Americans are systematically indoctrinated with the idea that "republics" are native to the New World, and that a restoration of legitimate government is impossible. The usual question is,"What could replace the republic that is better?" Americans, however, are deliberately never introduced to the ancient legal principles and conventions that are the foundation of a legitimate system of government, so that the notion of an American Restoration is virtually inconceivable. The bottom line is that the law is not arbitrary -- it is not something anyone is entitled to create out of thin blue air -- and the inauguration of the republic in America was a departure from the principles of legal government. The true dimensions of this will become evident to the reader of the following article, for Americans expect government to be corrupt, insensitive, and unresponsive as a result of their experiences at the hands of the politicians of the republic; but when it is recognized that the genuine role of government is to redress the grievances of the people and to provide justice, and that the parliamentary system of government was designed with this in mind from the very dawn of time, it will become impossible for Americans to accept the nuisance of the republic.

The restoration of the monarchy in America does not represent any kind of "turning-back- the-clock" action. Rather, it invokes the reality that the most important traditions people practice had their origins in the genuine needs of the democratic human community of antiquity, and that reason has NEVER been a stranger to humanity. Any time any crusade advocates the disavowal of the accumulated wisdom of human civilization in favor of an experiment, especially of something so integral to society as the institution of government, there is the danger that long-known safeguards will be ignored. It is precisely the disregarding of the wisdom of past ages that makes it possible for history to repeat itself, for men and women who think that the universal laws of nature do not apply to them, are always the victims of their own ignorance.

PARLIAMENT, the name given originally to the legislature of England, which became successively the Parliament of Great Britain under the Union with Scotland Act (1707), the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland under the Union with Ireland Act (1800) and the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act (1927). The name was also applied to the legislatures of Scotland and Ireland, abolished in 1707 and 1800 respectively, and to that of Northern Ireland. It has been extended to the legislatures of other independent countries within the British Commonwealth which were once under British rule and is often used informally as the English equivalent of the local name for a foreign legislature.

In relation to the Parliament of the United Kingdom the word is often used loosely. In strict law the legislative authority is the king (or queen regnant) in Parliament, i.e., the formal sitting of the sovereign with the Lords spiritual and temporal in their robes, and with the Commons standing at the bar. In practice the real work of legislation is the preparatory work, the consideration of the "bill" which, when assented to by the sovereign, becomes an "act of Parliament." This consideration is given separately in the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Hence when it is said that "Parliament is sitting" what is meant is that the House of Lords and the House of Commons are sitting. Because in the 19th century the House of Commons became predominant, it is possible to use "Parliament" to mean the House of Commons only. Thus, responsibility to "Parliament" means responsibility to the Commons. The term "member of Parliament" (MP) was originally a loose expression for a knight or a burgess elected to Parliament; strictly speaking he is a member of the House of Commons.

Moreover, the Parliament of England was not, and the Parliament of the United Kingdom is not, exclusively a legislative body. The king (or queen) in Parliament is also the highest legal tribunal for England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, the "High Court of Parliament." This judicial work is, however, done by the House of Lords, or a committee thereof. Hence we commonly speak of an appeal to the House of Lords when we mean an appeal to the king (or queen) in Parliament.

THE ORIGINS OF PARLIAMENT

Modern parliaments arose through a fusion of the legislative and judicial functions and the voting of taxation or supply. In medieval times a parlement or parliamentum was usually a meeting of the king in council to which the judges were summoned for the consideration of pleas and petitions (or bills) to the king to redress grievances. Under the Norman kings the functions were undifferentiated. At a sitting of the curia regis (king's court or council), petitions might be considered and disposed of by what would be called a judicial determination, or by an order to a sheriff to see that right was done, or by a general order which partook of the nature of legislation. The creation of separate courts for what would be called judicial business -- the Court of Common Pleas, the Court of King's Bench, the Court of Exchequer, the courts of justice in eyre, and courts of justices assigned -- left to the council in parliament (concilium regis ad parliamenta sua or in parliamento) the consideration of extralegal petitions, for instance, petitions that the law operated harshly, or that justice could not be obtained because of the influence of a powerful baron. (In the U.S., there is no one average people can turn to for relief from the excessive influences of "barons," such as Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, etc. WFI Editor) Where the order was, to use modern language, legislative, its purpose was not to change the law but to improve it, since law was thought of not as legislation but as custom. Everybody knew what duties a tenant owed to his lord, or the lord owed to the king; but it might prove desirable formally to set out what rights lords of manors in general had to enclose the waste land of their manors.

On the other hand, the word parliamentum might be applied to what was more usually described as a colloquium, a meeting of the clergy, or the lords, or the representatives of counties or boroughs, or merchants, or any or all of them. Such a colloquium might be summoned, for instance, to discuss measures for dealing with raids by the Scots over the border, or the sending of an army to Gascony. More often the purpose was to obtain assent for the levying of an aid or customs duties. Usually the cause of the summons was not stated, except in general terms. For instance, knights and burgesses were summoned to the parliament of 1275 by Edward I ad tractandum una cum magnatibus regni nostri de negotiis ejusdem regni ("to discuss with the magnates the affairs of the kingdom"). At that Parliament, the Statute of Westminster I was enacted with the assent of the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, and the commonalty of the land; and the customs duties on wool, woolfells, and leather were granted to the king. The former document, which is in Norman-French, uses the word parlement; and the latter, which is in Latin, uses parliamentum. This was no innovation, for the statute says that it was Edward's "first parliament general after his coronation," showing that there had been previous "parliaments" of this kind.

This second sort of "parliament," or colloquium, to which clergy, lords and commons, or some of them, were summoned ad tractandum was usually also a meeting of the king's council in Parliament. Pleas and petitions could therefore be heard and orders given by authority of the king in council. If the meeting was merely a colloquium of the magnates, and there was not to be a meeting of the council in Parliament, the intention was clearly marked, at least under Edward II. The writ issued was de tractatu habendo, and not de veniendo ad parliamentum. If both functions were to be exercised, the "king's business," i.e., the matters for which the magnates and commons had been summoned, was taken before the pleas and petitions of subjects; and the magnates or the commons, or both, might be dismissed before the hearing of pleas and petitions was completed, because the council was still in parliamento.

COMPOSITION OF EARLY PARLIAMENTS: This account of the development of Parliament shows that it is not possible to say when it began. It is, indeed, simply the curia regis of the Norman kings. The first known use of the word parlement, in relation to the council, comes from the later years of Henry II: but parlement is simply a parley, so that "parliament" could be used of any meeting and is still used of meetings of benchers of some of the Inns of Court. It was, as stated, used officially in the Statute of Westminster I of 1275. The writs de veniendo ad parliamentum began, so far as is known, under Edward I. The Parliament rolls and the statute rolls began in 1278. The Anglo-Saxon witan was basically a colloquium of magnates, and the magnum concilium of the Norman kings was much the same sort of assembly except that after the Conquest the majority of baronial councilors would be the king's tenants in chief, bound by feudal law to attend his court. The use of representation for counties, hundreds, boroughs, and vills is also a Norman device, much developed by Henry II. The summoning of representatives of counties and boroughs to treat with the magnates began under Henry III; and Edward I's Parliament of 1295 was a "model" only in the sense that the idea of summoning two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough, which later became the rule, was then accepted. Edward I, though not an innovator, may be regarded as the king who first made extensive use of councils in Parliament afforced by the magnates and the representatives of counties and boroughs.

