From The Spectator. CURIOSITIES OF PARLIAMENTARY HIS

TORY.

payment was made in kind instead of in specie. There is an indenture extant (3 Edward III.) between one John Strawnge and certain burgesses of Droitwich, by virtue of which the said John Strawnge agreed to attend the Parliament at Westminster, "qwehdyr it holde longe tyme or schortt, or gwhedye it fortune to been P'rogott "" for the consideration of a "Cade of full Heryng tho' to been dyliv'id be Xitenmesse next comyng." The needy voter does not often find his privilege an encumbrance to him

THE session just closed has been one of the least remarkable we have had of late years. It survived the average term, although, perhaps, it scarcely accomplished the average amount of work, and it was saved from utter dulness only by the personalities occasionally introduced into the debates. There is no circumstance connected with it which entitles it to be numbered among the curious Parliaments of now-a-days, and Mr. Strange's bargain conwhich history bears record, and which are a trasts ludicrously with the amount of provgood deal better worth recalling than the in- ender said to have been once consumed by cidents of the past six months. Many of "the voters of a small borough," besides a the members who were becoming impatient "preparatory breakfast" which cost £750. last week to depart for the grouse, must The following is the bill of fare, as given in have envied their predecessors in the first the Annual Register, 1761: 980 stone of Parliament which ever sat, in the reign of beef, 315 dozen of wine, 72 pipes of ale, 365 Henry the Third, who were released after an gallons of spirits converted into punch. attendance of thirty-three days. The bur- Parliaments were ordinarily elected angesses, citizens, and knights had never be- nually, but the session was generally very fore been allowed to exercise legislative func- brief, and between the reigns of Henry VI. tions, and the writ which summoned them and Charles II. the sittings were frequently rendered it lawful for them to receive pay- adjourned on account of the plague. The ment for their services from their constitu- shortest Parliament that ever sat met in the ents. The sheriffs were directed to form a thirty-fourth year of the reign of Edward I., jury of "four lawful knights" to assess the and existed for one day only; the longest expenses of the representatives; and for was not that which is historically known as many years subsequently members received the "Long Parliament," which, according to wages during the session. The rate of pay the general computation, existed 16 years, was first fixed in the reign of Edward II.-it 145 days, or according to another (the outwas to be 4s. a day for every knight of the side limit) 17 years and three months. The shire, and 2s. for every burgess; but a second Parliament of Charles II. met on the smaller sum was sometimes taken, and there 8th of May, 1661, and was not dissolved till is one case, which a writer in Notes and the 24th of January, 1678, having thus had Queries suggests may be the first instance a duration of 17 years, 8 months, and 16 of bribery known, where a member con- days. This, therefore, is the real "long" sented to serve for nothing. The expenses Parliament. It sat through, as Hume says, of travelling to the place where Parliament "the whole course of the reign, one year exassembled often deterred small constituen- cepted. . . . Before their dissolution they cies from sending members-they virtually disfranchised themselves on account of their poverty. Petitions have been presented to Parliament from constituencies begging to be disfranchised on the ground of their inability to pay the expenses of their members. The Parliament of 9 Edward III. sat at York for eight days only, but the representatives from Cornwall had payment, granted them for thirty-two days spent in travelling. This formed so serious a charge that it became a luxury, which only well-to-do boroughs could afford, to have a member. In some cases

seemed to be treading fast in the footsteps of the last Long Parliament, on whose conduct they threw at first such violent blame." Down to the time of Henry IV., the longest Parliament that had ever been known extended over ten months. He was the first king who prorogued Parliament by his own will and act. Twenty days was the average length of the session during the half century that Edward III. sat on the throne. This would have suited the blunt and dissatisfied Speaker who, in the course of the debate on the Triennial Bill in 1693, declared that

"Parliaments resembled the manna which the Welsh princes. Old members of the God bestowed on the chosen people. They House may recollect an instance of a prime were excellent while they were fresh, but if minister being severely rebuked for a cheer kept too long they became noisome, and foul which he did not give. The incident ocworms were engendered by the corruption of curred during a debate on the state of Irethat which had been sweeter than honey." land, in the session of 1846. Mr. Disraeli It was not, indeed, without many prognosti- made it the foundation of one of his " encations of evil that Septennial Parliaments venomed" attacks upon Sir Robert Peel, were instituted, and some of the most pun- that he had cheered a statement of Mr. gent sarcasms of Junius are directed against Cobden, which was contrary to his (the those who could act as they liked for six prime minister's) own views. Sir R. Peel years, provided they took a little trouble to "totally denied" this, whereupon Mr. Dismake atonement in the seventh. The long-raeli, according to Hansard, exclaimed-" If est session of late years was that of 1847- the right honorable baronet means to say 48, which lasted 293 days, and was referred to by the Speaker in his address to the queen, as well as from the throne, as a "laborious and protracted session." Mr. May, in a pamphlet published in 1849, states that "it sat 170 days; the average duration of each sitting was 8 hours, 16 3-4 minutes; it sat 136 1-4 hours after midnight. There were 10,412 entries in the votes of res gestæ, and 255 divisions." Let members think of this, and consider how lightly they have escaped from their duties in the present year.

