word more, or a word less,
than was in his instructions.
For a quarter of an hour or so the Speaker divided with
' Hot. Pari., vol. 3, p. 34 ; Parliamrntary History, vol. I, p. 165.
THE COMMONS AND THE FIRST SPEAKERS 125
the King himself the attention of that assemblage of the nota-
bilities of the land in the National Council. In a position
so dazzling and perturbing, amid a scene of magnificent
pomp and dignity, there could be no accounting for the
play of individual temperament and character. Courted
by a smile of recognition from the King, or flattered by a
compliment from Primate or Chancellor, the Speaker might
give away the interests of the Commons in a sudden ebulli-
tion of nervous effusiveness or subserviency. The body of
the Commons themselves were highly susceptible to the
influences of great places and high occasions, and, above all,
were extremely conscious of the majesty and imperiousness
of Sovereignty. In that very Parliament of 1378, in which
Sir James Pickering, as Speaker, appealed to the King that
should he say anything imprudently the evil consequences
should fall upon him and not upon the Commons, there was
a curious and significant manifestation of this feeling. The
Commons went on their knees in the Painted Chamber and
humbly and obsequiously thanked the King with their whole
hearts for his promise to preserve " the good laws and customs
of the Kingdom." The Commons probably also felt that the
Speaker might compromise them even by some careless word
due to want of understanding or intelligence. Against all
such imprudences on the part of the Speaker and accidents
the Commons desired to protect themselves. And for this
reason, no doubt, they required the Speaker before he voiced
their opinions and wishes to the King, to beg to be allowed
to rectify any error he might commit while he soared — as he
felt bound to do in the awful presence of the Sovereign — into
the highest altitude of rhetorical inspiration to which his
mental gifts — such as they were — enabled him to rise.
Moreover, a significant change had already taken place
in the relations between the Crown and the Chair of the
House of Commons. It has been said that the original duty
of the Speaker was to be the medium of communication
between the Commons and the King. Soon he became
almost as much the mouthpiece of the Sovereign within the
Chamber as of the Commons outside it. The King was
126 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
supreme over Parliament. He summoned it to assemble at
his sole will and pleasure. He alone had the power to issue
the writs for the election of the Commons. He could ordain
the suspension of the sittings of Parliament by adjournment.
In him alone was vested the decreeing" of its Dissolution. At
a time, therefore, when the monarchy, in practice if not in
form, was little removed from the absolute, and, at any rate,
when in such matters as State appointments there was free
play to the unfettered will of the Sovereign, it was unlikely
that the King would refrain from exercising his influence
and authority in the matter of so important a post as the
Speakership of the House of Commons. It is probable that
early in the history of the Chair, if not from the first, it was
necessary for the Commons to have the leave of the King to
choose a spokesman, though the earliest record of the Royal
permission is in relation to the appointment of Sir Arnold
Savage as Speaker in the second Parliament of Henry IV.,
held in 1401, just a quarter of a century after Sir Peter de la
Mare. The Speaker, in truth, soon became, to all intents
and purposes, the nominee of the King. He was the choice
of the Commons, but the King took care that whoever
was chosen was agreeable to him. At the least, a man was
selected who, in a measure, could serve two masters.
In those circumstances the Speaker no longer merely
listened and assimilated ; he began to speak and to suggest,
and therefore the Commons must have deemed it all the
more essential to be on the watch that the Speaker did not
abuse his position as their spokesman, and betray the needs
of the people to the interests of the Crown. It is certain,
however, that in most cases the Speaker was deeply im-
pressed with a proper sense of the gravity and responsibility
of his position. He felt that it would be his bitterest con-
demnation and shame if on the return to the Chapter House
of Westminster Abbey he were charged with misrepresenta-
tion of the Commons, or reproached with having neglected
duly to insist upon their rights and demands.
A SUBSERVIENT SPEAKER 127
CHAPTER XVIII
A SUBSERVIENT SPEAKER
IN the third Parliament of Richard II., which met at
Westminster in April 1379, no Speaker is mentioned
by the Rolls as having been appointed. Sir John
Goldsborough, or Gildersburgh, or Goldesburgh, — the name
being thus variously spelt, — one of the knights of the shire
for Essex, was chosen Speaker in the next Parliament,
which assembled at Westminster in January 1380, and also
in the following Parliament, which meet in November of the
same year at Northampton, in the Priory of St. Andrew.
Sir Richard Waldegrave, who sat for Suffolk, and was
chosen Speaker in the Parliament which met at Westminster
in 1 38 1, did not desire the honour. When he presented
himself to the Sovereign and Lords in the Painted Chamber,
after his election by the Commons, he begged to be excused
and discharged ; but the King declined to release him, charg-
ing him upon his allegiance to undertake the office since he
was chosen by the Commons.^ This is supposed to be the
commencement of the practice of the Speakers to "disable"
themselves before the King, by declaring their unfitness for
the position, which, as we shall see, continued through many
centuries.^
Waldegrave was succeeded in the Parliament of 1382 by
Sir James Pickering, now one of the knights of the shire
for York, appointed for the second time. There is a lapse
of twelve years before the Rolls again record the election of
a Speaker, although a Parliament was held annually as
usual. The omission is due, no doubt, partly to the im-
perfectness of the Rolls, and partly to the negligence of the
Clerk who engrossed them. At any rate, the next Speaker
we meet is Sir John Bussy, one of the knights of the shire
of Lincoln who was chosen in the seventeenth Parliament of
Richard II., which assembled at Westminster in 1394.
^ Rot. Pari., vol. 3, p. ICX). - D'Ewes, /ourna/s, 42.
128 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
The name of Kussy stands out prominently in the long
line of Speakers. He was a leading actor in the turmoil
which marked the closing days of the reign of Richard II.
He was the first Speaker to be elected three times, which
shows that he must have been a strong personality or high
in the favour of the Court. He was also the first of the few
Speakers who have been false to the tradition of their office
and betra}'ed their trust for King in earlier times, or, in
later, for personal gain or for Party.
On the occasion of his second election in the Parliament
which assembled at Westminster in January 1397, having
made the usual protestation to the King and Lords, he
presented a petition from the Commons asking that the
extravagant expenses of the Court might be curtailed. It
seems a legitimate and reasonable request enough, but it
greatly enraged the King, who denounced it as an attack
on the liberties and royalties which his progenitors had
established, and which he was determined to uphold. Pie
sent a demand to the Speaker, charging him on his allegiance
to reveal the name of the Member who had stirred up the
Commons to make so disloyal a demand. The Commons,
highly alarmed by the menace of the indignant King,
appeared in the Painted Chamber, and falling on their
knees humbly asked His Majesty's pardon. On their behalf
the Speaker declared that they never designed to interfere
with the King's household, knowing well that such things
concerned His Majesty alone. Their sole desire was to call
His Majesty's attention to certain matters, that he might
act thereon as should please him best. They went further,
for they disclosed the fact that Thomas Haxey was the
Member who had induced them to send the petition to
the King.
The Chancellor was commanded by the King to tell
the Commons that "out of his royal benignity and gracious
seigniory " he excused them. But an example was to be
made of Haxey. He was a Clerk in Holy Orders, and his
presence in the House of Commons shows that while the
clergy had long since refrained from attending Parliament, —
A SUBSERVIENT SPEAKER 129
preferring to veto their taxes and manage their own affairs
in Convocation, — a clergyman did occasionally get returned
to the House of Commons late in the fourteenth century.^
He was tried by the peers, and sentenced to death as a
traitor. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops
pleaded with the King for the life of Haxey, "not as a
right belonging to them," as they expressed it, " but of
His Majesty's special grace and favour." Their prayer was
granted, and Haxey was spared being made a martyr to
freedom of speech and action in the House of Commons.^
This incident is an apt illustration of the arbitrary and
unconstitutional course on which Richard II. had entered
to assert his independence of the House of Commons, but
which was soon to end in his dethronement and the accession
of the House of Lancaster. Bussy aided the King in his
attempt to establish an absolute monarchy on the ruins of
Parliament. He was elected Speaker, for the third time, in
the Parliament which met at Westminster in September 1397.
Raphael Holinshed in his Chrofiicles, which were written and
published in the sixteenth century, relates how Bussy grossly
flattered the vanity of the King.
" Sir John Bushie," says Holinshed, " in all his talk, when
he proposed any matter unto the King, did not attribute
to him titles of honour due and accustomed, but invented
unusual terms and such strange names as were rather
agreeable to the Divine Majesty of God than to any earthly
potentate. The Prince, being desirous enough of all honour,
and more ambitious than was requisite, seemed to like well
of his speech and gave good ear to his talk." ^
The sittings of the Parliament of 1397 at Westminster
lasted only twelve days. The chief business was the im-
peachment of the King's leading opponents. Then there
' naXlzxa, Middle Ages, vol. 3, p. 76 (nth ed. 1885). Professor Maitland
suggests, however, in his Constitutional History, that Haxey may not have been a
duly elected Member of the House at all.
^ In 1399, shortly after the accession of Henry iv. — the next Sovereign— this
judgment was annulled on the petition of the Commons, as being contrary to
their liberties.
' Holinshed, Chronicles (original edition), vol. 3, p. 490.
9
I30 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
was an adjournment to meet in Shrewsbury in January 1398.
Here Parliament sat for three days only. Before it was
dissolved it appointed a committee of twelve peers and six
Commoners, to which, on the pretext that there was still a
lot of business to be transacted, it delegated all its power
and authority ; and as the committee consisted exclusively
of Richard's staunch adherents — including the Speaker — it
practically made the King absolute. In the following year,
during the absence of the King in Ireland, the banished
Duke of Lancaster, Henry Bolingbroke (eldest son of John
of Gaunt), landed in England and became the leader of the
national discontent. On his way to Wales with his army,
to intercept Richard who was returning from Ireland, he
besieged and captured the Castle of Bristol. Among the
prisoners was Bussy. The ex-Speaker was beheaded, without
trial, the next morning.
CHAPTER XIX
THE SPEAKER AS ORATOR
PARLIAMENT had been summoned to meet on
September 30, 1399, by writs issued by Richard II.
When the three Estates assembled on that day in
the Painted Chamber they found the Throne vacant. On
the day before, Richard II., baffled, defeated, and a prisoner
in the Tower, consented to abdicate, and to absolve all his
people from their allegiance to him. His deed of abdication
was read by Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, who was
deposed and banished by the previous Parliament, but had
returned with Bolingbroke. The Crown was bestowed on
Bolingbroke by the Estates.
The first Parliament of the new King, Henry IV,, met at
Westminster on October 6, 1399. It adjourned for a week,
during which the King was crowned. On its reassembling. Sir
John Cheney, one of the knights of the shire for Gloucester-
shire, was chosen as Speaker by the Commons, and approved
THE SPEAKER AS ORATOR 131
by the King. On the following day he came with the Commons
into the Painted Chamber, and on the plea that he had been
stricken by a sudden disorder ^ and was unable to serve, the
King discharged him from the office, and accepted John
Dorewood, whom the Commons had selected in his place.
The truth was that Cheney was known to be in sympathy
with VVycliff, — who had just begun to preach his disturbing
doctrine that a lowly estate more befitted the Church than
a position of wealth and glory, — and by the influence of
Archbishop Arundel was forced to resign. Dorewood, his
successor, one of the knights of the shire for Essex, has
the distinction of being the first lawyer who was appointed
Speaker. He was also the first Speaker who was not a
belted knight or a knight with a sword.
If Dorewood was the first of the lawyers, his successor. Sir
Arnold Savage, knight of the shire for Cheshire, who was
appointed Speaker in the Parliament which met at West-
minster on January 20, 1401, was the first of the orators.
Previous Speakers may have been unready and awkward,
probably tongue-tied country gentlemen, unable, as well as
unwilling, to go beyond the customary and set protestation.
But Savage was of a different type. He felt that he had a
touch of the fire of eloquence, and was determined to light
up the Painted Chamber, as well as the Chapter House of
Westminster Abbey, with its glow.
More historically interesting still is the fact that Savage
was the first Speaker to preface his statement of the demands
of the Commons by an address complimentary to the
Sovereign. At least it is the first of these speeches that is
recorded on the Rolls of Parliament. The fulsome terms in
which Bussy addressed Richard II., to the great scandal of
Holinshed the Chronicler, may have always been used in such
a speech. Later on these addresses to the Sovereign by the
Speaker developed into a great parliamentary emotion,
especially in the time of the Virgin Queen. But if Savage
really set the precedent, he set it modestly. There was
nothing extravagant in his first eulogy of Henry IV., so far
^ Rot, Pari., vol. 3, p. 424.
132 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
as it is recorded. "To every good Government," he said,
" four things appertain, namely, wisdom, power, manhood,
and riches, all of which he affirmed were in the King and his
nobility, as the world very well knew, and they would
approve, for the hearts and goodwill of subjects were the
riches of a King."
Savage then proceeded to show that issues far more vital
to the House of Commons than the hypothetical accomplish-
ments of the King claimed consideration ; and in doing this
he displayed the qualities which must always constitute the
virtues of a good Speaker — independence, boldness of
utterance, and thorough loyalty to the House of Commons.
He made three speeches. On the first day he asked that
the Commons should be given ample time for deliberation
on questions submitted to them, instead of being suddenly
called upon to decide most important matters at the very
end of the session. The request is significantly suggestive
of the parliamentary tactics of the Sovereign in those days ;
though Henry iv., in reply, avowed that he had no such
subtlety, or cunning in design. A few days later Savage
raised the important subject of freedom of debate, showing
how sedulously the Commons endeavoured to hide their own
proceedings in the Chapter House of Westminster Abbey
from the eye and ear of every one outside the assembly, and
especially the King. The Speaker complained that some of
the Commons, to please the King, reported to him the tenor
of their deliberations before a decision had been come to, thus
moving His Majesty's anger against innocent and deserving
lieges ; and he begged the King to close his ears to such un-
authorized and garbled statements. To this prayer the King
replied that he should pay heed to nothing affecting the
Commons save what he heard from the mouth of the
Speaker in the presence of the Estates. Within a week the
Speaker, accompanied as usual by the Commons, claimed a
third audience of the King and peers in the Painted Chamber.
We do not know what it was that troubled Savage on this
occasion, for the King bluntly refused to hear him ; and as
further evidence of his royal impatience and displeasure with
THE SPEAKER AS ORATOR 133
the importunate Commons, or their irrepressible Speaker,
commanded that in future they should put all their demands
or petitions in writing.^
It may have been that the King had grown weary of the
Speaker's oratory. It is more probable, however, that His
Majesty resented Savage's fuller and more outspoken
statements of the views of the Commons, which were all the
more perturbing because of their striking contrast with the
reserves and timidities of Speakers during the reign of
Richard 11. Whether or not Savage was really covetous of
oratorical distinction, he made another grasp at it just before
the dissolution of Parliament was pronounced. It marked
the beginning of the custom, which survived till late in the
nineteenth century, of the Speaker making a speech at the
Bar of the House of Lords on the last day of the session
when Parliament was prorogued by the Sovereign in person.
Savage's address, or " preachment " as it is called in the
Rolls, was preceded by an act of humiliation on the part of
the Commons which was then customary. They all knelt
before the King, and through the Speaker humbly besought
him to pardon them if in their ignorance they had for any
cause given him offence. Which, say the Rolls, His Majesty
of his benignity granted.
It was a strange spectacle. Harry Bolingbroke's title
to the Crown was not based on hereditary right, the
strongest of all titles in the Middle Ages, though, as yet,
the doctrine of divine right was unknown. It was founded,
simply, on the sanction of Parliament. He had been made
King only two years before by the Estates of the Realm.
But the holy anointing at the Coronation had endowed hira
with peculiar and shining virtues which glorified him above
all other men, and had made him not only ruler of the
land, but lord of all, master of their fortunes and their
lives, — practically, by right of his power, if not in theory*
according to law, — and the Commons, realizing their own
insignificance by contrast, made submission to him in the
dust of which they were the creatures.
^ Rot. Pari., vol. 3, pp. 455-6.
134 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
The Speaker in his concluding address tried still further
to soften the resentment of the King by honied words of
compliment. He compared the Parliament to the Sacrifice
of the Mass. " At first," he said, " the Archbishop of
Canterbury read the Epistle and expounded the Gospel
to them," — an allusion to: the customary sermon at the
opening of the session, — "the King did the sacrifice, by
promising to defend and protect Holy Church, and when
they were come to the end to say, Ita missa est, Deo gratias.
They had good reason to thank God for sending them so
excellent and gracious a King, full of pity and humanity
towards all his subjects."
Sir Henry Redford of Lincolnshire was Speaker in the
Parliament which met at Westminster in October 1402. In
the next Parliament, which met at Westminster in January
1404, Sir Arnold Savage was again chosen Speaker, If he
spoke, beyond making the usual protestation, there is no
record of his utterance ; but he presented a petition which
led to the establishment of an important privilege for the
Commons. The petition claimed as a matter of ancient
right — it is curious, by the way, that everything asked for
even in these early years of Parliament had a precedent in
its support — that Members should be free from the liability
to arrest for debt or trespass ; and a statute was passed giving
protection, not only to them but to their attendants, on
their journeys to and from Parliament as well as during
its sittings.^
Sir William Esturmy, — or Sturmey, as he is called in
the Parliamentary History^ — knight of the shire for
Devon, was Speaker in the Parliament held at Coventry
in October 1404. It is variously called the " Unlearned
Parliament," the " Lacklearning Parliament," the " Dunces
Parliament," opprobrious epithets which have been applied
to it by early legal commentaries on the Constitution,
because Henry IV., following a precedent which was set
by ICdward III. in 1392, commanded the sheriffs to see
that no man of the law was returned. It was said that
' 5 Henry IV. c. 6.
THE SPEAKER AS ORATOR 135
the lawyers took advantage of their position as Members
of Parliament to promote the interests of their clients.
The next Speaker, Sir John Tiptoft of Huntingdonshire,
who was appointed in the Parliament which met at West-
minster on March i, 1406, — the seventh of Henry IV., —
carried still further the precedent of depreciation set by
Sir Richard Waldegrave a quarter of a century before, — a
custom which, before its abolition in the nineteenth century,
was to develop from an amusing comedy into a ludicrous
farce. Tiptoft protested to the King that he was altogether
too young to be Speaker, — he was then about thirty-one years
old, — and, moreover, that he lacked sense. But Henry IV., in
whose service he had been for years as a courtier, confirmed
the choice of the Commons.
William Prynne^ bears testimony to Tiptoft's independence
of spirit and conduct as Speaker. " The Commons' young
Speaker," he says, " took more upon him, and spoke more
boldly and fervently to the King and Lords, than any
Speaker had done before him — which innovation, beginning
to grow in fashion, the King and the Lords thought proper
in a succeeding Parliament to put a check upon as a novelty
inconsistent with the King's prerogative." The Parliament
was one of the longest that had yet been held. It sat until
December 22, with two short breaks for the Easter and
Midsummer vacations. On the day of the prorogation the
Speaker made a speech which shows how the Court con-
tinued to hum with tittle-tattle about the secret deliberations
of the Commons in the Chapter House. He begged that it
would please the King to excuse the Commons in that it
had been reported they had talked of his royal person
otherwise than was seemly, which was untrue. The King
magnanimously declared his belief in their loyalty.
■ ^ The Puritan lawyer and author, who wrote a large number of political and
parliamentary works.
136 THE SPEAKKJl OF THE HOUSE
CHAPTER XX
THE KING AND THE SPEAKER
IN the following Parliament the Commons made their
first snatch at power and privilege over the Lords.
They established the most important Constitutional
principle that in them lay the exclusive right of originating
money grants.
The Parliament met at Gloucester on October 20, 1407.
The Speaker was Thomas Chaucer, who sat for Oxfordshire,
and is supposed to have been a son of the poet, though the
fact is not clearly established. The King, after conferring
with the Lords as to the supply which ought to be granted,
sent for the Speaker and a committee of the Commons, and
told them the amount of the subsidy which the Lords had
suggested. When the Speaker made his report to the
Commons they loudly protested against the action of the
Lords. Probably there was no intention on the part of
the Lords to gain control of taxation. But the Commons
recognized the transcendent importance of keeping solely
and exclusively in their House the originating and deter-
mining of all taxation, the bulk of which would fall upon
them and the people they represented, and forthwith they
sent a petition to the King declaring that the interference
of the peers was in prejudice and derogation of their
privileges. It was then laid down by the King, and officially
recorded in the Rolls, that according to recognized usage — it
had in fact been the custom since 1395 — the constitutional
method of voting supplies was that they were to be granted
by the Commons, assented to by the Lords, and reported to
the King by the Speaker.^ Here was the source of the growth
and development of the House of Commons in authority
and power. As it came gradually to appreciate the strength
it possessed in the control of the public purse, and to employ
it to its own advancement, it emerged from the first merely
' Rol. Pari., vol. 3, p. 61 1.
, THE KING AND THE SPEAKER 137
consultative stage into the stage of co-ordinate authority with
the Lords, and from that to its present position of supremacy.
Chaucer was re-elected Speaker in the two subsequent
Parliaments which met at Westminster, the one in January
I 1410, and the other in November 141 1. The records in the
I Rolls of Parliament are brief and obscure, but they are
sufficient at least to indicate that at the assembling of the
Parliament of 141 1 there was an echo of that episode of
I high constitutional moment in 1407 when the Commons
claimed and won their place as the foremost of the two
Houses in the supreme matter of taxation. On the as-
sembling of the Estates, Henry IV. expressed the hope that
as the Commons had come to an agreement with the Lords,
they would speak no unbecoming words or attempt to do
anything that was not proper and decent.
The King evidently thought that the time had come for
curbing the freedom of speech which, as Prynne remarks,
began with Speaker Tiptoft in 1406, and no doubt grew
bolder with Speaker Chaucer. Speakers had not only to
maintain the frontiers of privilege which the Commons
inherited, but to try to extend them also.
At any rate, when Chaucer presented himself to the
King and peers in the Painted Chamber and prayed that
he might be allowed to make the usual protestations, he
was told that he might speak as others before him had done,
but that the King would allow no novelties to be introduced,
and was determined to maintain his prerogative. The
Speaker seems to have been taken aback by the words of
the King, in which a note of anger and resentment could be
detected. He must have thought his safety was in peril.
As a precaution he asked for a respite of three days, which
was granted in order that he might give his answer in
writing. It was as follows : " That he desired to make no
other protestation than that which other Speakers had made
before him ; and that if he should speak anything to the
King's displeasure it might be imputed to his own ignorance,
and not to the body of the Commons." ^
^ Parliamentary History, vol. i, pp. 312-13.
138 THE Sl'EAKER OF THE HOUSE
Chaucer recognized that it was a hazardous thing to
affront the King. At the very least, could not His Majesty
make unprofitable the career of a public man of ambition?
The Commons also were dismayed. On the last day of the
session, in the Painted Chamber, they dropped on their
knees before the King — a perturbed and embarrassed crowd
— and declaring that it had come to their ears that His
Majesty was offended with some of them, they humbly sued
for pardon, and prayed that he would openly declare he
held them all for loyal subjects. Right royally and, in a
grand phrase, " graciously condescending," the King took
them benignly to his heart.
But with all their natural obsequiousness to the
sovereignty and power of the King — so stupendous and
overwhelming — the Commons were determined to condone
nothing on the part of the Speaker which was likely to
compromise their constitutional position.
In the next Parliament — the first of Henry V. — which
assembled at Westminster on May 14, 141 3, William
Stourton of Dorset was chosen Speaker. About a week
afterwards the Commons appeared before the King and
Lords, when the Speaker on their behalf complained that
many fair promises for the observance of the laws, made in
the time of his late Majesty, had not been fulfilled ; and the
King commanded that the complaint be laid before him in
writing, so that he might the better consider of it. In his
subsequent action, Stourton evidently went beyond his
instructions, for he was repudiated by the Commons. " The
Speaker," we are told, "without the assent of his com-
panions, did agree before the King to deliver certain articles ;
but about three days following the Commons, finding them-
selves aggrieved therewith, sent unto the Lords — the King
being then present — Mr. John Uorewood, and divers of the
Commons with him, and declared to the King that their
Speaker had no authority from them to yield thereunto, and
therefore they desired to be excused therein, which the King
was pleased to accept."
Stourton held office for a few weeks only. On June 3
THE KING AND THE SPEAKER 139
the Commons came to the House of Lords, and reporting
that Stourton was ill, presented as their new Speaker, John
Dorewood the lawyer, who was Speaker in 1399. It is
probable, however, that Stourton was compelled to resign
for being too complaisant with the King. In this Parlia-
ment one of the earliest, if not the first, of the statutes
affecting the franchise was passed. Residence within the
counties was made a qualification both for the elected
and the electors.^
The succeeding Speaker was Sir Walter Hungerford, son
of Sir Thomas Hungerford — the first recorded Speaker —
and Knight of the Shire for Wilts, who was appointed in the
Parliament which met at Leicester in April 1414. He
was a soldier, and in the following year fought under Henry
V. at Agincourt, that most brilliant exploit of arms against
the French. It was Hungerford, and not the Earl of
Westmorland — as stated in Shakespeare's Henry v. — who,
on the eve of the battle, when the issue was doubtful owing
to the overwhelming force of the French, said to the King :
" Ah, would that the thousands of stout archers that are
lying idle to-night in England were here with us " ; and
drew from Henry the famous rebuke : ** I would not have
a single man more. If God give us the victory, it will
be plain that we owe it to His grace. If not, the fewer we
are, the less loss for England ! "
In the Parliament of 14 14 the Commons sent up a
memorable petition to the King. It was to the effect that
measures assented to by them should not be altered in the
engrossment of the Statutes. As it was not the first time
the complaint was made of the incompleteness or inaccuracy
of the Rolls and Statutes, it is probable that the records of
the business transacted in Parliament are not always trust-
worthy, or that the Statutes — which were then usually
founded upon the petitions of the Commons, and were not
drawn up until after the Parliament was dissolved — did not
always correspond very closely with the Commons' expressed
wishes. In 1401 the Commons asked that the engrossing
^ I Henry v. c. i.
I40 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
of their petitions as statute law should take place while the
Justices were still in attendance on the Parliament, and in
1405 they were allowed to be represented by a committee at
the engrossment. The petition of 1414 is famous also for
the fact that it is given on the Rolls, not in the official
French, but in English, and is the very first record in that
language. This course was taken, perhaps both to mark its
importance and to avoid misinterpretation. The assent of
Henry v. is thus given : —
" The King of his grace especial graunteth that fro hens
forth no thyng be enacted to the Peticions of his Comune
that be contrarie of hir askying, wharby they shuld be
bounde withoute their assent. Savying alvvay to our liege
Lord his real Prerogative to graunte and denye what him
best of their Petitions and askynges aforesaide." ^
CHAPTER XXI
FREQUENT PARLIAMENTS AND MANY SPEAKERS
ANOTHER Parliament met in November of the same
year — 1414 — at Westminster, in which Thomas
Chaucer was for the fourth time appointed Speaker.
In November 141 5 a Parliament, summoned by the Regent,
John Duke of Bedford, in the absence of the warrior King
in France, met at Westminster ; and the Speaker chosen
was Sir Richard Red may ne, Knight of the Shire for York-
shire. On the return of Henry from P^rance a Parliament
was held at Westminster in March 1416. The Speaker was
Sir Walter Beauchamp of Wiltshire, who first studied law
and subsequently became a soldier. He was one of the
King's companions-in-arms, and displayed great gallantry
at Agincourt. Roger Plovver, a lawyer and Member for
Rutland, was Speaker in three Parliaments in succession,
October 1416, November 1417, October 1419, all of which
' Rot. Pari,, vol. 4, p. 22.
FREQUENT PARLIAMENTS— MANY SPEAKERS 141
met at Westminster. Roger Hunt, another lawyer, and
Member for Bedfordshire, was Speaker in the Parliament
of 1420, which also met at Westminster. In the succeeding
Parliament, held at Westminster in May 142 1, Thomas
Chaucer received the honour — unique, so far — of being
appointed Speaker for the fifth time. There were two
Parliaments held that year. In the second, which met at
Westminster in December and was the last of Henry v.,
the Speaker was Richard Baynard of Essex.
In the first of Henry VI., which assembled at Westminster
in November 1422, Roger Flower was for the fourth time
chosen Speaker. Sir John Russell of Herefordshire was
Speaker in the Parliament held at Westminster in October
1423. The next Parliament, which also met at Westminster,
was opened in the presence of the baby king, Henry VI.,
sitting in his mother's lap. He was between two and three
years old. John Speed, the historian and cartographer, in
his History (published in 1611) says, "It was a strange
sight, and for the first time it was ever seen in England, an
infant sitting in his mother's lap (on the throne), and before
it could tell what English meant, to exercise the place of
sovereign direction in open Parliament." The Speaker was
Sir Thomas Wauton, knight of the shire for Bedfordshire,
and a lawyer. The next Parliament, which met in February
1426, at Leicester, is known as the " Parliament of the Bats,"
not because it displayed any of the qualities of the flying
mammal, but because its Members, Lords and Commons, who
took sides in the fierce struggle for power between the young
King's uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, and his godfather,
Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, being prohibited from carry-
ing swords, came armed with bats or staves. So tumultuary
were the opening proceedings, that though the assembly
took place on February 18, it was not until the 28th of
the month that the Commons were enabled to present their
Speaker, Sir Richard Vernon of Derbyshire. John Tyrrel
of Herts was Speaker in the Parliament which met at
Westminister in October 1427. The next Parliament, held
also at Westminster, of which the Speaker was William
142 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Alington of Cambridgeshire, passed in 1430 a great dis-
franchising measure. Hitherto all freeholders had the vote
in counties. Now it was restricted to freeholds of the clear
annual value of forty shillings. This statute regulated the
franchise for the next four centuries.^
John Tyrrel was Speaker in 143 1, John Russell in 1432,
Roger Hunt in 1433 — each being chosen the second time —
and John Bowes of Nottinghamshire in 1435. In 1436,
Tyrrel — now Sir John — was for the third time appointed.
He fell ill during the session, and was succeeded by William
Burley of the county of Salop. The next Parliament, which
assembled at Westminster in November 1439, — William
Tresham of Northamptonshire being Speaker, — was shortly
afterwards prorogued, owing to the plague which was then
raging in London, and met again in the following January
at Reading. The fear of the plague led to the adoption of
the following order by Parliament, suspending the ancient
ceremony of the kiss of fealty : —
" That all persons who should do homage to the King,
holding by Knights Service, should do the same without
kissing him, and the same should be as good as though the
Kiss were given." William Tresham was again chosen in 1442.
In the next Parliament, which met at Westminster in
February 25, 1445, William Burley was appointed Speaker
for the second time. It was quite a long Parliament. It
sat, with holiday adjournments, till December 15, when it
adjourned to January 24, 1446, and was dissolved on April 9.
One of the petitions of the Commons to the King complained
that the Sheriffs sometimes tampered with the returns to
the extent of substituting for the Knights duly elected
nominees of their own, in consequence of which persons of
low birth found entrance into the House of Commons. While
the long petition of the Commons is drawn up in French, the
reply of Henry VI. is given in English as follows : —
" The Kyng wille that it be as it is desired : so that the
Knyghtes of the Shires for the Parlement hereafter to be
chosen be notable Knyghtes of the same Shires for which
' 8 Henry vi. c. 7.
FREQUENT PARLIAMENTS— MANY SPEAKERS 143
they shall so be chosen, other ellys such notable Squiers,
Gentilmen of birth of the same Shires as be able to be
Knyghtes ; and no man to be it that standeth in the degree
of Yoman and bynethe." ^
Such is the tale, brief and cold, that is to be told of the
Speakership of the House of Commons at this period of
history. The Parliament is elected and meets on a summons
of the King. A Speaker is appointed by the Commons ; he
makes the usual protestations before the King and peers, to
which his Majesty graciously listens and royally assents ;
the Commons vote in secrecy the supplies necessary to
defray, to some extent, the huge debt incurred through the
wars with France, and then the Parliament is dissolved.
Hardly anything more is to be said. So we stride quickly
across the years. The scene scarcely changes in our eyes.
Only the Speakers, or rather their names, vary. A fresh
one is usually elected for each Parliament, and in those
times a Parliament lasted only a few months. It was pro-
vided by statute in 1330 — early in the reign of Edward III.
— that a Parliament should be summoned every year, or
more often if the need for it arose. During the fourteenth
century, however, there was no Parliament for several years,
and, on the other hand, in some years there were two Parlia-
ments. Each of these Parliaments was a new Parliament
specially elected. The procedure by which the same Parlia-
ment is kept in being, year after year, by means of proroga-
tions, had not yet been invented. Each Parliament met once,
and having sat for a few months was, as a rule, dissolved.
The Speakers, therefore, are numerous. They come and
disappear, mainly a succession of county magnates and land-
owners, interrupted now and then by the appointment of a
lawyer from the adjoining Courts of Justice at Westminster,
or an old soldier worn in the war with France, and nothing
remains of most of them but the dust and ashes of an un-
illuminating name.
Still, we may be sure that even this long and silent pro-
cession of men who filled the office of Speaker during its
* Rot. Pari., vol. 4, p. 116.
144 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
elementary stage — in its first tentative form, before it came
to be recognized, perhaps, as an integral and essential part
of the House of Commons — and in unexacting periods of
parliamentary history, were the outstanding Members of the
Assembly. We can guess that the physical and mental
dispositions which placed the crown of leadership upon the
brow of each in turn, were a commanding and dignified
presence, high personal character and the gift of speech,
with wisdom and adroitness in its use, especially when the
Speaker stood face to face with the King on his Throne,
surrounded by prelates and peers, — a position at once
dazzling and bewildering, — and had to utter the first stam-
mering demands of the Commons for justice and right.
Was the Speaker at this time the leader of the
Commons as well as their spokesman? Did the House
look to him for guidance? Was the supreme influence as to
the superintendence and direction of all matters that came
before it vested in him ? To these questions no authorita-
tive replies are forthcoming. The proceedings of the
Commons in the Chapter House of Westminster Abbey
are yet enveloped in darkness. We do not know exactly
whether the Speaker presided over the deliberations of the
Commons, focussing their attention upon the points of any
matter under consideration, or whether he sat, without dis-
tinction of position or dress, in the general body. It is pre-
sumed, simply, that he sat in the Abbot's chair. But it is
becoming evident that he looked more and more after the
interest of the King in the House of Commons.
CHAPTER XXII
LANCASTER AND YORK
1"^HE Speakers that were now to follow were less
transient than their immediate predecessors. But it
is to be feared they were more embarrassed. The
country was entering upon a long period of national disturb-
LANCASTER AND YORK 145
ance, of conspiracies and revolts arising out of the awakening
of the hope and design of the Yorkists to secure the suc-
cession of the Crown to the Duke of York. Such a time of
internecine strife was full of difficulty and danger for men in
high public places. Brief as was the Speaker's tenure of office,
it was heavy with responsibility and peril. The House of
Commons was Yorkist and Lancastrian according as the
influence of one or other of the Parties was in the ascendant
when the Parliament was elected. It was not an age for
timidity or vacillation. The Speaker was a bold and fearless
partisan of the Red Rose or the White. He was the mouth-
piece of the antagonism of the Commons. He was therefore
the centre or focus of the enmity of the other Party. In
this merciless as well as turbulent time, therefore, tragedies
beset the occupants of the post. Speakers were banished,
murdered, and beheaded.
In the Parliament which assembled at Westminster in
February 1449, John Say of Cambridgeshire was Speaker.
In November of the same year another Parliament was
elected to consider the situation in France. Bit by bit the
English possessions in that country were being lost, and the
hundred years' dream of making it the brightest gem in the
Crown of England was about to end in disastrous eclipse.
This Parliament was summoned to meet at Leicester, an
old Lancastrian stronghold, but owing to the threatening
aspect of affairs most of the Lords and Commons, being
strongly Yorkist, refused to meet anywhere but at West-
minster, where they would have the protection of the City of
London, with its Yorkist sympathies.
Sir John Popham of Hants, an old soldier, was chosen
Speaker on November 7, 1449. He made the customary
declaration of his unfitness to discharge the duties of so high
and arduous an office. The excuse in this instance was
genuine, for Popham was war-worn and infirm, and accord-
ingly it was admitted by the King.^
On the following day William Tresham, the lawyer and
knight of the shire for Northamptonshire, was appointed
^ Rot. Pari., vol. 5, p. 171,
146 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
for the fourtli time. Tresham was a strong partisan of the
Yorkist claims. lie was very conspicuous in urging the
demand of the Commons for the impeachment of the Chief
Minister, William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, who was
blamed for the military reverses in France, Suffolk was
banished. The vessel conveying him from England was
intercepted off the Kentish coast, and he was seized and put
to death. Tresham, the Speaker, was subsequently waylaid
on the high road at Thorpland, near Moulton, in North-
amptonshire, and slain by a band of Lancastrians.
Sir William Oldhall of Hertfordshire — a soldier who
had fought in France — was Speaker in the next Parliament,
which assembled in the winter of 1450, and was not dissolved
till June 145 1. He had been Chamberlain to Richard Duke
of York, and it was through the influence of the Yorkists
that he was selected as the spokesman of the Commons. In
1450, Jack Cade's rebellion took place. It was provoked by
the extortions of the King's officers in collecting the revenue ;
but in the belief of the supporters of the reigning dynasty
its real purpose was to advance the cause of the House of
York. Certainly, in the next Parliament, which met in
the Refectory of the Abbey at Reading on March 6, 1453,
and, having risen for Easter, reassembled on April 25 at
Westminster, Oldhall was indicted for complicity in the re-
bellion. He was found guilty, outlawed, and attainted ; but he
took sanctuary in the Chapel Royal of St. Martin's-le-Grand,
where he remained until the success of the Yorkists' cause
in the first battle of St. Albans, May 1455, brought him not
only release, but the reversal of his outlawry and attainder.
The Parliament in which Oldhall was indicted was, of
course, Lancastrian. The Speaker was Thomas Thorpe,
knight of the shire for Essex, and a strenuous supporter of
the House of Lancaster. He was a lawyer, and at the time
of his appointment as Speaker was Baron of the Exchequer.^
The Houses adjourned for Easter, to meet at Westminster
on April 25. They rose again on July 2, and reassembled
at Reading on November 12 ; but at that date Henry VI. was
* Ramsay, Lancaster and York, vol. 2, p. 160.
LANCASTER AND YORK 147
lying at Windsor Castle mentally and physically incapaci-
tated, and, as Parliament could not then even be reopened
after an adjournment save in the presence of the King or some
one authorized by him to act on his behalf, the Houses were
immediately prorogued until February 11, 1454. The King
was still unwell when Parliament met at Westminster on
that date, and consequently it was further adjourned for
three days. On February 14, however, it was opened by the
Duke of York as the representative of the King.
The Commons now found themselves without a Speaker.
Baron Thorpe, in fact, was a prisoner in the Fleet. Acting,
probably, by orders of the King, he had seized a large
quantity of arms which the Duke of York had stored in
Durham House, the residence of the Bishop of Durham ;
and, on being sued for trespass by the Duke in his own
Court of Exchequer,^ damages of ;^iooo were awarded
against him, in execution of which he was committed to
prison. The Commons declared that the imprisonment of
Thorpe was a breach of their privilege of freedom from
arrest, and they demanded his immediate liberation. The
constitutional point was referred by the Lords to the
Justices. The Chief Justice of the King's Bench at the time
was Sir John Fortescue, a great judge and the writer of The
Governance of England, one of the earliest treatises on the
English Constitution. In his report to Parliament he ex-
pressed the opinion of all the judges, that they ought not to
answer the question put to them by the Lords —
" For it hath not be used afore tyme, that the Justices
shuld in eny wyse determine the Privelegge of this High
Court of Parlement ; for it is so high and so mighty in his
nature, that it may make lawe, and that that is lawe it may
make noo lawe ; and the determination and knowledgge of
that is Privelegge belongeth to the Lordes of the Parlement
and not to the J ustices." ^
But they suggested that Thorpe might be released to
attend to his duties in Parliament, as the charge against him
^ Ramsay, Lancaster and York, vol. 2, p. 167.
"^ Rot. Pari., vol. 5, p. 248.
148 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
was not treason, felony, or surety of the peace, but simply
trespass. The Lords, however, at the prayer of the Duke
of York, came to the following resolution : " That the said
Thomas Thorpe should remain in execution, notwithstanding
his privilege as a Member and being Speaker of the House
of Commons." The Commons submitted without further
protest. Thorpe was kept in prison till he paid the ;^iooo
damages. Sir Thomas Charlton, Member for Middlesex,
was chosen in his place as Speaker for the remainder of the
Parliament, which was dissolved in April 1454. The Duke
of York was appointed Protector and Defender of the Realm
during the incapacity of the King.
CHAPTER XXIII
THE WARS OF THE ROSES
THE next Parliament met at Westminster on July 9,
1455. Only seven weeks before the Lancastrians and
Yorkists had met in deadly conflict at St. Albans, the
first battle of the long Wars of the Roses. The Yorkists
were completely victorious. Their influence, consequently,
was predominant in the Parliament. The Speaker chosen
was Sir John Wenlock, Member for Bedfordshire. He had
fought under the Lancastrian banner for the King, and was
wounded at St. Albans. Now he was a Yorkist. It was
a quick change of sides. We shall meet with other examples
of what seems to be inconsistency on the part of Speakers
before the White and Red Roses arc united.
The next Parliament was held in 1459 at Coventry. It
was opened by the King in person in the Chapter House of
St. Mary's Abbey. In sentiment it was furiously Lancastrian.
None of the Yorkist peers were summoned to the House
of Lords, and knights and burgesses who were staunch
supporters of the reigning dynasty were returned to the
Ilou.se of Commons by the Sheriffs without due election and
THE WARS OF THE ROSES 149
in obedience to letters from the King, The Speaker chosen
was Thomas Tresham, Member for Northamptonshire, and
son of William Tresham who was Speaker in 1449. The
father was assassinated for his partisanship in the interest
of the House of York. The son was just as violent a
Lancastrian. Almost the sole business of the session was
the passing of Bills of Attainder against the Duke of York
and his adherents. Conspicuous in the proceedings was the
Lancastrian ex-Speaker Thomas Thorpe ; and among the
attainted were two Yorkist ex-Speakers, Sir William Oldhall
and Sir John Wenlock, A statute was also passed declaring
that the election of all Knights of the Shire as were returned
to the Parliament " by virtue of the King's Letters " was valid.
It was passed on the petition of the Sheriffs, and was, in
fact, an Act of Indemnity to them for having packed the
Parliament with Lancastrians by command of the King.
The Parliament came to an end on December 20. It is
known as the Parlianiejitum Diabolicum.
Such was the ever-varying fortunes of the conflict that
within a few months the control of affairs was again in the
hands of the Yorkists. Their cause had received the bloody
sanction of success in battle. At Northampton, on July
10, 1460, the Lancastrians were defeated. On the follow-
ing 6th October a Parliament assembled at Westminster,
which was opened by Henry VI. in person, though he was
virtually a prisoner in the hands of the Yorkists. John
Green, Member for Essex, was chosen Speaker. The entire
proceedings at Coventry, including, of course, the attainders
against the Yorkists, were annulled, on the ground that the
Parliament was unlawfully summoned, and that the knights
and burgesses were not duly returned. It was also decided
by both Houses that on the death of the King the Crown
should descend, not to his son and heir, the Prince of Wales,
but to the Duke of York, Within a few weeks the Duke
was dead. He fell at the Battle of Wakefield, December
29, 1460, and his cause seemed to be completely
overthrown. But his son Edward, the young Earl of
March, defeated the Lancastrians at Mortimer's Cross on
150 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
February 2, 1461, and towards the end of the same month
entered London in triumph. Henry VI. fled to Scotland.
Ex-Speaker Thorpe was beheaded at Haringay, Middlesex.
Finally, Edward IV. was crowned at Westminster on June
28, 1461.
In the first Parliament of Edward IV., which met at West-
minster on November 4, 1461, Sir James Strangewaies, or
Strangeways, a lawyer of eminence and a strong partisan
of the House of York, who sat for the county of York, was
chosen Speaker He is notable among the Speakers in that
he began a custom which continued with some intermissions
down to the eighteenth century. This was the delivery by
the Speaker, on being presented by the Commons to the
King, of a fulsome address in praise of the mental and
physical qualities of the Sovereign. Strangeways' address
has fortunately been preserved. It is fully recorded in the
Rolls,^ which shows the importance attached to it by the
Parliament. It is interesting not only for its theories of
Royalty, but for the examples it affords of the literary style
and orthography of the period.
The speech thus opens : " Most Christen Kyng, right
high and mighty Prynce, and our aller most drede Soveraigne
and naturall Liege Lord " ; and then proceeds : —
" We your humble and true subgetts, the Commyns of this
your noble Reame, comyn to this your high Courte of Parle-
ment.by your high Commandment.have as grete cause to calle,
and calle to the tendernesse of our Mynde, as ever had people
lyvying under eny Christen Prynce, the honorable and noble
Devoir, that it hath pleased Your Highness to put the same in
of pryncely and knyghtly Prowesse and corage for the re-
dempcion of your scd Reame and subgetts from the Perse-
cucion and Tyrannye of your and theire great and insatiable
Ennemytees."
The King was only nineteen years of age. He was a tall
and handsome youth, of undoubted courage and great military
talent, as he had shown especially at the bloody battle of
Towton, fought on Palm Sunday, 1461, in which the
' Kol. Par!., vol. 5, p. 4C2.
THE WARS OF THE ROSES 151
Lancastrians were utterly routed. His exploits in subduing
the enemies of his House and the infamies of these adversaries
was enlarged upon by the Speaker in glowing terms, and in
the same high style the address proceeds : —
" Moost Christen Kyng, right high and myghty Prynce,
and our allermoost drede and naturall Soverayne and Liege
Lord, the noble and condigne merites, pryncely and knyghtly
corage, in the grete and victorious acts afore rehearsed, the
beauty of personage that it hath pleased Almighty God to
send you, the wisdom that, of his Grace, is annexed there-
unto, and the blessed and noble disposition and application
of your seid Highnesse to the Commyn wele and policie of
your seid Reame, and to Godd's chirch of the same, calleth
upon us to give therefor as herty and entier lovying to God
as we can ; and with all humblenesse possible thanke your
good and benigne Grace shewed to our seid redempcion and
salvacion in manner and fourme afore declared."
The Parliament recognized Edward's title to the Throne
without the need of confirmation by the Estates. It may
have come through the Wars of the Roses subdued and
chastened ; but it certainly emerged from that violent and
bloody struggle unchanged in its form or Constitution.
Neither of the protagonists, however triumphant and un-
scrupulous, intrigued against it, or attempted to introduce
any new elements into its composition, much less to destroy
it. It was essential, and therefore permanent. Each party
in its hour of success seized the machinery of Parliament,
for it was found to answer even the most autocratic and
tyrannical ends.
Despite the statute of Edward III. for the holding of
annual Parliaments, the meeting of the Houses was in-
frequent under Edward IV. In his reign of twenty-two years
there were but six meetings of the Estates. Two years
elapsed before he summoned his second Parliament. He
was not so dependent as his predecessors on the supplies
granted by the Commons, owing to the forfeitures of the
Lancastrians. But the country continued in a very dis-
turbed state, and in time the King's wealth was exhausted.
152 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Parliament, accordingly, was summoned to meet at West-
minster on April 29, 1463. John Say, Esquire, of
Hertford, who filled the Chair of the Commons in 1449,
under Henry VI., was again appointed Speaker. The next
Parliament assembled at Westminster on June 3, 1467.
Sir John Say — for he was now a knight — was chosen
Speaker for the third time.
All this time the deposed Henry VI. was in captivity.
After more than five years' imprisonment he was set free
and placed upon the Throne by Warwick, the King Maker,
in October 1470. On his summons a Parliament met
at Westminster on November 26, 1470. Here there is a
blank in the roll of Speakers. Who it was that presided
over the Commons in this the 23rd Parliament of Henry vi.
is not known. The records which declared Edward IV. a
traitor and usurper are supposed to have been destroyed by
that monarch when, having defeated and slain Warwick at
the Battle of Barnet, Easter Sunday, 1 471, he was restored
to power.
Edward IV, summoned the sixth Parliament of his reign,
which met at Westminster, October 6, 1472. The Speaker
was William Alington, Esquire, Knight of the Shire for
Cambridge, and son of William Alington, who also repre-
sented Cambridge and was Speaker in the Parliament of
Henry VI. in 1429. The Parliament elected in 1472 was
the longest that had yet been held. It was five times
prorogued, and was not dissolved until March 14, 1475. The
next Parliament assembled at Westminster on January 16,
1478. William Alington — whose services in the last Parlia-
ment had been rewarded by a pension — was chosen Speaker
for the second time. Five years elapsed before a Parlia-
ment was again summoned. It met at Westminster on
January 20, 1483. The Speaker was John Wode, Esquire,
Member for Sussex, and the son of a burgess of Horsham
in Surrey. It was the last Parliament of Edward IV. The
King died on April 9, 1483.
SPEAKERS EMPSON AND DUDLEY 153
CHAPTER XXIV
SPEAKERS EMPSON AND DUDLEY
ONE of the dying injunctions of Edward iv. was that his
brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, who had been
faithful to him through all his troubles, should take
charge of the kingdom and his family during the minority of
his eldest son Edward, then in his thirteenth year. Richard,
accordingly, was appointed Protector. His usurpation of the
Crown and the murder of the dethroned Edward v. and his
brother in the Tower belong to the broader course of history.
Richard was crowned at Westminster on July 6, 1483.
He met his first and only Parliament at Westminster on
January 23, 1484. The Speaker was William Catesby,
Esquire, one of the knights of the shire for Northampton,
who had been for years " Esquire of the Body " to the
Duke of York. He came of a family of position in that
county, a lawyer, " a man wel lerned in the lawes of this
lande," — as Sir Thomas More describes him in his History
of King Richard the Third. An Act was passed declaring
that the right, title, and estate of Richard to the Crown was
"grounded upon the lawes of God and nature; and also
upon the auncien lawes and laudable customs of this said
Reame " ; and recognizing the King's son, Prince Edward, as
heir-apparent to the Throne.^
Catesby was on the stricken field of Bosworth, August
22, 1485, when Richard was defeated by Henry Earl of
Richmond, and killed. He himself was taken prisoner, and
three days later was beheaded, without trial, at Leicester.
The victorious Earl of Richmond was crowned as
Henry VII. — the first Tudor King — on October 30, 1485. He
was then twenty-eight years of age. His first Parliament
assembled at Westminster on November 7 of the same
year. One of the knights of the shire for Northampton was
Sir Thomas Lovel, a lawyer and a member of an ancient
^ Rot. Pari., vol. 6, pp. 240-2.
154 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Norfolk family. He had shared the exile of the Earl of
Richmond, returned with him to England, and fought under
his banner at Bosworth. The Commons selected him as
Speaker.
In the second Parliament of Henry VII., which met on
November 9, 1487, Sir John Mordaunt of Bedford, who
was both soldier and lawyer, was Speaker, and in the
subsequent Parliament which met on January 14, 1489, the
Speaker was Sir Thcimas FitzWilliam. Nothing more can be
said of these Speakers than the bare mention of their names.
Indeed, there is little of note to be recorded of the Parliaments
which met during the four-and-twenty peaceful years of the
reign of Henry VII. The Estates were summoned by the
King only seven times. They met but once during the last
thirteen years of his rule. Of the Speakers, only two are re-
corded in the general history of the country ; and Empson and
Dudley — names of evil conjunction — are known to ill-fame
not as Speakers, but as cruelly extortionate tax-gatherers
outside the law. Richard Empson, one of the representatives
of Northamptonshire, was Speaker in the Parliament which
met on October 17, 1491. His father, Peter Empson of
Towcester, Northamptonshire, was a man of humble origin
and a sievemaker by trade. Richard became a lawyer, and
was so successful that he was able to purchase an estate in
Norfolk. He was knighted in 1503.
Sir Robert Drury of Suffolk was Speaker in 1495, and
Thomas Ingelfield, or Englefield, of Berkshire, was Speaker
in 1497.^ The Estates were not summoned again until
1504. In ,this Parliament, which was the last of Henry Vll.,
Edmund Dudley was Speaker. He was the son of John
^ Manning, in his Lives of the Speakers, stales that Sir Reginald Bray, the
eminent architect, whose genius survives in St. George's Chapel, W^indsor,
and the Chapel of Henry vii. in Westminster Abbey, was Speaker in
1497. There is no mention of Bray in the " Rolls of Parliament," but
there is of Engelficld, or " Ingclfcld " — as his name is therein rendered
— as Speaker of the only Parliament of 1497 of which we have certain
knowledge. Manning also says that Bray sat for Bedfordshire. It is
likely that Bray was in llic Pailiamcnt of 1497; but there is no authority for
saying that he occupied the Chair.
!
SIR THOMAS MORE AS SPEAKER 155
Dudley of Atherington, Sussex, who was Sheriff of that
county in 1485. He was at Oxford University, and was
called to the Bar. In conjunction with Empson he formul-
ated a scheme for the raising of money without the consent
of Parliament, which received the sanction of the King. In
carrying out their scheme they reported to the most oppres-
sive forms of chicanery, fraud, and oppression ; and so
successful were they in their extortions that at his death
Henry Vll. was able to leave a horde of two millions sterling
to his heir, Henry VIII. The exaction of these illegal taxes
and penalties, fines and ransoms, naturally raised up a host
of enemies against Empson and Dudley. So widespread
and fierce was the outcry against them that the young King,
Henry VIII., had to yield to it shortly after his succession.
They were convicted of constructive treason, — a groundless
or at least frivolous charge trumped up against them to
bring them to the block, — and both were beheaded on Tower
Hill in 1 5 10.
CHAPTER XXV
SIR THOMAS MORE AS SPEAKER
HENRY VIII., the second son of Henry vil., who
became heir-apparent on the death of his elder
brother, Arthur, in 1502, ascended the Throne on
April 22, 1509. He was eighteen years of age at the
time, and one of the handsomest and most intellectually
gifted of the Princes of Europe. The Coronation took place
at Westminster Abbey on June 25, 1509.
The first Parliament of the reign met at Westminster on
January 22, 15 10. Sir Thomas Ingelfield of Berkshire, who
was Speaker in 1497, and had been knighted by Henry VII.,
was again called to the Chair of the House of Commons.
In the course of his speech at the Bar of the House of Lords
he praised the King for the gifts of nature, fortune, and grace
which God so liberally bestowed upon him, and enlarged
156 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
more particularly on His Majesty's "promising valour,
wonderful temperance, divine moderation, and justice,"
The second Parliament of Henry VIII, met on February 5,
1 5 12. The Speaker was Sir Robert Sheffield, one of the
Knights of the Shire for Lincoln. He was succeeded in
the next Parliament, which assembled on February 6,
1 5 15, by Thomas Neville of Mereworth, Kent, one of the
Members for that county, upon whom the King bestowed
the dignity of knighthood.
Eight years elapsed before another Parliament was
summoned. It met on April 16, 1523. The Speaker
was perhaps the greatest man that ever sat in the Chair
of the House of Commons, Sir Thomas More, though the
lustre which his name and reputation carry undimmed
through the centuries was obtained for virtue and genius
unassociated with the Speakership. He was born in the
City of London in 1478, the son of a barrister who subse-
quently became a Judge of the King's Bench, and was
brought up in the household of Cardinal Morton, Archbishop
of Canterbury, Having been called to the Bar, Henry vill.
gave him a position at the Court, and he rose so rapidly in
the favour of the King that he was knighted in 1521, and
received more substantial marks of the royal favour in the
form of grants of land in Oxfordshire and Kent.
In the Parliament of 1523, More sat for Middlesex. It
met not at Westminster, but in the monastery of the dark-
robed Dominicans, known as " Black Friars," lower down
the river Thames ; and here it was that More, having been
chosen Speaker on the recommendation of Cardinal Wolsey,
then Lord Chancellor and all-powerful, was presented to
the King for the royal approbation. He had a cultivated
gift of speech, and no doubt a fine outburst of eloquence
was expected of him on this interesting occasion. He
began with the traditional affected protestation of unfitness
for the office. He told the story of Hannibal, who went by
invitation to hear the philosopher Phornico on chivalry.
" What an arrant fool I " cried the warrior, " to presume to
teach me, who am already master of chivalry and all the
I
SIR THOMAS MORE
KROM THE ENGRAVING BV T. CHEESMAN AKTER THE DKAWING IN CHALKS
BV HOI.BEIN AT WINDSOR CASTLE
SIR THOMAS MORE AS SPEAKER 157
arts of war." " So," said More, " if I should presume to
speak before His Majesty of learning and the well-ordering
of Government, or suchlike matters, the King, who is so
deeply learned, such a master of prudence and experience,
might say to me as Hannibal said to Phornico." Where-
fore he humbly besought His Majesty to command the
Commons to choose another as Speaker. But the King
had no intention of doing anything of the kind. Wolsey
declared that His Majesty was well acquainted with More's
wit, learning, and discretion, and therefore thought the
Commons had selected the fittest person of them all to be
Speaker.^
More then made two petitions to the King. The first
was on his own behalf. If, when speaking for the Commons,
he should by mischance mistake their message, "and for
lack of good utterance, by my misreporting, pervert or
impair their prudent instructions, it may then please your
most noble Majesty of your abundant grace to pardon my
simplicity," and give him liberty to confer with the
Commons again, so that their " prudent advices and affairs "
should not by his folly be hindered or prejudiced. The
second petition was in the interest of the Commons. It
was that the King should interpret every man's word, " how
unseemly so ever couched," as inspired by zeal for the
prosperity of the kingdom and the honour of His Majesty.
More next proceeded to give a most interesting analysis of
parliamentary discussion and oratory, which is still fresh
and pertinent, for human nature remains the same amid the
changes of the centuries. He said it could not be doubted
that the House of Commons was an assembly of "wise
and politique" persons.
" Yet, most victorious Prince," he continued, "sith, among
so many wise men, neither is every man wise alike, nor,
among so many alike, well-witted, every man alike well-
spoken ; and it often happeth that likewise as much folly is
uttered with painted, polished speech, so, many boisterous
and rude in language, see deep indeed and are of sound
^ Hall, Chronicles, 652-3 (1809 edition).
158 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
judgment and prove the wiser counsellors. And sith also
in matters of great importance, the mind is often so taken
up in them, that a man rather studieth what to say than
how ; by reason whereof the wisest men and best spoken in
a whole country, fortuneth, while his mind is ferment in the
business, somewhat to speak in such wise as he would after-
ward wish to have been uttered otherwise, and yet no worse
will had he when he spake it, than he hath when he would
so gladly change it." ^
One of the first historic parliamentary scenes of which
we have contemporary accounts occurred during More's
Speakership. For the prosecution of the war with France
the King demanded the then enormous sum of ;^8oo,ooo, to
be raised by a tax of four shillings in the pound on all
men's lands and goods; and, in order to overcome the expected
opposition of the independent Members to the subsidy,
VVolsey attended the meeting of the Commons. He came
in state as Cardinal Archbishop of York, Papal Legate, Lord
High Chancellor, the proudest and most powerful man in
the Realm, second only to the King, fierce, rash, and im-
petuous, wearing his ecclesiastical crimson robes, attended
by a retinue of prelates and peers in scarlet and gold,
sure that with all this pomp and splendour he who was
accustomed to drive his chariot with triumphant ease over
the necks of his prostrate foes would easily overawe the
Commons. But the Cardinal and Lord Chancellor, despite
all his glowing magnificence, was coldly and sullenly re-
ceived by the Commons. They were enraged and dismayed
by this violation of the privacy of their deliberations, from
which every outsider, however exalted, was by ancient right
excluded. Wolsey made a great speech, which the House
received in resentful silence. He had thrown himself against
perhaps the strongest and most abiding passion that has
ever and always animated the Commons — the upholding
' The speech is given at length, probably from a draft of it left by More in The
Mirrotir of Vcrtue in Worldly Greatness, or The Life of Sir Thoinas More,
Knight, some time Lord Chancellor of England, which was written by William
Roper, More's son-in-law.
J
SIR THOMAS MORE AS SPEAKER 159
of the independence of their House. " Masters," said he,
" you have many wise and learned men amongst you, and
sith I am from the King's own person sent hither unto you
for the preservation of yourselves and all the realm, I
think it meet you give me some reasonable answer." Still,
not a sound broke the spell of the impassive and resentful
silence of the Commons. "Whereat every man holding his
peace," says Roper in his Life of Sir Thomas More, " then
began he to speak to one Master Marney, afterward Lord
Marney. ' How say you,' quoth he, * Master Marney ? ' who,
making him no answer neither, he severally asked the same
question of divers others accounted the wisest of the
company." But no one spoke. As the custom was, only
their spokesman, Mr. Speaker, should express their views.
Then the reason of their silence appeared to dawn upon
Wolsey. " Masters," he exclaimed, " unless it be the manner
of your House, as in likelihood it is, by the mouth of your
Speaker, whom you have chosen for trusty and wise (as indeed
he is), in such cases to utter your minds, here is without
doubt a marvellous obstinate silence."
The Cardinal and Lord Chancellor then turned to the
Speaker and asked for an answer. More, as Speaker, was
the defender of the liberties of the House. He did not
meet this outrage on the privilege of the Commons by any
daring and rash condemnation. On the contrary, he dis-
played the utmost deference of expression and demeanour,
but at the same time he met Wolsey with the weapon he
had best at command — the weapon of dialectical acumen.
Humbly falling on his knees before the Cardinal and Lord
Chancellor, he begged his Grace to excuse the silence of the
House. The Commons, he said, were "abashed in the
presence of so noble a personage, who was able to amaze
the wisest and most learned in the land " ; and, moreover,
" for them to make answer was neither expedient nor
agreeable with the ancient liberty of the House." More
then went on to explain in an ingenious passage his own
inability to give a reply to the Cardinal's question. It was
true that all the Members had with their voices trusted
i6o THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
him as Speaker. " Yet," he added, except every one of them
could put into his head all their " several wits, he alone in
so weighty a matter was unmeet to make His Grace answer."
The Cardinal, thus baffled and beaten by the impassivity
of the Commons and the intellectual acumen of their
Speaker, departed in a rage. That evening he encountered
the Speaker at a reception in his gallery at Whitehall. " I
would to God you had been at Rome, Mister More, when
I made you Speaker," he cried. " Your Grace not offended,
so would I, too, my Lord ; for then I should have seen
the place I long have desired to visit," said More in a
characteristic pleasantry.^
It is not so certain that More exhibited the manly and
independent spirit with which Roper credits him. VVolsey
in the end had his way in regard to the subsidy, and in
getting it he was aided by More. In the State Papers
relating to the times of Henry VIII. there is preserved a
letter, written shortly after the dissolution of Parliament in
the autumn of the same year, and addressed to the King " at
your Manor of Hampton Court, the 24th day of August,
by your most humber chaplain, T. Card, Ebor" which was
delivered by More personally to Henry. It shows that
More gave entire satisfaction to Wolsey by his conduct
in the Chair, and that the most cordial relations existed
between them.
Wolsey says : " And, Sire, whereas it hath been ac-
customed that the Speaker of the Parliaments, in con-
sideration of their diligence and pains taken, have had,
though Parliament had been right soon finished, above the
;^ioo ordinary, a reward of ;^ioo for the better maintenance
of their household, and other charges sustained in the same."
He adds: " I suppose. Sir, that the faithful diligence of the
.said Sir Thomas in all your causes treated in this your late
Parliament, as well for your subsidy right honourably
passed, as otherwise considered, no man could better deserve
the same than he hath done ; wherefore, your pleasure known
' Sec the biofjraphics of More by his son-in-law, William Roper, and Cresacre
More, his great-grandson.
THE SPEAKERS OF HENRY VHI i6i
therein, I shall cause the same to be advanced to him
accordingly — ascertaining Your Grace that I am the rather
moved to put Your Highness in remembrance thereof,
because he is not the most ready to speak and solicit his
own cause." ^
The fee and allowance to More as Speaker were con-
firmed by the King.
CHAPTER XXVI
THE SPEAKERS OF HENRY VIH
OVER six years elapsed before a new Parliament was
summoned. It met under the shadow of mighty
coming events. Wolsey was in disgrace for having
exercised jurisdiction and authority as the Pope's Legate in
usurpation of the King's power as established by the Courts
of law. More succeeded him as Lord Chancellor, the first
layman to fill an office that by ancient custom had hitherto
been always held by an ecclesiastic.
The opening stage of the Reformation, the casting off by
the Crown and Nation of allegiance to the Papacy under
Henry vni., was about to be enacted, to be further developed
by the doctrinal changes introduced under Edward VI., and
completed by the final establishment of the Protestant religion
under Elizabeth.
The new Parliament met on November 3, 1529, and
continued in existence for seven years. It was prorogued
from year to year — an unusual course at this period of
parliamentary history — until it was dissolved on April 14,
1536. The Assembly took place at the monastery of the
Black Friars. Hall, in his Chronicles, relates that the
Mass of the Holy Ghost was first solemnly sung. "And
after the Masse," he goes on, " the Kyng, with all the Lordes
' See Introduction by Mr. J. S. Brewer to the Letters atid Papers of the
Reipt 0/ Henry viii., vol. 3, part I, p. ccxii. This letter is also given in the
Rev. T. E. Bridgett's Life and M'ritmgs of Sir Thomas More, pp. 193-4.
II
i62 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
of the Parliament and the Commons which wer somened to
apcre at that day, came in to the ParHament Chamber,
where the Kyng sat on his throne, or seate royal, and Sir
Thomas More, his Chauncelor, standying on the right hand
of the Kyng, behynde the Barre, made an eloquent oracion."
More concluded his speech with the following injunction to
the Commons : —
"And because you of the Common house be a grosse
multitude and cannot speake all at one time : Therefore
the Kynge's pleasure is that you shall resorte to the nether
house, and there amongst your self, accordying to the olde
and auncient custome, to chose an able person to be your
common mouth and Speaker ; and after yourc election so
made to advertise his Grace thereof, which wyll declare to
you his pleasure what day he wil have hym present in this
place." ^
The Commons elected as Speaker, Thomas Audley,
attorney of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Knight of the
Shire for Essex. ParHament then adjourned to Westminster,
On November 6, Audley was presented to the King, and,
protesting that he lacked the wit, learning, and discretion
necessary for the high office which had been imposed upon
him against his will, besought His Majesty to cause the
Commons to chose another as Speaker. Of course, the
request met with the customary royal refusal. Audley,
who was a Court favourite, had, in fact, been selected by
Henry. " The Kyng," says Hall, " by the mouth of the Lord
Chancellor, answered that where he disabled hym selfe in
wit and learnying, his own ornate oracion there testified the
contrary ; and as touching his discretion and other qualities,
the Kyng him self had well knowen him and his doynges, sith
he was in his service, to be both wise and discrete, and so for
an able man he accepted him, and for the Speaker he him
admitted."
Audley was Speaker for four years of the Parliament.
In May 1532, More, finding himself unable conscientiously
to support Henry in seeking to obtain from the Pope a Bull
' Hall, Chronicles, 764.
THE SPEAKERS OF HENRY VHI 163
to divorce the first of his wives, Catherine of Aragon, with
a view to his marriage with Anne Boleyn, resigned the office
of Lord Chancellor. The Great Seal was given by the King
to Audley. He was called Keeper of the Great Seal, the
title of Lord Chancellor being withheld from him, though he
discharged all the legal duties of the office, in order that he
might still continue to act as Speaker. In January 1533 he
was constituted Lord Chancellor, and thereupon resigned the
Speakership.
The next occupant of the Chair of the House of
Commons was Humphrey Wingfield, who was also a
lawyer, and a Knight of the Shire for Suffolk. He was
chosen on February 5, 1533, and acted as Speaker until
April 4, 1536, when the Parliament — the longest that had
yet been held — was after many prorogations finally dissolved-
Within a month of the dissolution of the Reformation
Parliament, which is sometimes also called the " Black
Parliament," writs were issued for a fresh election under
the pressure of trouble in the domestic life of the King.
The Houses assembled at Westminster on June 8, 1536,
and the Parliament was opened by Henry with a new
Queen, Jane Seymour, whom he had married the day after
Anne Boleyn was beheaded on Tower Hill, about a fort-
night previously.
Sir Richard Rich, Member for Essex, was appointed
Speaker. Born in the City of London, he was bred to the
law, and in 1533 was appointed Solicitor-General and
knighted. He was one of the meanest unscrupulous tools
in the hands of Henry vili., and, indeed, throughout his
life was a typical time-server, taking care always to be
on the winning side. At the trial of More he played a
detestably base part. He was examined as a witness, and
by retailing a private conversation which he alleged he had
with More in the Tower of London, supplied just the evidence
that was deemed necessary to condemn More for hi'^h
treason. More, he said, protested, among other things, that
Parliament had no more right to set aside the Pope and
make Henry the supreme head of the Church than it had to
1 64 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
declare that God should not be God. " In good faith, Mr
Rich," said More, after hearing his evidence, " I am more
sorry for your perjury than for mine own peril."
On presenting himself to the King as Speaker, Rich made
a most fulsome speech in praise of Henry. It is recorded
in the Journals of the House of Lords in Latin, the language
in which for many years the Clerk of the Parliaments
learnedly kept his records. Rich began by extolling the
King for his amazing gifts of mind and person. He was
like Solomon for his justice and prudence, Samson for
strength and fortitude, and Absalom for beauty and come-
liness. As for himself, he was but a worm grovelling in the
mire. The Commons had unaccountably chosen him, " the
most unworthy of them all," for the exalted honour of the
Speakership. Surely the King would see that he had not
the learning, experience, and boldness fit for the office, and
accordingly would at once direct the Commons to appoint
another in his place. But the King, speaking through Lord
Chancellor Audley, refused to look upon Rich's excuses as
just.^
The Parliament was very brief It lasted only five
weeks. At its dissolution, Rich again addressed the King
in terms of flattery more exaggerated still. His Majesty
was now like unto the sun. Just as the sun expels all
noxious vapours and brings forth the seeds, plants, and fruits
necessary for the support of human life, so the King, he
said, enacted only such laws as would be a defence to the
good and a great terror to evil-doers.^
The next Parliament of Henry VIII. assembled at West-
minster on April 28, 1539. After High Mass of the Holy
Ghost, which was celebrated at Westminster Abbey, there
was a grand procession to the Palace of Westminster of the
King, attended by the officers of the Household, the Lords
' Lords Journals, vol. I, p. lOI.
- In the reign of Edward vi., Rich was made a peer and appointed Lord
Chancellor. Under Mary, according to Foxc's Book of Martyrs, he was active
in burning Protestants in Essex, where he had his country scat, regarding it, no
dou'il, as an agreeable recreation in his retirement from public life.
THE SrEAKERS OF HENRY VHI 165
and the Commons. Nineteen abbots appeared in the
House of Lords for the last time this session, for by the dis-
solution of the great monasteries the ancient monastic life
was brought to an end in England.
The Speaker chosen by the Commons was Sir Nicholas
Hare, one of the representatives of Norfolk, by whom the
long line of lawyers as occupants of the Chair was continued.
On February 23, 1540, Hare, while still Speaker, was
deprived of his offices and committed to the Tower by order
of the Star Chamber. According to Hall's Chronicles, his
offence was that, with other King's counsel, he advised Sir
John Skelton how to make a fraudulent will to the violation
of the Sovereign's prerogative. He was released, however,
in the Easter term of 1540, and on April 12, when a new
session of the Parliament was opened, he was again in the
Chair.
On July 24, 1540, when Henry dissolved the Parliament,
Hare addressed His Majesty in a speech in which he com-
pared the English Constitution to a microcosm " in which
the King was the head, the Peers the body, and the
Commons the rest of the machine " ; and, turning from
political philosophy to courtly adulation, he " congratulated
the kingdom, and thought great praises were due to God,
for the blessing of such a ruler" as Henry Vlli.
Sir Thomas Moyle, a Cornishman, who sat for Kent, and
a lawyer, was Speaker in the Parliament of 1 542. Of him it
is recorded that in his speech to the King he was the first
to include in his petitions on behalf of the Commons the
claim for freedom of speech.
Henry, at the opening of the Parliament, received a
remarkably loyal greeting from the Estates, of which the
inspiration was the discovery of the unfaithfulness of his fifth
wife, Catherine Howard. Lord Chancellor Audley, in a
long speech, extolled the understanding and wisdom of His
Majesty. At each mention of the King's name every peer
rose from his seat and bowed ; and at the conclusion of the
address Lords and Commons together went on their knees in
thanksgiving to God for His goodness to them in having
1 66 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
permitted so pfreat a prince to rule over them so long.^ The
session was also marked by a constitutional departure,
owing to this fresh domestic trouble of the King. The Bill
for the attainder of the Queen on a charge of high treason
having passed both Houses, His Majesty, at the solicitation
of Lords and Commons, spared himself the grievous distress
of appearing at Westminster in person to listen to the
recitation of it, and conveyed the Royal Assent by Letters
Patent issued under the Great Scal.-
There were two other Parliaments of Henry VIII. — one ot
which met on January 30, 1545, and the other on November
23, 1545- All the contemporary authorities are curiously
silent with regard to the Speakers. It may be that Moyle
was re-elected in both Parliaments.
The first session of the second of these Parliaments was
prorogued by the King on Christmas Eve, 1545. The usual
address was made by the Speaker, and it contained the
customary compliments to the Sovereign. The Lord
Chancellor rose to reply in the King's name, when Henry
unexpectedly intervened and asked to be allowed to speak
in his own person. His remarks are deeply interesting, for
they give his view of the flattering orations of the Speakers.
He said he regarded such expressions as rhetoric, intended
to put him in remembrance of qualities which he lacked,
and which he would use his endeavours to obtain, if the
Commons helped him with their prayers.^ This was the
last appearance of Henry Vlll. before the Lords and
Commons. He died on the following January 28, 1547.
^ Lords Journal s, vol. I, p. 164.
^ Ibid., pp. 171-6. This course has now for many years been invariably
followed in giving the Rr)yal Assent to Bills that have passed both Houses.
^ Hall, in his Chrouitics (p. 864), gives the speech, "as near as I was able
to report it."
UNDER EDWARD VI. AxND MARY 167
CHAPTER XXVII
UNDER EDWARD VI. AND MARY
IN the succeeding reign of Edward VI. there were only
two Parhaments. The first assembled at Westminster
on November 4, 1547. It was opened in person by the
boy King, then only ten years of age, accompanied by his
uncle, the Duke of Somerset, who was appointed Protector.
