No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
The origin of the English committee of the whole has evoked much conjecture from historian and political scientist alike, but no conscientious scholar has as yet found the subject worthy of exhaustive study. A scrutiny of the parliamentary sources for the period by the present writer shows, however, what the difficulties are. The meagreness of the records, especially for the sessions of 1604 and 1610, render a thorough examination of the problem almost impossible. In Professor Notestein's The Winning of the Initiative by the House of Commons, we find the best treatment of the committee of the whole house. But the discussion is short and fails to satisfy the more curious student of parliamentary procedure. Professor Notestein tells us that, about 1607, “there appeared, rather accidentally, the Committee of the Whole House, a Committee at its beginnings so little different from the ‘General Committee’ of late Elizabethan days that its appearance excited little comment…. By 1610 it was becoming customary to refer many matters to it; by 1614 the House went into such a Committee on the least occasion; by 1621 there were four several Committees of the Whole House, which met on different afternoons, and the House went often into Committee in the afternoon about any matter in hand.” All this is undoubtedly true, but that authority is unable to assign any definite reason for the development of this practice and spends most of his time discussing the effects, which are undoubtedly more important to the historian. The problem of origins remains, however, unanswered.
1 Notestein, Wallace, The Winning of the Initiative by the House of Commons (The British Academy. Raleigh Lecture on History. London, 1924).Google Scholar
2 Ibid., p. 37.
3 Redlich, Josef, The Procedure of the House of Commons (London, 1908), II, pp. 199–200.Google Scholar
4 Townshend, Heywood, Historical Collections (London, 1680), pp. 197–200, 238, 243, 288.Google Scholar
5 SirSmith, Thomas, De Republica Anglorum (edited by Alston, L., Cambridge, 1906).Google Scholar
6 SirD'Ewes, Simond, The Journals of All the Parliaments during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (revised by Bowes, Paul, London, 1682), p. 493.Google Scholar
7 Ibid., p. 495.
8 D'Ewes, , Journals, pp. 629–31Google Scholar; Townshend, , Historical Collections, pp. 197–200, 238, 243, 288.Google Scholar
9 Of the five meetings of the general committee, two were held for the discussion of subsidies to the Queen, two were for the discussion of monopolies, and one involved consideration of the Dunkirk Affair.
10 Rogers, Lindsay, “Legislative Committees,” in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York, 1931), IV, p. 40.Google Scholar
11 Smith, , De Republica Anglorum, p. 54.Google Scholar “He that once hath spoken in a bill though he be confuted straight, that day may not replie, no though he would change his opinion. So that to one bill in one day one may not in that house speake twise….”
12 Notestein, op. cit., p. 37.
13 Professor Notestein found the first meeting of the committee of the whole in 1607. The appearance of Bowyer's, Diary in 1931Google Scholar has given us, however, new reliable information which Notestein did not have at the time he wrote.
14 The term “committees” was generally used during this period to denote the individual members of a committee.
15 Wilson, David Harris, The Parliamentary Diary of Robert Bowyer, 1606–1607 (Minneapolis, 1931), pp. 76–77.Google Scholar
16 Campion, G. F. M., An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons (London, 1929), p. 21.Google Scholar
17 Bowyer, , Diary, p. 136.Google Scholar
18 Commons Journal, I, 371; I, 1042; I, 429.
19 Bowyer, , Diary, p. 197.Google Scholar
20 C. J., I, 371; I, 1042.
21 Ibid., I, 1042.
22 Ibid.
23 C. J., I, 1054; cf. I, 387. “The Amendments and Provisions annexed to the Bill of hostile laws, sent down from the Lords, were secondly read, and committed to the Great Committee named upon the Second Reading of the Bill itself in this House: And moved, that Mr. Speaker might depart, and the Committee being compounded of the Whole House, and now together, and the Business of the House very little, might (for saving of Time) presently into Consideration of their Charge …”
24 Ibid., I, 387–8.
25 Bowyer, , Diary, pp. 351–6.Google Scholar
26 Ibid., p. 356.
27 C. J., I, 393–94.
28 Ibid., I, 411. Motion of Sir Maurice Berkeley.
29 Ibid., I, 412.
30 Ibid., I, 414.
31 Gardiner, Samuel R., Parliamentary Debates in 1610 (Camden Society Publications, Vol. 81, London, 1862), p. 146.Google Scholar
32 C. J., I, 420. On the motion of Mr. Martin, it was agreed that the committee meet as before at 7 a.m. until 9.
33 Ibid., I, 429.
34 On May 11, the Speaker informed the House that he had received a message from the king commanding them to refrain from discussing the royal right to levy impositions in general. Finally, upon question, the Speaker confessed that the message was not from the king but from the Council. See Gardiner, S. R., History of England, 1603–1642 (London, 1883–1884), II, p. 70.Google Scholar
35 C. J., I, 430.
36 Ibid., I, 430–31.
37 Parl. Debates, 1610, pp. 36–41.
38 C. J., I, 431.
39 On May 21, the king had angrily declared that he would not have his prerogative questioned, but on May 24 he found that he had gone too far. In reply to the deputation sent by the Commons with the petition of right, James gave them full liberty to consider the subject. Gardiner, , History of England, II, 70–72.Google Scholar
40 C. J., I, 436–40.
41 Ibid., I, 443.
42 Parl. Debates, 1610, pp. 63–110.
43 C. J., I, 445.
44 Ibid., I, 457.
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid., I, 458.
47 Ibid., I, 459.
48 Ibid., I, 461.
49 Ibid., I, 464.
50 Ibid., I, 466.
51 Ibid., I, 466–67.
52 Ibid., I, 468, 470, 471.
53 Ibid., I, 475.
54 Ibid., I, 487, 490, 491.
55 Ibid., I, 492.
56 Ibid., I, 500.
57 Gardiner, , Hist. of England, II, 244–45.Google Scholar
58 C. J., I, 505.
59 The motion was made, however, by Mr.Alford, . Commons Debates, 1621, edited by Notestein, Wallace, Relf, Frances Helen, and Simpson, Hartley (New Haven, 1935), II, pp. 23–24.Google Scholar
60 Ibid., II, p. 24.
61 D. N. B.
62 Commons Debates, 1621, II, pp. 65–66. “Sir Thomas Roe said that the committees [of the whole] were too great, so that whereas there were several businesses referred to several committees and all handled at once, now one business takes up the whole House.”
63 Ibid., II, p. 66.
64 Ibid., II, p. 78.
65 The Book of Committees is probably an official journal of the committees of the whole for this session. A contemporary diarist speaks of “two books kept by the Clerk, the one of business of the House, the other of the Committees of the whole House.” Commons Debates, 1621, I, 96–97.
66 Ibid., IV.
67 C. J., I, 671–72.
68 Ibid., I, 672.
69 Ibid.
70 Notestein, , The Winning of the Initiative, pp. 34–41.Google Scholar
71 Ibid., p. 53.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.