200 



DISCIPLINARY POWER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES. 



either with the crown or between the Cham- 

 bers, it has been the usage to appoint a com- 

 mittee to search for precedents on the subject 

 in question. The standing orders of Parlia- 

 ment are the rules and forms of procedure 

 which have been established from time to time 

 as necessity required. They continue in full 

 force under each Legislature until they are for- 

 mally repealed. Of these fixed and invariable 

 rules it has been said that " only their strict 

 observance can protect effectually minorities 

 from the abuse and excesses which the intoxi- 

 cation of power can too easily suggest to ma- 

 jorities that are powerful and blinded by for- 

 tune." The orders of the session are of less 

 constitutional importance, and are renewed at 

 each session and obligatory only during the 

 session. 



The rules of the two Houses are so numerous 

 and of such variety that a classification of them 

 would be quite difficult. Mr. May * has at- 

 tempted it by dividing them into two classes 

 one, comprising those which apply to a mem- 

 ber when making a speech ; and the other, 

 those which apply to the House. When mak- 

 ing a speech, a member can not refer to other 

 debates of the same session, or speak of a bill 

 which is not the order of the day, nor attack a 

 decision of the House, or discredit it ; nor al- 

 lude to discussions in the other House of Par- 

 liament ; nor use the name of the Queen irrev- 

 erently, or for the purpose of influencing the 

 debate; nor apply unjust or offensive words 

 to either House, or to their acts ; or to certain 

 portions or members of the House in which he 

 is speaking. Regarding the latter, it has been 

 decided to be out of order to say that a mem- 

 ber is " loose " in his assertions, or that by his 

 vote he makes himself an advocate of riot and 

 disorder, or is discourteous ; or to quote from a 

 journal where it is said that the loyalty of a 

 member is rather a subject for caution, or to 

 ask of a member, for the second time, a ques- 

 tion which he has already answered. t No one 

 will be surprised to learn that these rules have 

 not been scrupulously observed, nor how easily 

 they can be violated. In fact, this has been 

 done so often that it has become habitual to 

 elude them by the aid of oratorical artifices 

 or transparent ambiguities. Indeed, although 

 there is no rule of such high importance as the 

 one relating to the relations of the two Houses, 

 yet there is no one that is violated more fre- 

 quently or with greater impunity. 



LANGUAGE OFFENSIVE TO THE OTIIEE HOUSE. 

 It is otherwise if the language of the speaker 

 is openly offensive to the other House. Such 

 an error should be immediately suppressed, as 

 ,likely to reach the consideration of Parliament 

 and produce serious dissatisfaction. For this 

 reason the speaker is required on the spot to 

 retract or explain his words, and to offer to the 



* Thomaalsrskine May's " Parliamentary Practice." 

 t M. A. Reynaert, a member of the House of Representa- 

 tives of Belgium, has investigated this subject extensively, 

 and his articles, to which we are indebted, appear in the 

 " Revue General " of Brussels. ED. 



assembly satisfactory excuses. If he refuses, 

 he incurs vigorous disciplinary penalties. An 

 interesting example of this sort is related by 

 Mr. May.* "In 1614 the Bishop of Lincoln, 

 Richard Neile, used expressions against the 

 House of Commons which it regarded as offen- 

 sive, and therefore sent a message of complaint 

 to the House of Lords. The latter replied 

 that the bishop had solemnly protested, on 

 the salvation of his soul, that none of his 

 words had been stamped with malevolent in- 

 tentions toward the House of Commons; that 

 his protestation had been made with real senti- 

 ments of lawful respect and high esteem, and 

 that he had, at the same time, shed tears abun- 

 dantly, and expressed his grief that his speech 

 had been so misinterpreted and in sense gone 

 far beyond his thought; and further, their 

 lords regarding as satisfactory, this conduct at 

 once so sincere and so humble, assured the 

 House of Commons that if they had under- 

 stood the language of the lord-bishop as con- 

 taining imputations of sedition, they would 

 have incontinently stigmatized and chastised 

 him with all desirable severity." 



PERSONALITIES. To remove from the de- 

 bates all appearance of personality, special 

 rules, in each House, prescribe the manner in 

 which each member shall be addressed so as to 

 present simply his official character. Similar 

 rules are in force in each House of Congress of 

 the United States. These are observed not 

 only between political friends but also between 

 political opponents. In the Upper House each 

 lord is designated by the rank he holds, and in 

 the Senate each Senator is designated by the 

 State he represents. A similar designation is 

 given to each member of the House of Repre- 

 sentatives ; whereas in the House of Commons 

 the member is designated as the member from 

 the district which he represents. If these cus- 

 toms are forgotten by any member in the 

 warmth of debate, and he utters insulting ex- 

 pressions, or unjust imputations, or accuses an- 

 other of insincerity, or treachery, or evil de- 

 signs, he will be promptly repressed. 



Disorderly words should be immediately no- 

 ticed, and if a member expresses a desire that 

 action should be taken, the Speaker orders the 

 Clerk to take them down, if it appears that such 

 is the wish of the House. But there is a rule 

 of the House of Commons, that if any member 

 has spoken, or other business intervened, after 

 offensive words spoken, they can not be taken 

 notice of for censure. This is for the common 

 security of all, and to prevent mistakes Avhich 

 must happen. In 1807 the Speaker decided 

 that he could not notice words spoken by Mr. 

 Duigenan, although Lord Howick had immedi- 

 ately risen for a call to order, because another 

 member and the speaker himself had spoken 

 before the House manifested a desire to act on 

 the opprobrious words. Many later instances 

 have occurred. In each House of Congress it 

 is required that the exceptionable words shall 

 * " Parliamentary Practice." 