Sir John Baker, Member for Huntingdonshire, was appointed
Speaker. The Parliament lasted, with several prorogations,
for nearly five years. In its first session the meeting-place
of the Commons was changed from the Chapter House of
Westminster Abbey to St. Stephen's Chapel in the Palace
of Westminster. This ancient chapel, dating back to the
reign of Edward I., became vested in the Crown on the
passing of the statute for the suppressing of free chapels in
the reign of Henry VIII., and was allotted by Edward vi. for
the accommodation of the Commons. Here the elected
representatives of the people held their sittings, with but
few exceptions, until the old Palace of Westminster was
destroyed by fire in 1834.
The second and last Parliament of Edward VI. assembled
at Westminster on March i, 1553. The King was so far
gone in consumption that he was unable to go to West-
minster, and accordingly both Houses proceeded to the
Palace of Whitehall, when the Parliament was opened in
the presence of the sick Sovereign. James Dyer, Member
for Cambridgeshire, was appointed Speaker.
His election is the first recorded in the Journals of the
House of Commons, which began with the meeting of the
first Parliament of Edward vi., though there is no mention
in them of its Speaker, Sir John Baker. The account in
the Journals of the opening of the second Parliament states
that " before the King's Majesty in his royal seat at the
Palace in the Waiting Chamber," the Lord Chancellor
(Lord Rich) declared the causes for the calling of the
i68 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Parliament, and "shewed the King's pleasure to be that
the Commons at their accustomed place should choose their
Speaker." The first official description of the election of a
Speaker is as follows : " On Thursday, 2° Martii, was chosen
to be Speaker, first nominate by Mr. Treasurer of the King's
House, the right worshipful Mr. James Dyer, one of the
King's Majesty's Servients at the Law, and set in the Chair."
This was on Wednesday. On the Saturday following, at
2 o'clock in the afternoon, Dyer was presented to the King
at the Palace of Whitehall. " Mr. Speaker," says the
Journals, " made his ornate oration before the King's
Majesty, in his Royal Scat at the Waiting Chamber afore-
said, all the Nobles and Commons called to the Parliament
then and there attendant."^ The Parliament lasted only
a month. It was dissolved on March 31, 1553. The King
died on the following July 6, in the sixteenth year of
his age.
Mary, daughter of Henry VIII. by his first wife, Catherine
of Aragon, was forty-seven years old when, on the death of
Edward, she succeeded to the Throne. A fervent Roman
Catholic, she at once proceeded to abolish the Protestantism
set up by her father and step-brother. In those times every
Sovereign found in Parliament a convenient and docile
instrument for effecting his or her own particular policy,
no matter how violent a departure it might be from what
had been done before. As Parliament subserviently decreed
whatever seemed serviceable to Henry VIII. and Edward
VI., for the transfer to the Crown of all the ecclesiastical
powers and privileges hitherto acknowledged to have been
vested in the Pope, and the establishment of the Protestant
Church in England, so, under Mary, Parliament with equally
singular obsequiousness passed any measure that was thought
necessary by the Queen to restore the ancient Roman
Catholic faith to its pristine glory in the land. All the Acts
in favour of the Reformation were repealed. Married clergy-
men were expelled from their parishes. Celibacy was restored
as a condition of the priesthood. The Protestant prayer-book
' Commons Journals, vol. i, p. 24.
UNDER EDWARD VI. AND MARY 169
of Edward was burned. The Mass was revived as the form
of public worship.
The first Parliament of Mary met at Westminster on
October 5, 1553. The cspening of the Assembly was pre-
ceded by the singing of the High Mass of the Holy Ghost
in Westminster Abbey, at which the Queen and the Lords
and Commons were present. Once more the office of Lord
Chancellor was filled by a prelate, Gardiner, Bishop of
Winchester, who lay in the Tower during the reign of
Edward vi. The Speaker chosen by the Commons was
John Pollard, a Devon man, who sat for Oxfordshire. Ac-
cording to custom, he was the selection of the Court. The
Journals record runs : —
" And immediately at the Common House, by the first
motion and nomination of Mr. Treasurer of the Queen's
House, the worshipful Mr. John Pollard, Esquire, excellent
in the Law of this Realm, was chosen to be Speaker and
sat in the Chair."
It was in the second Parliament of Mary, which met at
Westminster on April 2, 1554, that the long succession of
Knights of the Shire as Speakers was broken by the
appointment of a citizen to the Chair. This was Robert
Brooke, Member for the City of London. But he was a
lawyer, — serjeant-at-law and Recorder of London, — so
that the monopoly of the Speakership by gentlemen bred
to the law nevertheless remained uninterrupted. An Act
was passed by this Parliament authorizing the marriage of
Mary with Philip of Spain. Brooke was shortly afterwards
knighted and made Chief Justice of the Common Pleas.
The most notable Parliament of the reign was the next
— the first Parliament of Philip and Mary, — which met on
November 12, 1554. It was thoroughly Roman Catholic in
its sympathies. Following the example of almost all her
ancestors on the Throne, Mary took care that Parliament
should be packed with supporters of her policy. In a letter
to the Sheriffs, as returning officers, she commanded them
to admonish her good loving subjects to return to the
I70 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
House of Commons, kni^^hts, citizens, and burgesses "of
the wise, grave, and Catholic sort." In this Parliament sat
Clement Heigham, for the borough of Portpigham, other-
wise West Looe, in Cornwall. lie came of an ancient
Suffolk family, and was a strong adherent of the Roman
Catholic faith. The Commons, according to the Journals,
"did elect and choose the Right Worshipful Mr. Clement
Heigham, Esquire, one of the Privy Council, to be their
Mouth and Speaker, who was brought to the Chair by
Mr. Treasurer and Mr. Comptroller." Here is also recorded
for the first time in the Journals the Speaker's petition for
the privileges of the House of Commons made at the com-
mencement of every Parliament. " Mr. Speaker," says the
Journals, dealing with the presentation of Heigham to their
Majesties, " made an excellent oration, comparing a body
politick to a body natural, and in the end made three
petitions, namely — for Free Speech in the House, privilege
from Arrest and Troubles for the Common House and their
Servants, and to have access to the King and Queen for the
cases of the House, which, being granted, the Lord Chancellor
prorogued the Court until the Saturday following." ^
There was a brief Parliament in 1555, lasting from
October 21 to December 9, in which John Pollard, who now
sat for the borough of Chipenham, was again Speaker of the
House of Commons. The last Parliament of Philip and
Mary met on January 20, 1558. William Cordell, knight of
the shire for Suffolk, was chosen Speaker. One of his observa-
tions, interesting from a Speaker of the House of Commons,
has been preserved in Lloyd's State Worthies. " There is no
man that talks, but I may gain by him ; and none that holds
his tongue, but I may lose by him." While still Speaker he
was knighted by the Oucen and appointed Master of the
Rolls. The Parliament was dissolved by the death of Mary
on November 17, 1558.
' Co/iinious ffournalSf vol. i, p. 37.
THE ELIZABETHAN PARLIAMENTS 171
CHAPTER XXVIII
THE ELIZABETHAN PARLIAMENTS
ELIZABETH was in her twenty-fifth year on her
accession to the Throne. She was crowned at West-
minster Abbey on Sunday, January 15, 1559. Mean-
time the writs had been issued for the election of a new
ParHament. The Protestant rehgion was to be restored
and finally established. " The Catholics," says Froude, " left
the field to their adversaries, and town and country chose their
representatives among those who were most notorious for
their hatred of popes and priesthoods." The Parliament
assembled at Westminster on January 23, 1559. It was
opened by the young Queen in person.
Sir Nicholas Bacon (father of the more famous Lord
Chancellor, Francis Bacon) having explained to the Lords
and Commons the causes for which they had been sum-
moned, concluded by declaring the Queen's pleasure to be
that the Commons should repair to their accustomed place
and there choose their Speaker. Sir Thomas Gargrave, a
soldier as well as a lawyer, who represented the county of
York, was the selection of the Commons. He was nomin-
ated by " Mr. Treasurer of the Queen's House," according
to D' Ewes' /o2irnals. And now evidence is forthcoming, for
the first time, that it was customary for the Speaker humbly
to protest his incapacity on being led to the Chair in the
House of Commons, as well as subsequently to the Sovereign
at the Bar of the House of Lords. Gargrave declared to
the Commons his utter unfitness for the post, and appealed
to them to select some one else more able and worthy. But
his protests were unheeded. He was led reluctantly
to the Chair, and placed in it. " Having sat awhile
covered," says D'Ewes, "he arose, and so standing bare-
headed he returned his humble thanks to the whole
House for their good opinion of 'him, and promised
his best and uttermost endeavour for the faithful dis-
1/2 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
charge of the mighty place to which they had elected
him."^
In fact, out of the fabric of secrecy in which they had so
sedulously enclosed themselves for centuries, the Commons
have now emerged. No glimpse whatever was afforded us
of the aspect of the interior of the Chapter House of West-
minster Abbey as the Commons sat there in deliberation.
But the doors of St. Stephen's Chapel have been unlocked
to us, and we can gaze on the scene inside as long and as
curiously as we please. The Jourtials of the House of
Covimons^ which began in 1 547 — twelve years before the
period at which we have now arrived, tell us not only of the
things that were done, but how they were done, with many
refreshing descriptive details. There are also some contem-
porary accounts of the House of Commons and its proceed-
ings, written by Members who, moved by a human interest in
things, took notes which happily were put into print, though
not until the writers were long since dead and gone.
The first of those authorities who have thus enabled us
clearly to see the Speaker in the Chair, for the first time,
is Sir Thomas Smith, Secretary of State in the reigns of
Edward VI. and Elizabeth, who wrote TJie Commomvcalth of
England, the first descriptive account extant of the procedure
of the Houses of Parliament. He died in 1 577. That was
exactly two centuries after the first Speaker was appointed.
The next writer was that learned antiquary, John Hooker,
who went to Ireland in the sixth decade of the sixteenth
century, and from his previous experiences as a Member
of the I'^nglish House of Commons compiled The Order
and Usage of Keeping of the Parliaments in England for the
guidance of the Irish House of Commons, to which he was
also returned. The next authority, and the most valuable
of all, is Sir Simonds D'Ewcs, a Puritan Member of the
Long Parliament during the Civil War, who collected
fournals of all the Parliajnents during the Reign of Queen
Elizabeth.
On the opening of a new Parliament the Sovereign sat
' H'VLyits, Journals, 15-17.
THE ELIZABETHAN PARLIAMENTS 173
on the Throne in the House of Lords, surrounded by the
three Estates of the Realm, the Lords spiritual and
temporal, and the Commons. Since the reign of James II
the Speaker has been elected before the Sovereign makes
the Speech from the Throne. In the time of Elizabeth
the ancient custom prevailed of the causes for the summon-
ing of the Parliament being first declared before the
Commons were commanded by the Sovereign to choose a
Speaker. This direction or permission from the Crown
appears — as I have already stated — for the first time on the
occasion of the election of Sir Arnold Savage to the Chair,
140 1, in the second Parliament of Henry IV. After that it
regularly occurs. By the time of Elizabeth it is regarded as
an indispensable proceeding, without which the choice of a
Speaker would be null and void.
The Commons, having thus got the authority of the
Crown to elect a Speaker, retired to St. Stephen's Chapel.
Were they, at this time, free and untrammelled in their
selection ? Sir Thomas Smith, who as a Secretary of State
ought to know, says the Speaker was commonly appointed
by the King or Queen, though accepted by the assent of the
Commons. Sir Edward Coke, the eminent lawyer, who also
ought to know, for he was an Elizabethan Speaker, says in
the Fourth of his Institutes : —
" It is true that the Commons are to choose their
Speaker, but seeing that after their choice the King may
refuse him, for avoiding the expense of time and contesta-
tion, the use is that the King doth name a discreet and
learned man, whom the Commons elect." ^
On the other hand, D'Ewes asserts that the choice
of Speaker lay absolutely with the Commons. But it can
hardly be disputed that until the Revolution, at least, if the
Speaker was not actually nominated by the Crown, the
Commons were guided in their selection by the wish of the
Sovereign, or his most intimate advisers and servitors. In
times of national crises, when the interests of Crown and
* Tlu Instiiutes of the Laws of England, part 4, p. S (1648).
174 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
people came into conflict, the Sovereign, with a view to the
return of a complaisant House of Commons, interfered, as
we have seen, in parliamentary elections to the extent of
commandinj^ the Sheriffs to secure the election of reliable
Members. It may be inferred from this that the Sovereign
also used his tremendous influence and power to induce, if
not to compel, the Commons to elect a Speaker devoted to
his cause. He was not so much concerned to know the
wishes and claims of the House of Commons, as to secure
its co-operation in the carrying out of his designs, which he
could not effect without its help. We therefore find at this
period the Speaker, as the servant of the King, not only
advising the House as to the course it should take, but
actually enjoining that this must be done, or that.
During the long reign of Elizabeth, extending to forty-
five years, only ten Parliaments were summoned. In these
Parliaments the Speaker was invariably proposed by a
Member of the Queen's Council or an officer of the
Household, — dependent on the good graces of the Sovereign,
— and the royal nominee was always a lawyer. In the
earlier Parliaments there was an objection to lawyers, because
they seemed to have more at heart their professional
advancement than the interests of the nation. By a statute
passed in 1372, and renewed in 1404, lawyers were made
ineligible for membership of the House of Commons. This
ban, however, had long since been removed. Gentlemen
bred to the law were returned to Parliament in large
numbers. Indeed, from the reign of Henry Vll. to the
Revolution, a period of two hundred years, the Chair was
held by lawyers in succession, except in the solitary instance
of Sir Edward Seymour, — a noted Speaker in one of the
Parliaments of Charles il., — and he was ultimately sacrificed
to the royal disapprobation. Probably it was not easy to
find outride the lawyers, gentlemen trained in the manage-
ment of affairs, and with the needful knowledge of
Constitutional law and procedure successfully to fill the
position of Speaker. But it is to be feared that the chief
reason why sturdy and independent squires were set aside
THE ELIZABETHAN PARLIAMENTS 175
and lawyers were nominated for the Chair by the Crown,
was that the very calling of the lawyers made them
obsequious and subservient to the will and passions of the
Sovereign, for it was only by the Crown their desire for
advancement in their profession could be gratified.
Thus the Speaker was at once the mouth of the Commons
and the servant of the King. His duties in these separate
and distinct capacities were often conflicting. But the
Commons could confer on him no rewards or honours.
Neither could they punish him for betraying them, if while
false to them he was true to the King. He was recompensed
solely according to his zeal for the interests of the King.
Only through the good grace and pleasure of the King could
his ambition be realized. And if from the King he had
everything to gain, so from the King he had everything to
lose, save the approval of his conscience ; for with the King
lay also the power of depriving him of liberty, of property,
and even of life.
Was there much scheming and contriving, much exercise
of influence and pressure, on behalf of rival claimants or
candidates for this high post of distinction and advancement ?
One would suppose, from the disabling speech of the Speaker-
elect, that his nomination took him completely by surprise,
that he had no wish for so exalted a position, that he felt
himself incapable of discharging its duties, that he was
content with the greater freedom and less responsibility of
an obscure Member. But even in the reign of Elizabeth
these apologies were regarded as insincere, or simply inspired
by the pride that apes humility. " The excuse of the
Speaker," says D'Ewes, " is at this day merely formal and
out of modesty. For he first excuseth himself unto the
Commons when they elect him, and afterwards to the
Sovereign when he is presented. But antiently it seemeth
they were both hearty and real, or else no excuse at all was
made." In truth, each Speaker, despite the impression he
intended to convey that he was ignorant he had been
designated by the Crown for the office till his name fell from
the lips of the Court official in the House of Commons ; despite
1/6 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
also his self-abasements and declarations of nnwillinc^ncss to
serve, was quite ready, even at this apparently shortest of
notice, to take the office, for he knew as a lawyer that it was
the £^ate to preferment and hii^h judicial office. It was an
age, indeed, in which complete disinterestedness was the rarest
of all virtues.
Then, as now, the Commons were summoned to the
"Upper Mouse" by the Gentlemen-Usher of the Lords,
commonly called " Black Rod," the day after they had
selected a Speaker, to present their choice for the royal
approval. They went immediately to the House of Lords,
" and being let in as many as conveniently could," — so
D'Evves relates — the Speaker-elect " was led up to the Rail
or Bar at the lower end of the said House by two of the
most honourable personages of the House of Commons,"
where, " after three reverences to Her Majesty, he modestly
and submissively excused himself as being unable to undergo
the many and great difficulties of the weighty charge." As
a frontispiece to D'Kwes' Journals there is a rude but very
interesting woodcut of the scene during the reign of
Elizabeth. The work, it should be mentioned, was not
published until 1682, nearly thirty years after the death of
D'Ewes and eighty years after Elizabeth held her last
Parliament. It suggests perplexing questions to which no
answers are forthcoming. Three unfamiliar features in the
picture at once attract the eye that has often looked upon
the same spectacle in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
The first is the dress of the Speaker as he stands at the Bar,
facing the Queen on the Throne, He is arrayed in the
flowing black gown, but is bareheaded. The big grey wig
did not become a permanent part of the Speaker's attire
until the first half of the eighteenth century. Arthur Onslow
is supposed to have been the first Speaker who wore it.^
' Lord Acton, in his Historical Essays and Studies (p. 387) says :
"Garlach, the leader of the Prussian Conservatives, used to say that wh.it he
admired most in England was Mr. Speaker's wig. I'or when he spoke of it as
a time-honoured relic, an historically minded Englishm.an told him that it was
nothing of the sort, but quite a modern institution, not two centuries old."
THE ELIZABETHAN PARLIA^JENTS 177
It is noticeable also that the three Clerks at the Table are
kneeling while they ply their quill-pens. But the most un-
expected detail is that the Serjeant-at-Arms, standing to
the left of the Speaker — Black Rod being on his right — is
seen carrying the Mace. It is difficult to suppose that this
is a mistake of the artist. And yet, so far as subsequent
records show, the Mace has not been permitted entrance to
the Lords' Chamber since early in the eighteenth century
at least, save when the Speaker has gone to the Upper
House to demand an impeachment on behalf of the
Commons. The symbol of the Speaker's authority is
humbly left at the threshold of the House of Lords in the
charge of a House of Commons' attendant. Even D'Ewes
noticed that in the progress of the Speaker-elect across the
lobbies between the Lords and Commons the Mace was
carried by the Serjeant-at-Arms — as he carries it now on
similar occasions — in the curve of his left arm, and not
shoulder-high, in which manner it is borne only after the
Speaker-elect has been approved by the Sovereign.
If we may believe the Speakers at the Bar of the House
of Lords, all the Sovereigns were, without exception, of noble
mien, of surpassing beauty of face and grace of form, of
puissant wisdom and understanding, while they themselves
were poor and miserable creatures, fit only to lick the dust
from the soles of the royal feet. It remained for the
lawyers who occupied the Chair in the Tudor period to carry
this traditional self-debasement, coupled with adulation of
the Sovereign, to the last phase of whimsical absurdity.
Each Speaker endeavoured particularly to surpass all his
predecessors as an inventor of fantastic phrases of compliment
and ornaments of figurative diction, with respect to the
Sovereign's mental gifts and physical attributes. Bacon, in
his essay Of Praise (written in 161 2), has a passage which
perhaps discloses the true inwardness of these fulsome
flatteries. He says there is a form due in civility to kings
and great persons, " when by telling men what they are
they represent to them what they should be." It will be
remembered that Henry Vlil. gave expression to the same
12
178 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
thought in his last speech in Parliament. Or was it that
the inspiring motive was the desire of the Speakers to win
the favour of the Crown, upon whose good graces they
depended for advancement and rewards ? At any rate,
we can smile indulgently at the absurd and unexpected
struttings and posturings, conceits and ecstasies, of these
grave and reverend gentlemen of the long robe, in the
presence of the Sovereign at the Bar of the House of Lords.
Maybe they, too, smiled at themselves "in their sleeves " —
a saying that has come down from these very Tudor times,
when gowns with wide sleeves were the fashion.
The scene within the House of Commons is also pictured
for us. Sir Thomas Smith makes the first reference to the
Chair, which is described as a high seat giving the Speaker
a commanding view of the Chamber. The powers of the
Speaker are also defined. He had no control over the
course of business. Hallam says that Members called
confusedly for the business they wished to have brought
forward. D'Ewes records an incident illustrative of the
jealousy with which the House restricted the influence of
the Speaker to the utmost possible extent. Probably
with a view to obviate the confusion to which Hallam has
referred, a Member suggested that the Speaker might
appoint the order in which Bills should be read ; and the
House expressed its disapprobation by hissing. " The
Speaker has no voice in the House," says Smith, " nor
will they suffer him to speak in any Bill to move or
dissuade it." Hooker also furnishes particulars of the
extent of the Speaker's powers. " His office is to direct
and guide the House in good order, and to see the
ordinances, usages, and customs of the same to be firmly
kept and observed." " If any speak to a Bill, and he
be out of the matter, he shall put him in remembrance
and will him to come to the matter." " Also, if any of
the House do misbehave himself, and break the order of
the House, he hath to reform, correct, and punish him, and
yet with the advice of the House."
It is clear from all this that in the time of the Tudors
THE FIRST ONSLOW AS SPEAKER 179
the office of Speaker had reached a high stage of development.
It was an institution established on a stable and lasting
basis. Henceforth we can observe it, undergoing many
transformations as time moves on, shaped by the Commons
to a more exact adaptation to their needs as conditions
changed, also modified, deflected, or retarded in its
evolution by the individual action of strong Speakers,
or even by mere accident, but on the whole adding to
and enlarging its functions and responsibilities.
CHAPTER XXIX
THE FIRST ONSLOW AS SPEAKER
THE second Parliament of Elizabeth assembled on
January 12, 1563. On the nomination of Sir
Edward Rogers, Comptroller of the Queen's House-
hold, Thomas Williams, a Devon man, who sat for the
city of Exeter, was chosen Speaker by the Commons.
His appointment is the subject of the fullest of the
earliest contemporary descriptions of the ceremony of
electing to the Chair. D'Ewes is the reporter, and he
says : —
" Immediately the Commons resorted to their Common
House, where, after they were set, Mr. Comptroller, standing
up, rehearsed the Lord Keeper's oration for the election
of a Speaker, and said that in his opinion Mr. Thomas
Williams, Esq., one of the Fellows of the Inner Temple,
being grave, learned, and wise, was very meet to that Office,
whereupon the whole House with one entire voice cried,
'Mr. Williams, Mr. Williams!' And then Mr. Williams,
standing up and reverently disabling himself, required
the House to proceed to a new election, unto whom Mr.
Secretary Cecill answering that the House had gravely
considered of him, and therefore required him to take the
place, and he approaching was led and set in the Chair by
Mr. Comptroller." 1
^ D'Ewes, Journals, 79.
i8o THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
This Parliament continued for four years, though its sit-
tings were few, for often when it met for the transaction of
pubh'c business it was immediately prorogued on account
of the plague and pestilence which were then rife in
London. The death of Williams on July i, 1566, caused
a hitherto unprecedented parliamentary situation. It was
the first death of a Speaker during his term of office.
When the Parliament mcton the following September 30,
the Commons were puzzled as to how they should act
in the circumstances. They decided to seek advice of
the Lords. Headed by Sir Edward Rogers, Comptroller
of the Queen's Household, and Sir William Cecil, her
Majesty's Principal Secretary, they went in a body to
the House of Lords, and reported to the Lord Keeper
and the assembled peers their untoward position. " Their
Speaker," they said, " was bereft from them by death, which
had been openly and manifestly made known and
testified unto them, for remedy of which defection they
humbly prayed their Lordships' advice."^
It was decided to report the matter to the Queen. On
the next day the Lord Keeper read to the assembled
Lords and Commons a Commission from the Queen,
under the Great Seal. It directed him in Her Majesty's
name "to will and command the knights, citizens, and
burgesses of the said House of Commons to resort unto
their accustomed place, and there to elect and choose
amongst themselves one able and sufficient person to
be their Speaker for the rest of this present Parliament
yet to come."
The choice of the Commons was Richard Onslow,
Solicitor-General, who sat for the borough of Steyning in
Sussex. His duty as law officer required him frequently
to attend the House of Lords, and as he was to remain
Solicitor-General he urged in his speech to the Commons
disabling himself that this was a disqualification for the
Chair. Many of the Members took him at his word, though,
doubtless, it was not seriously intended, for a division
' D' Ewes, /ourna/s, 95.
THE FIRST ONSLOW AS SPEAKER i8i
took place, — the first recorded on the election of a Speaker, —
and by eighty-two votes to sixty his nomination was
carried.
Onslow, who thus became Speaker without ceasing to be
Solicitor-General, was the younger son of Roger Onslow
of Shrewsbury. He married the daughter and heiress of
Richard Harding of Knoll, Surrey, and from him were to
descend two other Speakers, Sir Richard Onslow, in the
reign of Queen Anne, and the more celebrated Arthur
Onslow, in the reign of George II. On his presentation to
Queen Elizabeth for the royal approval, Richard Onslow
made an odd speech. It illustrates the extent to which, in
obedience to a curious parliamentary tradition, the great,
wise, and learned men selected for the Speakership indulged
in the exquisitely absurd performance of childish make-
belief in their incapacity, supplicating the Sovereign to
intercede between them and the Commons, and save them
from a responsibility beyond their powers. The Commons
"have commanded and forced me, to my great grief,"
said Onslow, to announce to Her Majesty that they had
chosen him as Speaker; "and," he proceeded, "for that I
would not be obstinate, I am forced to wound myself with
their sword, which wound, yet being green and new. Your
Majesty, being the perfect physician, may cure in disallowing
that which they have allowed, for that, without your cons'^nt,
is nothing." He pleaded several causes of his unfitness for
the post. One protestation may be set forth in his own
carefully selected phrases of humiliation — uttered, no doubt, in
a voice of suitable dolorous pitch, or quavering humbleness : —
" For, first, I consider I have to deal with many well
learned, the flower and choice of the realm, whose deep
understanding my wit cannot attain to reach into. No, if
they, for great carefulness, would often inculcate it into my
dull head, to signify the same unto Your Highness, j^et my
memory is so slippery by nature and sickness that I should
lose it by the way. Yet, if perhaps I kept part thereof, I
have no other knowledge to help myself withal, but a little
in the law, far inferior to divers in this House, and so should
1 82 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
want learning and utterance to declare their meanings, as it
requircth, especially when I consider Your Royal Majesty, a
Princess endowed with so many virtues, learning, and flowing
eloquence, it will abash and astom'sh me, and therefore
finding these infirmities, and others in me, I think myself
most unworthy of this place."
But the Queen announced through Sir Nicholas Bacon,
the Lord Keeper, that as Onslow was chosen so he must
serve. And she did so, not in spite of Onslow's protestations,
but because of them. Like every Speaker who had preceded
him, in striving to escape from the Chair he had but tightened
the bonds that bound him to it. He had overreached him-
self. The role of simpleton was played by him uncon-
vincingly. He established his possession of ability by the
very way in which he depreciated his capacity. It was easy,
therefore, for the Queen to see through this attempt to
awaken her royal pity and consideration for an undeserving
object. To add to the comedy of the occasion, Her Majesty
possibly assumed an air of well-affected surprise. " In dis-
abling yourself you abled yourself," said the Lord Keeper,
on behalf of the Queen, to Onslow in a compliment that,
even thus early, was time-worn, so often had it been used on
similar occasions.
And Onslow received the pronouncement of his fate
with the utmost fortitude and composure. Indeed, how
taken aback he would have been had the Queen accepted
him at his own valuation, and commanded the Commons
to select a fitter Speaker ! He would have returned to " the
nether House " in desolate eclipse. For he was an ambitious
and aspiring man, and wished for the Chair of the House of
Commons as a stepping-stone to higher things.
Onslow then made two petitions to the Queen : one on
behalf of the Commons, for "free access to Her Highness,"
and the other on his own behalf, for pardon if he should
unwittingly fall into error in the discharge of his duty as
Speaker. He is taken to task by D'Ewes and scolded for
that he " did very ignorantly omit, or carelessly forget to
mention, those other ancient and undoubted privileges of
,J
ELIZABETH AND THE COMMONS 183
the same House, viz., liberty of speech and freedom from
arrest for themselves and followers." D'P^wes goes on to
offer this excuse for Onslow's remissness : " or else, perhaps,
he thought and conceived that those said rights of the
House were so evident and unquestionable as they needed
no further confirmation." ^ But Onslow acted strictly accord-
ing to precedent. The claims for liberty of speech and
freedom from arrest were made by the Speaker then, as
now, only at the meeting of a new Parliament.
CHAPTER XXX
ELIZABETH AND THE COMMONS
UPWARDS of four years elapsed before Elizabeth
summoned another Parliament. It met on April 2,
1 571, and had a short existence, for before May
was out it was dissolved. The Speaker was Christopher
VVray, serjeant-at-law, who represented Ludgershall, a
borough in Wiltshire. He made the usual petitions to
the Queen on behalf of the Commons for freedom from
arrest, free access to Her Majesty, consideration for any
mistaken thing which might be said by them, and free
speech for all in the House of Commons,
The artificiality of the passages between the Commons
and the Sovereign on these occasions was for once relieved
by the introduction of a note of sincerity. It was a stern ex-
pression of royal disapprobation, indicating two momentous
things — the extension by the Commons of the subjects
which they considered themselves entitled to discuss, and
the resolute stand of the Crown against it as an unwarrant-
able constitutional innovation. Lord Keeper Bacon, speak-
ing for the Queen, declared that Her Majesty most readily
granted the first three of the Speaker's petitions. " The
fourth," said he, "was such that Her Majesty, having ex-
* D'Ewes, /ouma/s, 121, 122.
1 84 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
perience of late of some disorder and certain offences which,
though they were not punished, yet were they offences still,
and so must be accomptcd, therefore said they should do
well to meddle with no matters of State but such as should
be propounded unto them, and to occupy themselves in
other matters concerning the Commonwealth." ^
Elizabeth was especially annoyed by the persistence of
the Commons in urging upon her the need of her taking a
husband, in the interest of the State, and also of settling the
question of succession. She was reluctant to marry — owing,
it is supposed, to a physical incapacity; and she thought the
naming of a successor would be like the tolling of her death-
bell.
What did the Commons do on returning to their
Chamber after they had thus been warned that matters of
government and administration were the prerogative of the
Crown, and therefore outside their province ? At the request
of the Speaker the first thing they did was to make an order
that the prayers, which had for the first time been recited in
the last Parliament before the opening of business, should
be continued. The order, which is additionally interesting
for showing the hour at which the House of Commons met,
is as follows: —
" It was this day finally agreed, upon the motion of Mr.
Speaker, that the Letany should be read every day in the
House, during this Parliament, as in the last was used ; and
also a Prayer by Mr. Speaker, such as he should think fittest
for the time, to be begun every day at half an hour after
eight of the clock in the morning, and that each one of this
House then making default should forfeit every time four
pence to the Poor Man's Box." ^
Wray was subsequently knighted and made Lord Chief
Justice. The profession of the law, it will be seen, continued
through the centuries to monopolize the Chair of the House
of Commons. A lawyer was also Speaker in the fourth
Parliament of Mlizabcth, which assembled on May 8, 1572-
This was Robert Bell, who was born in Norfolk, and repre-
' D'EviCs, /ourna/s, 141. * /did., 142.
ELIZABETH AND THE COINIMONS 185
sented the borough of Lyme Regis. Shortly after his
election to the Chair he was made a serjeant-at-law, and
knighted. In January 1577 he became Chief Baron of the
Exchequer without ceasing to be Speaker, and while pre-
siding in the following summer at criminal trials at Oxford
he caught gaol fever from the prisoners, and died in a few
days.
Such a conjunction of offices as the Speakership and a
Judgeship has long since been impossible. But even in the
last quarter of the sixteenth century it was doubted whether
it was constitutionally proper. When the Parliament met
on January 18, 1581, the House of Commons petitioned
the Queen for leave to choose a new Speaker. They gave
two reasons in support of their prayer. The all-sufficing and
conclusive ground that the Speaker was dead and the Chair
vacant was given but the second place. The cause they
first advanced was that Her Majesty had made Sir Robert
Bell, their former Speaker, Chief Baron of the Exchequer,
" by which many supposed his place as Speaker was void in
the Commons House, because he was called by writ as a
necessary attendant of the Upper House." ^
The new Speaker was John Popham, Solicitor-General,
and Member for Bristol. He was nominated by Sir Francis
Knollys, Treasurer of the Queen's Household. The Lord
Chancellor, in confirming his appointment on behalf of
the Queen, concluded with what D'Ewes calls " a special
admonition " — " that the House of Commons should not deal
or intermeddle with any matter touching Her Majesty's
person, or State or Church government."
When the Commons returned to their Chamber and
Popham took the Chair, it is recorded that the Litany was
read by the Clerk, and that the old prayer which was used
in former sessions was read also by the Speaker.- Thus it
will be seen that the opening of the House of Commons
with prayer had become a settled practice. The House
was also concerned about its decorum. On the same
^ T>^'Ev;ts, /ourtials, 279.
^ Commons Journals, \o\. i, p. ii8.
1 86 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
day the following rule was laid down for the guidance of
Members : —
"That Mr. Speaker and the residue of the House of the
better sort of calling, would always at the rising of the House
depart and come forth in comely and civil sort, for the
reverence of the House in turning about with a low courtesie,
like as they do make at their coming into the House, and
not so unseemly and rudely to thrust and throng out as of
late time had been disorderly used ; which motion made
by Sir James Croft, Knight, Comptroller of Her Majesty's
Ilousehold, was very well liked of and allowed of all this
House." 1
Despite the admonition of the Lord Chancellor that they
were not to meddle with Church matters, the Commons
passed a resolution in favour of a public fast that God might
deliver the Realm from its troubles. The Queen w-as greatly
offended. She sent for the Speaker, and sternly rebuked
him for having permitted the House to pass such a reso-
lution without her authority. She did not blame the
Commons for being fond of fasting and prayers, she said,
but they did wrong in taking upon themselves powers which
belonged only to the Crown. Popham meekly acknowledged
his fault, and promised not to offend again. But one good
saying is attributed to him as Speaker. It finds a place
in Bacon's Apophthegms. At the prorogation of the Parlia-
ment in March, after a brief session, Elizabeth asked him
what had passed in the House of Commons. "If it please
Your Majesty, seven weeks," was his witty and uncom-
promising reply.
This Parliament did not sit again, though it continued in
existence until April 1583. It assembled many times, only
to be immediately prorogued without having done any busi-
ness. Popham, while still Speaker, in 15S1, was appointed
Attorney-General. He succeeded Sir Christopher Wray
as Lord Chief Justice in 1592, and presided at the trials of
Sir Walter Raleigh and Guy Fawkcs in the reign of James I.
Queen Elizabeth's fifth Parliament met on November 23,
' D'Ewes, y^M/v/a/r, 282.
ELIZABETH AND THE COMMONS 187
1584. On the motion of Sir Francis Knollys, Treasurer of
the Household, the Speaker chosen was John Puckering,
serjeant-at-law, who represented the borough of Bedford.
At the close of the Parliament in September 1585, he
addressed a long and tedious speech to the Queen in which
he assured Her Majesty that he had ever found the Commons
ready to obey her pleasure in all things. In conclusion, he
asked for her Royal Assent to the Bills of the session in the
following quaint words : " Lastly, I am in their names to
exhibit our most humble and earnest petitions to Your
Majesty to give life to the works, not of our hands but of our
minds, cogitations, and hearts which, otherwise than being
lightened by the beams of your favour, shall be but vain,
dumb, and dead." ^
But the Commons were by no means so amenable to
the wishes of Elizabeth as Mr. Speaker Puckering repre-
sented them to be, speaking at the Bar of the House of Lords
in the dread presence of the Queen. In the course of the
next Parliament, which met on October 29, 1586, Puckering
— who now sat for the borough of Gatton, Surrey — being
re-elected Speaker, the Commons insisted, more or less
boldly, upon their right to discuss all affairs of State, and
especially religious matters, which the Queen continued to
insist was reserved to herself by prerogative. Puckering
himself was charged in the House with having been luke-
warm in defence of the Commons as against the Crown. In
the course of this session a Puritan Member named Cope
presented a Bill and a book to the House. The Bill proposed
to annul all laws respecting ecclesiastical government then
in force ; and the book contained a new form of Common
Prayer. The Speaker interrupted Cope on the ground that
he was acting in contravention of the Queen's command to
the Commons not to interfere in ecclesiastical matters ; and
furthermore, being summoned that evening to the Palace, the
Speaker delivered to the Queen the obnoxious Bill and
book.
Next day the Speaker's conduct was the subject of
^ Parliamejitary History, vol. i, p. 830.
l88 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
debate in the House of Commons. Paul Wentworth put in
writing a scries of questions rclalintT to the privileges of the
House, which he submitted to Puckering. The first was :
" Whether this Council be not a place for any Member of
the same here assembled, freely and without controulment of
any person or danger of laws, by Bill or speech to utter any
of the griefs of this Commonwealth, whatsoever, touching the
service of God, the safety of the Prince, and this noble
Realm?" He further asked whether the Speaker could
disclose to the Sovereign any matter of weight mentioned in
the House without the con.sent of the House? and whether
the Speaker might interrupt any Member in his speech, or
might overrule the House in any matter or cause ? The
Speaker refused to put the questions to the House,
" These questions," says D'Ewes, " Mr. Puckering pocketed
up and shewed Sir Thomas Heneage, who so handled the
matter that Mr. Wentworth went to the Tower, and the
questions not at all proved." ^
The dominant political idea of the period was still
the power and supremacy of the Crown. But we have
advanced from the slavish Parliament of Henry Vlll. to the
murmuring Parliament of Elizabeth. The democratic spirit
was beginning to rise, and insist, with ever-growing force,
on the free expression of opinion in an independent and
uncontrolled House of Commons.
Before the dissolution of the Parliament, Puckering as
Speaker presented to Elizabeth the resolutions of the
Commons in favour of the speedy execution of Mary, Queen
of Scots. His successor in the Chair, in the next Parliament,
which met on P'ebruary 4, 1589, was Thomas Snagge,
serjeant-at-law, who represented the town of Bedford. One
sage saying of his survives: "That in making of laws,
plainness of speech should be used, all entrapments to be
shunned and avoided."
' IVEwcs, /ounia/s, 411.
TWO RJEMARKABLE DISABLING SPEECHES 189
CHAPTER XXXI
TWO REMARKABLE DISABLING SPEECHES
THE eighth ParHament of EHzabeth met on February 19^
1593. Edward Coke, the great law-writer, whose
vast legal learning and ability are displayed in
his Coke upon Lytteltoti, was its Speaker. He was born
in 1552 at Mileham, Norfolk, where his father was lord
of the manor, and was one of the knights of the shire for
that county, and Solicitor-General, when he was appointed to
the Chair on the nomination of Sir Francis Knollys, Treasurer
of the Queen's Household.
As Coke stood at the Bar of the House of Lords to receive
from Elizabeth the royal approbation of his appointment,
what pains he took to feign and pretend to be the most
inferior among the rude and untutored country squires who
formed the bulk of the Commons, and to weave artificial
flowers of speech to the surpassing glory of the person and
mind of the old lady who sat in gorgeous apparel on the
Throne before him ! He humbly presented himself to Her
Majesty as the choice of the Commons for the Chair. " Yet
this," he proceeded, " is only as yet a nomination, and no
election until Your Majesty giveth allowance and approbation.
For as in the heavens a star is but spacurn corpus until it
have received light from the sun, so stand I corpus spacuin,
a mute body, until Your Highness's bright-shining wisdom
hath looked upon me and allowed me." Of his incapacity
for the office of Speaker these, his poor words of speech, doth
sufficiently tell. There were many grave, deep, and wise
men in the House from whom a worthy selection might well
have been made. But what was he ? "I am untimely fruit,
a bud scarcely blossomed," he cried. However, there was
one happy and comforting thought which relieved the gloom
of his mind as he dwelt upon his many imperfections. " I
never knew any in this place, " said he in a grandiloquent
passage of adulation, " but if Your Majesty gave them favour.
190 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
God, who called them to the place, gave them also the
blessing to discharge it."
The Lord Keeper of the Great Seal was Sir John
Puckering, the late Speaker. In his reply to Coke, on
behalf of the Queen, he declared that Her Majesty had
always a high opinion of Mr. Solicitor. " But," he proceeded,
" by this your modest, wise, and well-composed speech, you
gave Her Majesty further occasion to conceive of you about
that which she ever thought was in you." Then came the
inevitableolder and stereotyped compliment: " By endeavour-
ing to deject and abase yourself and your desert," said
Puckering to Coke, " you have discovered and made known
your worthiness and sufficiency to discharge the place you
are called to."
After this exchange of compliments, things stern and
more in touch with realities were uttered. Coke made the
traditional petitions. " Privilege of speech is granted," said
the Lord Keeper in reply, " but you must know what
privilege you have. Not to speak every one what he listeth,
or what cometh into his brain to utter that, but your
privilege is Aye or No." Puckering added words utterly
contemptuous of the Commons assembled at the Bar.
" Wherefore, Mr. Speaker," said he, " Her Majesty's pleasure
is that if you perceive any idle heads which will not stick to
hazard their own estates, which will meddle with reforming
the Church and transforming the Commonwealth, and do
exhibit any Bills to such purpose, that you receive them not
until they be viewed and considered by those who is fitter
should consider of such things and can better judge of
them." 1
The House of Commons met on Saturday, February 24,
I 593, but there was no Speaker. It was the first occasion —
so far as the records show — of the interruption of business
caused by the illness of the Speaker, for in his absence no
one had authority to take the Chair. D'Ewes gives a quaint
account of the incident. Some of the Members said they
had called at Coke's house that morning and found him ill in
' V>']Lvics, Journals, 459-60.
SIR EDWARD COKE
AKTIvR THE I'ORTKAIT BY JANSSEN VAN CEUI.KN
TWO REMARKABLE DISABLING SPEECHES 191
bed. It was decided, however, to await a message from
Coke, and the Clerk was directed in the meantime to read
the Litany and prayers. The Serjeant-at-Arms soon brought
a communication from the Speaker. " He had been this
last night and also was this present forenoon," it ran, " so
extremely pained with a wind in his stomach and a looseness
of body that he could not, as yet, without his further great
peril and danger, adventure into the air, which otherwise
most willingly he would have done." He asked the Members
for their " gentle and courteous acceptance of that his
reasonable excuse," and trusted to God to be well enough
to attend on the Monday following. " The effect of this
message being then signified unto this House by the said
Clerk of the House," says D'Ewes, " all the said Members of
the House, being very sorry for Mr, Speaker his sickness,
rested well satisfied. And so the House did rise, and every
man departed away." ^
Within a few weeks of the Lord Keeper's charge to the
Commons that any interference by any Member with
ecclesiastical matters would earn Her Majesty's high dis-
pleasure and bring the offender to the Tower, the House was
engaged in the discussion of the prohibited subject. On
February 27, 1593, Mr. Morrice, Attorney of the Court ot
Wards, — a place then under the Crown, — presented a Bill for
the reform of the abuses of the Ecclesiastical Courts which, it
seemed, were using their powers not so much against Papists
as against Puritans. After the debate the Bill was given to
Mr. Speaker Coke, and he promised not to disclose its
provisions to any one outside the House. The next day he
informed the House that he had been summoned to the
Court, and was commanded to deliver to the House a
message from the Queen. Her Majesty, he said, had not
pressed him to give her the Bill. The House might feel
assured that he still retained the Bill in his possession, and
that no eyes but his own had seen it. But the Queen had
asked him what were the things spoken of by the House, and
he had thought it his duty to tell her the points of the debate.
^ D'Ewes, Journals^ 470.
192 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Then he c^ave the messaEje entrusted to him by the Oueen.
It was to the effect that no Bills " touching matters of State,
or reformation in causes ecclesiastical," could be introduced.
" And upon my allc<^iancc I am commanded," said the
Speaker, " if any such Bill be exhibited not to read it." ^
The Parliament lasted less than two months. It was
dissolved by the Queen in person on April lo, 1593. Coke
in his speech to Elizabeth, standing with the Commons at
the Bar of the House of Lords, likened Parliament to a bee-
hive with llcr Majesty as the queen bee. " Under your
happy government," said he, in conclusion, " we live upon
honey, we suck upon every sweet flower ; but where the bee
sucketh honey there also the spider draweth poison. Some
such venom there be with us. But such drones and door-
bees we will expel the hive, and serve your Majesty, and
withstand any enemy that shall assault you. Our lands,
our goods, our lives, are prostrate at your feet to be
commanded."
But the finest and most sustained exhibition of absurdity,
if not of insincerity in thought and expression, remains to be
recorded in relation to the election of Speaker for the next
Parliament, which met on October 24, 1597. The Member
chosen was Christopher Yelverton, who was born at
Rougham, Norfolk, was serjeant-at-law, and one of the
knights of the shire for Northampton, He was proposed
by Sir William Knollys, Comptroller of the Queen's House-
hold, the son of Sir Francis Knollys, on whose motion so
many of the previous royal nominees for the Chair were
accepted by the Commons. D'Ewes, whose Journals throw
so much light on the proceedings of the Elizabethan Parlia-
ments, gives a graphic descrii)tion of the scene. First there
was a speech from Sir William Knollys : " I will deliver my
opinion unto you who is most fit for this place, being a
> D'Ewes, Journals, 47S-9. In Calendar of State Papers (Domestic Series,
1591-94), p. 322, there is another version of Coke's speech which does not
materially differ from that given by D'Ewes. In one passage Coke explains
that the Queen did not require to sec the Bill, in view of his engagement lo
the House to keep it secret.
TWO REMARKABLE DISABLING SPEECHES 193
Member of this House, and those good abilities which I
know to be in him." Here he made a little pause, and the
House " hawked and spat."
This seems to have been the way the House expressed
impatience in the days of Elizabeth. D'Ewes, writing a
few years later — in 1601 — in reference to "an old Doctor
of the Civil Law," who was regarded as a bore " because
he was too long and spoke too low," says " the House hawked
and spat and kept a great coil to make him make an end." ^
Knollys then proceeded with his speech. " Unto this
place of dignity and calling, in my opinion (here he stayed
a little) Mr. Serjeant Yelverton (looking unto him) is the
fittest man to be preferred (after which words Mr. Yelverton
blushed and put off his hat, and after sat bareheaded), for I
know him to be a man wise and learned, secret and circum-
spect, religious and faithful, no way disable, but every way
able to supply this place." This appeared to be the general
view of the Members. " The whole House," says D'Ewes,
" cried, * Aye, aye, aye, let him be ! ' and the Master Comp-
troller made a low reverence and sat down, and after a little
pause and silence, Mr. Serjeant Yelverton rose, and, after a
very humble reverence, said : —
" ' Whence your unexpected choice of me to be your
mouth or Speaker did proceed I am utterly ignorant. If
from my merits, strange it were that few deserts should
purchase suddenly so great an honour. Not from my
ability doth this your choice proceed, for well known it is
to a great number in this place now assembled that my
estate is nothing correspondent for the maintenance of this
dignityj for my father dying left me, a younger brother,
nothing to me but my lease annuity. Then growing to
man's estate, and some small practice of the law, I took a
wife by whom I have had many children, the keeping of us
all being a great impoverishment to my estate, and the daily
living of us all nothing but my early industry. Neither
from my person nor nature does this choice arise, for he
that supplieth this place ought to be a man big and comely,
stately and well-spoken, his voice great, his courage
^ D'Ewes, foumahy 640.
13
194 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
majestical, his nature haughty, and his purse plentiful and
heavy ; but, contrarily, the stature of my body is small,
myself not so well-spoken, my voice low, my carriage
lawyer-like and of the common fashion, my nature soft
and bashful, my purse thin, light, and never yet plentiful.'"^
But the House refused to accept these excuses, and
Yelverton was placed in the Chair, doubtless to his high
gratification. He composed a very beautiful prayer which
he said as Speaker at the opening of each sitting, reverently
beseeching God " to expel darkness and vanity from our
minds and partiality from our speeches," and to grant
" wisdom and integrity of heart." ^ He was subsequently
appointed a Judge of the Queen's Bench.
CHAPTER XXXII
ELIZABETH'S LAST PARLIAMENT
THE next Parliament was the tenth of Elizabeth, and
the last of her long reign. It assembled on October
27, 1 60 1, and was opened by the Queen, who was
then close on seventy years old. At three o'clock in the
afternoon she rode to Westminster Abbey, wearing her
royal robes and the crown, says D'Ewes, " in a chariot
made all open, only like a canopy at the top, being of cloth
of silver and tissue," escorted by the officers of the House-
hold and attended by peers, and having heard a sermon,
went to the House of Lords for the opening ceremony.
D'Ewes mentions that a number of the Commons who, in
obedience of the summons of Black Rod, proceeded to the
Upper House, were denied admittance. No explanation is
given. But the hasty closing of the doors before all the
Commons could enter the House of Lords was due to the
fact that the Queen, overcome by the weight of her elaborate
robes, had fainted, and she had to be supported on the
' D'Ewe&, /oumals, 548-50. * /did., 551.
ELIZABETH'S LAST PARLIAMENT 195
Throne while' the Lord Keeper hurriedly explained the
causes for the summoning of Parliament.
On the nomination of Sir William Knollys, the Commons
chose as Speaker John Croke, Recorder of the City of
London, and its representative in Parliament. On the
following day he was presented to the Queen in the House
of Lords. His appeal to Her Majesty to direct the election
of one more able and efficient thus concluded : " And I
beseech your most excellent Majesty not to interpret my
denial herein to proceed from any unwillingness to perform
all devoted, dutiful service, but rather out of Your Majesty's
clemency and goodness to interpret the same to proceed
from that inward fear and trembling which hath ever pos-
sessed me, when, heretofore, with most gracious audience it
hath pleased Your Majesty to license me to speak before
you. For I know and must acknowledge that, under God,
even through Your Majesty's great bounty and favour I am
that I am ; and, therefore, none of Your Majesty's most dutiful
subjects more bound to be ready, and, being ready, to perform
even the least of Your Majesty's commandments."^
Croke appears to have been the first Speaker to rule
that a Member has the right to be heard, no matter how
objectionable to the House generally his views may be.
On November 9, 1601, the House was debating the question
of a subsidy. " Then," says D'Ewes, " Serjeant Heyle
stood up and made a motion, saying, ' Mr. Speaker, I marvel
much that the House will stand upon granting a subsidy
when all we have is Her Majesty's, and she may lawfully,
at her pleasure, take it from us. Yea, she hath as much
right to all our lands and goods as to any revenue of her
Crown," " At which," D'Ewes continues, " all the House
hemm'd and laughed and talked." But Heyle was not to
be shouted down. " ' Well,' quoth Serjeant Heyle, * all your
hemming shall not put me out of countenance.' So Mr.
Speaker stood up and said : ' It is a great disorder that
this should be used, for it is the ancient use of every man to
be silent when any one speaketh, and he that is speaking
' D'Ewes, Jourtta/s, 6cxj-i.
196 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
should be suffered to deliver his mind without interruption.' "
" So the said Serjeant proceeded," says D'Ewes, " and when
he had spoken a little while the House hemm'd again, and
so he sate down. In his latter speech he said he could
prove his former position by precedent in the time of Henry
the Third, King John, King Stephen, etc., which was the
occasion of this hemming."^
Later on in the session a remarkable scene took place on
the occasion of the presentation of an address from the
Commons to the Queen. The House was moved to in-
dignant protest against patents issued by the Crown giving
monopolies in the sale of cloth, starch, tin, fish, oil, vinegar,
and salt, whereby high prices were charged for these articles
of prime necessity. On the following day the Speaker
announced that he had been commanded to attend the
Queen, and that Her Majesty had graciously consented to
revoke all patents that should be proved to be injurious to
the people by trial at law. The House unanimously adopted
a glowing address of thanks to the Queen. Her Majesty
consented to receive it at the Palace of Whitehall, on
November 30, 1601 ; but as the Audience Chamber was
not large enough to accommodate the whole House, it was
arranged that all the knights of the shire and a selection
of the citizens and burgesses should accompany the Speaker.
Before leaving for the Palace the Speaker asked the House
" what it was their pleasure he should deliver unto Her
Majesty?" Sir Edward Hobbie stood up and said," It was
best he should devise that himself." And all the Members
cried, "I, I, I!"
At the Palace Croke made a speech to the Queen of
the fulsome loyalty so characteristic of the time. " We
come not, sacred Sovereign," said he, " one of ten to render
thanks, and the rest to go away unthankful. But all of
us, in all duty and thankfulness, do throw down ourselves
at the feet of Your Majesty, do praise God and bless Your
Majesty. Neither do we present our thanks in words or
any outward thing, which can be no sufficient retribution for
' D'Ewcs, Joiirna/s, 633.
ELIZABETH'S LAST PARLIAMENT 197
so great goodness ; but in all duty and thankfulness, prostrate
at your feet, we present our most loyal and thankful hearts,
even the last drop of blood in our hearts to be poured out
and the last spirit of breath in our nostrils to be breathed
up for your safety." " And after three low reverences made
he," says the chronicler, " with the rest kneeled down."
Elizabeth, in reply, made a most interesting speech.
" Of myself I must say this," said she, " I never was any
greedy, scraping grasper, nor a straight, fast-holding Prince,
nor yet a waster. My heart was never set on worldly goods,
but only for my subjects' good. What you do bestow on
me I will not hoard it up, but receive it to bestow on you
again. Yea, mine own properties I count yours to be
expended for your good." At this point the Queen in-
terrupted her remarks to say, " Mr. Speaker, I would wish
you and the rest to stand up, for I shall yet trouble you
with longer speech." Accordingly, they all stood up, and
Her Majesty in the course of her subsequent remarks said :
" I know the title of a King is a glorious title, but assure
yourself that the shining glory of princely authority hath not
so dazzled the eyes of our understanding but that we will
know and remember that we also are to yield an account of
our actions before the Great Judge. To be a King and wear a
crown is more glorious to them that see it, than it is pleasure
to them that bear it. For myself, I was never so much enticed
with the glorious name of a King, or royal authority of a
Queen, as delighted that God hath made me this instrument
to maintain His truth and glory, and to defend this kingdom
from peril, dishonour, tyranny, and oppression." Finally,
Elizabeth invited them all to come and kiss her hand.^
The Parliament was dissolved by the Queen on Decem-
ber 19, 1601. Croke made the customary flattering address.
What was thought of these unctuous performances by those
who heard them may be surmised from a letter written by
Dudley Carleton, a Member of the House of Commons who
stood with Croke at the Bar of the House of Lords on that
occasion. " I was present as a burgess," he says, " and heard
^ D'Ewes, Journals, 658-60.
198 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
good counter-clawing and interchangeable flattery between
the Speaker and my Lord Keeper in behalf of the Queen." ^
" The peace of the kingdom," said Crokc, referring to the
defeat of the insurrection of Essex, " has been defended by
the mighty arm of our dread and sacred Queen." " No,
no!" cried Elizabeth, nipping his blossoming eloquence,
"but by the mighty hand of God, Mr. Speaker."
Thus was received the last compliment that was paid to
the most flattered Sovereign that has sat on the Throne of
England. The Commons had their final sight of that
weirdly impressive woman, the last of the Tudors.
CHAPTER XXXIII
WHEN THE SPEAKER WAS ILL
THE accession of James l. opens a stirring and moment-
ous chapter in the history of the Chair. In the long
conflict between the Parliament and the Crown, which
lasted practically through the whole of the seventeenth
century, — it was not interrupted even under the Common-
wealth, the relations of the Parliament with the Lord
Protector Cromwell being not less strained than in the
time of the Stuart kings, — the Chair passed through many
amazing vicissitudes, but it emerged from the ordeal with its
position strengthened and its reputation enhanced, to begin its
development as a non-partisan and independent institution.
The first Parliament of James I. as.sembled on March 19,
1604, and was opened by the King. He introduced the
custom of the Sovereign personally declaring to the assembled
Lords and Commons the cau.ses of the summoning of
Parliament, a duty which was previously discharged by the
Lord Chancellor or the Lord Keeper on the Sovereign's
behalf Being pedantic and garrulous, James inflicted long
and learned speeches upon the Estates on these occasions.
' S(a/e Papers (Domestic Series, 1601, 1603), 134.
WHEN THE SPEAKER WAS ILL 199
But he was more than pedagogic. He was overbearing and
truculent, especially to the Commons ; and as a new temper
was arising in the Lower House, more jealous of its privileges,
more aggressive in their defence, more mutinous towards the
exactions of the Crown, he soon found himself at cross-
purposes with the representatives of the people.
Still there was no diminution in the strains of the
perfervid loyalty in which the always honey - mouthed
Speaker indulged on being presented to the King at the
Bar of the House of Lords, The speech of the Speaker
of the first Parliament of James I., Sir Edward Phelips,
serjeant-at-law, who sat for Somerset, equalled, if indeed it
did not surpass, in flattery and adulation of the Sovereign,
anything which had been said during the long reign of
Elizabeth, and that without the courtly excuse of saying
pretty things to a woman.
" Most renowned, and of all other most worthy to be
admired. Sovereign," exclaimed Phelips, " as the supreme
and all-powerful King of Heaven hath created man to
govern His works, so did He depute terrestrial kings, in
whom His image was, to govern men, but yet so as still to
think that they themselves are but men. And to that end
He adorned them with three imperial ensigns of honour, — a
crown, a sceptre, and a sword ; commanding to the crown,
reverence, to the sceptre, obedience, and to the sword, fear.
Wherewith in His divine distribution of kings and kingdoms,
He hath magnified and invested your sacred person, on the
imperial throne of this most victorious and happy nation,
wherein you now do, and, Nestor-like, long may sit, not as
a conqueror by the sword, but as an undoubted inheritor by
the sceptre ; not as a stepfather by match or alliance, but
as a true tender father by descent of Nature, to whom we,
your children, are truly naturalized in our subjection, and
from whom in our loyalty we expect unto us a paternal
protection."
The Speaker then proceeded to make the time-honoured
entreaty to the King to excuse him from the performance of
the high office to which the Commons had so unworthily
200 THE SPEAKKR OF THE HOUSE
elected him. He set out a long litany of the qualities which
were necessary adequately to fulfil the duties of Speaker:
" The absolute perfection of experience " ; " The mother of
prudence " ; " The father of true judgment " ; " The fulness
and grace of Nature's gifts." There were others besides of
equal mystification. But not one of them did he possess.
" From the virtues of all and every part I am so far strayed,"
said he, " that not tasting of Parnassus's springs at all, nor of
that honey left upon the lips of Pluto and Pindarus by the
bees, birds of the Muses, as I remain touched with the error
of contrary, and thereby am disabled to undergo the weight
of so heavy a burthen, under which I do already groan, and
shall both faint and fail if not by your justice disburthened
or by your clemency commiserate."^
The King, of course, neither relieved him of his troubles,
nor thought his fate deserving of commiseration.
The session was not a month old when, as the Journals
of the House of Commons show, there was deliberate obstruc-
tion,— which is generally supposed to have been unknown
until the last quarter of the nineteenth century, — and the
powers of the Speaker were increased in order to cope with
it. On April 14, 1604, Sir Henry Jenkins and other Members
of the Court party in the House appear to have impeded the
progress of a Bill touching the abuses of purveyors. The
end of the contest was that Sir Henry Jenkins was at last
interrupted by the Speaker, and thereupon the House, as
stated in the Joiirnals, "to prevent the idle expense of time,"
resolved that, " if any man speak impertinently, or beside
the question in hand, it standeth with the order of the House
for Mr. Speaker to interrupt him and to know the pleasure
of the House whether they will further hear him." Three
days later, on April 17, the House agreed to a general rule,
" that if any superfluous motion or tedious speeches be
offered to the House, the party is to be directed and ordered
by Mr. Speaker." On May 9, in the same year of 1604,
Sir Roland Litton, offering to speak, it grew to a question
whether he should .speak any more in the matter, and it was
' Parlianicntary History, vol. I, p. 990.
WHEN THE SPEAKER WAS ILL 201
overruled that he ought not. On May 19, Sir William
Paddy, entering into a " long " speech, it was agreed for a rule
that " if any man speak not on the matter in question the
Speaker is to moderate." Thus at the opening of the
seventeenth century the Speaker was empowered to call
Members to account for garrulousness and irrelevancy.
In the session of 1606, Phelips fell sick. As there was
no precedent for the appointment of any one to take the
Chair in the temporary absence of the Speaker, the House
was unable to sit during his illness, and for several days
parliamentary business was suspended. The incident illus-
trates the innate conservatism of the race, the national
willingness to put up with inconvenience to the uttermost,
if the only way to terminate it is the taking of a new step
which creates a precedent.
On Monday, March 16, i6o6,t\\e Journals relate that the
House was informed by the Clerk that the Speaker was very
ill, and desired to be " spared attendance " till Wednesday.
When Wednesday came it was reported that the Speaker's
infirmity was " a great pain in his neck and head," that he
was unable to be present, and asked for further leave of
absence till Friday. " So they arose and departed," say the
Journals, "yielding assent by a necessity to the motion."
On Friday, Members again assembled, only to hear a
message from the still absent Speaker propounding that
he might have leave to use means for the recovery of his
strength till Monday. " To this the Assembly seemed to
assent, and so departed."
The Journals are careful to say not " House," but
" Assembly." Yet on that day a motion was agreed to
for the liberation of a poor prisoner. It is interesting to
note, however, that the prisoner was not pardoned. The
pardon was only to be given when the House was con-
stituted by the presence of the Speaker, By Monday the
Speaker's strength had not returned. A debate then took
place on a motion to instruct Committees of the House,
appointed " for Returns and Privileges," to consider what
ought to be done in the future should the same contingency
202 THE SPEAKER OE THE HOUSE
arise. The mover said he had heard of precedents of a
Speaker having been appointed from day to day, in cases
of the temporary absence of the duly elected Speaker, so
that the business of the House might proceed. Another
Member supported the taking of this action. His argument
is thus put in the Journals : " That we are an entire body of
ourselves ; that the Speaker is not our head, but one of
ourselves, and hath a voice amongst us ; that we have power
to choose a Speaker, for he is only to moderate, and for that
purpose we might appoint any other." But this opinion was
controverted. " Answered," say the Journals, " that there is
no such precedent, that the King must give leave and
approve after choice, that it were fit the Committees should
consider what were to be done in after times." The discus-
sion was ended by a motion, "assented to by such Members
of the House as were assembled " (as the Journals are careful
to record), that the Committees should consider all precedents
as could be produced with a view to deciding what it were
meet should be done in future upon occasions of the Speaker's
absence through sickness or otherwise.
But on the following day, March 24, the Speaker, after an
absence of eight days, returned to the House, and no report
was made by the Committees.^ For nearly two centuries and
a half afterwards the anomaly of the transaction of the public
business of the nation being dependent on the accident of
one man's health, was tolerated by the House of Commons.
It was not until 1853 that the subject was referred to a Select
Committee, and that upon their report a Deputy Speaker was
appointed.^
' Commons Journals, vol. I, pp. 353-4.
- The rep(jrl of the Select Committee of 1853 erroneously states that the case
of I'helips is the fust recorded instance of the sitting of the House of Commons
haviny had to be suspended owing to the illness of the Speaker. The case of
Edward Coke in 1592 is, of course, earlier.
JAMES I. AND THE COMMONS 203
CHAPTER XXXIV
JAMES I. AND THE COMMONS
THIS Parliament, which Guy Fawkes attempted to blow
up, endured for seven years. Throughout it all the
King and the Commons were constantly at variance,
principally on questions relating to the ecclesiastical system
of the Established Church. It came to an end on Februar}'
9, 161 1.
A new Parliament was not summoned until 1614. At
its opening on April 5, Randolph Crewe, born at Nantwich,
the son of a tanner, it is said, and bred to the law, who sat
for the borough of Brackley in Northamptonshire, was chosen
Speaker. It did not long survive. The King, exasperated by
its unyielding obstinacy to his wishes, dissolved it on June 7,
1614. Thus, after an existence of little more than two months,
the " Addled Parliament," as it is called, came to an end.
Close on seven years elapsed before James called his
third Parliament. It met on January 30, 1621. The
Commons selected for the Chair, Thomas Richardson, born
in Norfolk, serjeant-at-law, and Member for St. Albans. He
made the usual appeal to the Commons to choose another
for the post. It appears to have been real and earnest on
this occasion, for Richardson desired to devote himself to
the Bar, and finding that his excuses were unavailable, that
he was bound to take the Chair, he " wept downright," accord-
ing to an eye-witness.^ He seems, nevertheless, to have con-
tinued his practice at the Bar. Lord Campbell, in his Lives
of the Chief Justices, says that it was not considered incorrect
for Richardson to sit in the Chair of the House of Commons
in the morning and to consult with his clients at his chambers
in the evening. Moreover, he appeared as counsel in the
Court of Common Pleas on days that the House of Commons
did not sit.
The King received the Commons in a stubborn mood.
^ Campbell, Lives of the Chief Jttstices, vol. i, p. 388.
204 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
In reply to the Speaker's request for the royal recognition
of the privileges of the House, His Majesty said he could have
wished that the Commons had intimated " that their privileges
were derived from the grace and permission of Our ancestors
and Us," rather than to have used, " the stile of your antient
and undoubted right of inheritance."^ The Commons and
King were in conflict as to the real meaning of this reiterated
request to the Sovereign at the opening of every Parliament,
for the granting of the privileges of the Lower House. As
far back as 1604, in the course of the first Parliament of
James I., the Commons in their famous petition to the King,
entitled An Apology of the House of Commons touching their
Privileges^ declared that the making of this request at the
opening of a new Parliament was intended merely as a
notification of their privileges, " an act only of manners," and
that their privileges could not be denied, withheld, or impaired.
To this view the King never yielded his assent. In the
constitutional struggle the Speaker sided more with the King
than with the Commons. At any rate, Richardson is one of
the few Speakers who have been censured in the House for
servility to the Crown. On March 9, 1621, he was called
to account for stopping debate when the conduct of the
Sovereign was in question. " Mr. Speaker is but a servant
to the House, not a master, nor a master's mate," said one
Member. Another Member advised the Speaker to " sit still,"
and not to be so interfering. Evidently they did not want
Mr. Speaker to exaggerate his personal importance in the
scheme of things, or to appreciate too highly the rights and
functions of the Chair.
The imperious James insisted that he could adjourn the
two Houses of Parliament as well as prorogue them. On
May 28, 1 62 1, he sent down a message to the Commons
commanding an adjournment of the House, within a week, to
November 20. This arbitrary and despotic presumption was
resisted by the House, or at least by the independent
Members, who held that the House could be adjourned only
by its own motion. But the Speaker, without putting the
* Parliamentary History, vol. 2, p. 327.
JAMES I. AND THE COMMONS 205
question, declared the House to be adjourned till November
20, in obedience to the King's order. The decision of the
Speaker was accepted, as the question whether or not the
House could be adjourned by any authority but the House
itself had not yet been clearly settled, and, moreover, the
majority of the Members were indisposed to resist outright
the will of the Sovereign. Shortly afterwards, however,
Richardson had to sit and listen to bitter things being said
in condemnation of his action. The Speaker assumed the
power himself to adjourn the House, entirely untrammelled
by any limitations or conditions, and he especially developed
a habit of leaving the Chair as soon as any matter disagree-
able to the Court was raised.^
In the course of the session the Commons sent a remon-
strance against the growth of Popery to the King, and
tendered him the advice that Prince Charles, heir to the
Throne, should marry a Protestant wife. James wrote
to the Speaker commanding him to inform the House that
they must not meddle with the " mysteries of State," which,
he said in a cutting phrase, " went far beyond their sphere
and capabilities." The Commons, meeting on December 18,
1621, entered in the Journals a long protest that all affairs of
State were proper subjects for counsel and debate in Parlia-
ment. The answer of the King was most contemptuous.
He sent for the manuscript Journals, and tore out the leaf
on which the protest was written. The printed Journals
record the resolution of the House. Then follow a number
of asterisks — * * * * * * — and there is a marginal note
which says : " King James, in Council, with his own Hand,
rent out this Protestation." ^
It only remains to be added that Richardson had his
reward for his subserviency. The year after the dissolution
of the Parliament he became Chief Justice of the Common
Pleas, and was subsequently promoted to the headship of the
King's Bench. He was buried in Westminster Abbey. One
of the few President of the House of Commons whose remains
^ Campbell, Lives of the Lord Justices, vol. i, p. 390.
^ Commons Journals, vol. I, p. 668.
2o6 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
have been so honoured is this legal puppet of the Crown
dressed up in the robes of Speaker.^
The last Parliament of King James I. met on Feb-
ruary 19, 1624. The Speaker was Thomas Crewe, the
younger brother of Sir Randolph Crewe, who was Speaker
in the " Addled Parliament " of King James. He was a
serjeant-at-law, and sat for Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire.
This Parliament was dissolved by the death of James on
March 27, 1625.
CHAPTER XXXV
HELD IN THE CHAIR BY FORCE
CHARLES I. was in his twenty-fifth year when he began
his memorable reign. He opened his first Parliament
on June 18, 1625. This formal scene was marked by
an incident of unusual grace and distinction. It showed the
high personal dignity of Charles in splendid contrast with the
vulgar antics of his father on like occasions. When the
Estates were assembled His Majesty commanded prayers to
be said, and during the devotions he put off his crown and
knelt by the Chair of State.^
Sir Thomas Crewe, who now represented Gatton, in
Surrey, was again chosen Speaker. There is an interesting
passage in a narrative of the debates and incidents of this
Parliament left by Sir John Eliot, — the distinguished parlia-
mentary leader, — which shows once more that, even in
the eyes of contemporaries, much of the ceremony of the
election of Speaker was mere play-acting. In reference to
the appointment of Crewe he writes of the " pretended
unwillingness in him, and importunity in us, with much art
and rhetoric on both sides." ^ At the Bar of the House
' The other Speakers buried in the Abbey are John Puckering and Charles
Abbot.
' Parliamentary History, vol. 2, p. 2.
'John Forsler, Sir John Eliiot, vol. i, p. 235.
HELD IN THE CHAIR BY FORCE 207
of Lords, Crewe again, according to the usual formality
desired to be excused, and the King replied by confirming
his election. Crewe then said : " Before, hee offered the
sacrifice of his lipps, which was refuced. But now he offered
his obedience which, being accepted, was declared to be the
better sacrifice." ^
Sir Heneage Finch, son of Sir Moyle Finch of Eastwell,
Kent, Recorder of London, which city he represented in the
House of Commons, was Speaker in the brief Parliament of
1626, It lasted only from February 7 to June 15. Sir John
Finch, a first cousin of Sir Heneage Finch, who was chosen
Speaker in the next Parliament, which met on March 17,
1628, was the central figure in one of the most extraordinary
scenes that has ever occurred in the House of Commons. He
represented Canterbury, of which city he was also Recorder.
During the second session of the Parliament, in 1629,
the claim of the King to levy tonnage and poundage without
the consent of the representatives of the people was hotly
disputed. On March 2 the Speaker delivered a message
from the King commanding the House to adjourn to the
lOth, A few days before, a similar order from Charles had
been in fact obeyed by the House, although, with a view
to avoiding the appearance of acknowledging the authority
of the King in the matter, a motion for adjournment was
formally moved and agreed to. But on March 2, when
the Speaker put the question of adjournment in obedience to
the King's command, there was a loud shout of " No, no ! " The
Patriots had at last determined to insist that the question of
adjournment was entirely for the Commons to decide. There
was a grave matter to be settled, and as soon as it was
settled — but no sooner — they would consent to the House
being adjourned.
Sir John Eliot rose to address the House. The Speaker
at once interposed, and said he had an absolute command
from the King instantly to leave the Chair if any one
attempted to speak after the order to adjourn had been
delivered. Accordingly he moved from the Chair. The
^ Commons^ Debates in 162J (Camden Society), p. 3.
2o8 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Patriots rushed to stop him, but the Courtiers clustered round
him and he got down to the floor. But Finch got no farther.
His way out of the Chamber was barred by a throng of
excited Members, who seized him and forced him back into
the Chair again. " God's wounds I " cried Denzil Holies,
"you shall sit till we please to rise." To prevent timid
Members from leaving the House, Sir Miles Hobert locked
the door and put the key in his pocket.
Eliot then submitted a spirited remonstrance against the
arrogation by the Crown to itself of the right to make in-
novations in religion and impose taxes and loans without
the consent of Parliament. Finch refused to put the question
to the House. He might be detained by superior force in
the Chair, but by no means could he be compelled to dis-
charge the functions of Speaker. The Commons, accordingly,
found themselves in a curious quandary. The Speaker was
in the Chair, and yet the House was without the regulative
authority of the Speaker.
What was to be done ? The enraged Patriots rose one
after another to try to induce the Speaker by entreaties and
threats to obey the order of the House. But Finch was
resolute. He was perturbed in mind by the clashing claims
of his duty to the House as Speaker and his devotion to the
King as Courtier. The two emotions pulled him in different
directions, and perplexed him with their conflicting yet
powerful mutual appeal. But on one thing at least he was
determined — on no account must be incur the fearful dis-
pleasure of the King. He pleaded that he knew of no
precedent of the House continuing to do business after it
had received a command from the Sovereign to adjourn.
"What would any of you do, if you were in my place?" he
asked plaintively, and to impress them further with the
difficulties of his position he concluded with the appeal : " Let
not my desire to serve you faithfully be my ruin." Opposition
to the King's wishes would be fatal to his personal interests.
He was the Speaker of the Commons, and as such he was
entrusted with the high distinction of safeguarding their
privileges ; but, apparently, he regarded the will of the
I
HELD IN THE CHAIR BY FORCE 209
Sovereign as paramount, and at any rate he was not prepared
to do the bidding of the Commons at the risk of offending
the King.
"If you refuse obedience," said Eliot, "you shall be
called to the Bar."
" That," answered Finch, " is one of the greatest miseries
that could befall me." He begged to be allowed to go and
consult with the King. "If I do not return, and that
speedily," said he, "tear me in pieces." William Strode
pointedly asked him if he was their servant — as he had
declared himself to be — why he did not obey them ? Did
not the Scripture say, " His servants ye are whom ye
obey ? " Finch burst into tears and exclaimed, " I am not
the less the King's servant for being yours." The King, and
not the House, had the first place in his mind, not perhaps
that he loved the King more, but that he feared the House
less. " I will not say I will not put the reading of the paper
to the question," said he ; " but I must say I dare not."
Eliot was most desirous of having his remonstrance
regularly put by the Speaker and adopted by the House.