SEPARATION OF COUNCIL FROM PARLIAMENT: The business of the council in parliament gradually diminished as remedies for wrongs or grievances became available elsewhere. The Court of Common Pleas may be said to have become distinct from the end (1216) of John's reign; the court coram rege (Court of King's Bench) was distinct from the end of Henry III's reign, though there was no formal separation from the council until the end of the 14th century; the Court of Exchequer was distinct from the end of the 13th century. Moreover, these courts dealt with an increasing range of wrongs, especially through the development of the writs of trespass and trespass on the case. A later development was the power of the chancellor to give a remedy for a wrong which could not be remedied at common law. At first this was done by reference from the council, but when petitioners discovered that the chancellor had such power they naturally petitioned him direct: in other words, if they thought the chancellor could remedy the grievances, they submitted a "bill in Chancery" instead of a "bill in Parliament." By the beginning of the 15th century he had a recognized jurisdiction over cases which would, in the 13th century, have gone to the council in parliament.

Even more important was the separation of the council from Parliament, which occurred during the 14th century. The council always was in every Parliament, and theoretically it is still there: but when parliaments were infrequent, the council, which might be a small body and need not be afforced by the lords and commons, necessarily dealt with minor grievances. The council became a definite body, and not merely a body summoned ad hoc, when during the minority of Richard II councilors were sworn. By the end of the reign of Henry V "council" and "parliament" were different bodies. The council ceased to exercise any considerable jurisdiction under Henry VI, but it was revived under Edward IV and became a most effective judicial or quasi-judicial body under the Tudors and Stuarts, especially in the branch of the council known as the Court of the Star Chamber (abolished circa 1641).

GROWTH OF LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS: This development involved a gradual diminution of the jurisdiction of the High Court of Parliament as a court, and there was a corresponding increase in the importance of its work as a legislature. This, too, was a gradual development, arising out of the fact that petitions were laid before the council in parliament. A petition always ends with a prayer for redress; the particular redress sought may be set out in detail; and if it requires a change or "improvement" in the law it may set out the actual text of the provision sought. This was known as "a bill in the form of an act"; and that is what a bill in Parliament still is, except that in most cases the bill is not a petition with a proposed law annexed but merely a proposed law.

In the 13th century there was no rule that proposed laws should be referred to the lords and commons. Most of the laws from that century in the printed collections of statutes were never so referred. On the other hand, a change in the law, even an "improvement," was a serious matter because it affected customary and feudal rights. Hence, though the law could be made by the council, the bill might be referred to the lords and commons afforcing the council in parliament. The petition might come from a private person, but as other means were found for redressing private grievances, petitions tended to come from bodies of persons or corporations, possibly persons representing or claiming to represent a county, or the clergy, or the merchants. As Parliament became a more important body in the 14th century a distinction grew up between ordinances (laws assented to by the king in council) and statutes (laws based on petitions assented to by the king in Parliament). Since the latter were entered on the statute roll they enjoyed a high degree of authority. Moreover, Parliament became critical of legislation by ordinance and began to claim a right to be consulted.

The most representative body in the country was, however, the Parliament itself. Petitions by the commons, or by the lords, became common in the 14th century. In that century, and in the early years of the 15th century, the law was framed and enacted by the king in council; but later in the 15th century this was found inconvenient, and the petition, or bill in the form of an act, became common. If this was assented to by the king, with or without amendment, it became an act of Parliament. Complaints that changes were made by the council were common, and Henry V had to agree that nothing would be added to a commons petition. The commons insisted that they be assenters as well as petitioners. Under Henry VI it became regular practice for petitions or bills to be in the form of acts, whether they were initiated by private persons, or by the king in council, or by the lords or commons, and the assent of the lords and commons was required for the actual text. The bill was enacted by the king, by and with the advice and consent of the lords and commons, "and by the authority of the same." The bill no longer needed to take the form of a petition, except when it came from a private person, in which case it was a "private bill"; and a "private bill" is initiated by petition even today. A "public bill" is not; it is simply introduced by a member.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE TWO HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT: The discussion of bills and grants by the lords and commons necessarily implied debate outside the formal sittings at which the king was present; and, though the groups of clergy, barons, knights, and burgesses sometimes sat separately, the practice developed of the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and barons sitting in one chamber or "house" and the knights and burgesses sitting in another chamber or "house." Strictly speaking there were and still are three "houses": the king and his council, including the judges; the Lords spiritual and temporal; and the Commons or knights and burgesses. Under the Lancastrian kings, however, the king was forced to take most if not all of his councilors from among the Lords; and under the Tudors it became the practice to find seats in the House of Commons for privy councilors who were not lords.

Hence, when the king had explained to the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled the reasons for their having been summoned (the "king's speech"), the king, the judges, and such councilors as were not lords left the chamber, the Commons went off to some more or less private place (in the 14th century first the refectory and then the chapter house of Westminster Abbey), and the Lords settled down to business in the Palace of Westminster. The business of both Lords and Commons was to consider the matters referred to them by the king, to put into bills any petitions which any member laid before the House, to consider their common grievances, if any, and to draft bills designed to remedy those grievances.

In the House of Lords the chancellor presided as the king's deputy, though he was not allowed to speak unless he was a prelate or a temporal lord. In the House of Commons a speaker was elected to speak for the Commons when the king returned to Parliament and wanted answers to his questions; the speaker, and he alone, had the right to speak. How and when the speaker became the chairman of the House of Commons is not known. He was presiding when the Commons' journals began in 1547, but there had been speakers at least since Sir Thomas Hungerford's election in 1377, and some of them probably presided; but until the Commons had established themselves under the Tudors they left no records of their own.

In the medieval period the clerk of the parliaments helped with the drafting of statutes and kept whatever records were needed. Until 1547 these were the only records on the Parliament rolls and they tell only what happened in the Lords' chamber. The Commons had a clerk (at least from 1363), the second clerk of the parliaments, and in due course he became the clerk of the House of Commons, but he kept no record until 1547.

INCREASED IMPORTANCE OF PARLIAMENT UNDER THE TUDORS: The fact that the Lords' journals began in 1509 and the Commons' journals in 1547 is significant. It shows the increasing importance of Parliament under the Tudors, and especially under Henry VIII. All the great changes effected by Henry VIII were carried out by acts of Parliament. It was still possible to make law by proclamation or ordinance, but the Tudors were too wise to make frequent use of this method, and too popular and conciliatory not to get from their parliaments most of what they wanted. James I was neither wise nor conciliatory, but Chief Justice Coke solved the problem by declaring, contrary to all the facts of history, that legislation by proclamation was and always had been unlawful.

Another innovation of Henry VIII was to keep parliaments in being for years but to interrupt their proceedings and send them home until they were recalled. In other words, instead of declaring a Parliament to be "dissolved," so that new elections for knights and burgesses had to be held when he again needed a Parliament, he merely prorogued it, so that the same knights and burgesses were recalled for a new session of the same Parliament. From the king's point of view this had the advantage that he knew the members and could rely on their support; but it also had the result that members became experienced in parliamentary business and that the House of Commons developed both a formal procedure and an esprit de corps.

