POWERS OF THE ASSEMBLY 427 decorum were summoned to the bar of the House, required to ask pardon (sometimes on their knees1), pay fines, and suffer a severe reprimand. Professor Jacob Rowe of William and Mary College, at the time of the "Parsons' Cause", said publicly that any member voting to settle the salaries of the clergy in money would be a scoundrel, and should such an one apply to him to receive the sacrament he would refuse to administer it to him. For these remarks he was taken into custody, made to apologise, and pay fees. Such cases were legion and could be cited from the legislative journals of nearly every colony, royal, proprietary, and corporate, West Indian and continental.3 The Assembly claimed full right to exercise authority over its own members also, particularly in matters of disputed elections, the most important business that came before it for adjudication. Most of the Assemblies took this responsibility seriously, appointed a standing committee on privileges and elections, heard witnesses and arguments by counsel, ever anxious not "to endanger the liberties and property of [their] constituents".5 The matters investigated were usually bribery, wrong methods of holding the election, undue influence, disorderly conduct or intimidation, or any action serving to prevent an honest count. Sometimes the qualifications were unsatisfactory, as to residence, race, property, religion, or naturalisation (as in the case of de Lancey of New York). In most of the colonies, except in Barbados where the Assembly cited its own precedents, English practice was frequently followed and sometimes the journals of the House of Commons were consulted. There is at least one instance where a number of people were disqualified for reasons that would not have been accepted in England. In the West Indies the chief trouble was insufficiency of freehold and many controversies arose between the governors and the Assemblies over the matter. Legislative practices in Barbados differed in many respects from those of Jamaica and other royal colonies that accepted British parliamentary precedents. The Assembly in Barbados began to work out its own procedure as early as 1639 and it continued to follow these precedents in later years. In 1754, the Jamaica House resolved that it had "an undoubted right, whenever they shall see cause, to declare void all writs issued by the governor during the continuance of the Assembly for electing members to serve in the House when such writs shall be issued without the request of the House". As a rule members expelled by the House and re-elected by their constituents were allowed to take their seats, though there are instances to the 1 Votes and Proceedings, Pennsylvania, m, 88 (1729); Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1702-3, p. 554. J.H.B. Virginia, 1758-61, Sept. 22. See for example Connecticut Col. Recs. v, 492–3; Georgia Col. Recs. XIII, 39; Minot, Massachusetts Bay, 1, 206–12. N. Carolina Recs. VI, 374, 406, 1154 b; IX, 457. 5 J.H.R. New York, 1, 755; II, 77-80, 643. S. Carolina Recs. 11, 29-36. 8 C.O. 140/43. 6 Ibid. 1, 514-20. contrary. On one occasion the governor in Jamaica declared that the freedom of election was an inherent right of the people of England, and that as the Assembly allowed the people to elect, "they should not require that they elect only those whom they [the Assembly] wished", 2 The House disciplined members for betraying secrets,3 for being absent without leave, for uncivil or unparliamentary conduct, for irreverence or anti-Christian statements, 4 for scandalous immorality," for charges of sedition, for contempt or affront to the dignity of the House, for drunkenness and profanity, and for refusal to obey the orders of the House. Attendance was uncertain in the West Indies, owing to the heat, frequent absences from the island, and negro troubles which kept members at home; and in Jamaica those who persistently refused to appear were automatically expelled. Delinquents were punished by fines, censures, admonitions, apologies, imprisonment, expulsion, kneeling at the bar, and threats of even severer penalties. As the Assemblies became more powerful and sure of their own strength, they took cognisance of all forms of misconduct by anyone, whether members, private persons, civil and judicial officers, or even appointees of the Crown. In Pennsylvania, in 1757, a famous attempt was made to remove one William Moore, a justice of the peace, for a pamphlet filled with "shameful calumnies...and tending to bring the House into derision and contempt among the people". Moore was sent to gaol and the pamphlet was ordered to be burnt by the common hangman. William Smith, provost of Philadelphia College, who was charged with helping Moore, was called upon to apologise, and when he demanded his right of appeal to the King was told that there could be no appeal from judgments relating to privilege. In Virginia, in 1748, a member of the council was charged, in the presence of the council itself, with "scandalous and malicious reproaches...highly reflecting upon the honour of the Speaker and of the House", and was compelled to apologise. Even more noteworthy was the punishment meted out to a king's appointee, the naval officer for York River, who for a "scandalous insult" was reprimanded and committed to gaol "in close confinement, without pens, ink, or paper, to be fed on bread only and allowed no strong liquor". 