that anything I have said is false, of course I cease-I sit down." And sit down he did, in the middle of his speech. A scene ensued. Mr. Newdegate asked for an explanation of Sir R. Peel's words, and Major Macnamara, probably scenting a battle afar off, protested that if "any honorable member felt aggrieved, this is not the place to call him (Sir R. Peel) to account." But Lord George Bentinck, Sir James Graham, and other members who are no longer living, interposed to make peace. Sir R. Peel repeated his denial that he had cheered Mr. Cobden's The present "forms" of both Houses remark. Mr. Disraeli expressed himself have accumulated by slow degrees. In the satisfied, and the parties retired for the reign of James I. a member brought forward night, without any prospect of Major Maca motion forbidding hissing in the House of namara's services being called into requisiCommons, and declaring it to be "a thing tion. Among all the hot encounters between derogatory from the dignity, not becoming Sir R. Peel and Mr. Disraeli, this apthe gravity, and as much crossing and abat-proached the nearest to an open personal ing the honor and privileges of the House as any other abuse whatsoever." The motion was accepted "with approval," but the practice of making unseemly noises does not seem to have declined, and Mr. Erskine May, in his valuable Law of Parliament, regrets that in our own time "the most disorderly noises are sometimes made." The ironical "Hear, hear" is peculiarly offensive to the nervous speaker, and even the practised debater is sometimes discomfited by an unexpected cheer. A few years ago a Mr. Blewitt, representative of the Mon-"that every member standing in the passage mouthshire boroughs, was the butt of the House when he rose, and used to make, as a writer in Fraser's Magazine tells us, "imploring appeals, in plaintive tones and with aggrieved astonishment in his aspect, to know what it was the House were laughing at." It did not avail this unlucky gentleman that he was lineally descended from

quarrel.

Formerly, members could not absent themselves for a single night from the House without permission of the monarch, and in after times, of the Speaker and the House. In every case they forfeited their wages during the time they were absent. Both Lords and Commons were fined if they did not attend prayers. During the "Long Parliament" the Commons made an order "that all members who climb over seats shall pay 12d.," and in the same session it was agreed,

whilst the House is sitting shall pay 12d. to the Sergeant." It has often happened that members of Parliament have been mobbed, as in the time of Lord George Gordon's riots, or threatened, as in the case of Mr. Secretary Peel, who one night informed the House that he had received a letter complaining of his speeches, and threatening

him with public contradiction from the gal- | her Commons very sharply for it, and once lery. The writer was summoned to the bar told them "She utterly disallows and conand reprimanded. Persons have repeatedly demns those for their audacious, arrogant, been committed by the House for libelling and presumptuous folly who, by superfluous individual members, the first example known speeches, spend much time in meddling with of this mode of vindicating its honor having matters, neither pertaining to them, nor occurred in 1680. Once, in the reign of within the capacity of their understanding." James I., the House took vengeance on a On another occasion she charged them "Not yeoman of the guard who had hindered a to make new and idle laws, and trouble the member from entering in order to hear the House with them, but rather look to the king's speech. The offender was brought in abridging and repealing of divers obsolete solemnly in a state of great contrition and and superfluous statutes "-certainly a senpenitence, and was compelled to beg par- sible and homely piece of advice. She also don on his knees at the bar. He was like- rebuked the Commons for keeping among wise reprimanded by the Speaker. Occa- them "Desperate debtors who never come sionally, persons not members were found abroad," and "prowling and common soliciwithin the House and ignominiously ex- tors that set dissension between men and pelled. Such accidents are little likely to men." The "Virgin Queen" had, indeed, occur now. The policemen at the doors a particular hatred for solicitors, and it was know most of the members by sight, and probably at her instigation that a bill was even if an imposter were to elude their pene- brought in for reducing the number of those tration, the porter at the door would infalli- " pests." bly discover him. It would be hardly possible, indeed, for a non-member to take his seat in the House during the progress of business.

The Speaker, though a potent and generally revered authority, has sometimes fallen beneath the displeasure of the House and suffered rebuke. In the time of James I. there was a Speaker who seems to have been in the habit of leaving the House frequently, without apology or explanation. One evening he met with an unexpectedly warm reception on his return to the chair. A Mr. Mallory said he ought not to rise without leave, and Sir R. Phillippes complained that the Speaker "sometime neglecteth his duty to the House in intricating or deferring the question." Sir H. Manners was even more downright: "Mr. Speaker is but a servant to the House, not a master, nor master's mate." Sir H. Withrington declared that "the Speaker was the fault of all their faults, by preventing them with rising." The attack went the round of the House, the unfortunate object of it being compelled to listen to it with his accustomed impartiality and gravity. We are not aware of any similar instance of a combined and determined outbreak against the Speaker on the part of members; of late years, at any rate, an excellent understanding has prevailed.