There was another reason for this developing esprit de corps. In the 13th and 14th centuries it was a burden for a county or a borough to send members to Parliament. Their expenses (for traveling, and a daily wage for subsistence) had to be met by the county or borough. In the 15th century it became a privilege to sit in Parliament because it was becoming an important body. Scions of great houses and ambitious men welcomed the chance of being sent to Westminster and were often prepared to waive the expenses. There was consequently a tendency for the same persons to be returned to successive parliaments. When to this practice was added that of keeping a Parliament in being for several sessions, there developed a class of almost professional parliamentarians. Some would be used by the king to secure assent to his measures; others would disagree with some of those measures and encourage the House to reject them, though the idea of a "formed opposition" did not develop until the 18th century and the phrase "his majesty's opposition" comes from the early years of the 19th century (so far as is known the phrase was first used by John Cam Hobhouse, later Lord Broughton, as a joke, in 1826).

The growing esprit de corps in the House of Commons inevitably affected the position of the speaker. Although in the medieval period the choice of speaker was strongly influenced by the crown, several holders of the office showed considerable independence. A number of the early speakers met violent deaths, and their position, between a strong king and a house concerned to increase its power, was often unenviable. Tudor speakers, who from the time of Sir Thomas More (elected 1523) played an important part in the development of the Commons' claim for freedom of speech, strengthened the tradition of resistance to royal pressure. And in 1642, when Charles I, illegally entering the House, asked Speaker Lenthall to point out the five members the king sought to arrest, he received a memorable answer. "May it please your majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here." Royal assent to the Commons' choice of a speaker has been a formality since 1679, when Charles II refused to approve the re-election of Sir Edward Seymour, but failed to secure the election of his own nominee. There then developed a danger that the office or speaker, freed from dependence on the crown, would fall a prey to (political) party influence; but during the 19th century the firm tradition of an independent and nonpartisan speaker was built up, a process especially associated with Charles Shaw-Lefevre's tenure of office (1839- 57). The speaker's position was further strengthened by the fact that from 1835 it became customary for him to be re-elected for as long as he wished to hold office, no matter what changes of government might occur. Thus, the usual term of office became about 10-15 years.

THE POLITICAL PARTY SYSTEM: In a sense, parties began in the reign of James I and Charles I, in opposition to the king. The distinction between "Whig" and "Tory" began, however, over the agitation to exclude James, duke of York, from the throne because he was a Catholic. After the Revolution of 1688 the Whigs were those who supported the Protestant succession, toleration for Dissenters, and popular liberties. Neither they nor the independent country gentlemen, generally called Tories, were organized in parties. A prominent Whig peer, active in politics, had his "connection," whose members tended to vote the same way, but the modern party system really began to develop after 1783, when the younger Pitt led the Tories and Charles James Fox the Whigs. Effective power was passing from the king to his cabinet; peers and members of the House of Commons began to use the party label; and from 1830, when the Whigs took office under Earl Grey, the two-party system became stricter.

THE PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

General Characteristics

COMPOSITION: The persons summoned or elected to the Parliament of the United Kingdom are: (1) the archbishops of Canterbury and York, the bishops of London, Durham, and Winchester, and 21 other bishops holding sees in England, in order of seniority as bishops; (2) all the dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, and barons in the peerages of England, Scotland, and the United Kingdom, including those men and women who hold life peerages; (3) the judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature (i.e., the judges of the Court of Appeal and the High Court), the attorney general, and the solicitor general; and (4) the members elected for the several constituencies in the United Kingdom. The Lords spiritual and temporal, i.e., groups (1) and (2), are the members of the House of Lords. The judges and law officers in group (3) sit in Parliament when the sovereign is present, but do not otherwise sit unless their attendance is required by the House of Lords for the purpose of advising that House on a matter of law. The members in group (4) are the members of the House of Commons. The lord chancellor, if present, presides over the House of Lords whether or not he is a lord spiritual, or a lord temporal, but cannot speak unless he is. The sovereign, when present in person, is attended by his principal officers of state; but, apart from the lord chancellor, they do not sit in either House of Parliament unless entitled as lords spiritual or temporal or as members of the House of Commons. In practice they are in fact so entitled, though there are occasional and temporary exceptions; the British system of responsible government depends for its operation on the presence in Parliament of the members of the government (i.e., the prime minister and cabinet members).

Women may be elected to the House of Commons; and they may sit in the House of Lords if they hold hereditary or life peerages in their own right. Peers of England, Scotland, or the United Kingdom may not be elected to the House of Commons, but Irish peers may. The minimum age for membership of both Houses is 21.

MEETINGS OF PARLIAMENT: A Parliament is summoned by a proclamation issued by the sovereign. Thereupon writs of summons are issued to the Lords spiritual and temporal. Writs are also issued to the returning officers of constituencies directing that elections be held for members of the House of Commons. A Parliament is not constituted unless the three estates of the realm, i.e., the sovereign, the Lords spiritual and temporal, and the Commons, are all present. Hence the "great councils" consisting of king and lords, sometimes summoned in medieval England, are now deemed not to have been parliaments -- an important matter for those who claim "baronies by writ" on the ground that their ancestors were summoned to and sat in Parliament. Similarly, the "parliaments" summoned between the outbreak of the Civil War in 1642 and the restoration of Charles II in 1660 were not parliaments.

The sovereign may, however, appoint lords commissioners to act on his behalf in Parliament, and this is usually done, except that the "speech from the throne" at the beginning of each session is often read by the sovereign in person. Moreover the rule that a Parliament must consist of the three estates does not mean that the House of Lords and the House of Commons may not sit separately in their respective chambers. This is indeed the normal practice, though they may not do business until the business of the session has been put before them in Parliament; nor may legislation be enacted save in Parliament. Parliament consists of the sovereign on the throne, the Lords spiritual and temporal on the benches, and the Commons at the bar: it does not consist of the sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, sitting separately.

On the day appointed, the members of the two Houses meet in their respective chambers. The lords commissioners appointed by the crown command the gentleman usher of the black rod to let the Commons know that the lords commissioners desire their immediate attendance. The Commons attending at the bar, the letters patent are read and the lord chancellor indicates the sovereign's pleasure that a speaker be elected. The Lords take the oath, and meanwhile the Commons withdraw and proceed to elect a speaker. If a new speaker has to be chosen, the government of the day makes every effort to discover a candidate who will command general support. Contested elections for the speakership are rare -- the last two contests being held in 1895 and 1951.

Next day the lords commissioners again send for the Commons, and the speaker-elect informs the lords commissioners of his election. The lord chancellor having expressed the sovereign's approval, the speaker claims for the Commons their ancient and undoubted rights and privileges, which are confirmed by the lord chancellor. The speaker leads the Commons back to their chamber, where they take the oath. On the next day both houses meet again, this time with the judges in the Lords. The sovereign (or the lords commissioners) being present and seated, the Commons are again sent for and the speech from the throne is read. Both Lords and Commons may now proceed to the business of considering the matters in the speech; but to show that grievances may be considered before those matters, each House formally "reads" a bill for the first time.