9 This increase in self-importance and self-consciousness was due in part to the rapid growth of wealth and population in the colonies and to the enhanced dignity which, in America as in England at the same time, was attaching itself to membership in the representative 1 Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1702-3, pp. 695, 705. J.H.R. Jamaica, 1, 300-25. J.H.R. Massachusetts, III, II, 123. • N. Carolina Recs. vIII, 268-9, 331, 471, 494. 3 N. Carolina Recs. vi, 961. 5 J.H.R. Massachusetts, I, 10. 7 Votes and Proceedings, Pennsylvania, 1757-8, pp. 33 seqq. J.H.B. Virginia, 1748, p. 290. Ibid. 1767, pp. 91, 97, 98, 99, etc. ASSEMBLY PROCEDURE 429 body. It was due also in further part to the realisation by the Assemblies themselves of the fact that they were not municipal or provincial councils but were becoming in reality "his Majesty's Commons" in America, analogous to and co-equal with the House of Commons in England. The likeness appeared not only in the powers which the Assemblies exercised and the privileges which they enjoyed but also in the procedure they followed. In Virginia, this similarity of procedure was almost complete, even to the appearance of the Assembly chamber and the manner of the sitting of the members, which paralleled very closely the arrangements in St Stephen's Chapel, Westminster. Only in Connecticut and Rhode Island was the simpler system of a moderator's meeting employed, for in those colonies there were no standing committees, no readings of bills, and no dissolution, the Assemblies being adjourned, never dissolved. Yet even in these Assemblies there was a Speaker and their practice inevitably included certain parliamentary forms. The House of Representatives in Massachusetts, though similar in origin to the Assemblies of Connecticut and Rhode Island, adopted, under its royal governor, a number of parliamentary precedents, though less conspicuously than did either Virginia, Pennsylvania, or New York. Only occasionally did it make use of the standing committee, and only on rare occasions did it resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, a device which it used rather as a measure of secrecy against the governor than as a step in the process of passing a bill. A similar situation prevailed in Georgia, where, on going into committee, the members ordered the door to be locked and the key laid upon the table before the chairman and declared that no one could leave without incurring the censure of the House. Even in Virginia the committee of the whole House was frequently employed as a weapon in the Assembly's struggle with the Crown. The committee of the whole House was known in Jamaica,2 but was rarely used in Pennsylvania; and in North Carolina, while it acted sometimes in the usual manner, it took cognisance also of much business that in other colonies was dealt with by standing committees. The Barbados Assembly employed few standing committees and (as far as can be discovered) no committee of the whole House; but it made frequent use of joint committees, two of which, those on accounts and on instructions to the agent, were standing committees. There were also conferences or "grand committees" of the two Houses. In nearly all the royal colonies the procedure employed followed a more or less uniform course, with many variations in detail. It is probable that most, if not all, of the Assemblies adopted standing orders or rules of procedure, though in a few cases only have they 1 Hening, Statutes at Large, m, 213, 419; J.H.B. Virginia, 1703, pp. 30, 55, 61; Pargellis, S. M., "Procedure in the Virginia House of Burgesses", William and Mary Quarterly, 1927. 2 Cal St. Pap. Col. 1702-3, p. 694. been preserved.1 Such rules concerned the conduct of members, attendance and absence, manner of debate, order of business, matters of privilege, and the care of the records. Generally speaking, there appears to have been no attempt made in the Assemblies to restrict discussion or to deal with filibustering and obstruction. Only in Pennsylvania was the Speaker allowed to stop unnecessary, tedious, and superfluous debate and to demand silence when needful. The Assemblies were never in a hurry, and there is little to show that the freedom of speech was abused. The obligation to turn out laws was never pressing, and the total number passed is, relatively speaking, small. In the modern sense of the term there were no parties and no whips, though in the case of a vote the messenger might be sent to summon those who were absent; nor were agreements arranged beforehand. There was no calendar or order of the day, though probably the Speaker was accustomed to control the sequence of business. "The members", says Josiah Quincy, speaking of the South Carolina Commons House of Assembly, where the deputies represented the planting interests as did the deputies in the West Indies, "all sit with their hats on and uncover when they rise to speak. They