Otherwise, it was but the mere expression of his own personal
opinion. John Selden, the jurist, declared that the Speaker
by refusing to discharge his duty of putting the question had
virtually abdicated his office, and he moved that Eliot
should take the Chair and submit the remonstrance to the
judgment of the House. This, however, was too violent an
innovation for Eliot. Seeing that the obduracy of the
Speaker was immovable, he threw his paper into the fire.
Just then a knocking was heard at the locked door. It
was a messenger from the King who, having had news of
the proceedings in the House of Commons, sent a command
to his Serjeant-at-Arms to bring away the Mace. The
Commons permitted that officer to go, but refused to part
with the Mace, and the door was again locked.
Meanwhile the Patriots continued to upbraid the Speaker.
He was assailed with fierce denunciations, and reviled in terms
of unmitigated contempt. In the Chair he sat, silent through
it all. The depression of his spirits was reflected in his down-
14
210 THK SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
cast countenance. The instinct of self-preservation impelled
him so to act as to deserve well of the more exalted and
stronger of the two contending powers between whom he
stood, even though he thereby incurred the unqualified odium
of the other ; but perhaps his best armour against the slings
and arrows of the Patriots was the steadfastness of his sense
of duty to the King.
Again there were loud knocks at the door. This time it
was the Usher of the ]?lack Rod from the House of Lords
He, too, was denied admittance, nor would his message be
received. The King had sent for the Captain of his Guard
to force a way into the Chamber and disperse the Commons
by force. Holies then put to the House from memory the
effect of Eliot's Remonstrance, and it was declared carried
with acclamation. A motion for the adjournment of the
House was agreed to. Then it was that the Speaker was
released from his painful and deeply humiliating position.^
All the foremost and most virile men who were con-
spicuous in that great scene in the House of Commons —
Eliot, Selden, Holies, Strode — were subjected to heavy fines
and imprisonment. Eliot died in the Tower. Selden was not
released for four years. To Finch came the promotion which,
no doubt, he thought his fidelity and zeal deserved. As Lord
Chief Justice of the King's Bench he was just as devoted
and servile a champion of prerogative as he had been as
Speaker of the House of Commons. When Parliament again
assembled he was Lord Keeper of the Great Seal. But one
of the first acts of the " Long Parliament " — as the Parliament
which followed came to be called — was to impeach him of
high crimes and misdemeanours. The chief count in the
indictment was his arbitrary and unconstitutional conduct as
Speaker on the great day that Eliot moved his Remon-
strance. He appeared at the Bar of the House of Commons
on December 21, 1640, and spoke in his own defence, and then
fled the country before the impeachment was finally
determined.
■ Parliamentary ffislory, vol. 2, pp. 4S7-91 ; also Gardiner's History of
England (160^-/^2), vol. 7, pp. 67-75.
MR. SPEAKER LENTHALL 211
CHAPTER XXXVI
MR. SPEAKER LENTHALL
ELEVEN years were to pass without a Parliament — the
longest interval of the kind, so far — during which
Charles I. ruled as an absolute monarch. In 1640 he
was driven to summon the Estates. When the new Parlia-
ment met on April 13, the person chosen by the Commons
as Speaker was John Glanville, serjeant-at-law, Recorder of
Plymouth, and Member for Bristol, He had sat in Parlia-
ment for Plymouth from 1614 to 1629, and was active in
resisting the King's arbitrary use of the prerogative; but
he seems to have intimated at this stage that he was ready
to serve the interests of His Majesty, and certainly was
appointed to the Chair with the previous assent of
Charles.
To the King, on being presented at the Bar of the House
of Lords, Glanville made the usual excuses. He began by
defining the Speaker and his duties. " One of themselves,
to be the mouth, indeed the servant of all the rest; to steer
watchfully and prudently in all their weighty consultations
and debates ; to collect faithfully and readily the genuine
sense of a numerous Assembly, to propound the same season-
ably, and to mould it into apt questions for final resolutions,
and so represent them and their conclusions, declarations, and
petitions, upon all occasions, with truth, with life, with lustre
and with full advantage to your most Excellent Majesty,"
He then proceeded to appeal to the King to have compassion
upon him, declaring himself to be the most unworthy Member
of the Commons, and ready to faint with the fears of the
burden which had been placed upon him against his will.
" Let not your Majesty through my defect stand exposed
to any hazard of disservice," he cried. " I have only a
hearty desire to serve you, very little abilities for perform-
ance." He was not permitted to escape. Finch, as Lord
Keeper, said the King had listened with gracious ear and
212 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
princely attention to the humble and modest excuses of
Granville; but he had "so well decyphered and delineated
the parts, duties, and office of a good Speaker," that he had
proved his eminent fitness for the post.^
This Parliament is known as " the Short Parliament."
The old quarrels between King and Commons broke out
afresh. Nothing was done during the three weeks it
existed. It was dissolved on May 5, 1640.
The next Parliament to assemble was the most momentous
of all. During the protracted and troubled period of the
'Long Parliament" there were not only incessant surprises,
and actions and chan,ges of the most dramatic nature, but
there was a terrific breach with the historic past, for a
Sovereign was executed, the House of Lords was abolished,
and a new Constitution devised. William Lenthall, who
occupied the Chair of the House of Commons, is
the most vivid and arresting figure in the long line of
Speakers. He is notable, not so much for the qualities of
mind and character which he displayed, as for the greatness
of the events with which his name is associated. No Speaker
was faced with so many moments of crisis and catastrophe
as fell to Lenthall while president of the House of Commons.
His lot was cast in times of national trouble and disruption.
He was not an inspirational force, ruling the whirlwind and
guiding the storm. Rather was he the accidental plaything
— at times the unheroic, if not the pitiful, plaything — of the
tremendous human passions which raged for many a year
round the Chair of the House of Commons.
Lenthall, the second son of William Lenthall of Lachford,
Oxfordshire, was born at Henley-on-Thames, in the same
county, in June 1591. He was educated at Thame School
and St. Alban Hall, Oxford, and was called to the Bar at
Lincoln's Inn in 1616. In the House of Commons he had
represented the borough of Woodstock, Oxfordshire, for
several years, and at the opening of the Long Parliament,
on November 8, 1640, he was chosen Speaker. Lenthall
was selected by Charles for the office, but he was not the
* Parliamentary History, vol. 2, pp. 535-7.
WILLIAM LENTHALL
FROM AN' ENGRAVING AFTER THE PAINTING BY S. COOPER
MR. SPEAKER LENTHALL 213
King's original choice. When Charles summoned the
Parliament he had intended, according to Clarendon's
History of the Rebellion, that Sir Thomas Gardiner, the
Recorder of London and a staunch Royalist, should be
Speaker. But Gardiner failed to get returned. The
citizens of London preferred to be represented by Patriots
and Puritans. Thus it fell to Lenthall to act as Speaker
in the most famous House of Commons.
There is a graphic description of the election by John
Rushworth, the Assistant Clerk of the Commons. Lenthall
was proposed by Sir Henry Vane ; and the House " with
one consent" called him to the Chair. " He stood up," says
Rushworth, " and desired to be excused for the weightiness
of the affairs, and for his own sake, knowing his own weak-
ness, or, at least, for their sakes. But they called him the
more, ' To the Chair ! To the Chair ! ' and two Members
of the House, the one on the right hand and the other on
the left, led him up ; and after he was placed in the Chair
the House adjourned until Thursday the fifth of November,
at nine of the Clock."
On November 5, Lenthall was presented to the King
in the House of Lords. Charles was accompanied by the
Queen and the young princes, subsequently to become
Charles li. and James II. At the Bar were assembled the
Speaker and the Commons who were destined to be instru-
mental in consigning His Majesty to the headman's axe.
In the circumstances, Lenthall's speech to the King is of
the highest interest. " Most gracious and dread Sovereign,"
he splendidly began ; and then proceeded woefully to lament
that the Commons had selected him to be their Speaker. If
they had but left him in the mean condition in which they
found him, and chosen one more fitted for the post, the
sacred and pious intentions of his most exalted Majesty
might have obtained their full advancement. " But is it
yet too late?" he cried, "May I not appeal to Csesar?
Yes, I may ; and in the lowest posture of humility " — (here
Lenthall fell upon his knees) — " I humbly beseech Your
Sacred Majesty to interpose your royal authority to com-
214 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
mand a review of the House, for there were never more than
now fitted for such employments,"
But the Lord Keeper, by the King's direction, highly
commended the choice of the Commons and approved of
his appointment. Lenthall then made the customary second
speech. "It pleaseth not Your Majesty to vouchsafe a
change," he began; "actions of Kings are not to be by me
reasoned. Therefore, being emboldened by this gracious
approbation, give me leave a little, dread Sovereign, to
express my thoughts unto our gracious Lord the King."
Fanciful compliments poured in a honied stream from the
poetic lips of the Speaker. The King was " the glory of
times, the history of honour." The Queen was " the
monument of glory, the progeny of valiant and puissant
princes." The royal children were " those olive branches set
round your tables, emblems of peace to posterity."
Two passages which followed had relation, more or less
direct, to the absorbing constitutional question of the time.
" It is reported of Constantine the Great that he accounts
his subjects' purse his Exchequer, and so it is," said Lenthall.
" Subtle inventions may pick the purse, but nothing can
open it but a Parliament." He added that the Commons
were determined to labour for two things — the continuance
of their liberties, and the making of His Sacred Majesty
terrible to the nations abroad and glorious at home. Then
having made the usual claim for the privileges of the House
of Commons, he concluded with the fervid outburst: " And
God will have the honour. Your Sacred Majesty the spendour,
the Kingdom safety ; and all our votes shall pass, that Your
Sacred Majesty may long, long, long reign over us, and let
all the people say Amen ! "^
"Amen!" "Long live the King!" So shouted the
very Commons who, within nine years, were to cut off the
head of His Most Sacred Majesty.
^ Rushworlh's Historical Collectiofis, Part in. vol. i, pp. 16-19.
CHARLES S RAID ON THE COMMONS 215
CHAPTER XXXVII
CHARLES'S RAID ON THE COMMONS
ONE of the most thrilling scenes of the Parliament was
the armed raid which Charles I. made on the House
of Commons on January 4, 1642, to demand that five
of its Members, most conspicuous in opposing his arbitrary
authority — Pym, Hampden, Holies, Stroud, Hazelrig — should
be surrendered to his will on a charge of treason. The five
Members were in the House when it met after dinner for
its afternoon sitting that day, and just as the King appeared
in Palace Yard they fled into the Speaker's garden at the
back of the Chamber, and taking to the river in boats
escaped to the protection of the City.
Charles, bidding his three or four hundred soldiers to
remain in the lobby and corridors, entered the Chamber, the
first Sovereign who had ever crossed the sacred Bar of the
House of Commons, and the last. The Members stood up
barehead in homage to their King, and Charles, not to be
outdone in courtesy, took off his hat and bowed to them.
As it was always with him, he was suave and dignified in
manner. He did everything with a kingly grace, even this
unprecedented and most unconstitutional invasion of the
Chamber in which the elected representatives of the people
were supposed to sit and deliberate in the closest secrecy.
He paid them the compliment of coming himself, and he
was a King, when he might have sent a captain and a com-
pany of his guards to effect his purpose equally as well.
As Charles walked up the floor, Lenthall stepped out of
the Chair to meet him. " By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I
must borrow your Chair a little," was the King's greeting.
The inference from most of the histories of the period is that
His Majesty did not take the Chair, in the sense of actually
sitting in it. But in the Journals of the House of Commons —
both in the record of the visit and in the Remonstrance
which the Commons drew up the next day — it is cate-
2i6 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
gorically stated that His Majesty " placed himself in the
Speaker's Chair." The entry in the Journals regardinj^ the
visit is brief and laconic. " His Majesty came into the
House and took Mr. Speaker's Chair. Gentlemen, I am
sorry to have this occasion to come unto you. . . ." ^
At the Table below the King sat John Rushworth, the
Assistant Clerk, who wrote a system of shorthand. On his
appointment, two years before, Rushworth was prohibited
from taking notes of the proceedings, except by order of the
House.2 On this occasion he did take notes, and the King,
even in the absorbing care of this desperate enterprise,
noticed with surprise his hieroglyphic writing. That same
evening the King sent for Rushworth and demanded a
report of his observations. The Clerk Assistant pointed out
that it was a breach of privilege to disclose things spoken in
the House. " To which," says Rushworth, " His Majesty
smartly replied, ' I do not ask you to tell me what was said
by any Member of the House, but what I said myself.'"
Rushworth there and then transcribed his notes of the King's
speech, and His Majesty had it sent to the Press.
Charles first apologized for his visit. It was due entirely
to the disobedience of the House to his command that the
five members should be delivered up to the Serjeant-at-
Arms. No King that ever was in England was more careful
than he of the privileges of the Commons, but they must
know that in cases of treason no person whatever had a
privilege. He called over the names of some of the five
Members. "Is Mr. Pym here?" No answer. "Is Mr.
Holies here?" Still silence from the upstanding and bare-
headed Members. Then he turned to the Speaker and
said, "Are there any of those persons in the House?
Uo you see any of them ? " Lenthall's reply is famous for
all time. He showed a measure of courage and resource
which raised him to the height of a great occasion. " May
it please Your Majesty," said he, falling on his knees to utter
the historic words, " I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to
speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me,
• Commons Journals, vol. 2, p. 368. "^ Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 12, 42.
I
CHARLESES RAID ON THE COMMONS 217
whose servant I am here, and I humbly beg Your Majesty's
pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this to
what Your Majesty is pleased to demand of me." ^ This is
the true voice of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
The time was gone and for ever when the King could rely
with confidence upon the Speaker to carry out his behests
even against the will of the Commons.
" Well," said the King, good humouredly, " I see all the
birds are flown." Thus did he leave the House with a joke
upon his lips. In the lobby a shout from the Chamber
reached his ears. He stopped for a moment and turned his
head to listen. " Privilege ! Privilege ! " The indignation
of the Commons against this daring and outrageous innova-
tion by the Sovereign, threatening the last vestige of their
importance and authority, was solemnly kept in check in
the presence of the King — for he was still " His Most Sacred
Majesty" — but as soon as he disappeared through the doors
it swelled forth into those fierce cries of " Privilege !
Privilege ! "
The Civil War was soon to follow. On January 10,
Charles left Whitehall for the provinces. On the nth, the
five Commons returned by river from the City to West-
minster in triumph, amid the cheers of the populace, the
firing of cannon, the beating of drums, and were welcomed
by the Speaker as heroes. On the 12th, the House of
Commons significantly ordered " That another lock be set
upon the door of the House, and daily care be taken that
all places thereabouts be safeguarded and set secure." ^
About a year later, the Chair in which Charles sat was
removed, as is indicated by the following curious order, which
was made by the House on January 3, 1643, "That the
House be fitted and accommodated with Curtains for the
Windows and a New Chair, so fitted that it may keep off
the injury of the extreme Cold Weather from Mr. Speaker
and the Members that sit near the Chair."
Lenthall achieved great renown for the discretion and
^ Rushworth, Historical Collections, Part ni. vol. i, pp. 477-S.
' Commons Journals, vol. 3, pp. 371-2.
21 8 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
dignity he displayed in the encounter with the King ; and
desiring to appropriate to himself something more substantial
than the mere glitter of this national glory, he informed the
House that " his strict and long attendance had very much
hurt him both in body and state." On the recommendation
of a committee, presided over by Hampden, the House voted
him a grant of £6000. To this the curious rider was added
" that ;6^2000 thereof shall be paid as soon as conveniently
may be." ^ Lenthall was appointed Master of the Rolls
in 1643 by both Houses of Parliament.
CHAPTER XXXVIII
FLIGHT OF LENTHALL
ANOTHER remarkable scene took place in the House
of Commons on July 26, 1647. The Chamber was
invaded by the mob, and in his dealings with them
Lenthall, who had successfully coped with the King, came
off second best, for he was not only roughly handled but
compelled to yield to their behests.
The apprentices of Westminster and London, fierce and
relentless enemies of the Monarchy, saw backsliding and
treachery in the attempt of the Parliament to disband the
army, and its indecision in pursuing the King to the death.
So they poured into the Palace of Westminster in a mood
tempestuous and arrogant. They first went to the House of
Lords. Eight peers only were present. These the apprentices
quickly terrified into repealing an ordinance which both
Houses had passed only a few days before, re-establishing
parliamentary control over the Militia of London, and into
sending a message to the Commons requesting their agree-
' Commons Journals f\o\. 2, pp. 518-19. After the Restoration, Lenthall
declared that *' he never received the one-half of this grant, nor any part of that
/"5 per diem which is due to the Speaker as Speaker whilst he so continues "
(Parliamentary History, vol. 8, p. 68).
FLIGHT OF LENTHALL 219
ment with the resolution. The apprentices then surged
round the closed doors of the House of Commons. They
would not be put off with the answer sent out to them that
their petition would be taken into speedy and serious con-
sideration. For six hours they brawled in the lobbies, shout-
ing " Vote, Vote," and pounding at the doors. At 8 o'clock
they forced their way into the Chamber, and pouring tumultu-
ously across the Bar, with vituperative cries, coerced the
Members into concurring with the message from the Lords.^
The House then adjourned till July 30. As the
Members were dispersing another whim took possession of
the mob. They seized Lenthall on his way to his carriage
and carrying him bodily back into the Chamber, placed him
in the Chair and compelled him to put a resolution to the
House and declare it carried, directing that the King, who at
this time was a prisoner of the Parliamentary Army, should
be forthwith brought to London for trial.
When the House of Commons met on the 30th, there
was no Speaker. Lenthall had fled for protection to the
headquarters of the Parliamentary Army under the com-
mand of Fairfax, and with him were the Earl of Manchester,
Speaker of the House of Lords, and several Members of both
Chambers. In a statement of the reasons that moved him
to absent himself from the service of the House, which
Lenthall had immediately printed and circulated, he stated
that the mob, as they jostled and pulled him about in the
lobby on July 26, declared that on the 30th they would
assemble in larger force, and that after they had made the
Commons vote as they pleased, they would destroy him.^
Accordingly the Commons, or rather the puritanical and
anti-monarchical remnant, which met at Westminster on
July 30, 1647, at 8 o'clock in the morning, found them-
selves without a Speaker. " After long expectation," the
Journals record, " about noon the Members present desired
other Members to repair to the Speaker's House," which
^ Commons Journals, vol. 5, p. 259.
' A Declaration of William Lenthall, Esq. , Speaker of the Noble Hottse of
Commons (London, 1647).
220 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
adjoined the Roll's Court in Chancery Lane, and they, on
their return, reported that the Speaker " was not heard of."
Cominc^ to the conclusion, evidently, that Lenthall, by
abandoning the service of the House, had in fact resigned,
they proceeded to the election of a new Speaker. Their
choice fell upon Henry Pelham, a lawyer, who sat for the
borough of Grantham. All the ancient forms were adhered
to, especially those which appear to modern eyes eccentric
and affected. The official entry in the Journals is as
follows : —
"After prayers, Mr. Henry Pelham was nominated
Speaker and called to the Chair by general approbation.
Mr. Pelham, first in his place excused himself for his in-
abilities for so great a charge, which would not be admitted.
Sir Anthony Irby and Mr. Richard Lee went to the place
where Mr. Pelham sat, and, according to custom, took him
by each arm and conducted him and placed him in the
Chair. He there again made his earnest excuses, which
not being admitted, he submitted to the commands of the
House." 1
So far so good. But now the distracted Commons found
themselves in a constitutional difficulty. There was no
King. Though they had appointed a Speaker without
having received the customary direction to do so from the
Throne, they were doubtful of their power to elect him
absolutely of themselves, and in their desire, even in that
time of revolution, to do things in the ancient fashion, and
according to the settled law and order of Parliament so far
as that was possible in the circumstances, they decided to
present him to the House of Lords for approbation. The
Lords had selected Lord Willoughby of Parham as their
Speaker, and on this particular day he was presiding over
a conclave of seven other peers, when, as may be read in the
Journals of the House of Lords, a message was brought from
the House of Commons by Sir Robert Harley "to desire
their Lordships would please to sit awhile, for they had an
intention to come and present their Speaker to their Lord-
' Commons Journals, vol. 5, p. 259.
CROMWELL ENDS THE COMMONS' PRATING 221
ships." The answer returned was " that this House will sit
awhile as is desired." The Lords retired for a few minutes
to put on their robes, and then " the House of Commons
came up " and presented Pelham with all the old ceremony.
Here is the official record of the interesting occasion : —
" The House of Commons came up. And Henry Pelham,
Esquire, made a short speech to this effect : ' That the
knights, citizens, and burgesses, being in present want of a
Speaker, had made choice of so bad a Speaker as himself;
and had commanded him to acquaint their Lordships with
such their bad choice.' Then the Speaker (Lord Willoughby)
returned this answer : 'That this House very well approves
of the choice of the House of Commons ; he being a person
of such abilities, integrity, and faithfulness to the Parliament.'
Hereupon the Commons, with their Speaker, returned to
their own House." ^
The Speakership of Pelham ended abruptly within a
week.
On August 6th, Lenthall and the Commons and Lords
who had fled with him were escorted by Fairfax and the
Army to Westminster, and the proceedings of both Houses
on July 26, and all " Acts, Orders, and Ordinances made or
pretended to be made " in their absence, were declared null
and void.2
CHAPTER XXXIX
CROMWELL ENDS THE COMMONS' PRATING
THE question is " Many were the momentous
decisions which, preceded by this formal phrase,
Lenthall put from the Chair. None was more
stupendous than the question of the appointment of a
Judicial Commission to try Charles I. on a charge of high
treason against the people of England.
^ Lords Journals, vol. 9, p. 358.
' Commons Journals, vol. 5, pp. 268, 280.
222 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
There can be little doubt that Lenthall performed with
reluctance his part as Speaker in the proceedings which
ended in the execution of the King at Whitehall on January
30, 1649, ^^^^ that it weighed heavily on his conscience to
the end. In a tract called " Speaker Lenthall, his Deathbed
Repentance," written in September 1662, there is an account
of his last hours by the clergyman who attended him, Dr.
Bredock, afterwards Bishop of Chichester. Lenthall declared
that no excuse could be made for his having put the question
for the trial of Charles I., but it was consoling to him to know
that he had the pardon of King Charles II., and he hoped
Almighty God would show him mercy also. "Yet, sir," he
added, " even then, when I put the question, I hoped the
very putting the question would have cleared him, for I
believed Four for One were against it, but they deceived me
also." He went on to explain why, in the circumstances, he
did not resign, but continued to act as Speaker. " I make the
candid confession," said he, " that it was my own baseness
and cowardice and unworthy fear to submit my life and
state to the mercy of those men that murther'd the King
that hurried me on against my own conscience to act with
them. Yet then I thought also I might do some good, and
hinder some ill." ^
Soon after they had beheaded the King, the Commons
abolished the House of Lords. In May 1649 an Act was
passed declaring England to be a " Free Commonwealth,"
governed by the elected representatives of the people in
Parliament assembled without the intervention of Sovereign
or peers. The Speaker of the Mouse of Commons was now
supposed to be the greatest man in the country. At least
he took the place of the King as the symbol or head of the
nation. The Corporation of the City of London entertained
the Commons at a banquet in the Guildhall on June 7, 1649,
in thanksgiving for the establishment of the sovereignty of
the people, whereat Lenthall was received with the honours
accorded before only to the Sovereign. The Lord Mayor
' Memoirs of tlu Two Last Years 0/ the Kcign of King Charles 1. (1702),
301-2.
CROMWELL ENDS THE COMMONS' PRATING 223
surrendered his sword to the Speaker, and had it graciously
returned.^
Yet the most powerful personage in the country was not
William Lenthall, Speaker of the House of Commons, but
Oliver Cromwell, Captain-General of the Army. In 1653
the Commons and Cromwell were at variance. The
Commons, indeed, were but the " Rump," or those Members
who survived " Pride's Purge," which was administered on
December 6, 1648, and had become a mere clique of
crotcheters and talkers. On April 20, 1653, as they were
discussing a Bill for the constitution and election of a new
representative Assembly, Lenthall being in the Chair, Crom-
well came in, wearing plain black clothes with grey worsted
stockings, and sat and listened to the debate. But when the
Speaker rose and put the question, " That this Bill do pass,"
he sprang to his feet and contemptuously putting on his hat
strode up and down the floor, rating the House for their
neglect of the public good and their desire only to perpetuate
themselves in power. From this general attack he proceeded
to revile individual Members as whoremasters and drunkards.
Sir Peter Wentworth ventured to rise in protest. Such
language, he said, was most unbecoming from the servant
whom the House had so highly trusted and honoured.
" Come, come ! I will put an end to your prating," cried
Cromwell. " You are no Parliament. I say you are no
Parliament. I will put an end to your sitting." At his
word, Thomas Harrison called in the guard, and thirty or
forty musketeers tramped into the Chamber.
Lenthall's conduct was manly and dignified. He refused
to leave the Chair. Cromwell directed Harrison to bring
him down. One contemporary description says that Harri-
son caught the Speaker by the gown and roughly pulled
him out of the Chair.^ But Harrison in an account, which
he furnished in 1660, when, after the Restoration, he was
sentenced to death for his part in the execution of Charles I.,
denies that he used any compulsion. " I went to the Speaker,"
he says, and told him, " Sir, seeing things are brought
* Commons Joufiiais, vol. 6, p. 222. - Blencome, Sydney Papers, 140.
224 'I'HE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
to this pass, it is not requisite for you to stay there. He
answered he would not come down unless he was pulled out.
Sir, said I, I will lend you my hand ; and he, putting his
hand in mine, came down without any pulling, so that I did
not pull him." ^
There remained the Mace. Cromwell's eye fell upon it as
it lay at the end of the Table. He was in a most irreverent
and sardonic humour. The emblem of the Speaker's authority
reminded him of the jester's staff with bells. " What shall
we do with this bauble?" he first asked. Then he quickly
answered the question himself by turning to the Captain of
the Musketeers and saying, " Here, take it away ! " He
also got the Bill of Elections from the Clerk. Finally, he
saw that the doors of the Chamber were locked. That even-
ing some wit scribbled on the doors — " This House to be let
unfurnished." Cromwell himself said that after he had thus
dispersed the House of Commons by force not a dog barked.
Then began the absolute military dictatorship of Crom-
well. On his summons a House of Commons, not elected
but nominated by himself, met at St. Stephens on July 5,
1653. This is known as " Barebone's Parliament" — so called
after the religious fanatic, " Praise-God Barebones," a leather-
seller in London, and a shining light of the Assembly. The
Speaker selected was Francis Rous, a lawyer, but more
interested in theology, who had been nominated to represent
Devonshire.^ The election was totally divested of all cere-
mony. There was a sweeping departure from the usage
which even then had been ancient. It was resolved "That
Francis Rous, Esquire, he called to the Chair," just as formal
a matter as the appointment of a chairman of a public
meeting is in these days. Rous did not disable himself.
He made no protestation of his unsuitability for the post.
Nor did he need to be conducted to the Chair by two
sponsors. He took it without any ado. The Commons on
their part did not think it necessary to submit their choice
* Lives and Speeches of those Persons lately executed, 9 (1661).
' Rous was appointed Provost of Eton College, and dying in 165S, was
buried in the Chapel of the College.
CROMWELL ENDS THE COMMONS' PRATINGS 225
to the approbation of any one, not even Cromwell, being
content, no doubt, with the knowledge that Rous was in
fact the nominee of the Captain-General. Yet they had the
same distrust and jealousy of the Speaker as was entertained
by their forefathers who sat under Kings. They decided
that the term of office should be only a month. Rous there-
fore was re-elected every four weeks. They also decided on
July 6 to drop the name of "Assembly" for that of
" Parliament," and they recovered the Mace from the
military.^
It was inevitable that such a Parliament, composed as it
was of fanatical and turbulent men, should have a short life, as
well as an exciting and emotional one. Soon they came into
collision with the Captain-General, or rather with the " Lord
Protector," which they themselves decided should be his title.
Cromwell was unwilling to dissolve by force another Parlia-
ment in so short a time, and he found in the Speaker as
ready an instrument to effect his purpose as if he were a
King. On December 12, 1653, it was proposed that the
House should deliver up to the Lord Protector the powers
it had received from him. Rous did not put the question,
for he had reason to believe it would be defeated.
Acting with that wild and untutored freedom which
Speakers gave themselves at this time, at the call of circum-
stances, he hastily quitted the Chair, and attended by the
Serjeant-at-Arms carrying the Mace, and followed by about
forty Members, proceeded to the Palace of Whitehall, and
there, on behalf of the House, resigned its commission into
the hands of Cromwell."
^ ParJiatncnta)-)) IIisto>y, vol, 3, p. 1410.
- Gardiner, History of the Covimon-vealth and Protectorate, vol. 2, pp. 279-
81.
15
226 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
CHAPTER XL
SPEAKERS DURING THE PROTECTORATE
CROMWELL summoned his first Parliament in 1654.
Consisting of a single Chamber of 400 Members,
— including 30 from Scotland and 30 from Ireland,
— it met on September 4, and was opened by the Lord
Protector with almost all the ancient regal pageant. There
was first of all a service and sermon in Westminster
Abbey, after which the opening ceremony took place
in the Painted Chamber of the Palace of Westminster.
Cromwell occupied a Chair of State raised on a platform,
while the Commons sat bareheaded on benches around him.
He explained the grounds of their being called together, and
ended a long speech with those words : " I desire you to
repair to your House and to exercise your own liberty in
the choice of a Speaker, that so you may lose no time in
carrying on your work."^
Lenthall was not in the nominated, or " Barcbone's "
Parliament. He was returned both by the City of Gloucester
and the county of Oxford to the first Parliament of the
Protectorate, and he elected to sit for the latter constituency.
On the recommendation of Cromwell he was unanimously
voted to the Chair. The brief record in t\\Q Journals simply
states " That Mr. Lenthall, Master of the Rolls, was called
to the Chair as Speaker," - and, as in the case of Rous, there
was no presentation to Cromwell for approbation.
This Parliament was dissolved on January 22, 1655.
Lenthall was again returned for the county of Oxford in
the second Parliament of the Protectorate, which was opened
by Cromwell on September 17, 1656. But Sir Thomas
Widdrington, a lawyer, who represented Northumberland,
was chosen Speaker on the motion of Lord Commissioner
Lisle. The election was marked by some return to the
traditional procedure.
' Parliamentaty History, v<j1. 3, p. 1134. - Commons Jouitia Is, vol. 7. p. 365.
SPEAKERS DURING THE PROTECTORATE 227
Widdrington pleaded his unworthiness, and asked the
House to think of some one more fitted for the post. But
the reply of the House was a general call " to the Chair," and
Widdrington thereupon submitted himself to be led to the
Chair by the Lord Commissioners Lisle and Fiennes, " As
it was their love that called him to the service," said he from
the Chair, " so if he did err therein, as he was of all men
most apt to do, the same love would pardon it." ^
Nevertheless this Parliament did not look upon the
Speaker as an inviolable personality, like a King or priest,
anointed with the sacred oil, who continued Speaker, whatever
happened, until the Dissolution, for when Widdrington got
indisposed they did not adjourn until his recovery, but
promptly elected another to fill the Chair. On January 27,
1657, Widdrington attended, but felt so ill that he had
immediately to leave. It was at once moved and agreed to
that Lord Commissioner Whitelocke should preside so long as
Widdrington's indisposition lasted. Whitelocke was accord-
ingly conducted to the Chair in the ancient fashion by two
Members. " And being there set," the Journals say, " desired,
since the House was pleased to command his services in
that place on this occasion, that the House should be
pleased to construe with all candour his words and actions
therein, and that they will give him a freedom of minding
them and keeping them to the Orders of the House, for the
service and honour of the House." The House then resolved
" That these ceremonies and respects that were used to
the former Speaker shall be used to the present Speaker, and
that he have the profits due to the Speaker." ^
Widdrington was absent for three weeks. On his return,
February 1 8, a resolution was passed " That the Lord
Whitelock have the thanks of the House for his great and
faithful service to the business of the House as Speaker,
during the absence of the present Speaker."-^
It appears as if Whitelocke got no "profit" out of his
"great and faithful service." On February 13 a question
^ Commons Journals, vol. 7, p. 423. ^ Ibid., vol. 7, pp. 482-3.
^ Ibid., vol. 7, p. 493,
228 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
arose as to which of the two Speakers the fees of five pounds
on each private liill — then the most valuable perquisite of
the Chair — were to be paid ; and it was decided that if
Widdrington did not return by a certain date the money
should go to Whitclocke. By that date Widdrington was
back in the Chair. The fees were accordingly lost to
Whitelocke. " At the hazard of his life his old colleague,
though very feeble still," we are told, " did come back, since
the collective fees proved much too strong a temptation."^
Oliver Cromwell died on September 3, 1658, and was
succeeded by his son Richard as Lord Protector. In the
two years which followed before the Restoration of Charles II.
there were as many as four Parliaments and seven Speakers.
Richard Cromwell summoned a Parliament which met on
January 27, 1659. Chaloner Chute, a lawyer of distinction,
and one of the knights of the shire for Middlesex, was chosen
Speaker. The part played by the Clerk in the election of
the Speaker, and the moment when the Mace is produced,
are on this occasion recorded for the first time in the
Journals. It is stated that the Clerk sat in his place as
director during the ceremony, and that not until the
election was completed was the Mace laid upon the
Table.2
Chute fell ill, and on March 9, 1659, begged that he
might be totally discharged from his office as Speaker, or
else be allowed a long respite from its service. The House
decided to give him leave of absence. " Whereupon, by
leave of the House," it is written, "he left the Chair, and
went home to his own house, and the Serjeant attended him
with the Mace out of the House, and to his coach, and
afterwards brought the Mace back and placed it below,
under the Table." ^ Sir Lislebone Long, Recorder of
London, and Member for the City of W\'lls — one of Oliver
Cromwell's knights — was thereupon chosen by the House to
" supply the Speaker's place during his absence, occasioned
by his present indisposition of health and no longer," say
' Memoirs of Biihlrodc Whitclocke, 420.
^ Commons Journals t vol. 7, p. 594, * Ihid.^ vol. 7, p. 612.
SPEAKERS DURING THE PROTECTORATE 229
the Journals. Long may therefore be described as " Deputy
Speaker," though the title was not given to him.
Long himself was forced by sickness to retire from the
Chair five days later, and died the next day. Chute survived
for another month, but did not return to the House of
Commons. Thomas Bampfylde, Recorder of Exeter, and
the representative of that city in the House of Commons,
was appointed to take Long's place as Speaker pi'o tempore
on March 16, and on April 15 — the day after Chute's death
— he was elected Speaker. Just a week later Richard
Cromwell was compelled by the Army to dissolve the
Parliament.
William Lenthall reappeared once more on the scene
of his strange vicissitudes as Speaker. Richard Cromwell
threw up the post of Lord Protector ; and the Army
decided to send a deputation to Lenthall with the request
that he would return to his post, and assist in the
restoration of the " Rump " of the Long Parliament.
Lenthall at first hesitated. He pleaded that age and
feebleness unfitted him for long sittings in the Chair.
Moreover, he was disposed to think that the Long
Parliament was not legally in existence, having been
brought to an end by the death of Charles I., according
to the law of the Constitution. However, he yielded, and
on May 7, 1659, headed a procession of forty-two of the
old Members into St. Stephens and took the Chair as
Speaker. He had further strange experiences. This
Parliament was dispersed by the " Committee of Safety,"
and after two months was restored on December 26, 1659.
On January 13, 1660, Lenthall acquainted the House that
he was suffering from an attack of gout, and asked " that
he might have liberty, for his health's sake, to retire himself
for ten days." ^ It is believed that distress of mind, rather
than of body, was Lenthall's disorder. Being now convinced
of the coming restoration of the Monarchy, and, indeed,
heartily desiring it, he absented himself so as to avoid any
responsibility for the Bill by which the Republican Party
' Com/nor. s Journals, vol. 7, p. 811,
230 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
sought to impose upon the Members of the House of
Commons an oath abjuring the House of Stuart. William
Say, one of the regicides who signed the death-warrant of
Charles II., was chosen to act as " Speaker /rt? tempore"
during Lenthall's absence.^ He was a lawyer, and repre-
sented the Cornish borough of Camelford.
Lenthall came back on January 21. On February 13
the excluded Members of the Long Parliament were re-
admitted to the House of Commons by General Monk, now
head of the Army and the leader of the popular movement
for free and constitutional Parliaments, and on March 16
the Long Parliament declared itself dissolved after a
chequered existence of close on twenty years.
CHAPTER XLI
RESTORATION OF THE MONARCHY
THE " Convention Parliament," which, under the
dominating influence of Monk, was to decree the
restoration of Charles II., assembled on April 25,
1660. Lenthall failed to get re-elected for Oxford-
shire, though pressing letters in his interest were
addressed to the electors by Monk. The Speaker chosen
was Sir Harbottle Grimston, a member of an old Essex
family, and a lawyer, who represented Colchester. He was
conducted to the Chair by Monk, who sat in the House
as one of the knights of the shire for his native Devon.
Charles II. came back from his exile. On May 29, 1660,
both Houses of Parliament waited upon him at the Palace
of Whitehall with congratulations on his return to his
dominions. The Lords were first received. At 7 o'clock
in the evening the Commons, headed by the Speaker,
walked barehead from St. Stephens to the Palace. In the
Banqueting Hall the Speaker, preceded by the Serjcant-
' Commons Journals, vol. 7, p. Si I.
RESTORATION OF THE MONARCHY 231
at-Arms, carrying the Mace "turned downwards" and
followed by the Members, went to the foot of the Throne
and delivered an oration to the King.^ " Most gracious and
dread Sovereign," he began, " if all the reason and eloquence
that is dispersed in so many several heads and tongues as
are in the whole world were conveyed into my brain and
united in my tongue, yet I should want sufficiency to
discharge that great task I am now enjoined." Then he
proceeded to praise the King in the old traditionary terms,
at once verbose and ponderous, fulsome and servile, and
finally, going on his knees, declared that he had a Petition
of Right to which he begged the Royal Assent.
" Sir," said he, " it had already passed two great Houses
— Heaven and Earth — and I have Vox Populi and Vox Dei
to warrant this bold demand. It is, that Your Majesty would
be pleased to remove your Throne of State and set it up in
the hearts of your people ; and, as you are deservedly the
King of hearts, there to receive from your people a crown
of hearts. Sir, this crown had three excellent and rare
properties — it is a sweet crown, it is a fast crown, and it is
a lasting crown. It is a sweet crown, for it is perfumed
with nothing but the incense of prayers and praises. It is
a fast crown, for it is set upon your royal head by Him
who only hath the power of hearts, the King of kings.
And it is a lasting crown. Your Majesty can never wear it
out, for the longer you wear this crown it will be the better
for the wearing ; and it is the hearty desires and most earnest
prayers of all your loyal, loving, and faithful subjects that
you may never change that crown till you change it for a
better, a crown of eternal glory in the highest heavens, and
the Lord say. Amen." ^
During the popular rejoicings Lenthall had fallen into
the background. His sole desire now was to remain in
obscurity. But soon he was sought out by those in authority,
not with liking and appreciation, but with the rage and
violence with which all who had in any way participated
' Commons Journals, vol. 8, p. 49.
- Parliamentary Htsto}y,\o\, 4, pp. 56-8.
232 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
in the death of Charles I. were pursued to death, to exile,
to ruin, with disgrace and infamy. The House of Commons
of the Convention Parliament, in June 1660, included
Lcnthall among the twenty persons whose rank offences
must be expiated by the sacrifice of their lives ; but the
House of Lords, moved by Monk's intercession on account
of his services in forwarding the Restoration, reduced the
penalty to deprivation of his office of Master of the Rolls.
Lenthall was decidedly unheroic. He was not base, for
it cannot be said he prostituted his office to serve his own
private and selfish aims and ambitions, but there was one
act by which he demeaned himself, and cast a stain on the
Speakership. He appeared as a witness at the trial of
the regicides, and testified to compromising words spoken
by one of the prisoners in the House of Commons during
his tenure of the Chair. This was Thomas Scot, who on
the eve of the Dissolution of the Long Parliament made
a speech in which he said he desired no better epitaph than
this — " Here lies one who had a hand and a heart in the
execution of Charles Stuart." At the trial Scot pleaded
that the words were covered by the privilege of Parliament,
but the plea was set aside. Among those called to prove
they had been spoken was Lcnthall. He contented himself
with deposing that Scot had justified the death of the
King. " I confess to you, upon my oath," said he, " touching
his speech of the inscription upon his tomb, I did not
hear that. Justifying the death of the King he made a long
harangue about, and he sate at the upper end of the
gallery, but these words of having it written upon his
tomb, and to have all the world take notice of it, I do not
remember."^ Lenthall was obviously a reluctant witness;
but in giving evidence at all he violated his historic declara-
tion that " he had neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak "
in regard to things said and done in the House of Commons.
I le died in 1662.
The second I'arliament of Charles II., though the first
actually elected in his reign, met on May 8, 1661. Sir
' :S(alc Trials, vol. 5, p. 1003.
RESTORATION OF THE MONARCHY 233
Edward Turnour, who represented the shire of Hertford, was
chosen Speaker. In him the long succession of lawyers, un-
broken amid all the changes of the fall of the Monarchy and
the rise of the Protectorate on its ruins, was continued by
the restored King. He was proposed by Sir Charles
Berkeley, Comptroller of the Household,^ showing that
with the Restoration the old intimate relations between
the Crown and the Chair were revived. The Speakership
was again in the gift of the King.
The long and austere years of puritanical, democratic,
and republican influences through which the country had
just passed, did not in the least diminish or chasten the
hyperbole of the Speaker's address to the King at the Bar
of the House of Lords. Indeed, Turnour was as skilful
and absurd as any of his predecessors in the weaving of the
flowery garnishment of his oration. In the sentimental
pleading to the King to discharge him as one unfit for so
weighty an employment, he introduced, however, an original
and fresh simile.
" Your Majesty well knows," said he, " when a ship puts
forth to sea she should be provided with mariners of all sorts.
In case a storm doth rise, some must trim and lower the
sails, some must watch aloft the decks, some must work at
the pump, but he had need be a very good seaman that is
the pilot. Sir, I hope I may be useful to this your sovereign
vessel in some of these inferior places, but I dare not under-
take to be their steersman. I do most humbly therefore
beseech Your Majesty that you will not take us at our first
word. Our second thoughts are best. Pray, therefore, be
pleased to command the Members of the House of Commons
to return to their House to recollect themselves, and to
present Your Majesty with a better choice."
The spectacle of the King on his Throne, surrounded
by Lords and Commons, after a lapse of twenty years, seems
to have dazzled the Speaker and lifted him to the topmost
regions of ecstatic emotion and rapture. " Sir," he cried, in
his transports, " a weak head is soon giddy, but the strongest
' Cointnons Journals, vol. 8, p. 245.
234 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
brain may here be turned. The presence of this glory and
the glory of this presence do transport me. Whilst I con-
template the incomparable beauty of this body politic, and
the goodly order of this High Court of Parliament, where
at once I behold all the glory of this nation, I am almost
in the condition of St. Paul when he was taken up into the
third Heaven. All he could say upon his return was, ' he
saw things unutterable.' " As he proceeded he became more
lyrical, and ended appropriately with this rhapsodical burst :
"If the affections of all Englishmen can make you happy,
if the riches of this nation can make you great, if the strength
of this warlike people can make you considerable at home
and abroad, be assured you are the greatest monarch in the
world. Give me leave, I beseech you, to double my words
and say it again. I wish my voice could reach to Spain and
the Indies too. — You are the greatest monarch in the world." ^
Turnour was well rewarded by the Crown for his services
in the Chair. In December 1663 he was paid ^2000; in
July 1664, ^5000; and in September 1671, ;if4000, as free
gifts,^ and therefore presumably in addition to the usual fees
and allowances of the Speaker. In May 1670, while still
Speaker, he was made Solicitor-General. He was appointed
Chief Baron of the Exchequer in May 1671, and thereupon
resigned the Speakership.
On the nomination of Sir William Coventry, Secretary of
State, Sir Job Charlton, the son of a London goldsmith,
and a lawyer, who sat for Ludlow, was chosen to succeed
Turnour in the Chair on February 4, 1672. He discharged
the duties of the office for ten days only. On February 1 5, he
was so indisposed that as soon as he took the Chair the House
had to adjourn. It met again on the i8th, when the following
letter, which he wrote that morning, was read by the Clerk : —
" Honourable Gentlemen, I am in duty forced to move
)'ou that you would, with His Majesty's leave, proceed to the
choice of another Speaker, and permit me to retire into the
country."^
■ rarliainentary History, vol. 4, pp. 200-5.
"^ National Dictionary of Biography, ^ Commons Jouniah, vol. 9, p. 253.
A PROUD SPEAKER 235
Charlton had also sent a letter to the King, praying his
Majesty to move the Commons "to permit him to retire
into the country, and to give them leave to choose another
Speaker," and the King's permission having been intimated,
the House immediately proceeded to fill the vacant Chair.
Edward Seymour, Member for Totnes, was selected, on
the motion of Mr. Secretary Coventry, as a fit person " both
in respect of his ability and experience, as also of his
constitution and health of body,"^ say the Journals^ thus
for the first time officially recording the reasons for the
choice of a Speaker.
CHAPTER XLII
A PROUD SPEAKER
THE Speakership of Seymour is conspicuous in the
annals of the Chair. He belonged to an old and
powerful family, of which Jane Seymour, wife of
Henry VIII. and mother of Edward VI., and her brother, the
Duke of Somerset, were members, and he was perhaps the
haughtiest and most arrogant man that has ever presided
over the House of Commons. He was Treasurer of the
Navy, with a salary of ^3000 a year, and this office he
retained during his tenure of the Speakership. But he was
not bred to the law, and therefore his appointment broke
the rule which had lasted for one hundred and fifty years,
that none but lawyers should be called to the Chair.
In 1673 the King made him a Privy Councillor. The
independent Members of the House and the Country Party
looked on the appointment with disfavour. The holding
of such an office was, in their view, incompatible with the
independence of the Speaker in his communications with
the Crown as the mouth of the House. An interesting and
instructive debate on the question took place on October
27, 1673. That distinguished parliamentarian. Sir Thomas
^ ComtnoHS Journals, vol. 9, p. 253.
236 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Littleton, pointed out that as Privy Councillor the Speaker
would be admitted to the most secret conclaves of the King.
"And how improper is that," he exclaimed, "we having
no man to present our grievances but you." He added,
addressing the proud and hot-tempered Speaker, "You
are too big for that Chair and for us, and you that are
one of the governors of the world to be our servant is
incongruous." Sir Thomas Clarges enlarged on the point
that the Speaker was entrusted with all their secrets. "In
your predecessors' times," said he, " no Speaker had liberty
to go to Court without leave."
On the other hand, it was insisted by the courtiers that
several Speakers had been of the Privy Council, and that it
was of advantage to the Commons to have their mouth so
close to the ear of the King. But the contrary view found
most expression in the debate. " With you a Privy Councillor
and so near the King," said Powle, " your frowns may be a
terror to any man that shall speak how the Council have
misled the King and given him advice to overtop us." A
new charge was brought against Seymour by Mr. William
Harbord, a severely virtuous Puritan. It was that " in resort-
ing to gaming-houses and other evil places" the Speaker
exposed the House to dishonour. But Colonel Strangeways
thought nothing the worse of the Speaker for being a
gamester. " I wish men were guilty of no greater crime,"
said he. " The Judges may as well be accepted against."
Finally, Seymour assured the House that " he held no
employment a greater honour to him than that which he had
in their service," and the motion of censure was negatived.^
Seymour was a strong Speaker, but he was feared rather
than loved, and respected more than esteemed. At this time
it was the duty of the Speaker to frame the motion or question
out of a debate or discussion which was to be put from the
Chair for the decision of the House; and Bishop Burnet
gives a curious in.stance of Seymour's skill and subserviency
in turning this duty to the interest of the Court party.
" He knew the House and every man in it so well," says the
' Grey's Debates, vol. 2, pp. 186-S.
THE KING'S POWER TO ADJOURN THE HOUSE 237
historian, " that by looking about him he could tell the fate
of any question." If necessary he would wilfully mistake
the question in order to cause delay, and thus give time
to the Court party to gather their supporters, and only when
he saw there was a sufficient number present to carry or
defeat the motion — as the case might be — would he put it
correctly from the Chair.^
As was to be expected in so proud a man, he went to the
extreme in upholding the high dignity and importance of
his position. One day as he was driving to the House of
Commons, attended by his retinue of servants, his carriage
broke down at Charing Cross, and at once he ordered his
beadles to stop the first gentleman's coach they met and
bring it to him so that he might continue his journey. The
owner of the coach not unreasonably protested against being
ejected by force. " Sir," was Seymour's impudent retort, " it
is more proper for you to walk in the streets than the Speaker
of the House of Commons."
CHAPTER XLIII
THE king's power TO ADJOURN THE HOUSE
THE disputed question whether the King had power to
adjourn the House of Commons without the consent
of its Members, which had placed Sir John Finch in
a position of extreme embarrassment in 1629, arose again in
1677. But however Seymour may have felt its unpleasant-
ness as Speaker on account of the temper it aroused in the
House, he had no misgivings as to the way he should cope
with it. He was without sympathy with the Party who, with
no less wisdom than courage, was endeavouring to free the
House of its bondage to the Crown, and accordingly in the
struggle he, like Finch, was wholly on the side of the King.
The Commons were opposed to the alliance with France,
^ Burnet, History of His Own Time, vol. 2, pp. 70-1 (1S13 edition).
238 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
on which Charles II. had set his heart, and urged instead a
league offensive and defensive with Holland. On May 28,
1677, they received a message from the King summoning
them to his presence. A few Members hurriedly quitted
their seats and rushed for the door, with the very human
desire to secure good positions at the Palace of Whitehall,
but greatly to the scandal of the courtly Speaker. " The
burgesses of Newcastle and Leicester," said he, in a stern
reprimand, "are in great haste to be gone before the King's
message is reported, as if they want to get places at a
show or a play."^ At Whitehall the Commons were told
by the King that their action was an intolerable entrench-
ment upon his prerogative, and to give them time for cool
reflection he directed that Parliament should be adjourned
until July 16.
On the return of the Commons to St. Stephens the
Speaker made the customary report of the King's command.
Henry Powle at once stood up, but Seymour interposed
before he could say anything. " I must hear no man speak
now that the King's pleasure of adjourning the House is
signified," said the Speaker peremptorily. Nevertheless a
discussion took place. The speeches and proceedings which
followed show the maturing and strengthening of the feeling
of antagonism to the subservience of the Chair to the Crown,
and to the Speaker's domination in the interest not of the
privileges of the Members, but of the King's prerogative, and
with it the determination to teach the Speaker that he was,
above and beyond everything else, the servant of the House.
" The act of adjourning the House cannot be yours, Mr,
Speaker, but the act of the House," said Sir Thomas Lee, "and
no question can be put when a gentleman stands up to speak."
He added severely : " Pray let us keep methods, however."
But the Speaker was unshaken and decisive. " When there
is a command from the King to adjourn, we are not to
dispute about it, but to obey and adjourn," said he. " After
a command of this kind there remains nothing for you to do
but to execute it." Realizing the strength and determination
' Grey's Debates, vol. 4, p. 389.
THE KING'S POWER TO ADJOURN THE HOUSE 239
of the Independent Members to resist, Seymour quickly
declared the House to be adjourned until July 16, without
putting the question ; and hurriedly left the Chair.^
Sir John Reresby, who was a Member at the time, says in
his Memoirs, that Seymour's action was without precedent,
and greatly discomposed the House. " Some," he writes,
" were offering to hold the Speaker in the Chair, but he leapt
from it very nimbly " ; and he adds that Seymour was in fear
that " mutinous speeches " would be delivered had he put the
question for adjournment.^ As the Independent Members
were too late to detain Seymour by force, they attempted
to secure the Mace,'with a view to putting some one else
in the Chair. But the retainers of the Court formed a guard
round the Serjeant-at-Arms, and the Speaker went away
amid shouts of reproaches and threats that, like Finch, he
would be called to account.
The Independents, however, were quite powerless. On
July 16, when the House again met, it was known that the
King had commanded a further adjournment until December 3.
Before the announcement was officially made, Lord Cavendish
moved that the House might see from the Journals by what
order and in what method they were adjourned last, and the
motion was seconded by William Williams. " But," says
Anchitell Grey, " some cried out Adjourn, Adjourn ; others
called Question ! But the Speaker told them ' that he had
received orders from the King, by Mr. Secretary Coventry,
to adjourn the House till December 3, and pronounced the
House adjourned accordingly.'"^
On December 3 the King commanded an adjournment
to January 15, 1678, and again the Speaker at once
adjourned the House without question put. On January
15 there was a command from the King to adjourn to
January 28. Several Members rose to speak, but the Speaker
refused to hear them, and left the Chair.
In truth, usage, custom, authority were ranged against
' Greys Debates, vol. 4, p. 390.
^ The Memoirs of Sir John Reresby (edited by J. J. Cartwiight, 1S75), 118.
' Grey^s Debates, vol. 4, pp. 390-1,
240 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
the Independents. Seymour's action was by no means what
they represented it to be — a gross instance of the presumption
of a domineering Speaker. Seymour was undoubtedly a
stout adherent of the King, and His Majesty's most obedient
servant ; but his conduct had behind it the rules of the House,
or rather tlie constitutional practice of generations. More-
over, the Commons would have acted without authority had
they put another in the Chair on the occasion when Seymour
so nimbly sprang out of it. As Hatsell, writing in the middle
of the eighteenth century, points out, a direction from the
Sovereign was then regarded as " essentially necessary " to
enable the Commons to proceed to elect a Speaker, — the
precedents of the Civil War notwithstanding, — and therefore,
a motion to appoint another in Seymour's place, even pro
tempore, would have been " highly irregular." ^
The subject was renewed when the Parliament met
again on January 28, 1678. The Commons postponed
even the consideration of the Speech delivered by the King
at the opening of the Parliament, until they discussed what
appeared to them to be the more urgent and important
question of the irregular adjournments of the House by the
Speaker.
William Sacheverell, the renowned Parliamentary orator,
opened the debate. He said it seemed as if the Speaker
undertook to be bigger than the House, for he dared to
violate its rights solely on his own authority. These rights,
he contended, were secured by two rules of the House.
" That it is the Standing Order and undoubted right of the
House," said one, " that the House be not adjourned by the
Speaker, but by the Consent of the House, and not by the
Speaker only." " That when a gentleman stands up to
speak," said the other, " the person is not to be silenced
unless the House overrule him." What seems in the
circumstances to be a complete answer to this argument,
was supplied by Sir Charles Wheeler. " When the King
sends to adjourn," said he, "the question is between the
King and us, and not between the Speaker and us."
' Ilalsell, Precedents, vol. 2, p. 219 (1818 edition.)
THE KING'S POWER TO ADJOURN THE HOUSE 241
Sir William Coventry, Secretary for State, interposed to
deplore the extreme danger to the country of delaying
public business when a war with France was imminent.
" I vow to God," he cried, in an odd expression, " though I
hate murder, yet I had rather be guilty of twenty murders
than hinder our proceedings now." He therefore humbly
moved that the debate be laid aside. But the talk went on.
" It is in vain to think of conquests abroad, when we lose
our liberty at home," said Powle. " By the same reason
that you adjourn the House, Mr. Speaker, you may put any
question." Seymour had his reply ready. He had but
acted strictly according to the orders. " In all the Journals"
said he, " I cannot find that when the King commanded an
immediate adjournment, the House proceeded in one tittle of
business."^
The debate was adjourned until February 9, when it
ended with curious inconclusiveness. The House was then
adjourned on a division by 131 to 121, but not the debate,
and no question was passed upon the matter of the debate.^
On the reassembling of the Commons, on April 11,
1678, after a short Easter recess, it was announced that
Seymour was ill at his house in the country. Being unable
to write, he sent a message. It does not appear that he
actually tendered his resignation. " So soon as it should
please God to restore him," said his uncle, Henry Seymour,
" he would return to their service."
The King, however, directed that a new Speaker should be
appointed. " His Majesty had received advertisement," said
Mr. Secretary Coventry, "that Mr. Speaker does labour
under so great an indisposition of health that he cannot
possibly for a long time attend the service of the House, and
to the end that public affairs may receive no delay His Majesty
did give leave to the House to choose a new Speaker." ^
Accordingly, Coventry named Sir Robert Sawyer,
Member for Chipping Wycombe, as Seymour's successor.
' Grey's Debates, vol. 4, pp. 1-17.
* Commons Journals, vol. 9, p. 436 ; Grey's Debates, vol. 5, pp. 122-44.
' Commons Journals, vol. 9, p. 463.
16
242 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
There was a contest, the first for the Chair on record. Who
was proposed in opposition to Sawyer, and why, are questions
which are left unanswered. But it is evident from the
Journals that a second Member was nominated, though his
name is not given. Then a difficulty arose. Who should
put the question in these novel circumstances? It is stated
that a precedent was produced out of the Jourjial of the
Parliament of James I., showing that in a like case the
question was put by the Clerk.^
Goldesbrough, the Clerk, however, seemed fearful of
acting unconstitutionally. He pointed out that the Mace
was not in the House, and " he did humbly leave it to their
consideration " whether the business could regularly be done
without the Mace. After some debate the Serjeant-at-Arms
was directed to bring in the Mace and place it under the
Table. Then the Clerk put the question : " All that will
have Sir Robert Sawyer say yea." " Which," say the
Journals, " being carried in the affirmative by much the
greater number of voices, without any division of the House,
Sir Robert Sawyer was thereupon conducted to the Chair by
Mr. Secretary Coventry and Mr. Secretary Williamson." -
The line of lawyers as Speakers was restored by the
election of Sawyer. His appearance in the Chair was but
ephemeral. On May 6, writing from Lincoln's Inn Fields
to the Commons, he said he was reduced to such weakness of
body by pain that he could no longer attend the service of the
House without hazard to his life, and asked to be discharged
from the duty. The King's leave for the choice of another
Speaker was then declared ; and as Seymour, now restored
to health, was present, he was recalled to the Chair on the
motion of Mr. Secretary Williamson.^
' There is no motion of ihis earlier contest for the Chair in the printed
Journals of the House of Commons.
* Commons Jourua/s, vol. 9, p. 463.
' Ibid., vol. 9, p. 476.
REFUSAL OF THE ROYAL APPROBATION 243
CHAPTER XLIV
REFUSAL OF THE ROYAL APPROBATION
IN the next Parliament of Charles IL, which met on
March 6, 1679, an extraordinary position in regard to the
Speakership was unexpectedly developed. The relations
of Seymour with the King and the Commons were entirely
reversed. In the last Parliament the King, through the
willing instrumentality of Seymour, was able to stifle dis-
cussion by commanding the adjournment of the Commons.
Seymour in the new Parliament, more by accident than
by design, perhaps, stood for the Commons against the
King's control of the choice of Speaker,
The Member invited to the Chair by the Commons had
still to make his calling and election sure by the seal of
the Sovereign's approval. Inasmuch as he was always
really the nominee of the Crown, — indeed it is not too
much to say the mere puppet of the King, — he had the
perfect assurance of his appointment being thus royally
confirmed. But a sensational departure from this ancient
usage has now to be recorded. For the first time in the
history of the Speakership — and the last — the selection of
the Commons for the Chair, in the person of Seymour, was
denied the Sovereign's approbation. Not the slightest
reference to this strange episode is to be found in the
Journals of the House of Commons. There are several
significant rows of asterisks, * * * * *^ indicating blanks,
but that is all. The record of the doings of the House
is resumed again only on March 18, when the contest
between the Commons and King over the nomination to the
Chair was at an end.
On the motion of Colonel Birch, — not a courtier or
Minister, but a private Member, be it noted, — " The Right
Honourable Edward Seymour, knight of the shire for
the county of Devon, Treasurer of the Navy, one of His
Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, and Speaker of
244 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
the last Parliament," was unanimously called to the Chair,
and was conducted thereto by two private Members, Sir
Thomas Lee and Mr. Hampden. " He hung back and acted
his unwillingness very well," says Anchitell Grey, in the
same contemporary'' account of the election. Seymour, at
this time, was in disfavour at the Court. What he had done
to cause the King's displeasure is not clear. That it was
something unconnected with his conduct in the Chair is
certain, for to him as Speaker the King's will was of higher
import than the wish of the Commons. Some of the gossips
of the period say there was a lady in the case, no less a
personage, indeed, than the wife of the powerful Danby, the
Lord Treasurer. Thus he fell — the proud and haughty
Speaker — in the favour of the King, not because of his zeal
for the privileges of the Commons, but because of some
sordid Court intrigue.
But Seymour was still as proud and arrogant as ever.
Learning that the King had decided not to confirm his
re-election to the Chair, he determined to try to circumvent
His Majesty. At least he would purposely avoid making
the traditional excuses of his unfitness for the post, so as
not to give the King the opportunity of taking advantage
of them. His speech on being presented to the King at
the Bar of the House of Lords on March 7, 1679, — the
day after his nomination by the Commons, — is the shortest
and most audacious that ever was made by a Speaker on
the like occasion.
" May it please Your Majesty," said he, " the knights,
citizens, and burgesses in Parliament assembled, in obedience
to Your Majesty's command, have made choice of a
Speaker, and have unanimously chosen me; and now I
come hither for Your Majesty's approbation which, if Your
Majesty please to grant, I shall do them and you the best
service I can."
Charles, however, was not to be outwitted. He had
been cheated out of the joke, so characteristic of his vein
of humour and whimsicality, which he had arranged. If
Seymour had said, in the traditional way, " I am weak. Your
REFUSAL OF THE ROYAL APPROBATION 245
Majesty ; relieve me of this burden and responsibility," he
would have replied, " With pleasure." But his resources were
not exhausted. He would effect his purpose sternly, if not
in a humorous way. A few whispered words passed between
him and the Lord Chancellor Heneage Finch, and then the
latter spoke out. " It is an essential prerogative of the
King," said he, " to refuse as well as approve of a Speaker."
His Majesty had no reason to dislike Mr. Seymour, having
had long experience of his ability and service. " But," he
went on, "the King is the best judge of men and things.
He knows when and where to employ. He thinks fit to
reserve you for other service, and to ease you of this. It
is His Majesty's pleasure to discharge this choice; and,
accordingly, by His Majesty's command, I do discharge you
of this place you are chosen for ; and in His Majesty's name
command the House of Commons to make another choice,
and command them to attend here to-morrow at eleven
o'clock." 1
The Commons went back to their Chamber in a mood
of bitter resentment against this further attack by the King
on the independence of the Speaker. The Chair was
vacant. It would seem, indeed, as if Seymour did not
return to the House at all. He was probably in doubt as
to his proper place, whether it was in the Chair as Speaker
or on the benches as a private Member, and he elected to
stay away." But though the Chair was unoccupied an
angry debate took place, and the questions which were
moved were put by the Clerk.^
In a contemporary account of the scene it is stated that
on the return of the Commons to their place. Sir John
Ernly (or Ernley) rose and said "he had orders from His
Majesty to recommend Sir Thomas Meres to be their
Speaker," as being well adept in the practice of the House,
and therefore acceptable and serviceable to them. " But the
House in a great heat cried, ' No, no, no ! ' and fell into a
^ Pa?liametttary History, vol. 4, pp. 1 092-3.
^ Hatsell, Precedents, vol. 2, pp. 222-3 (1818).
^ Greys Debates, vol. 6, p. 404.
246 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
warm debate."^ The ri<;ht of the King to exercise a veto
on the election of the Speaker was hotly contested by the
Country Party; and it was argued by the Law Officers of
the Crown that if the consent of the Sovereign were
necessary to confirm the choice of the Commons his refusal
must necessarily render it inoperative. Ultimately the
discussion was adjourned until the following day, when it
was decided to send a deputation to the King, and at their
request His Majesty was graciously pleased to allow further
time for the consideration of the matter.
The Commons met again on March il. A representa-
tion to the King was then agreed to. It stated that " it is
the undoubted right of the Commons to have the free
election of one of their Members to be their Speaker to
perform the service of the House," and that "the Speaker
so elected, and presented according to custom, hath by
the constant practice of all former ages been continued
Speaker, and executed that employment." But the King
was unyielding. His answer was that the Commons must
choose another Speaker. The next day the Commons drew
up another address to the King, beseeching him for a
gracious answer to their prayer. " Gentlemen," said Charles
to the deputation, " I will give you my "answer to-morrow."
He went to the House of Lords on the morrow, March 13,
and sending for the Commons prorogued Parliament for
two days.-
The King opened Parliament in person on March 15.
What happened in the interval is not clear. But an
accommodation was arrived at between the King and
Commons. The Lord Chancellor on behalf of the King
directed the Commons to return to their House and choose
a Speaker and submit him for His Majesty's approval. The
Commons did as they were commanded. On the motion
of Lord William Russell, William Gregory, serjeant-at-law,
and Member for Weoblcy, Herefordshire, was appointed
' Chandler, History of the Home of Commom (horn the Restoration to 1742),
vol. I, p. 330.
" /did., vol, I, p. 334 ; Grey's Debates, vol. 6, pp. 403-39.
THE FIRST WELSHMAN AS SPEAKER 247
Speaker. "Then Lord Russel and Lord Cavendish took
him by the arms and led him to the Chair, which he did
not in the least resist." It is also briefly recorded that " on
the 17th he was presented to the King, who without
hesitation approved of the choice."^
CHAPTER XLV
THE FIRST WELSHMAN AS SPEAKER
TO whom was the victory ? The compromise arranged
was that in the new situation created by the proroga-
tion a Member who was not the original nominee
of the Commons, nor yet the nominee of the King, should
be selected. Bishop Burnet in his History says the point
was settled " that the right of electing was in the House, and
that confirmation was a thing of course." That, surely, is a
strange and unwarranted reading of the episode. Harley,
who was Speaker in the reign of Queen Anne, and afterwards
Earl of Oxford, used to say that all the Commons gained was
" that the Speaker might be moved for by one who was not
a Privy Councillor." ^
Lord William Russell and Lord Cavendish, who proposed
and seconded Gregory, were private Members as well as lead-
ing Independents or Whigs. The only echo of the former
heat and tumult of the controversy heard at the election
of Gregory was the voice of Sacheverell, protesting that in
honour the Commons could not desert Seymour, and that
this might be the setting of a bad precedent to their future
undoing. Lord Cavendish — Gregory's second sponsor — then
made a remark which explains the silence of the Journals.
It had been agreed that the King's denial of the former
Speaker they had chosen was not to be entered in the
^Parliamentary History, vol. 4, pp. 11 12-3; Crefs Debates, vol. 6,
pp. 1-4.
"^ Hatsell, Precedents, vol. 2, p. 222 (1S18).
248 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
books. Therefore, no precedent was created. But, on the
whole, it must be said that the victory was to the King.
He had asserted the right of the Crown to a"; veto on
the choice of a Speaker. All that was conceded to the
Commons was that the Speaker might be proposed by
one who was, as we should now say, a private or unofficial
Member.
Did this concession establish the principle that the Crown
should not dictate to the Commons whom they were to
choose as Speaker? There is no means of knowing whether
the Speaker in the next Parliament — the last but one of
Charles II. — was nominated, as hitherto, by a Secretary of
State or an official of the Royal Household. He prob-
ably was not, as he was a Member of the Country Party and
had been prominent in the struggle against extension of the
royal prerogative, but there is evidence to show that if the
custom was suspended at this stage it was revived in sub-
sequent reigns.
The new Parliament assembled on October 21, 1680.
William Williams (son of the rector of Llantrisant who
subsequently became canon of Bangor and prebendary of
St. Asaph), the Recorder of Chester, which city he repre-
sented in the House of Commons, was chosen Speaker, the
first Welshman to occupy the Chair. The /ou7-Hals simply
record that he was unanimously chosen and conducted to
the Chair "by two Members of the House." ^ They were
probably Members who were not of the Privy Council.
Williams was too independent and fearless to have been
a Court nominee. He told Seymour that by adjourning the
House against its wishes he had gagged Parliament. In
the debate on the King's refusal to confirm the reappoint-
ment of Seymour to the Chair he boldly advised the House
not to nominate another Speaker. In his speeches to the
Commons and the King on his election as Speaker there
rings a new note of manliness and sincerity. They do not
appear in the Parliamentary History, but an authorized version
of them was published by Williams in self-defence., "Being
' Commons Journals, vol. 9, p. 636.
THE FIRST WELSHMAN AS SPEAKER 249
ill-used," he says in a prefatory note, "by false and mistaken
representations in writing, published in coffee-houses and
other places, of what I said in my place in the time of my
Speakership in the last Parliament."
" Gentlemen," said he to the Commons, " it were vanity in
me by arguments from weakness and unfitness to disable
myself for your service in this Chair at this time. The
unanimous voice of the House calling me to this place
precludes me, and leaves me without excuse. Whom the
Commons have elected for this trust is to be supposed
worthy and fit for it; wherefore I must acquiesce in your
commands." To the King he said : " I am set in the first
station of your Commons, for trust and quality, an high and
slippery place ! It requires a steady head and a well-poised
body in him that will stand firm there. Uprightness is the
safe posture and best policy, and shall be mine in this place,
guarded with this opinion — that Your Majesty's service in this
trust is one and the same with the service of the Commons,
and that they are no more to be divided than your crown
and sceptre." ^
It fell to Williams as Speaker to pronounce sentence of
expulsion on two Members adjudged guilty by the House
of Commons of breaches of its privileges, or of offending
against the rights and liberties of the people. Francis
Wythens, a lawyer who sat for Westminster, presented an
address " from the grand inquest of the city of Westminster "
to the King, expressing abhorrence of the petitions promoted
by the Whigs for the calling of the Parliament. For this
Wythens was knighted by the King. For this the Commons
declared him unworthy to sit among them. He had to kneel
at the Bar while the Speaker, with Celtic fervour and extreme
Party spirit, railed at him for his offence. " You being a
lawyer have offended against your own profession," exclaimed
Williams. " You have offended against yourself, your own
right, your own liberty as an Englishman. This is not only
a crime against the living, but a crime against the unborn
' The Speech of the Honourable William Williams, Esq., Speaker of House of
Commons (London, i68o).
250 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
You are dismembered from this body."^ Sir Robert Peyton
was also expelled. He had deserted from the Country Party,
or Whigs, and opposed their Exclusion Bill for setting aside
the hereditary rii^ht of the Duke of York to succeed to
the Throne, on the ground that he was a Papist. " This
Parliament," said the Speaker, addressing Peyton, as he
knelt before him, "nauseates such Members as you are; you
are no longer a part of this noble body." ^ After the Dissolu-
tion, Peyton sent Williams a challenge to a duel. Williams
reported the affair to the Privy Council, and Peyton was
committed to the Tower.
The Parliament was suddenly dissolved in January 1681.
On the following March 21, the new Parliament — the last of
Charles II. — assembled at Oxford, as the King was appre-
hensive of violence from the citizens of London. Williams
was re-elected to the Chair. In a week the Parliament came
to an end. No other Parliament was summoned during the
remaining years of Charles II. He died on February 6, 1685.
CHAPTER XLVI
THE REVOLUTION
THE only Parliament of James II. met at Westminster on
May 19, 1685. It was opened in person by the
King. An important constitutional departure took
place in the election of the Speaker. Hitherto the Speaker
was not chosen until the causes for the summoning of
Parliament had been stated by the Sovereign, or by the
Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper on his behalf, to both
Houses assembled in the Chamber of the Lords. Hence-
forward the election of Speaker was to precede the King's
Speech. Whether the change was made independently by
the King, or at the suggestion of his advisers, it is im-
possible to say, and as to the reasons for it the annals of
' Grey's Debates, vol. 7, p. 391. ' Ibid., vol. 8, p. 149.
THE REVOLUTION 251
Parliament are equally silent. When the Commons went
up to the House of Lords in answer to the summons of
Black Rod, the Lord Keeper, Baron Guildford, announced
that the King would reserve his speech from the Throne
until the Commons had chosen a Speaker and presented
him for the royal approbation.
The man selected by the Commons is, perhaps, the most
notorious occupant of the Chair in the long line of Speakers :
Sir John Trevor, who, as Speaker in the first Parliament of
William III., was expelled the House for bribery in 1695.
On this occasion the choice of him was made on the re-
commendation of the Earl of Midleton, in the peerage
of Scotland, " one of His Majesty's principle Secretaries of
State," say the Journals, so that under James II., as under
his predecessors, the Speaker continued to be practically the
nominee of the Crown. " The House," according to the
Joiimals, " unanimously chose the said Sir John Trevor for
their Speaker. And he being not permitted to excuse him-
self, and being conducted to the Chair by the said Earl of
Midleton, and the Honourable Henry Sevill, Esquire, Vice-
Chamberlain to His Majesty, two of the Members of the
House, he humbly desired leave to disable himself at the
Royal Throne." ^ The manner in which he disabled him-
self is also numbered among unrecorded things.
Trevor was a W^elshman. He was born in 1637, the
second son of John Trevor of Brynkmalt, Denbighshire, a
judge on the North Wales Circuit, and was a cousin of the
notorious Judge Jeffreys. He read law in the chambers of
another cousin, Arthur Trevor, of the Inner Temple. "A
gentleman that visited Mr. Arthur Trevor," says Roger North
in his Li/c of Judge Jeffreys, "at his going out observed a
strange-looking boy in his clerk's seat (for no person ever
had a worse squint than he had), and asked who that youth
was. * A kinsman of mine,' said Arthur Trevor, ' that I have
allowed to sit here to learn the knavish part of the law.' "
Owing to this squint it was difficult for Members to catch
the Speaker's eye. Occasionally two Members in different
' Commons Journals, vol. 9, p. 713.
252 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
parts of the Chamber were each equally confident that the
wandering glance of the Speaker had alighted upon him,
and the confusion that ensued was most embarrassing to
all concerned. Trevor sat for the borough of Denbigh.
While still Speaker he was appointed Master of the Rolls
in October 1685.
The Parliament was overwhelmingly Tory ; and, animated
as it was by the violent Party spirit of the times, it did not
feel called upon to protest against a prosecution which had
been instituted against William Williams for an act done in
the discharge of his duty as Speaker in 1680. During the
agitation caused by the Exclusion Bill, Dangerfield — the
rival of Titus Oates as a discoverer of bogus Popish plots —
wrote the story known as The Meal-Tub Plot, containing
false and odious imputations on the Duke of York ; and
Williams, as Speaker, by direction of the House, issued the
necessary licence for its publication. In 1685 the story was
declared by the Privy Council to be a seditious libel, for
which Dangerfield was publicly whipped. Sir Robert
Sawyer, — Speaker for a few weeks in 1678, — who was now
Attorney-General, filed an information against Williams in
the Court of King's Bench for having sanctioned the publi-
cation of the narrative. In vain Williams pleaded the
privilege of Parliament. The House of Commons took no
steps to protect the ex-Speaker. He was convicted and
sentenced to a fine of ;^io,ooo, of which he paid ;^8ooo,
the balance having been remitted by the King.