BUSINESS IN PARLIAMENT: Parliament, strictly so called, does not meet again until either there are bills to be presented for the royal assent or the sovereign desires to prorogue or dissolve Parliament. The real work of Parliament is of course done by the House of Lords and the House of Commons, sitting separately -- the considering of bills, the voting of supplies, the appropriation of the moneys voted, the questioning of ministers, the debate of issues of public policy, and so forth. But only in the loose, popular sense is this "Parliament." When bills are ready for the royal assent, however, lords commissioners are again appointed, empowered by the commission to assent to the bills named, and they take their seats in the Lords. The Commons having been sent for, the commission is read and the title of each bill is read by the clerk of the crown. The clerk of the parliaments then announces the sovereign's assent in the appropriate form, as follows: (1) Bill voting supplies: Le Roi [La Reyne] remercie ses bons sujets, accepte leur benevolence, et ainsi le veult; (2) Any other public bill or a local bill: Le Roi [La Reyne] le veult; (3) Personal bill: Soit fait comme il est desire. In the unlikely event of the sovereign wishing to refuse assent (it has not happened since Queen Anne refused her assent to a Scottish bill in 1707), the formula would be: Le Roi [La Reyne] s'avisera.

This system of granting or refusing assent in Parliament is apparently unique, and certainly is so among Commonwealth countries. It arises from the historical fact that a bill is a petition to the sovereign presented in Parliament by the Commons with the assent of the Lords, or by the Lords with the assent of the Commons. The petition is in the form of an act, and when the sovereign consents to that act, it is enacted "by the king's (or queen's) most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons [not the House of Lords and the House of Commons], in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same." In Canada, on the other hand, the sovereign legislates "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons"; the formula is similar in other Commonwealth countries.

But even in the United Kingdom, the Canadian formula better expresses the political reality, as distinct from the constitutional form. The legislation enacted by the sovereign in Parliament has in fact been assented to by the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Since 1886, however, when the Liberal Party was split by Gladstone's Home Rule proposals for Ireland, the House of Lords has been predominantly Conservative. Hence since that date Conservative legislation passed by the House of Commons has never been rejected by the House of Lords, whereas the Conservative Party had a veto on legislation proposed by a Liberal majority in the House of Commons; and, on occasions, it did not hesitate to exercise it (e.g., against Gladstone's Home Rule Bill of 1893 and Lloyd George's Finance Bill of 1909). The only remedy of a Liberal government was to threaten to create enough Liberal peers to give the Liberals a majority in the House of Lords. The precedent for such action had been set in 1712, when Queen Anne created 12 Tory peers, but the threat was used to pass the Reform Bill of 1832, and it was used again in 1911 to pass the Parliament Act which deprived the Conservative Lords of their absolute veto. The procedure contemplated by this act was used to pass the Parliament Act (1949) which amended the 1911 act and further curtailed the Lords' powers.

Effect of the Acts of 1911 and 1949: The Parliament acts of 1911 and 1949 apply to all public bills except a bill containing a provision to extend the maximum duration of Parliament. Different provisions apply, however, to money bills and to other public bills. "Money bill" has a precise definition which has been applied with great strictness by successive speakers. In fact, it is clear that Lloyd George's Finance Bill of 1909 would not have been certified as a "money bill" if the act of 1911 had been in force. If a money bill, having been passed by the House of Commons, and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the session, is not passed by the House of Lords without amendment within one month after it is so sent up to that House, the bill shall, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to the sovereign and become an act of Parliament on the royal assent being signified, notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the bill.

In respect of a public bill other than a money bill the act of 1911 was amended by the act of 1949. In effect the act of 1911 enabled the majority of the House of Commons to override the majority of the House of Lords in two years. Under that provision the Government of Ireland Act and the Welsh Church Disestablishment Act, both in 1914, and the Parliament Act in 1949, were passed into law. The act of 1949 reduced the period to one year, though the provisions of the act were not used by the Labour House of Commons ' majority of 1949-51, since the Conservative majority in the House of Lords refrained from pushing its opposition so far that it had to be overridden. In 1967 the Labour government announced its intention of further reducing the power of the House of Lords and of eliminating its hereditary basis. Discussions on possible changes were to begin immediately among members of all parties in both houses of Parliament.

One effect of the acts of 1911 and 1949 is the statutory recognition of the "informal" procedure whereby each bill is read three times in the House of Commons and (except under the acts) three times in the House of Lords before being presented to the sovereign in Parliament. Indeed, the procedure of the acts cannot be used unless there is a certificate from the speaker either that the bill is a money bill or that the provisions of the acts relating to public bills other than money bills have been complied with. The speaker's certificate is conclusive for all purposes and cannot be questioned in any court of law.

The Legal Unchallengeability of Acts of Parliament: An act assented to by the sovereign in Parliament becomes a matter of public record. That record is conclusive as to what it says because Parliament is still "the High Court of Parliament," the highest court in the United Kingdom. Hence unless the act contains an error on its face, i.e., shows that it did not receive the appropriate assents in Parliament, its validity cannot be challenged. All modern statutes contain an appropriate enacting formula, indicating that the act in question has been enacted by the sovereign with the assent of Lords and Commons (or, where passed under the Parliament acts, of the Commons alone in accordance with those acts); and this is sufficient to make the acts unchallengeable. Some early statutes give no indication of the assent of Lords and Commons, but are presumed to have received that assent. Where, however, a statute refers to the assent of the Lords alone, it is not an act of Parliament; similarly, the "acts" of the Long Parliament or of the subsequent "parliaments" of the Interregnum, not bearing on their face the assertion that they were enacted by Charles I or Charles II, are invalid even if enrolled.

This rule, that an act of Parliament which does not show an error on its face cannot be challenged, has given rise to the theory of the "sovereignty of Parliament." If this is only a formula for the rule stated in the previous paragraph, it is at worst a misuse of language. If, however, it means that because Parliament is "sovereign" it cannot bind itself, it may be misleading. It has yet to be decided that the rule in question, being a rule of the law and custom of Parliament, cannot like other rules be amended by act of Parliament.

DURATION OF PARLIAMENT: When Parliament has been constituted in accordance with a royal proclamation it remains in being until it is dissolved. Formerly it could be dissolved only by another royal proclamation, or by the death of the sovereign who had summoned it. The famous Long Parliament of 1640 enacted in 1641, however, that that Parliament should not be dissolved except by act of Parliament. But neither its "dissolution" by a declaration of Oliver Cromwell and the council in 1653, nor its dissolution by its own act in March 1660 had any legal effect, since even the "act" was invalid, lacking the royal assent. The "Convention" Parliament (April-December 1660), which invited Charles II to return as king, finally enacted the dissolution of the Long Parliament, though the Convention Parliament itself was not a lawful Parliament because it had not been summoned by the king. Its legality was sought to be assured by the passage of an act declaring it a legal Parliament; its proceedings were, moreover, confirmed by its successor, a Parliament summoned (1661) by the king's writs. There was again legal difficulty in 1688 because when James II "abdicated" there was no Parliament in being.

By the Triennial Act (1694) the length of a Parliament was limited to three years from the date on which it was directed to meet by the writs of summons. This did not prevent a Parliament from prolonging its own life by act of Parliament, which was in fact done in 1716 by the Septennial Act. That act was passed during the troubles caused by James the Old Pretender and it provided that the existing Parliament and all future parliaments should last seven years unless sooner dissolved. The rule so enacted remained in operation until 1911, when the maximum period was reduced by the Parliament Act to five years. The parliaments that were elected in 1910 and 1935 prolonged their lives by temporary acts, for one year at a time, until 1918 and 1945, respectively.