The loquacity of members is no new failing. Queen Elizabeth ridiculed and reviled

The Act 7 and 8 Will. III. made it necessary that a member should be of age-prior to that time there was no such restriction. In one of Elizabeth's Parliaments a long discussion took place upon this very point. A Mr. Alford said that no one was fit to serve under thirty years of age, and a few days afterwards Thomas Long, "a very simple man," was questioned as to his election. "He confesses that he gave the mayor of Westbury and another five pounds for his place in Parliament." They were ordered to repay the sum, a fine of £20 was levied on the corporation, and Long was expelled. In Notes and Queries (vol. 8, O. S.) a strange story appeared of a "member electing himself." A subsequent correspondent corrected the narrative in many important particulars, but stated that he was an eyewitness of the election, and that one elector only was present. Mr. Bannatyne was the member who thus gained a seat (for the county of Bute) by one vote.

During the past session a few journals have promised to get a suitable gallery for the ladies in the House of Commons, instead of the cage which now hides their charms. These polite writers may not be aware that serious arguments were, and are still sometimes, used against ladies being admitted within the House at all. The Edinburgh Review thus reasoned in 1841: "It cannot be denied that the effect of a casual attend

by the admission of ladies. Perhaps, after this, fair politicians will be contented with the cage from which they are permitted to survey the mysteries.

ance at debates is to cause a regard for persons rather than for principles, and the substitution of private partiality for calm and comprehensive judgment-in short, the aggravation of those very failings which are To conclude these stray notes, we may always observable in the politics of women. mention that two "men of color" have sat Women who take an interest in politics are in Parliament Dyce Sombre and John commonly observed to be keener and bit- Stewart-and that it was once the custom terer in their partisanship than men. To for sittings to take place on Sunday. No make them spectators of political conflicts instance of this has occurred since the reign would be to aggravate the animosity with of Richard II. "The last occasion," says which they are too apt to regard the oppo- Mr. May, "on which the Crown refused its nents of their own friends; and the harmony consent to a bill was in 1807, when Queen and peace of society, which have already too Anne refused her assent to a bill for settling often been disturbed by political discord, the militia in Scotland." While Cromwell would materially suffer." Another of the was in power he gave his assent to bills in writer's objections was that it would be un- English, ignoring the French form used till advisable "that the vanity of young mem- then, and restored after his death. The bers should be tempted to encroach upon House of Lords once passed a measure to the valuable time of the House, by the pres- do away with these French words, but the ence of an audience still more interesting Lower House was for once more Conservathan even the redoubtable phalanx of re-tive than the Upper, and refused to abolish porters." He even thought that the House the ancient custom, which is consequently would be lowered in the sight of the country still observed.

DISCOUNTING ONE'S MARBLE.-We read in the Bath Chronicle that in the Abbey Cemetery (which we take not to be exactly the place where Mr. Acres thought there was "snug lying") a citizen of Bath has erected unto himself a tombstone, upon which he has recorded all that is usually placed there, leaving a blank for the day of his demise. And this memorial by anticipation the brave Bath brick occasionally visits and reads. We do not hear whether he has indulged himself in epigraphic eulogy, but why should he not do so? He must know himself better than anybody else can know him, and may speak of his own virtues with the calmness of certainty, whereas his executors could only guess at them. Let him put up "R. I. P.", whether that mean Respected in the Parish, or as in Roman Catholic inscriptions, implies an unpleasantly warm operation undergone in the intermediate state. Or stay. Why not take the other line? He is a strong minded man, and not afraid to rebuke tombstone flatteries. We have not the slightest or faintest idea who he is, and therefore cannot annoy him by our wildest supposition. Let us suppose him a Humbug. His decorous executors may or may not know the fact, but certainly will not allege it, viá chisel and hammer. What a splendid moral lesson he might readthus:

Here Lies

What is Mortal of
PIGGE DE BLADUD, ESQ.,
Of this City,

He had a bad temper and a good wig:
He knew which side his bread was buttered:
He was thought rich, and undeceived nobody:
Hence he was feared, admired, respected,

And made Churchwarden. And,
Dying on the Blank day of Blank,
And leaving next to nothing behind him,

Is now called an awful old Humbug,
And does not care a farthing what he is called.

Now, there would be true courage in a man who should put up anything of that sort, and we believe (unless seeing Robert le Diable has made us superstitious) that the hypocritical tombstones around this revelation would be found to have twisted round and turned their backs upon such vulgar frankness. De mortuis nil nisi Verum is a rule to which we have not yet attained; but if the living took to writing their own epitaphs, we might approach that wholesomeness. At any rate we are obliged to our friend at Bath for putting the notion into our minds, and in return we will hope that it will be a good while (if such be his wish) before the date is chiselled into the stone mentioned in the Bath Chronicle.-Punch.