Three years pass, and William Williams, who, as Speaker
in 1680, led the movement in the House of Commons for
the exclusion of the Duke of York, is discovered as one of
the most zealous supporters of James II. " He was converted
by interest," says Macaulay in his History, " from a dema-
gogue into a champion of prerogative." Sawyer was dis-
missed from the office of Attorney-General because of his
scruples in supporting the royal prerogative claimed and
exercised by the King, dispensing with the laws of the
land. Williams was made Solicitor-General and knighted.
In the State Trials of 1683, when Lord William Russell —
THE REVOLUTION 253
whom we have seen active on the side of the Commons in
their struggle against Charles II. for the unrestricted right
to nominate their Speaker — and Algernon Sidney were
condemned to death for their alleged association with the
Rye House Plot for the overthrow of the Government, the
prosecution was led by Sawyer, and Williams was the fearless
counsel for the defence. And when the Seven Bishops were
prosecuted in 1688 for questioning the dispensing power,
ex-Speaker Williams stood for the royal prerogative, and
ex-Speaker Sawyer led the defence and obtained an
acquittal.
Great historic events were thus happening. The only
Parliament of James II, was dissolved on November 22,
1685. Within three years the Revolution was effected.
James II. was deposed, and to the place of the last of the
Stuart kings Parliament called William and Mary. In
November 1688, James fled the kingdom. There was, in
the circumstances, no constitutional authority to issue writs
for the election of a new Parliament. But the Commons
who had sat in the last Parliament of Charles il. were called
together by the Prince of Orange, and they met on
December 23, 1688, in St. Stephen's Chapel, and having
elected Henry Powle to the Chair, presented, jointly with
the Lords, an address to the Prince praying that he would
take upon himself provisionally the administration of affairs.
The Prince accordingly summoned a Convention of the
Estates of the Realm, which assembled at Westminster on
January 22, 1689. It was at first intended to elect Sir
Edward Seymour to the Chair, but at the last moment he
was set aside, it being rumoured that he was against the
intention to declare the Throne vacant, and Henry Powle,
who was returned with Sir Christopher Wren for the
borough of New Windsor, was the choice of the knights
and burgesses. As King James had fled the country, and
William of Orange had not yet been declared King, the
Commons proceeded with the election of Speaker without
the licence of the Crown and solely on their own authority.
Powle was proposed by the Earl of Wiltshire, Member
254 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
for Hampshire, and seconded by Sir Vere Fane, Member
for Kent, and was by them conducted to the Chair, He
made a brief disabling speech which is given in the Journals.
" I know very well," said he, " that excuses from this place
are looked upon only as formalities. But I am so sensible
of my own defects, and so desirous that this House may
not receive any prejudice by them, that I most earnestly
entreat you that, amongst so many worthy and experienced
Members as are met here to-day, you would make choice of
one that is better able to perform the duty of this place."
" But his excuse not being allowed," the Journals record,
" the Mace was called for, and placed upon the Table," ^
The ceremony of presenting Powle for the royal approval
was perforce also omitted, as in the case of Sir Harbottle
Grimston, Speaker of the Convention Parliament of 1660,
which brought back Charles II. from exile.
The first act of the Convention was to declare that James
by his flight had abdicated the government, and that con-
sequently the Throne was vacant. William and Mary
were proclaimed King and Queen. The Convention was
turned into a Parliament, and the King made a speech to
both Houses with all the old ceremonial. The House of
Commons declared that the judgment against ex-Speaker
Williams in 1685, for licensing the publication of Danger-
field's narrative, was illegal and subversive of the freedom
of Parliament.^ Powle, as Speaker, presented to William
and Mary for the Royal Assent, on December 16, 16S9, the
Bill of Rights. Sir William Williams assisted in drawing
up that famous declaration curtailing the prerogative of the
Crown and expanding the privileges of Parliament. Once
more he was on the side of the Whigs,
The Convention Parliament having been dissolved in
February 1690, a new Parliament was summoned to meet
on the following March 20, The precedent set by James II.
of postponing the Speech from the Throne until the
election of the Speaker of the House of Commons was
followed by William and Mary, On the opening day of
' Commons Jouniali, %ol. lO, p. 9. - /bid., vol. 10, p. 215.
EXPULSION OF SIR JOHN TREVOR 255
the Parliament the Commons were summoned to the House
of Lords, when Sir Robert Atkins, Chief Baron of the
Exchequer Court and Speaker of the House of Lords,
speaking for the King, " commanded the Commons to return
to their House and choose their Speaker," and present him
the next day to their Majesties. The practice of a Minister
or Court official nominating the Speaker was continued after
the Revolution. On the motion of Sir John Lowther, Vice-
Chamberlain to the King, Sir John Trevor was again called
to the Chair.^ In this Parliament, Trevor sat for the borough
of Beeralston, in Devonshire.
The House of Commons expelled ex-Speaker Sawyer
for his conduct as Attorney-General in the prosecution of
Sir Thomas Armstrong for complicity in the Rye House
Plot. The decisive speech against him, in which he was
charged with " wilful murder," was made by his great rival,
ex-Speaker Williams.
CHAPTER XLVII
EXPULSION OF SIR JOHN TREVOR
THIS Parliament lasted for more than eight years.
For five of those years, Trevor presided over the
deliberations of the Commons. Then he was dis-
covered in an act of corruption. It was an age noted for
laxity of principle in pecuniary transactions. There was
no direct embezzlement of public funds. But there was a
great deal of jobbery, and jobbery, too, of a rather mean
character. No one, apparently, was too high in office, or too
proud personally, to be unwilling to pocket illicit gain for
low services rendered by reason of his position.
The Bill which Trevor was bribed to pass had no venal
purpose in view. On the contrary, it redressed a flagrant
injustice. For years the Corporation of the City of London
^ Commons Journals, vol. lO, p. 347.
256 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
had been vainly promoting a Bill for sanctioning the
payment to certain orphans of their portions which they had
been deprived of in the confusion of the Revolution, and,
hopeless of getting it passed in the ordinary way, they
enlisted the Speaker's interest in it by giving him a sub-
stantial gratuity. Whispers of the transaction got abroad.
In order to ascertain the truth, and vindicate its honour, the
House of Commons appointed a Committee to hold a
searching inquiry. The books of the City Chamberlain
were examined, and in them an official record of Trevor's
shame was discovered. First there was the following
resolution passed by the Committee of the City Corporation
which had the matter in hand : " That Mr. Chamberlain do
pay to the Hon. Sir John Trevor, Knight, Speaker of the
House of Commons, the sum of looo guineas, as soon as a
Bill be passed into an Act of Parliament for satisfying the
debts of the orphans and other creditors of the said City" ;
and, secondly, upon the back of this order was the endorse-
ment that "the within lOOO guineas were delivered and paid
unto the Hon. Sir John Trevor, this 22nd June 1694, in the
presence of Sir Robert Clayton and Sir James Houblon,
which at 22s. exchange comes to £1 100."
The Committee of the House of Commons reported the
circumstance to the House, and recommended the adoption
of the following resolution : " That Sir John Trevor, Speaker
of the House, receiving a gratuity of 1000 guineas from the
City of London, after passing of the Orphans' Bill, was guilty
of a high crime and misdemeanour." The report was
brought before the House on March 12, 1695. ^^ is set
out at length in the Journals under that date. Trevor was
in the Chair. For six hours his action was debated by the
House. Of what he said in his own defence, or what his
friends may have pleaded in mitigation, there is no record in
the Journals. Only the discussion was prolonged into the
dusk of the evening, as the following entry shows : " Ordered,
that candles be brought in. And they were so." ^ The
shadow of the ill-lit Chamber must have been welcome to
' Commons Journals, vol. ii, p. 271.
SIR JOHN TKKVOR
KKOM A\ ENC.RAVING AFIER THE DKAWINCi liV 1. AI.LEN
I
1
EXPULSION OF SIR JOHN TREVOR 257
Trevor in his pitiable position, especially when he rose from
his high place in the Speaker's Chair to put to the House
the pronouncement of his personal ignominy. " As many
as are of that opinion say ' Aye.'" There followed a loud
shout affirmative of his shame. " The contrary, ' No.' " Only
a few voices were raised on his behalf. Then Trevor was
forced to declare, "The 'Ayes' have it." Did he feel the
ground crumbling under his feet, and see the opening of a
chasm which was to engulf him in ruin and disgrace?
On the following day the House assembled again. But
Trevor did not appear. The Clerk read the following letter
from him : —
" Gentlemen, — I did intend to have waited on you this
morning ; but, after I was up, I was taken suddenly ill with
a violent cholic. I hope to be in a condition of attending
you to-morrow morning. In the meantime, 1 desire you will
be pleased to excuse my attendance.
" I am with all duty, gentlemen, your most obedient
humble servant, J. TREVOR, Speaker"
The House accordingly adjourned until ten o'clock the
next morning. Then another letter was received from
Trevor reiterating his plea of illness, and once more humbly
praying to be excused from attendance.
Immediately after Trevor's letter had been read by the
Clerk, Mr. Wharton, Comptroller of the Household, rose and
said he was commanded by the King to inform the House
that Trevor had written to His Majesty saying that as his
indisposition continued he could not further attend the service
of the House, and accordingly His Majesty gave leave to the
House to proceed to the election of a new Speaker. The
Minister then proceeded to say : " I shall, without fear of
displeasing any person out of so many who are qualified to
serve you, nominate "
" Upon this," it is written in the Journals, with an un-
wonted descriptive touch, " he was interrupted by a great
noise in the House crying, ' No, no, no ! ' Exceptions were
taken by several Members that it was contrary to the
17
258 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
undoubted right of the House of choosing their own Speaker,
to have any person who brought a message from the King
to nominate one of them."
Thus arose a novel and important stage in the movement
for placing the Chair on a basis of complete independence
of the Crown. As we have seen, the Speaker had, as a rule,
been nominated by a Court official or Minister, and there
can be little doubt that in almost every case the choice was
previously approved of, if not actually inspired by, the
Sovereign. But though the Commons were yet unable to
prevent these private arrangements at Court between the
Crown and the Ministers, they were determined not to
tolerate any proceeding in the House which was inconsistent ]
with the theory, at least, that the Speaker was their own free
and independent selection.
Despite those protests, however, Wharton proposed Sir
Thomas Littleton, and he was seconded by Sir Henry
Goodrick. A second candidate was then nominated by the
independent Members. This was Paul Foley, the repre-
sentative of the city of Hereford, who, though a Tory, had
been a supporter of the Revolution. He was proposed by
Sir Christopher Musgrave and seconded by Lord Digby.
For the first time there is now obtainable from the
Journals a clear and detailed account of the mode of election
to the Chair, which is the more interesting and valuable as
there were two candidates before the House. The questions
were put by the Clerk. The first was, " That Sir Thomas
Littleton take the Chair of this House as Speaker," which
was challenged to a division and rejected by 179 votes to
146. " Then the second question being about to be put,"
the Journals say, " Mr. Foley stood up to speak, but the
House would not hear him, but ordered the Clerk to put
the question, ' That Paul Foley, Esquire, take the Chair of
this House as Speaker.' It was resolved, nomine con- |n
tradicente." Foley was then conducted to the Chair by
Colonel Granvill and Henry Boyle, protesting, all the 1
way, that he was unsuited for the post. " And upon the
first step of the Chair," the quaint official record goes on,
EXPULSION OF SIR JOHN TREVOR 259
" after some pause he made a speech to the House again to
excuse himself. Which not being allowed, he sat down.
And the Mace was laid upon the Table." ^
Foley was presented to the King at the Bar of the
House of Lords on the following day, when his election
received the royal approbation. As he was appointed to
fill a vacancy in the Chair occurring during the progress of
a Parliament, the precedent set by Richard Onslow in 1 566
of not renewing, in like circumstances, the petitions on
behalf of the Commons for liberty of speech and freedom
from arrest was followed. Foley himself seems to have been
doubtful at first as to the course he should pursue. On
taking the Chair after his election he desired the advice of
the House as to whether he should make these petitions to
the King. The House cried " No, No ! " Some Members
said that these petitions were demands of right which ought
to be made but once at the beginning of a Parliament, and
cited precedents in support of their views. Accordingly
Foley only asked the King to pardon any faults or mistakes
into which he might ignorantly fall.^
Foley was the second son of Thomas Foley of Whitby
Court, Worcestershire, who amassed a large fortune in the
iron industry at Stourbridge, which was founded by his
father. This is the nearest connection of trade with the
Speakership which so far has occurred. Foley himself was
a country gentleman living on a large estate at Stoke Edith,
Herefordshire. He was bred to the law, but did not
practise.
As for Trevor, he was expelled the House on March 16
the day after the confirmation of Foley's appointment to the
Chair. The resolution runs : —
" Resolved — That Sir John Trevor, late Speaker of this
House, being guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour by
receiving a gratuity of a thousand guineas from the City of
London, after passing the Orphans' Bill, be expelled this
House." ^
* Commons Jaurnah, vol. II, pp. 271-2. ^ Ibid., vol. 11, p. 272.
' Ibid., vol. II, p. 274.
26o THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
But if Trevor was disgraced he was by no means ruined.
He was not even deprived of the Mastership of the Rolls,
which he had held in conjunction with the Speakership.
Indeed, he continued to sit on the Bench for twenty years
afterwards, in fact till his death in 17 17, and he established
a high reputation for ability and uprightness as a judge.
He was only venal as Speaker of the House of Commons.
Perhaps it would be more correct to say that in disposition
he was covetous and mean, and in his day, apparently, these
qualities were not regarded as disreputable.
CHAPTER XLVIII
ROBERT HARLEY AS SPEAKER
ANEW Parliament assembled on November 22, 1695.
Queen Mary having died in December 1694, this was
the first Parliament of William III. Paul Foley's
re-election to the Chair was proposed by a Minister,
Mr. Secretary Trumball, seconded by the Earl of Ranelagh,
and agreed to unanimously. This time he made the usual
petitions to the King on behalf of the Commons. " His
Majesty," said Lord Keeper Somers, " did most willingly
grant to them all their privileges in as full a manner as they
were ever granted by any of his Royal predecessors."^
These are the words by which the privileges of the Commons
have since been confirmed by the Sovereign at the opening
of ever)^ Parliament. If they were not used for the first
time by the Lord Keeper of William in. in 1695, they were
certainly recorded then for the first time in XhQ Journals,
Sir Thomas Littleton, who was defeated by Foley in
1695, had his ambition satisfied by his appointment to the
Chair in the second Parliament of William III. The younger
son of Sir Thomas Littleton, Baronet, of Stoke St. Mil-
borough, Shropshire, he was designed for trade and ap-
' Commons fournah, vol. ii, p. 335.
ROBERT HARLEY AS SPEAKER 261
prenticed to a London merchant, but by the death of his
elder brother he became heir to the title and estates, and
quitting his stool in the City office went to Oxford
University. He succeeded to the baronetcy in 1681.
Bishop Burnet, who knew him personally, says he was the
first Speaker that had not been brought up to the legal pro-
fession. This, of course, is a mistake. There were already
several Speakers who were not lawyers. And, indeed,
Littleton himself entered the Middle Temple in 167 1,
though it is probable he was never called to the Bar. He
sat in the House of Commons for the borough of Wood-
stock, Oxford, and was a Whig and a favourite of the King.
The new Parliament met on December 6, 1698. Little-
ton was proposed by the Marquis of Hartington. No other
candidate was nominated, but there was a long debate, and
when the question was put by the Clerk a division was
challenged. Littleton, however, was elected by a majority
of 107, or by 242 votes to 135. A pamphlet entitled Con-
siderations upon the Choice of a Speaker, which was circulated
before the meeting of the Parliament, throws some light on
the opposition to Littleton. It indicates that Sir Edward
Seymour was again ambitious of presiding over the House
of Commons. To both candidates the pamphlet was very
disrespectful. Littleton was described as " a known pro-
fligate in the service of the Court"; and Seymour as "a
known profligate in the service of the people." ^
Robert Harley, the distinguished Tory statesman, who
subsequently became the first Earl of Oxford, was recom-
mended by the pamphleteer for the Chair. He succeeded
Littleton in the next Parliament. The eldest son of Colonel
Sir Edward Harley, he was born in Bow Street, Covent
Garden, in 1661, and studied for the Bar, but was never
called. He sat in the House of Commons for the borough
of New Radnor.
In his candidature for the Chair in the fifth Parliament
of William III., on February 10, 1701, Harley's proposer
was Sir Edward Seymour, and his seconder was Sir John
^ Parliamentary History, vol. S, p. 1190.
262 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Leveson Gower. Littleton desired re-election, but with-
drew at the request of the King, who wanted Harley to
be Speaker. Ilarley, nevertheless, was not appointed
unanimously. Sir Richard Onslow, a Whig, was also in
the running, although according to the Journals he was not
actually proposed. At any rate, there was a division on the
question that Harley do take the Chair as Speaker, and it
was carried by 249 votes to 129, or the substantial majority
of 120. Even that able and eminent statesman and great
orator went through the form of disabling himself, and
appealed to the country squires and the city traders to
select from among themselves one more fit to preside at
their deliberations. " Which the voice of the House being
against, he sat down in the Chair," — so it is written in the
Journals^ — '' and the Mace which before had lain under the
Table was laid upon the Table." ^
Another new Parliament assembled on December 30 of
the same year, 1701. It was the last of William III. The
King now desired that Sir Thomas Littleton should again
be Speaker. He was proposed by Lord Spencer and
seconded by John Smith. The re-election of Harley was
moved by the Earl of Disert, and seconded by Henry St.
John. " After some debate upon both the persons proposed,
the Members who spoke therein addressing themselves to
the Clerk at the Table, the Clerk proposed the question
that Sir Thomas Littleton, Baronet, do take the Chair," for
which there voted 212 for and 216 against, — a very close
issue, — and "so it passed in the negative," the Journals go
on to say.- Harley was then unanimously accepted. Next
day the Commons were summoned by Black Rod to bring
their choice to the Bar of the House of Lords for the royal
approbation. " And accordingly," as the Journals relate,
" Mr. Speaker-elect, with the House, went up to attend His
Majesty, and to present their Speaker. Who spoke thus,
namely — ." There follows just four asterisks —
« * * «
A tantalizing omission, truly. For it would be interesting
* Comnioui Journals, vol. 13, p. 325. -' /bid,, vol. 13, p. 645.
THE MACE 263
to read what so famous a Tory and High Churchman said
in laudation of William III, and to his own disparagement.
The adulation of the Sovereign by the Speaker at the
Bar of the House of Lords did not quite go out of fashion
with the Stuarts. Littleton, when William III, refused to
set him aside, said he should endeavour to discharge his
duty in the Chair in the best manner of which he was
capable, and added, with something of the old courtly
pursuit of novel compliments : " As Your Majesty has, to
the wonder of mankind, acted impossibilities, you may
command others to do the like." But absurd rhapsodies
and figures of speech were done with. No more did the
Speaker, thrilling with ecstatic loyalty, lyrically endow the
Sovereign with unparalleled and impossible mental and
physical qualities. The struggle between the Crown and
the Parliament was over, and with the defeat of the Crown
the Speakers seem to have dropped the awesomeness and
abject reverence of their predecessors in the presence of the
Sovereign, or else^'their marvellous skill in the spinning of
phrases of loyalty, exaggerated and unreal, become a
lost art.
CHAPTER XLIX
THE MACE
''T^HE Speakership now entered upon a new phase. With
X the rise of the Party system at the Revolution it
became a partisan office. Throughout the eighteenth
century and half-way through the nineteenth it was part of
the spoils of office which Whigs and Tories alike legitimately
took possession of on succeeding each other in power. No
more had the Speaker, as the King's agent, to keep a careful
watch over the proceedings of the Commons, and, if possible,
influence their decisions in the royal interest. But he
ceased to be the nominee of the King only to become the
nominee of Party, He was expected, as he sat in the Chair,
264 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
to see to the welfare of the Party to whom he owed his
position.
In the first Parliament of Queen Anne which met on
October 20, 1702, Robert Harley was for the third time
elected to the Speakership. Not only was he sworn a
Member of the Privy Council in April 1704, but in the
following Ma)^ he was appointed a Secretary of State. The
Act under which seats of Members accepting offices of profit
under the Crown are vacated had not yet been passed.^
Still the curious circumstance that the Speaker could also
be a Minister shows how little, after all, the idea of placing
the Chair in a position of independence both of the Govern-
ment and the Crown had found acceptance as late as the
beginning of the eighteenth century. Until the Dissolution
of the Parliament in April 1705, or for eleven months,
Harley continued to act as Secretary of State and Speaker.
Evelyn notes in his Diary, referring to the second
Parliament of Queen Anne, that " one Mr. Smith " was
chosen Speaker. The "one Mr. Smith" was the Right
Hon. John Smith, who had held the offices of Commissioner
of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer in the
reign of William III. He sat for the borough of Andover,
in Hampshire, a county in which he possessed an estate.
Though he had been a student at the Middle Temple he
was not called to the Bar.
When the Parliament met on October 25, 1705, there
was an exciting contest between Whigs and Tories for the
possession of the Chair. John Smith was the candidate of
the Whigs, and the Tory nominee was William Bromley,
Member for Oxford University. After an angry debate
which lasted an hour and a half, the House divided, and
the Whig was elected by a majority of 43, the numbers
being 248 for Smith, and 205 for Bromley. Smith was one of
' This is the Act for the Security of the Crown and Succession (6 Anne, c. 41),
which contains clauses incapacitating from silling in the House tlie holders of
any new office created after October 25, 1705, and obliging Members to vacate
their scats on accepting any of the existing offices, though they are eligible for
rc-clcclion.
THE MACE 265
the Commissioners for arranging the Union between England
and Scotland, and when a new Parliament assembled, with
the addition of the Scottish representatives, on October 23,
1707, he had the distinction of being appointed the first
Speaker of the Commons of Great Britain.
On this occasion a curious question arose as to the
particular moment in the election of Speaker at which the
Mace should be produced. It lay, as usual, out of sight
under the Table while Smith was being nominated, and
when he took the Chair it was placed upon the Table by
the Serjeant-at-Arms, which was also in accordance with
custom. Some Members, however, took exception to its
appearance at that stage. They contended that the Mace
ought not to be placed upon the Table until the selection
of the Speaker had been approved by the Sovereign. Several
precedents to the contrary were quoted from the Journals.
" Whereupon," it is recorded, " the Mace remained upon the
Table."!
The Speaker in the next Parliament, which met on
November 16, 1708, was a member of a family noted for
its associations with the Chair. This was Sir Richard
Onslow, a direct descendant of Richard Onslow who was
Speaker in the eighth Parliament of Queen Elizabeth. He
sat for Surrey, and was a Whig. He was proposed by Lord
William Powlett, seconded by Sir William Strickland, and
Colonel Harry Mordant is described in the Journals as
" thirding the motion." But in the Parliamentary History it
is stated that Mordant "by way of irony" proposed Mr.
Joddrel, the Clerk, who, he said, " having been assistant to
good Speakers, to indifferent ones, and to the worst," was
as well qualified for the post as anybody, though he con-
cluded by supporting Onslow, and Onslow was unanimously
adopted.
The Journals are careful to mention that after Onslow
had been conducted to the Chair, "the Serjeant-at-Arms
came up and laid the Mace upon the Table." Onslow had
an extraordinary encounter with Black Rod — the messenger
^ Commons Journals, vol. 15, p. 393.
266 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
of the Lords — in which he vindicated the respect due to the
Mace as the symbol of the Speaker's authority and power.
Dr. Henry Sachcvercll, the political preacher, was impeached
by the Whig House of Commons for reflections upon *' the
late happy Revolution and the Protestant succession," and
a majority of the Lords having found him guilty, the Speaker
and the Commons proceeded to the Upper House to demand
judgment against the prisoner. It has already been ex-
plained that the Commons are not permitted to affright the
Lords with the sight of the Mace when they appear in the
Upper House in answer to a summons. The only time the
Speaker can enter the House of Lords with the Mace is on
the extremely rare occurrence of an impeachment, when he
goes to demand the arraignment of the person charged, and
again, in the event of conviction, to ask for judgment against
the prisoner.
It may have been that the Deputy Gentleman Usher
of the Black Rod was ignorant of this usage when, on
March 23, 1709, the Commons, eager for the punishment of
Sacheverell, appeared at the door of the House of Lords.
At any rate, he stopped the Serjeant-at-Arms — as that
functionary was bringing the Mace into the Chamber — by
placing his wand of office across the door. " If you do not
take away the black rod," said the Speaker sternly, " I will
return to the House of Commons." Black Rod apparently was
frightened by the threat, for he desired the Speaker to stay
a while and he would acquaint the Lords of his presence.
He took the precaution, however, of locking the door against
the Speaker, the Commons, and the Mace.
After a little time the door was opened, and the Serjeant-
at-Arms was permitted to enter with the Mace. But Black
Rod was still unaccountably obstreperous. At the Bar he
attempted to put himself between the Speaker and the Mace.
" My Lords," cried Onslow, " if you do not immediately
order your Black Rod to go away, I will immediately return
to the House of Commons." Again the threat was effective.
Black Rod was directed to " go from thence " by the Lord
Chancellor. Sacheverell was then brought in, and Black
THE MACE 267
Rod placed him to the right hand of the Speaker and the
Mace. " My Lords," said Onslow, " the Black Rod ought to
be with the prisoner on the left hand of me." The Lord
Chancellor thereupon not only directed Black Rod to go
with the prisoner on the left hand of the Speaker, but to stand
some distance away. Sacheverell then went humbly down
on his knees for sentence. He was suspended from preach-
ing for three years, and the obnoxious sermons were ordered
to be publicly burned by the common hangman.
On the return of the Commons to their Chamber the
Speaker told the whole story, and as a precedent for all time
it was entered upon the Journals?- Sir Richard Onslow was
appropriately known as " Stiff Dick."
The next Speaker was the Right Hon. William Bromley,
a country gentleman, descended from an old Staffordshire
family, who represented the University of Oxford, and was
proposed in opposition to John Smith in 1705. In the
General Election of 17 10, the Whigs, utterly discredited by
the prosecution of Sacheverell, were overwhelmed at the
polls, — even Sir Richard Onslow lost his seat for Surrey, —
and at the meeting of the new Parliament, on November 25,
1710, Bromley, a Tory and High Churchman, was elected
to the Chair without opposition. Upon the death of his son,
March 20, 171 1, the House showed its esteem for him and
its sympathy by adjourning for six days " to give him time
both to perform the funeral rites and indulge his just
affliction." 2 Bromley subsequently became a Secretary of
State.
^ Commons Journals, vol. i6, p. 382.
- Parliamentary History, vol. 6, p. I0I2. The Journals show that the
House adjourned from March 20th to the 26th, but there is no entry as to the
reason.
268
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
CHAPTER L
RICHARD STEELE AND THE SPEAKERSHIP
THE last Parliament of Queen Anne met on Feb-
ruary 14, 1714. The Speaker chosen was Sir Thomas
Hanmer, a baronet of Welsh descent, who represented
Suffolk as a Tory. From his place on the benches Hanmer
made the required mock-modesty plea of his unfitness for
the office. " No, No ! " shouted the Members. Then he was
conducted to the Chair, and standing on the steps made the
expected second appeal to the House in its own interest to
reconsider their decision. "It was not too late for gentlemen
to alter their resolution," said he, " and he begged leave to
repeat his first excuses, and to assure them that no one ever
came as near the Chair who was so little qualified to do the
duty of it, and therefore he hoped they would consult their
honour by turning their thoughts to a better choice." " But,"
continues the contemporary report, " the House cried ' No,
No ! ' whereupon he took the Chair, and said that though the
House would not allow of his excuse, he hoped they would
be pleased to permit him to intercede with Her Majesty to
command them to proceed to another election. The members
cried * No, No ! ' and then the Mace was laid on the table." ^
Some fresh information with respect to the election of a
Speaker is supplied by Richard Steele, the essayist, dramatist,
and politician, who was returned to this Parliament. He
spoke in support of Hanmer's qualifications for the Chair.
" I rise," said Steele, " to do him honour and distinguish
myself by giving him my vote." Mocking exclamations of
" Do him honour ! " interrupted Steele. The House was Tory,
and Steele, a mere Whig scribbler, was looked upon as an
adventurer and interloper by the country squires. A few
weeks later he was expelled the House for having pub-
lished a false and malicious libel abusing the Ministry in
The Crisis. Steele brought out a little pamphlet in his own
' rarliatuciitary History , vol. 6, p. 1254.
RICHARD STEELE AND THE SPEAKERSHIP 269
defence. He explains that the phrase did not at all imply
" that 'tis an honour to him that 'tis I who do him that
respect," and insists there is nothing absurd in it. Then he
goes on to give a curious and unexpected explanation of the
interruptions. He attributes them to " a parcel of rustics
who crowded in with the Members before the election of the
Speaker, from a received error that there is no authority in
the House till he is chosen," — the first reference to the
presence of " strangers " in St. Stephens, — and adds that as
he came out of the Chamber he could hear them saying to
one another, " Oh, it is not so easy a thing to speak in the
House "; " He fancies because he can scribble."^
Hanmer was not two months in the Chair when he reported
to the House an attempt to bribe him. On March 12, 17 14, he
stated that on the day before he received a letter containing " a
scandalous offer of a sum of money " if he would get passed
an Act of Parliament, carrying out the prayer of a petition
which was enclosed. The amount tendered and the object
in view were not stated. But it is improbable that either
the bribe was tempting or the intention nefarious, for the
culprit turned out to be a poor Irishman named John Quin,
who fancied himself to be labouring under some grievance
or another. On being brought to the Bar he pleaded that
he had offended inadvertently and through ignorance, being
a stranger unacquainted with the methods of properly ap-
proaching Parliament. He was ordered to go on his knees
while the Speaker — again donning his garb of righteousness
— severely censured him, after which he was discharged on
paying the fees due to the Serjeant-at-Arms for arresting
him.2
Hanmer's tenure of office was less than twelve months.
The Parliament was dissolved shortly after the death of
Queen Anne on August i, 1714, when the ex-Speaker
retired into private life to occupy himself with the editing
of a famous edition of Shakespeare, known as the " Oxford."
The Elector of Hanover was proclaimed King as
^ Mr. Steele's Apology, 25-6 (1714).
* Parliavientary History^ vol. 6, pp. 1328, X329.
270 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
George I. He opened his first Parliament in person, and
on March i8, 171 5, the Speaker selected by the Commons,
the Hon. Spencer Compton (third son of the third Earl of
Northampton), a Whig who sat for Sussex, was presented
to him for approval. His Majesty knew no English, and
had been but a few weeks in England. Yet Compton
addressed him with something of the ancient outward
show of ceremonious subserviency, and appealed to his
personal knowledge of " the faithful Commons " for proof
of the un worthiness of the selection they had so unaccount-
ably and so rashly made for the Chair. *' It must be very
surprising to Your Majesty," said Compton in English to the
uncomprehending German on the Throne, "that from amongst
so many honourable, learned, and worthy persons who are
every way qualified to discharge this great trust, anything
could induce your Commons to present me for Your
Majesty's approbation, who have none of those endowments
for the execution of this important charge. I have neither
memory to retain, judgment to collect, nor skill to guide
their debates, nor can I boast of anything that could
entitle me to the favour of the Chair, but an unshaken
fidelity to the Protestant succession." ^
The King, of course, confirmed the appointment by the
mouth of the Lord Chancellor. Compton, on returning to
St. Stephens, told the Commons that the King had thus
given proof " that he would never deny anything that can
be asked of him by his faithful Commons, because it would
be impossible for them ever to make a request that could be
more reasonably refused," and the conceit was solemnly
inscribed in the Journals?
Compton filled the Chair for over twelve years, in two
Parliaments and throughout the entire reign of George I.
In 1722, or five years before he ceased to be Speaker, he
was appointed to the lucrative oflfice of Paymaster of the
Navy, which for a long period was regarded as a perquisite
of the Chair.
■ Parliamentary History, vol. 7, pp. 38-42.
' CoMtmom Journals, vol. iS, p. 17.
ARTHUR ONSLOW AS SPEAKER 271
CHAPTER LI
ARTHUR ONSLOW AS SPEAKER
COMPTON'S successor, Arthur Onslow, was, so far, the
greatest of the long line of Speakers. Men of
brighter eminence had presided over the House of
Commons, such as More, Coke, and Harley, but to them
the Chair had been but the stepping-stone to higher spheres
of political action in which they won their enduring renown,
while the fame of Arthur Onslow rests entirely upon the
greatness he achieved as Speaker. Born in October 1691,
he was the nephew of the Speaker of Anne's third Parlia-
ment, and the great-great-great-grandson of the Speaker
of the second Parliament of Elizabeth, thus being the third
member of his family who had sat in the Chair, He was
educated at Winchester and Wadham College, Oxford, and
was called to the Bar at Middle Temple in 17 13. Seven
years later he entered the House of Commons as the Whig
representative of the borough of Guildford, Surrey, — a
county in which his family exercised considerable political
influence, — and represented it for seven years. He took
little part in debate. But he had always the ambition of
being Speaker, and he states in an autobiographical memoir,
which he wrote late in life, that accordingly from the first
day he set his foot in the House of Commons he "was an
early and most constant attendant to, and a most studious
observer of, everything that passed there." ^
At the General Election of 1727, for the first Parliament
of George II., he was returned both for Guildford and Surrey,
and elected to sit for the county. When the new Parliament
met on January 23, 1728, he had his ambition realized by
being unanimously appointed to the Chair, in his thirty-
fourth year.
In his autobiographical memoir he states that he seldom
took part in the discussions, being always diffident of his
* Onslow MSS., Hist. MSS. Commission, 14th Report, App. IX. 504.
272 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
qualities as a debater. He endeavoured to found his
character upon the rectitude of his actions in the House,
and therefore often voted with either Party as he thought
it in the right. " I loved independency, and pursued it,"
he adds. " I kept firm to my original Whig principles, upon
conscience, and never deviated from them to serve any Party
cause whatsoever. And all this, I hope and am persuaded,
was what chiefly laid the foundations of my rise to the
Chair of the House of Commons without any the least
opposition, although Sir Robert Walpole sometimes said
to me that the road to that station lay through the gates of
St. James's."!
In truth, the King's influence in the choice of Speaker
had ceased with the Stuarts to be all-powerful. Certainly
there is no evidence to show that George I. or George ii.
cared to exercise any control over appointments to the
Speakership. A new force had come into operation, and the
passport to the Chair was rather the Party favour of the
First Minister than the good graces of the King. Onslow
had made known his desire to Sir Robert Walpole, whose
notice he took care to cultivate, and had, in fact, been
promised the Speakership by the First Minister.-
Nevertheless, the old but ever-amusing farce of the
Speaker, overwhelmed with the sense of his utter unworthi-
ness, being led unwillingly to the Chair, continued to be
played. Onslow was proposed by the Marquis of Hartington
and seconded by Sir William Strickland. He then stood up
in his place and proclaimed his incapacity. It was a great
honour that he should be thought by his proposer and
seconder to be in any degree qualified for so high a station.
" Their motion to the House, Sir, will be the glory of my
life," said he, addressing the Clerk, " but to make it so it
must stop here, lest my having the execution of this ofiice
should lose me the credit which their recommendation will
otherwise give me." He was well content with the distinction
of having been proposed for the Chair. Therefore, let
' Onflow MSS., Hist. MSS. Commission, 14th Report, App. ix. 516.
" Ibid., App. IX. 517, 518.
ARTHUR ONSLOW AS SPEAKER 273
another be chosen who would be more to the credit and
benefit of the House. But the House would not accept his
excuses, so he was taken out of his place by his proposer
and seconder, and brought to the Bar, whence he was led
up to the Chair. Standing upon the first step he said :
" I hope, before I go any farther, gentlemen will reconsider
what they have done, and suffer me to return to my place,
in order to the making choice of another person more fit
for this." The Members with one voice cried, " No, no ! "
Then ascending to the upper step of the Chair, Onslow once
more turned to the House, and asked that he might at least
be given leave to submit his shortcomings to the King.
But the House again cried " No, no ! " and Onslow sat down
in the Chair.
Still, when he was presented to the King at the Bar
of the House of Lords, Onslow appealed to His Majesty to
declare him unfit to be Speaker. "What, Sir," said he,
after a recital of his inabilities, " above all renders me most
improper for this high station, and creates the greatest dread
on my mind, is my unfitness to approach your sacred person,
and to represent your Commons as they ought ever to
appear before the Majesty of their Sovereign." The Lord
Chancellor, on behalf of George 11., said that while the King
approved of " the decent and modest manner " in which
Onslow had excused himself, he was perfectly satisfied with
the choice of the Commons.^
Thus Onslow began the longest tenure of the Chair in
the history of the House of Commons. He was Speaker for
more than thirty-three years, in the five Parliaments of the
reign of George li., and on each of the subsequent occasions
— January 14, 1735; December i, 1741 ; November 10,
1747; and November 14, 1754 — he had the unexampled
distinction of being re-elected unopposed. By his conduct
in the Chair he greatly enhanced the independence and
dignity of the Speakership. John Hatsell, who sat at the
Table as Clerk Assistant for some years under Onslow, says
* Commons Journals, vol. 21, pp. 19, 20; Parliamentary History, \o\. 8,
PP- 632-3-
18
274 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
he held " that the forms of proceedings, as instituted by our
ancestors, operated as a check and a control on the action
of Ministers, and that they were, in many instances, a
shelter and a protection to the minority against the attempts
of power." ^ This was the spirit by which Onslow's conduct
in the Chair was always animated throughout his long
career. He also insisted on proper deference being paid
to him as Speaker. " Mr. Onslow," says Hatscll, " never
permitted a Member to come in or go out of the House,
whilst he was in the Chair, without calling to him if he
observed that the Member did not make his obeisance to
the Chair." 2
CHAPTER LII
speaker's office of profit under the crown
IT was Onslow who severed what was perhaps the last
remaining link which bound the Chair to the Throne in
the subserviency of personal obligation. He resigned
the Treasurership of the Navy in circumstances which made
it impossible for this post of profit under the Crown ever
again to be associated with the Chair. It would seem, how-
ever, that he was driven to take this step, not so much
because he himself came to the conclusion that the holding
of the office was incompatible with his independence as
Speaker, as because he was taunted in the House with
having been biased in a decision he gave by the sense of]
his indebtedness to the Crown for a handsome addition to
his emoluments. He was appointed to the post in 1734. In
1742 he resigned it. The circumstances under which he did
so are only disclosed by records of close on fifty years later.'
In moving that the Speaker's allowance be fixed at the clear
yearly sum of £6000, in 1790, Mr. F. Montague stated that]
Onslow had to give his casting vote on a political question,]
' ilatsell, Precedents, vol. 2, p. 237 (1818). ' Ibid., vol. 2, p. 232.
ARTHUR ONSLOW
FROM AN KSC.KAVtNG AFTER THE I'AINTING BY II. HVSING
SPEAKER'S OFFICE OF PROFIT 275
when " the place he held was thrown in his teeth " by those
against whom his decision went, and, " being a high-spirited
man," he resigned the post the very next day.^
Early in 1754, as the end of his fourth term of office as
Speaker was approaching, Onslow thought it was time for
him to retire. Henry Pelham, then First Minister, hearing of
his intention, pressed him to serve as Speaker also in the
forthcoming new Parliament. He agreed to reconsider his
decision, and states he said to Pelham that if he were to
be Speaker again he must not be expected to act otherwise
than he had always done, which at times was not pleasing
to Ministers. " Sir," said Pelham, " I shall as little like, as
any one else in my station, to have a Speaker in a set
opposition to me and the measures I carry on ; but I shall
as little like to have a Speaker over complaisant to me or
to them."
" 1 thought it nobly said," Onslow adds, " and mention it
to his honour, and that rather as he and I had often differed." ^
Onslow was so great a stickler for forms and rules that
Horace Walpole says " it often made him troublesome in
matters of higher moment," which means, no doubt, the
convenience of Ministers and their measures. Walpole
further states that Onslow, in his proneness to court popular
favour, "affected an impartiality that by turns led him to
the borders of insincerity and contradiction " ; but he admits
that his fidelity to his trust was unshakable.^
The new Parliament — the last of George II. — met on
November 14, 1754. The re-election of Onslow was pro-
posed by the Marquis of Granby and seconded by Thomas
Pelham. At the three previous re-elections he followed the
old custom of first entreating the Commons to select a
worthier and more capable man, and then appealing to the
King to refuse him the royal approbation. But on his
fifth appointment he refrained from disabling himself. To
the Commons he said that perhaps the length of time he
^ Parliamentary History, vol. 28, p. 515.
^ Onslow MSS., Hist. MSS. Commission, 14th Report, App. ix. 517.
' Horace Walpole's Memoirs of the Reign of George iii., vol. i, pp. 51-2.
276 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
had served in the Chair was a reason against his under-
taking another term of office. " But, however, I will not
dispute with the House in their commands," he added. " I
am theirs to be disposed of as they think proper, and shall
always deem it a duty to submit in everything my will to
their direction." The next day he was presented to the
Lord Commissioners in the absence of the King. " From
what has passed in several former Parliaments with regard
to myself," said he, " I did not presume to dispute the
commands of the Commons upon this occasion. It is for
the same reasons, and from the like principles of duty, I
forbear to urge anything here against their present resolu-
tion, but resign myself entirely to His Majesty's pleasure, well
knowing his own royal wisdom can best determine his own
choice either to approve or disapprove what his Commons
have now done." ^
In 1 761, Onslow resolved to retire from public life. On
March 18, two days before the close of the last session of
the Parliament, he announced his intention to the House.
The thanks of the House was unanimously voted to him in
the following terms : —
" That the thanks of this House be given to Mr. Speaker
for his constant and unwearied attendance in the Chair
during the course of above thirty-three years in five
successive Parliaments ; for his unshaken integrity and
steady impartiality there ; and for the indefatigable pains
he has, with uncommon abilities, constantly taken to promote
the real interest of his King and country, to maintain the
honour and dignity of Parliament, and to preserve inviolable
the rights and privileges of the Commons of Great Britain."
He delivered a farewell speech to the House which
contained the following passages : —
" When I begun my duty here I set out with a resolution
and promise to the House to be impartial in everything, and
to show respect to everybody. The first I know I have
done. It is the only merit I can assume. If I have failed
in the other it was unwittingly, it was inadvertently, and I
• Farliamenlary History ^ vol. 15, p. 322.
SPEAKER'S OFFICE OF PROFIT 277
ask their pardon, most sincerely, to whomsoever it may
have happened. I can truly say the giving satisfaction to
all has been my constant aim, my study and my pride.
And now, Sirs, I am to take my last leave of you. It is, I
confess, with regret, because the being within those walls
has ever been the chief pleasure of my life ; but my advanced
age and infirmities, and some other reasons, call for retirement
and obscurity. There I shall spend the remainder of my
days, and shall only have power to hope and to pray, and
my hopes and prayers — my daily prayers — will be for the
continuance of the Constitution in general, and that the
freedom, the dignity, and authority of this House may be
perpetual."
The Commons, to mark their sense of the Speaker's
farewell address, resolved unanimously to have it printed in
the proceedings of the day. Another resolution was also
unanimously agreed to beseeching the King that he would
" graciously be pleased to confer some signal mark of his
royal favour" upon Onslow.^ Accordingly, by Letters
Patent dated April 20, 1761, the King granted Onslow an
annuity of ;^3C)00 for the lives of himself and his son,
George Onslow ; and His Majesty recommended that, as he
had no power to continue the pension beyond the term of
his own life, it should be effectually secured by Act of
Parliament. The necessary statute was passed in the
following year.2
This was the first pension that had been bestowed on
a retiring Speaker. Another unusual distinction which fell
to Onslow was that he was the first ex-Speaker to receive
the freedom of the City of London in appreciation of
his impartiality and judicious conduct in the Chair.^ The
ceremony took place on June 11, 1761, but Onslow declined,
"on account of his official position," to accept the gold box
of the value of one hundred guineas in which the Common
Council desired to present the certificate of his admission
as a freeman.* Onslow died in 1768, aged ^6.
^ Parliamentary History, vol. 15, pp. 1013-15. - 2 Geo. Ul. c. 33.
^ Annual Register {ox 1761, p. 106.
■* London'' s Roll of Fame (1884), p. 42.
278 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
CHAPTER LIII
A CHOLERIC SPEAKER
IN the first Parliament of George III., which met on
November 3, 1761, Sir John Cust, a lawyer who sat for
the borough of Grantham in Lincolnshire, was appointed
Speaker. " Bating his nose, the Chair seems well filled,"
says Horace Walpole in a letter dated November 7 of the
same year. Cust was re-elected on May 10, 1768, when the
second Parliament of George III. assembled.
The angry discussions and protracted sittings of the
House arising out of the turbulent political career of John
Wilkes were too much for him physically. On January 17,
1770, he did not appear at St. Stephens. The Clerk re-
ported to the House that the Speaker had sent for him to
his bed-chamber about an hour before, and desired him to
express to the Members his extreme sorrow that on account
of his weak state of health he was unable to take the Chair.
After an adjournment of five days the House met again, and
was informed by Lord Barrington that, as Cust had sent
word to the King that he was too ill to attend the service
of the House, His Majesty gave leave to the Commons to
proceed to the choice of another Speaker.^ Two days later
Cust died, in his fifty-second year.
The House immediately proceeded to elect a successor
to Cust on January 22, 1770, the day his resignation was
announced. There were two candidates for the Chair. Sir
P'lctcher Norton, a Tory, was proposed by Lord North and
seconded by Richard Rigby. Lord John Cavendish proposed
and Lord George Sackville .seconded the Right Hon. Thomas
Townshend, the younger, who was a Whig. Norton was
elected by 237 votes to 121.^ He represented Guildford in
Surrey, and was an eminent lawyer, having been Attorney-
General before his-Hpf)ointment as Speaker. During Norton's
tenure of the Chair many momentous questions agitated the
' Coininons Journals, vol. 32, p. 613. ^ Ibid., vol. 32, p. 613.
A CHOLERIC SPEAKER 279
House of •Commons, such as its powers to expel Wilkes for a
political libel, to curtail the freedom of the Press, and to tax
the American Colonies. His duties were therefore arduous
and responsible, and to add to the difficulties of his position
he had an ungovernable temper, which made him perhaps,
the most choleric Speaker that had ever presided over the
House of Commons. On February 16, 1770, his want of
tact and discretion not only plunged the House into a
violent wrangle, which lasted six hours, but led to the unique
incident of a Speaker's words being taken down as disorderly.
He was asked by Sir William Meredith to rule that a
resolution in reference to John Wilkes should be submitted
to the House in two parts, as it contained propositions so
distinct that it was difficult for Members to assent to or
dissent from the whole. Norton testily replied, that as
" he was scarce warm in the Chair " he thought Meredith
should have told him beforehand of his intention to ask
for his ruling, so that he might,\come prepared. Meredith
said the Speaker " had used him very ill " in thus censuring
him, and held it was not necessary for a Member to give the
Speaker notice of his motions. " In candour, I did expect
he would have communicated his motion to me," said the
Speaker hotly ; " but I find I am not to expect candid
treatment from that gentleman." This retort was received
with cries of " Take down his words " from the supporters of
Meredith.1
John Hatsell was Clerk of the House. He states in his
work on Precedents that he was " put under very extraordinary
difficulties " on this occasion. Holding that the Clerk is not
justified in obeying any orders or directions but such as are
signified to him by the Chair, he declined to take down the
words, though several Members called upon him " to do his
duty," until the Speaker gave his consent and directions.^
The words complained of were, according to the report in
the Journals, written by a Member and handed to the Clerk,
and were as follows : " When I expected candid treatment
* Parliamentary JJistojy, vol. i6, pp. 808-9.
- Ilatsell, Precedents of the House of Commons, vol. 2, p. 272.
280 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
from that Member 1 was mistaken, for I find I am not to
expect candour from that gentleman in any motions he has
to make to the Chair." The Speaker protested that these
were not his exact words. " In candour I hoped he would
have informed me of the motion he intended to make," said
he, giving his version of his remark; "but now I find, from
what the hon. Member has said, that I am not to expect
that candid treatment from him, for he said in his speech —
that from this time forward he will have no communication
with the Chair." ^
The House was " in an uproar," says the account in the
Parliamentary History. Obviously the Speaker was in an
irascible mood. If his words were to be taken down he was
determined they should present Meredith in an unflattering
light. However, he was induced by the angry discussion
which followed to say that " he did not mean any general
reflection on the character of the Member." Then Grenville
was proceeding to express the hope that Meredith would
accept this " apology " when the Speaker hotly interposed to
repudiate the notion that he had any intention of apologizing.
" What I said," he declared, " arose out of what I understood
the Member to have said. If he disclaimed candour with the
Chair, I had the right to say I was not to expect candour on
that subject. I did not, in justice I ought not to have made
a general reflection upon his character, but if the Member
said what I understood he said I had a right to say what I
did. I can make no apology for what I said, but will abide
by the sense of the House." - This made matters worse
than ever. Dowdeswell moved : " That the words of Mr.
Speaker, from the Chair, are disorderly, importing an im-
proper reflection on a Member of this House, and dangerous
to the freedom of debate in this House," and the motion was
seconded by Colonel Barrd The discussion lasted till ten
o'clock. As it progressed there was shown a disposition
to arrive at an amicable conclusion, and Meredith did not
oppose it. Finally, the motion was put from the Chair, and
as thQ Journals say, " It passed in the negative."
' Corn mons Journals, vol. 32, p. 708. - Jbid., vol. 32, p. 70S.
A CHOLERIC SPEAKER 281
In the next Parliament, which met on November 29,
1774, Norton was re-elected unanimously. An interesting
point then arose in relation to the claim for the privileges of
the Commons which is made by the Speaker at the Bar of
the House of Lords. By an Act passed in the preceding
Parliament ^ the servants of Members were deprived of the
privilege of freedom from arrest which they had enjoyed as
well as their masters, and it was the opinion of Norton
that in the circumstances an alteration ought to be made
in the terms of the Speaker's address to the Sovereign. He
informed the House that he proposed to claim all the
usual privileges, " except where the same had been altered
or taken away by any Act of Parliament." But on con-
sulting Lord Chancellor Apsley he was led to change his
mind. In the view of the Lord Chancellor " it would be the
safer way, in order to prevent any difficulties which might
arise on any alteration, to adhere to the usual form," especially
as neither the claim itself nor its allowance by the King could
be supposed to include privileges not warranted by law.-
Since then the Speaker has claimed privileges for men who
by law are not entitled to them, and the claim has been
allowed by the Lord Chancellor in the name of the King.
Before the Parliament came to an end the conduct of
Norton as Speaker was again the subject of a violent dis-
cussion in the House. This time it was not a Member he
flouted, but the King. On May 7, 1777, he went with the
Commons to the House of Lords to present, according to
ancient custom, a Money Bill for the Royal Assent. " The
King," says the Lords Journals,^'' being seated on the Throne,
adorned with his Crown and royal ornaments, and attended
by his officers of State." The Bill was one " for the better
support of His Majesty's household, and of the honour and
dignity of the Crown of Great Britain," and in presenting it
Norton said it afforded the fullest and clearest proof of the
zeal and affection of the Commons. " For," he added, " they
have not only granted to Your Majesty a large present
supply, but also a very great additional revenue — great
^ 10 Geo. ni. c. 50. ^ Hatsell, Precedents, vol. 2, pp. 227-8.
282
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
beyond example, great beyond Your Majesty's highest
expense."
Thus is the passage rendered in the report of the speech
supplied by Norton, and inscribed by order of the House,
with an expression of its thanks on ihe. Journals. But several
Members who were with the Speaker at the Bar of the House
of Lords, and took notes of his remarks, declared that the
word "wants" and not "expense" was used, which made
the speech still more insulting to the King. On May 9,
Rigby brought the matter before the House, and made
a violent attack on the Speaker. Norton did not explicitly
deny that the word he used was " wants." He said he
thought he had said "expense." Thurlow, the Attorney-
General, who expressed the views of the Government, declared
the speech conveyed the sentiments of the Speaker and not
those of the House. The Opposition were on the side of
Norton, and Charles James Fox, voicing their sentiments,
moved that the Speaker had " expressed with just and
proper energy the zeal of the House for the support of the
honour and dignity of the Crown in circumstances of
great public charge," which ultimately was agreed to,
with a second expression of thanks to Norton for his
speech.^
The speech excited as much commotion outside as inside
the House. The Common Council of the Corporation of
London, on May 14, passed a resolution directing that the
speech be entered on the Journals of the Court, and deciding
to present Norton with the certificate of freedom of the City
in a gold box, of the value of fifty guineas, " for having
declared in manly terms the real state of the Nation to His
Majesty on the Throne." Like Arthur Onslow in 1761,
Norton declined to accept the gold box.^
Norton availed himself of the right of the Speaker to take
part in discussions in Committee for the purpose of support-
ing the Opposition. He was with them in their desire for
conciliatory treatment of the American colonists. When the
' Parliamentary Hiitory, vol. 19, p. 227 ; Coinmons Jounials, vol. 32, p. 4S5.
^ London's Roll of Fame, p. 60 (1SS4).
A CHOLERIC SPEAKER 283
House discussed in Committee Joseph Dunning's famous
motion " that the influence of the Crown has increased, is
increasing, and ought to be diminished," on April 6, 1780, he
spoke in its support. He was, however, apologetic for his
intervention. " His situation in the House," he remarked, " ren-
dered it extremely irksome to him to rise upon the present
occasion, as it might be thought that his situation carried with
it some degree of influence, and that it was his duty to keep
the scale even, and not to take any decided part respecting
the contrariety of opinions which prevailed in the House." ^
George III. determined that there should be a different
Speaker in his fourth Parliament. Six days before it met
he wrote to Lord North, the First Minister : " Mr. Cornwall
is a very respectable person for the ofiice of Speaker, and
ought to be assured of the support of the Government on
this occasion, and called on to attend the first meeting, and
to take all the pains he can to show his willingness to accept
that honourable office." ^ Accordingly, at the meeting of
the new Parliament, October 31, 1780, Charles Wolfran
Cornwall was proposed as the Ministerial nominee, by Lord
George Germain, and seconded by Welbore Ellis. The
excuse that was made for setting aside Norton was the
indifferent state of his health. It was true that on two
occasions during the previous session the progress of public
business had been interrupted by his enforced absence from
the House by illness. But his friends, at least, were of
opinion that the fatigue of the Speakership was not too heavy
a burden to be imposed upon him ; and he was nominated
by Joseph Dunning and seconded by Thomas Townshend.
Norton himself declared he would not take the Chair
again on any consideration. He admitted that his constitu-
tion had been somewhat impaired by his prolonged sittings
in the Chair ; but he complained bitterly that he had not been
asked by Ministers whether his health would enable him to
continue to act as Speaker should he be chosen again by
the House. " His appearance," says Sir Nathaniel Wraxall
^ Parliainentary History, vol. 21, pp. 355-9.
^ Donne, Letters of George in. to Lord North, vol. 2, p. 337.
284
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
in Historical and Posthumous Memoirs, " seemed, indeed, to
present the aspect of a man who, though somewhat declined
in years, did not manifest any tokens of decay." Cornwall
was elected by a majority of 169, — 203 votes to 134.^
On November 20, 1780, there was a motion to thank
Norton for his services. Thomas Townshend, who moved
in the matter, stated that he had drawn up a resolution
expressing the gratitude of the House to Norton " for the
great dignity, ability, and impartiality" he had displayed
in the Chair, but its terms were objected to as being too
warm, and in order to obtain unanimity for the vote he
asked the House simply to record its thanks to Norton
" for his conduct during the time he filled the Chair." But
even this modified motion was opposed. One Member dis-
closed the cause of the animosity with which Norton was
being pursued by declaring that " he had insulted his
Sovereign." The Speaker, Cornwall, called him to order,
pointing out " that it was the first, most important, and
most sacred of all the orders of the House " never to make
use of the name of the Sovereign with a view to influencing
the freedom of debate. The resolution was carried by 136
votes to 96.2 On February i, 1781, Norton being in his
place, the thanks of the House were coldly conveyed to
him by Speaker Cornwall, and he made his acknowledgment
in a few formal words.^ In 1782, Norton was created Baron
Grantley of Markenfield, Yorkshire.
CHAPTER LIV
CANDIDATES FOR THE CHAIR SUPPORT EACH OTHER
CORNWALL was born at Barrington, Herefordshire, in
1735. Though called to the Bar, he did not practise.
He had filled several Government offices, and had
a pension of ;£^I500 a year from one of them on his election
' Parliamentary Ilistoiy, vol. 21, p. 793. - Ibid., vol. 21, pp. 873-85.
* Ibid,, vol. 21, p. 1 106.
-^ CANDIDATES FOR THE CHAIR 285
to the Chair. He represented Winchelsea in the Parliament
of 1780, and Rye, another of the Cinque Ports, in the sub-
sequent ParHament of 1784, when he was again appointed
Speaker. One of the objections urged by the Opposition
to his first nomination was that he represented not a real
constituency but a Cinque port.
During the sittings of the House he indulged in frequent
drafts of porter. Foaming tankards of the liquor were
brought to him in the course of the evening from Bellamy's,
a refreshment house in Old Palace Yard where Lords and
Commons got what they needed in the way of eating and
drinking. Wraxall says the porter sometimes proved too
powerful for the Speaker and " produced inconveniences,"
as he nicely puts it.^ This amiable weakness in which
Cornwall indulged to relieve the weariness of long sittings
is also commemorated in one of the political satires of The
Rolliad : —
" Like sad Prometheus fastened to the rock,
In vain he looks for pity to the clock ;
In vain the power of strengthening porter tries,
And nods to Bellamy for fresh supplies."
To Cornwall belongs the melancholy distinction of being
the one Speaker who died in harness. His end was short
and rather sudden. On December 29, 1788, he was in the
Chair, but evidently he was then ill, for the Journals state
that the House was counted out, as the required quorum
of forty was not present, an expedient which was frequently
resorted to in the eighteenth century when the Speaker felt
unwell. The next day he did not appear. The Clerk re-
ported that he was laid up with a feverish cold, but hoped
to be well enough to return in a day or two. On January i,
1789, he was still indisposed. No business was transacted
on either of these days. The entry in the Journals for
January 2 runs : " The House being met, the Clerk at
the Table acquainted the House that he was extremely
sorry to inform them that Mr. Speaker died this morning ;
^ Wraxall, Historical and Posthumous Memoirs^ vol. i, pp. 259-61 (1884
edition).
286 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
after which, and before any Member spoke, the Mace was
brought into the House by the Serjeant and laid under
the Table." It was then agreed to adjourn for three days.^
The House met on January 5, under very peculiar
circumstances. George III. was mentally afflicted, and there-
fore the customary intimation of the King's leave to the
Commons to chose a new Speaker was not forthcoming.
The I louse, nevertheless, proceeded to elect a Speaker, solely
on its own authority, as it had done before when there was
no King in the troublous times of the Civil War and the
Revolution. There were two candidates. The nominee of
the Government, William Wyndham Grenville, was opposed
by Sir Gilbert Eliot. A new feature was introduced in the
disablement to which both candidates subjected themselves.
Each declared the other was the better man. Grenville
" trembled for his shortcomings and inability to discharge
the duties of the office," and asked the Members " to turn
their eyes to the honourable baronet over the way." Eliot
thought that Grenville's knowledge and experience exactly
fitted him for the post. As for himself, " he could not think
of taking that Chair, to which he so well knew his own
inadequacy to do justice "^ The voting was 215 for
Grenville and 144 for Eliot.
Owing to the King's illness the formality of submitting
the Speaker-elect for the royal approbation had also to be
dispensed with, and Grenville took his seat in the Chair
and the House proceeded at once to business. Curiously
enough, nothing is said by the Journals in explanation of
the unusual, though not unprecedent, features of Grenville's
election.^
Grenville, a member of a family distinguished in public
life, was in his thirtieth year when he thus succeeded to the
Chair, He was one of the representatives of Buckingham-
shire. For five months only was he Speaker. On June 5,
* Commons Journals, vol. 44, p. 445.
' Parliamentary Htsto7y, vol. 27, pp. 906-7.
* Commons Journals, vol. 44, p. 45. Parliamentary History, vol. 27,
pp. 904-7.
1
CANDIDATES FOR THE CHAIR 287
1789, the Clerk read a letter from him intimating that the
King had appointed him a Secretary of State, which
rendered his seat in Parliament vacant.^
The House met again three days later. As the King
was now mentally capable of attending to public business,
the Commons were informed that His Majesty was graciously
pleased to give them leave to proceed to the choice of a
new Speaker, For the second time Sir Gilbert Eliot was
proposed in opposition to the Ministerial nominee, Henry
Addington, the son of a physician, and Tory Member for
the borough of Devizes in Wiltshire.
This time the candidates not only spoke for each other,
but backed their opinions with their votes. Addington said
the Speakership would be " a burthen which his abilities
were by no means able to sustain," and, looking round the
House for some one thoroughly qualified for the post, he
found the object of his quest in Eliot. " After the liberal
manner in which the hon. gentlemen on the other side
of the House had been pleased to speak of him," said
Eliot in return, " it was incumbent on him to assure the
hon. gentleman that he entertained the highest respect for
his character and the best opinion of his abilities, and he
should therefore give his hearty and decided vote in his
favour." -
Eliot got 142 votes, or two less than in January, while
Addington was elected by 215 votes, exactly the number
obtained by his predecessor. The King was so delighted
with the election of Addington that, though still weak from
his illness, he went down to Westminster, on June 9, to
give it his approbation, as a mark of his personal regard
for the new Speaker.
Addington had little ability, but he had luck. He had
just completed his thirty-second year. The salary of the
Speakership, which till his election was derived from
fluctuating sources and never exceeded ;^3000, was fixed
at double that sum. At least he made an imposing Speaker.
' Coinmotis Journals, vol. 44, p. 434.
^ Parliamentary History , vol. 28, pp. 1 5 1-2.
288 thp: speaker of the house
" I have only to regret, as a picturesque man," said one
of the letters of congratulation, " that such an enlightened
countenance as God Almighty has given you should be
shrouded in a bush of horse-hair." ^
CHAPTER LV
FIRST SPEAKER OF THE IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
ADDINGTON presided over the House of Commons
for twelve years, and in a time of partisan Speakers
had the confidence of the Whigs as well as of the
Tories. When his father died, in March 1790, the House
adjourned for two days. Only once was his impartiality
questioned. The occasion was a dispute between the First
Minister, Pitt, and Tierney, the leader of the Opposition.
On May 25, 1798, Pitt brought in a Bill for increasing the
Navy by 10,000 men, and as the nation was at war with
France he asked the House to pass it through all its
stages that evening. Tierney said he knew of no sudden
emergency which made the Bill necessary ; and in any case
time ought to be allowed for examining into the claim of
urgency. " No man," said Pitt, " could oppose the Bill in
the manner Mr. Tierney had done, unless it were from a
wish to impede the defence of the country." Tierney, thus
almost stigmatized as a traitor, appealed to the Speaker for
protection. Addington said that any words which tended
to cast a personal imputation upon a Member were un-
parliamentary, and added that the House would wait to
hear the explanation of the Minister. Pitt replied that the
House must wait a long time before it heard any such
explanation from him. Later on in the discussion he was
more definite. "I gave no explanation," said he, "because
I wished to abide by the words I had used." ^ Thus he set
' Pcllew, Life of Lord Sidtnouth, vol. i, p. 66.
* rarlianuniary IJistory, vol. 33, pp. 1460-2.
FIRST SPEAKER OF IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT 289
at naught the authority of the Chair. But the Speaker did
not move. Tierney, to emphasize his resentment of the
words of Pitt and the inaction of Addington, rose and left
the Chamber. In the fashion of the time the matter could
only be settled by pistols.
The quarrel arose on a Friday. The next day Pitt sent
for the Speaker, and apprised him that arrangements had
been made for the duel to take place on Putney Heath at
three o'clock on Sunday afternoon. Addington not only did
nothing to stop the meeting, but mounting his horse after
luncheon on Sunday rode out to Putney to see the un-
common spectacle of the Leader of the House and the
Leader of the Opposition shooting at each other with some-
thing more serious than partisan arguments. " When I
arrived on the hill," said Addington, in an account he gave
of the occurrence, late in life, " I knew from seeing a crowd
looking down into the valley that the duel was then pro-
ceeding. After a time I saw the same chaise which had
conveyed Pitt to the spot mounting the ascent, and riding
up to it I found him safe, when he said, ' You must dine
with me to-day.' " ^ Two shots were fired by the combatants
without effect, after which the seconds decided that enough
had been done for honour.
On February 12, 1799, Addington spoke in Committee
in support of the resolutions moved by Pitt for a Union of
Ireland with Great Britain. He said the occasions were
few on which he was disposed to take any other part in
the debates and proceedings of the House than that which
was called for by his official duties as Speaker. On this
subject of the Union, however, he made a long speech, the
report of which fills twenty columns, or ten pages of the
Parliamentary History. The Union was effected, and the
Irish Lords and Commons appeared in the first Imperial
Parliament which met at Westminster on January 22, 1801.
Addington, therefore, was the first Speaker of the Commons
of the United Kingdom. Within a few weeks he was Prime
Minister. In his speech on the Union he declared that he
^ Pellew, Life of Lord Sidmotith, vol. i, p. 205.
19
290 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
was utterly opposed to Catholic Emancipation, by the
granting of which Pitt had hoped to make the Union a
healing measure, and it was to him that George III. turned
to form an anti-Catholic Administration when, in February
l8oi, Pitt resigned in consequence of the refusal of the
King to sanction his proposals for the completion of his
Irish policy.
On February lo, the Clerk read to the House a letter
from the Speaker in which he said that " His Majesty having
been pleased to express his intention of appointing me, at
this conjuncture, to a situation which would be incompat-
ible with the continuance of my service to the House of
Commons," he begged to tender his resignation.^ Addison
took his seat on the Treasury Bench, as Chancellor of the
Exchequer and Prime Minister, on March 23.
Sir John Mitford, a lawyer, who represented the county
of Northumberland, was elected to succeed Addington in the
Chair. He had been appointed Solicitor-General in 1793,
and Attorney-General in 1799, and resigned the latter office
when selected by the new Government as their nominee for the
Speakership. The election took place on February 11, 1801.
Richard Brinsley Sheridan proposed Charles Dundas,on behalf
of the Whig Opposition, but as Dundas had taken neither the
oaths nor hisseat he was not eligible; and there was no division.
Mitford declined to follow the ancient custom of declaring
himself unfit for the Chair. He said that in view of the
high legal offices which he had filled, and the length of time
he had attended to his duty as a Member of the House,
he would not for a moment suppose that any gentleman
should think him unqualified for the situation. Indeed, he
very candidly avowed that it was his ambition to preside
over the deliberations of the Commons.-
" There could not be a stronger presage of our joint
endeavours to save this dear country than the choice of Sir
John Mitford as Speaker of the House of Commons," said
the King in a letter to Addington. His tenure of office,
' Commons Journals, vol. 56, p. 33.
^ Parliamentary History, vol. 35, pp. 94S-55.
A PARTISAN SPEAKER 291
however, lasted only a year. He was appointed Lord
Chancellor of Ireland on February 9, 1802, and created a
peer of the United Kingdom as Baron Redesdale.
CHAPTER LVI
A PARTISAN SPEAKER
ON February 10, 1802, the vacant Chair was filled by
the election of Charles Abbot, another lawyer, who
had been appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland when
Addington became Prime Minister. Sheridan again pro-
posed Charles Dundas for three reasons. In the first place,
he desired to establish the principle that gentlemen who
had not held office, and were therefore independent of the
Ministers, should be appointed to the Chair. He also
condemned the practice of looking only to the profession
of the law for Speakers, and advocated a return to the
custom of selecting them from the landed gentry. But
when the question was put, " That the Right Hon. Charles
Abbot do take the Chair of this House as Speaker?" it
was agreed to without a division.
At his election to the Chair, Abbot represented the
borough of Woodstock, Oxfordshire, In 1806 he was
returned for Oxford University. Born in 1757, the son
of the Rev. John Abbot, rector of All Saints, Colchester,
and educated at Westminster and Christ Church, Oxford,
he was one of the ablest and most distinguished men that
have filled the Chair. He was Speaker for fifteen years,
and his tenure of office is perhaps most notable for a
remarkable demonstration in support of the absolute
impartiality of the Chair, called forth by an act of partisan-
ship into which he was led by his hostility to Catholic
Emancipation. In 1813 a Bill was introduced by Henry
Grattan, the Irish patriot, to open the doors of Parliament
to Roman Catholics. In Committee on the Bill, Abbot
292 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
moved an amendment in the first clause striking out the
words which enacted that Roman Catholics should be free
to sit and vote in either House of Parliament, and it was
carried by 251 votes against 247. The Bill was therefore
withdrawn by its promoters.
No objection was raised to Abbot's action by the sup-
porters of Catholic emancipation. It was still recognized
that the Speaker was entitled to exercise all the functions of
a Member when the House was in Committee, and he, of
course, was not in the Chair. But at the end of the session,
on July 22, 1 81 3, when Parliament was prorogued by the
Prince Regent, Abbot availed himself of the opportunity
afforded by the presentation of Money Bills for the Royal
Assent at the Bar of the House of Lords, to make a violent
speech in opposition to the Catholic claims, which aroused the
indignation of the friends of the cause in the House. " But,
Sir," said he, after recapitulating all the measures of the
session, as was customary on such occasions, " these are not
the only subjects to which our attention has been called.
Other momentous changes have been proposed for our con-
sideration. Adhering, however, to those laws by which the
Throne, Parliament, and the Government of this country are
made fundamentally Protestant, we have not consented to
allow that those who acknowledge a foreign jurisdiction
should be authorized to administer the powers of the Realm,
willing as we are, nevertheless, and willing as I trust we ever
shall be, to allow the largest scope to religious toleration."
" I observed," says Abbot in his Diary^ " the Regent
repeatedly nod assent to parts of my speech, and especially to
the passage about the Roman Catholics." He also records
that on his return to the House of Commons, Lord Morpeth
came up to him, as he sat in the Chair, whilst Lord
Castlereagh, Bathurst, and Vansittart were standing by, and
asked whether his speech would be entered on \\\e Journals.
" To which," says Abbot, " I answered, ' Certainly not ' ; and
he then replied, * he should have objected to part of it if
there had been any such proceeding,' and so departed."
Abbot then goes on to foreshadow his defence should he be
A PARTISAN SPEAKER 293
called to account for the speech. " I remarked to Lord
Castlereagh, Vansittart, and Bathurst," he says, "that the
House had repeatedly refused to instruct the Speaker what
he should say, that they left it to him to collect the sense of
the House from its proceedings, and that, as to pleasing
everybody, I had long ago given up the attempt." ^
The speech aroused considerable political excitement out-
side the House of Commons also. It was furiously denounced
by the supporters of Catholic emancipation. Fervent
endorsements of its sentiments, passed by anti-Catholic
meetings and engrossed on vellum, were presented to
Abbot. At the opening of the new session of Parliament in
November 181 3, Lord Morpeth gave notice of his intention
to bring the speech under the consideration of the House
of Commons after the Christmas recess. As a preparation
for the debate, the House on November 8 passed a
resolution that Mr. Speaker should be desired to print his
speech. "It was settled by me with the Clerk of the
Journals," Abbot records, "to print my speech, like Sir
Fletcher Norton's on May 7, 1777, as a separate sheet of
the Votes." Under date November 17 he writes: "Met
Whitbread riding, who congratulated me upon the light
labours of the House of Commons, and the re-establishment
of my health, hoping that I might stay with them for twenty
years to come." Whitbread was a prominent Whig, who
had already in the House denounced Abbot " as an un-
authorized and unauthenticated expositor of the opinions of
the House of Commons." " I said," Abbot continues in his
Diary, " ' Yes, if you do not dethrone me.' He replied
laughing, ' Oh no ; only checks and guards, and I assure you
there is no one who would be more sorry than I should be to
see you out of the seat.' " ^
The opportunity for discussing the speech did not arise
until April 22, 18 14. Morpeth then moved a resolution
which was veiy adroitly worded, if somewhat far-fetched.
Ignoring the publication of Parliamentary proceedings in the
^ D-iary and Correspondence of Lord Colchester, vol. 2, p. 453-
^ Ibid. , vol. 2, pp. 45S-9.
294 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Press, it charged the Speaker with having violated the
privileges of the House by disclosing its secrets to the Crown.
" That it is contrary to parliamentary usage and to the spirit
of parliamentary proceedings," it ran, " for the Speaker,
unless by specific instruction of this House, to inform His
Majesty at the Bar of the Lords, or elsewhere, of any
proposals made to the House by any of its Members, either
in the way of Bill or motion, or to acquaint the Throne
with any proceeding relative to such proposals until they
shall be consented to by this House." Abbot made a long
and able speech in defence of his action. He relied upon
precedents from the Journals showing that Speakers, when
reviewing the work of the session at the Bar of the Lords,
did not confine themselves to the Bills that had been passed,
but often entered at large upon matters, foreign and domestic,
which had occupied the attention of the House. Where he
failed, however, was in the production of a single instance of
a partisan speech by a Speaker in relation to the most
controversial question of the hour.
His conduct was unreservedly condemned, by the Whigs
at least. Strong as was the language of Morpeth's motion, it
was not denunciatory enough for Whitbread. He moved an
amendment declaring the Speaker had been " guilty of a vio-
lation of the trust imposed in him, of a breach of the privileges
of the House, of which he is the chosen guardian and
champion," and Creevey seconded it. Whitbread recalled the
historic saying of Speaker Lenthall, when Charles I. asked him
were the five Members in the House. " I have neither eyes to
see, ears to hear, nor tongue to speak, but as the House
directs." " You, sir," said Whitbread to Abbot, " used your
ears to hear and your eyes to see, as a private Member ; and
used your tongue as Speaker to give utterance to that which
you had no right to state." Plunket, in an eloquent speech,
described the action of the Speaker as the most formidable
attack on the constitution of Parliament that had occurred
since the Revolution. Tierney, the Whig Leader, came to
closer quarters with the principle that was really at stake.