The death of the sovereign does not now dissolve Parliament. In 1707 it was enacted that the Parliament in existence on the death of the sovereign should continue for six months, unless sooner dissolved. The limitation to six months was, however, removed by the Representation of the People Act (1867). Thus, every Parliament now remains in being for five years unless sooner dissolved. In fact, it is always specifically dissolved by proclamation. After the Septennial Act it became the practice to dissolve after six years, so as to hold a general election at a period convenient to the government; and on occasions there were earlier dissolutions, to enable the government in office to use the royal and "treasury" influence to strengthen itself. In the 19th century dissolutions were due sometimes to government defeats and sometimes to the anxiety of the party in power to "cash in" on a temporary popularity.

Prorogation and Adjournment: The fact that a Parliament is kept in being for some four years does not imply, however, that it is in session for the whole of that period. It can be prorogued by a commission, preceded by a proclamation, or by a proclamation alone. The prorogation discharges the Lords and Commons from service for the time being, but they may be summoned to meet again on a day fixed either by that proclamation or by a subsequent proclamation. Parliament used to be in session from January or February to July or August. Because of the press of business, however, it became more usual to summon Parliament to meet in October or November; and, because of the international situation during the 1930s, the practice developed of avoiding a prorogation over the summer. Hence Parliament is now summoned in November and prorogued in the following October or November when, after a very short interval, it is again summoned.

Since neither House can sit during a prorogation, all business in both Houses is terminated. A bill must, for instance, start again in the next session. Either House can, however, provide for its own adjournment; and, though the periods of adjournment used to be short, the summer recess is now provided for not by prorogation but by adjournment, power being given to the lord chancellor and the speaker to summon their respective Houses if they are satisfied of the desirability of so doing. As has been said above, prorogation is effected either by a proclamation, i.e., without having a meeting of Parliament; or by commission and proclamation. The sovereign could prorogue in person, though this has not been done since 1854. Usually a commission is appointed, the speech from the throne being read by the lord chancellor, the Commons having been summoned from their chamber. When, in accordance with the proclamation, Parliament meets again, the procedure is the same as at the opening of a new Parliament, save that there is not an election of a speaker nor is it necessary for Lords and Commons to take the oath. A dissolution is usually preceded by a prorogation, though this is not legally necessary and in any case the House of Commons is usually informed, before the prorogation, that it is the sovereign's intention to dissolve Parliament.

FREQUENCY OF PARLIAMENTS: Because of the "eleven years' tyranny" (1629-40), when Charles I ruled without a Parliament, the Long Parliament passed an act in 1641 providing that if a parliament was not summoned by September 10 in the third year next after the last sitting of a Parliament, a Parliament should be summoned in accordance with the act. That is, if the Parliament had been prorogued or adjourned, it should be dissolved and writs should be issued by the lord chancellor without direction from the king; and if there was no Parliament, writs should similarly be issued for a new Parliament. The whole matter was regulated in great detail so as to make certain that, whatever happened, there should always be a meeting of Parliament after an interval of not more than three years. This act was repealed by the Triennial Act (1664) as being "in derogation of his Majesty's just rights and prerogative inherent to the imperial crown of this realm." Instead, it was merely provided that the sitting or holding of parliaments should not be intermitted or discontinued above three years at the most.

The Triennial Act (1694), which provided for a dissolution every three years, also provided that there should not be an intermission of more than three years; and in this respect the act is still in force. It is, however, no longer necessary. Since the parliaments immediately after the Revolution of 1688 wanted to abolish the standing army, they enacted the Mutiny Bill (now called the Army and Air Force Bill) for one year at a time only -- though there were years in which no Mutiny Bill was passed. Since in fact a standing army always has been necessary, this practice has thus required an annual meeting of Parliament -- though the modern practice is to produce an Army and Air Force Act only once in five years and to continue the Army and Air Force by annual resolutions in between. Moreover, part of the taxation (generally the income tax) is continued only from year to year, and expenditure has to be authorized and appropriated every year. In any case, political considerations now require frequent and regular sittings. In effect, therefore, Parliament is almost continuously in session, and both Houses of Parliament meet for several days in each week, save for short adjournments at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide and for a longer adjournment from August to October, subject to political exigencies.

THE TWO HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT: The High Court of Parliament, like every court established in the Middle Ages, has its own system of law, generally known as the law and custom of Parliament. It is, in the main, a system of case law recorded in the Lords' journals and the Commons' journals, though there are also decisions of the speakers (e.g., in relation to the refusal of motions and questions) recorded in volumes of precedents which are not published but to which the speaker and the clerks-at-the-table have access. A few acts of Parliament also regulate the two Houses and their relations with each other. Each House, too, has standing orders which continue, subject to alteration, from session to session and from Parliament to Parliament, and sessional orders which are adopted at the beginning of each session. The whole of this considerable body of law is summarized in Sir Thomas Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (1st ed., 1844; 16th ed. by Sir Edward Fellowes and T.G.B. Cocks, 1957).

Speaking generally, there is no conflict between the law and custom of Parliament, on the one hand, and the common law, on the other. There is conflict, however, in a few matters of parliamentary privilege: and where there is such conflict neither law prevails over the other. The Court of King's (Queen's) Bench had no power to keep either House of Parliament within its jurisdiction; and neither House of Parliament has power to override the common law by resolution. The Houses of Parliament and the courts of common law are, of course, bound by acts of Parliament.

The judicial functions of the High Court of Parliament are performed by the House of Lords. These relate to (1) appeals from all courts in the United Kingdom except ecclesiastical courts, prize courts, and the House of Commons, but subject to limitations laid down by acts of Parliament; (2) impeachment at the suit of the House of Commons; (3) until 1948 it also had power to try peers accused of treason, felony or misprision of either. If, however, Parliament was not in session, the House of Lords sat as the Court of the Lord High Steward, and the peers were judges only of fact.

The two Houses are courts of record and have power to try and punish persons for breaches of their own privileges. These privileges are designed to maintain the authority, independence and dignity of the two Houses and began to develop in the 14th century. The House of Lords relies upon its inherent authority; but since 1515 the speaker, after being confirmed in office by the sovereign at the beginning of a Parliament, has laid claim for the Commons "to their ancient and undoubted rights and privileges," which are thereupon confirmed.

The privileges are: (1) right of access to the sovereign, claimed by every peer individually, and by the Commons through the speaker or such of their members as are privy councilors -- in consequence of this privilege the speaker has a right of way down the Mall (leading to Buckingham Palace, London) when attending a royal levee; (2) freedom of peers and members from civil arrest for a period from 40 days before to 40 days after a meeting of Parliament; (3) freedom of speech in Parliament (confirmed by the Bill of Rights, 1689); (4) the right to exclude strangers and to forbid the publication of reports of debates (the latter now exercised only in respect of "secret sessions" in wartime); (5) absolute privilege in respect of papers published by order of either House (confirmed by the Parliamentary Papers Act, 1840, after a dispute between the House of Commons and the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard); (6) right of the Commons to order the issue of writs for the filling of vacancies, to enforce disqualifications for sitting in Parliament and (until 1868) to determine disputed elections; and the corresponding right of the House of Lords to determine the right of persons to sit in that House; (7) right to the exclusive cognizance of matters arising within the House; and (8) power to punish any person for breach of privilege.