are not confined (at least they do not confine themselves) to any one place to speak in. The members conversed, lolled, and chatted much like a friendly jovial society, when nothing of importance was before the House. Nay, once or twice, while the Speaker or clerk were busy in writing, the members spoke quite loud across the room to one another. A very unparliamentary appearance. The Speaker put the question sitting; the members gave their votes by rising from their seats, the dissentients did not rise." When either Speaker or clerk referred to a member he did so by gesture or title and not by name. Though many members were careful of their dress and appearance, there is reason to believe that those from the more remote sections paid little attention to clothes or manners, and the fact that drunkenness, smoking, and unseemly conduct were given prominent place in the standing rules of the House shows that such breaches of decorum were not uncommon. Except in Barbados, South Carolina, and Georgia the members were paid for their services. The Speaker was elected by the House and approved by the governor; the clerk, except in Massachusetts and North Carolina, and the sergeant-at-arms were governor's appointees. In Bermuda the Speaker was elected every fourth year, a practice which the Board of Trade wholly forbade because not in accord with the usage of Parliament. The right of the Crown, through the governor, 1 We have the standing orders for Pennsylvania (Votes and Proceedings, II, 218–19); Georgia (Georgia Col. Kecs. XIV, 51; XV, 326); those for Virginia, first adopted in 1663 (Hening, 11, 206) and revised and extended in 1769 (J.H.B. 1769, p. 323); for Jamaica at various times (Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1675-6, pp. 215-18; 1702-3, p. 717; 1704-5, pp. 428-9; Long, 1, 55). For Barbados see Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1661-8, pp. 352-4; for New Hampshire see N.H. Prov. Pap. V, 325. * "Journal of Josiah Quincy, Jr.” Proceedings, Mass. Hist. Soc. June 1916, p. 452. THE SPEAKER 43I to reprove or reject a Speaker was absolutely insisted on.1 The Speaker had a position of honour and respect within the Assembly, though in the actual exercise of authority his position varied in the different colonies. He controlled the business of the House, and saw that it was conducted with order and propriety. He issued writs to the sergeant-at-arms to bring persons before the House for examination or reproof, and served as the mouthpiece of the House in communicating with the governor or council or the outside world. While there is no reason to suppose that the Speakers anywhere were intentionally partisan, except in their opposition to the prerogative, the only one who consciously followed the non-partisan example of Speaker Onslow in England was John Randolph of Virginia. He promised when elected in 1734 to make his own "fancies and humours" subservient to the rules, and begged the House to lay aside illgrounded conceits, prejudice of opinion, affectation to popularity, and private animosities or personal resentments.2 Randolph lived up to his pretensions and gave to the speakership in Virginia exceptional dignity. Though in general the Speaker could vote, he rarely exercised the privilege, except to break a tie, but whether he made use of this privilege in all the colonies is not clear. The Speaker, the clerk, the clerk's assistant (if there was one), the sergeant-at-arms, and the mace-bearer were all robed in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, New York, and Maryland, and probably in the West Indies; and the tendency towards ceremonial manifested itself clearly as the years passed and the Assembly grew in popular esteem. In North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, and it may be elsewhere, a mace was borne before the Speaker on his entrance and laid on the table while the House was in session. In Jamaica it was borne before the governor. Usually the House had a chaplain (except in Georgia), or at least a clergyman invited to conduct prayers, and the members generally attended church in a body at the opening of the session. Proceedings were conducted secretly until after the middle of the century, when galleries or a bar were built in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Virginia5 for the accommodation of such of the public as the members might invite to attend. These galleries could be cleared at any time should secrecy be desired. In 1773 Quincy wrote of Pennsylvania, "Their debates are not public, which is said now to be the case of only this House of Commons throughout the continent." In consequence of this publicity, a change took place in the character of the oratory in the chamber, because henceforth it was of use in influencing public opinion. In the passage of bills, the familiar parliamentary system of three 1 Bell and Parker, Guide, p. 113. 2 J.H.B. Virginia, 1734, P. 174; 1736, pp. 239 seqq. In Virginia the Journal records but nine such instances, for example, 1720, p. 300. Moore, G. H., Prytaneum Bostoniense, pp. 11-25; J.H.R. Massachusetts, 1773-4, p. 26. 5 J.H.B. Virginia, 1764, p. 61; 1766, p. 44. "Journal", p. 476. 6 |