" When a Bill was passed, it spoke for itself," said he. " But if
A PARTISAN SPEAKER 295
this discretion was to be considered as vested in the Speaker
of adverting to the proceedings of the House, the Speaker of
the House of Commons must be a Party man. There would
be an end to everything like a Speaker for a length of years by
whose experience in the manner of conducting the business
of the House they could derive advice and instruction."
Canning, who had voted against Abbot's destructive amend-
ment in the Bill for removing the disabilities of Roman
Catholics, was the most influential man who spoke up for
Abbot. While it might be contended that the Speaker had
fallen into an error of judgment, he thought it could not be
said that he had abused his authority. " What it is not
lawful for the King to notice," said Grant, on the other side,
" it is not lawful for the Speaker to express."
In the end Whitbread withdrew his amendment, his object
in moving it being to have it recorded in the Jour Jials. The
House rejected Morpeth's motion by 274 votes against 106,
and passed a resolution declaring that the Speaker had
done nothing which called for its interference. The debate
helped immensely in establishing the Chair's independence
of all political parties.^ These addresses by the Speaker at
the end of the session, when Parliament was prorogued by
the Sovereign in person, were discontinued not long after-
wards ; but never again, while the custom survived, was a
controversial speech delivered, and reference was confined
to the most important measures that had actually become
law.
In 1 817, Abbot's health broke down, and he decided to
retire. The manner of his resignation and the consequent
proceedings are interesting from a constitutional point of
view, because they led to a curious clash between the pre-
rogatives of the Crown and the privileges of the Commons.
He relates in his Diary that he informed the Prime Minister,
Lord Liverpool, on May 27, 1 817, of his desire to resign the
Chair. Liverpool, acknowledging the communication next
day, says he laid it before the Prince Regent, who expressed
his gracious intention to make Abbot a peer, and to send a
^ Parliamentary History, vol. 27, pp. 465-522.
296 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
message to Parliament recommending a proper provision for
the maintenance of that dignity. " He came to me from
the Levee," Abbot writes, "and mentioned the provision
intended to be ;6^4000 a year for me and ;^3000 for next
heir of the peerage." Abbot adds that he decided to take
the title of "Colchester." Everything having thus been
satisfactorily settled, the Clerk of the House of Commons,
on May 30, read a letter of resignation from Abbot.^
The next development was on June 3, in the House of
Commons. When the new Speaker, Manners-Sutton, had
been confirmed. Lord Castlereagh, as Leader of the House,
delivered a message from the Prince Regent that, " acting in
the name and on behalf of His Majesty," His Royal Highness
had conferred the dignity of the peerage on Abbot for his
services in the Chair, and recommended that a proper pro-
vision should be made for him and his next heir male.
This undoubtedly was quite an innovation. Hitherto the
procedure had been for the House, in the first instance, to
present an address to the Sovereign praying for " a signal
mark of favour" to be conferred on the retiring Speaker;
and the new departure in the case of Abbot was resented by
the Opposition as an unconstitutional interference by the
Crown with the privileges of the House. It was contended
that as the Crown was not entitled to know what passed
in the House, it was consequently unable to appreciate the
merits of the Speaker in the discharge of the duties of the
Chair — an argument never wanting in conflicts between the
Commons and the Sovereign, but becoming more and more
threadbare and absurd in the ever-growing light cast upon
the House and its proceedings by the Press. The Govern-
ment, however, could not but see they had made a mistake.
Castlereagh tried to retrieve it in a blundering way. He
gave the extraordinary explanation that the provision whicl
the House was asked to make was not in consideration
Abbot's services as a Speaker, but was in respect of hiij
I)eerage, which was solely the gift of the Sovereign. " N<
no!" cried the House. Then the Government tacitl]
' Lord Colchester, Diary and Correspondence, vol. 2, pp. 617-19.
II
MR. SPEAKER MANNERS-SUTTON 297
admitted their error by withdrawing their motion that the
message of the Prince Regent be considered.^
On June 5 the customary votes of thanks was passed to
Abbot, after which Castlereagh moved an address to the
Prince Regent asking for the usual signal mark of favour
for the retiring Speaker. The next day the reply was
received. It was the recommendation of a proper pro-
vision, to be settled as the House thought fit. The House
went into Committee, and after some discussion agreed to
the provision which had already been privately arranged by
the Government — a pension of ;^4000 a year for Abbot, with
a reversion of ^^3000 a year to the next heir male to the
title. It was mentioned in the course of the discussion that
Abbot had also a pension of ^^1500 in respect of his resigna-
tion of the office of Keeper of the Privy Seal of Ireland, a
sinecure office of ;6^3C)00 a year which was given to him on
his appointment as Chief Secretary, and which, it was said,
he migrht have held for life.^
CHAPTER LVII
MR. SPEAKER MANNERS-SUTTON
CHARLES MANNERS-SUTTON, the new Speaker,
was the son of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Born
in 1780, he was educated at Eton and Trinity
College, Cambridge, was called to the Bar in 1806, and in
the same year was returned to Parliament as Member for
Scarborough. In 1809 he was made Judge Advocate-
General, a post which he resigned on his appointment as
Speaker.
Once only has a Speaker been dismissed on the
assembling of a new Parliament because he was known
not to hold the views of the Party which came back from
^ Parliamentary Debates, vol. 36, pp. 884-8.
"^ Ibid., vol. 36, pp. 889-97.
298 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
the country in a majority. This was Charles Manners-
Sutton. A Tory himself, he was the nominee of the Tory
Administration in office at the resignation of Charles Abbot
in 1817. The moderate Conservatives and Whigs put
forward Charles Watkin Williams Wynn. His brother, Sir
Watkin Wynn, who was also in the House, and he were
known as " Bubble and Squeak," on account of the
peculiarity of their voices. Indeed, Canning thought the
only objection to Wynn as a candidate for the Chair was
that members might be tempted to address him as " Mr.
Squeaker." However, Manners-Sutton was elected by the
large majority of 262, or 312 votes against 150, and in
accordance with precedent he was reappointed to the position
after General Elections in 18 19, 1820, 1826, 1830, and 1831.
In 1832, during the final struggle over the great Reform
Bill, he declared his intention to retire at the close of the
session, which was to be followed by the Dissolution of
Parliament and a General Election on the new and greatly
enlarged franchise. The announcement was not made by
letter addressed to the Clerk, as had been the practice
hitherto, but by himself personally in a speech to the House.
" The right honourable gentleman, who spoke throughout
with very observable emotion," — it is recorded in the Parlia-
vtetitary Debates, — " sat down amid the loud and continued
cheers of the House." A vote of thanks for his services in
the Chair was unanimously passed, on the motion of Lord
Althorp, the Whig Leader of the House, and an address to
the Crown was agreed to, praying His Majesty to confer on
him a signal mark of royal favour.^ The reply of William IV.
was received the next day. His Majesty expressed his
desire to comply with the wishes of the House, and recom-
mended the adoption of such measures as would accomplish
that object.- On August i the House went into Committee
on the subject. That rigid economist, Joseph Hume,
declared that all retiring Speakers should proudly decline
a pension as a thing mean and unworthy, and as that
' Parliamentary Debates (3rd series), vol. 14, pp. 931-40.
' Ibid. (3rd series), vol. 14, pp. 964-5.
MR. SPEAKER MANNERS-SUTTON 299
appeared to be a state of perfection to which retiring
Speakers were never likely to attain, he would move the
abolition of the pension at the next vacancy of the Chair. It
was agreed, however, that Manners-Sutton should have the
usual annuity of ;!^4000, and, after his death, his heir male
one of i^3000.^
But the Whig Ministers, returned again to power at the
General Election which followed the passing of the Reform
Act, were apprehensive that a new and inexperienced
Speaker would be unable to control the first reformed
Parliament, which, it was feared, might consist of dis-
cordant elements, and they induced Manners-Sutton to
consent to occupy the Chair for some time longer, so that
he might properly curb any rude spirits — disrespectful of
the traditions of Parliament and defiant of its rules — which
might find their way into the House. The Radicals, however,
decided to oppose his re-election. The new Parliament, to
which Manners-Sutton had been returned as one of the
Members for Oxford University, assembled on Januaiy 29,
1833. Edward John Littleton (afterwards Lord Hatherton)
was first proposed by Joseph Hume and seconded by Daniel
O'Connell. Manners-Sutton, although he was a Tory, was
nominated by two distinguished Whigs, Lord Morpeth and
Sir Francis Burdett. The long debate which followed turned
not so much upon the respective merits and capabilities of
the rival candidates, as upon the curious position that
Manners-Sutton had been granted by Act of Parliament
a pension of £^4000 a year upon the supposition that he had
retired from the office of Speaker. It was held by Hume,
O'Connell, and William Cobbett that Manners-Sutton if again
elected to the Chair would be entitled to draw his pension as
well as his salary. Lord Althorp, speaking for the Govern-
ment, said the pension was not to commence until Manners-
Sutton had ceased to be Speaker, and Manners-Sutton him-
self declared that whatever the law might be he was deter-
mined, if again elected Speaker, not to receive a shilling of
the pension so long as he had the honour to fill the Chair.
^ Parliamentary Debates (3rd series), vol. 14, pp. 991-6.
300 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Littleton did not desire to have his name submitted to the
House, but, nevertheless, a division was taken, and he was
rejected by 241 votes to 31, or the substantial majority of
210. Thereupon Charles Manners-Sutton was declared elected
Speaker unanimously.^ On September 4, 1833, Manners-
Sutton was knighted " as a reward," says Greville, " for his
conduct during the session, in which he has done the Govern-
ment good and handsome service."
When a new Parliament next assembled, on February 19,
1835, the Tories were in office, the Whigs having been
summarily dismissed by William IV. in the preceding
November ; but, as the result of the General Election which
followed, a majority of Whigs confronted Sir Robert Peel,
Prime Minister, in the House of Commons, determined to
fight him on every issue. Charles Manners-Sutton was again
nominated for the Chair, this time his proposer and seconder
being Tories. That he was a staunch Tory everybody was
well aware. In 1821 and in 1825, like his Tory predecessor,
Charles Abbot, he opposed in Committee Bills for the
removal of Roman Catholic disabilities — a question which,
though it cut across the lines of Party, was more favoured by
the Whigs than the Tories. He again spoke in Committee
in 1834, this time against a Bill for the abolition of the
religious tests which excluded Nonconformists from the
Universities.^ On Canning's accession to power in 1827,
Manners-Sutton was offered the post of Home Secretary,
but he declined it on account of his disagreement with the
Prime Minister on the question of Catholic emancipation, of
which Canning was one of the most consistent and influential
advocates.
In all these transactions he had not gone beyond that
free expression of political opinion which the Speaker then
enjoyed. But the Speaker was expected to refrain more or
less from rendering active assistance to the political Party
with which he was in sympathy, and Manners-Sutton was
' Parliamentary Debates (3rd scries), vol. 4, pp. 35-83.
^ Jbid. (and series), vol. 4, pp. 1451-4; (2nd series), vol. 13, p. 434;
(3rd series), vol. 14, pp. 1092-3.
MR. SPKAK.ER MA^■X^:RS■SUTTO^' (VISCOUNT CANTKRIJURV)
FROM AN ENGRAVING AKTRR THE I'AINTrNG BY A. E. CHALON, K.A.
MR. SPEAKER MANNERS-SUTTON 301
known to have committed overt acts of partisanship. During
the Grey Administration in 183 1, the opponents of Reform
met at the Speaker's House to arrange the campaign of
attack on the Government in Parliament.^ So high was he
in the confidence of the Tories that when there was a prospect
of the Grey Administration resigning in May 1832, in the
conflict with the Lords over the Reform Bill, he was invited
to form a Tory Government, but declined the task. These
sins, however, were forgiven or forgotten by the Whigs when
they appealed to him to preside over the first reformed House
of Commons. Now he was charged with deeds of partisan-
ship overtly and covertly which the Whigs, exasperated as
well as triumphant, protested it was impossible to overlook.
It was said he had conspired against the Melbourne Ad-
ministration to the extent of having influenced the King to
dismiss them from office and dissolve Parliament, and that
had the Tories been successful at the polls he would have
received as his reward a high appointment in Peel's Cabinet.
The Whigs were therefore against his re-election to the
Chair. That at least was the feeling among the rank and
file of the Party. The leaders were reluctant to embark upon
the enterprise of opposing Manners-Sutton. The success of
it was doubtful, owing to the great reputation and influence
of Manners-Sutton, whose conduct in the Chair met with
general approbation, and, if it were triumphant, it might have
unpleasant consequences, for the feeling still lingered that a
new Speaker would find it difficult to curb the intractable
personal elements to which Reform was supposed to have
opened the doors of the House of Commons. Earl Grey
advised Melbourne that it would be well to re-elect Manners-
Sutton. Melbourne at first agreed with his predecessor in the
leadership of the Whig Party. But it was made clear to him
that such a course would strain the allegiance of his followers.
He then decided that " upon principle " it was right to oppose
Manners-Sutton. " I think," he wrote to Grey, " the Speaker
of the House of Commons should not take a part in political
changes, and particularly not in a change which there was
* Correspondence of Earl Grey, vol. i, pp. 73~4-
302
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
every reason to believe was disagreeable to the majority of
the Mouse, of which he is the servant, and which involved its
dissolution."^
CHAPTER LVIII
AN HISTORIC ELECTION TO THE CHAIR
THEN arose the question — Who should be the nominee of
the Party ? The leaders were committed to support
Spring-Rice, Secretary of State for War and the
Colonies — two Departments which then had but one head —
in the late Whig Administration, and a Member of the
Cabinet, who had longed for years to be Speaker ; and was
now busy in urging his claim upon his colleagues. Among
others to whom he wrote was Earl Spencer, who as Lord
Althorp had been Leader of the House of Commons in the
Whig Governments since the Reform Act, The Earl fully
recognized Spring-Rice's title to look to the Party for the
realization of his ambition, and then went on to make some
curious and unexpected comments on the office of Speaker.
" I am surprised, I own," he wrote, " that you should choose
to lower yourself to so fameless an office as that of Speaker,
standing as high as you do at the present time. But if that
is your choice, no one else can have anything to say against
it. The only objection that any man could make to you is
that you have too much sense to carry on the humbug of the
Chair without occasionally laughing ; for though a necessary
humbug, still it is a humbug. Addington and Abbot made
better Speakers than Sutton, because they had less sense, and
Lord Grenville made a much worse one, I believe, because he
had more." 2
But Spring-Rice was unpopular with the Radicals, and
he was set aside for James Abercromby, to whose support
it was found all sections of the Party were willing to rally.
' Lord Melbourne' s Papers, 245 (1890).
' Torrcns, Memoirs of Viscount Melbourne, 334 (1890).
AN HISTORIC ELECTION TO THE CHAIR 303
Like Spring-Rice, Abercromby had also been a Cabinet
Minister. He was the third son of the famous Scottish
soldier, Sir Ralph Abercromby, was called to the English
Bar, and in 1830, having then been twenty-three years in
Parliament as a Whig, was appointed Chief Baron of the
Exchequer of Scotland. Two years later this office was
abolished, and, with a pension of iJ"2000 a year, Abercromby
returned to the House of Commons again as Member for
Edinburgh in the first Reform Parliament. He wanted to
be Speaker, but, as already stated, the Government preferred
to entrust the guidance of the new House to the experience
of Manners-Sutton, and he got instead a place in the
Cabinet as Master of the Mint.
In 1835, however, he was unwilling to stand for the
Chair. It was only after an urgent appeal had been
made to him by Melbourne, in the interest of the unity of
the Party, that he consented to be the Whig nominee.
" I have been forced into a position which is, in many
respects, distressing to me." Thus he began a letter to
Spring-Rice, condoling with him on his frustrated desire and
explaining his own position. It was true he had wished
for the Chair at the last election, but as the reason which
had then influenced him no longer existed, he did not
desire to be removed from an active share in politics.
" I sincerely regret having been forced forward," he went on,
" and I should feel it more deeply if I did not secretly
believe that all opposition to Sutton is vain, after his being
in possession of the office, with his experience and with the
opportunities he has had of cultivating the opinion of the
House." ^
On February 19, 1835, the new House of Commons
met for the most exciting election of Speaker which had yet
taken place. The destruction of the old Palace of West-
minster by fire had occurred during the recess of 1834, and
the Commons assembled in the temporary structure which
had been hastily raised for their accommodation. There
was an enormous throng of Members. Every available man
^ Torrens, Memoirs of Viscouni Melbourne, 341 (1890).
304 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
had been whipped up by both sides. In the course of a
frank and dignified speech, Manners-Sutton pledged his
honour that the more direct and serious charges that he had
intrigued against the Whig Cabinet, and had counselled and
advised the King to dissolve Parliament, were false from
beginning to end. The communications which passed
between him and His Majesty were entirely on one subject
— the destruction of the Speaker's House by the recent
fire. But he admitted having been in consultation with
Wellington and Peel in regard to the formation of the Tory
Government. Lord John Russell commenced his long
career as Whig Leader in the House of Commons by
conducting the attack on Manners-Sutton. The political
bias of the right hon. gentleman had, he said, led him into
acts which in a Speaker could not be excused or defended.
What did the House expect of its Speaker? Such was the
question which the noble lord asked ; and to it he gave the
answer — " A man who was zealous in behalf of the liberties
of the people, zealous in behalf of the popular prerogatives ;
to be the organ of the House in its communication with
the Crown, to represent their feelings firmly, zealously, and
openly, without fear of offending, or a wish to conciliate
those who might have the dispensing of favours." ^
Uncertainty as to the result prevailed until the numbers
of the division were actually announced. At that time
the system of division lobbies had not been established.
Members remained in the Chamber, separating to the right
and left, and were counted by the tellers, who were stationed
on the floor with their wands of office. The Tory supporters
of Manners-Sutton were first reckoned. They numbered
306. It was thought unlikely that the Liberals would make
so big a muster, and those who sat by Manners-Sutton on
the Ministerial side of the House ventured to whisper
congratulations to him on his victory. Meanwhile the
Liberals were being counted in dramatically intense silence.
" 1 hree hundred and five," said the tellers. Then, says a
contemporary account of the scene, there was a slight pause.
' f'arliavuttlary Debates (3rd scries), vol. 26, pp. 3-61.
Il
AN HISTORIC ELECTION TO THE CHAIR 305
" Three hundred and six." The antagonists were now even !
" Three hundred and seven." Cheers burst forth from the
Liberals, and were prolonged during the rest of the counting,
which ended in the election of Abercromby by the narrow
majority of ten.^ Each candidate gave his vote in favour of
the other. " Such a division was never known before in the
House of Commons," writes Charles Greville. " Much
money was won and lost. Every one betted. I won j^55."
He adds : " All the Irish members voted but four ; all the
Scotch but three, all the English but twenty-five. The
Irish and Scotch, in fact, made the majority."^
Gladstone, who was a Member of the House at the time,
wrote to his father of the election : " Our Party mustered
splendidly. Some few, but very few, of the others appear
to have kept away through a sense of decency. They had
not virtue enough to vote for the man whom they knew to
be incomparably the best, and against whom they had no
charge to bring. No more shameful act, I think, has ever
been done by a British House of Commons."^ In this letter
the indignation of the Tory Party finds expression. The
King was downright furious. Greville, writing in July 1835,
thus describes how William IV. flouted Abercromby at Court •
" The other day the Speaker was treated by him with
shocking rudeness at the Drawing-Room. He not only took
no notice of him, but studiously overlooked him while he
was standing opposite, and called up Manners-Sutton and
somebody else to mark the difference by extreme gracious-
ness to the latter. Seymour, who was with him as Serjeant-
at-Arms, said he had never seen a Speaker so used in the
five-and-twenty years he had been there, and that it was
most painful. The Speaker asked him if he had ever seen
a man in his situation so received at Court. Since he has
been Speaker the King has never taken the slightest notice
of him. It is monstrous, equally undignified and foolish."*
' Torrens, Memoirs of Viscount Melbourne, 347.
- The Greville Memoirs, vol. 3, p. 219 (1888).
^ Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. I, p. 125.
* The Greville Memoirs, vol. 3, pp. 285-6.
3o6 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
CHAPTER LIX
A DISAPPOINTING SPEAKERSHIP
ABERCROMBY was the first man who had sat in the
Cabinet to be elected to the Chair. That, perhaps,
was all that was novel or remarkable in his Speaker-
ship. He committed openly no acts of partisanship, but he
maintained a close connection politically with the Whigs
during his tenure of the Chair. In the Melbourne Papers
there is a letter from him to the Prime Minister, marked
"Confidential," which, written at Berwick, October 9, 1835,
gives an account of public feeling in the country regarding
the Government, and shows that Melbourne had consulted
him with respect to their policy.^ As a Speaker one gets
conflicting impressions of him from contemporary authorities.
Disraeli in a letter to his sister, dated November 15, 1837, —
the day he first took his seat in the House of Commons as
Tory Member for Maidstone on the assembling of the first
Parliament of Queen Victoria, — gives a pungent, if brief,
description of Abercromby's re-election. He says : " Shaw-
Lefevre proposed, and Struth of Derby seconded Abercromby.
Both were brief, the first commonplace and coarse ; all tame.
. . . Peel said a very little and very well. Then Abercromby,
who looked like an old laundress, mumbled and moaned
some dulness, and was then carried to the Chair, and said
a little more amid a faint cheer. To me, of course, the
scene was exciting enough ; but none could share my
feelings except new Members." ^
Evidently Abercromby lacked impressiveness, a quality
of the first importance to the Speaker. He seems to have
been doubly unfortunate, for he was also wanting in the
capacity to control the House, according to Walpole's Life
of Lord John Russell. The direction of debate occasionally
slipped from his grasp during the angry conflicts between
' Ij>rd Melbourne' s Papers, 291-2.
^ Lord Beacons^e/d's Letters {popular cd'niov), 18S7), 116-7.
i
A DISAPPOINTING SPEAKERSHIP 307
Government and Opposition in the closing years of the last
Melbourne Administration. On December 7, 1837, — within
a few weeks of his re-election to the Chair over which
Disraeli makes merry, — he wrote indignantly to the Prime
Minister that he must resign, as he did not receive the
support he was entitled to expect from the Leader of the
House. Melbourne sent a mollifying reply. " I have, of
course, shown it," he says, referring to Abercromby's com-
plaint, " to Lord John Russell, who takes such a very
different view of the facts stated in it, that I conceive that
there must be a good deal of misconception on both sides,
which would probably be removed by explanation." ^
Abercromby was induced by the Prime Minister to pro-
long his occupation of the Chair. But the good under-
standing restored between him and the Leader of the House
did not long continue. Indeed, so exasperated was he by
the discontent with his conduct in the Chair, which Lord
John Russell took no pains to conceal, that on May 6, 1839,
he startled the House generally with the unexpected
announcement of his early retirement. He had, however,
previously told Lord John Russell of his intention, and
with Russell's permission had communicated it also to Sir
Robert Peel.^ In his address to the House he said that, as
his strength no longer enabled him to meet the labour and
fatigue of his office, he had come to the determination not
to resume the Chair after the Whitsuntide recess. Lord
John Russell said a few official words of regret, as perfunctory
and cold as they were brief, and Sir Robert Peel, the Leader
of the Opposition, was equally short but less uncordial.
On May 16, when the motion of adjournment for the
holidays had been agreed to, Abercromby bade farewell to
the House. His speech was entered, according to custom,
in the Journals? But neither in the Joiiriials nor in the
Parliamentary Debates is there any record of the usual vote
of thanks having been passed to him for his services in the
^ Lord Melbourne^ s Papers, 370.
' Walpole, Life of Lord John Russell, vol. i, p. 322.
^ ^Commons Journals, vol. 94, p. 271.
3o8 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Chair, or of the customary address to the Crown asking for
him a signal mark of royal favour, or of the conferring on
him by the House of the pension of ;^4000 a year to which
he was entitled with a reversion of ^3000 to his heir,
which had hitherto also been voted. On the following day.
May 17, he was created a peer with the title of Lord
Dunfermline. His pension of i^2000 a year, as late Chief
Baron of the Exchequer in Scotland, of course continued in
operation. As to his conduct in the Chair, testimony of its
excellence is afforded by a high authority, the Clerk of the
House of Commons, Sir Denis Le Marchant, who writes :
" In ability, constitutional knowledge, and even the practice
of Parliament he was, undoubtedly, very superior to Mr.
Manners-Sutton." ^
CHAPTER LX
THE FIRST NON-PARTISAN SPEAKERS
WHEN the Commons reassembled on May 27, 1839^
they proceeded forthwith to the election of a new
Speaker. The Ministerial nominee was Charles
Shaw-Lefevre. In opposition to him the Tories ran Henry
Goulburn, who was Peel's Home Secretary in the brief
Administration of December 1834. Shaw-Lefevre was
elected by a majority of 18, or by 317 votes against 299.
The publication of division-lists, giving the names of
Members and how they vote, had come into operation a
few years before.^ The division-list of May 27, 1839 (No.
75), is an interesting document. It contains the first official
record of the amiable custom whereby each of the candidates
for the Chair used to express by his vote the conviction that
his rival was the better man. Goulburn voted for Shaw-
Lefevre, and Shaw-Lefevre voted for Goulburn.
' Le Marchant, Memoir of Earl Spencer, 450.
' The issue of the printed clivisioii-hsls began on February 22, 1836. May,
Law attd Usage of Parliament (1906), 369.
THE FIRST NON-PARTISAN SPEAKERS 309
Shaw-Lefevre was born on February 22, 1794. His
father, a barrister, had been Member for Reading from 1802
to 1820. Educated at St. Mary's, Winchester, and Trinity
College, Cambridge, he was called to the Bar in 18 19, but
had little practice. He entered the House of Commons in
1830 as a Whig. Politics did not seem particularly to
appeal to him, nor had he any desire to shine in debate.
He rarely spoke, whether on subjects general or political.
But from the first the procedure of the House — its rules
and orders, its customs and ways — greatly interested him ;
and he liked to busy himself with the practical work of the
Committee-rooms, where Bills affecting the social interests of
the community are considered. He was, in fact, the first
of the modern Speakers — non-partisan in mind, dignified
in manner, and convinced that to preside over the House of
Commons was the highest honour that could fall to any man.
He represented North Hampshire during his tenure of the
Chair.
The General Election of 1841 brought about a change of
Government. The Melbourne Administration, which elected
Shaw-Lefevre to the Chair, was overthrown at the polls, and
the Tories came back with a majority of 91. Many of the
victors in the electoral contest were disposed to follow the
example set by their opponents in 1835, and make a Party
question of the Speakership at the meeting of the new
Parliament on August 19, 1841. But their leader, Sir
Robert Peel, refused to countenance this line of action. " I
do not think it necessary," said he, in a speech supporting
the re-election of Shaw-Lefevre, " that the person elected to
the Chair who had conscientiously and ably performed his
duties should be displaced because his political opinions are
not consonant to those of the majority of the House." He
had argued for that principle, he said, in the memorable
contest between Manners-Sutton and Abercromby. He
now proposed to act upon it. Moreover, he thought that
Shaw-Lefevre, " by his ability, impartiality, and integrity,"
had secured the confidence of the House. Lord John
Russell, who also took part in the debate, protested that
3IO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
"a difference of political feeling" was not the ground of
opposition to Manners-Sutton, but "circumstances connected
with his conduct " as Speaker. The re-election of Shaw-
Lefevre was, accordingly, unanimous. Peel's wise view of
the Speakership has since prevailed. The continuity of the
office has not been broken since the dismissal of Manners-
Sutton in 1835.^
Having served for close on eighteen years, — the longest
term of any Speaker except Arthur Onslow, — Shaw-Lefevre
retired on March 2, 1857. He got the usual allowance of
;^4000 a year, and was raised to the peerage as Viscount
Eversley ; ^ but there was no pension for his heir male, as
he was a widower without children. When he died in
December 1885 he was within a few weeks of completing
his ninety-fifth year.
John Evelyn Denison, who was unanimously elected to
the Chair in succession to Shaw-Lefevre, on April 30, 1857,
was born at Ossington, Nottinghamshire, and educated at
Eton and Christ Church, Oxford. He was a country
gentleman. Entering the House of Commons in 1823, he
sat continuously until 1837, after which he was out of the
House for four years, returning at the General Election of
1 84 1. On his appointment as Speaker he represented North
Northamptonshire. Thirty years before he had held office,
for a brief term, as one of the Junior Lords of the Admiralty
under Canning. A well-known edition of the Bible, The
Speaker s Commentary^ originated with Mr. Speaker Denison.
" At a quarter before one o'clock, while I was undressing
to go to bed, a knock at the door came, and Baillie told
me Lord Palmerston wanted to see me. I put on my
dressing-gown and went down to my library. Lord
Palmerston and Mr. Brand were there." So Denison
writes in his Journal under date Friday, February 21, 1862.
The reason of this untimely visit of the Prime Minister was
that one of his colleagues in the Administration had received
that night a hostile message from another Member of Parlia-
' Parliamentary Debates (3rd series), vol. 59, pp. 5-10.
' Iliid. (3rd series), vol. 144, p. 2300.
THE FIRST NON-PARTISAN SPEAKERS 311
ment, and he desired to confer with the Speaker as to the
course to be taken for putting a stop to the proceedings.
The story of the episode and how it ended affords a curious
contrast with the action of Mr. Speaker Addington in the
duel between Pitt and Tierney in 1798.
In the House of Commons that day there had been an
Irish debate in the course of which the Chief Secretary,
Sir Robert Peel (son of the Prime Minister), contemptuouslj^
referred to a Nationalist meeting in Dublin, at which, he
said, " a few manikin traitors " and not " a person of respect-
ability" were present. The O'Donoghue, then Member
for Tipperary, had presided at the meeting. Though he was
present at the debate, he took no exception to the words in
the House, but sent Major Gavin, another Irish Member,
to the Chief Secretary in the course of the evening with
a demand for an apology. Peel answered that he could
make no apology for words spoken in the House, nor could
he give any explanation but to the House. As this was not
considered satisfactory by Major Gavin, he asked Peel to
name a friend, and further intimated that when Peel had
settled with The O'Donoghue he would have to give him
satisfaction also, for he, too, had been present at the
Rotunda meeting. Peel then said he would refer the matter
to Lord Palmerston. What the Prime Minister did was to
go in hot haste and inform the Speaker.
" I told him," says Denison, " to send such a challenge for
words uttered in debate was a distinct breach of privilege.
To accept the challenge would be a breach of privilege.
Palmerston wrote a letter at once to Peel to this effect, and
warning him against accepting any such challenge if it
should be sent."
The questions which Denison says he had to consider
were : " What power did I possess as Speaker during the
adjournment of the House? In what way could I interfere
if this matter was brought to my notice?" Sir Charles
Wood, a Member of the Cabinet, advised him to write to the
parties reminding them that if they fought they would be
guilty of a breach of privilege. But he decided against this
312 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
course. It would not suffice merely to warn the parties.
He felt bound to act with more vif^our.
Addington.it will be remembered, rode out to Putney on
the Sunday of the duel between Pitt and Tierney, to get
early news of the result, if not to witness the encounter.
Denison devoted the intervening Sunday, in this emergency,
in talking over the matter with Erskine May, the Clerk of
the House. What he decided to do was that, in the event
of Palmerston letting him know there was a danger of a
hostile meeting before the assembling of the House on
Monday, he would send the Serjeant-at-Arms to a police
magistrate with directions to have the parties bound over to
keep the peace. In doing so he says he felt he should be
acting in the spirit of the directions he would receive from
the House, if the House were sitting.^
However, nothing happened, and when the House met
on Monday, February 24, Palmerston brought the affair
under its notice as a breach of one of its greatest privileges
— perfect freedom of speech within its walls. The Speaker
thereupon called on the O'Donoghuc to express his regret
for having taken a course inconsistent with the privileges of
the House, and to assure the House that the matter should
not proceed further. The O'Donoghue made the apology,
and gave the assurance required of him. In doing so he
attacked Peel, and concluded by thanking the right hon.
gentlemen for the opportunity he had afforded him of "ex-
hibiting him in his real character." There were cries of
" Oh, oh ! " but the Speaker thought it well to drop the
curtain on the scene.^
' Denison, Notes from My Journal, 108-10.
^Parliamentary Debates (3rd series), vol. 165, pp. 617-26.
RISE OF THE NATIONALIST PARTY 313
CHAPTER LXI
RISE OF THE NATIONALIST PARTY
SHAW-LEFEVRE looked and acted the part of Speaker
to perfection. He was of commanding stature, standing
over six feet high, was dignified in bearing, and had
the important endowment also of a sonorous voice. He is
said to have boasted — or is reputed to have believed — that
he could daunt any obstreperous Member by the mere
severity and indignation of the glance that shot from his
expressive eyes. Denison used to tell the story, with the
modest commentary that this was an occult power which he
could not claim to possess. He was grave and diffident in
demeanour, sensitive and nervous, and like most men of this
temperament, was unready and wanting in firmness in
emergencies.
But neither Shaw-Lefevre nor Denison were often called
upon to speak and act with promptitude and vigour in the
maintenance of the order and the rules of the House. It
might be said, indeed, that Shaw-Lefevre, particularly, had
a somewhat dull and monotonous tenure of office, if dignified
and exalted. In his time it was the custom of young
Members to collect late of an evening at the Bar, and, in
the manner of their sort, punctuate the debate with shouts
and laughter that were not always relevant. Shaw-Lefevre
looked upon these gatherings with displeasure. He would
call out, " Members at the Bar must take their places," and
the young Members — amenable to order with all their high
spirits — would immediately disperse.^ He had quite an
original but effective way of dealing with a difficult point
of order when it arose. " His special excellence as a Speaker,"
says Mr. George Russell, in one of his gossipy papers, " was
held to be that, when there was no precedent for a particular
course, he always said that it was the well-known practice of
the House, and that, if any one ever attempted to question
^ White, The Intter Life of the House of Commons, vol. I, p. 130.
314 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
these improvised authorities, he said : ' Order, order ! The
point is already disposed of,' with a voice and nnanner which
silenced all remonstrance." ^
Denison had not altogether so simple and easy a time.
Obstruction, which was so highly developed bj' Charles Stewart
Parnell in the late seventies and early eighties, really arose
during the Speakership of Denison, though, as I have re-
corded, it was practised so long ago as the seventeenth century.
In June 1 870 there was a debate on the Clergy Disabilities
(Removal) Bill which was prolonged by obstructive tactics
till four o'clock in the morning. The minority, though small
in numbers, kept the proceedings going by moving alter-
nately the motions, " That the debate now be adjourned " and
" That the House do now adjourn," and discussing them at
length. These motions having been repeated eight or nine
times, the Speaker ruled that any Member who had moved
or seconded a motion for adjournment either of the debate
or the House could not do so a second time. The minority,
accordingly, were forced to give way, complaining that their
rights had been unduly curtailed by the Chair.
It was pointed out to the Speaker that his predecessor,
Shaw-Lefevre, admitted in the course of his evidence to a
Select Committee on Public Business in 1854, that there was
nothing in the rules to prevent two Members from stopping
the progress of business by alternating motions for the ad-
journment of the debate with motions for the adjournment
of the House, without end ; and that in i860 this very
procedure had been tolerated by Shaw-Lefevre in the case
of a single Member, John Francis Maguire, an Irish repre-
sentative, who, in opposition to the Peace Preservation
(Ireland) Bill, moved several motions for adjournment,
speaking at considerable length on each.
" I talked to Lord Eversley on the point, and showed
him his evidence," Denison writes. " He said great abuses
prevailed in practice when he began his career. He does
not doubt that two men were allowed at that time to make
motions alternately. But he thinks the rule was made more
' G. W. E. Russell, Sketches and Snapshots, 380.
RISE OF THE NATIONALIST PARTY 315
stringent before the end of his time. Old Mr. Ley ^ used to
say, ' What does it signify about precedents ? The House
can do what it likes. Who can stop it ? ' In Sir E. May's
book : ' I have held more than once that a man who rises
in a debate, and moves the adjournment of the House or of
the debate, speaks on the main question, and, having spoken,
he cannot speak again.' Lord Eversley entirely concurred
in this view ; he thought it quite right, and he strongly urged
me to take that ground and to stand upon it."^
In the course of the next Speakership, obstruction was
carried to lengths undreamed of by Shaw-Lefevre or Denison.
It was also scotched during the same tenure of the office.
At least it was made impossible to prolong it to the same
extent ever again ; and this was achieved only at the cost of
the loss of unfettered liberty of debate, which of all the many
glories of the House of Commons was its chief and crown.
The Speaker was Henry Bouverie Brand, who was elected
to the Chair by the Liberals on February 9, 1872, when
Denison retired after fifteen years' service. He was born in
1 8 14, the second son of the 21st Baron Dacre, and was
educated at Eton but did not go to a University. In 1852
he entered the House of Commons. He was appointed
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury in 1859, and held
that office in the Whig Administrations of Lord Palmerston
and Earl Russell until 1866, when the Conservatives came
into power. He was then made Chief Liberal Whip, and
continued to act in that capacity during Gladstone's first
Government, from 1868 until his selection for the Chair in
1872.
Doubts were expressed at the time whether one who had
been for many years closely identified with Party in so
pre-eminently a partisan office as that of Chief Whip
would preside over the House with absolute impartiality.
But Brand was ultimately accounted a success. He was
unanimously re-elected by the Conservatives on the return
of Disraeli to office in March 1874, and was chosen for a
^ Ley had been Chief Clerk of the House of Commons.
^ Denison, Notes from My Journal, 259-60.
3i6 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
third turn on the assembling of the Gladstone Parliament
in 1880. On the latter occasion— April 29, 1880 — Mr.
Frank Hugh O'Donncll, a distinguished Nationalist with
a fine talent for obstruction, got up and expressed on behalf
of the Irish Party approval of the choice that had been made
for the Chair, Sir Stafford Northcote, then the Leader of
the Opposition, notes in his Diary : " This was meant simply
to announce that the Irish Party intended to make them-
selves heard and attended to." ^
The Parnellites had already made things heavy with
care and responsibility for Brand, though they numbered
only seven during the concluding years of the Conservative
Parliament. They returned from the General Election of
1880 a force of sixty, "strong in numbers, discipline, and
organization, and with great gifts of speech," as Brand
himself said. His troubles as Speaker were now to begin
in real earnest. Practically from the Revolution until the
time of Brand, the days, or rather the nights, of the Speaker
had been, on the whole, tranquil and serene, with no great
care beyond that of seeing that things were done according
to rule and precedent. The rise of the Nationalist Party
had changed all that. There was seen displayed, for the
first time in the House of Commons, a fervid white heat of
passionate conviction on the part of a thoroughly disciplined
and determined body of men, most of them little, if at all,
susceptible to the great traditions and history of Parliament,
which made them a foreign element at St. Stephens, in
hopeless conflict with their environment, and a puzzle, as
well as a scandal, to the unemotional and highly respectable
British representatives, who were thoroughly embued with
that mysterious essence which is called the genius of the
place.
Brand himself had defined obstruction — with much
pithiness and discernment — as the abuse of the privilege
of freedom of debate for the purpose of thwarting the will
of Parliament. That was avowedly the intention of the
Nationalists. The will of Parliament was that the grievances
' Lang, Life of Sir Slafford Northcote, vol. 2, pp. 150-51-
RISE OF THE NATIONALIST PARTY 317
of Ireland — imaginary or real — exposed by the Parnellites
should not be redressed. To defeat that will and compel
Parliament, by brute force, without ruth or scruple, if
necessary, to consider the claims of Ireland was the aim
and object of the Parnellites. All of them were eager to
indulge in the fierce and reckless delight of flouting the
Chair as part of their boasted policy of bringing the House
of Commons to impotency and contempt.
At first Brand encountered the obstructionists solely with
a mild and conciliatory expression, save that there would
creep into his eyes, when any of his rulings was disputed,
a look of pained surprise. Then he decided to administer to
them a rebuke, which, though gentle and compromising in
its terms, was solemnly inscribed in the Journals. On
July 25, 1877, he declared "that any Member wilfully and
persistently obstructing public business, without just and
reasonable cause, is guilty of a contempt of the House, and
would be liable to such punishment, whether by censure,
by suspension from the service of the House, or by commit-
ment, as the House may adjudge."^ It was clear, even
then, that a revision of the Standing Orders must be made
if the due transaction of public business was to be secured
and the dignity of the House maintained. Yet so reluctant
was the House to step aside from ancient ways, that it was
not until February 28, 1880, that the first measure for the
punishment of deliberate obstruction was adopted. A
Standing Order was passed for the suspension of a member
from the service of the House who should be " named " by
the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees for persistently
and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, for
abusing the rules of the House, or for disregarding the
authority of the Chair.^
* Commons Journals, vol. 132, p. 375.
* May, Law and Usage of Parliament (nth edition), 340.
\
3i8 THE S1M':AKER OF THE HOUSE
CHAPTER LXII
THE LONGEST SITTING OF THE HOUSE
THE most historic protracted sitting of the House of
Commons took place in the session of 1881. When
Parliament met early in that year, Ireland was in the
agony of the Land League agitation, a universal and fierce
uprising of the people against the unrestricted powers of the
landlords to charge any rents they pleased, and to impose on
those unable to meet their exactions the awful fate of eviction.
Gladstone, as Prime Minister, at once announced in the
House of Commons that a Bill would be immediately
introduced by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. W. E.
Forster, for the vindication of law and order. It was the
Protection of Person and Property Bill, which suspended the
Habeas Corpus Act. Under its operation subsequently
hundreds of Irishmen were cast into prison without trial
as " suspects," on the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant. The
Nationalist Members vowed to resist the passing of the
measure with all the obstructive resources at their command ;
and, as the Closure had not yet been invented, their power in
that direction was limited, practically, only by the extent of
their combined inventiveness and physical endurance.
The debate on the motion for leave to bring in the Bill
had been spread over three nights. When it was resumed
on Monday, January 31, 1881, Mr. Gladstone declared it
was the intention of the Government to obtain the first
reading of the Bill before the House adjourned. The
mingling cheers of the Opposition and Ministerialists showed
that the Government had the support of both sides of the
House. In the defiant shouts of the Nationalists from
below the Gangway, on the Opposition side, there was an
avowed declaration to defeat the purpose of the Government.
The temper of the House was also manifested in a long
speech delivered early in the sitting by Parnell, and the
impatience with which it was listened to by Liberals and
THE LONGEST SITTING OF THE HOUSE 319
Conservatives alike. The Irish leader read many extracts
from an article in the Edinburgh Review to show that the
agitation conducted by Daniel O'Connell in the forties,
which the Prime Minister had favourably contrasted with
the Land League, received, in its time, the same meed of
British reprobation. Again and again the Speaker was
appealed to from both sides to declare that the honourable
Member was wasting the time of the House. " I am bound
to say," the Speaker declared at last, "that the honourable
Member is really trying very severely the patience of the
House." " I would not for the world transgress the rule
of the Chair," replied Mr. Parnell in his icily ironical tones,
"but I am bound to say that I shall have to try very
severely the patience of the House in the course of this
debate."
The discussion proceeded till one o'clock, the hour at
which the House usually rose. A motion for the adjourn-
ment of the debate was moved by the Nationalists. There
was an unmistakable note of mingled indignation and
resentment in the tone of the Prime Minister's brief reply.
" I beg to say on behalf of the Government," he answered,
" that we propose to resist that motion." Both sides prepared
for a stubborn and protracted contest of sheer brute force.
It was now solely a matter of each holding out to tire the
other down. Both sides adopted a system of relays. The
Speaker and Deputy Speaker took turns in occupying the
Chair. The Government Whips divided their followers
into batches, which alternately remained on call at St.
Stephens and went home for a few hours' sleep. The
Nationalists off guard rested in various rooms of the
building. The spectacle of Joseph Gillies Biggar asleep
in a corner of the Library aroused in some supporters of the
Government a desire to consult the heaviest books in bulk
and weight they could find, and by a strange mischance
these mighty tomes always slipped from their hands and fell
with a crash close to the slumbering arch-obstructionist.
The Chamber itself was almost deserted. Members were
continually coming and going, but few remained to listen to
320 THE SPEAKKR OF THE HOUSE
the voice of some Irish Member speaking at amazingly
inordinate length to empty benches. There were many
divisions, of course. All through that Monday night, and all
through the morning, noon, and evening of Tuesday, a motion
for the adjournment of the debate followed a motion for
the adjournment of the House in regular succession, and the
empty state of the Chamber enabled the Nationalists to
introduce some variety into the proceedings by frequently
calling attention to the fact that the required quorum of forty
members was not present. These motions and counts were
followed by the ringing of the division bells summoning
Members to the Chamber, but when the question was
decided, Members again gradually melted away.
So the contest proceeded. At eight o'clock on Tuesday
morning Mr. T, M. Healy moved the adjournment of the
House in a speech of mordant humour edged with contempt,
which lasted two hours and a half.
" The Irish Members," he said, " had been referred to as
a minority endeavouring to put down the majority. But
the majority were at home in bed ; and the supporters of the
Government who were in the House only made known the
fact that they were awake by their interruptions." Lord
Edmund Fitzmaurice rose to order, and asked whether
observations upon Members being awake were relevant to
the motion before the House. " Such an expression, I do
not think was out of order," said the Deputy Speaker, Dr.
Lyon Playfair, " but the hon. gentleman must not be surprised
at the impatience of the House when some of his remarks
seem to be made simply for the purpose of speaking against
time."
On Tuesday evening the House was crowded. The
tactics of the Nationalists had aroused intense interest, not
unmixed with the profoundest indignation, as against some-
thing pernicious and abominable, and the public galleries
were packed with eager and angry spectators. " Is this " —
they probably asked themselves — " the price we are paying
for the ancient treasured freedom of debate in the House of
Commons for which our forefathers fought and died ? " The
THE LONGEST SITTING OF THE HOUSE 321
Lords' Gallery was crowded with peers, consumed with
curiosity, like lesser mortals, as to the ultimate conclusion of
this extraordinary scene. Among them was Lord Beacons-
field, looking sardonically through his eye-glass on what he
might well have thought was the ruin of the House of
Commons. But the end was still a long way off.
Mr. Parnell was interrupted at midnight by Mr. Milbank,
a Ministerialist, who asked the Deputy Speaker whether, as
the hon. Member had been called to order four times for
irrelevance, he should not be " named " and suspended for
obstruction. No notice of the question was taken by the
Chair, and Mr. Parnell was about to resume his speech when
Mr. Milbank, again interposing, called attention to the fact
that Mr. Biggar had referred to him as "a bloody fool."
The Deputy Speaker said such an expression would be
entirely out of order, but it had not reached his ears. Soon
after a division was taken, and when the numbers were
announced Mr. Biggar complained that as he was going into
the lobby Mr. Milbank approached him and said, " Biggar,
you're a mean, impudent scoundrel." Mr. Milbank, when
called upon by the Deputy Speaker for an explanation, said
it was true he had used the words. He said that he distinctly
saw the lips of the Member for Cavan moving, and heard the
expression " bloody fool " ; and as soon as opportunity offered
he crossed the floor and called the hon. Member "an
impudent scoundrel." " The hon. Member having admitted
that he used that expression with reference to another hon.
Member," said the Deputy Speaker, "it is his duty to
apologize, not to the hon. Member but to the House." Mr.
Milbank did apologize to the House, and hoped the hon.
Member for Cavan would also be asked to make his excuses,
but the Deputy Speaker declared the incident to be closed.
The eloquence of Mr. A. M. Sullivan, aflame with passion
for the righting of wrongs, gave vitality and glow to the long
dreary wastes of the night. Mr. Frank Hugh O'Donnell
made a speech on each and every one of the many motions
for adjournment, whether of the debate or of the House.
Mr. Thomas Sexton spoke from five o'clock until twenty
21
322 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
minutes to eight. Neither the grey depression of the early
morning nor the deserted benches had any effect on the
amazing fluency and feh"city of his oratory.
CHAPTER LXIII
MR. SPEAKER BRAND'S COUP-d'AtAT
AT a quarter to nine on Wednesday morning the Prime
Minister and the Leader of the Opposition entered
the Chamber together from behind the Speaker's
Chair, and took their places on the opposing front benches
to the right and left of the Table. They seemed bewildered
and, indeed, somewhat terrified by this daring and excep-
tional display of obstruction by the Irish Members. Then
a vague feeling spread around that something was about to
happen, something of a startling nature, but unknown and
unsurmisable ; and the Chamber became rapidly filled with
expectant and anxious Members.
Exactly at nine o'clock Mr. Speaker Brand appeared
and relieved Dr. Lyon Playfair in the Chair. Mr. Biggar
was speaking at the time. With a gesture of his hand the
Speaker warned the Member of Cavan to his seat. At that
great moment in the history of the House of Commons the
Speaker seemed anything but an ominous or minatory
personality. On the contrary, he wore a pained expression,
and shook as if with apprehension. His hands trembled as
he opened the roll of manuscript from which he was about
to read the historic declaration that on his own responsi-
bility he proposed to close the debate. P^or this action he
had no authority under the Standing Orders, but it subse-
quently transpired that he had consulted not only the Prime
Minister but the Leader of the Opposition, and was promised
the support of both in taking upon himself the responsibility of
stopping the discussion. " The dignity, credit, and authority
of the House are seriously threatened," said he, reading his
MR. SPEAKER HRAND (VISCOUNT HAMPDEN)
MR. SPEAKER BRAND'S COUP IXp.TAT 323
manuscript in slow and solemn tones, " and it is necessary
that they should be vindicated." He declared himself satis-
fied that he would best carry out the will of the House by
declining to call upon any more Members to speak, and at
once putting the question. Thereupon he put the amend-
ment which the Irish Members had moved to the motion for
leave to bring in the Coercion Bill. The numbers in the
division were for the amendment, 19 ; against, 164 ; — majority
for the Government, 145.
The Nationalists were taken aback by this sudden and
unexpected turn of events. They had determined to keep
the House sitting for the entire week rather than yield. It
was obstruction unashamed. Yet so anxious were they to
husband their resources that not a single man of their small
band was lost by suspension. Parnell had just left the House
for a few hours' sleep at the neighbouring Westminster
Palace Hotel. Justin M'Carthy tried to speak when the
original motion was put, but he was shouted down. Then
the Nationalists filed out upon the floor shouting " Privilege !
Privilege ! " and, with a bow to the Speaker from each of
them, quitted the Chamber. Leave to bring in the Bill was
granted, and the Chief Secretary presented it, in the usual
way, to the Clerk at the Table, amid tumultuous cheers from
both sides of the House. At half-past nine o'clock the House
adjourned, after a continuous sitting of 41I hours, a record
which stills remains unbroken.^
The Speaker's coup-d'etat had been arranged with the
approval of the two Front Benches twenty-one hours before
it came off. Brand in his Diary says he came to the con-
clusion that it was his duty to extricate the House from its
difficulty by closing the debate on his own authority. " I
sent for Gladstone on Tuesday (ist February) about noon,"
he says, "and told him I should be prepared to put the
question in spite of obstruction on the following conditions :
— (i) That the debate should be carried on until the follow-
ing morning, my object in this delay being to mark distinctly
to the outside world the extraordinary gravity of the situa-
"^ Parliamentary Debates (3rd series), vol. 257, pp. 174S-2038.
324 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
tion, and the necessity of the step which I was about to take.
(2) That he should reconsider the regulations of business,
either by giving more authority to the Mouse or by confer-
ring authority on the Speaker." The Prime Minister agreed
to these conditions, and to confirm them summoned a meet-
ing of the Cabinet, which was held in the Speaker's Library at
four o'clock that afternoon, while the House was sitting and
Brand was in the Chair. " I had communicated, with Glad-
stone's approval, my intention to close the debate to North-
cote, but to no one else except May, from whom I received
much assistance," Brand continues. " Northcote was startled,
but expressed no disapproval of the course proposed." ^
In that fateful hour the whole spirit and character of the
House of Commons underwent a complete change. The
Parliament of old — quaint, archaic, conservative, taking no
account of the vagaries of humanity — passed entirely away.
Hitherto the primary and fundamental conditions of the
working of Parliament were, in the first place, absolute
respect for the Chair, and acceptance without question of its
dignified admonitions and reproofs ; and secondly, the general
observance by Members of this great unwritten rule of
parliamentary conduct — that public business must be
accelerated, not only for the good of the Nation, but in the
mutual interest of the two political Parties as they succeeded
each other in office. But that halcyon situation came to an
end when there appeared in the House of Commons an
organized body of Members who recognized no loyalty to
the spirit of the institution, but deliberately bent the ancient
forms of procedure to a purpose for which they were never
intended, — to impede, if not to defeat, public business with a
view to the redress of grievances.
New rules and regulations were therefore necessary.
They were introduced with all speed. The very next day
Gladstone moved a resolution, which was carried, that if the
House voted by a majority of three to one that the state of
public business was urgent the Speaker should take such
* Extract from the Diary of the Speaker, quoted in Morley's Life of Gladstone,
vol. 3, p. 52.
MR. SPEAKER PEEL 325
measures as he thought proper to expedite it. This regulation
formally conferred on the Speaker the power which he had
already usurped. The next step was to incorporate some-
thing of the kind in the permanent] procedure of the House.
In a special session, held in the autumn of 1882, new
procedure rules were adopted under which the Closure
became a part of the parliamentary machine. Obstruction
thus brought about an immense augmentation of the
powers of the Speaker. Parliament was, indeed, revolu-
tionized ; but it was thereby made more efficient for the
work it is called upon to do as the greatest constitutional
machine that has yet been constructed by man for the
elevation and perfection of humanity, so far as that purpose
can be achieved by legislation.
CHAPTER LXIV
MR. SPEAKER PEEL
AT the close of the session of 1883, Mr. Speaker Brand
retired, and was made a peer with the title of Lord
Hampden. He was succeeded by Arthur Wellesley
Peel, the nominee of the Liberal Government.
Mr. Peel was but the third thought of Gladstone. The
man whom the Prime Minister desired to see in the vacant
Chair was the Solicitor-General, but Sir Francis Herschell
declined the offer,^ and just ten years later was presiding
over the House of Lords as Lord Chancellor in Gladstone's
second Home Rule Administration. Gladstone next turned
to Mr. Goschen. He was a Member of Gladstone's first
Cabinet in 1 868, but on the return of the Liberals to power
in 1880 he was not sufficiently in agreement with their
political programme, especially the promised extension of
the franchise to all householders in counties and boroughs
alike, again to take office. Goschen would have been glad
to be able to accept so high a distinction, but keenness of
^ Lucy, " From behind the Speaker's Chair " [Sir and Magazine, August 1896).
326 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
vision is essential in the Speaker, and unfortunately his
eyesight was weak. There used to be a story told that,
in order to test his vision, he took the Chair one day the
House was not sitting, when a number of his colleagues
scattered themselves over the benches on each side, below
the Gangway ; and as he failed quickly to identify them he
made up his mind that he was physically unfit for the
position. Sir Henry Lucy, in his Sixty Years in the Wilder-
nesSy prints a letter from Lord Goschen recounting why he
failed to become Speaker. The rehearsal of the story did
not, it seems, take place. But a famous oculist was sent
for. He at first gave a favourable verdict. On reaching
home, however, he wrote Mr. Gladstone a letter doubting
the wisdom of the appointment. Says Lord Goschen : —
" Mr. Gladstone was annoyed, and thought Mr. Bowman
had gone beyond the points on which he had been specially
consulted, and wrote me that he had not altered his own
opinion as to my fitness, but that I was now at liberty to
claim my freedom. I at once stated that I could not, after
such a letter, undertake the post ; and, to tell you the truth,
I felt a great sense of relief, not disappointment — for I had
been half-hearted about the matter from the first."
The credit of discovering Arthur Wellesley Peel is due,
it is said, to Sir William Harcourt, Gladstone's first
lieutenant for many years. It was generally agreed by all
authorities who were intimately acquainted with the House
of Commons during the last half of the nineteenth century,
that Mr. Peel was the strongest of all the Speakers in that
period. But when his name was first mentioned as the choice
of the Government for the Chair, in February 1884, grave
doubts as to his fitness fur the post were expressed on both
sides of the House. The old Tories murmured against his
appointment, because it would mark a violent break in the
old historical and personal associations of the Speakership.
In the first place, Mr. Peel was not of the country gentry,
to whom, whether Liberal or Tory, it was supposed the
Chair of the House of Commons by traditional right
MR. SPEAKER PEEL 327
belonged. He did not even sit for a county constituency.
He represented the borough of Warwick, to which he was
first returned in 1865. Even at the opening of the last
quarter of the nineteenth century the feeling still survived
that to represent a county was socially as well as politically
a higher distinction than to represent a borough. A county
division was therefore regarded as the fitting seat for a
Speaker, and for the representative of a borough to be
elected to the Chair was of veiy rare occurrence indeed.
More than that, Mr. Peel wore a beard ; and it was looked
upon as even a more violent departure from the ancient
traditions of the Chair to elect a man who was not clean
shaven. Indeed, it was suggested that Queen Victoria,
who was a great stickler for tradition, was hardly likely
to approve the appointment for the first time of a bearded
Speaker.
Objections of more substance and reason were also
raised. Mr. Peel was comparatively unknown in the House
of Commons. He was fifty-five years old. Though he had
been nearly twenty years in Parliament he rarely took part
in the debates. He had served for a short term as under
Secretary to the Home Department, under Sir William
Harcourt. To that post he was appointed on the formation
of the Liberal Government in 1880, but before the session
was out he resigned on account of ill-health, and in his
fitful attendance in the House, during the subsequent three
sessions, he had sat on the back benches a silent Member, and
was so retiring and unobtrusive that to the general body his
appearance was unknown. Moreover, even this brief service
in a subordinate place in the Administration then in power
was brought up in judgment against him. So jealous is
the House, as a whole, of the impartiality of the Speaker,
that there has always been a desire that he should come to
the Chair unspoiled by the dust of Party conflict. But there
were some who, going beyond that proper feeling, took the
unreasonable view that as Mr. Peel had been a Member of a
Liberal Government he must necessarily always remain a
political partisan. There were others, however, who rightly
328 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
thought that experience in office, which brings knowledge
of affairs and men, was rather a qualification for the
Speakership. Were there not several precedents of Speakers
who had held Party positions before their elevation to the
Chair even in the nineteenth century? Sir John Mitford
was Attorney-General, Charles Abbot was Chief Secretary
for Ireland, Manners-Sutton was Judge Advocate-General ;
Abercromby had sat in the Cabinet, and Brand had acted
as Principal Whip. Nevertheless, the only qualification
which some would admit that Peel possessed for the Chair
was that he was the bearer of a great parliamentary name.
Peel's election took place on February 26, 1884. The
fact that he found general favour only among the Liberals
is indicated by the circumstance that, instead of being
proposed and seconded by Members sitting on different
sides of the House, — the almost invariable custom when
there is only one candidate for the Chair, — his proposer,
Mr. Whitbread, Member for Bedford, and his seconder,
Mr. Rathbone, Member for Carnarvonshire, were both
supporters of the Government.
But most of the doubts as to the fitness of Mr, Peel for
the position were swept aside by the mingled gravity and
dignity of his demeanour on being conducted to the Chair,
by his striking presence as he stood on the dais, by the
stately eloquence of the speech in which he returned thanks.
" I know full well," said he, " what is the greatest attribute
and ornament of the Chair." Then in the resonant and
emphatic tones of that splendid voice, in which the House
from that day took great delight, he went on in a swelling
sentence : —
" I know how necessary it is for any man who aspires to
fill that great office to lay aside all that is personal, all that
is of Party, all that savours of political predilection, and to
subordinate everything to the great interests of the House
at large, to maintain not only the written law, but, if I may
say so, that unwritten law which should appeal to, as it
always does appeal to, the minds and consciences of the
gentlemen of the House of Commons to promote and to
MR. SPEAKER PEEL 329
hand on unimpaired the traditions of this House ; and over
and above all its most cherished and inestimable traditions,
— I mean that personal courtesy, that interchange of
chivalry between Member and Member, which I believe to
be compatible with the most effective Party debates and
feelings, and which, 1 am sure, is one of the oldest, and I
humbly trust may always be the most cherished, tradition of
this great representative Assembly."
This address, so admirable in taste, temper, and tone,
took the House by storm. The customary felicitations to
the Speaker-elect were offered by Mr. Gladstone, as Leader
of the House, and Sir Stafford Northcote joined in them as
Leader of the Opposition. " In the eloquent and powerful
words which you have addressed to us," said the latter, " we
find additional confirmation, were it necessary, as to your
personal character and ability." The right hon. gentleman's
concluding sentences, however, seem to confirm the rumour
of the Lobbies at the time, that if the Conservatives were
returned to office at the next General Election they would
select another Speaker. " If your nomination may be said
to be due to the Ministry, or the Government of to-day,"
said Sir Stafford Northcote, "it has been, at all events,
accepted generally by the House. Sir, it would ill become
me, and it would not become the House itself, to anticipate
the action of future Parliaments. But this I may safely say
— that so long as you occupy the Chair you will receive,
from all parts of the House, a full, an entire, and an un-
divided confidence."^
No attempt, however, was subsequently made to dis-
place Mr. Peel from the Chair. He was opposed — as I
have already recounted — when seeking re-election at the
General Election of 1885; but was reappointed Speaker,
without opposition, three times, namely, January 13, 1886;
April 6, 1886; and August 4, 1892,
' Parliamentary Debates (3id series), vol. 285, pp. 17-30.
330 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
CHAPTER LXV
THE MAINTENANCE OF ORDER AND DECORUM
DURING his first session as Speaker, occasions frequently
arose for the exercise by Mr. Peel of his official
powers and personal tact in the maintenance of order
and decorum. Political feeling ran high, especially in refer-
ence to affairs in Egypt, and the discussions of the subject
in the House of Commons were marked by unusual personal
ascerbity. On March 15, 1884, Mr. Ashmead Bartlett
moved a resolution on behalf of the Opposition, declaring
that it would be highly discreditable to this country were
the Government to abandon Khartoum and the Eastern
Soudan to slavery and barbarism. It was a Saturday sitting,
and the Government asserted that the arrangement between
the two sides was that the day should be employed in dis-
cussing certain votes of supply rather than a motion which
virtually amounted to a vote of want of confidence.
After a long and bitter debate the motion was defeated.
Immediately after the division Sir Michael Hicks-Beach rose
from the front Opposition bench and informed the Speaker
that just before the numbers were announced by the tellers
he heard Sir William Harcourt, the Home Secretary, say
from his place on the Treasury Bench, " This dirty trick has
not succeeded " ; and he asked whether that was language
which ought to be used in the House.
" Language of the kind described by the right hon.
gentleman used publicly in this House would undoubtedly
be a great breach of the privilege of the House," said the
Speaker. " But I do not know under what circumstances
the expression was used," he added, with caution and circum-
spection,— " whether it was used in private conversation, or to
what it was intended to refer, or whether it was intended to
be heard. I therefore wish to draw a distinction between
words used in the confidence of private conversation and
words used in a debate in this House. Perhaps the right
MR. SPEAKER PEEL AND HIS TRAINBEARF.R
MAINTENANCE OF ORDER AND DECORUM 331
hon. gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, will offer an explanation."
Sir William Harcourt, thus appealed to, said he would
never have thought of using such an expression in public
debate. " As to the expression of my own private opinion,"
he added, "to my own friends upon transactions of this
character, I consider myself free." The Leader of the
Opposition, Sir Stafford Northcote, said that the expression,
whether used publicly or privately, conveyed an accusation
which was altogether untenable; it gave pain to those
against whom it was directed, and they would be guilty of
the gravest dereliction of duty if they did not call attention
to it. Thereupon Sir William Harcourt withdrew the ex-
pression, declaring his regret that what was intended to be
private should have reached the ears of the right hon.
gentlemen opposite and be regarded by them as offensive.^
It happened that on the next occasion the expression
" dirty trick " was used in the House the Speaker had to call
his elder brother, Sir Robert Peel, to order. The scene,
which was watched with almost thrilling interest by the
House, occurred on August 8, 1884. Sir Robert Peel com-
plained that the report of the vote for the Irish Constabulary
upon which he had intended to speak was taken late the
previous night, although before he left at half-past eleven
o'clock he had been told it would be postponed to another
sitting. What followed is thus recorded in the parliamentary
report : —
Sir Robert Peel: If the Secretary of State for the Home
Department were here I would ask him what is the meaning
of this— as he would call it — "dirty trick" (cries of "Order,
order ").
Mr. Speaker : I think that is an expression which should
not be used, and I am sure the right hon. baronet will with-
draw it.
Sir Robert Peel: It is an expression used by the Secretary
of State for the Home Department himself.
Mr. Speaker: It is an expression which I thought, and
said at the time, was an unparliamentary and improper ex-
^ Parliamentary Debates (3rd series), vol. 285, pp. 1725-8.
332 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
pression — one which I hoped would never be used again,
and it was withdrawn.
Sir Robert Pcel\ Oh, certainly, sir, certainly; if the right
hon. gentleman withdrew, I shall at once withdraw and
apologize to the IIousc.^
In the course of the same session the Speaker came into
conflict with the Members of the Irish Party on questions
of order. On April 8, 1884, a debate on the subject of the
Royal Irish Constabulary was raised by Mr. Parnell. In
the course of a speech Mr. T. M. Healy, having referred
to the death in gaol of a prisoner arrested for agrarian
conspiracy, said : " He observed that the Chief Secretary
(Mr. Trevelyan) was receiving with a smile his statement
as to this young man's death. The right hon. gentleman
might laugh ; it well became his callousness." At this point
Mr. Trevelyan interrupted with the indignant exclamation :
"It is an absolute falsehood to say that I laughed at the
death of the young man," which evoked cheers and loud
cries of " Order." The Speaker rising at once, said that the
remarks of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. T. M.
Healy) had reached such a high level of violence that he
felt bound to interfere. He proceeded : —
"The hon. Member has charged Her Majesty's Govern-
ment in language exceeding anything I have heard in this
House. He has charged them with conniving at murder ; and
he has made a statement with reference to the Chief Secretary
for Ireland which was couched in language which I conceive
ought not to be used by one Member of this House to
another. I can only warn the hon. Member that if this
language is continued I shall resort to those powers with
which the House has invested me to prevent what I consider
a public scandal."
When the Speaker sat down amid the cheers of Members
generally, Mr. Healy, quite unabashed, rose and said he had
thought the object of the Speaker's interposition was to
reprove the Chief Secretary for having made an accusation
of falsehood against a Member of the House. "The Hon.
' rarliamentary Debates (3rd scries), vol. 292, pp. 276-8.
MAINTENANCE OF ORDER AND DECORUM 333
Member," said the Speaker sternly, " is not entitled to enter
into an argument with the Chair. I have simply done my
duty." Then the Attorney-General, Sir Henry James,
explained that the smile of the Chief Secretary, which
irritated the hon. Member for Monaghan, had really been
caused by a remark which he had made to him in conver-
sation. Mr. Healy said he was satisfied that the Chief
Secretary had not been laughing at him ; and the Chief
Secretary apologized for having made use of an unparlia-
mentary expression. But the incident was not to end in
this amicable way. The hon. Member for Monaghan, as
the following extract from the report shows, persisted in
airing his grievance against the Chair : —
Mr. Healy : Now, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask your ruling
as to whether the statement of the Chief Secretary was in
order or not ? I have respectfully urged you to give your
ruling, and you have not deigned to do so (" Order, order ").
You have ruled when you were not called upon — (" Order,
order") — with regard to my general language; and now I
wish to ask whether the Chief Secretary was in order in
using the language that he did ?
Mr. Speaker: I understand the Chief Secretary has
withdrawn the expression he used on the understanding
that the hon. Member withdraws the expression he used
also (cries of " Rule "). I did express myself — not, I think,
too strongly — in terms of strong reprobation of the course
which had been pursued during several minutes by the hon.
Member. I thought the language he made use of exceeded
in violence anything I have heard while I have been in the
Chair, and demanded the reprobation of the Chair, and I
took upon myself to warn the hon. Member in moderate
terms, that if language of this kind was repeated I should
be obliged to take serious notice of it, and to exercise those
powers with which I am vested. I shall not take any
further notice of the matter. I regard the point of order
as settled.
Mr. Healy: I am glad you have settled the point of
order to your own satisfaction. (Cries of " Order " and
" Name him.")
Mr. Spiaker: The language of the hon. Member is not
334 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
respectful to the Chair, and is not respectful to this House.
I hesitate to name the hon. Member. I am very unwilling
to exercise the powers entrusted to me, or to appear to act
with anything like precipitancy. But I warn the hon.
Member that this sort of language will not be tolerated.^
Another Irish scene occurred on November 5, 1884,
which further illustrates the determination and resource of
Mr. Speaker Peel in dealing with insubordination. Frank
Hugh O'Donnell attacked the Government for their opposi-
tion to a Bill relating to the Poor Law in Ireland, which
was introduced by the Nationalists, and was twice called to
order by the Speaker for irrelevance, the question before
the House being the adjournment of the debate. The hon.
Member thereupon asked whether he was not to be allowed
to use arguments in support of the views of the Irish
Members concerning the Bill.
Mr. Speaker: That is not the question. The hon.
gentleman has again travelled from the question. I am to
judge as to whether the hon. Member is, or is not, confining
his remarks to the question ; and if the hon. gentleman
deviates, in my opinion, from the question it is my duty to
tell him so. I have already twice told him that he is
diverging from the question.
Mr. O'Donnell: I am absolutely convinced that I was
bringing forward arguments in support of the plea that this
Bill be not adjourned ; and I respectfully protest (cries of
** Order ") — i respectfully protest
Mr. Speaker : Order, order !
Mr. O'Donnell: Sir, I respectfully protest against your
interference with the legitimate course of the discussion
(" Order, order ! ").
Mr. Speaker: I must call upon you to resume your seat,
on account of the irrelevancy of your observations to the
question before the House.
Mr. O'Donnell: Mr. Speaker, sir, I protest. I would
say — (cries of " Order ! ").
Mr. Speaker : Again I must call upon you to resume
your seat.
Mr. O'Donnell : Sir, I wish to protest against this use
' Parliamentary Debates (3rd series), vol. 287, pp. 91-S.
MAINTENANCE OF ORDER AND DECORUM 335
of the power of calling on Members to sit down when using
legitimate arguments, and thus stop their observations
(" Hear, hear," and " Order "). And as you have taken that
step I wish you to — (cries of " Name him ! ").
Mr. Speaker: I have twice — three times — called the
hon. Member's attention to the fact that his observations
were not relevant, and that he was wandering from the
subject of the debate
Mr. O'Donnell: I was not. I was not.
Mr. Speaker: I did so in terms which are before the
House. You have not thought proper to pay any attention
to my ruling (Ministerial cheers) ; and I now name you, Mr.
O'Donnell, as disregarding the authority of the Chair.
Mr. Gladstone, as Leader of the House, then moved, in
accordance with the Standing Order, that Mr. O'Donnell
be suspended from the service of the House. As the hon.
Member was leaving the Chamber, before the division on
the motion, he said, addressing the Speaker : " You have
played an unexpected part, Monsieur le President." The
motion was carried by 163 votes to 28.^
Once the Nationalists attempted to arraign Mr. Speaker
Peel before the House. The procedure adopted was not
that of a vote of censure, but that of a motion for the
adjournment of the House. On March 3, 1885, Mr.
Thomas Sexton asked for leave to move the adjournment
of the House, for the purpose of calling attention to "a
definite matter of urgent public importance" — the form
of words always employed in such a motion — namely, the
course of action pursued by Mr. Speaker during the sitting
of the House on February 24, 1885. On that day the
Irish Members protested against a resolution moved by
Gladstone as Leader of the House, postponing all notices of
motion until an adjourned debate on Egypt and the Soudan
was concluded, as they had secured by ballot the oppor-
tunity for the discussion of an Irish question. In the course
of the debate on the resolution the Speaker silenced Mr.
William Redmond on the ground that his speech was ir-
relevant, applied the Closure rule by putting the question,
' Parliamentary Debates (3rd series), vol. 293, pp. 1035-7.
336 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
as he considered that the subject had been adequately dis-
cussed, and " named " Mr. WiUiam O'Brien for disregarding
the authority of the Chair by crying out " We will remember
this in Ireland," for which the hon. Member was forthwith
suspended.
Mr. Sexton's motion declared that these actions of the
Speaker constituted a " danger to the constitutional rights
of Members of this House to speak and vote." Under the
Standing Orders a motion of this kind for the adjournment
must not only have the support of forty Members, who stand
up in their places at the call of the Speaker ; but the Speaker,
if he thinks fit, may not permit it to be discussed at all, for
the reason that in his view it is not a matter of urgency. In
this instance Mr. Speaker Peel declared he would take upon
himself not to allow the motion to be submitted to the House.
"It is my duty," he said, "to respect the rights of every
hon. Member of this House, but in common with all other
Members of the House I have my rights, and my right is
that if my conduct is impugned it should be impugned by
a direct appeal to the House upon notice of motion, properly
given, when a direct issue would be laid before the House,
and an amendment be moved which shall test the judgment
of the House." ^
CHAPTER LXVI
ATTACKS ON MR. SPEAKER PEEL
BUT though the Speaker can only be criticized in the
House by means of a direct vote of censure, and any
attack upon him outside, in the Press or on the
Platform, is liable to the pains and penalties of a breach
of parliamentary privilege, the rulings and decisions of Mr.
Peel did not escape animadversion. Three accusations of
partiality in the administration of the Closure which were
made against him outside the House of Commons by the
same Member of the House are noteworthy.
' Parliamentary Debates (3rd series), vol. 294, pp. 1912-17.
ATTACKS ON MR. SPEAKER PEEL 337
It was the famous episode of 1881, when Mr. Speaker
Brand, though not entitled to do so by the rules, stopped
the proceedings on the Crimes Bill, which, as I have already
explained, led to the introduction of the Closure, or the " gag,"
as it is called by the " Outs " when it is applied to them by
the " Ins." The rule as originally carried empowered the
Speaker to terminate a debate when it appeared to him
that the subject had been adequately discussed, or that it was
the evident sense of the House that the question should
be put. But as the Closure was inoperative unless it was
supported by 200 Members if opposed by 40, or by 100
Members if opposed by less than 40, the Speaker shrank from
the risk of having his decision flouted, and accordingly the
rule was rarely applied. It was amended, however, in 1887.
The initiative of the Chair was taken away, and the responsi-
bility of moving the Closure was transferred to the Minister,
or, indeed, to any private Member. Moreover, it is put into
force if carried by any majority. But by whomsoever the
Closure may be moved, it is in the discretion of the Speaker
to refuse to put it to the House if he thinks its application
is not justified.