In respect of the last of these, conflicts sometimes arise between the House of Commons and the courts of common law. The House has always claimed power to determine the limits of its own privileges. The courts, while recognizing all the above privileges, hold that their limits are cognizable at common law. Accordingly, if the House commits a person to the clock tower for the breach of a privilege specified in the order of the House, the High Court will order his release by habeas corpus if that court considers that there is no such privilege. Such conflicts are avoided, however, if the person is committed for contempt of the House, without the order specifying what the contempt was: for the courts recognize the right of the House to commit for contempt of itself.

In the above respects the two Houses are courts of record. In the reign of Elizabeth I it was possible for Sir Thomas Smith, whose De republica Anglorum (1583) is one of the earliest monographs on constitutional law, to give equal weight to the judicial and the legislative functions. Today the legislative functions are much more important, and they include the functions of voting supplies, imposing taxation, and regulating the national expenditure. These are, however, part only of the general function of debating, criticizing, and approving the actions of the government for the time being. The authority of that government rests upon its party majority in the House of Commons: but party majorities are usually stable from one general election to another, and so the parliamentary system enables the government to secure the support of the majority of the House of Commons, but subject to possible criticism from its own party and regular criticism from the parties in opposition. What is more, the government has the means for defending itself, since most of its leading members are in the House of Commons and the rest in the House of Lords.

The House of Commons

REPRESENTATION: The Commons is singular: in the Norman French of the Middle Ages it was commune or communaute. It was the body of subjects, excluding those who were summoned to Parliament by individual writs. It could attend Parliament only by representation, and representation was based on the units of local governments, the shires and the boroughs. Each was represented by two persons, irrespective of population, because population as such was not represented. There was equal representation of each "community" in order to secure an adequate representation of the whole community or commons.

In 1509, when Henry VIII came to the throne, 37 counties and 111 boroughs were represented. The counties were the ancient counties of England, less the counties palatine of Chester and Durham and the county of Monmouth. Under Henry VIII the counties of Chester and Monmouth were given two seats each by act of Parliament, and each of the Welsh counties was given two seats. So far as England and Wales were concerned, there was no further alteration until the Reform Act of 1832, save that in 1821 the borough of Grampound was disfranchised and the two seats thus released given to Yorkshire, which thus had four seats. By the Act of Union with Scotland in 1707, however, 30 county members were brought in for Scotland. Since there were then 34 Scottish counties (Ross and Cromarty were not joined until 1889), 8 counties had to be combined in pairs. By the Act of Union with Ireland in 1800, 64 county members were elected.

The ancient boroughs were, for the most part, seaports, county towns, and fortified places that had received franchises or liberties by royal charter conferring special privileges. Since representation was an onerous and expensive duty, however, many chartered boroughs had ceased to be parliamentary boroughs. The majority of those represented in the parliaments of Henry VIII were in the south, west, and east of England, where most of the thriving towns were to be found, though a borough continued to be represented even if, as a town, it had virtually disappeared (e.g., Old Sarum). Since representation depended on a royal charter, however, it was possible for the king to increase the number of boroughs so represented. Moreover the House of Commons claimed the right to decide whether a borough was entitled to representation; and since the 15th century representation was becoming less and less of an onerous duty and more and more of a privilege. This arose because the nobility, especially the new nobility of the Tudors, gained prestige by being able to nominate their relatives, friends and retainers to Parliament and the persons so nominated were usually willing to relieve the boroughs of all expense. Accordingly, under the Tudors there was a rapid increase in borough representation. Of this increase of 148 borough members, 15 were due to legislation under Henry VIII bringing in Chester, Monmouth, and the Welsh boroughs; all the rest were due to royal charters. Under the Stuarts the recalcitrant Commons became critical of this exercise of the royal prerogative, and though James I created 11 new seats, only 2 were afterward created by charter, under Charles II. The city of Durham was given 2 seats by act of Parliament under Charles II, and under James I and Charles I 32 seats were created by the restoration of ancient privileges by the House of Commons. No borough seats were created between 1688 and 1832, except by act of Parliament, and then only to give representation to Scotland and Ireland -- though, as mentioned above, Grampound lost its 2 seats for corruption. Hence the membership of the House of Commons grew from 296 "communities" (74 counties, and 222 boroughs) at the death of Henry VII (1509), to 653 "communities" (188 counties, and 465 boroughs) at the death of George IV (1830). To these must be added the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, enfranchised by royal charter under James I, and Trinity College, Dublin, enfranchised by the Act of Union with Ireland. Consequently the unreformed Parliament contained 658 members.

The Reform Acts of 1832 did not change the total, but only the distribution. Wales was given 29 seats instead of 24, Scotland 53 seats instead of 45, and Ireland 105 seats instead of 100. The great changes were made in England, where 56 boroughs were disfranchised and the representation of 31 reduced from two to one (four to two in the case of the combined boroughs of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis). Forty-two English towns became new boroughs and 34 English counties received additional members. These changes were not intended to be revolutionary. What was sought was a better balance. The small boroughs were wholly or partially disfranchised on a population basis, though many small boroughs had their boundaries extended in order to continue their representation. Populous places like Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, and Sheffield were enfranchised. This decreased the number of boroughs under aristocratic control and increased the representation of the "manufacturing interest"; but this was balanced by the increase in the number of county seats that benefited the "landed interest." The principle of equality of representation for communities or areas was not given up because, though small boroughs had only one seat, no borough except London had more than two seats. Moreover the counties which had four seats (and Yorkshire which had six) were divided into two-member constituencies.

The changes made in 1867-68 were few, and the great change was made in 1884-85, when the principle of representation according to population was accepted. Moreover the principle of the single-chamber constituency was accepted everywhere, except in the universities and in those boroughs which had two members both before and after 1884. There were redistributions, on the same principles, in 1918, 1945, 1949, and 1954, and there is now permanent provision for redistribution at intervals of 12-15 years, by commissions presided over by the speaker of the House of Commons.

ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSAL FRANCHISE: Meanwhile the franchise had been changing. In the 14th century the knights of the shire were elected in the county court: and, since nobody particularly wanted to undertake the duty, it was unnecessary to lay down qualifications for voting. Early in the 15th century, however, the convention developed that it was an honour to be a knight of the shire, and accordingly it was enacted in 1430 that the right to vote should be vested in all persons who held freehold land of the clear annual value of 40s. This was, until 1832, the sole qualification for county elections, and it remained the basic qualification until 1918. Meanwhile the value of land, in terms of money, had risen enormously: but the ordinary villager or townsman was not thereby enfranchised because he usually held by copyhold or leasehold.

