The Quaint Side of Parliament.

procedure known as "a call of the House," for taking the full sense of the House on any question of great importance. Not less than a week or ten clays is allowed to members to respond to the call, and any member not present in the House to answer to his name when the roll is read by the clerk, without due cause for his absence, may be sent for in the custody of the sergeant-at-arms. This procedure would now be resorted to only on the occasion of some supreme crisis in the affairs of the nation, when it was most essen tial that every member of Parliament should be at his post. The last time " a call of the House " was made was on the icth of April, 1876, on the motion of Mr. Whittle Harvey, who subsequently moved for the appointment of a select committee to revise the pension list. The division on the latter motion (which was rejected by a majority of one hundred and twenty-two) showed that there were four hundred and fourteen members in the House. The last occasion on which a motion for "a call " was moved was on the 23d of March, 1882, when Mr. Sexton, in accordance with no tice moved " that this House be called over on Thursday, the 3oth of March." The House on that day was to enter on the consideration of the proposed new rules of procedure (in cluding the closure of debate), and Mr. Sex ton's object was to secure the attendance of Messrs. Parnell, Dillon and O'Kelly, M. P.'s, who were at the time confined as " suspects" in Kilmainham Prison, Dublin. The motion, which was opposed by the government, was defeated. It was pointed out that the procedure was useless for the purpose for which it was originally intended — namely, to take the full sense of the House on a bill or mo tion, as there is no compulsory process in the procedure of the House by which members, even if they answered the " call," can be obliged to vote on the question at issue. The " call " to which members are most alive, nowadays, is the crack of the party whip. That absenteeism was a dire offence in

565

the time of the Stuart Kings is proved by the number and variety of " orders touching motion for leave into the country " to be found in the journals during the seventeenth century. Here are a few of them : " 1 3th of February, 1620. No member shall go qut of town without open motion and license in the House." By the next rule it will be seen that knights of the shire were ranked much higher than the representatives of cities or boroughs: "25th of March, 1664. The penalty of 10/. to be paid by every knight, and 5/. by every citizen, etc., who shall make default in attending." Absence evidently became a crying sin, and was vis ited accordingly : " 1 6th of November, 1 666. To be sent for in custody of the sergeant." From the succeeding string of resolutions it is evident that, under the restored monarchy, there was a marked inclination amongst members to " play the truant " : " 18th of De cember, 1666. Such members of the House as depart into the country without leave, to be sent for in custody of the sergeant-atarms." Even this terror does not seem to have effectually deterred " runaways," for two months later marks the imposition of a pen alty which, in those days, must have seemed formidable indeed : " 1 3th of February, 1667. That every defaulter in attendance, whose excuse shall not be allowed this day, be fined the sum of 40/. and sent for in custody, and committed to the Tower till the fine be paid." A similar fine was, at the same time, imposed on "every member who should desert the service of the House for the space of three days," without special leave, incarceration in the Tower being part of the penalty. The stringency of this rule was relaxed by common consent in 1668, and a fine of 10/. was substituted as sufficiently onerous, in all cases " the fines -to be paid into the hands of the sergeant-at-arms, to be disposed of as the House shall direct." The individual freedom of members in our times is not so much restricted, but that ab senteeism is still an offence is proved by the