Friday, April i, 1887, was the fifth night of the debate on
the motion of Mr. Balfour, Chief Secretary for Ireland, to
bring in a Bill " to make better provision for the prevention
and punishment of Crime in Ireland." At half-past two
o'clock in the morning Mr. W. H. Smith, the Leader of the
House, moved the Closure, — " That the question be now
put," — and it was accepted by Mr. Peel. As Gladstone
walked down the floor, leading the Liberal Opposition into
the " No lobby," the Nationalists jumped to their feet and
applauded him enthusiastically, and mingled with their
cheers were resentful cries directed against Mr. Peel, such
as " Where are the rights of the minority ? " and " Down with
the Speaker ! "
Sir Edward Russell, editor of the Liverpool Daily Posty
who was in Parliament at the time, relates that the Liberal
Leader was deeply grieved by Peel's action in applying the
Closure. " During the division on the Closure," says Sir
338 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Edward Russell, " somebody went up to him in the Lobby
to speak to him about something else. Mr. Gladstone said :
" Don't talk to me about anything else, Ireland, coercion —
anything. The Speaker has hit me under the fifth rib." ^
The Closure was carried by a majority of io8. Then as the
Speaker rose to put the question, that leave be given to bring
in the Crimes Bill, Gladstone, as a demonstration of protest,
left the Chamber, followed by the Liberal Opposition and
the Nationalists, still giving vent to their indignation against
the Chair, as well as against the Government, and the motion
was agreed to unchallenged.
On the following Monday morning The Times published
a speech by Mr. Conybeare, a Radical who sat for Camborne,
made at a meeting held in London for the purpose of
organizing a public demonstration against the Crimes Bill.
Mr. Conybeare said there could be no possible excuse for the
Speaker in accepting the Closure. " The Speaker was no
longer an impartial President of the Mouse of Commons," he
continued. " He had descended from his high position, and
become an ally to one Party in the House, and that the
most tyrannical." When the House of Commons met that
afternoon, Mr. Henry Chaplin called attention to the speech,
and asked the Speaker whether it was not a breach ^of
privilege. Mr. Peel replied that the speech was unquestion-
ably a matter affecting privilege, but whether or not it was a
breach of privilege rested with the House to decide. He went
on to say that he could afford to pass over any imputations
intended to be cast upon him by the hon. Member, but the
matter was graver than that, for it was a reflection upon the
House through its elected Speaker. In tones of impressive
dignity, and yet with an undercurrent of deep personal
feeling that was unmistakable, he thus concluded : —
" I can understand in the present heat of Party feeling,
when men's passions are aroused, words escaping hon.
gentlemen which in their cooler moments they would
repudiate. I hope that the words of the hon. Member were
not premeditated or deliberate. I can only say that it is my
' Russell, That Reminds Me, 96.
ATTACKS ON MR. SPEAKER PEEL 339
wish, as it is my duty in the Chair, to allay Party feeling if I
can (an ironical cheer from a Home Rule Member) — yes, if I
can — notwithstanding the sneer of the hon. Member — to
allay any heat or passion in this House. But it is a strange
thing, indeed, that within a few weeks after I have been
invested with an absolute discretion by a Standing Order
passed by the House of Commons, as to whether I shall give
or withhold my assent to a motion for closing debate — it is, I
say, a strange, and I hope it is an unprecedented, thing that
an hon. Member of this House should think it becoming in
him to charge me in the action I took with having thereby
become a partisan of either the one side of the House or
the other. I shall say no more to the House of Commons,
because I wish, if possible, to calm down any personal
feeling. I will only add this, that I am content to leave my
conduct in this Chair to the judgment of every fair and
right-minded and honourable man."
Mr. Conybeare then spoke. He neither adopted nor
disclaimed the language attributed to him. Notice that the
question would be raised had not been given to him until he
entered the House he said, and therefore he had had no
opportunity of seeing the newspaper report. But if it were
found accurately to represent what he had said, and appeared
to convey a reflection upon the Speaker " as the occupant of
the Chair," he would most fully and humbly express his
regret. He went on to say that he regarded the matter as
a grave constitutional question, and had spoken with a full
consciousness of the gravity of the situation. His interpreta-
tion of the Closure rule was that it should be employed
solely against obstruction, and he argued that there could
not have been obstruction in a matter which was supported
" not by a mere handful of Members," but by Gladstone, " the
oldest and most respected Member of the House," and the
whole of his Party, as well as by the Irish Members led
by Parnell.
Mr. W. H. Smith followed with a tribute to the Speaker's
perfect impartiality, and to the absolute confidence which he
commanded. Neither Gladstone nor Sir William Harcourt
were present on this occasion. It fell to Mr. John Morley to
repudiate, on behalf of the Opposition, any imputations upon
340 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
the Chair, and to express their opinion that the Speaker used
his position and authority rather to calm down Party passions
than to inflame them. As it was presumed that Mr. Conybcare
had apologised for his speech, or had modified it or explained
it away, the subject was then allowed to drop,^
In the following session Mr. Conybeare made a repeti-
tion of the same charge against the Speaker in a letter to
a London newspaper. On July 19, 1888, the House was
debating the second reading of the Bann Drainage Bill,
introduced by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Mr.
Conybeare opposed the measure on the ground that, as
it tended principally to the benefit of the landlords of a
particular district, it should be undertaken by an Irish
Administration representative of and responsible to the
Irish nation. Just at midnight, when opposed business
came to an end, but before Mr. Conybeare had finished
his remarks, the Closure was moved and carried. Subse-
quently, on the usual motion for the adjournment of the
House, Mr. Conybeare sarcastically asked that the Bill,
when next proceeded with, should be taken at a convenient
hour, so that he might have the opportunity of continuing
and concluding his observation without fear of interruption
by the Closure. " He had no hesitation in saying," he added,
"that the Closure was, under the circumstances, simply a
public scandal."
" Order, order ! " cried the Speaker, — " the remark that the
hon. Member has just now made must be withdrawn." " Mr.
Conybcare, speaking in a low voice," says the report in the
Parliavientary Debates, " said ' I withdraw the remark.' " The
Speaker did not hear the submission of the hon. Member,
for he " named " him for disregarding the authority of the
Chair. It was then pointed out to the Speaker by some
Liberal Members that Mr. Conybeare had withdrawn the
expression. " I did not so understand him," said the
Speaker, "but I accept his word most unreservedly."
" I said, sir, most distinctly that I did withdraw,"
Mr. Conybeare declared. "Then I accept at once the
' ParliaiHcnlary Debates (3rd series), vol. 3 1 3, p. 371.
ATTACKS ON MR. SPEAKER PEEL 341
statement of the hon. Member," said the Speaker apolo-
getically.
On the following day Lord Randolph Churchill called
attention to a letter which appeared in TJie Star — an
evening newspaper published in London — over the name
of the Member for Camborne, and headed " Mr. Conybeare
and the Speaker," with a view to moving that it was a
breach of privilege. The letter, which was read by the
Clerk, contained the following passages : —
" I had spoken but a quarter of an hour when one of
the Tory rank and file moved the Closure, and the Speaker,
who is supposed to exercise his discretion impartially for
the protection of the minority, at once put the question.
Such a proceeding I stated later on was nothing short of
a public scandal ; and although, in obedience to the rules
of parliamentary decorum (which require that a Member
should not, by passing a reflection on the Speaker, reflect
upon the whole House), I withdrew the expression when
called upon to do so. I have not the slightest doubt but
that every Radical outside the House (as are most of those
within it) is of the same opinion. For here is a Bill
deliberately handing over vast sums of English money
as a gift to Irish landlords, and we English, Scotch, and
Welsh representatives are not to be allowed even half
an hour's debate as to whether it is a justifiable proceeding
or not. The Government says you shall not debate the
matter, and Mr. Speaker backs them up. I hope every
elector in the Speaker's constituency will be careful to
mark his conduct."
Then came a paragraph which Lord Randolph Churchill,
— in moving subsequently that the letter was " a gross libel
upon the Speaker of the House of Commons, and deserves
the severest condemnation of the House " — characterized as
the gravest in the document, and as one " utterly at variance
with every sentiment of gentlemanly honour." It runs : —
" As I may be blamed for withdrawing my description
of the proceeding, I may add that I did it deliberately,
for the following reasons : —
342 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
" I. The withdrawal of an unparliamentary expression does
not do away with the effect produced by using it. Nor does
it imply any alteration of a deliberately expressed opinion.
It remains on record.
" He gloss' homomocIC, he di phren anomatos.
" 2. Suspension from the House would do no good to
any one except by pleasing the Tory Government, who
would be delighted to be rid of a very uncomfortable thorn
in tlieir side.
" 3. My desire and my duty being to prevent the passing
of those objectionable Bills, I should simply have forwarded
the plans of the Government, and defaulted in my duty to
my constituency, had I caused myself to be suspended for
a week."
Mr. Conybeare made no statement beyond admitting
that he wrote the letter, and in accordance with the usual
custom, when the conduct of a Member is impugned, he
withdrew from the Chamber while the matter was under
discussion.
The Speaker then said that though he was not bound
to state the reason why he had accepted the Closure, he
thought it due to the House to do so. He understood that
no Irish Member wished to speak on the Bill, or had any
objection to it, but in any case opportunities for the ex-
pression of views would be afforded on the subsequent stages
of the measure. Mr. William Redmond, who next spoke,
declared that if the Closure had not been accepted the
Irish Members would have taken part in the debate. In
the course of the discussion which followed it was intimated
that Mr. Conybeare desired to retract one part of his
letter. "My hon. friend," said Mr. Labouchere, "has just
sent me a note in which he says he has been considering
the matter, and that, so far as paragraph No. 1 is concerned,
as it was open to a construction not at the time he wrote
it intended by him, and suggested that he was ready to
depart from his word, he withdraws it, and regrets the
expression." In the end the House decided by 245 votes
to 168, or a majority of yy, that the letter was a gross
ATTACKS ON MR. SPEAKER PEEL 343
libel on Mr. Speaker, deserving the severest condemnation
of the House ; and Mr. Conybeare was suspended from
the service of the House " for the remainder of the session,
or for one calendar month, whichever should first
terminate." ^
In 1893, Mr. Conybeare came again into conflict with
Mr. Speaker Peel, and as on the two previous occasions
the hon. Member impugned the conduct of the Chair in
regard to a motion for the Closure. It was in the heat of
the session, when Gladstone's second Home Rule Bill was
slowly and laboriously making its way through Committee.
On July 3 the Daily Chronicle published a letter from Mr.
Conybeare animadverting on the refusal of the Speaker
to accept a Closure motion which he had moved at half-
past three in the morning. It contained this passage : —
" Another, not insignificant, advantage I gain by it —
i\amely, that it called pointed attention — which the
Speaker's curt severity only emphasized the more — to the
contrast between his treatment of the Tory majority under
the parallel circumstances of June 10, 1887. But then, of
course, a Liberal Home Rule Bill is not to be compared
with a Tory Coercion for ever-and-ever Bill. I believe I
moved the Closure at nearly the same hour at which it
was accepted by the Speaker on the historic occasion of
the 1887 precedent."
The attention of the House was called to the letter, on
July 4, by Mr. Tritton, the Unionist Member for Lambeth.-
The Speaker, addressing the House, maintained that his
action in refusing the Closure actually led to a friendly
arrangement between the two sides of the House. He
deprecated any severe declaration on the part of the
House which it might possibly be willing to take regard-
ing the writer of the letter, and added : " My only course
is to leave my conduct to the judgment of calm-thinking
and fair-minded men."
Gladstone, as Leader of the House, said he attached the
^ Parliamentary Debates (3rd series), vol. 329, p. 48.
^ Ibid. (4th series), vol. 14, pp. 820-25.
344 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
greatest weight to the recommendation proceeding from
the Chair, and thought it would be wise if the House
would act in accordance with it. lie added, however, that
at the same time there ought to be no doubt as to the
universal sentiment which prevailed in the House in
regard to the impartiality of the Chair. Mr. Balfour, the
Leader of the Opposition, spoke in similar tones. Mr.
Tritton accordingly did not proceed with the motion which
he had intended to submit to the House.
Mr. Conybeare, who had been unavoidably absent on
this occasion, attended in his place on July 7, and claimed
the indulgence of the House to make a personal explanation.
He contended that the Speaker was a public authority and
a public servant, and it was outrageous that any public
servant should be superior to the criticisms of the pubic
press. He proceeded to say that his letter was not a charge
of partiality against the Speaker, but a suggestion of an erroi
of judgment in that he had attributed to the passage of the
Coercion Act of 1887 greater importance than to the passage
of the Home Rule Bill, and that the acceptance of the
Closure of 1 887 and its refusal on this occasion had suggested
that in the view of the Speaker the Opposition of 1887 was
obstructive, while the present Opposition was not.
Mr. R. T. Read (afterwards Lord Chancellor Loreburn)
on a point of order, asked whether in making a personal
explanation Mr. Conybeare was not confined to explaining
his personal conduct, whereupon the Speaker, speaking with
some warmth, said : —
" Yes ; but I do not altogether choose to sit quiet under
the fresh imputations of the hon. gentleman. All I can say
is that if the doctrine he has laid down is accepted by this
House, I would not consent to occupy this Chair for twenty-
four hours."
Gladstone then moved that the letter constituted a
breach of the privileges of the House, and this was seconded
by Mr. Balfour. Mr. T. M. Healy appealed to Mr. Cony-
beare to express regret for the pain he had evidently caused
the Speaker. Mr. Conybeare, responding to the appeal, said
"ON THE POUNCE" 345
he had no intention of inflicting any pain on the Speaker.
He proceeded : "I do unreservedly state my regret to Mr.
Speaker, adding that I acted in the way that I did in the
belief that I was maintaining a public principle."
The hon. Member then withdrew from the House. Mr.
Chamberlain protested against the use of the word " pain."
He submitted that the Speaker had not shown " pain," but
natural indignation at a gross offence. Gladstone, on the
ground that the withdrawal by Mr. Conybeare was not " a
frank, intelligent, and complete apology," moved " that Mr.
Conybeare be suspended for one week from the services of
the House." Mr. Balfour seconded the motion. On the
suggestion of Mr. Sexton there was an interval of a few
minutes, during which Mr. Samuel Storey (then one of the
foremost Radicals in the House) left the House and returned
with Mr. Conybeare, who, reading from a written statement,
said : " I desire to express my unqualified regret for the
publication of any expressions reflecting on Mr. Speaker.
I withdraw them."
In the circumstances Gladstone desired to withdraw his
motion for the suspension of the honourable Member. At
this there was some demur on the part of the Opposition, as
the apology only referred to the " publication." Mr. Balfour,
however, while regretting that Gladstone desired to with-
draw his motion, advised his friends not to force a division,
and the motion was then dropped.^
CHAPTER LXVII
"ON THE pounce"
MR. PEEL'S conception of his duty as Speaker was
fundamentally serious and earnest. It could not
well be otherwise in so grave and austere a person-
ality. His aim obviously was to preserve and hand on un-
diminished to his successors the solemnity with which the
^ Parliamentary Debates (4th series), vol. 14, pp. 1094-I111.
346 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
centuries have invested the Chair ; and his ceremonious
bearing as President of the House of Commons was equalled
by the firmness of his control and guidance of the debates.
Indeed, the whole demeanour of Mr. Peel in the Chair
was, in its severe dignity and loftiness, its somewhat melan-
choly pride of isolation, eminently calculated to command
deference and respect. He was tall and spare of stature in
his flowing silken robe. The face that looked out from the
heavy grey wig was long and narrow, rather dark in com-
plexion, and terminated in an iron-grey beard closely
trimmed. It was a grave face, and the keen, peremptory
eyes under prominent brows emphasized the predominantly
strong, simple, and righteous expression. In truth, Mr.
Peel looked what he really was — one of the most masterful
Speakers that ever presided over the House of Commons.
He dominated the Chamber with his stately presence, his
austere features, his searching and inflexible glance, and his
voice, in which there was something of the silver and arrest-
ing tone of the clarion.
He never tolerated anything which, in his opinion,
derogated in the slightest degree from the authority and
dignity of his office, for which he had himself so deep and
reverential a regard. Once he had occasion to call Parnell
to order with some show of severity. Later on the Irish
Leader happened to be passing by the Chair, on his way to
the division lobby, and, without meaning to be rude or to
reflect on Mr. Peel's decision, he said : " I think, Mr. Speaker,
you were rather too hard on me just now." Mr. Peel
instantly exclaimed in a voice ten.se with indignation, but
low, and yet loud enough for the reproof to be heard by
Members who happened to be near the spot : " How dare
you ! How dare you say that to me ! " The hot words seemed
to imply that if Parnell was a dictator in Ireland he must not
attempt to approach the Speaker of the House of Commons
with any seeming lack of due respect and decorum, or in any
way to fall short of the deference to be paid to the rank, the
dignity, the authority, and ancient prestige of the Chair.
In a different way Mr. Peel showed his mettle in an
«0N THE POUNCE" 347
encounter with Sir William Harcourt. He called the right
honourable gentleman to order for irrelevancy. The right
honourable gentleman was generally of a genial disposition ;
but he had a quick and warm temper, and when thwarted
was disposed to be hasty in showing his irritation. At any
rate, he paid no heed to the Speaker's reminder that he
was straying from the question before the House. " Order,
order," said the Speaker in a more decisive tone. Then Sir
William Harcourt turned an angrily flushed face on the
Speaker, and brusquely insisted that his remarks were quite
to the point. " Order, order," said the Speaker in reproving
tones, — "the right honourable gentleman is now arguing
with the Chair, which cannot be permitted." Sir William
Harcourt wisely swallowed his indignation, and changed the
tenor of his remarks.
The tone in which Mr. Peel gave expression to the
warning cry of " Order, order " was varied to suit the special
circumstances of each case. When the Member addressing
the House offended against any of the rules unwittingly
there was a gentle persuasive note in the voice of the
Speaker. The well-meaning Member, disposed withal to
take liberties, was pulled up in a half-deprecatory tone of
protest. But the Speaker was all anger and relentlessness
in the case of a deliberate breach of the rules of decorum,
or an impertinent and perverse trifling with the House, or
blustering arrogance and defiance on the part of a Member.
He showed himself, on such occasions, a terrific upholder
of order by sweeping down on the offending Member in
clouds of wrath. Nothing could be more sharp and
peremptory than his cry of " Order, order," and, delivered in
a manner most expressive of indignant displeasure and stern
rebuke, it usually silenced the most turbulent.
As he vigilantly followed the speeches in a debate, he
.seemed to be most sensitive to the slightest indication of the
approach of a disturbance. It was easy to tell by his
physical restlessness in the Chair, and the mentally dis-
quieted look on his face, when he anticipated a breach of
order. " You are too much on the pounce," said an angry
348 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Irish Member — Mr. Edward Harrington — once, smarting
under his reproof. The remark was disrespectful, but it was
highly graphic. " On the pounce " just expressed the
attitude of Mr Peel, sitting on the edge of the Chair, anxious
and impatient, his hands grasping the arm-rests, a look of
pain and displeasure on his face, and leaning forward in a
crouching attitude ready to swoop at the proper moment,
swiftly and sternly, on the offender and nip the incipient
disorder in the bud. It cannot be said that he had a
perfectly equable and imperturbable temper. At times he
was perhaps too authoritative and impulsive, and many a
Member who felt that his rebuke was unwarranted or too
severe was disposed to show resentment. He suffered
much while in the Chair from a varicose vein. It was an
unpleasantly familiar sight to see the right leg of the
Speaker stretched on supports, and his drawn and harassed
expression of face during the long sitting.
The half-hour's release, between 8 and 9 o'clock, then
given to the Speaker — during which the proceedings were
suspended — was usually spent by Mr. Peel in reclining on a
sofa with the painful limb in a position of welcome but brief
ease. This was the cause, no doubt, of the irritableness
which he sometimes displayed in the Chair.
Infringements of order were really a sore personal grief
to him. Essentially a man of supreme rectitude of mind,
possessed of a great ideal as to the office that he filled and
its responsibilities, he felt deliberate breaches of the rules as
a personal insult, and therefore meted out to the offenders
a full measure of personal resentment. I remember the
terrific spectacle he presented on an occasion when a single
cry of " Shame " came from the Irish benches in relation to
one of his rulings. He sprang from the Chair, trembling
with indignation, and shouted towards the unknown culprit
in the crowd below the Opposition Gangway, "That is a
shameful expression for you to use." The nervous twitching
of his face, its fierce and resolute expression, showed how
deeply he was stirred by what he regarded as the folly
and wickedness of the exclamation. But few allowed his
THE NIGHT OF THE BRAWL 349
imperious displays of temper, natural in one so high-strung
and emotional, to weigh against his fearless resolution to
preserve the order and decorum of the House of Commons,
and his noble anxiety that the great traditions of the Chair
should suffer no damage or depreciation in his day.
CHAPTER LXVIII
THE NIGHT OF THE BRAWL
THE most splendid exhibition of Mr. Peel's influence
and authority took place on a night the record of
which would have otherwise disgraced irretrievably
the annals of the House of Commons. It was the night of
the brawl in Committee on the Home Rule Bill of 1893.
On July 27 the House was in its forty-seventh sitting —
and the last — in Committee on the Bill. At 10 o'clock, in
accordance with the Closure resolution, the " guillotine " was
to fall and bring the proceedings to an end. Mr. Chamber-
lain rose, at a quarter to the hour, with the evident intention
of giving emphasis to the closing scene by a philippic
against the Government. He dwelt upon the many changes
which Gladstone had made in the Bill in order to win
support or disarm opposition. All these surrenders had
been accepted by the docile followers of the Government.
" The Prime Minister calls ' black,' and they say ' it is good ' ;
the Prime Minister calls * white,' and they say 'it is better,'"
said Chamberlain in his concluding sentences. " It is always
the voice of a god. Never since the time of Herod has
there been such slavish adulation."
A roar of angry protest against the allusion to Herod
rose from the Government benches. " Judas ! " cried Mr. T.
P. O'Connor, and the execrable name of the arch-traitor was
taken up and shouted by the excited Nationalists. The
Chairman of Committees (Mr. Mellor) put the question, and
as Members began to leave their places to go to the division
350 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
lobbies Mr. Logan, a Liberal, crossed the floor and sat
down defiantly in the accustomed seat of the Leader of the
Opposition, Mr. Balfour, which at the moment was vacant.
The Unionist Members sitting behind, among whom Mr.
Hayes Fisher and Mr. George Wyndham were conspicuous,
resenting this intrusion, seized Mr. Logan by the shoulders
and pushed him out of the seat.
As a spectator of the scene from the Reporters' Gallery, I
noticed, while this incident was proceeding, Mr. T. M. Healy
rise from his corner seat below the Gangway and endeavour
to force his way behind the front Opposition bench, with the
obvious intention of going to the aid of Mr. Logan, but he
was stopped by Mr. Gibson-Bowles, who was sitting at the
corner of the second bench. At the same moment most of
the other Nationalist Members, now on their feet, moved
towards the Gangway. It was uncertain whether they were
bent on supporting Mr. T. M. Healy by physical force, or
were peaceably on their way to the division lobby. Prob-
ably they were differently actuated, some being eager for
the fray and others intent only on overwhelming their
opponents by their votes. At any rate. Colonel Sanderson,
the leader of the Irish Unionists, who occupied the corner
seat of the third bench above the Gangway, was convinced
their intentions were hostile, and, striking out with his
clenched fist, he dealt Mr. Michael Austin, the Nationalist,
who happened to be nearest to him, a severe blow on the
face. Immediately he was himself struck by Mr. Crean,
another Nationalist.
All was now confusion and tumult around the Gangway
dividing the Nationalist from the Unionist benches on the
Opposition side. A mist seemed to hang over this quarter
of the House, — no doubt it was but in the eyes of excited
spectators, — and through it could be seen swaying figures and
angry gestures, as if a general brawl was in progress. The
strangers in the crowded public galleries sprang to their feet
and leaned forward, eager to see what was the cause of the
angry cries and exclamations, and those in the front rows,
observing what appeared to be a free fight on the floor,
THE NIGHT OF THE BRAWL 351
expressed their indignation in hisses. I noticed that Glad-
stone not only averted his gaze, but with a perturbed
expression of face reclined on his side along the Treasury
bench, so that the Table might the more effectually hide the
horrid business from his view. Happily, it was not so
violent a scene as it appeared, or as it was described in some
of the newspapers the next morning. One account declared,
with a touch of humorous exaggeration, that when order
was restored the floor was found to be strewn with scarf-
pins and artificial teeth. Those who lost self-control and
applied physical violence to each other were few in number.
Most of the struggling Members, Nationalist and Unionist,
were really peacemakers endeavouring to restrain and calm
their more pugnacious colleagues.
The Chairman of Committees, in obedience to the cries
of the House, sent for the Speaker. It was universally felt
that at such a critical moment the place at the helm must
be yielded to that dominant personality. He alone could
bring back calm to the passion-tossed assembly ; he alone
could soothe the ruffled nerves of Members. It was for him
also to mete out punishment to the offenders as he thought
fit. A minute or two elapsed before Mr. Peel appeared. In
that short pause the deepest silence prevailed. Members
were engrossed in speculating on what had happened and
on what the Speaker was likely to do. I am disposed to
think that most of them expected to find in Mr. Peel a rigid
attitude of severe repudiation of their conduct. At last the tall
gaunt form of the Speaker, in wig and gown, appeared from
behind the Chair, and there arose from all parts of the
Chamber a loud shout of greeting in which deep relief was
expressed, and angry resentment by each side of the other,
as well as devotion to this strong man, and confidence that
the evil which had happened would now be set aright.
The cheers were prolonged as the Speaker stood on
the platform of the Chair facing the House. He did not
present the stern and relentless front to which Members
were accustomed in times of disorder, and which they
expected to see emphasized at this moment of unutterable
352 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
shame. He had laid aside even that austerity and remote-
ness which were habitual with him on ordinary occasions.
I thought he looked strangely soft and benignant. He was
at once dignified and gentle, with a simple and yet noble
seriousness. Not a hard word had he to say. His voice, in
asking for explanations of what had happened, was quite
caressing. At once recriminations broke out. Each side
endeavoured to put the other in the wrong. But soon the
Speaker interposed in the spirit of paternal expostulation
with an appeal to the better nature and finer instincts of the
House. He expressed the hope that "in the interest of
debate, and in the higher interests of the character of the
House," Members would " allow the regrettable incident to
pass into oblivion," and would proceed with the rest of the
business of the evening " in a manner which would do honour
to the traditions of the House, and would not allow any
enemy of our constitution to rejoice." Like a parent, wise
as well as fond, dealing with a fractious child in a brain-
storm, he laid a calming hand on the troubled brow of the
House and gently soothed it. And the House responded
to the caress. It became subdued and humbled, and full of
the spirit of reconciliation and atonement. Truly, a striking
manifestation of the force of personality and tact.^
CHAPTER LXIX
MR. peel's good-bye
THE House of Commons met on April 8, 1895, to hear
from Mr. Peel himself the announcement of his resig-
nation, which had been anticipated so far back as
March 9 in the "Political Notes" of TJie Times. The
Chamber was thronged. Members of all sections of the
House were sincerely and deeply stirred by the thought
that they were about to lose their great Speaker — that
they would see no more his grave and dignified person-
' Parliamentary Debates (4lh series), vol. 15, pp. 723-33-
MR. PEEL'S GOOD-BYE 353
ality in the Chair, and hear no more the measured and
resonant voice calling them by name and putting the
question for their decision. The scene for its striking
impressiveness takes really a high place among memorable
parliamentary incidents. It was charged with genuine
sorrow, a feeling that is but rarely displayed in the House
of Commons.
As Mr. Peel rose from the Chair to make his announce-
ment all the Members silently greeted him by taking off
their hats. Standing on the dais in wig and gown, pale
and erect, with his arms folded, he spoke for just ten minutes
slowly and deliberately in a voice that was clear and ringing,
but yet showed signs of deeply felt if strongly suppressed
emotion. The speech was of grave and measured eloquence,
and, like all his utterances from the Chair, felicitously said
the proper word and touched the right chord. Considera-
tions of health which he could not overlook had obliged him
to come to the decision to resign, a decision adopted after
deep deliberation and with the utmost reluctance. He had
passed through many sessions, some of storm and stress,
others of comparative, but only of comparative, repose.
" If during that time," said he, " I have given offence to
any one Member, or more Members, or to any section of
the House, I hope that an Act of Oblivion may be passed
(cheers). If I have ever deviated from that calm which
should characterize the utterances of the occupant of this
Chair, I hope every single Member of the House will believe
me when I say that I have never been consciously actuated
by any personal or political feeling (loud cheers) — and that
in all I have done and said, I have at least, according to
my poor judgment, tried to consult the advantage and the
permanent interests of this Assembly (cheers)."
In his concluding passages he said : —
" Finally, let me say a few parting words in conclusion ;
and I wish to speak, not with the brief remnant of authority
which is still left to me with the sands of my official life
rapidly running out, I would rather speak as a Member of
thirty years' experience in this House who speaks to his
23
354 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
brother Members and comrades, if I may dare to use the
term (cheers). I would fain hope that, by the co-operation
of all its Members, this House may continue to be a pattern
and a model to foreign nations, and to those great peoples
who have left our shores and have carried our blood, our
race, our language, our institutions, and our habits of thought
to the uttermost parts of the earth. I would fain indulge in
the belief and the hope, and as I speak with the traditions
of this House and its glorious memories crowding on my
mind, that hope and that belief become stronger and more
emphasized, though with both hope and belief I would couple
an earnest but an humble prayer than this House may have
centuries of honour, of dignity, and of usefulness before it,
and that it may continue to hold not a prominent only, but
a first and foremost position among the Legislative Assem-
blies of the world (loud cheers)."
Sir William Harcourt, as Leader of the House, expressed
in a few words "the deep and painful emotion" which the
announcement of the Speaker's resignation had evoked.
The right hon. gentleman also gave notice that on the
following day he would move the two customary resolutions,
— one of thanks to the Speaker for " the zeal, ability, and im-
partiality" with which he had discharged his duties, and the
other that an humble petition be presented to Queen Victoria
asking that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to
confer on the retiring Speaker " some signal mark of her
royal favour," and assuring her that whatever expense she
should think fit to be incurred on that account the House
would make good the same. The Speaker then retired, and
the Chair was taken by Mr. Mellor as Deputy Speaker.^
On the next day Mr. Speaker Peel again took the Chair,
and again the Chamber was crowded in every part. Sir
William liarcourt, in moving the resolutions, made a most
felicitous little speech. He said the real authority of the
Speaker rested absolutely on the confidence of the House.
That confidence Mr. Peel had earned, anti that authority he
had exercised to his own high honour .md to their great
advantage. He had added fame to a name among the most
* rarliamentary /debates (4th series), vol. 32, pp. 11 26-9.
MR. PEEL'S GOOD-BYE 355
illustrious in the annals of the House of Commons, and he
had exalted the dignity of a station the highest to which an
English gentleman could be called. " It has been said," the
right hon. gentleman proceeded, " that the memory of the
departed who have deserved well of their country is a
possession for ever ; and the House of Commons, when you,
sir, have left it, will enshrine the record of your Speakership
among its purest and noblest traditions."
Mr. A. J. Balfour, as Leader of the Opposition, seconded
the resolutions. He referred to the personal feeling of grief
which animated all Members of the House, and added : —
" For it will be said of you, sir, not merely that you have
occupied a great place in the long line of illustrious Speakers,
perhaps the greatest place for many generations past (cheers) ;
but it will also be said of you, that each individual Member of
the House found in you a kind and considerate guide (cheers),
and that you carried with you in your retirement not merely
the respect and admiration of all who have watched your
great career, but also the love and affection of every single
Member of this great Assembly whose interests you have
served so well (loud and prolonged cheers)."
Representative Members on the back benches joined the
leaders of the two great political Parties in giving testimony
to the high qualities of Mr. Peel's Speakership, and the
affection in which he was personally held. Mr. Joseph
Chamberlain, as Leader of the Liberal Unionists, said a
few highly appreciative words. The action of the Irish
Nationalists was especially noteworthy. At this time they
were split into two sections, generally known as " Parnellites "
and " Anti-Parnellites"; but they united in paying a tribute
to Mr. Peel which, it was said, was by him the most highly
prized of all. Mr. Justin M'Carthy, who led the larger
Anti-Parnellite section, recalled that the Speaker, in his
valedictory address the day before, said that the time of
his election to the Chair was a time of storm and stress.
*' It was," said he, " a time of storm and stress for you, sir,
still more, perhaps, for myself and for my colleagues. But
we have learned to know each other better since that time.
356 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
and I am now glad to say, proud to say, on behalf of all
my friends in this House, that we recognize your absolute
impartiality (loud cheers), as well as all the many other
exalted qualities which you have displayed in the Speaker's
Chair." Mr. John Redmond, the Leader of the Parnellites,
said the Nationalists had been forced by their conception of
their duty often to utter jarring notes and to take action in
the House distasteful to the sentiments of the majority of
Members, but under every circumstance of excitement and
unpopularity they had always met from the Speaker uniform
courtesy and impartiality.
The resolutions were carried neniine contradicente. There
was a slight departure from precedent in the resolution of
thanks. The original draft as submitted to the Cabinet referred
— like all similar resolutions of the past — to the " zeal and
ability " of the Speaker, and at the suggestion of one of the
Ministers the word "impartiality" was added. The inter-
polation was not only approved by the House, but afforded
keen satisfaction to Mr. Peel himself.
Mr. Peel remained in the Chair till the close of the sitting
at a quarter-past 12 o'clock. The Naval Works Bill was
under discussion. All through the evening the Speaker
held an informal levee. Member after Member came up to
the Chair to bid him good-bye. The hand-shaking was
marked by extreme cordiality. The memories that thronged
on Mr. Peel during his last hours in the Chair must have
been sad as well as triumphant ; but happily they were
undarkened by the thought of any serious indiscretion or
mistake. At the end, the occupants of the two Front
Benches took leave of him by the hand. As he stepped
from the Chair for the last time the Members rose to their
feet and uncovered, and cheered him warmly. He bowed in
acknowledgment of this final greeting ; then turned and
disappeared from the Chamber.
The Journals contain no reference to this remarkable
scene. The record of the day's proceedings thus concludes :
" And then the House, having continued to sit till a quarter
of an hour after twelve of the clock on Wednesday morning.
BITTER PARTY CONTEST FOR THE CHAIR 357
adjourned till this day." But the Journals contain a report
of Mr. Peel's valedictory speech. A speech can only be
inserted on \hQ Journals — which are intended to be a record
of things done and not of things said — by a special resolution
of the House, and this was moved by Sir William Harcourt
the day before.
CHAPTER LXX
BITTER PARTY CONTEST FOR THE CHAIR
AFTER an interval of many years there was a return to
the custom of appointing a lawyer to the Chair in
the election of William Court Gully, in succession to
Peel, on April 10, 1895. The son of a physician, Mr. Gully
was born in London in 1835, educated at Trinity College,
Cambridge, and went from the University to the Bar, to
which he was called in i860. He was returned to Parlia-
ment for Carlisle in 1886, and in the same year was appointed
Recorder of Wigan, a position which he filled until the
crowning event of his life in 1895.
He was elected to the Chair under very remarkable
circumstances. He had been in the House of Commons
for close on ten years. His speeches were few and far
between. In some sessions he was absolutely silent. Yet
there is an interesting legislative achievement to his credit.
He succeeded in having passed a little Bill which made it
actionable to have spoken calumniously of the chastity of
a woman, thereby remedying a strange defect in the law.
But professional work claimed all his energies, even at St.
Stephens. A specialist on patent and company law, it was
his habit to spend his time in a secluded part of the Library,
where silence is strictly enjoined, immersed in his briefs, and
he hardly ever entered the Chamber except when summoned
by the division bells. Then, having discharged his duty to
his constituents or his Party, by recording his vote, he would
hasten back to his legal work. His parliamentary career may
358 THE SPEAKER OE THE HOUSE
be said to have virtually begun as well as ended on the day
he was nominated for the Chair by the Liberal Government.
The Unionists proposed Sir Matthew White Ridley, for
whom they claimed that during the twenty-seven years he
had been a Member he had frequently served as Chairman
of the Grand Committee upstairs, and had obtained from
active personal experience a thorough acquaintance with the
rules and procedure of the House. Not since the famous
contest between Manners-Sutton and Abcrcromby in 1835
was an election to the Chair marked by such bitter Party
rancour. There was a heated encounter between the Leader
of the Opposition and the Leader of the House. Mr. Arthur
Balfour, in supporting the Unionist candidate, replied to the
insinuation of Mr. Samuel Whitbread — Mr. Gully's pro-
poser— that the Unionists desired to have in the Chair a
representative of the landed interest. He said that if they
looked through the list of Speakers during the past hundred
years they would find that the Tory Speakers had not, as
a rule, been landowners, and that if they wanted to discover
specimen representatives of the landed interest they would
find them in those great Whig Speakers, Mr. Denison and
Mr. Shaw-Lefcvre. He proceeded to say that Mr. Gully's
ambition had hitherto lain in a sphere totally outside the
House of Commons. Was not the hon. and learned gentle-
man wholly unknown to Members in any capacity connected
with the transaction of the business of the House. " He
has never, so far as I am aware, opened his lips in our
debates," continued Mr. Balfour; "he has never, so far as
I know, served on a Private Bill Committee ; he has never,
so far as I know, served on a Select Committee ; he has
never, .so far as I know, attended on a Grand Committee."
He asserted that the Government, in proposing for the
Chair a Member who had taken so little part in parlia-
mentary proceedings, and had so little identified himself
with parliamentary life, had absolutely broken all the
traditions of the House.
Sir William Harcourt, the Leader of the House, replied
to Mr. Balfour with considerable acrimony. He charged the
BITTER PARTY CONTEST FOR THE CHAIR 359
right hon. gentleman with having, by his interposition in the
debate, departed from the precedent established by the great
masters of parliamentary law, who, on the occasion of the
last contest for the Chair in 1839, determined that neither of
the Party leaders, Lord John Russell and Sir Robert Peel,
should take part in the proceedings. He then went on to
refer to the negotiations which had taken place behind the
scenes, with the object of trying to select a candidate who
would be acceptable to both sides. As Leader of the House
it was his first object, he said, to secure, if it were possible,
a unanimous election ; and the Government would have
supported Mr. Leonard Courtney, a member of the Opposition,
who had been Chairman of Committees for years and whose
fitness for the Chair could not be questioned. But who
defeated that aim? "It was the veto of the ri^ht hon.
gentleman," he replied, "who in the name of the minority —
and in that case it would have been a small minority —
undertakes to dictate to this House, and to its majority, who
shall be designated to be in the Chair."
At this there were Opposition cries of " What about
Campbell-Bannerman ? " Though a Member of the Cabinet
he desired to be Speaker, and the Opposition would have
supported him. " In answer to that," said Sir William
Harcourt, " I have to say that it would have been contrary
to all parliamentary precedent that a member of the Cabinet
should have gone from the Treasury Bench to the Chair.
That in itself was, to my mind, an objection of the strongest
character to such a proceeding."^
A division was taken, and the Government candidate was
elected by the small majority of eleven.^ Thus did Mr.
Gully come to the Speakership. As he was being conducted
to the Chair the majority of the House — even most of the
political Party of which he was a Member — saw him for the
^ The right hon. gentleman was theoretically correct in saying it was con-
trary to precedeni: for a Cabinet Minister to pass to the Chair straight from the
partisan atmosphere of the Cabinet. Abercromby had been a Cabinet Minister,
but at his election to the Speakership by the Whigs in 1835 a Tory Government
was in office, though not in power.
^ Parliamentary Debates (4th series), vol. 32, pp. 1369-96.
36o THE SrEAKER OF THE HOUSE
first time ; and they saw a man who, at any rate, was pos-
sessed of the traditional physical qualities for the Speakership.
He had a fine presence. A very handsome gentleman he
was, with clear-cut features, fresh complexioned, and evidently
of urbane, smiling manners. In truth, when he appeared
later in wig and gown he looked every inch the Speaker.
CHAPTER LXXI
POLICE SUMMONED TO THE SPEAKER'S AID
MR. Gully discharged the duties of the Speakership
to the satisfaction of all. He kept the House well
in hand with mingled firmness and urbanity, and
throughout his term of office retained the confidence of both
sides. It can hardly be said, however, that he was a great
Speaker. As a highly trained lawyer he had the faults of
his qualities. The weakness of his Speakership was that it
was too much influenced by the literalism of the lawyer. He
was a routinist, and he had the defects as well as the merits
of the stickler for the strict rule. His manner was softer and
far less authoritative than that of Mr. Peel. Oftentimes
this is but the outer and visible sign of a timid disposition
and an uncertain mind. But Mr. Gully was by no means
uncertain. In the interpretation of the rules he was far
stricter than Mr. Peel, though his decisions were delivered
in a tone and spirit the most courteous and urbane, and —
what was perhaps a weakness — he was disposed to give
reasons for them when they were questioned.
There is no more trying period of a sitting for the Speaker
than " Question time," when Members — provided they give
notice of their queries, so that they may be printed on the
Order Paper — have the right of interrogating Ministers on
matters of administration. Mr. Peel allowed the Ministers
to be cross-examined by means of " supplementary questions "
having relation, more or less, to the subject of the main
question. Mr. Gully brought the practice to an end,
POLICE SUMMONED TO THE SPEAKER'S AID 361
regarding it as an abuse of the right of interrogating
Ministers. He insisted that the supplementary question
must literally arise out of the answer to the main question
given by the Minister; and as he was the judge of its
relevancy, there arose a sore feeling among Members that
their legitimate desire for information in relation to public
affairs was hampered by the cold, lawyer-like preciseness
and pedantry of the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker Gully, like Mr. Speaker Brand in 1 881, was
confronted by a situation of exceptional difficulty, with
which, being also unprecedented, the existing rules of the
House provided no way of coping. On March 5, 1901, the
House was in Committee of Supply on a vote on account
of ;^ 1 7, 304,000 for the Civil Service and Revenue Depart-
ments. Until midnight the Committee was debating an
amendment hostile to the policy of the Board of Education,
and after the division on this amendment Mr. Arthur Balfour,
Leader of the House, moved the Closure on the vote. The
motion, of course, shut out for the time, at any rate, the
raising of any other question of administration. It happened
that, included in the vote on account were two millions
sterling affecting Ireland, and by the application of the
Closure the Nationalist Members were denied the oppor-
tunity of discussing some Irish questions for which they had
waited during the night. As a protest they adopted the
extreme, though not unprecedented, course of declining to
leave their places and go into the lobbies to vote in the
division on the Closure. By reason of the new method of
taking divisions, which came into use in 1907, such a
demonstration would now pass unnoticed. During a
division the doors of the Chamber are now left open, and
Members are free to remain in their seats, to come or go,
to vote or not to vote, as they please. But at that time,
when a division was challenged, the doors were locked, and
every Member who was in his place was obliged to pass
through one or other of the division lobbies, and have his
vote recorded. If a Member did not desire to vote he was
expected to walk out before the doors were locked. There-
362 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
fore the Nationalist Members who refused to budge when
the Chairman of Committees (Mr. J. W. Lovvther) directed
the House to be cleared for the division were guilty of a
serious breach of order. The Chairman sent for the Speaker,
as he was bound to do, when Members take an obstructive
and disorderly line in Committee, and reported the circum-
stances, and, as they continued contumacious the Speaker
" named " twelve of the large group of Irish Members present
for wilfully obstructing the business of the House and dis-
regarding the authority of the Chair. The suspension of
these Members was moved by Mr. Balfour. As the
Nationalists declined to name tellers, no division was taken
on the motion, and the Speaker declared it carried.
The suspended Members were then directed to leave the
House, but they again refused, and the Speaker ordered
the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove them by force. In previous
scenes of the kind the force employed consisted simply of
the hand of the Serjeant-at-Arms, At its touch on his
shoulder the intractable Member, " yielding to superior force,"
as he was careful to declare, rose from his seat and walked
out. Mr. Speaker Brand had to cope with a similar
emergency the day after his famous coup dVtat in i8bi.
Parnell was " named " for " wilfully disregarding the authority
of the Chair" — by persisting in moving that Gladstone be
not heard — and the usual motion for suspension was sub-
mitted by the Leader of the House. A division was
challenged on the motion, and was proceeded with, though
the Nationalists remained in their seats and took no part in
the voting. On the completion of the division, the motion
for the suspension of Parnell having been carried by 405
votes to 7, twenty-eight Nationalists were " named " and
suspended en bloc. " Then followed a curious scene, which
lasted nearly half an hour," says a contemporary account.
" The Speaker read out the names of the twenty-eight
Members one by one in alphabetical order, and directed
them to withdraw. Kach in turn refused to go unless com-
pelled by superior force, and each was in turn removed by the
Serjeant-at-Arms by direction of the Chair. Each made
POLICE SUMMONED TO THE SPEAKER^S AID 363
a little speech ; and while some walked out when touched
by the Serjeant-at-Arms, others refused to move until the
messengers were brought in." ^
The Irish Members " named " by Mr. Speaker Gully, and
suspended accordingly, likewise refused to quit the Chamber
unless compelled by superior force. Unhappily, they meant
what they said in the letter as well as in the spirit. Some
of the messengers of the House were summoned to carry
out the order of the Speaker, but such was the resistance of
the suspended Members that the muscular powers of these
officials proved inadequate to the task. In the circumstances
the Speaker directed a body of police to be called in, and
nine of the contumacious Nationalists, fiercely resisting to
the last and singing " God save Ireland," were borne on the
shoulders of constables out of the Chamber amidst tremend-
ous clamour. The scene will be for ever memorable for
this, if for nothing else, that for the first time in the long
history of Parliament a body of police crossed the sacred
Bar of the House of Commons to suppress an attack on its
authority and dignity.
The situation was one of great difficulty, its circumstances
were exceptional, and no one — not even the Speaker — is
always discerning and wise. Mr, Gully, therefore, did not
escape criticism. The employment of the police for such a
purpose, on the floor of the House of Commons, was felt to
be a degradation of Parliament. But to what other alter-
native could the Speaker have resorted in such a sudden,
unexpected, and distracting emergency ? It was impossible
to have imagined that the Nationalists would carry their
protest to so extreme and unprecedented a point as to
necessitate their being forcibly thrust or carried out of the
Chamber. Moreover, it might be said that the Speaker
was bound at all costs to maintain his authority. No doubt,
also, he called in the police reluctantly against his will, and
under the direst and most inexorable pressure. Was there
any other way open to him ? He might have followed
the example of decision and courage set by Mr. Speaker
1 Annual Register (i88l), pp. 55-6.
364 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Brand in 188 1, and, rising, as his predecessor rose, superior
to the rules at the call of a tremendous crisis, have adjourned
the House at his own instance and on his own responsibility.
But not to every Speaker is given the capacity for rapid
thought and clear decision amid the confusions of un-
anticipated circumstances.
The moral authority of Mr. Gully was never quite the
same again as it had been before that memorable and
unhappy night. In his rulings there was indicated a
certain nervousness not noticeable previously. And he
was not allowed to forget his error of judgment. For the
rest of his Speakership the Nationalists in moments of
excitement and disorder were given to shouting, " Police !
Police ! Send for the Police ! "
It is an episode that can hardly be repeated, for a new
Standing Order was immediately passed which enables the
Speaker to deal with serious disorder by simply quitting the
Chair and putting out the lights. "In the case of grave
disorder arising in the House," it runs, " the Speaker may,
if he thinks necessary to do so, adjourn the House with-
out question put, or suspend any sitting for a time to be
named by him." The first application of the new rule was
on May 22, 1905. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, Leader
of the Liberal Opposition, moved the adjournment of the
House in order to call attention to the Prime Minister's
statements in regard to the proposed Colonial Conference
on the question of fiscal reform. The Colonial Secretary,
Mr. Lyttelton, got up to reply, but the Opposition received
him with cries of " Balfour," and refused to hear him. For
one hour exactly, from 9.30 to 10.30 o'clock, disorder and
tumult prevailed in the Chamber. This was perhaps the
longest "scene" on record. As a rule disorderly incidents
in the House of Commons occur unexpectedly and quickly
terminate, though the reports in the newspapers may give the
impression that they last for hours. The "scene " was also
remarkable for the fact that the entire House, the two front
benches as well as the back benches, took part in it. Through
the accident of the illness of Mr. Speaker Gully it happened
MR. SPEAKER LOWTHER 365
that on this occasion of grave difificulty and peril the Chair
was occupied by Mr. J/ W. Lowther as Deputy Speaker.
After several vain efforts to subdue the tumult he declared
the sitting at an end.
CHAPTER LXXII
MR. SPEAKER LOWTHER
MR. Gully retired from the Chair in 1905, and was
made a peer with the title of Lord Selby. The
choice of the Unionist Government, then in power,
for the Speakership was Mr. James William Lowther, who
had acted as Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker
for ten years. The selection was unanimously approved
by the House. Mr. Lowther was elected Speaker without
opposition.
Mr. Lowther is essentially a " Parliament man," not only
in himself, but also by heredity. He comes of an old and
distinguished Westmoreland and Cumberland family which
has been associated with the House of Commons for over
two hundred years without a break. He was born in 1855,
the son of the Hon. William Lowther, who was Member for
Westmoreland for a quarter of a century. Educated at Eton
and Trinity College, Cambridge, Mr. Lowther was called to
the Bar in 1879. He first entered Parliament in 1883 ^s
Member for Rutland, and a Conservative. In 1885 he stood
for the Penrith division of Cumberland, and failed ; but he
succeeded in 1886, and has represented that constituency
ever since. For four years, from 1891 to 1895, he held office
in the Unionist Government as Under-Secretary for Foreign
Affairs. He was appointed Chairman of Ways and Means
and Deputy Speaker in 1895, and filled the position for ten
years. It was a long and toilsome apprenticeship for the
high and more vastly responsible eminence of the Chair.
On June 8, 1905, Mr. Lowther was elected Speaker.
The Parliament was prorogued on August 11, never to meet
366 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
again, for it was dissolved in December. Though he was
thus in office only for two months, and though the Liberals
emerged from the General Election of January 1906
triumphant beyond all example, the continuity of the
Speakership was recognized by his re-installation in the
Chair. This was done not only unanimously, but amid the
acclamations of all sections of Members. Brief as had been
his occupancy of the Chair, he had shown the House of
what metal he was made. Never has there been a more
genial guide of the proceedings of the Commons. Never
has there been a more impartial judge between high and low
in the House.
Mr. Lowther is a bearded Speaker. If the portraits
of the long line of Speakers are examined it will be found
that in the days of Elizabeth, and for some time before and
after her reign, nearly all the Speakers had beards and
moustaches. Then came a long succession of clean-shaven
Speakers, which was not broken until 1883, when a Speaker
with a beard was elected in the person of Mr. Peel. As
I have already indicated, many Members were at the time
distressed by the unfamiliar spectacle of a bearded Speaker,
and there was even talk of petitioning Mr. Peel to shave his
chin. Mr. Gully followed with a clean-shaven face, which
fitted the great grey wig so perfectly. But Mr. Lowther,
like Mr. Peel, declined the razor, and presented himself in
the Chair as the House had always known him, wearing
a fair beard and moustache, and with his blue eyes and
ruddy cheeks, looking the country squire addicted to sports
and the open-air life.
In the Liberal Parliament of 1906, Mr. Lowther had to
face three hundred new Members, strangers to St. Stephens
and its ways, and the rise of a strong, able, and ambitious
Labour Party. These uncertain and incalculable elements,
uninfluenced by, because unfamiliar with, the parliamentary
traditions and unwritten rules of conduct, created a situa-
tion of the most trying character for the Speaker. But
Mr. Lowther soon impressed his winning and irresistible
personality on the House, and by his unbiassed judgment,
^ ■z
u 5
w <,
> "
« p
^ s
'l^ '^ v-
'■^ 3 o
:a ^ -
i^ >; ^
5 ^ P
z; o ^
q «
M <
MR. SPEAKER LOWTHER 367
his sense of seeing things in their true proportions, his
tolerance and humour, soon won its unreserved confidence.
His most invaluable gift is his genial and unerring mother
wit. It is a daily delight to the House. More than that
is its efficacy in tempering the asperities of debate. Mr.
Lovvther can be stern and inflexible when he thinks the
occasion requires the display of these qualities. But it is
his mellow and wise toleration of human eccentricity and
waywardness that he most displays. He has the valuable
faculty of perceiving the light side of incidents and
situations. He knows how to indulge the collective
humours of the House, as well as individual foibles and
mannerisms and small vanities, and often when a storm
seemed brewing has some cool and sagacious remark or
some witty joke from the Chair dispelled the menacing
clouds by catching the dangerous current in the air and
turning it harmlessly down to earth.
In debate one night a charge of wilful obstruction was
received with resentful cries by those against whom it was
directed. The Speaker was appealed to whether it was in
order to accuse hon. Members of wilful obstruction. " I
have seen the thing done, and have heard the accusation
made," was the dry comment of the Speaker. On another
occasion a Member made a statement which turned out to
be inaccurate. " Is not an expression of apology due from
the hon. gentleman ? " the Speaker was asked. " I am
afraid a great deal of time would be occupied in this way,"
said Mr. Lowther rather sardonically. He is the incarnation
of common sense. On occasions of bitter dispute between
the two sides a brusque word, thoughtlessly uttered from
the Chair, tends to exacerbate the spirit of discord in the
Chamber. But Mr. Lowther, by one of his well-pointed
jokes or little ironies, usually contrives to render innocuous
a situation with the promise of mischief; for when the
House is moved to laughter personal rancour or petty
passion dissolve and give way to sweet reasonableness and
good humour.
Mr. Lovvther permits at question-time more freedom and
368 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
latitude in the asking of supplementary interrogations —
arising out of the ansv/ers of Ministers to the printed
questions of Members which appear on the daily Order
Paper — than was allowed by Mr. Gully, whose aim it was
to suppress these supplementary inquiries. Thus Mr.
Lowther has reverted, to some extent, to the practice of
Mr. Peel, who, in effect, placed no curb on the attempts of
Members to elucidate points left undetermined by the
Ministerial answers. But in the session of 191 1, Mr.
Lowther laid down a rule with respect to questions in
words characteristically terse and to the point. " If," he
said, " questions are at all important they should be put
on the Paper. If they are not important they should not
be asked."
Mr. Lowther has also the knack of keeping the flow of
supplementary questions within reasonable bounds by a
neat phrase or a dry sarcasm, just and appropriate to the
occasion. A Minister, though severely heckled, vouchsafed
no information. " Arising out of that answer," the baffled
and angry interrogator cried, only to be cut short by the
Speaker's " Order, order," and the humorous sally — " The
hon. Member is mistaken ; there has been no answer." A
Member noted at question time for his frequent and verbose
interpositions, which were more expressions of opinion than
inquiries, was thus reproved : " The House is always glad
to hear the hon. Member's speeches, but not at question
time." Once an indignant Member appealed to the Speaker
against the immovable silence of the Prime Minister, Mr.
Asquith, with respect to a certain question. " Has not a
private Member the right to ask a Minister any question
relating to his Department ? " " Certainly," said the Speaker,
" hon. Members have the right to ask questions," — here Mr.
Lowther was interrupted by the cheers of the hon. Member
and his friends, — " but," he proceeded drily, " that does not
necessarily mean that Ministers are obliged to answer
them."
Mr. Swift MacNeill, the well-known and popular
Nationalist Member, one day in his resentment of an un-
MR. SPEAKER LOWTHER 369
satisfactory answer to a question relating to Ireland, indulged
in a characteristic outburst of voluble and sarcastic merri-
ment. "The hon. Member," said the Speaker gravely,
" must put his interruption in the form of an interrogation."
No one enjoyed more than the Irishman this commentary
on one of his qualities. On another occasion the same
hon. Member, who had vainly tried to catch the Speaker's
eye, at the close of question-time rose to a point of order.
He said that he wished to address a supplementary question
to the Secretary for War. " I am afraid the hon. Member
is too late now," said the Speaker. " Then, sir, I am the
victim of my own courtesy," was^ the genial remark of Mr.
Swift MacNeill. " The hon. Member," said the Speaker with
his ready appreciation of the humour of an occasion, " is
rather the victim of an unusual inactivity on his part." At
the end of question- time, on another day, a Member com-
plained that a question which he had had on the Paper for
a fortnight, addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
had been put off again and again at the request of the
right hon. gentleman. " On Thursday," said he, I was
asked to postpone it until to-day, and I am now asked to
again postpone it," From the Speaker came a most un-
expected reply. " The hon. Member," said he, " must not
look at me in such a reproachful manner."
Here is another example of Mr. Lowther's ready wit
at question-time : —
Earl Winterton : I have some doubt as to whether
the question I am about to put arises directly out of the
right hon. gentleman's reply
TAe Speaker-. If the noble lord has any doubt, he
had better not ask it. (Laughter.)
Earl Winterton : On consideration. Sir, I think I
have no doubt. (Laughter.)
The Speaker: On consideration, I think I have.
(Loud laughter.)
That Mr. Lowther can be stern was illustrated by an
incident of the session of 1909. The Lord Advocate of
Scotland, Mr. Ure, made a speech in the country in which
24
370 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
he said there was a danger that under Tariff Reform the
money for old age pensions would be unavailable. In
reference to this speech a Unionist Member asked the
Prime Minister, in a question of which he had given private
notice, whether his attention had been called to the fact
that in some constituencies posters were being used "to
reproduce the dishonourable statements of the Lord
Advocate." " The hon. Member," said the Speaker per-
emptorily, " must know that he must not insert an adjective
of that kind. I think he had better put his question on
the Paper." " Of course, I apologize if you say I ought not
to use the word, and I withdraw it," said the Member ;
"but in view of the great apprehension I do ask to be
allowed to continue the question." But the Speaker was
relentless. " As the hon. Member's epithets are rather
of a doubtful character," said he, " I should like to see
the question on the Paper."
One night in the session of 1909 also Mr. Lloyd George
was interrupted in the course of a speech by a young Irish
peer sitting on the Opposition benches. At last the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, resenting the ejaculations,
exclaimed : " I should think the argument would be plain
even to the colossal intellect of the noble lord." Immedi-
ately the young peer was on his feet, appealing to the
Speaker for sympathy. " Is it in order for the right hon.
gentleman to refer to my colossal intellect ? " he asked.
" Well," said the Speaker in his most level tone of voice,
" I think it is not only in order, but is rather complimentary
than otherwise."
In the same session Mr. Byles, the Radical Member
for Sal ford, lectured Members for their long and irrelevant
speeches. " The Speaker," said the hon. gentleman, " often
shows excessive patience with prolix Members. One of
the Standing Orders allows the Speaker to arrest irrelev-
ance " Here the Speaker arose and, interrupting
Mr. Byles, said : " I am afraid I shall have to put that
order in force now. The hon. Member is going beyond
the limits of the motion before the House." The House
MR. SPEAKER LOWTHER 371
laughed heartily ; and the merriment increased when Mr.
Byles, rising happily to the occasion, said he was obliged
to the Speaker for giving a striking example of the kind
of repression he desired to see applied to other Members.
The many volumes of the Parliamentary Debates will
be searched in vain for any witticisms from the Chair
before the advent of Mr. Speaker Lowther. Some of
Mr. Lowther's immediate predecessors were great Speakers.
All of them were models of devotion to duty. But all
of them seem to have found that presiding over the
House of Commons was anything but agreeable and
amusing. They were by temperament and disposition
incapable of extracting, at times, some relaxation and
humour out of their occupancy of the Chair ; for they lacked,
one and all, the priceless quality of being able to see
the comic and ludicrous side of things.
Shaw-Lefevre was mainly concerned with presenting
to the House a port of stately dignity ; Denison, with
exquisite shyness, shrank from obtruding himself on the
notice of the House ; the foibles of Members only brought
a pained expression to the sensitive face of Brand ; Peel
was so intensely in earnest that his stern brow scarcely
ever relaxed ; Gully acted upon the mere letter of the rules
with the pedantry of the lawyer. Gravity was the mark
of all these Speakers. They never indulged in a timely
witticism or a gentle pleasantry themselves, and the jokes
of Members scarcely ever crumbled into smiles their set
and solemn countenances.
Mr. Lowther, then, is the first of the Speakers with a
kindly, humoristic eye for the extravagances and incon-
gruities of Members. It must not be supposed, however,
that he is a jocular gentleman in wig and gown who passes
his time in the Chair of the House of Commons saying
funny things. He is a man of rare individuality. He
has all the qualities which are regarded as essential in
the Speaker. Among the first are a fine presence and
personal dignity. His temper and demeanour are im-
perturbable. The voice is full, deep, and yet soft and
//.
372 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
lulling. It never loses its evenness. It is the voice of
a strong, good-humoured man who will not allow himself
to be confused or worried or irritated, like Peel and Gully,
but waits upon events with philosophic calm and resigna-
tion, ready to do the right thing or say the soft word
when the moment comes for him to intervene. When he
stands up to call to order or to reprove, what a contrast
between his composed and leisurely manner and the
boisterousness of the Member upon whom he fixes his
tolerant but steady gaze.
Still, his humour remains his most valuable gift. It is
natural, unforced and genial. While Mr. John Burns was
explaining the Town Planning Bill he was persistently
interrupted by Mr. Lupton, a perverse, though clever,
Member sitting below the Gangway. "This," said the
Speaker, '' is a debate, not a conversazione." Nothing
could be more good-humoured and yet more effective. His
tact in turning points of order aside with a jest saves many
a scene. They usually relate to matters of small importance,
— though, for the moment, the Members especially con-
cerned are very excited about them, — and they are best
treated as much ado about nothing. Thus it is that the
relations between the House and the Chair was never closer
or more homely ; and, in consequence, never has the authority
of the Speaker been more willingly recognized and cheer-
fully accepted by all sides.
These relations between the House and the Chair were
trikingly manifested on February 20, 191 1, when the
subject of the Whips' Lists, which had been raised by Mr.
Laurence Ginnell on the occasion of the unanimous choice
of Mr. Lowther as Speaker for the fourth time at the
opening of the first Parliament of King George v.,^ came
again before the House. Mr. Josiah W^edgwood, the Liberal
Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne, wrote a letter to Mr.
Ginnell expressing sympathy with his action on the first
day (jf the session. In this communication Mr. Wedgwood
declared that the Speaker " was not a bit impartial," being
' See Chap. VI., " Guardian of the Privileges of the House."
MR. SPEAKER LOWTHER 373
swayed by his political opinions to the extent that he en-
deavoured to prevent the advocacy of the single tax, of which
land policy Mr. Wedgwood was the champion. The letter
was not intended for publication, being obviously a private
explosion of irritation. But Mr. Ginnell sent it to an Irish
newspaper called the Midland Reporter, and thus the com-
munication was brought before the House as " a gross libel
on Mr. Speaker," and a grave breach of privilege.
Mr. Wedgwood withdrew all the imputations contained
in his letter, and tendered to the Speaker and the House
a full and unreserved apology. On the suggestion of the
Speaker the explanation of the hon. Member was accepted
and the motion was withdrawn. Then it was moved that
the publication of the letter was a breach of privilege, Mr.
Ginnell was unrepentant and defiant. As the letter was
not marked "private," he deemed it his duty to send it
to the Press in order to show the public how their business
was conducted in the House of Commons. For the rest,
the whole burden of his speech was the iniquity of the system
by which the Whips supply to the Chair lists of Members
who desire to take part in important debates. " The specific
complaint against the Speaker and against the Chairman of
Ways and Means," said he, in extravagant terms, " is that
by receiving from the Party Whips lists of Members secretly
selected, and by giving them preference and precedence in
debate, they consciously or unconsciously co-operate with
the Whips in depriving of their undoubted rights the
Members maliciously kept off those lists. (Laughter and
some Ministerial cheers.) This is unfair, illegal, and un-
constitutional." (Cries of " Order ! " and interruption.)
The discussion which followed was of deep interest.
It disclosed the methods by which full-dress debates are
organized. It also revealed the existence among Liberal
Members of a large amount of underlying discontent with
the Whips' Lists, as a menace to free discussion in the House
by still further curtailing the few opportunities for the ex-
pression of their views available to independent Members,
whose names did not appear on these lists. As to that the
374 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Speaker made a statement of the greatest importance and
weight. He said : —
" Perhaps the House will allovv me to say a word or
two. I need hardly say that I do not propose to defend
myself against a charge of partiality (Hear, hear), but the
House might like to know exactly how the matter stands
with regard to what has been the system termed handing
in lists of Members. When a big debate takes place it is
extremely convenient for the Speaker — and this also in-
cludes the Chairman of Committees — to know what Members
on either side of the House are prepared with speeches with
regard to the particular motion under discussion. Our time
is generally limited, and the Chair is anxious to discover
the most representative men in order to call them, so that
the different views of different sections of the House may
be before it. In 1906, when I was confronted by a very
large number of new faces that I did not know, I asked the
Whips, continuing a former custom, to supply me with the
names of Members desiring to take part in debate. That
custom has continued. It is only applicable to what the
House calls full-dress debates. I do not — and I am sure
the Chairman of Committees does not — consider myself
bound in any way to limit my discretion to the number of
names which appear on the list. It is a great convenience
to the Chair to know what gentlemen are particularly
interested in the subject-matter which is under discussion.
One hon. Member has been kind enough to inform me — a
matter of which I was not aware — that although his name
never appeared on any official list handed in either to myself
or to the Chairman of Committees, during one session he
was called upon no fewer than twenty times. I think that
that is a sufficient refutation of the suggestion that the
Chairman of Committees and myself are in any way limited
to the list of names. (Hear, hear.) Notwithstanding what
has been said, I shall certainly continue to ask for and
receive lists from all Parties in this House, because I con-
ceive that it is of great value to the Chair, and it is also of
great value in seeing that all sections of the House get
proper representations in the debates that take place.
(Cheers.) "
Nevertheless, there was something like an uprising of
protest on the part of the dumb battalions who sat on the
MR. SPEAKER LOWTHER 375
Ministerial back benches. Mr. Byles, the Liberal Member
for Salford, contributed a comment, pertinent and very
pointed, on the statement that it is the practice of the
Speaker to call on those Members whom he thinks the
House would wish to hear. " I would suggest," said the
Hon. Member, " that it is extremely desirable that the House
should sometimes have to listen to those whom it does not
wish to hear." Mr. Martin, a Liberal Member sitting for a
London constituency, asserted that as he had thought it his
duty to vote against the Government his name had been
put down not on the Whips' List shut in their black-books.
He then proceeded to give the following entertaining
account of his vain seeking for an opportunity to join in a
debate : —
" On one occasion, in order to put himself right with his
constituents (laughter), he wanted to say a very few words
indeed upon a question then before the House. He tried
three days (laughter) — yes — he got up every time the
Member speaking sat down, but presently he began to
notice that the hon. Member who was called upon had not
been in the House at all a few moments before, but rose
with calm confidence and was at once called upon. On a
subsequent occasion, noticing the same thing again, an
hon. friend said to him : ' You have not taken the right
way. You should go to the Chairman of Committees and
tell him you want to speak.' Being a new Member he acted
upon the advice. The Chairman said : ' What do you want
to say ? ' He should be here a long time before he should
think it possible to explain to the Chairman of Committees
what he was going to say. (Laughter and cheers.)"^
Mr. Ginnell was suspended from the service of the
House for a week. There was a division, and the motion
was carried by 311 votes to 84, or a majority of 227. The
minority thought that censure, without suspension, would be
adequate punishment for the offence. Thus ended the
fullest and frankest, and therefore the most significant,
debate on the relations between the Chair and the House
' The Times, Februarj' 21, 191 1.
\^
376 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
that has ever taken place. But there was not the sh'ghtest
sympathy shown in any quarter of the House with the
imputation of unfairness to the Speaker. By common
consent Mr. Lowthcr had succeeded in elevating impartiality
to a fine art.
Thus there is nothing that the House of Common resents
more warmly, or with a keener pang of pain, than an attack
on the/ Speaker. Such is its jealousy of the dignity and
authority of the Chair, that it has encompassed it with an
atmosphere of extraordinary reverence. It has come almost
to believe that the Speaker can do no wrong. Certainly,
every parliamentary sword would leap from its scabbard to
avenge even a look that threatened him with insult.
INDEX
Abbot, Charles, hostility to Catholic
Emancipation, 58, 69, 291-95 ;
"Naming" a member, 64; and
the casting vote, 71-73 ; posts
offered to, 87 ; equipment, 95-96 ;
Baron Colchester, 99, 106, 295-97 ;
otherwise mentioned, 206 note ^,
302, 328
Rev. John, 291
Abercromby, James, election, 20, 87-
Z%, 302-5, 359 note'^ ; emoluments,
93 ; the Barony of Dunfermlii^,
^__ 99, 100, 308 ; letter to Spring-
Rice, 303 ; Speakership, 306-7 ;
otherwise mentioned, 3^8
Sir Ralph, 303
Abraham, William, 108-9
Acton, Lord, " Historical Essays,"
quoted, 176 note\
Addington, Henty, election, 3-4, 90,
287 ; and the Act of Union, 68 ;
and the casting vote, 71 ; the story
told by, 83 ; Prime Minister, 86,
113, 290; the Speaker's chairs,
94-95 ; his Viscountcy, 99 ; salary
and residence, loi ; the Speaker's
House, 102 ; the duel between Pitt
and Tierney, 287-88 ; impartiality
questioned, 288-89 j hrst Speaker
of the Imperial Parliament, 289-
90 ; otherwise mentioned, 302
"Addled Parliament," the, 203, 206
Addresses to the Sovereign, the Speaker's
position, 34-35
Agincourt, 139
Alexandra, Queen, marriage, 36-37
Alington, William, Speaker 1429,
141-42, 152
William, Speaker 1472, 152
" All the Talents," 86
Allowance Acts, 92-93
Althorp, Lord, 48-49, 288, 299 ; re-
marks on the Speakership, 302
American Colonists, the, 282-83
Anne, Queen, and the Veto, 8; Speakers,
93 ; Parliaments, 264, 268
Anson, Sir William, quoted, 8 note^
Apsley, Lord Chancellor, 281
Armstrong, Sir Thomas, 255
Army Discipline Bill, 1879, 58
Arrest for Debt or Trespass, immunity
for Members of Parliament, 134
Arundel, Archbishop, 130, 131
Asquith, H. H., 368 ; on the opposi-
tion to Gully, 22
"Assembly," the term, 225
Athenaeum Club, the, 24
Atkins, Sir Robert, 255
Attainder, Bill of, against the Duke of
York, 149
Audley, Thomas, Speaker 1536, 162-
63 ; Chancellor, 163-65
Austin, Michael, 350
Bacon, Lord Chancellor, 171; "Of
Praise "^ted, 177
Sir Nicholas, 171, 182-84
" Bad Parliament," the, 123
Baillie, 310
Baker, Sir John, Speaker 1547, 167
Balfour, Arthur, and Gully, 22, 24 ; mo-
tion to suspend Dillon, 60 ; Crimes
Bill, 337; Tritton's motion, 344-45 ;
seconds Harcourt's resolution on
Peel's retirement, 355 ; proposes
Sir Matthew White Ridley, 358 ;
moves the Closure, 361 ; moves
suspension of Irish members, 362
Bamiylde, Thos., Speaker /;■<? tempore.
Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 32
Bann Drainage Bill, 340
" Barebone's Parliament," the, 109,
224
Bamet, Battle of, 152
Barre, Colonel, 2S0 ; an incident of,
1 77 1, 47-48
Barrington, Lord, 278
577
378
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Bartlett, Ashmcad, 330
Balluirst, 292, 293
Bayiiard, Richard, Speaker 1421, 141
Beaconslicld, Earl of, and Denison's
cleclion, 4 ; (jn Shaw-Lefevre, 66 ;
on Abercromby's re-election, 306 ;
returned to office, 1874, 315; and
obstruction, 321
Beauchamp, Sir Walter, Speaker 1416,
140
Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, 141
Beaumont, M.P. 1859, 42
Bedford, John, Duke of, Regent 141 5,
140
Bell, Sir Robert, Speaker 1572, 184-
85
Bellamy's, Old Palace Yard, 2S5
Bentinck, J., and the Whips' List, 43-44
M.P. 1859,42-43
Berkeley, Sir Charles, 233
Biggar, Joseph Gillies, and Court dress,
no; the longest sitting, 319;
and Milbank, 321 ; speech stopped
by Brand, 322
Birch, Colonel, 243
" Black P>iars," Parliament meets at,
156, 161
Blackfriars Bridge Tramways, 77
" Black Parliament," the, 163
Black Prince, the, 120, 122
Black Rod, duties, 2, 10, 176 ; Speaker
Onslow and, 265-67
Boleyn, Anne, 163
Bosworth, Battle of, 153
Bowes, John, Speaker 1435, ^4-
Bowman, oculist, 326
Boyle, Henry, 258
Brand, Henry Bouverie, election, 20,
24 note-; and the Whips' List, 43-
44 ; Parnell's charge against, 58 ;
term of office, 90; levees, no;
visit to Denison, 310; and ob-
struction, 315-17; \\\v,coup-d\'taty
322-25 ; created Lord Hampden,
325 ; and the Closure, 337-38 ;
twenty-eight Nationalists named,
362 ; otherwise mcfitioncd, 24 note -,
328, 361, 364, 371
Bray, Sir Reginald, \<^^note^
Bredock, Dr., 222
Bright, John, 107, 108
Bristol Castle, 130
British Museum trusteeship, 100
Bromley, William, Speaker 1 7 10, 96,
264, 267
Brooke, Rol>ert, 169
Brougham, Lord, 98-99
Buckingham Palace, visits of the Speaker,
34-36
Budget, introduction, the Speaker's posi-
tion, 70
Burdclt, Sir Francis, committed to the
Tower, 34 ; an incident of April
1 83 1, 48 ; nominates Manners-
Sutton, 299
Burke, Edmund, speech, 40 ; on the
doctrine of the "Speaker's Eye,"
48
William, 48
Burley, William, 142
Burnet, Bishop, quoted, 236-37, 247,
261
Burns, John, 372
Bussy, Sir John, election, 127-28 ; the
Commons' petitions, 128; and
Richard 11., 129, 131 ; beheaded,
130
Byles, Mr., speech, 370-71 ; and the
Whips' List, 375
Cade's rebellion, 146
Campbell, Lord, quoted, 104-5, 203
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H., 87, 359,
364
Canning, George, administration, 87,
310; supports Abbot, 295; and
Wynn, 298 ; and Catholic emanci-
pation, 300
Canterbury, Viscount. See Manners-
Sutton, Charles
Cardwell, Mr. , speech, 42-43
Carleton, Dudley, letter quoted, 97-98
Carlton Club, 24
Casting vote, the Speaker's right, 70-
78
Castlereagh, Lord, 292, 293, 296
Catesby, William, 153
Catherine of Aragon, 163
Catholic Emancipation, debate April
1814, 58 ; Gratlan's Bill, 69 ;
George in. and, 86 ; Addington
and, 290 ; Abbot's hostility, 291-
95 ; Manners-Sutton and, 300
Cavendish, Lord, 239, 247
Lord John, 278
Sir Henry, quoted, 40
Cecil, Sir William, 70, 179, 180
Censure of the House, 33
Chair, the Speaker's, 28 ; action of
Charles I., 215-16; the Chair
replaced, 217
Chairman of Committees, 68, 85 ; as
Deputy Speaker, 83
Chairman of Ways and Means, 84
INDEX
379
Chairs of the House of Commons, 94-95
Chamberlain, Joseph, and Dillon, 59-
60; and Tritton's motion, 345 ;
on the Home Rule Bill, 349 ; and
Peel, 355
Chamberlain, the Lord Great, duties,
103-5
Chancellor, Lord, addresses to the
Sovereign, 34-35 ; functions, 118;
Chancellorship of Ireland, the
Speakership and, 86-87
Chaplin, Henry, 338
Charlton, Sir Job, 18, 234, 235
Sir Thomas, 148
Charles I., and the Commons, 205 ;
his first Parliament, 206 ; order
to adjourn the House, 207-10 ;
the Short Parliament, 211-12 ;
Lenthall's speech, 213-14 ; raid
on the Commons, 215-17; trial
and death, 221-22
II., restoration, 7, 222, 230; the
oath of allegiance, 15 ; Speakers,
70, 1 74 ; second Parliament, 232-
33 ; European policy, 237-38 ;
adjournments of the House, 237-
40 ; and Seymour's election, 243-
45 ; last Parliament, 250
Chaucer, Thomas, 136, 140, 141 ; his
protestations, 137-38
Cheney, Sir John, 130-31
Chesham, Lord, 36
Chiltern Hundreds, 32
Church Rates Bill, 74
Churchill, Lord Randolph, 341
Winston, 78
Chute, Chaloner, 228-29
Clandon Park, Surrey, 95
Clarendon, cited, 213
Clarges, Sir Thomas, 236
Clayton, Sir Robert, 256
Clergy Disabilities (Removal) Bill, 314
Clergy in Parliament, 128-29
Clerk of the House, the first, 117-18
Closure, the, Speaker's discretion, 50-
51 ; introduced, 324-25 ; applied,
335 ; rules, 337-40
Clothworkers' Company, the, 97
Cobbett, WilUam, 107, 299
Cobbett's Weekly Register, 34
Cobden, Richard, 107-8
Coke, Sir Edward, " Institutes," ^i^^/ifrf,
173; his disabling speech, 189-90;
illness, 190-91 ; and the Ecclesi-
astical Bill, 191-92
Colchester, Baron. See Abbot, Charles
Colonial Conference, the, 364
"Committee of Safety," 229
Commons, House of, the Lobby, 27-28 ;
original purpose, II9-20; meeting
of April 28, 1376, 121-22 ; right
to originate money grants, 136-38 ;
engrossing the petitions, 139-40;
Yorkist and Lancastrian parties,
144-52; Wolsey's speech, 158;
petitions, 1 70 ; summons to the
Upper House, 176-77 ; Elizabeth
and the, 183-86, 190-92 ; prayers,
184-86; obstruction in 1604,
200-1 ; sittings suspended through
illness of Speaker, 201-2 ; James l.
and the, 203-6 ; order of Charles
I. to adjourn, 207-10 ; raid of
Charles i., 215-17; raid of the
apprentices, 219 ; the judicial com-
mission for trial of Charles I., 221-
22 ; Cromwell's raid, 223-25 ;
power of Sovereign to adjourn,
237-40; expulsion of Trevor, 255-
57 ; the first Imperial Parliament,
289-90 ; the longest sitting, 318-
22 ; the night of the brawl, 349 ;
police summoned, 363
Commonwealth, Speakers, 7 5 estab-
lished, 222
Compton, Spencer, 39-40, 86, 270
Convention Parliament, 1660, 7, 230,
232
1688, 7, 253-54
Conybeare, Mr., attacks on Peel, 338-
40 ; his letter to The Star, 341-42 ;
suspended, 342 ; personal, explana-
tion, 343-44 ; apology, 344-4S
Cope (Puritan), 187
Cordell, William, 170
Cornwall, Charles Wolfram, 7, 283-86
Courtney, Leonard, 359
Coventry, Sir William, 234, 239, 241,
242
Crean, Mr., 350
Creevey, and Abbot, 294 ; " Papers,"
quoted, 99
Crewe, Sir Randolph, 203, 206
Sir Thomas, 206-7
Crimes Bill, 323, 344 ; application of
the Closure, 337-40
Croft, Sir James, 186
Croke, John, and the Speaker's vote,
70 ; ruling concerning speeches,
195-96 ; speech to Elizabeth, 196-
97 ; the address, 197-98
Cromwell, Oliver, raid on the Commons,
223-25 ; first Parliament, 226 ;
death, 22S
i^o
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Cromwell, Richard, 228, 229
Cust, Sir John, 40-41, 27S
Dacre, Baron, 315
Daily Chronicle, letter published, 343
Danby, Lord, 244
Dangerfield and "The Meal-Tub Plot,"
252, 254
Debate, the. Speaker's position, 29-31
Denison, John Evelyn, election, 1866,
4, 108 ; " Diary," quoted, 9 ;
"Putting the Question," 31 ; the
address to Queen Victoria, 35 ;
public functions, 36-37 ; and rights
of new members, 42-43 ; and the
Whips' List, 43-44 ; on his feelings
as a Speaker, 52 ; stories of, 53-55 ;
in the division lobby, 69, 74-75 ;
and the Tests Abolition (Oxford)
I^i'li 75-76 ; and the casting vote,
76 ; withdrawal from the House,
84-85 ; Lord Palmerston's letter to,
87-88 ; created Viscount Ossington,
lOi ; the Speaker's House, 105 ; and
The O'Donoghue affair, 311-12;
as a Speaker, 313-14, 371 ; obstruc-
tion introducedunder, 314-15; oiker-
7vise mentioned, 2i^note-, 310, 358
Deputy Chairman of Committees, 84
Deputy Speaker, first provision for, 83
Digby, Lord, 258
Dilke, 50
Dillon, John, 59-60
Disert, Earl of, 262
Disraeli. See Beaconsfield, Earl of
Dissenters at the Universities, 69, 300
Divisions, new method introduced 1907,
361 ; publication of lists, 308
Dorewood, John, 131, 138-39
Dowdeswell, Mr., 280
Drury, Sir Robert, 154
Dudley, Edmund, 154
John, 154-55
Dunces' Parliament, 134
Dundas, Charles, 17, 290, 291
Henry, charge of malpractices, 71-73
Dunfermline, Lord. See Abercromby,
James
Dunning, Joseph, 283
Durham House, 147
Dyer, James, 167, 168
Edinburgh Review, 319
Edward i.. Parliaments, 115
11. and the Commons, 116
III., Parliaments, 115, 151 ; death,
120, 122-23
Edward iv., Parliaments, 150-52;
death, 152-53
v.. 153
VI., Parliaments, 38 note'^, 167-68;
and the Commons, 102, 167 ;
doctrinal changes, 161
VII., marriage, 36-37
Egyptian affairs, 330
Eliot, Sir Gilbert, 286, 287
Sir John, 206 ; his remonstrance,
207-10
Elizabeth, Parliaments, 70, 90, 171,
179-80, 194-98; Speakers' Ad-
dresses, 131 ; establishment of
Protestantism, 161 ; appointing
the Speaker, 173-75 ; opening of
Parliament, 176 ; Onslow's speech,
182 ; and the Commons, 183-86,
190-92 ; her speech to the Com-
mons, 197 ; Speakers, 366
Ellis, Welbore, 283
Emmot, Mr., 15 note"^
Empson, Richard, 154, 155
Peter, 154
Ernly, Sir John, 245
Essex, Earl of, insurrection, 198
Estates of the Realm, AJisembly of
April 28, 1376, 121-22
Esturmy, Sir William, 134
Evelyn, "Diary," quoted, 264
Eversley, Lord. See Shaw-Lefevre,
Charles
Ewes, Sir Simonds D', "Journals,"
the frontispiece, 176-77 ; quoted,
171-73. 175-76, 178-79. 18S, 190-
93, 195 ; and Onslow, 182
Exclusion Bill, 250, 252
Fairfax, Thomas Lord, 219, 221
Fane, Sir Vere, 254
Farren, Thomas, 94
Fawkes, Guy, 186, 203
Fellowes, Mr., 104
Fenwick, Charles, and Court dress,
109-10
Fiennes, Lord Commissioner, 227
Finch, Sir Heneage, 207, 245
Sir John, 207-11, 237
Sir Moyle, 207
" First Commoner," 85
Fisher, Mr. Hayes, 350
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund, 320
Fitzwilliam, Sir Thomas, 154
Hower, Roger, 140-41
Foley, I'aul, 18, 258-60
Thomas, 259
Forstcr, W. E., 318
II
INDEX
381
Fortescue, Sir John, 147
Fowler, Sir Henry, 66
Fox, Charles James, 63, 282
Foxe, " Book of Martyrs," cited, 164
note ^
Franchise, the, first statutes, 139; re-
stricted by 8 Henry vi. c. 7, 142
Freedom from arrest, the claim for,
134, 182-83
Froude, quoted, 171
Fuller, Mr., 64
Gardiner, Bishop, 169
Sir Thomas, 213
Gargrave, Sir Thomas, 171
Gavin, Major, 311
George i., 269-70
II. and Onslow, 273
III., mental incapacity, 7, 286 ; Acts
passed, 31-32 ; and Sidmouth, 86,
95, 290 ; and Onslow, 99 ; Parlia-
ments, 278 ; and Norton, 281-83 !
and Mitford, 290
IV., 292, 295-97
v., 372
George, Lloyd, 370
Germain, Lord George, 283
Gibson-Bowles, Mr., 350
Ginnell, Laurence, and the Whips' Lists,
45-47, 372-75
Gladstone, W. E., on Denison's election,
4 ; on the Speakership, 30, 65 ;
and the Whips' Lists, 44 ; and the
Church Rates Bill, 74 ; Bill for the
abolition of religious tests, 76 ;
Denison and, loi ; on Aber-
cromby's election, letter qzwted,
305 ; administrations, 315, 316 ;
the Protection of Person and
Property Bill, 318 ; and the cotip-
d^tai, 323 ; and Peel, 325, 329 ;
moves the suspension of O'Donnell,
335 ; and the Closure, 337-38 ; and
the Crimes Bill, 339 ; Home Rule
Bills, 343, 349 ; and Tritton's
motion, 343-45 ; the brawl, 351
Glanville, John, 211-12
Gloucester, Duke of, 141
Glyn, Mr., 44
Goldesborough, Mr., 242
Goldsborough, Sir John, 127
" Good Parliament," the, 120, 123
Goodrick, Sir Henry, 258
Goschen, Mr., 325-26
Goulburn, Plenry, 17, 308
Gower, Sir John Leveson, 261-62
Granby, Marquis of, 275
Grant, Mr., 295
Grantly, Baron. 5£:£Norton, Sir Fletcher
Granvill, Colonel, 258
Grattan, Henry, 69, 291-92
Green, John, Speaker 1460, 149
Gregory, William, Speaker 1679, 246-
47
Grenville, Lord, election, 1789, 7,286-
87 ; and "All the Talents," 86 ;
and Norton, 280 ; as a Speaker, 302
Greville, Charles, qtioted, 300, 305
Grey, Anchitell, "Debates," quoted,
239> 244
Earl, 301
Grimston, Sir Harbottle, 230, 254
Guildford, Baron, 251
"Guillotine," the, 51
Gully, William Court, election, 16 note \
17, 18, 20-23, 359-60; vote of
censure on, defeated, 59-60 ; and
the division lists, 69 ; and the cast-
ing vote, 76 ; and the Speakership,
88 ; term of office, 90 ; as a
Speaker, 360-66, 36S, 371-72 ;
illness, 364-65 ; retirement, 365 ;
otherwise tfientioned, 41, 66
Gwyder, Lord, 103-5
Habeas Corpus Act, 318
Hall, "Chronicles," quoted, 161-62,
165
Hallam, cited, 178
Hampden, John, 215-18
Hampden, Lord. See Brand, Henry
Bouverie
Mr., 244
Hanmer, Sir Thomas, his silver plate,
93-94 ; equipment, 96 ; election,
268-69
" Hansard," cited, 72
Harbord, William, 236
Harcourt, Sir William, and Peel, 326,
327 ; called to order, 330-31, 347 ;
and Peel's valedictory speech, 354-
55, 357 ; reply to Balfour, 358-59
Harding, Richard, 181
Hare, Sir Nicholas, 165
Harley, Robert, 86, 247, 261-62, 264
Sir Edward, 261
Sir Robert, 220-21
Plarrington, Edward, 348
Harrison, Thomas, 223-24
Hartington, Marquis of, 1698, 261 ;
1727, 272 ; 1879, 59
Hat, the Speaker's, 96-97
Hatherton, Lord. See Littleton,
Edward John
3S2
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Hatscll, John, opposes Addiiigton's
election, 3-4 ; " Precedents,"
quoted^ 8 «(?/<•', 18, 39, 41, 240,
273-74 ; and Norton, 279-80
Haxey, Thomas, 12S-29
llazclrig, the raid of Charles, 2 1 5- 1 7
Hcaly, T. M., motion for adjournment,
320 ; called to order, 332-34 ; ap-
peal to Tritton, 344 ; the brawl,
. 350
Heigham, Clement, 170
Ileneage, Sir Thomas, 188
Henrietta Maria, 213, 214
Henry iv.. Parliaments, 126, 130, 135 ;
accession, 130 ; and Savage, 131-
34 ; and the lawyers, 134 ; and the
Commons, 135 ; and freedom of
speech, 136-38
v., 138, 139, 141
VI., " Parliament of the Bats," 141 ;
illness, 146-47 ; the Parliament
of October 1460, 149 ; flight, 150;
his 23rd Parliament, 152
VII., Parliaments, 153-55, '74
Vlil., Parliaments, 90, 155, 156,
166, 177-78 ; and More, 156; the
Reformation, 161 ; the divorce,
162-63 ; the attainder of Catherine
Howard, 165-66 ; suppression of
free chapels, 167
Herschell, Sir Francis, 325
Heyle, Serjeant, 195
Hicks-Beach, Sir Michael, 330
Hobby, Sir Edward, 70, 196
Hobert, Sir Miles, 208
Holinshed, quoted, 129, 131
Holies, Denzil, Lord, quoted, 208 ; im-
prisonment, 210 ; and Eliot's re-
mon.strance, 210; the raid on the
House, 215-17
Home Rule Bills, 343, 344, 349
Hooker, John, cited, 90-91, 172, 178
Horse Guards, the Speaker's privilege,
98
Houblon, Sir James, 256
Howard, Catherine, 165-66
Hume, Joseph, and the Speaker's
emoluments, 93 ; and Court dress,
107 ; and pensions, 298-99 ; op-
poses Manners-Sutton, 299
Hungerford, Sir Thomas, 115, 117, 122
Sir Walter, 139
Hunt, Roger, 141, 142
Ilbert, Sir Courtcnay, 46
Indemnity Act, 149
Inglefield, Sir Thomas, 1 54-56
International Exhil)ition, 1S62, 36
Irby, Sir Anthony, 220
Irish Parliament, the, 90
James I., usages, 97 ; and the Com-
mons, 203-6 ; first Parliament, 198
II., 7, 213, 250, 253
Sir Henry, 333
JefiVeys, Judge, 251
Jenkins, Sir Henry, 200-1
Joddrel, Clerk, 265
Jones, Gale, 34
"Journals of the House of Commons,"
begun 1547, 172; account of
Phelips' illness, 201-2 ; action of
James i., 205 ; matters omitted,
247-48 ; account of Speaker's elec-
tion, 258; Peel's speech entered,
357
Keate of Eton, 30
Kenynett, Sir John, 121
Khartoum, 330
Kiss of Fealty, the, 142
Knollys, Sir Francis, 185, 187, 189, 192
Sir William, 195 ; speech, 192-93
Labouchere, Mr., 342
Labour Members and Court dress, 108
Lacklcarning Parliament, the, 134
Lambeth Palace, loi, 105
Lancaster, John of Gaunt, Duke of,
121-22
Land-League agitation, 318, 319
Latimer, Lord, 122
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid, 25
Lawyers in the Chair, 174, 184-85, 235
Lee, Richard, 220
Sir Thomas, 23S, 244
Lefevre. See Shaw-Lefevre
Lenthall, William, 212
William, Speaker, 1640, account of,
212-13, 226 ; and Charles, 213-18,
294; raid by the apprentices, 218,
219 ; flight, 219-21 ; reception at
the Guildhall, 222 ; and the king's
death, 222 ; and Cromwell, 223-
24; illness, 229-30; evidence
against Scot, 232
Ley, Clerk, 315
Liberals and the Whips' Lists, 373-76
Liberty of Speech, the claim for, 182-83
Lisle, Lord Commissioner, 226, 227
Littleton, E<lward John, 299, 300
Sir Thomas and Seymour, 235-36 ;
election, 258, 260-61 ; re-election
opposed, 262-63
INDEX
383
Litton, Sir Roland, 200-1
Liverpool, Lord, 295
Lloyd, " State Worthies," 170
Lockwood, Mr., loi
Logan, Mr., 350
Londonderry, Marquis of, 98
Long Parliament, 210, 212, 229, 230
Long, Sir Lislebone, 22S-29
Lords, Commons and the, separate
deliberations, 116-20; assent to
Money Bills, 136-37 ; abolition in
1649, 222
Lovel, Sir Thomas, 153-54
Lowe, Robert, budget of 1870, 69
Lowther, Hon. William, 365
James William, absence from the
Chair, i^tiote^ ; election, 16 note^,
20, 365 ; contest at Penrith, 25-26 ;
on rights of members, 40 ; Deputy
Speaker, 41, 365 ; Ginnell's attack
on, 45-47 ; the casting vote, 77-
78 ; abolition of the interval, 84 ;
and Court dress, 109 ; Chairman
of Committees, 362, 365 ; person-
ality, 366-73 ; question time, 367-
69 ; and the Whips' Lists, 373-76
Sir John, 255
Lucy, Sir Henry, 326
Lupton, Mr., 372
Luttrell, Colonel, 40, 48
Lyndhurst, Lord Chancellor, decision,
104-5
Lyons, Richard, 122
Lyttelton, Colonial Secretary, 41, 364
M'Carthy, Justin, and the coup-cT^tat,
323 ; tribute to Peel, 355-56
Mace, the, customs, i, 2, 6, 9, 10, 13,
14, 27, 176-77, 265 ; order of
Charles I., 209; Cromwell and the,
224 ; at Whitehall, 231
MacNeill, Swift, 368
Mafre, Sir Peter de la, 126
Maguire, John Francis, 314
Mall, the, rights of the Commons, 35
7tote ^ ; the Speaker's privilege, 98
Manchester, Earl of, 219
Manners-Sutton, Charles, election, 20,
296-98 ; and Gladstone, 30 ; and
Aloore, 67 ; party politics, 69 ;
Praed's lines on, 81 ; anecdotes,
83 ; posts offered to, 87 ; emolu-
ments, 93 ; chairs and plate, 95 ;
Viscount Canterbury, 99, 100 ;
pension, 100 ; the Speaker's House,
102 ; compensation claims, 103-5 >
retirement speech, 1S32, 298 ; re-
Manners-Sutton, C\\a.x\t%— (continued)
election, 299-300 ; partiality, 300-
301 ; the election of 1835, 300,
304-5 ; attack on, 304 ; William
IV. and, 305 ; dismissal, 309-10 ;
otherivise mentiotud, 302, 328
Mrs., loi
Manning, " Uwes," qtioied, i^^no/e^
March, Earl of, 121, 149-50
Marchant, Sir Denis le, 53, 74, 308
Mare, Sir Peter de la, 115, 117, 121-
23
Marney, Lord, 159
Marriage Confirmation (Antwerp) Bill,
76
Martin, Mr., 375
Mary, 168, 169
Queen of Scots, 188
May, Erskine, 9, 312, 324
Meal-Tub Plot, 252
Melbourne, Lord, Administrations, 87-
89 ; letter to Grey, 301-2 ; and
Abercromby, 303, 306, 307
Melbourne ParHament House, story of
the Chair, 95
Mellor, Mr., 349, 354
Melville, Lord. See Dundas, Henry
Meredith, Sir William, 279
Meres, Sir Thomas, 245-46
Mettayer, Lewis, 94
Mid-Cumberland Liberal Association,
25
Midland Reporter, Wedgwood's letter
published, 373
Midleton, Earl of, 251
Milbank, Mr., 321
Milman, Archibald, 53 note ^
Mitchell-Thomson, Mr., 78
Mitford, Sir John, elected 1801, 6, 17,
20, 290-91 ; resignation, 86 ; his
chattels, 95 ; the barony of Redes-
dale, 99 ; mentioned, 87, 328
Monasteries, dissolution, 165
Money Bills, special presentation, 37-
38 ; Commons' right to originate,
136-38
Monk, General, 230, 232
Montague, F., 274-75
Mooney, J. J., 60
Moore, Thomas, and Shaw-Lefevre,
67-68 ; "Diary," quoted, 83, lOl
Mordant, Colonel Harry, 265
Mordaunt, Sir John, 154
More, Cresacre, 160 note ^
Sir Thomas, emoluments, 90 ;
"History," quoted, 153; account
of, 156 ; his protestations, 156-57 ;
384
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
More, Sir Thomas — (cotttinued)
the two petitions, 157-58 ; reply to
Wolsey's speech, 158-60 ; fee and
allowance, 160-61 ; speech to the
Commons, 161-62 ; resignation,
162-63 ; Rich's evidence, 163-64
Morley, John, 339-40
Mortting Advertiser, the, and the
Whips' List, 43-44
Morpeth, Lord, 299 ; and Abbot's
speech, 292, 293, 295
Morrice, Mr., 191-92
Mortimer's Cross, 149-5C
Morton, Cardinal, 156
Sir Fletcher, 82
Mowbray, Sir John, 23
Moyle, Sir Thomas, 165
Musgrave, Sir Christopher, 258
National Council, the, 121
Nationalists, interruptions, 41 ; and
Court dress, 1 10 ; policy of ob-
struction, 313-25 ; attacks on the
Speaker, 335-36 ; and Peel, 337,
355-56 ; tweU'e named by Gully,
361-62 ; twenty-eight named by
Brand, 362
Naval Works Bill, 356
Navy Bill, Pitt's, 288-89
Neville, Thomas, 156
"New Member," 42
Noel, Mr., 44
North, Lord, 278
Roger, quoted, 251
Northampton, Earl of, 270
Northcote, Sir Stafford, 59, 316, 324,
329, 331
Norton, Lord, 283
Sir Fletcher, reply to Fox, 63 ;
elected, 278-79 ; a scene in the
House, 279-80 ; re-election, 281 ;
and the King, 281-82 ; in the divi-
sion lobby, 282-83 ; Baron Grantly
of Markenfield, 284 ; speech, 293 ;
otherwise mentioned, 31, 47
Nottingham Castle, 122, 123
Oath of Allegiance, 14-17
O'Brien, William, 336
Obstruction, iio; in 1604, 200-1;
Parnell's policy, 314 ; rise of the
Nationalists, 316-17
O'Connell, Daniel, claim to sit, loi ;
opposes Manners-Sutton, 299 ; the
agitation, 319
O'Connor, T. P., the cry of "Judas,"
349
O'Donnell, Frank Hugh, obstruction,
316; called to order, 334-35;
speeches, 321
O'Donoghue, The, and Peel, 311-12
Oldhall, Sir William, 146, 149
Onslow, Arthur, address to George ll.,
38 note ' ; reply to Wilkes, 63 ;
term of office, 89-90, 310 ; treasurer
of the Navy, 91, 274-75 ; the
Speaker's chairs, 95 ; pension,
99. 277 ; his wig, 176 ; principles,
271-72 ; protestations, 272-73 ;
fifth appointment as Speaker, 275-
76 ; farewell address, 276-77
George, pension, 99, 277
George, Tory M.P., 47-48
Richard, election, 18, 180-81 ; pro-
testations, 181-83 ; precedent set
by, 259
Roger, 181
Sir Richard, election, 265 ; and
Harley, 262 ; encounter with
Black Rod, 265-67 ; " Stiff Dick,"
267
Orders of the Day, 28-29
Orphans' Bill, 255-57, 259
Ossington, Viscount. See Denison,
John Evelyn "" -
Oxford, Earl of. See Harley, Robert
Paddy, Sir William, 201
Palgrave, Sir Reginald, 47
Palmer, Roundell, 114
Palmerston, Lord, and new members,
42-43 ; letter to Denison, 87-88 ;
and Shaw-Lefevre, 100 ; and
Denison, 310-11 ; administration,
315 ; mentioned, 36
" Parliament of the Bats," 141
Parliamentum Diabolicum, 149
Parnell, Charles Stewart, attack on
Brand, 58 ; policy of obstruction,
no, 314-7; speech, 318-19;
Milbank's question, 321 ; the
coup detat, 323 ; and the Crimes
Bill, 339 ; and Peel, 346 ; " Anti-
Parnellites," 355 ; "named," 362
Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill, 314
Peel, Arthur Wellesley, elections 1880
and 1885, 21-22; comparing the
Standards, 37 ; as a Speaker, 61,
325-2S, 371, 372 ; his casting vote,
76 ; resignation 1895, 87 ; term
of office, 90"; presentation of the
Commons' address, 1897, 96 ; and
Court dress, 108 ; his address,
328-29 ; maintenance of order,
INDEX
385
Peel, Arthur Wellesley — [^contimud)
330-36 ; Crimes Bill introduced,
336-40 ; Conybeare's attacks, 338-
45 ; conception of his duty, 345-
49 ; and Parnell, 346 ; the night
of the brawl, 349-52 ; retiring
speech, 352-54 ; Harcourt's reply,
354 ; tributes from the House, 354-
57 ; " Question Time,'" 360, 368 ;
?nen(ioncd, 16 note^, 20, 65, 366
Sir Robert, leader of the Opposition,
48-49, 307 ; Prime Minister, 300 ;
on the re-election of Shaw-Lefevre,
309-10 ; mentioned, 359
Sir Robert, junior, and The
O'Donoghue, 311-12; called to
order, 331-32
Pelham, Henry, 220-21, 275
Thomas, 275
Pellew, Dean, quoted, 94-95
Felling, Dr., 96
Perceval, Prime Minister, 87
Perrers, Alice, 122
Peyton, Sir Robert, 250
Phelips, Sir Edward, 199-202
Philip of Spain, 169
Philip and Mary, 169-70
Pickering, Sir James, 123-24, 127
Pitt, William, and Addington, 3-4,
113; leader in iSoi, 17, 86, 290;
and Dundas, 71-73 ; andy;he Act
of Union, 68, 289 ; and Tierney,
288-89, 311, 312
Plague, the, 142
Plate, the Speaker's, 93-94
Playfair, Dr. Lyon, 320-22
Plunket, Mr., 294
Pollard, John, 169, 170
Poor Law (Ireland) Bill, 334
Popham, John, 185, 186
Sir John, 145
Potts, Dr., 76
Powle, Henry, 236, 238, 253
Powlett, Lord William, 265
Praed, Winthrop Mackworth, lines on
Manners-Sutton, 81
Praise-God Barebones, 224
Premiership and the Speakership, 86,
113
Pride's Purge, 223
Private Bills, 228
Privileges of the Commons, II-19, 35
note", 39
Privy Councillors, precedence, 86
Prorogation of Parliament, 38-39
Protection of Person and Property ISill,
318
25
Prynne, William, 135, 137
Puckering, Sir John, 187-S8, 206 note ^ ;
his reply to Coke, 190
Putney Heath, 289, 312
Pym, 215-17
Quarterly Review on the Speaker's im-
partiality, 24
"Question Time," 29-30, 360-61
Quin, John, 269
Raleigh, Sir Waiter, 70, 186
Ranelagh, Earl of, 260
Rathbone, 328
Read, R. T., 344
Redesdale, Baron. See Mitford, Sir
John
Redford, Sir Henry, 134
Redistribution Act, 1885, 21
Redmayne, Sir Richard, 140
Redmond, John, 46, 356
William, 335, 342
Reform Bill, the, 20, 298, 299
Reform Club, the, 24
Reformation, the, opening stage, i6r
Reformation Parliament, 163
Regency Bill, 1910, 78
Representation of the People Bill,
1859, 42
Reresby, Sir John, 239
Rich, Sir Richard, witness against More
163-64; Chancellor, 16^ note", 167
Richard 11., succession, 121, 123 ; Par-
liaments, 127 ; and the Commons,
128-29 ; impeachment of his op-
ponents, 129-30; and Bussy, 131
.1"., 153
Richardson, Thomas, 97, 203-6
Ridley, Sir Matthew White, 17, 18, 21,
23, 358
Rigby, Richard, 278
Right, Petition of, presented by Man-
ners-Sutton, 104
Rights, Bill of, 254
Rigley, Mr., 282
Rogers, Sir Edward, 179, 180
Roper, William, " Life of Sir Thomas
More," 158 note^, 159, i6o
Rous, Francis, 109, 224-25
Royal assent to Money Bills, 37-38 ;
by Letters Patent, 166 ; under
Elizabeth, 187
Rump Parliament, 223, 229-30
Rushworth, John, 213, 216
Russell, George, 313
Lord John, letter to Spring-Rice,
89 ; attack on Manners-Sutton,
386
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Russell, Lord John— {coftfiniud)
304 ; and Abercromby, 307 ; and
Shaw-Lcfevre, 309-10 ; mentioned,
315. 35?
Lord William, 246-47, 252
Sir F:dward, 337-38
Sir John, 141, 142
Rye House Plot, 253, 255
Sacheverall, Dr. Henry, 266-67
William, 240, 247
Sackville, Lord George, 278
St. Albans, Battle of, 146, 148
St. John, Henry, 262
Salisbury, Lord, letter to Roundell
Palmer, 114
Sanderson, Colonel, 350
Savage, Sir Arnold, 126, 131-34, 173
Sawyer, Sir Robert, 241-42, 252-53,
255
Say, Sir John, 145, 152
VVilliam, 230
Scheldt expedition, the, 34, 64
Scot, Thomas, 232
Security of the Crown and Succession,
Act for, 264 note '
Selby, Lady, iii
Lord. See Gully, William Court
Selden, John, 209, 210
Serjeant-at-Arms, duties, 6, 8-10, 13,
14, 27, 33, 34, 64, 176-77 ; the
first, 1 17-18
Seven Bishops, prosecution, 253
Sevill, Hon. Henry, 251
Sexton, Thomas, speech, 321-22 ; and
Tritton's apology, 345 ; motion for
adjournment, 335-36
Seymour, Jane, 163, 235
Edward, and Charles il., 7, 243-45 ;
and the casting vote, 70 ; person-
ality, 235-37 ; and the King's
power to adjourn, 237-41 ; retire-
ment, 241-42 ; the Parliament of
1688, 253 ; proposes Harlcy, 261 ;
vuntioHcd, 109, 174
Henry, 241
Shaftesbury, Lord, 98-99
Shaw-Lefevre, Charles, election, 1839,
17, 87, 308-9; and Denison, 35,
36, 52, 54; prorogation, 1854,
38 ; saying of, quoted, 43 ; person-
ality, 66, 313-14, 371 ; .ind the
British Museum, 69 ; Viscount
Evcrslcy, 100,310; portrait, 107;
re-election, 1841, 309-10; an(l
obstruction, 314-15 ; titentioned,
20, 24 vote"^, 306, 358
Sheffield, Sir Robert, 156
Shelbume Administration, 72
Sheridan, Richard Brinsley, 17, 290,
291
Short Parliament, the, 212
Sidmouth, Lord. See Addington,
Henry
.Sidney, Algernon, 253
Skelton, Sir John, 165
Smith, John, 262, 264, 265
Sir Thomas, 172, 173, 17S
W. H., 337, 339
Snagge, Thomas, 188
Somers, Lord Keeper, 260
Somerset, Duke of, 167, 235
South African War, 59
Sovereign, the, and the Veto, 7-8,
243-47 ; presentation of addresses,
34-35 ; prorogation in person, 38-
39 ; the supreme power, 125-26 ;
choice of the Speaker, 173-74;
power to adjourn, 237-40
Speaker, the, tenure of office, 19-26,
89, 90 ; nationality of Speakers,
88, 89; emoluments, etc., 85, 90-
99 ; rank, 86 ; pension, 99-101 ;
the Speaker's leave-taking, iii-
14; the first Speaker, 114-17;
the office created, 119; protesta-
tions, 123-26, 171, 175-76 ; the
practice of "disabling," 127; first
official description ot an election,
168 ; appointment of a citizen,
169 ; nomination of the Court,
169 ; petitions for privileges, 170 ;
appointment under Elizabeth, 173-
75 ; summoned to the Upper
House, 176-77 ; Deputy Speaker,
first appointment, 201, 202 ; the
oflice again in the gift of the King,
233 ; the first contest, 242 ; the
King's Veto, 243-47 ; election to
precede the King's speech, 250-
51 ; mode of election, 258 ; a
partisan office, 263 ; first retiring
pension, 277 ; Earl Spencer's re-
marks, 302
.Speaker's Allowance Bill, 91
Speaker's Gallery, scats, iio-ll
Speaker's House, lOi-il
Speed, John, (/noted, 141
Spencer, E.arl. See Althorp, Lord
Spring- Rice, Thomas, 87-89, 302
Standing (Orders revised, 317
Stanley, H. M., quoted, 49, 50
Star, The, letter published, 341
Stale Trials, 16S3, 252-53
INDEX
387
Steele, Richard, 268
Storey, Samuel, 345
Stourton, William, 138-39
"Strangers," 269
Strangewaies, Sir James, 150-51
Strangeways, Colonel, 236
Strickland, Sir William, 265, 272
Strode, William, and Finch, 209 ; im-
prisonment, 210 ; the raid on the
House, 215-17
Struth, 306
Sturmey. See Esturmey
Sudbury Election petition, 31
Suffolk, Duke of, 146
Sullivan, A. M., 321
Tests Abolition (Oxford) Bill, 75, 76
Thorpe, Thomas, 146-50
Thurlow, Attorney-General, 282
Tierney, Pitt and, 288-89, 311, 312;
on Abbot's speech, 294-95
Times, The, article quoted, ill; speeches
published, 338; Political Notes, 352
Tiptoft, Sir John, 135, 137
Town Planning Bill, 372
Townsend, Thomas, 278
Townshend, Thomas, 283
Towton, Battle of, 150-51
Tramway Bills, 77
Treasureship of the Navy, Onslow's
resignation, 274-75
Tresham, Thomas, 149
William, 142, 145-46
Tressel, Mr., 117
Trevelyan, 332
Trevor, Arthur, 251
Trevor, Sir John, 251 ; expelled for
corruption, 255-57, 259-60
Trinity College, Dublin, fellowships, 76
Tritton, Mr., and the Chair, 343-44
Trotter, Paymaster, 72-73
Trumball, Secretary, 260
Trussel, William, 116
Turnour, Sir Edward, 232-34
Tyrrel, Sir John, 141, 142
Union, Act of, 68, 289
" Unlearned Parliament," the, 134
Ure, Mr., 369-70
Vane, Sir Henry, 213
Vansittart, 292, 293
Vehicles (Lights) Bill, 77
Vernon, Sir Richard, 141
Victoria, tenure of Speakership under,
19 ; address from the Commons,
1858, 35 : prorogation, 38 ; jubi-
lee, 1897, 96; Palmerston's letter
to, 100 ; petition of right presented
by Manners - Sutton, 104 ; first
Parliament, 306 ; and tradition,
327 ; and Peel, 354
Vilonel, Boer general, 59
" Votes and Proceedings," the nightly
record, 85
Vyvyan, Sir R., 48-49
Yelverton, Christopher, 192-94
York, Duke of, 250, 252
York, Duke of, represents Henry VI.,
147 ; and Thorpe, 147-48 ; death,
149
Printed by
Morrison & Gibb Limited
Edinburgh
I,
A SELECTION OF BOOKS
PUBLISHED BY METHUEN
AND CO. LTD., LONDON
36 ESSEX STREET
W.C.
CONTENTS
General Literature ... 2
Ancient Cities .... 13
Antiquary's Books ... 13
Arden Shakespeare ... 14
Classics of Art . . . 14
'Complete' Series . . . 15
Connoisseur's Library . . 15
Handbooks of English Church
History 16
Handbooks of Theology . . 16
' Home Life ' Series ... 16
Illustrated Pocket Library of
Plain and Coloured Books . 16
Leaders of Religion . . 17
Library of Devotion . . 17
Little Books on Art . . 18
Little Galleries ... 18
Little Guides .... iS
Little Library .... 19
Little Quarto Shakespeare
Miniature Library .
New Library of Medicine
New Library of Music .
Oxford Biographies .
Four Plays.
States of Italy .
Westminster Commentaries
'Young' Series .
Shilling Library
Books for Travellers
Some Books on Art.
Some Books on Italy
Fiction
Books for Boys and Girls
Shilling Novels .
Seveupenny Novels .
Metiiuen and Company Limited
Calmnn (W. T.). THE LIFE OF
CRUSTACKA. Illustrated. Cr. Iva. ts.
Carlylo (Thomas). THE FRENCH
REVOLUTION. EditcU by C. R. L.
Fleicher. 'J'/trce Volumes. Cr.Zro. iZs.
THE LETTERS AND SPEECHES OF
OLIVER CROMWELL. With an In-
troduction liy C. H. FiKTH, and Notes
and Appendices by S. C. Lomas. Three
Volutnes. Demy %vo. \%s. net.
Chambers (Mrs. Lambert). LAWN
TENNIS FOR LADIES. Illustrated.
Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. a.r. (.d. net.
Chesser (Elizabeth Sloan). PERFECT
HEALTH FOR WOiMEN AND CHIL-
DREN. Cr. Ivo. y. td. net.
Chesterfield (Lord). THE LETTERS OF
THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD TO
HIS SON. Edited, with an Introduction by
C. Strachey, and Notes by A. Calthrop.
Two Volumes. Cr. Svo. 12s.
Chesterton (G. K.), CHARLES DICKENS.
Witli two Portraits in Photogravure. Eighth
Edition. Cr. 8z/o. 6s.
Also I cap. Zvo. \s. net.
THE BALLAD OF THE WHITE HORSE.
Fourth Edition. Fcap. Zvo. %s.
ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. Seventh
Edition. Fcap. Zvo. 5J.
TRE.MENDOUS TRIFLES. Fifth Edi-
tion. Fcap. %vo. %s.
ALARMS AND DISCURSIONS. Seconal
Edition. Fcap. 'ivo. %s.
A MISCELLANY OF MEN. Second
Edition. Fcap. %vo. %s.
•Clausen (George). ROYAL ACADEMY
LECTURES ON PAINTING. Illustrated.
Cr. Zvo. Si. net.
Conrad (Joseph). THE MIRROR OF
THE SEA: Memories and Impressions.
Fourth Edition. Fcap. Zvo. 5J.
Coolldde (W. A. B.). THE ALPS: IN
NATURE AND HISTORY. Illustrated.
Demy Zvo. ts. bd. net.
Correvon (H.). ALPINE FLORA. Trans-
lated and enlarged by E. W. Clavforth.
Illustrated. Sguare Demy ivo. its. net,
Coulton (0. 0.). CHAUCER AND HIS
ENGLAND. Illustrated. Second Edition.
Demy bvo. loj. 6d. net.
Cowpor (William). POEMS. Edited, with
an Iniruducliun and Notes, by J. C. Haii.EV.
Illustrated. Demy Zvo. lox. bd. ntt.
Cox (J. C). RAMHLES IN SURREY.
Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr.Zi'o. ts.
RAMliLES IN KENT. Illustrated. Cr.
Zvo. ts.
Crawley (A. E.). THE ROOK OF THE
liALL: An Account of What it Does and
Why. Illustrated. Cr. Zvo. y. id. net.
Crowley (H. Ralph). THE HYGIENE
OF SCHOOL LIFE. Illustrated. Cr.
Zvo. y. td. net.
Davis (H. W. C). ENGLAND UNDER
THE NORMANS AND ANGEVINS:
1066-1272. Third Edition.- Demy Zvo.
10s. 6d. net.
Dawbarn (Charles). FRANCE AND
THE FRENCH. Illustrated. DetnyZvo.
10s. td. net.
Dearmer (Mabel). A CHILD'S LIFE OF
CHRIST. Illustrated. LargeCr.Zvo. ts.
Deffand (Madame du). LETTRES DE
LA MARQUISE DU DEFFAND k
HORACE WALPOLE. Edited, with In-
troduction, Notes, and Index, by Mrs.
Paget Toy.vbee. Three Volumes. Demy
Zvo. {,■}, y. net.
Dickinson (G. L.). THE GREEK VIEW
OF LIFE. Eighth Edition. Cr. Zvo.
2s. td. net.
DItchfleld (P. H.). THE OLD-TIME
PARSON. Illustrated. Second Edition.
Demy Zvo. js. td. net.
THE OLD ENGLISH COUNTRY
SQUIRE. Illustrated. Demy »vo. 10*. 6d.
net.
Dowden (J.). FURTHER STUDIES IN
THE PRAYER BOOK. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Driver (S. R.). SERMONS ON SUB-
JECTS CONNECTED WITH THE
OLD TESTAMENT. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Dumas (Alexandre). THE CRIMES OF
THE BORC.IAS AND OTHERS. With
an Introduction by R. S. CJaknett. Illus-
trated. Second Edition. Cr, Zvo. ts.
THE CRIMES OF URBAIN GRAN-
DIER AND OTHERS. Illustrated. Cr.
Zvo. ts.
THE CRIMES OF THE MARQUISE
DE BRINVILLIERS AND OTHERS
Iliustr.ited. Cr. Svo. ts.
THE CRIMES OF ALI P.^VCHA AND
OTHERS. Illustrated. Cr. Zz'O. (s.
MY PETS. Newly tr.insl.Tted by A. R.
Allinson. Illusu.-it:d. Cr. Zvo. ts.
Dunn-Pattlson (R. P.). NAPOLEONS
MARSHALS. Illustrated. Second
Edition. Demy Zvo. 12s. tti. net.
General Literature
THE BLACK PRINCE. Illustrated.
Second Edition. Demy %vo. js. 6d. net.
Durham (The Earl of). THE REPORT
ON CANADA. With an Introductory
Note. Demy ^vo. 4J. td. net.
Elerton (H. E.). A SHORT HISTORY
OF r.RlTISH COLOxMIAL POLICY.
Fourth Edition. Demy Zvo. ys. 6d. tiet.
Evans (Herbert A.). CASTLES OF
ENGLAND AND \VALES. Illustrated.
Demy Zvo. 12s. 6d. net.
Exeter (Bishop of). REGNUM DEI.
(The Pampton Lectures of 1901.) A Cheaper
Edition. Demy Svo. js. 6d. net.
Ewald (Carl). MY LITTLE POY.
Translated by Alexander Teixeira de
Mattos. Illustrated. Fcap. %vo. ^s.
Fairbrother (W. H.). THE PHILO-
SOPHY OF T. H. GRELN. Second
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 3J. 6d.
ffoulkes (Charles). THE ARMOURER
AND HIS CRAFT. Illustrated. Royal
^io. £2 2S. net.
•DECORATIVE IRONWORK. From the
xith to the xviiith Century. Illustrated.
Royal ^lo. £2 2S. net.
Firth (C. H.). CROMWELL'S ARMY.
A History of the English Soldier during the
Civil Wars, the Commonwealth, and the
Protectorate. Illustrated. Second Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Fisher (H. A. L.). THE REPUBLICAN
TRADITION IN EUROPE. Cr. Zvo.
df. net.
FitzGera'd (Edward). THE RUBA'IYAT
OF OMAR KHAVVAM. Printed from
the Fifth anl last Edition. With a Com-
mentary by H. M. Latson, and a Biograph-
ical Introduction by E. D. Ross. Cr. Zvo.
es.
•Also Illustrated by E. J. Sullivan. Cr.
^to. 15^. net.
Flux (A. W.). ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES.
Demy Zvo. ys. 6d. net.
Fraser (E.). THE SOLDIERS WHOM
WELLINGTON LED. Deeds of Daring,
Chivalry, and Renown. Illustrated. Cr.
Svo. $s. net.
•THE SAILORS WHOM NELSON LED.
Their Doings Described by Themselves.
Illustrated. Cr. Zvo. $s. net.
Fraser (J. F.). ROUND THE WORLD
ON A WHKEL. Illustrated. Ei/th
Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s.
Galton (Sir Francis). MEMORIES OF
MY LIFE. Illustrated. Third Ediion.
Demy Szio. 10s. 6d. net.
Gibblns (H. de B.). INDUSTRY IN
ENGLAND: HISTORICAL OUT-
LINES. With Maps and Plans. Eig-hth
Edition. Demy So^j. loj. 6d.
THE INDUSTRIAL HISTORY OF
ENGLAND. With 5 Maps and a Plan.
Twentieth Edition. Cr. Sz'O. ^s.
ENGLISH SOCIAL REFORMERS.
Third Edition. Cr. Zvo. 2s. 6d.
Gibbon (Edward). THE MEMOIRS OF
THE LIFE OF EDWARD GIBBON.
Edited by G. Birkbeck Hill. Cr. Svo. 6s.
THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE
ROMAN EMPIRE. Edited, with Notes,
Appendices, and Maps, by j. B. Bury,
Illustrated. Seven Volumes. Demy Zz'o.
Illustrated. Each los. 6d. net. Also in
Seven Volumes. Cr. ivo. 6s. each.
Glover (T. R.). THE CONFLICT OF
RELIGIONS IN THE EARLY ROMAN
EMPIRE. Fourth Edition. Demy Svo.
js. 6d. net.
VIRGIL. Second Edition. Demy Svo. js.
6d. net.
THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION AND
ITS VERIFICATION. (The Angus Lec-
ture for 1 91 2.) Cr. Svo. 3s. td. net.
Godley (A. D.). LYRA FRIVOLA. Fourth
Edition. E'cap. Svo. 2s. id.
VERSES TO ORDER. Second Editiem.
Fcap. ivo. 2S. 6d.
SECOND STRINGS. Fcap. Svo. 2s. 6d.
Goatling (Frances M.). AUVERGNE
AND ITS PEOPLE. Illustrated. Demy
Sz'O. los. 6J. net.
Gray (Arthur). CAMBRIDGE. Illustrated.
Demy Svo. 10s. 6d. net.
Grahanie (Kenneth). THE WIND IN
THE WILLOWS. Seventh Edition. Cr.
Svo. 6s.
•Also Illustrated. Cr. ^to. 7.T. 6d. net.
Granger (Frank). HISTORICAL SOCI-
OLOGY: A Text-Book of Politics.
Cr. Svo. 3X. 6d. net.
•Gretton (M. Starve). A CORNER OF
THE COTSWOLDS. Illubtrated. Demy
Svo. "js. td. net.
Grew (Edwin Sharpe). THE GROWTH
OF A PLANET. Illustrated. Cr. Svo. 6s
Griffln (W. Kail) and Minchin (H. C).
THE LIFE OF ROliERT BROWNING.
Ilkistralod. Second Edition. Demy £vo
12S. 6d. net.
Metiiuen and Company Limitkd
HaK (K. 0.)- HEALTH THROUGH
DIET. Seconei Edition. Cr.Zvo. y. td.
net.
Hale (J. R.). FAMOUS SEA FIGHTS :
From S\lamis to Tsu-siiima. Illustrated.
Second Edition. Cr. %vo. ts. net.
Hr11(H. R.). THE ANCIENT HISTORY
OF THic ni:ar east from the
EARLIEST TIMES TO THE HATTLE
OF SALAMIS Illustrated. Secimd Edi-
tion. Detny %vo. 15^. ntt.
Hannay (D.). A SHORT HISTORY OF
THE ROYAL NAVY. Vol. I., 1217-1688.
Vol. II., 1639-1815. Dtmy Zt'O. Each
•js. 6d.
Hare (B.), THE GOLFING SWING
SIMPLII'IED AND ITS MECHANISM
CORRECTLY EXPLAINED. Third
Edit.\>n. Ecn/>. 8»c. is. mt.
Harper (Charles Q.). THE AUTOCAR
ROAD -HOOK. With M.^ps. Four
Volumes. Cr. Zvo. Each ys. 6d. net.
Vol. L— South of the Thames.
Vol. II. — North and South Wales
AND West Midlands.
Vol. III. — East Anglia and East Mid-
lands.
•Vol. IV.— The North of England and
South of Scotland.
Harris (Frank), THE WOMEN OF
SHAKESPEARE. Veiny tvo. js.(^.net.
Hassan (Arthur). THE LIFE OF
NAPOLEON. Illustrated. Demy Zvo.
•js. td. net.
H»adley (P. W.). DARWINISM AND
MODERN SOCIALIS.M. Second Edition.
Cr. %vo. IS. net.
Henderson (M. Sturge). GEORGE
MEREDITH: NOVLLIST, POET,
RL10R.\II;R. Willi a Portrait. Second
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Henley (W. E.). ENGLISH LYRICS:
CHAUCER TO POE. Second Edition.
Cr. &V0. 3S. 6d. net.
Hill (George Francis). ONE HUNIiRED
MASTERPIECES OF SCULPTURE.
Uluiitralcd. Demy Zvo. los. td. net.
Hlnd(C. Lewis). DAYS IN CORNWALL.
Illustrated. J hird Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Hobhoase (L. T.). THE THEORY OF
KNOWLEDGE. Demy Zvo. ios.6d.net.
Hobson (J. A.). INTERNATIONAL
TRADE: An .Arn.iCATioN of Economic
Theory. Cr. Zvo. it. 6d. ntt.
PROBLEMS OF POVERTY: An Inquiry
INTO TIIK InDUSTMAL CONDITION OP IHK
Poor. E.it:hth E.iition. Cr. Zvo. 2.. f^d.
THE PROBLEM OF THE UN-
EMPLOYED: An Inquiry and an
Economic Policy. Fifth Edition. Cr.Zva.
aj. 6d.
GOLD, PRICES .AND WAGES : With an
Examination of the Quantitv Theouv.
Second fidi/ioi. Cr. 8rv. y. 6./. net.
Hodgson (Mrs. W.). HOW TO IDENTIFY
OLD CHINESE PORCELAIN. Illus-
trated. Third Edition. Post Zvo. 6j.
Holdich (Sir T. H.). THE INDIAN
BORDERLAND, 1880-1900. Illustraied.
Second Edition. Demy Zvo. tos. td. net.
Holdsworth (W. B.), A HISTORY OF
ENfW.LSH LAW. Four Volumes.
Vols. /., //., ///. Demy Zvo. Each los. 6,1.
net.
Holland (Cllve). TYROL AND ITS
PEOPLE. Illustrated. Demy Zvo. 10s. 6d.
net.
Horsbnrgh (E. L. S.). WATERLOO: A
Nakhativf. ANt> a Ckmticism. With Plans.
Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 55.
THE LIFE OF S.WONAROLA. Illus-
trated. Cr. Zvo. 5i. mt.
Hasle (Alexander). MANCHURIA. IlUn-
Iratcd. Second Edition. Demy Zvo. 7J. 6.7'.
net.
•llowell (A. O. Ferrers). ST. BERNARD-
INO OK SIENA, llhistr.ited. DcrnyZA-o.
\os. 6ti. net.
Hudson (W. H.). A SHEPHERDS
LII'E : Impressions of the South Wilt-
SHlKE Downs. Illi^straleu. 1 hird Edi-
tion. Detny Zvo. js. td. net.
Humphreys (John H.). PROPORTIONAL
REPRi:SLNT.\TION. Cr. Zvo. y. net.
Hntton (Edward). THE CITIES OF
SPAIN. Illustrated. Fourth Edition.
Cr. Zz'O. 6s.
THE CITIES OF UMBRIA. Illustrated.
Fifth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE CITIF.S OF LOMBARDY. Illus-
trated. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
•THE CITII'S OF ROMAGNA AND THE
MARCHES. Illu>trated. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
FLORENCE AND NORTHERN TUS-
CANY WITH GENOA. Illustr.-.tcil.
Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
SIENA AND SOUTHERN TUSCANY
Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. Cs.
General Literature
VENICE AND VENETIA. Illustrated.
Cr. 8t/*. 6j.
liO.ME. Illustrated. Third Edition. Cr.
COUNTRY WALKS ABOUT FLORENCE.
Illustrated. Second Edition. FcaJ>. Zvo.
SS. mt.
A BOOK OF THE WYE. Illustrated.
Dtmy Zvo. ^s. (>d. net.
Ibsen (Henrik). BRAND. A Dramatic
Poem, translated by William Wilson.
Fourth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 3J. (>d.
Inge(W.B.)- CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM.
(The Bampton Lectures of 1899.) Third
Edition, Cr. Zvo. %s. net.
Innes (A. D.). A HISTORY OF THE
BRIIISH IN INDI.A. With Maps and
Plans. Cr. Zvo. ts.
ENGLAND UNDER THE TUDORS.
With Maps. Fonrth Edition. Demy Zvo.
■LOS. 6d. net.
Innes (Mary). SCHOOLS OF PAINT-
ING. Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr.
Zvo. 5J. net.
Jenks (E.). AN OUTLINE OF ENG-
LISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Secona
Edition. Revised by R. C. K. Ensor Cr.
Zvo. IS. 6d. net.
A SHORT HISTORY OF ENGLISH
LAW: From the Earliest Times to
THE End of the Year 1911. Demy Zvo,
los. 6d. net.
Jernin^ham (Charles Edv/ard). THE
MAXIMS OF MARMADUKE. Second
Edition. Fcap. Zvo. ^s.
JeYons (F. B.). PERSONALITY. Cr.
Zvo. is. id. net.
Johnston (Sir H. H.). BRITISH CEN-
TRAL AFRICA. Illustrated. Third
Edition. Cr. ^to. i8j. net.
THE NEGRO IN THE NEW WORLD.
Illustrated. Demy Zvo. ■i\s. net.
Julian (Lady) of Norwich. REVELA-
TIONS Ol'' DIVINE LOVE. Edited by
Grace Waurack. Fourth Edition. Cr.
Zvo. y. td.
Keat3(John). POEMS. Edited, ^^•ith Intro-
duction and Notes, by E. de Selincourt.
With a Frontispiece in Photogravure.
Third Edition. Demy Zvo. -js. 6d. net.
Keble(Jchn). THE CHRISTIAN YEAR.
With an Introduction and Notes by W.
Lock. Illustrated. Third Edition. Fcap.
Zvo, 3J. td.
Kempis (Thomas &). THE IMITATION
OF CHRIST. From the Latin, with an
Introduction by Dean Farrar. Illustrated
Fourth Edition. Fcap. Zvo. ^s. dd.
'•THOMAE HEMERKEN A KEMPIS DE
IMITATIONE CHRISTl. Edited by
Adrian Fortescue. Cr. ^to. £t \s. net.
Kipling (Rudyard). BARRACK-ROOM
BALLADS. iig/'/i Thousand. Thirty-
sixth Edition. Cr. Zvo. Buckram, 6s.
Also Fcap. Zvo. Cloth, ^s. 6d. net ; leather,
Ss. net.
THE SEVEN SEAS. 99^/; Thousand.
Twenty-third Edition. Cr. Zvo. Buck-
ram, ris. Also Fcap. Zvo. Cloth, ^s. td.
net ; leather, 5^. net.
THE FIVE NATIONS. Z2nd Thousand-
Thirteenth Edition. Cr. Zvo. Buckram, ts.
A Iso Fcap. Zvo, Cloth, 4J. td. net ; leather,
5J. net.
DEPARTMENTAL DITTIES. Twenty-
Fourth Edition. Cr. Zvo. Biickratn, ts.
Also Fcap. Zvo. Cloth, ^s. td. net ; leather,
SJ. net.
Lamb (Charles and Mary). THE COM-
PLETE WORKS. Edited, with an Intro-
duction and Notes, by E. V. Lucas. A
New and Revised Edition in Six Volumes.
IVith Frontispiece. Fcap, Zvo. 5s. each.
The volumes are : —
I. Miscellaneous Prose, ii. Elia and
the Last Essays of Elia. hi. Books
FOR Children, iv. Plays and Poems.
V. and VI. Letters.
Lane-Poole (Stanley). A HISTORY OF
EGYPT IN THE MIDDLE AGES.
Illustrated. Cr. Svo. 6s.
Lankester (Sir Ray). SCIENCE FROM
AN EASY CHAIR. Illustrated. Seventh
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s,
Lee (Gerald Stanley). INSPIRED MIL-
LIONAIRES. Cr. Zvo. y. 6d. net.
CROWDS : A Study of the Genius of
Democracy, and of the Fears, Desires,
and Expectations of the People. Cr.
Zz'o. ts.
Lock (Walter). ST. PAUL, THE
MASTER BUILDER. Third Edition.
Cr. Zvo. y. td.
THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIAN LIFE.
Cr. Zvo. ts.
Lodge (Sir OliYer). THE SUBSTANCE
OK FAITH, ALLIED WITH SCIENCE :
A Catechism for Parents and Teachers
Eleventh Edition. Cr. Zz'o. is. net.
MAN AND THE UNIVERSE: A Study
OF THE Influence of the Advance in
Scientific Knowledge upon our Under-
standing of Christianity. Ninth
Edition. Demy Zvo. 51. net.
Also Fcap. Zvo, is, net.
8
Methuen and Company Limited
Illus-
6s.
Illus-
Cr.
THE SURVIVAL OF MAN : A Studv tn
Unrecogn'ised Human Faculty. A>/M
Edition, li'iiie Cr. Spo. 5/. «/•/.
REASON AND BELIEF. J-i/th Edition.
Cr. 8r'0. 3X. M. net.
MODERN PROBLEMS. Cr.^vo. ^.net.
Loreburn (Earn. CAPTURE AT SEA.
Cr. 8r'o. ax. ta. net.
Lorlmer (George Horace). LETTERS
FROM A SELF-MADE MERCHANT
TO HIS SON. Illustr-ited. Twenty-
fourth Edition. Cr. 6vo. y. 6d.
Also Fcap. Br'c. \s. net.
OLD GORGON GRAHAM. Illustrate,!.
Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. Also Cr.
Zvo. at net.
Lucas (E. Y.). THE LIFE OF CHARLES
LAMB. Illustrated. Fiftli Edition. Dewy
&V0. js. (d. net.
A WANDERER IN HOLLAND.
trated. Fifteenth Edition. Cr. Zvo.
A WANDERER IN LONDON.
trated. Fifteenth Edition, Revised.
8ri>. 6s.
A WANDERER IN PARIS. Illustrated.
Eleventh Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. Also
Fcap. Zvo. 5.f.
A WANDERER IN FLORENCE. Illus-
trated. Fourth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE OPEN ROAD : A Little Book for
Wayfarers. Twenty-second Edition.
Fcap. Zvo. 5J. India Paper, ys. 6d.
Also Illustrat'-d. Cr. ^to. i$s. net.
THE FRIENDLY TOWN : A Little Book
FOR THE Urbane. Seventh Edition. Fcap.
Zvo. ^s.
FIRESIDE AND SUNSHINE. Seventh
Edition. Fcap 8fO. jx.
CHARACTER AND COMEDY. Sixth
Edition. Fcnfi. Zoo. $s.
THE GENTLEST ART: A Choice op
Letters by Entertaining Hands.
Seventh Edition. Fcap. Zvo. 5s.
THE SECOND POST. Third Edition.
Fcap. Zvo. 5j.
HER INFINITE VARIETY: A Feminine
Portrait Gallery. Sixth Edition. Fcap.
Zvo. 5f.
GOOD COMPANY: A Rally of Men.
Second Edition. Fcap. Zvo. 51.
ONE DAY AND ANOTHER. Fifth
Edition. Fcap. Zvo. ^s.
OLD LA.MPS FOR NEW. Fourth Edition.
Fcap. Zvo. 5J.
•LOITERILR'S HARVEST. Fcap. Zvo.
L^S
rSTENER'S LURE : An Obi iqil N.mcka-
tion. Tenth Edition. Fcap. Zvo. is.
OVER BEMEKION'S: An Easv-Going
Chkoniclk. Elet'fftth Edition. Fcap.
Zvo, it.
MR. INGLESIDE. 7enth Edition. Fcap.
Zvo. 5J.
•LONDON LAVENDER. Fcap. Zvo. sj.
THE BRITISH SCHOOL : An Anecdotal
Guide to the British Painikrs and
Paintings in the National Gallery.
Fcap. Zvo. IS. 6d. net.
HARVEST HOME. Fcafi. Zvo. it.net.
A LITTLE OF EVERYTHING. Third
Edition. Fcap. Zno. is. net.
See also Lanib (Cliarles).
Lydekker (R.). THE OX AND ITS
KINDRED. Illustrated. Cr. Zvc. 6s.
Lydekker (B.) and Others. REPTILES,
AMPHIBIA, FISHES, AND LOWER
CHORDATA. Edited by J. C. Cunning-
ham. Illustrated. Demy Zvo. 10s. 6d. net.
Macaulay (Lord). CRITICAL AND
HISTORICAL ESSAYS. Edited by F.
C. Montague. Three Voluines. Cr. Zvo.
i8x.
McCabe (Joseph). THE EMPRESSES OF
ROME. Illustrated. Demy Zvo. 12s. Cd.
net.
THE EMPRESSES OF CONSTANTI-
NOPLE. Illustrated. Demy Zvo. 10s. 6d.
net.
MacCarthy (Desmond) and Russell
(Agatha). LADV JOHN RUSSELL: A
Memoir. Illustrate!. Fourth Edition.
Demy Zvo. xos. 6d. net.
McDougall (William). AN INTRODUC-
TION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY.
Sczwnth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 5s. net.
BODY AND MIND: A History and a
Defencf. of Animism. Second Edition.
Demy Zz'o. ics. 6d. net.
Maeterlinck (Maurice). THE BLUE
BIRD: A Faii;v Play in Six Acts.
Translated by Alexander Tfixeira de
Mattos. Fcap. 8.-0. Deckle Ed^es. %<t. td.
net. Also Fccif. Zvo. is. net. An Edition,
illustrated in colour by F. Cavi.ey Robin-
son, is also published. Cr. ^to. 2ij. net.
Of the above book Thirty-three Editions in
all have been issued.
MARY MAGDALENE: A Play in Three
Acts. Translated by Alexander Tfixeira
DE Mattos. Third Edition. Heap. Zvo.
Deckle Edges. y.6d.nct. Also Fcap. Zvo.
\s. net.
•OUR ETERNITY. Tr.inslated by Alex-
ANDKR Teixeira de Mattos. Fcap. Zvo.
5x. net.
•Maeterlinck (Mme. M.) (Georgette
Leblanc). THE CHILDREN'S BLUE-
BIRD. Translated by Alexander
T1.IXEIRA de Mattos. Illustrated. Fcap
Zvo. 5J. net.
General Literature
Mahaffy (J. P.). A HISTORY OF EGYPT
UNDER THE PTOLEMAIC DYNASTY.
Illustrated. Cr. %vb. ts.
Maitland (F. W.). ROMAN CANON LAW
IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
Royal Zvo. ys. 6ti,
Marett m. R,). THE THRESHOLD OF
RELIGION. A'cw and Revised Edition.
Cr. Zz<o. 5^. tut.
Marriott (Charles). A SPANISH HOLI-
DAY. Illustrated. Demy Zvo. -js. 6d. net.
THE ROMANCE OF THE RHINE.
Illustrated. Demy Zz'o. los. 6d. tiet.
Marriott (J. A. R.). ENGLAND SINCE
WATERLOO. With Maps. Deiny Zvj.
los. 6d. net.
SEA LIFE IN NEL-
lUustrated. Cr. Zvo.
Hasefleld (John).
SON'S TIME.
3^-. td. net.
A S.\ILOR'S GARLAND. Selected and
Edited. Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 3J. 6d.
net.
Masterman (C. F. G.). TENNYSON
AS A RELIGIOUS TEACHER. Second
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE CONDITION OF ENGLAND.
Fourth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. Also Fcap.
Zvo. IS net.
Also Fcap. Zvo. \s. net.
Mayne (Ethel Colburn). BYRON. Illus-
trated. Two Volumes. Demy Zvo. 21s. net.
Medley (D. J.). ORIGINAL ILLUSTRA-
TIONS OF ENGLISH CONSTITU-
TIONAL HISTORY. Cr.Zvo. ys.6d.net.
Methuen (A. M. S.). ENGLAND'S RUIN :
Discussed in Fourteen Letters to a
Protectionist. Ninth Edition. Cr. Zvo.
■^d. net.
Miles (Eustace). LIFE AFTER LIFE;
or, The Theory of Reincarnation.
Cr. Zvo. zs. 6d. net.
THE POWER OF CONCENTRATION:
How to Acquire it. Fourth Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 3J. 6d. net.
Millals (J. G.). THE LIFE AND LET-
TERS OF SIR JOHN EVERETT
MILL.\IS. Illustrated. JVew Edition.
Demy Zvo. ys. 6d. net.
Milne (J. G.). A HISTORY OF EGYPT
UNDER ROMAN RULE. Illustrated.
Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Mitchell (P.Chalmers). THOMAS HENRY
HUXLEY. Fca/: Zvo. is. net.
Moffat (Mary M.). QUEEN LOUISA OF
PRUSSIA. Illustrated. Fourth Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
MARIA THERESA. Illustrated. Demy
Zvo. 10s. 6d. net.
Money (L. G. Chiozza). RICHES AND
POVERTY. Nezu and Revised Issue.
Cr. Z7I0. IS. net.
MONEYS FISCAL DICTIONARY, 1910.
Second Edition. Demy Zvo. ^s. net,
THINGS THAT MATTER: Papers on
Subjects which are, ok ought to be,
under Discussion. Demy Zvo. ^s. net.
Montague (C. E.). DRAMATIC VALUES.
Second Edition. Fcap. Zvo. ^s.
Moorhouse (E. Hallam). NELSON'S
LADY HAMILTON. Illustrated. Third
Edition. Demy Zzio. ys. 6d. net.
Morgan (C. Lloyd). INSTINCT AND
EXPERIENCE. Second Edition. Cr. Zvo.
$s. net.
Nevill (Lady Dorothy). MY OWN
TIMES. Edited by her Son. Second Edi-
tion. Demy Zvo. \$s. net.
O'Donnell (Elliot). WERWOLVES. Cr.
Z2'o. 5j. net.
Oman (C. VI. C.). A HISTORY OF THE
ART OF WAR IN THE MIDDLE
AGES. Illustrated. Demy Zvo. loj. 6d.
net.
ENGLAND BEFORE THE NORMAN
CONQUEST. With Maps. Third Edi-
tion, Revised. Demy Zvo. 10s. 6d. net.
Oxford (M. N.). A HANDBOOK OF
NURSING. Sixth Edition, Revised.
Cr. Zvo. 3j. 6d. net.
Fakes (W. C. C). THE SCIENCE OF
HYGIENE. Illustrated. Secotid and
Cheaper Edition. Revised by A. T.
Nankivei.l. Cr. Zvo. c,s. tut.
Parker (Eric). A BOOK OF THE
ZOO. Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr.
Zvo. 6s.
Pears (Sir Edwin). TURKEY AND ITS
PEOPLE. Second Edition^ Demy Zvo.
12s. 6d. net.
Petrie (W. M. Flinders.) A HISTORY
OF EGYPT. Illustrated. Si.v Volumes.
Cr. Zvo. 6s. each.
Vol. I. From the 1st to the XVIth
Dynasty. Seventh Edition.
Vol. II. The XVIIth and XVIIIth
Dynasties. Fifth Edition.
Vol. III. XIXth to XXXth Dynasties.
Vol. IV. Egypt under the Ptolemaic
Dynasty. J. P. Mahaffv.
Vol V. Egypt under Roman Rule, J. G
Milne. Second Edition .
Vol. VI. Egypt in the Middle .\ges.
Stanley Lane-Poole.
10
MtTHUEN AND COMPANY LIMITED
RELIGION AND CONSCIENCE IN
ANCIIiNT EGYPT. Illustrated. Cr.iv^.
as. 6</.
SYRIA AND EGYPT, FROM THE TELL
EL AMARNA LETTERS. Cr. 6vo.
as. dti.
EGYPTIAN TALES. Translated from the
Papyri. First Series, ivih lo xiilh Dynasty.
Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. Zvo.
y. dd.
EGYPTIAN TALES. Translated from the
Papyri. Second Series, xvillth to xixlh
Dynasty. Illustrated. Second Ed.tion.
Cr. %v». %s. td.
EGYPTIAN DECORATIVE ART. Illus-
trated. Cr. Zvo y. dd.
Pollard (Alfred W.). SHAKESPEARE
FOLIOS AND QUARIOS. A Study m
the IJihliography of Shakespeare's Plays,
1594-1685. Illustrated. J-olio. £1 u. net.
Porter (0. F.). THE PROGRESS OF
THE N.VTION. A New Edition. Edited
by F. \V. Hirst. Dcnij' Zva. £1 is. net.
Powpr (J. O'Connor). THE MAKING OF
AN ORATOR. Cr. %vo. 6s.
Price (L. L.). A SHORT HISTORY OF
POLITICAL ECONOMY IN ENGLAND
FROM ADAM SMITH TO ARNOLD
TOYNBEE. Sevent/t Edition. Cr. Zvo,
IS. 6d.
Pycraft (W. P.). A HISTORY OF BIRDS.
lUuslrated. Demy Zvo. 10s. td. net.
RawUngs (Gertrude B.). COINS AND
HOW TO KNOW THEM. Illustrated.
Third Edition. Cr. Zvo. ts.
Rotfan (C. Talt). THE FRESHWATER
FISHES OF THE BRITISH ISLES.
Illustrated. Cr. Zvo. ts.
Reld (Archdall). THE LAWS OF HERE-
DITY. Second Edition. Dciiiy &vo.
£1 IS. net.
Robertson (C. Grant). SELECT STAT-
Uri.S, CASES, AND DOCUMENTS,
1 660- 1 83 J. .Sect>nd, Revised and Enlarged
Edition. Demy ivo. 10s. td. net.
ENGLAND UNDER THE HANOVER-
IANS. Illustrated. Second Edition. Demy
6vo. iM. td. net.
Roe (Fred). OLD OAK FURNITURE.
llUisU.ncd. Second Edition. Demy 8iu.
lot. td net.
•RoUe (Richard). THE FIRE OF LOVE
and THE MENDING OF LIFE.
Edited by Frances M. Compkb. Cr. 6vo.
31. td. net.
Ryan (P. F. W.). STUART LIFE AND
M.\NNI:RS: a Social History. Illus-
trated. Demy Zvo. los. tti. net.
•Ryley (A. Beresford). OLD P.VSTE.
Illustrated. KoyalZvo. £i 7S. net.
St. FranclB of AssisL THE LITTLE
FLOWERS OK THE GLORIOUS
MESSER, AND OF HIS FRIARS.
Done into En'^Mish, with Notes 1iy Wii.i.lAM
Heywood. Illustrated. DemyZvo. ^s.net.
•Baki' (H. H. Munro). REGINALD.
Third Edition. Fcafi, Zvo. zs. td. net.
REGINALD IN RUSSIA. Fca^. Zvo.
2S. td. net.
Sandeman (G. A. C). METTERNICH.
Illustrated. Demy Zi>o. 10s. td. net.
Schldrowltz (Philip). RUBBER. Illus-
trated. Demy Zvo. los. td. net.
SchlocBser (H. H.). TRADE UNIONISM.
Cr. Bvo. 2S. td.
Belous (Edmund). TOMMY SMITHS
ANIMALS. Illustrated. Twelfth Edi-
tion. Fcnf>. Zvo. as. td.
TOMMY SMITHS OTHER ANIMALS.
Illustrated. Si.tth Edition. Fcap. Siv.
as. td.
JACK'S INSECTS. Illustrated. Cr.%vo. ts.
Shakespeare (William).
THE FOUR FOLIOS, 1623; 1632; 1664 ;
1685. Each £i, 4*. tut, or a complete set,
£\a las. net.
THE POEMS OF WILLIAM SHAKE-
SPE.'VRE. With an Introduction and Notes
by George WvNDHAM. DemyZvo. Buck-
ram, 10s. td.
Shaw (Stanley). WILLIAM OF GER-
MANY. DcmyZvo. js. t<i. net.
Shelley (Percy Bys«he). POEMS. With
an Introduction Ly A. Clution-Ukock and
notes by C. D. LococK. Two I'olumes.
Demy Zvo. £t is. net.
Smith (Adam). THE WEALTH OF
NATIONS. Edited by Edwin Cannan.
Two I'olumes. DemyZvo. £\ ix. net.
Smith (G. F. Herbert). GEM-STONES
AND THEIR DISTINCTIVE CHARAC-
TERS. Illustrated. Secomi Edition. Cr,
St'c. ts.net.
General Literature
II
Snell (F. J.). A BOOK OF EXMOOR.
Illustrated. Cr. Sz'C. 6s.
THE CUSTOMS OF OLD ENGLAND.
lUustiated. Cr. iva. 6s.
' StRncllffe.' GOLF DOS AND DONTS.
/■'(/fh Edition. Fcap. Zvo. \s. net.
Stevenson (S. L.t. THE LETTERS OF
ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON. Edited
by Sir Sidney Colvin. A Neiv and En-
larged Edition in four volumes. Fouri/i
Edition. Ecap. ivo. Each ^s. Leather,
each. ^s. net.
Storr (Vernon F.). DEVELOPMENT
AND DIVINE PURPOSE. Cr. i-jo. $s.
net.
Streatfeild (P. A.). MODERN MUSIC
AND MUSICIANS. Illustrated. Second
Edition. Demy Zvo. js. 6d. net.
Surtees (R. S.). HANDLEY CROSS.
Illustrated. Fcap. Zvo. Gilt top. ^s. 6d.
net.
MR. SPONGE'S SPORTING TOUR.
Illustrated. Fca/. Zvo. Gilt top. 3J. dd.
net.