In respect of the boroughs there was no legislation until 1832, and the franchise was regulated by local custom. In some boroughs, like Preston and Westminster, it was very wide, and extended to all inhabitant householders who had separate kitchens ("potwallopers," who boiled their own pots) or who paid local taxes ("scot and lot") or even, in Preston, all persons without restriction. In other boroughs only the freemen had the vote. Where the local guilds remained strong and provision was made for journeyman's apprentices to become freemen, this franchise might be widespread, as in Liverpool. Elsewhere, as in Cambridge, the creation of freemen was left to the corporation, whose members tended to keep the franchise close in order to control elections. In yet other boroughs the election was in the hands of the members of the corporation themselves. Finally, there were boroughs in which the franchise was vested in the owners of land held on burgage tenure. The notorious borough of Old Sarum, which had ceased to exist but continued to return two members, was in this category. It was bought by the Pitt family (i.e., they bought the burgage lands) and mortgaged to the treasury. It should be mentioned, however, that in those boroughs that were cities or boroughs of counties, like Bristol and Norwich, the 40s. freeholders had the vote.

It should be emphasized that, until 1884, contested elections were the exception. This was very largely due to the expense involved. Where there was anything like a popular franchise (i.e., in all the counties and about half the boroughs) the whole cost of the election, i.e., the fees of the officials concerned, the erection of the hustings, the cost of the polling booths, had to be met by the candidates. To this had to be added the cost of bringing electors to the poll, which in the case of a county meant bringing them to the county town, and feeding and perhaps lodging them. Further, many electors were nonresident and had to be transported from their homes, perhaps in London (in the 19th century the party organizations bought railway tickets and charged the cost to the candidates). It was usual to employ bands, to distribute ribbons and other favours and to open the inns and taverns to the free and independent electors. Nor were other methods, such as bribery, abduction, or impersonation, always avoided. Charles Dickens' famous election scene in Pickwick Papers was based on fact: and indeed "Eatanswill" may have been the notoriously corrupt borough of Sudbury, which Dickens reported on at the general election of 1835. The cost of a hotly contested election could be anything from £10,000 to £100,000 .

On the other hand, there was usually no contested election in a corporation borough, or in a freeman borough with few freemen, or in a burgage borough where one person owned most of the burgages. Moreover, the modern idea of voting for party had not developed, at least before 1800. Most people would vote, if there were a contest, for the squire's candidate, because that was the proper thing to do. In the 19th century the reformers said that tenants voted for landlords, shopkeepers for their wealthy customers, employees for their employers, etc., because of fear of victimization: but this was to put the cart before the horse. It was just as disloyal to vote against the squire as it would be for a Yorkshireman to cheer for Lancashire in a cricket match or for a trade unionist to be a "blackleg."

The result in a county election was that, for instance, Sir James Lowther (created earl of Lonsdale in 1784) could nominate the members for Westmorland because the squires always supported his candidates and the freeholders supported their squires. Only where the great landowners contested for the "influence" (e.g., the Percys and the Greys in Northumberland) was there a contested election; and usually it was agreed to divide the seats, the Percys having one and the Greys the other. Most of the boroughs were similarly under "influence," e.g., no decent person would dare to oppose the Churchill (or the friend of the Churchills) nominated by the duke of Marlborough for Woodstock. Hence some boroughs were "owned" by great landowners and many were "influenced" by them. Only in the "open" boroughs, where potwallopers, scot and lot electors or freemen were numerous, could there be a contested election, and then a good deal of money was required. Electorates were generally small even after 1832; and in Cambridge, for instance, Sam Long's paid cohort of 200 electors could win any election for the candidate who did a deal with Sam.

In 1832 the £10 copyholder, the £10 leaseholder for 60 years or of £50 for 20 years, and the tenant at will who paid £50 a year rent, were enfranchised in the county and the £10 occupier in the borough. The householder was enfranchised in the borough in 1867 and in the county in 1884. In 1832, too, the ancient franchises were extinguished forthwith in the case of nonresidents, and after existing lives in other cases. (This meant that in some "open" boroughs like Liverpool working class electors were disfranchised). In 1918 only two qualifications were recognized, residence and the occupation of business premises of £10 a year. In 1948 the business premises qualification was abolished, and so were the 12 university seats (2 each for Oxford and Cambridge and the "English universities," one each for London, the University of Wales, the Queen's University of Belfast, 3 for the "Scottish universities"; all but Oxford and Cambridge had received representation between 1867 and 1928). Meanwhile women aged 30 or more were enfranchised in 1918 and women aged 21 or more were enfranchised in 1928. Moreover, the secret ballot had been introduced in 1872 and an effective Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act passed in 1883. The voting age was reduced to 18 in 1969. (NOTE: All property qualifications were also abolished years ago, enabling the ancient British system of representation to evolve into a universal franchise that meets the modern standards for a full-fledged democracy. WFI Editor).

BUSINESS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS: The procedure in the House of Commons in the 19th and 20th centuries has been based on the principle that it is the function of the government to govern and of the opposition to oppose. The need to provide adequate scope for both these activities has led to the development and also to the frequent modification of various procedures. Facilities must also be provided for Parliament to carry out its ancient role as the forum through which redress of grievances, whether or public or individual, is to be sought; this includes the raising of matters regarded as of public urgency, on which members of the House consider that an immediate debate is essential.

Function of the Speaker

The speaker's main tasks are to preside over debates (except when the House is in committee), to enforce the observance of all rules for preserving order, and to advise the House in its proceedings. He rules on points of order as they arise in debate, and these rulings constitute precedents by which subsequent speakers are guided. He decides whether a proposal for an emergency debate should have precedence over the business already set down, and whether a prima facie case has been made out in complaints of breaches of privilege. He has the power to select amendments and to accept or reject a motion for the closure of debate. He restrains disorderly conduct either by a simple call to order, or by directing the withdrawal of offensive expressions. In serious cases he can name a member, which leads to immediate suspension from the House. If general disorder arises the speaker may either suspend the sitting for a period or adjourn the House without putting the question. The calling of members to speak in debate is entirely in his hands, and his main concern is to ensure that a variety of points of view is heard.

Functions of the Government

Government involves both executive and legislative action. Parliament, primarily a legislative body, is not normally the vehicle for executive functions, but occasionally a minister may wish to make in Parliament a statement of policy (on a matter for which the government already has adequate legal powers). He will then arrange for a question to be asked during the time set aside for questions, so that in answering it he may make his pronouncement. The main work of the government in Parliament is, however, the implementation of the legislative program on which it fought and won the last general election.

Public (Government) Bills

Discussion and debate on government bills now takes up a vast amount of Parliamentary time, providing the main items on the House of Commons' agenda (called the "orders of the day"). This development is largely due to two characteristics of 20th century political practice and theory, a major increase in centralized government, and a belief in the necessity of a state that serves the needs of all of citizens, including the formerly dispossessed poor. Since 1906 the weight of public legislation has steadily increased; measures for social security, for the nationalization of public services, and for a wide range of administrative controls that compel the bureaucracy to be accountable, have competed to get onto the statute book. In 1918 a cabinet committee, the future Legislation Committee, was set up in order to plan the program for every session of Parliament.