ASK MAMMA; or, THE RICHEST
COMMONER IN ENGLAND. Illus-
trated. Fcap. Zvo. Gilt top. 3J. dd. r^t.
JORROCKSS JAUNTS AND JOLLI-
TIES. Illustrated. Foioih Edition. Fcap.
Zvo. Gilt top. y. td. net.
MR. FACEY ROMFORD'S HOUNDS.
Illustrated. Fcap. Zvo. Gilt top. y. dd.
net.
HAWBUCK GRANGE; OR, THE SPORT-
ING ADVENTURES OF THOMAS
SCOTT, Esq. Illustrated. Fcap. Zvo.
Gilt top. y. dd. net,
*Suso (Henry). THE LIFE OF THE
BLESSED HENRY SUSO. By Himself.
Translated by T. F. Kno.x. With an Intro-
duction by Dean Inge. Cr. Zvo. 3^. 6d.
net.
Swanton (E. W.). FUNGI AND HOW
TO KNOW THEM. Illustrated. Cr. Zvo.
6s. net.
BRITISH PL.ANT - GALLS. Cr. Zvo.
JS. 6d. net.
Symes (J. E.). THE FRENCH REVO-
LUTION. Second Edition. Cr.Zvo. 2s.6d.
Tabor (Margaret E,). THE SAINTS IN
ART. Wiih their Attributes and Symbols
Alphabetically Arranged. Illustrated.
Third Edition. Fcap. Zvo. y. td. net.
Taylor (ft. B.). ELEMENTS OF META-
PHYSICS. Second Edition. Demy Zvo.
\as. 6d. net.
Taylor (Mrs. Basil) (Harriet Osgood).
JAPANESE GARDENS. Illustrated.
Cr. ^ti>. jCi is. net.
Thlbaudeau (A. C). BONAPARTE AND
THE CONSULATE. Tr.-»iislaicd and
Edited by G. K. Fortescue. Illustrated.
Demy Zvo. 10s. 6d. net.
Thomas (Edward). M.'VURICE MAE-
TERLINCK. Illustrated. Second Edition.
Cr. Zvo. ss. net.
Thompson (Francis). SELECTED
POEMS OF FRANCIS THOMPSON.
With a Biographical Note by Wilfrid
Meynell. With a Portrait in Photogravure
Tu-entieth Thousand. Fcap. Zvo. ^s. net.
Tllestoa (Mary W.). DAILY STRENGTH
FOR DAILY NEEDS. Tiveniieth Edi-
tion. Medium i6»io. zs. td. net. Also an
edition in superior binding, 6s.
THE STRONGHOLD OF HOPE.
Medium 161110. zs. 6d. net.
Toynbes (Paget). DANTE ALIGHIERI.
His Life and Works. With 16 Illustra-
tions. Fourth and Etilarged Edition. Cr.
Zvo. y. net.
Trevelyan (G. M.). ENGLAND UNDER
THE STUARTS. With Maps and Plans.
Fi/th Edition. Demy Zvo. 10s. 6d. net.
Triggs (H. Inigo). TOWN PLANNING :
Past, Present, and Possible. Illustra-
ted. Second Edition. Wide Ro}'al Zvo.
xy. net.
Turner (Sir Alfred E.). SIXTY YEARS
OF A SOLDIER'S LIFE. De7ny Zvo.
\2s. 6d. net.
Underbill (Evelyn). MYSTICISM. A
Study in the Nature and Development of
Man's Spiritual Consciousness. Fourth
Edition. Demy Zz'O. 15J. net.
Urwlck (E. J.). A PHILOSOPHY OF
SOCIAL PROGRESS. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Yardon (Harry). HOW TO PLAY GOLF.
Illustrated. Fi/ih Edition. Cr. Zvo. 2J. 6<i.
net.
Yernon (Hon. W. Warren). READINGS
ON THE INFERNO OF DANTE. With
an Introduction by the Rev. Dr. Moore.
Two Volumes. Second Edition. Cr. Zvo.
15J. net.
READINGS ON THE PURGATORIO
OF DANTE. With an Introduction by
the late Dean Chi'kch. y'lwo Volumes.
Third Edition. Cr.Zvo. 15s.net.
12
Methuen and Company Limited
READINGS ON THE PAKADISO OF
1»AXTE. With an Introduction by the
Hisiior OF RiriiN. Two Volumes, itecond
EiiilioH. Cr. Zvo. \^s. net.
YloUera (Kenneth H.). ENGLAND IN
THK LAIKR MIDDLE AGES. Willi
Maps. Demy %vo. lor. W. net.
Wado (Q. W. and J. H.). RAMHLES IN
SOMERSET. Illustrated. Cr. Zvo. 6j.
Waddell (L. A.). LHASA AND ITS
MY.STERIES. With a Record of the Ex-
pedition of 1903-1904. Illustrated. Third
and Chca/>er Edilion. Medium Zvo. ^s. td.
net.
Wagner (Richard). RICHARD WAG-
NEKS MUSIC DRAMAS. Interpreta-
tions, embodying W.igncr's own explana-
tions. By Al.lCB LKKiHTON Cl-EATHER
and HasilCkump. Fcap.Zvo. is. dd. each.
The Ring of the Nibelung.
Fifth Edition.
Lohengrin and Parsifal.
Second Edition, rewritten and enlarged.
Tkistan and Isolde.
Tannhauser and the Masthrsingers
OF Nuremdurg.
Waterhouse (Elizabeth). WITH THE
SIMPLE-HKAKTED. Little Homilies to
Women in Country Places. Third Edition.
Small l^ott Zvo. is. net.
THE HOUSE BY THE CHERRY TREE.
A Second Series of Little Homilies to
Women in Country Places. Small t'ott Zvo.
2J. nel
COMPANIONS OF THE WAY. Being
Selections for Morning and Evening Read-
ing. Chosen and arranged by Elizabeth
Watp.khouse. Large Cr. Zvo. ^s. net.
THOUGHTS OF A TERTIARY. Small
I'ott Zvo. xs. net.
VERSES. A New Edition. Fcaf>. Zvo. as.
net.
Waters (W. Q.). ITALIAN SCULPTORS.
Illustrated. Cr. Zvo. js. 6d. net.
Watt (Francis). EDINBURGH AND
THE LOTHIANS. Illustrated. Second
Edition. Cr. Zvo. loi. i>d. net.
•R. L. S. Cr. Zvo. ds.
Wedmoro (Sir Frederick). MEMORIES.
Secoml Edilion. Demy Zvo. ys. dd. net.
Wolgall (Arthur E. P.). A GUIDE TO
'iHK ANTK^UITILS OF UPPER
EtiYPT: Kkom Aiivdos to the Sudan
Frontier. Illustrated. Stcond Edition.
Cr. Zvo. JS. 6d. net.
Wells (J.). OXFORD AND OXFORD
LIFE. Third Edition. Cr. Zvo. 3^.6*/.
A SHORT HISTORY OF ROME. Tiiel/th
Edition. With 3 Maps. Cr. Zvo. 3s. td.
Whittcn (Wilfred). A LONDONER'S
LONDON. Illustrated. Second Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Wilde (Oscar). THE WORKS OF OSCAR
WILDE. T~,velv£ I'olumes. Fcap. Zvo.
5i. tiet each volume.
I. Lord Arthur Savii.e's Crime and
the Portrait of Mr. W. H. 11. The
Duchess of Padua. hi. Poems. iv.
Lady Windermere's Fan. v. A Woman
OF No Imi'ortance. vi. An Ideal Hus-
band. VII. The Importance of being
Earnest. viii. A House of Pome-
granates. IX. Intentions, x. De Pro-
fundis and Prison Lktters. xi. Essays.
XII. Salome, A Florentine Tragedy,
and La Sainte Courtisane.
Williams (H.Noel). A ROSE OF SAVOY:
Makie Adelaide of Savoy, Duchesse de
Bourgogne, Mother of Louis xv. Illus-
trated. Second Edition. Demy Zvo. \y.
net.
THE FASCINATING DUC DE RICHE-
LIEU : Louis Fkan(;ois Akmanh du
Plessis (1696-1788). Illustrated. Demy Zvo.
1 5 J. net.
A PRINCESS OF ADVENTURE: Marie
Caroline, Duchesse de Berry (1798-
1870). Illustrated. Demy Zvo. iss. net.
THE LOVE AFFAIRS OK THE
CON D its (1530-1740). Illustrated. Demy
Zvo. iss. net.
•Wilson (Ernest H.). A NATURALIST IN
WESTERN CHINA. Illustrated. Demy
Zvo. jCi xos. net.
Wood (Sir Evelyn). FROM MIDSHIP-
MAN TO FIELD-MARSHAL. Illus-
trated. Fifth Edition. Devty Zvo. js. 6d.
net.
Also Fcap. Z7J0. is. net.
THE REVOLT IN HINDUSTAN (1857-
59). Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr.Zvo.
6s.
Wood (W. Birkbeck) and Edmonds (Col.
J. E.). A HISTORY OK THE CIVIL
WAR IN THE UNITED STATES
(1861-65). With an Introduction by Spenser
Wilkinson. With 14 Maps and Plans.
Third Edition. Demy Zvo. i M. td. net.
Wordsworth (W.). POEMS. With an
Iiilroduction and Notes by Nowell C.
.Smith. Three Volumes. Demy Zvo. i^s.
net.
Yeati (W. B.). A BOOK OF IRISH
VERSE. Third Edition. Cr.Zvo. 3s. M.
General Literature
13
Part II. — A Selection of Series
Ancient Cities
General Editor, Sir B. C. A. WINDLE
Cr. ?ivo. 45. 6d. net each volume
With Illustrations by E. H. New, and other Artists
Bristol. Alfred Har\ey.
Caxterburv. J. C. Cox.
Chester. Sir B. C. A. Windle.
Dublin. S. A. O. Fitzpatvick.
Edinburgh. M. G. Williamson.
Lincoln. E. Mansel Sympson.
Shrewsbury. T. Auden.
I Wells and Glastonbury. T. S. Holmes,
The Antiquary's Books
General Editor, J. CHARLES COX
Demy Svo. "js, 6d. net each volume
With Numerous Illustrations
'Ancient Painted Glass in England.
Philip Nelson.
Archeology and False Antiquities.
R. Munro.
Bells of England, The. Canon J. J.
Raven. Second Edition.
Brasses of England, The. Herbert W.
Macklin. Third Edition.
Celtic Art in Pagan and Christian
Times. J. Romilly Allen. Second Edition.
Castles and Walled Towns of England,
The, a. Harvey.
Churchwarden's Accounts from the
Fourteenth Cf.nti rv to the Close of
the Seventehnth Century.
Domesday Inquest, The. Adolphus Ballard.
English Church Furniture. J. C Cox
and A. H.irvey. Second Edition.
English Costume. From Prehistoric Times
to the End of the Eighteenth Century.
George Clinch.
English Monastic Life.
Fourth Edition.
Abbot Gasquet.
English Seals. J. Harvey Bloom.
Folk-Loke as an Historical Science.
Sir G. L. Gomme.
Gilds and Companies of London, The.
George Unwin.
•Hermits and Anchorites of England,
The. Rotha Mary Cay.
Manor and Manorial Records, The.
Nathaniel J. Hone. Second Edition.
Medi.<=:val HOSPITAI.S of England, The.
Rotha Mary Clay.
Old English Lnstruments of Music.
F. W. Galpin. Second Edition.
H
Metiiuen and Company Limited
The Antiquary's Books— continued
Oi.n Kngi !sii LiiiKARiES. Jitmis Hutt.
Old Service Books oi' the English
Church. Christopher Wordsworth, and
Henry Littlehalc:i. Seccrui ILdition.
Pakisii Like in Mepi/Kval England.
Abbot Gasquet. Third Edition.
Parish Registers of England, The.
J. C. Cox.
Remains op the Prkiiistokic Age in
England. Sir B. C. A. Windle. Second
Edition.
Roman Era in Britain, The. J. Ward.
Romano-British Buildings and Earth-
works. J. Ward.
RovAL Forests of England, The. J. C
Gov.
SnKiNEs OF British Saints. J. C. Wall.
The Arden Shakespeare.
Demy Zvo. 2s, Qd. net each volume
An edition of Shakespeare in Single Plays ; each edited with a full Introduction,
Tc.xlu.il Notes, and a Commentary at the foot of the page
All's Well That Ends Well.
Antonv and Cleopatra. Second Edition.
As You Like It.
cvmbei.ine.
Comedy of Errors, The
H ,\ M LET. Th ird Edition.
Julius Caesar.
•King Henry iv. Pt. i.
King Henkv v.
King Hf.nry vi. Pt. i.
King Hlnky vi. Pt. ii.
King Henry vi. Pr. iii.
King Lear.
King Richard ii.
King Richard hi.
Life and Dkath of King John, The.
Ix>ve's Lauouk's Lost. Secciui Edition.
Macbeth.
Measure for Measure.
Merchant of Venice, The Second Edition.
Mekkv Wives of Windsor, The.
MiDSUMMEK Night's Dkeam, A.
Othello.
Pericles.
Romeo and Juliet.
Taming of the Shrew, The.
Tempest, The.
Timon of Athens.
Titus Andronicus.
Troilus and Cressida.
Two Gentlemen of Verona, The.
Twelfth Night.
Venus and Adonis.
Winter's Tale, The.
Classics of Art
Edited by Dr. J. H. W. LAING
With numerous Illustrations. IVide Royal 8vo
Art of the Greeks, The. H. B. Waller*.
i2s. (xi. tie I.
Art of the Romans, The. H. B. Walters.
15/. net.
Chakoin. H. E. a. Kurtt. lu. Cd. .lel.
Donatei.lo. Maud Cruttwcll. 15X. net.
Flureni'ink Sci'i.i'ioNs of the Rknais-
sance. Wilheliii Bode. Translated by
Jes.sic H.Tyncs. izi. 6ti. net.
George Rumney. Arthur B. Chamberlain.
I ax. 6d. met.
General Literature
15
Classics of Art— continued
Ghiri.andaio. Gerald S. Davies. Second
Edition. loj. f>d. ntt.
Lawrence. Sir Walter Armstrong. £1 is. net-
Michelangelo. Gerald S. Davies. 12J. &/.
nei.
Raphael. A. P. Opp^. 12s. (xi. net.
Rembrandt's Etchings. A. M. Hind.
Two Volumes. 21 j. nei.
Ri'BENS. Edward Dillon. 25^-. nei.
Tintoretto. Evelyn March Phillipps. 15^.
net.
Titian. Charles Ricketts. 13^-. net.
Turner's Sketches and Drawings. A. J.
Finberg. Second Edition. 12s. (d. net.
Velazquez. A. de Eeructe. loi. td. net.
The 'Complete' Series.
Fu^ly Illustrated, Demy Svo
The Complete Association Footballer.
B. S. Evers and C. E. Hughes-Davies.
5J-. net.
The Complete Athletic Trainer, S. A.
Mussabini. 5J. net.
The Complete Billiard Player. Chailes
Roberts. loj. 6d. net.
The Complete Boxer. J. G. Bohun Lynch
Ss. net.
The Complete Cook. Lilian V.'hiiiing.
7^. 61/. net.
The Complete Cricketer. Albert E
Knight. 7^. id. net. Second Edition.
Thc Complete Foxhunter. Charles Rich-
ardson. I2J. (>d. net. Secorui Editioiu
The Complete Golfer. Harry Vardon.
icf. dd. net. Thirieenth Edition.
The Complete Hockey-Playek. Eustace
E. While, s^. net. Second Edition.
The Complete Horskman. W. Scarih
Dixon. Second Edition. lor. dd. net.
The Complete Lawn Tennis Player
A. Vvallis Myers. los. 6d. net. T/iird
Edition, Revised.
The Complete Motorist. Filson Young.
I2J. dd. net. Nezv Edition (Sei'enth).
The Complete Mountaineer. G. D.
Abraham. 15J. net. Second Edi/ ion.
The Complete Oars.man. R. C. Lehmann.
10s. 6d. net.
The Complete Photographer. R. Child
Bajley. loj. 6a'. net. Eourih Edition.
The Complete Rugby Footballer, on the
New Ze.^land System. D. G:illaher and
W. J. Stead. los. Cd. net. Second Edition.
The Complete Shot. G. T. Teasdale-
Buckell. 12s.6d.nef. T/tird Edition.
The Complete Swimmer. F.Sachs. js.6d.
net.
The Complete Yachtsma.n. B. Keckstall-
Suiith and E. du Boulay. Second Edition,
Revised, 155. fiet.
The Connoisseur's Library
With mtmerous Illustrations. Wide Royal ?)V0. 25^. net each volume
English Fuhniture. F. S. Robinson.
English Colourld Cooks. Martin Hardie.
Etchings. Sir F. Wedmore Second Edition.
EuKoiE.^.N E.>(a.mels. Henry H. Cunyng-
hame.
Glass. Edward Dillon.
Goldsmiths' and Silversmiths' Work.
Nelson Dawson. Second Edition.
Illuminatkd Manuscripts. J. A. HerberL
Second Edition.
Ivories. Alfred Maskell.
Jewellery. H. Clifford Snii;h. Second
Edition.
Mezzotint.?. Cyril Davenport.
Miniatures. Dudley Heath
Porcelain. Ed^kvard Dillon.
Fine Books. A. W. Pollard.
Seals. Walter de Gray Birch.
Wiion Sculpture. Alfred MaskelL Second
Ediiion.
i6
Methuen and Company Limited
Handbooks of English Church History
Edited by J. H. BURN. Crown Svo. 2s. 6d. 7iel each volume
The Reformation Period. Henry G«e.
The Foundations of the English Church.
J. H. Maude.
Thk Saxon Church and the Norman
Conquest. C. T. Cruttwell.
The MEDi>4iVAL Church and the Pai-acv.
A. C Jennings.
The Struggle with Puritanism. Bnice
Blaxland.
The Church of England in the Eigh-
teenth Century. Alfred Plummer.
Handbooks of Theology
The Doctrine of the Incarnation. R. L.
Ottley. Fi/th Edition, Revised. Demy
Zvo. 1 2 J. fid.
K History of Eaklv Christian Doctrine.
J. F. Bethune-Baker. Demy Zvo. los. 6d.
An Introduction to the History of
Religion. F. B. Jevons. I-'i/i/i Edition.
Demy Zvo, los. 6d.
An Introduction to the History of the
Creeds. A. E. Burn. Demy Zvo. lor. dd.
Thb Philosophy of Religion in England
and America. Alfred Caldecott. Demy^o.
ios. 6d.
The XXXIX Articles of the Church of
England. Edited by E. C. S. Gibson.
Seventh Edition. Demy ivo. 12s. 6d
The 'Home Life' Series
Illustrated. Demy %vo. ds. to \os. 6d. net
Home Life in America. Katherine G.
Biisbey. Second Edition.
Home Life in France. Miss Betham-
Edwards. Si.rth Edition.
Home Life in Gekmanv. Mrs. A. Sidgwick.
Second Edition.
Home Life in Holland. D. S. Meldrum.
Second Edition.
Lina Duff Gordon.
. H. K. D.-iniels.
Home Life in Italy.
Second Edition.
Home Life in Norway
Second Edition.
Home Life in Russia. A. S. Rappoport.
Home Life in Spain. S. L. Bensusan.
Second Edition,
The Illustrated Pocket Library of Plain and Coloured Books
I'cap. 'ivo. 3,v. 6(/. net each volume
WITH COLOURED ILLUSTRATIONS
The Life and Death of John Mvtton,
Esq. Nimrod. Fifth Edition.
The Life of a Sportsman. Nimrod.
Handlev Cross. R. S. Surlees. Fourth
Edition.
Mr. Sponge's Sporting Tour. R. S.
Surtecs. Second Edition.
JoRRocKs's Jaunts ani> Jollities.
Third Edition.
R. S.
Surtee
Ask Mamma.
R. S. Surtecs.
WITH PLAIN I
'iiiu Grave: A I'oeiu. Robert lilair.
The Analysis of the Hunting Field.
R. S. Surtecs.
The Tour of Dr. Syntax in Search of
THE Picturesque. William Combe.
The Tour of Dr. Syntax in Search of
Consolation. William Combe.
The Third Tour of Dk. Syntax in Search
of a Wife. William Combe.
Life in London. Pierce Et;an.
LLUSTRATIONS
IIllusikaiions of thk Book of Job. In
vented and Engraved by William Blake.
General Literature
17
Leaders of Religion
Edited by H. C. BEECHING. IVith Portraits
Crown ivo. 2s. net each volume
Cardinal Newman. R. H. Hutton.
John Wesley. J. H. Overton.
Bishop Wii.berforce. G. W. Daniell.
Cardinal M.vnning. A. W. Hutton.
Charles Simeon. H. C. G. Moule.
John Knox. F. MacCunn. Second Edition.
John Howe. R. F. Horton.
Thomas Ken. F. A. Clarke.
T. Hodgkin.
George Fox, the Quaker
Third Edition.
John Keble, Walter Lock.
Thomas Chalmers. Mrs. Oliphant. Second
Edition.
Lancelot Andrewes. R. L. Ottley. Second
Edition.
Augustine of Canterbury.
William Laud. W. H. Hutton.
Edition.
John Donne. Augustus Jessop.
Thomas Cranmer. A. J. Mason,
Latimer. R. M. and A. J. Carlyle.
Bishop Butler. W. A. Spooner.
E. L. Cutts.
Fourth
The Library of DeYotion
With Introductions and (where necessary) Notes
Smalt Pott Svo, cloth, 2s.; leather, 2s. 6d. net each volume
The Confessions of St. Augustine.
Eighth Edition.
The Imitation of Christ. Sixth Edition.
The Christian Year. Fi/tk Edition.
Lyra Innocentium. Third Edition.
The Temple. Second Edition.
A Book of Devotions. Second Edition.
A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy
Life. Fifth Edition,
A Guide to Eternity.
The Inner Way. Second Edition.
On the Love of God.
The Psalms of David.
Lyra Apostolica.
The Song op Songs.
The Thoughts of Pascal. Second Edition.
A Manual of Consolation from the
Saints and Fathers.
Devotions from the Apocrypha.
The Spiritual Combat.
The Devotions of St. Anselm.
Bishop Wilson's Sacra Privata.
Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sin-
ners.
Lyra Sacra. A Book of Sacred Verse.
Second Edition.
A Day Book from the Saints and
Fathers.
A Little Book of Heavenly Wisdom. A
Selection from the English Mystics.
Light, Life, and Love.
the German Mystics.
A Selection from
An Introduction to the Devout Like.
The Little Flowers of the Glorious
Messer St. Francis and of his Fkiaks.
Death and Immort.ality.
The Spiritual Guide. Second Edition.
Devotions for Every Day in the WtEK
and the Great Festivals.
Preces Privatae.
Horae Mvsticae. a Day Bixjk from the
Writings of Mystics of Many Nations.
i8
Mktiiuen and Company Limited
Little Books on Art
H'l'f/i many Illuslrations. Demy \6mo. 2s. 6d. net each volume
Each volume consists of about 200 pages, and contains from 30 to 40 Illustrations
including a Frontispiece in Photogravure
Albrecht DUrhr. L. J. Allen.
AnTs OF Japan, The. E. Dillon. Third
Edit ion.
Bookplates. E. Almack.
Botticelli. Mary L. Bonnor.
Borne-Jones. F. de Lisle.
Cellinl R. H. H. Cust.
Christian Symbolism. Mrs. H. Jenner.
Christ in Art. Mrs. H. Jcmier.
Claude. E. Dillon.
Constable. H. W. Tompkins. Second
Edition.
CoROT. A. Pollard and E. Birnstingl.
Eaklv English Water-Colour. C. E.
Hughes.
Enamf.ls. Mrs. N. Dawson. Second Edition.
Frederic Leighton. A. Curkran.
Gforgc Romnev. G. Paston.
Greek .Aut. H. B. Walters. Fcnrlh Edition.
Greuze and Boucher. E. F. Pollard.
Holbein. Mrs. G. Fortescue.
Illumin.^ted Manuscripts. J. W. Bradley.
Jewellery. C.Davenport. Second Edition.
John Hoppner. H. P. K. Skipton.
Sir Joshua Reynolds. J. Sime. Second
Edition.
Millet. N. Peacock. Second Edition.
Miniatures. C. Davenport, V.D., F.S.A.
Second Edition.
Our Ladv in Aut. Mrs. H. Jenner.
Raphael. A. R. Dryhurst.
Rodin. Muriel Ciolkowska.
Turner. F. Tyrrell-Gill.
Vandyck. M. G. Smallwood.
W. Wilberforce
Velazquez.
Gilbert.
and A. R.
Watts. R. E. D. SketcUley. Second Edition.
The Little Galleries
Demy l6me, 2s. 6d. net each volume
Each volume contains 20 plates in Photogravure, together with a short outline
the Ufc and work of the master to whom the book is devoted
A LiTTLB Gallery of Reynolds.
A LiTTLB Gallery of Romney.
A Little Gallery of Hoppner.
A Little Gallery of Mh.lais.
The Little Guides
With many Illustrations by E. H. New and other artists, and from photographs
Small Pctt 8t'<7. Cloth^ 2s. 6(1. net ; leather, 31. 6</. net ecuh volume
The main features of these Guides are ( i ) a handy and charming form ; (2) illus-
trations from photographs and by well-known artists; {3) gooJ plans and maps;
(4) an adeijuate but compact prcscnlalion of everything that is interesting in the
natural features, history, arcli;i;ology, and architecture of the town or district treated
Isle of Wight, The. G. Clinch.
London. G. Clinch.
CaMURII>JE and its CoLLb(.KS. A. H.
I'hoinpson. Third Edition, Rtvlted.
Channel Islands, The. E. E. Cicknell.
English Lakks, The. F. G. UiabaiiL
Malvern Country, The. SirB.C.A.Wiudle.
North Wales. A. T. Story.
General Literature
19
The Little Guides— con f/nuet/
Oxford and its Colleges. J. Wells.
At nth Edition.
St. Paul's Cathedral. G. Clinch.
Shakespeare's Country. Sir B. C. A.
Windle. Fi/th Edition.
South Walks. G. W. and J. H. Wade.
Westminster Abbey. G. E. Troutbeck.
Second Ediiioti.
Bi-RKSHIRE. F. G. Brabant.
Buckinghamshire. E. S. Rosco*.
Cheshire. W. M. Gallichan.
Cornwall. A. L. Salmon. Second Edition.
Derbyshi!»e. J. C. Cox.
Devon. S. Baring-Gould. Third Edition.''
Dorset. F. R. Heath. Third Edition.
Durham. J. E. Hodgkin.
EssE.x. J. C. Cox.
Hampshire. J. C. Cox. Second Edition.
Hertfordshire. H. W. Tompkins.
Kent. G. Clinch.
Kerry. C. P. Crane. Second Edition.
Leicestershire and Rutland. A. Harvey
and V. B. Crowther-Beynon.
Middlesex. J. B. Firth.
MoN.MOUTiiSHiRE. G. W. and J. H. Wade.
Norfolk. W. A. Dutt. Third Edition,
Revised.
Northamptonshire. W. Diy. New and
Revised Edition.
Northumberland. J. E. Morris.
Nottinghamshire. L. Guilford.
Oxfordshire. F. G. Brabant.
Shropshire. J. E. Auden.
Somerset. G. W. and J. H. Wade. Second
Edition.
Staffordshire. C. Masefield.
Suffolk. W. A. Dutt.
Surrey. J. C Cox.
Sussex. F. G. Brabant. Third Edition,
Wiltshire. F. R. Heath.
Yorkshire, The East Riding. J. E.
Morris.
Yorkshire, The North Riding. J. E.
Morris.
Youkshire, The West Riding. J. E.
Morris. Cloth, js. 6d. net; leather, 4^-. 61^.
net.
Brittany. S. Baring-Gculd.
Normandy. C. ScuJamore.
Rome. C. G. EUaby.
Sicily. F. H. Jackson.
The Little Library
With Introduction, Notes, and Photogravure Frontispieces
Small Pott 8t'<7. Each Volume, cloth, \s, 6d, net
Anon. A LITTLE BOOK OF ENGLISH
LYRICS. Second Edition.
Austell (Jane). PRIDE AND PREJU-
DICE. Two Volumes.
NORTHANGER ABBEY.
Bacon (Francis). THE ESSAYS OF
LORD BACON.
Barham (R. H.). THE INGOLDSBY
LEGENDS. Two Volumes.
Barneit (Annie). A LITTLE BOOK OF
ENGLISH PROSE.
Beckford (William). THE HISTORY OF
THE CALIPH VATHEK.
Biaka (William). SELECTIONS FROM
THE WORKS OF WILLIAM BLAKE.
Borrow (George). LAVENGRO. T%vj
Volumes.
THE ROMANY RYE.
Browning (Robert). SELECTIONS KRO.M
THE EARLY POE.MS OF ROBERT
BROWNING.
Canning (George). SELECTIONS FKO.M
THE ANTI-TaCOBIN : Wiih some later
Poems by Geoi;ce Canning.
Cowley (Abraham). THE ESSAYS OF
ABRAHAM COWLEY.
20
Metiiuen and Company Limited
The Little Library — continued
Crabbe (Ocor^e). SELECTIONS FROM
TH1-: I'OEMS OF GEORGE CRABBE.
Cralk (Mrs.). JOHN HALIFAX,
GENTLEMAN. Two yotumes.
Crashaw (Richard). THE ENGLISH
POEMS OK RICHARD CRASHAW.
Dante Alighlerl. THE INIERNO OF
DANTE. Translated by H. F. Cakv.
THE PURGATORIO OF DANTE. Trans-
Kited by H. F. Carv.
THE PARADISO OF DANTE. Trans-
lated by H. F. Gary.
Darley (George). SET,ECT10NS FROM
THE POEMS OF GEORGE DARLEY.
Dlcken8(CharIe8). CHRISTMAS BOOKS.
Two I' o! limes.
Ferrier (Susan). MARRIAGE. Two
Voiuines.
THE INHERITANCE. Two Volu,;ics.
GasVell (Mrs.). CRANFORD. Second
Edition.
Hawthorne (Hathanlol). THE SCARLET
LETTER.
Henderson (T. P.). A LITTLE BOOK OF
SCOTTISH VERSE.
Ktnglako (A. W.). EOTHEN. Second
Edition.
Lamb (Charles). ELIA, AND THE LAST
ES.SAVS OF ELLV.
Locker (F.). LONDON LYRICS.
Marvell (Andrew). THE POEMS OF
ANDREW MARVELL.
Milton (John). THE MINOR POEMS OF
JOHN MILTON.
Molr(D. M.). MANSIE WAUCH.
Nichols (Bowyer). A LITTLE BOOK OF
ENGLISH SONNETS.
Smith (Horace and James). REJECTED
ADDRESSES.
Sterne (Laurence). A SENTIMENTAL
JOURNEY.
Tennyson (Alfred, lord). THE EARLY
POEMS OF ALFRED, LORD TENNY-
SON.
IN MEMORIAM.
THE PRINCESS.
MAUD.
Tliacljeray (W. M.). VANITY FAIR.
Three Volumes.
PEN DEN N IS. Three I olumes.
HENRY ESMOND.
CHRISTMAS BOOKS.
Yaughan (Henry). THE POEMS OF
HENRY VAUGHAN.
Waterhouse (Elizabeth). A LITTLE
BOOK OF LIFE AND DE.\TH.
Fourteenth Edition.
Wordsworth (W.). SELECTIONS FROM
THE POEMS OF WILLIAM WORDS-
WORTH.
Wordsworth (W.) and Coleridge (8. T.).
LYRICAL BALLADS. Second Edition.
The Little Quarto Shakespeare
Edited by W, J. CRAIG. With Introductions and Notes
Poll l6vio. 40 Volumes. Lealfier, prue Js. net e<uh volume
Mahogany Revolving Book Case. \os. net
Miniature Library
Demy ^2mo. Leather, \s. net each volume
Eui'iiRANOR : A Dialogue on Vuuth. Edward
Kil/Gerald.
The Likb op Euwaku, Lord Hbkbbrt op
Cherbukv. Wiitteii by himself.
PoLONios; or, Wise Saws and Modern In-
stances. Edward FitzGerald.
The RuBAiVAT ofOmais KiiavvXm. Edward
FitzGerald. Eourth EditioK.
General Literature
21
The New Library of Medicine
Edited by C. W. SALEEBY. Demy ?,vo
Care of the Body, The. F. Cavanngh.
Secoiui Edition, -js. td. net.
Children of the Nation, The. The Right
Hon. Sir John Gorst. Second Edition,
js. 6d. net.
Diseases of Occupatio.v. Sir Thos. Oliver,
i&y. 6d. mt. Second Edition.
Drink Problem, in its Medico-Sociological
Aspects, The. Edited by T. N. Kelynack.
■js. (d. net.
Drugs and the Drug Habit. H. Sains-
bury.
Functional Nerve Diseases. A. T. Sclio-
field. 7^. 6d. net.
Hygiene of Mind, The. T. S. Clouston.
Sixth Edition, ys. 6d. i.'et.
Sir George Newman.
Infant Mortality.
js. td. net.
Prevention of Tuberculosis (Consump-
tion), The. Arthur Newshohne. io.r. td.
net. Second Edition.
Air and Health. Ronald C. Macfie. ys. 6d.
net. Second Edition.
The New Library of Music
Edited by ERNEST NEWMAN, Illustrated. Demy %vo. -js. 6d. vet
A. Fuller-Maitiand. Second I Handel. R. A. Streatfeild. Second Edition.
I Hugo Wolf. Ernest Newman.
Brahms. J
Edition.
Oxford Biographies
Illustrated. Fcap. 8vo. Eachvohime, cloth, 2s. 6d. net; leather, ■^s. 6d. net
Erasmus. E. F. H. Capey.
Dante Alighieri. Paget Toynbee. Third
Edition.
Girolamo Savonarola. E. L. S. Horsburgh.
Sixth Edition.
John Howard. E. C. S. Gibson.
Alfred Tennyson. A. C. Benson. Second
Edition.
Sir Walter Raleigh. I. A. Taylor.
Robert Burns. T. F. Henderson.
Chatham. A. S. IMcDowall.
Canning. W. Alison Phillips.
Beaconsfield. Walter Sichel.
Johann Wolfga.ng Goethe. H. G. Atkins.
Fran<;ois de Fenelon. Viscount St. Cyres.
The Honeymoon. A Comedy in Three Acts,
Arnold Bennett. Second Edition.
Four Plays
Fcap. Svo. 2S. net
Kismet. Edward Knoblauch.
tion.
The Great Adventure. A Play of Fancy in
Four Acts. Arnold Bennett. .'Second Edition.
Milestones.
Knoblauch,
Arnold Bennett and Edward
Sixth Edition.
Third Edi-
Typhoon. A Play in Four Acts. Melchior
Lengyel. English Version by Laurence
Irving. Second Edition.
The States of Italy
Edited by E. ARMSTRONG and R, LANGTON DOUGLAS
Illustrated, Demy 8z'(?
A History of Milan under the Sforza. I A History of Verona.
Cecilia M. Ady. los. M. net. I i2i. 6tt. net.
A History of Perugia. W. Heywood, 12s. 6d. net.
A. M. Alkn.
22
Methuen and Company Limited
The Westminster Commentaries
General Editor, WALTER LOCK
Demy 8vo
The Acts op the Apostles. Edited l>y R.
1!. Knc':liam. Sixth Jia'ilioH. los. dd.
The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle
TO the CoKiNTiiiANS. Edited by H. L.
Goiidge. Third Ediiicm. 6j.
The Book of Exodvs. Edited by A. H.
M'Neile. Witb a Map and 3 Plans. 10s. (>d.
Thf. Piioic OF Ezekiel. Edited by 11. A.
Kedpalb. xos. td.
The P.ook of Cenesis. Edited, with Intro-
duction and Notes, byS. R. Driver. Ninth
Edition. los. 6d.
Additions and Cohrectioms in thk
Seventh anij Eighth Enn ions of the
Book of Genesis. S. R. Driver, ts.
The P.ook op the Pkophkt Isaiah.
Edited by G. W. Wade. loj. 6d.
The Book op Job. Edited by E. C. S. Gib-
son. Second Edition. 6s.
The Ei'isti e of .St. James. Edited, with
Inlruduction and Notes, by R. J. Knowling.
Second Edition. 6s.
The 'Young' Series
Illustrated. Crown Zvo
The Young Botanist. W. P. Westell and
C. S. Cooper. 3^. 6d. net.
The Young Carpenter. Cyril Hall. 5.5-.
The Young Electrician. Hammond Hall.
The Young Engineer. Hammond Hall.
Third Edition. $s.
The Young Natuijalist. W. P. Westell.
Second Edition. 6s.
The Young Ornithologist. W. P. Westell.
ss.
Methuen's Shilling Library
Fcap. Svo. is. net
Blue Bird, The. Maurice Maeterlinck.
•Charles Dickens. G. K. Chesterton.
•Charmides, and other Poems. Oscar
Wilde.
CmitrXl: The Story of a Minor Siege. Sir
G. S. Robertson.
Condition op England, The. G. F. G.
Ma'iterman.
Db Profundis. Oscar Wilde.
From Midshipman to Field-Marshal.
Sir Evelyn Wood, F.M., V.C.
Harvest Home. E. V. I.ucas.
Hills and the Sea. Hilaire Belloc.
HuxLEv, Thomas Henry. P. Chaliners-
Milchdl.
Ideal HusRAND, An. Oscar Wilde.
Intentions. Oscar Wilde.
Jimmy Gix)Ver, his Book. J.imes M.
Glover.
John Boyes, King of the Wa-Kikuvu.
John Boycs.
Lady Winh£umk.ue's P"an. Oscar Wilde.
Letters from a Si'li'-maih: Mbklhant
to his Son. George Horace Ixirinicr,
Life of John Ruskin, The. W. G. Colling-
wood.
Life of Robert Louis Stevenson, The.
Gr.iham IJ.-vlfour.
Life of Tennyson, The. A. C. Benson.
Little of Everything, A. E. V. Lucas.
Lord Arthur Savile's Crime. Oscar Wilde.
Loi:E of the Honey-Bee, The. Tickner
Edwardes.
Man and the Universe. Sir Oliver Lodge.
Mary Magdalene. Maurice ^Licterlinck.
Old Country Life. S. Baring-Gould.
Oscar Wilde : A Critical Study. Arthur
Ransome.
Parish Clerk, The. P. H. Ditchfield.
Selected Poems. Oscar Wilde.
Sevastopol, and other Stories. Leo
Tolstoy.
Two Admirals. Admiral John Moresby.
Under Five Reigns. I«ndy Dorothy Nevill.
Vailima Letters. Robert Louis Stevenson.
VuAR OF Morwknstow, The. S. Baring-
Gould.
General Literature
23
Books for Travellers
Crown %vo. 6j. each
Each volume contains a number of Illustrations in Colour
AvoM AND Shakespeare's Country, The.
A. G. Bradley.
Rlack Forest, A Book of the. C. P;
Hughes.
Bketo.n's at Home, The. F. M. Gostling.
Cities of Lombardy, The. Edward Hutton.
Cities of Romagxa anij the Mauches,
The. Edward Hutton.
Cities of Spain, The, Edward Hutton.
Cities of Umbria, The. Edward Hutton.
Days in Cornwall. C. Lewis Hind.
Florence and Northern Tuscany, with
Genoa. Edward Hutton.
Land of Pardons, The (Brittany). Anatole
Le Braz.
Naples. Arthur H. Norway.
Naples Riviera, The. H. M. Vaughan.
New Forest, The. Horace G. Hutchinson.
Norfolk Broads, The. W. A. Dutt.
Norway and its Fjords. M. A. Wyllie.
Rhine, A Book of the. S. B.iring-Gould.
Rome. Edward Hutton.
Round about Wiltshire. A. G. Bradley.
Scotland of To-day. T. F. Henderson ami
Francis Watt.
Siena and Southern Tuscany. Edward
Hutton.
Skirts of the Great City, The. Mrs. A.
G. Bell.
Through East Anglia in a Motor Car.
J. E. Vincent.
Venice and Venetia. Edward Hutton.
Wanderer in Florence, A. E. V. Lucas.
Wanderer in Paris, A. E. V. Lucas.
Wanderer in Holland, A. E. V. Lucas.
Wanderer in London, A. E. V. Lucas.
Some Books on Art
Armourer and his Craft, The. Charles
ffoulkes. Illustrated. Royal i,io. £2 2j.
fiet.
Art and Life. T. Sturge Moore. Illustrated.
Cr. Zvo. Sf . nei.
British School, The. An .Anecdotal Guide
to the Brid'h Painters and Paintings in the
National Gallerj'. E. V. Lucas. Illus-
trated. Fcap. Zvo. IS. (xi. nei.
'Decorative Iron Work. From the xith
to the xviiith Century. Charles ffoulkes.
Royal ^to. £2 2S. net.
Francesco Guardi, 1712-1793. G. A.
Simonson. Illustrated. hnperial ^to.
£2 2S. nei.
Illustrations of the Book of Job.
William Bl.ike. Qtiarlo. £t is. net.
John Lucas, Portrait Pjmnter, 1828-1874.
Arthur Lucas. Illustrated. Itnjierial ^to.
£3 3s net.
Old Paste. A. Beresford Ryley. Illustrated.
Royal ^io. £n is. net.
One Hundred Masterpieces of Painti.vg.
With an Introduction by R. C. Wilt. Illus-
trated. Second Edition. DetiiyZvo. ios.6d.
net.
One Hundred Masterpieces of Sculpture.
With an Introduction by G. F. Hill. Illus-
trated. Demy Svo. 10s. 6d. net.
Romney Folio, A. With an Essay by A. B.
Chamberlain. Imperial Folio. £15 15s.
net.
*RoYAi Academy Lectures on Painting.
George Clausen. Illustrated. Crown Zro.
^s, nei.
Saints in Art, The. Margaret E. Tabor.
Illusrrated. Second Edition, Revised. Fcap.
Zvo. 3s. 6d. nei.
Schools of Painting. Marj* Innes. Illus-
trated. Cr. 3vo. 5 J. nei.
Celtic Art in Pagan and Christian Ti.mes,
J. R. Allen. Illustrated. Second Edition.
Demy %vo. "js. td. net.
' Classics of Art.' See page 14.
'The Connoisseur's Library.' See page 15.
' Little Books on Art.' See page 18.
'The Little Galleries.' Seepage 18.
24
Methuen and Company Limited
Some Books on Italy
Etruria and Mopkrv Tlscany, Oi.i).
Mnry L. Cameron. Illustrated. Second
Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s. ttet.
Florf.ncf. : Her History and .\rt to the Fall
of the Republic. F. A. Hyett. Demy ivo.
Js. td. net.
Florence, A Wanderer in. E. V. Lucas.
Illustrated. Fourth Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s.
Flori'Nce and her Treasures. H. M.
Vaughan. Illustrated. I''cap. %vo. jj. net.
Florence, Country Walks about. Edward
Hutlon. Illustrated. Second Edition.
Fcap. %vo. 5 J. net.
Florence and the Cities of Northern
Tuscany, with Genoa. Edward Hutton.
Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Lombardy, The Cities of. Edward Hutton.
Illustrated. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Milan un'der the Sforza, A History of.
Cecilia M. Ady. Illustrated. Demy %vo.
I or. 6d. net.
Naples : Past and Present. A. H. Norway.
Illustrated. Third Edition. Cr. tvo. 6s.
Naples Riviera, The. H. M. Vaughan.
Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. Zi'o. 6s.
Perugia, A History of. William Heywood.
Illustrated. Dcniy %vo. \is. 6d. net.
Rome. Edward Hutton. Illustrated. Third
Edition. Cr. %vo. 6s.
ROMAGNA and THE MARCHES, ThE CiTIES
of. Edward Hutton. Cr. %i>o. 6s.
Roman Pilgrimage, A. R. E. Roberts.
Illustrated. Demy "ivo. los. 6d. net.
Rome of the Pilgrims and Martyrs.
Ethel Ross Barker. Demy tvo. 12s. 6d.
net.
Rome. C. G. Ellaby. Illustrated. Sma/i
fott %vo. Cloth, IS. 6d. net ; Uathtr, y. 6d.
tut.
Sicily. F. H. Jackson. Illustrated. Smalt
Pott %vo. Cloth, 2S. 6d. net ; Uathtr, y. 6d.
ntt.
Sicily : The New Winter Resort. Douglas
Sladen. Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr.
ivo. 51. net.
Siena and Southern Tuscany. Edward
Hutton. Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr.
8v0. 6s.
Umhkia, Tmk Ciiibs of. Edward Hutton.
Illustrated. Ei/th Edition. Cr. 8iv). 6s.
Venice and Venetia. Edward Hutton.
Illustrated. Cr. iz'O. 6s.
Venice on Foot. H. .\. Douglas. Illus-
trated. Second Edition. Eca/. Zvo. s^. net.
Venice and her Treasures. H. A.
Douglas. Illustrated. Eca/. Svo. 5s. net.
Verona, A History of. A. M. .\llen.
Illustrated. Demy &vo. I3S. 6d. net.
Dante and his Italy. Lonsdale Ragg.
Illustrated. Demy Svo. las. 6d. net.
Dante Alighieri : His Life and Works.
Paget Toynbee. Illustrated. Cr. Svo. 55.
net.
Home Life in Italy. Lina DufT Gordon.
Illustrated. Third Edition. Demy Bvo.
los. 6d. net.
Lakes of Northern Italy, The. Richard
Bagot. Illustrated. Eca/i. Zvo. $s. net.
Lorenzo the Magnificent. E. L. S.
Horsburgh. Illustrated. Second Edition.
Demy ivo. 15 J. net.
Meuici Popes, The. H. M. Vaugh.-xn. Illus-
trated. Demy ivo. z^s. net.
St. Catherine oe Siena and her Times.
By the Author of ' Mdlle. Mori.' Illustrated.
Second Edition. Demy tvo. js. 6d. net.
S. Francis of Assisi, The Lives of.
Brother Thomas of Celano. Cr. tvo. y.
net.
Savonarola, Girolamo. E. L. S. Horsburgh.
Illustrated. Cr. Sfo. 5J. net.
Shelley and his Friends in Italy. Helen
R. Angeli. Illustrated. Demy tvo. ics. 6d.
net.
Skies Italian : A Little Breviarj' for Tra-
vellers in Italy. Ruth S. Phelps. Ecap. tvo.
$s. net.
United Italy. F. M. Underwood. Demy
tvo. 10s. 6d. net.
Woman in Italy. W. Doulting. Illustr.-ited.
Demy tvo. 10s. 6d. net.
Fiction
25
Part III. — A Selection of Works of Fiction
Albanesi (E. Maria). SUSANNAH AND
ONE OTHER. Fourth Edition. Cr.
Sc'c'. ts.
THE BROWN EYES OF MARY. Third
Edition. Cr. %vo. 6s.
I KNOW A MAIDEN. TAird Edition.
Cr. Svo. 6s.
THE INVINCIBLE AMELIA; or, The
Polite Adventuress. Third Edition.
Cr. Zvo. y. 6d.
THE GLjU) HEART. Fifth Edition. Cr.
Zvo. ts.
OLIVIA MARY. Fo^irth Edition. Cr.
Zvo. 6s.
THE BELOVED ENEMY. Secofid Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s
Bagot (Richard). A ROMAN MYSTERY.
Third Edition Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE PASSPORT. Fourth Edition. Cr.
ANTHONY CUTHBERT. Fourth Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
LOVE'S PROXY. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
DONNA DIANA. Second Edition. Cr.
Zvo. 6s.
CASTING OF NETS. Tu-e//th Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE HOUSE OF SERRAVALLE. Third
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
DARNELEY PLACE. Secomi Edition.
Cr. Svo. 6s.
Bailey (H. C). STORM AND TREASURE.
Third Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE LONELY QUEEN. Third Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE SEA CAPTAIN. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Baring-Could (S.). IN THE ROAR OF
THE SEA. Eighth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
MARGERY OF QUETHER. Second Edi-
tion. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE QUEEN OF LOVE. Fifth Edition.
Cr. ?jVO. 6s.
JACQUETTA. Third Edition. Cr.Zvo. 6s.
KITTY .\LONE. Fifth Edition. Cr.Zvo. 6s.
NOEMI. Uluilrated. Fourth Edition. Cr.
Zvo. 6s.
THE BROOM-SQUIRE. Illustrated. Fifth
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
BLADVS OF THE STEWPONEY. Illus-
trated. Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
PABO THE PRIEST. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
WINEFRED. Illustrated. Second Edition.
Cr. Svo. 6s.
ROYAL GEORGIK Illustrated. Cr.Zvo. 6s.
IN DEWISLAND. Second Edition. Cr.
Zvo. 6s.
MRS. CURGENVEN OF CURGENVEN.
Fifth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Barr (Robert). IN THE MIDST OF
ALARMS. Third Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE COUNTESS TEKLA. Fifth Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE MUTABLE MANY. Third Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Begbie (Harold). THE CURIOUS AND
DIVERTING ADVENTURES OF SIR
JOHN SPARROW, Bart. ; or, The
Progress of an Open Mind. Second
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Belloc (H.). EMMANUEL BURDEN,
MERCHANT. Illustrated. Second Edi-
tion. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
A CHANGE IN THE CABINET. Third
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Bennett (Arnold). CLAYHANGER.
Eleventh Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE CARD. Sixth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6j.
HILDA LESSWAYS. EigJith Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
BURIED ALIVE. Third Edition. Cr.
Zvo. 6s.
A MAN FROM THE NORTH. Third
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE MATADOR OF THE FIVE TOWNS.
Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE REGENT: A Five Towns Story of
Adve.ntore in London. Third Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
ANNA OF THE FIVE TOWNS. Fcafi.
Zvo. IS. net.
TERESA OF WATLING STREET. Fcafi.
Svo. IS. net.
Benson (E. F.). DODO : A Detail ok the
Day. Sixteenth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
26
Methuen and Company Limited
Blrmln^am (Qeor^e A.). SPANISH
GO 1. 1). Seocnteenth Edition. Cr 800. ts.
Also Fcap. %iio. \s. nel.
THE SEARCH PARXy. Sixlk Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6x.
A ho Fcap. %vo. \s. net.
LALAGES LOVERS. Third Edition. Cr.
St'o. ds.
THE ADVENTURES OF DR. WHITTV.
Fourth Edition. Cr. 8rv. ts.
Bowen (Marjorle). I WILL MAINTAIN
Ninth Edition. Cr. %vo. ds.
DEFENDER OF THE FAITH. Sr.enth
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
A KNIGHT OF SPAIN. Third Edition.
Cr. 8vo. 6s.
TH E QU EST OF GLORY. Third Edition.
Cr. Zv,>. 6s.
GOD AND THE KING. Fifth Edition.
THE GOVERNOR OF ENGLAND. Stcond
Edition. Cr. Srv. 6s.
Castle (Agnes and Egerton). THE
GOLDEN BARRIER. Cr. Si/*. 6s.
•Chesterton (G. K.). THE FLYING INN.
Cr. Zro. 6s.
Clifford (Mrs. W. K.). THE GETTING
WKI.L OF DOROTHY. Illustrated.
Third Edition. Cr. 8vo. y. 6d.
Conrad (Joseph). THE SECRET AGENT:
.\ .Simple Tale. Fourth Edition. Cr. Zvo.
6s.
A SET OF SIX. Fourth Edition. Cr.Svo. 6s.
UNDER WESTERN EYES. Second Edi-
tion. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
CHANCE. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Conyers (Dorothea^ SALLY. Fourth
Editi.m. Cr. ivo. 6s.
SANDY MARRIED. Third Edition. Cr.
%vo. 6s.
Corelll (Marie). A ROMANCE OF TWO
WORLDS. Thirty -Ser.ond Edition. Cr.
Zvo. 6s.
VflNDETTA; on, Thf. Story ok o.ve For-
GOTTP.N. Thirtieth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THELMA: A Norwegian Pkincess.
Forty-third Edition. Cr. Zz'O. 6s.
ARDATH : Thk Story op a Dhad Self.
Twenty- first Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE SOUL OK LILITH. .Seventeenth
Edition. Cr. Sftf. 6s.
WORMWOOD: A Dkama of Paris.
Nineteenth Edition, Cr. Zvo. 6s.
PARABBAS: a Dkram of the Worli-'s
Traokliy. Forty-sixth Edition. Cr. Zvo.
6s.
THE SORROWS OF SATAN. Fifty-
eighth F.dittoH. Cr. Zvo. (t.
TH E MASTERCH RISTIAN. Fourteenth
Edition, ^-ji^h Thousand. Cr. izv. 6s.
TEMPORAL POWER: A Siluy in
Suprbmacy. Second Edition^ isolh
Thousand. Cr. ivo. 6s.
GOD'S GOOD MAN : A Simple Love
Storv. Sixteenth Edition. 154/A Thou-
sand. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
HOLY ORDERS : The Tkagedy of a
Quiet Life. Second Edition. X2oth
j'housand. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE MIGHTY ATOM. Txventy-nintk
Edition. Cr. Zvo. ts.
Also Fcap. Zvo. \s. net.
BOY: A Sketch. Tiirteenth Edition. Cr.
Zvo. 6s.
Also Fcap. Zvo. is. net.
CAMEOS. Fourteenth Edition. Cr. Zvo.
6s.
THE LIFE EVERLASTING. Sixth Edi-
tion. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
JANE : A Social Incident. Fcap. Zvo.
It. net.
Crockett (8. R.). LOCH INVAR. Illus-
trated. Third Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE STANDARD BEARER. Second
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Croker (B. M.). THE OLD CANTON-
MENT. .Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
JOHANNA. Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE HAPPY VALLEY. Fourth Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
A NINE D.\YS' WONDER. Fifth Edi-
tion. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
ANGEL. Fi/th Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
KATHERINE THE ARROGANT. Seventh
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
BABES IN THE WOOD. Fourth Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
♦Danby(Prank). JOSEPH IN JEOPARDY.
Fcap. Zvo. ts. net.
Doyle (Sir A. Conan). ROUND THE RED
LAMP. Ttvelfth Edition. Cr.Zvo. 6s.
Also Fcap. Zvo. is. net.
Drake (Maurice). WOj. Fifth Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Flndlat6r(J. H.). THE GREEN GRAVES
OF liALGOWRIE. Fifth Edition. Cr.
Zvo. 6s.
THE LADDER TO THE STARS. Seconal
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s,
Plndlater (Mary). A NARROW WAV.
Fourth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE ROSE OF JOY. Third Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
A BLIND BIRD'S NEST. Illustrated.
Seconti Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Fry (B. and C. B.). A MOTHER'S SON.
Fift/t Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Harraden (Beatrice). IN VARYING
MOODS. Fourternth Edition. Cr.Zvo. 6s.
HILDA STRAFFORD and THE REMIT-
TANCE MAN. Twelfth Edition. Ct.
8rw. 6x.
INTERPLAY. Fifth Edition. Cr.Zvo. 6s.
Fiction
27
Hauptmann (Gerhart). THE FOOL IN
CHRIST: Emmanuel Quint. Translated
by Thomas Seltzer. Cr. ^vo. ts.
Hlchcas (Robert). THE PROPHET OF
RERIvEl.EY SQUAKE. Second Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
TONGUES OF CONSCIENCE. T/iird
Edition. Cr. ^vo. 6s.
FELIX: Thkee Years in a Life. Ti»tA
Edition. Cr. Sz'O. 6s.
THE WOMAN WITH THE FAN. Ei£-AtA
Edition. Cr. Sva. 6s.
Also Fcap. 8vo. is. net.
P.YEWAYS. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE GARDEN OF ALLAH. Twenty-
third Edition. Cr. St':'. 6s.
THE BL.\CK SPANIEL. Cr. Svo. 6s.
THE CALL OF THE BLOOD. /Vint/i
Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s.
BARBARY SHEEP. Sfcoiid Edition. Cr.
tvo. 3s. 6d.
Alsc Fca/>. 3vo. is. tut.
THE DWELLER ON THE THRESHOLD.
Cr. l7'0. 6s.
THE W.\Y OF AMBITION. Fourth Edi-
tion. Cr. Svo. 6s.
Hope (inthony). THE GOD IN THE
CAR. Eleventh Edition. Cr. 8z)o. 6s.
A CHANGE OF AIR. Sixth Edition. Cr.
%vo. 6s.
A MAN OF MARK. Seventh Edition. Cr.
%vo. 6s.
THE CHRONICLES OF COUNT AN-
TONIO. Sixth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
PHROSO. Illustrated. Ninth Edition. Cr.
Zvo. 6s.
SIMON DALE. Illustrated. Ninth Edition.
Cr. Sfo. 6s.
THE KING'S MIRROR. Fifth Edition.
Cr. Svo. 6s.
QUISANT6. Fou,-th Edition. Cr. 8w. 6s.
THE DOLLY DIALOGUES. Cr. Svo. 6s.
TALES OF TWO PEOPLE. Third Edi-
tion. Cr. Sz'o. 6s.
A SERVANT OF THE PUBLIC. Illus-
tnited. Sixth Edition. Cr. Sz'o. 6s.
THE GREAT MISS DRIVER. Fourth
Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s.
MRS. MAXON PROTESTS. Third Edi-
tion, Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Hutten (Baroness Yon). THE HALO.
Fifth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
A iso Fcaj). 'ivo. is. net.
'The Inner Shrine' (Author of). THE
WILD OLIVE. Third Edition. Cr. Zvo.
6s.
THE STREET CALLED STRAIGHT.
Fourth Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s.
THE WAY HOME. Second Edition. Cr.
Svo. 6s.
Jacobs (W. W.). MANY CARGOES.
Thirty-third Edition. Cr. %vo. y. td.
Also Illustrated in colour. Demy Zvo.
TS. 6d. net.
SEA URCHINS. Seventeenth Edition. Cr.
Svo. 35. 6d.
A MASTER OF CRAFT. Illustrated.
Tenth Edition. Cr. Svo. 3s. 6d.
LIGHT FREIGHTS. Illustrated. Eleventh
Edition. Cr. ivo. y. 6d.
Also Fcap. Zvo. is. net.
THE SKIPPER'S WOOING. Eleventh
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 3s. 6d.
AT SUNWICH PORT. Illustrated. Tenth
Edition. Cr. Svo. 3^. 6d.
DIALSTONE LANE. Illustrated. Ei-h/h
Edition. Cr. Svo. 3s. 6d.
ODD CRAFT. Illustrated. Fifth Edition.
Cr. Svo. 3s. 6d.
THE LADY OF THE BARGE. lUustr.-xted.
Ninth Edition. Cr. Svo. 3J. 6d.
SALTHAVEN. Illustrated. Third Edition.
Cr. Svo. y. 6d.
SAILORS' KNOTS. Illustrated. Fifth
Edition. Cr. Svo. y. 6d.
SHORT CRUISES. Third Edition. Cr.
Svo. y. 6d.
James (Henry). THE GOLDEN BOWL.
Third Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s.
LeQueux (William). THE HUNCHE.VCK
OF WESTMINSTER. Third Edition.
Cr. Svo. 6s.
THE CLOSED BOOK. Third Edition.
Cr. Svo. 6s.
THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW.
Illustrated. Third Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s.
BEHIND THE THRONE. Third Edition.
Cr. Svo. 6s.
London (Jack). WHITE FANG. Ninth
Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s.
Lowndes (Mrs. Belloc). THE CHINK
IN THE ARMOUR. Fourth Edition.
Cr. Svo. 6s. net.
MARY PECHELL. Secomi Edition. Cr.
Svo. 6s.
STUDIES IN LOVE AND IN TERROR.
Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE LODGER. Crozvn Svo. 6s.
Lucas (E. v.). LISTENER'S LURE : An
Oblique Narration. Tenth Edition.
Fcap. Svo. 5J.
OVER BEMERTON'S: Am Easy-going
Chronicle. Eleventh Edition. Fcap. Svo.
y.
MR. INGLESIDE. Tenth Edition. Fcap.
Svo. IS.
LONDON LAVENDER. Sixth Edition.
Fcap. Szv. s-f.
28
MliTHUEN AND COMPANY LIMITED
Lyall (Edna). DERRICK VAUGHAN,
NOVELIST, nth ThoMsanA. Cr. %Z'0.
.V. 6rf.
Macnaughtan (Q.). THE FORTUNE OF
CHRIMINA M'NAU. Sixth Edition.
Cr. %i'0. IS. net.
PETER AND JANE. Fourth Edition.
Cr. %vo. fa.
Halet (Lucas). A COUNSEL OF PER-
FECTION. .'Second Edition. Cr.Zvo. 6s.
COLONEL ENDERRYS WIFE. Si-xth
Edition. Cr. 8t'(7. 6j.
THE HISTORY OF SIR RICHARD
CALMADY: A Romance. JVinih Edi-
tioH, Cr. tvo. 6j.
THE WAGES OF SIN. Sixteenth Edition.
Cr. ivo. ts.
THE CARISSIMA. Fifth Edition. Cr.
too. ts.
THE GATEI.ESS BARRIER. Fifth Edi-
tion. Cr. Zvo. ts.
Mason (A. E. W.). CLEMENTINA.
Illustrated. Eighth Edition. Cr. 6vo. 6s.
Maxwell (W. B.). THE RAGGED MES-
SENGER. Third Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
VIVIEN. Tv'c'lth Edition. Cr.Zvo. 6s.
THE GUARDED FLAME. Seventh Edi-
tion. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Also Fcap. ivo. is. net.
ODD LENGTHS. Secotui Edition. Cr. ivo.
6.f.
HILL RISE. Fourth Edition. Cr.Zvo. 6j.
A /so heap. Zvo. is. net.
THE COUNTESS OF MAYBURY: Be-
tween You AND I. Fourth Edition. Cr.
Bvo. 6s.
THE REST CURE. Fourth Edition. Cr.
6vo. 6s.
Mllne (*. A.). THE DAYS PLAY. Fifth
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE HOLIDAY ROUND. Second Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Montague (C. E.). A HIND LET LOOSE.
/hird Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE MORNING'S WAR. Second Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Morrison (Arthur). TALES OF MEAN
SrRi:i:TS. seventh Edition. Cr.Zvo. 6s.
Also h'(af>. Zvo. \s. net.
A CHILD OF THE JAGO. Sixth Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE HOLE IN THE WALL. Fourth
Edition. Cr. Zz<o. 6s.
DIVERS VANITIES. Cr.Zvo. 6s.
Olllvant (Alfred). OWI) V,0\\ THE
GRLY DOG OK KENMUIR. With a
Frontispiece, 'i'lvetfth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE TAMING OF JOHN BLUNT.
Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE ROYAL ROAD. Second Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s,
Onions (Oliver). GOOD BOY SELDOM:
A Romance op Advertisement. Second
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE TWO KISSES. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Oppenhelni (E. Phillips). MASTER OF
MEN. Fifth Edition. Cr.Zvo. 6s.
THE MISSING DELORA. Illustrated.
Fourth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Also Fcafi. Zvo. is. net.
Orczy (Baroness). FIRE IN STUBBLE
Fi/ih Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Also Fcap. Zvo. \s. net.
Oxenham (John). A WE.WER OF
WEBS. Illustrated. Fifth Edition. Cr.
Zvo. 6s.
THE G.VTE OF THE DESERT. Eighth
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
*Also Fcap. Zvo. is. net.
PROFIT AND LOSS. Fourth Edition.
Cr. Zz'O. 6s.
THE LONG ROAD. Fourth Edition.
Cr. tvo. 6s.
Also Fcap. Zvo. is. net.
THE SONG OF HYACINTH, and OTHt:u
Stories. Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
MY LADY OF SHADOWS. Fourth
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
LAURISTONS. Fourth Edition. Cr. Zvo.
6s.
THE COIL OF CARNE. Sixth Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE QUEST OF THE GOLDEN ROSE.
Fourth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
MARY ALL-ALONE. Thi/d Edition. Cr.
Zvo. 6s.
Parker (Gilbert). PIERRE AND HIS
PEOPLE. Seventh Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6.^.
MRS. FALCHION. Fifth Edition. Cr.
Zvo. 6s.
THE TRANSL.\TION OF A SAVAGE.
Fourth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE TRAIL OF THE SWORD. Illus-
trated. Tenth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
WHEN VALMONDCAMETO PONTIAC :
The Stohv op a Lost Napoleon. Seventh
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
AN ADVENTURER OF THE NORTH:
The Last Adventures op ' Prbttv
Piekre." Fifth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THK SEATS OF THE MIGH FY. Illus-
trated. Nineteenth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE BATTLE OF THK STRONG: A
Romance OF Two Kingdoms. Illustrated.
Seventh Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Fiction
29
THE POMP OF THE LAVILETTES.
Third Edition. Cr. %vo. y. td.
NORTHERN LIGHTS. Fourth Edition.
Cr. Zvo. f>s.
THE JUDGMENT HOUSE. Cr. tvo. 6s.
Pasture (Mrs. Henry de la). THE
TVR.'\NT. Fourth Edition. Cr. Zvo. ts.
A Iso Fcap. Svo. is. net.
Pemberton (Max). THE FOOTSTEPS
OF A THRONE. Illustrated. Fourth
Edition. Cr. %z'0. dr.
I CROWN THEE KING. Illustrated. Cr.
Zvo. dr.
LOVE THE HARVESTER: A Story of
THE Shires. Illustrated. Third Edition.
Cr. 'ivo. 3J. dd.
THE MYSTERY OF THE GREEN
HEART. Fifth Edition. Cr. "ivo. ■is. net
Pcrrln (Alice). THE CHARM. Fifth
Edition. Cr. Zvo. ts.
A Iso Fcap. Zvo. is. net.
THE ANGLO-INDIANS. Sixth Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Phillpotts (EdenX LYING PROPHETS.
Third Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
CHILDREN OF THE MIST. SixiA
Edition. Cr. Zve. 6s.
THE HUMAN BOY. With a Frontispiece.
Seventh Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
SONS OF THE MORNING. Second Edi-
tion. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE RIVER. Fourth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE AMERICAN PRISONER. Fourth
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
KNOCK AT A VENTURE. Third Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE PORTREEVE. Fourth Edition. Cr.
Zvo. 6s.
THE POACHER'S WIFE. Second Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE STRIKING HOURS. Second Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
DEMETER'S DAUGHTER. Third Edi-
tion. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE SECRET WOMAN. Fcap. Zro. xs.
net.
Pickthall (Marmaduke). SAID, THE
FISHERMAN. Tenth Edition. Cr. Zvo.
6s.
Also Fcap. Zvo. is. net.
«0*(A. T. Qulllcr-Couch). THE M.AYOR
OK TROY. Fourth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
MERRY-G.\RDEN a.n'd other Stories.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
MAJOR VIGOUREUX. Third Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Ridge (W. Pett). ERB. Second Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
A SON OF THE STATE. Third Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 3J. 6d.
A BREAKER OF LAWS. A Nevu Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 3J. 6d.
MRS. GALER'S BUSINESS. Illustrated.
Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE WICKHAMSES. Fourth Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
SPLENDID BROTHER. Fourth Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Also E'cap. Zvo. is. net.
NINE TO SIX-THIRTY. Third Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THANKS TO SANDERSON. Secorui
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
DEVOTED SPARKES. Second Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE REMINGTON SENTENCE. Third
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Russell (W. Clark). MASTER ROCKA-
FELLAR'S VOYAGE. Illustrated.
Fifth Edition. Cr. Zvo. is. 6d.
Sldgwick (Mrs. Alfred). THE KINS-
MAN. Illustrated. Third Edition. Cr.
Zvo. 6s.
THE LANTERN-BEARERS. Third EdU
tion. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE SEVERINS. Sixth Edition. Cr. Zvo.
6s.
Also Fcap. Zvo. is. net.
ANTHEA'S GUEST. Fourth Edition. Cr.
Zvo. 6s.
LAMORNA. Third Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
BELOW STAIRS. Second Edition. Cr.
Zvo. dr.
Snalth (J. C). THE PRINCIPAL GIRL.
Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
AN AFFAIR OF STATE. Second Edition.
Cr. Zvo. <~s.
Someryllle (E. (E.) and Boss (Martin).
DAN RUSSEL THE FOX. Illustrated.
Seventh Edition. Cr. Zvo. dr.
Also Fcap. Zvo. is. tut.
Thurston (E. Temple). MIRAGE. Fourth
Edition. Cr. Zvo. dr.
Also Fcap. Zvo. is. net.
Watson (H. B. Marriott). ALISE OF
ASTRA. Third Edition. Cr. 8:;'. 6j.
THE BIG FISH. Third Edition. Cr. tvo,
6s.
Wehling (Peggy). THE STORY OF
VIRGINIA PERFECT. Thitd Edition.
Cr. Zvo. dr.
Also Fcap. Zvo. is. net.
30
MliTIIUEN AND COMPANY LIMITED
THE SPIRIT OF MIRTH. Sixth Edition.
Cr. izv. 6s.
FELIX CHRISTIE. TAirJ Edition. Cr.
8rw. 6x.
THE PE.\RL STRINGER. Third Edi-
tion. Cr. Svo. 6s.
Westrup (Margaret) (Mrs. W. Sydney
Stacey). TIDE MARKS Third Edition.
Cr. %vo. 6s.
Weyman (Stanley). UNDER THE RED
ROHE. Illiisir.ited. Tuenty-third Edi-
tion. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Also Fcap. Zvo. is. net.
Whitby (Beatrice). ROSAMUND. Second
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
Williamson (C. N. and A. M.). THE
LIGHTNING CONDUCTOR: Tiie
Straiige Adventures of a Motor Car. Illus-
trated. Twenty-first Edition. Cr. %vo. ts.
Also Cr. Srv). is. net.
THE PRINCESS PASSES: A Romance
OP A Motor. Illustrated. Ninth Edition.
Cr. %vo. 6s.
LADY BETTY ACROSS THE WATER.
F.lcfenth Edition. Cr. %vo. 6s.
Also Fcap. %vo. is. net.
THE nOTOR CHAPERON. lUuilratcd.
Tenth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
'Also Fcafi. %vo. is. net.
THE CAR OF DESTINY. Illustraled.
Seventh Edition. Cr. %vo. 6s.
MY FRIEND THE CHAUFFEUR. Illus-
trated. Thirteenth Edition. Cr. ivo. 6s
SCARLET RUNNER. Illustrated. Third
Edition. Cr. 8z'0. 6s.
SET IN SILVER. lUtistraled. Fourth
Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s.
LORD LOVELAND DISCOVERS
A.M ERICA. Second Edition. Cr. izv. 6.v.
THE GOLDEN SILENCE. Sixth Edition.
Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE GUESTS OF HERCULES. Third
Edition. Cr. Z,vo. 6s.
THE HE.'VTHER MOON. Fifth Edition.
Cr. ^vo. 6s.
THE LOVE t'IRATE. Illustrated. Second
Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
THE DEMON. Fcap. 8w. is. net.
Wyllarde (Dolf). THE PATHWAY OF
THE PIONEER (Nous AutresX Sixth
Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s.
Books for Boys and Girls
Illustrated, Crown %vo. 35. f>d.
Getting Wf.li. of Dorothv, The, Mrs.
W. K. Clifford.
GiKL of the People, A. L. T. Meade.
Honourable Miss, The. L. T. Meade.
Master Rockafbllak's Voyage. W. Clark
Russell.
Only a Guard-Room Dog.
Cuthell.
Edith E.
Red Grange, The. Mrs. Molesworth.
Syd Bblton : The Boy who would not go
to Sea. G. Manville Fenn.
There was o.nxe a Prince. Mrs. M. E
Mann.
Methuen's Shilling Novels
Fcap, %vo, \s, net
Anna of the Five Towns. Arnold Bennett.
Bakbarv Sheep. Rot>ert Hichens.
"Botor Chaperon, The. C. N. & A. M.
Williamiiun.
Boy. Marie Corclli.
Charm, The. Alice Perrin.
Dan Russki. the Fox. E. CE. Somerville
and Martin Ross.
Demon, The. C. N. and A. M. Williamson.
Fire in Stubblk. Baroness Orczy.
•Gate of Desert, The. John Oxcnham.
Guarded Flame, The. W. B. Maxwell
Hai.o, The. Baroness von Hutteti.
Hill Rise. W. B. Maxwell.
Jane. Marie CorellL
Fiction
31
Methuen's Shilling ^oycIh— continued.
•Joseph in Jeopardy. Frank Danby.
Lady Betty Across the Water.
and A. M. Williamson.
Light Freights. W. W. Jacobs.
Long Road, The. John Oxenham.
Mighty Atom, The. Marie Corelli.
Mirage. E. Temple Thurston.
C. N.
Missing Delora, The.
heini.
E. Phillips Oppen-
RouND the Red Lamp. Sir A. Conan Doyle.
SaYd, the Fisherman.
thall.
Marmaduke Pick-
Search Party, The. G. A. Birmingham.
Secret Woman, The. Eden Phillpotts.
Severins, The. Mrs. Alfred Sidgwick.
Spanish Gold. G. A. Birmingham
Splendid Brother. W. Pett Ridge.
Tales of Mhan Streets. Arthur Morrison.
Teresa of Watling Street. Arnold
Bennett.
Tyrant, The. Mrs. Henry de la Pasture.
Under the Red Robe. Stanley J. Weyman.
Virginia Perfect. Peggy Webling.
Woman with the Fan, The. Robert
Hichens.
Methuen's Sevenpenny Novels
Angel. B. M. Croker.
Broom Squire, The. S. Baring-Gould
By Stroke of Swokd. Andrew Balfour.
*HousE OF Whispers, The. William L
Queux.
Human Boy, The. Eden Phillpotts.
I Crown Thee King. Max Pemberton.
*L.\te in Life. Alice Perrin.
Lone Pine. R. B. Townshend.
Master of Men. E. Phillips Oppenheim.
Mixed Marriage A Mrs. F. E. Penny.
yd. net
Peter, a Parasite.
E. Maria Albanesi.
Pomp of the Lavilettes, The. Sir Gilbert
Parker.
Prince Rupert the Buccaneer. C. J.
Cutclifife Hyne.
•Princess Virginia, The. C. N. & A. M.
Williamson.
Profit and Loss. John Oxenham.
Red House, The. E. Nesbit.
Sign of the Spider, The. Bertram Mitford.
Son of the State, A. W. Pett Ridge.
25/10/13
Printed by Morrison & Gibb Limited, Edinburgh
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY,
BERKELEY
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE
STAMPED BELOW
Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of
50c per volume after the third day overdue, increasing:
to $1.00 per volume after the sixth day. Books not in
demand may be renewed if application is made before
expiration of loan period.
i£3l 91 bVW
A-:^
NOV 2 0 1955
.... ^AQSS^^
23 Nov'
NUV 91962
^O
JAI\l 2 5 1.953
76m-7,'80
TU 64640
29855,';
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11