The Three Readings of a Bill

The traditional procedure by which a bill must be read three times in each House of Parliament before it can receive the assent of that House dates from time immemorial, but is based on the recognized need to allow members adequately to investigate the principles which a bill embodies and the details of its provisions. The first reading of a bill is purely formal; the second reading provides the occasion for debate on the principle involved. The bill then goes "into committee," where it is examined clause by clause. Most bills are now sent to one or other of the standing committees (each set up to deal with bills on one particular range of topics, and reflecting in their composition the respective strength of parties in the House); the Conservative governments of the years 1951 to 1964, however, reverted to an earlier practice of forming committees of the whole House. The chairman can usually keep debate within bounds by accepting closure motions ("that the question be now put" -- such motions must now normally be accepted without debate), and by selecting amendments. Very often there is an informal agreement between the parties, whereby a timetable is laid down. If, however, the bill is both complicated and hotly contested, it is necessary for the government to introduce into the House a "guillotine motion" (closure clause by clause -- a practice first adopted in 1881), which in effect imposes a timetable on the committee. After the committee stage comes the report stage, when the committee reports back to the House; at this point further amendments may be moved, which will involve further debate of the specific clauses concerned. Finally the bill is read a third time, after another debate on its principle.

Financial Measures

If, however, the bill contains any financial clauses, and government bills usually do, there has to be a financial resolution in committee of ways and means (i.e., a committee of the whole House, the speaker being absent). The purpose of this procedure is to safeguard the expenditure of public money, by requiring the House to debate the financial implications of legislative proposals. The so-called budget statement made by the chancellor of the exchequer annually in April is in fact a speech on a series of financial resolutions in committee of ways and means. The financial resolution to some extent restricts the scope of amendments at the committee and report stages, since they may not run contrary to it or seek to alter its provisions. By the oldest standing order of the House still in operation -- dating from the time of Queen Anne -- only the crown (i.e., in this context, the government) may introduce a financial resolution. The purpose of the rule is to prevent private members from distributing largesse to constituents. Any money the government expends it must also raise; but without this rule private members could propose and vote for expenditure but against taxation, thus depleting the treasury. (NOTE: In the Congress of the U.S. there is no requirement that public expenditures be matched with revenue raising measures, and the result can be seen in an out-of-control budget process, an outrageously high national debt, and the lucrative distribution of national wealth to the contributors who finance the political campaigns of Congressmen and Senators. WFI Editor).

Opposition and the Redress of Grievances

Besides members of the majority party, on the whole anxious to hasten the passage of the government's measures and to support its policies, the House of Commons contains the members of the opposition, who seek to thwart the legislative program and embarrass the government in all possible ways. The opposition corporately, as well as individual members or groups of members from any and every party, may also wish to bring to the House's notice matters of urgent public importance or to seek redress for the grievances of their constituents. Both these functions are important in any democracy, and the procedure of the House of Commons has to provide an adequate framework for their exercise.

The legislative procedure outlined above shows that both the opposition and private members have the opportunity, in debate and in proposing amendments, to attack or to seek to modify the government's program. But in practice the rigidity of modern party discipline, whereby a member is obliged to vote as his party leaders dictate, makes it impossible for the opposition to secure the rejection of a government bill. All that is likely to be achieved is the modification by amendment of individual clauses of a bill.

The greatest opportunity for attacking government policy and for raising issues on which the government may be thought to have been negligent are "question time" and the "debate on the adjournment." The first important, non-formal business of the Parliamentary day, question time, held regularly since 1832, provides the means by which ministers (and through them their government departments) can to some extent be brought to account. Questions became so important a part of the technique of opposition that in 1937 the Labour Party formed a central bureau through which all its members' questions were to be channeled, in order to avoid overlapping, and to ensure the selection of the most vital and damaging questions. This period has now also become particularly important for members who, because of the exigencies of modern electoral procedures, find it necessary to demonstrate to their constituents that they are vocal and active. Because question time has become so popular with members, it has become necessary to limit to three per day the number of questions an individual member may ask. It has also been arranged (since 1902) that questions requiring information only shall be answered in writing, thus taking up no parliamentary time. But because most questions have a debating and attacking value, framing a criticism or imparting discreditable information, they require an oral answer and for this purpose are "starred" (marked with an asterisk) when sent in. For the convenience of ministers questions are taken in groups, according to subject matter. The practice of allowing supplementary questions to be asked by any member after the answer to the original question has been given provides additional opportunity for the opposition and private members to press their attacks. As there is no advance notice given of supplementary questions, the minister concerned has to make an impromptu answer.

At the end of questions any member may move the adjournment of the House "for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance." Interpretations of the phrase by successive speakers have limited its value; but there is no doubt that if any urgent matter of outstanding importance were raised -- even if it related only to a serious injustice to a private citizen -- the speaker would allow a debate which would interrupt other business later in the day. A member may also raise a matter on the motion "that the House do adjourn" at the end of the day's business, and the last half hour before the House rises will then be devoted to debate on the topic he has introduced. As the normal rule since 1945 has been that the main business of the day be completed at 10 P.M. (the "ten-o'clock rule"), the debate on the adjournment usually takes place between 10 and 10:30 P.M. The "ten-o'clock rule" can, of course, be abrogated, as occurs when there is an all-night sitting, and the private member may therefore be unable to introduce his motion until the following morning. Moreover, so many members have matters to raise that it has become necessary to ration the use of this time either by the speaker's decision or by recourse to a ballot. Another method of raising a subject in Parliament is for a member to introduce a bill under the so-called "ten-minutes rule"; the bill has no chance of becoming law, but its sponsor in introducing it can bring a particular cause to public notice.

Private Members' Bills

Originally the number of private bills passed through Parliament equaled the number of public bills, as examination of the statute book shows. For instance, the majority of the great land enclosure acts of the 18th century were private bills. The huge increase of public business -- together with the growing assumption that most business is public business -- has gradually reduced to an insignificant amount the ration of Parliamentary time available for consideration of private bills. Nevertheless, some small chance for private members' bills remains. In each Parliamentary session, up to about Easter, government business has precedence on only four days out of a five-day week (thereafter it occupies the whole five days), Fridays in this period being set aside for private members' bills. Again, however, the number of members wishing to introduce bills is so great that a ballot system has to be followed. Unless a member is successful in a ballot for priority for debate on one of an alternate series of Fridays, he cannot get his motion debated. Unless his bill was completely unopposed, in order to proceed further and get it passed he has then to be successful in a ballot for priority on the other Fridays in the series. In practice private members' bills have little chance of succeeding unless the government is willing to provide them with extra time, as happened with Sydney Silverman's bill for the abolition of the death penalty (1965).

(W. I. J.; X.)

The House of Lords

These complications do not concern the House of Lords. Few peers attend the normal debates and even an attendance of 200 exceptional. The party controversy is much less fierce in the Lords than in the Commons. Above all there are no financial resolutions, estimates, supplementary estimates, or committee work on financial measures. Financial bills and financial clauses of general bills are considered to be matters within the exclusive cognizance of the House of Commons. This means that they may be debated but not amended by the House of Lords. In the case of a "money bill," as defined by the Parliament Act of 1911, rejection by the House of Lords can be overruled. It follows that, though the procedure of the House of Lords is fundamentally the same as that of the House of Commons, it is free from restrictions introduced into the latter since 1800. The House of Lords usually sits for only three hours a day, three days a week.

(W. I. J.)

(NOTE: The House of Lords embodies the hereditary principle in the nation, being constituted of those honored for their national service through their, or their ancestor's, elevation to the peerage. The role of the House of Lords is fundamentally advisory in nature, but the fact that its members do not attain their position through electoral politics puts the House of Lords in a position whereby it can address vital and important issues of the day solely according to the principles of reason, without sacrificing the integrity of good sense for the expediencies of mass-persuasion politics. WFI Editor).