Programming and Problem Solving with Python 1st

Edition - eBook PDF download

https://ebookluna.com/download/programming-and-problem-solving-
with-python-ebook-pdf/

Download more ebook from https://ebookluna.com

 We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebookluna.com
to discover even more!

Problem Solving and Python Programming 1st edition - eBook PDF

https://ebookluna.com/download/problem-solving-and-python-programming-
ebook-pdf/

(eBook PDF) Programming, Problem Solving and Abstraction with C

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-programming-problem-solving-and-
abstraction-with-c/

Programming for Problem Solving- GTU 2018 - eBook PDF

https://ebookluna.com/download/programming-for-problem-solving-ebook-pdf/

(eBook PDF) Introduction to Programming with Java: A Problem Solving

Approach 3rd Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-introduction-to-programming-with-
java-a-problem-solving-approach-3rd-edition/
(eBook PDF) Java: An Introduction to Problem Solving and Programming 7th
Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-java-an-introduction-to-problem-
solving-and-programming-7th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Java: An Introduction to Problem Solving and Programming 8th

Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-java-an-introduction-to-problem-
solving-and-programming-8th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Problem Solving with C++ 10th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-problem-solving-with-c-10th-
edition/

(eBook PDF) Problem Solving with C++ 9th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-problem-solving-with-c-9th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Matlab: A Practical Introduction to Programming and Problem

Solving 4th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-matlab-a-practical-introduction-to-
programming-and-problem-solving-4th-edition/
PROGRAMMING AND PROBLEM SOLVING
WITH

PYTHON
 About the Authors

Ashok Namdev Kamthane is a retired Associate Professor of the Department

of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering, S. G. G. S. Institute of
Engineering and Technology, Nanded, Maharashtra, India. An academic with
37 years of teaching experience, he has authored more than a dozen books and
presented several technical papers at national and international conferences.
He has earned a first class in ME (Electronics) from S. G. G. S. College of
Engineering and Technology. His ME dissertation work from Bhabha Atomic
Research Center, Trombay, Mumbai, was on development of the hardware and
software using 8051 (8-bit microcontroller) Acoustic Transceiver System required in submarines.

Amit Ashok Kamthane is a Research Assistant at National Centre for Aerospace

Innovation and Research, IIT Bombay. In the past, he was associated as a
lecturer with S. G. G. S. Institute of Engineering and Technology, Nanded and
as an Assistant Professor with P. E. S Modern College, Pune. He completed his
ME (Computer Science and Engineering) from M. G. M. College of Engineering
and BE (Computer Science and Engineering) in first class from G. H. Raisoni
College of Engineering, Pune. A computer programming enthusiast, he also
imparts corporate training.
PROGRAMMING AND PROBLEM SOLVING
WITH

PYTHON
Ashok Namdev Kamthane
Retired Associate Professor
Department of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering
Shri Guru Gobind Singhji Institute of Engineering and Technology, Nanded
Maharashtra, India

Amit Ashok Kamthane

Research Assistant
IIT Bombay
Maharashtra, India

McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited

CHENNAI
McGraw Hill Education Offices
Chennai New York St Louis San Francisco Auckland Bogotá Caracas
Kuala Lumpur Lisbon London Madrid Mexico City Milan Montreal
San Juan Santiago Singapore Sydney Tokyo Toronto
 McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited
Published by McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited
444/1, Sri Ekambara Naicker Industrial Estate, Alapakkam, Porur, Chennai 600 116

Programming and Problem Solving with Python

Copyright © 2018 by McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise or stored in a database or retrieval system without the prior written permission of
the publishers. The program listings (if any) may be entered, stored and executed in a computer system, but they may not
be reproduced for publication.

This edition can be exported from India only by the publishers,

McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D103074 22 21 20 19 18
Printed and bound in India.
Print Edition
ISBN (13): 978-93-87067-57-8
ISBN (10): 93-87067-57-2
e-Book Edition
ISBN (13): 978-93-87067-58-5
ISBN (10): 93-87067-58-0
Managing Director: Kaushik Bellani
Director—Science & Engineering Portfolio: Vibha Mahajan
Senior Portfolio Manager—Science & Engineering: Hemant K Jha
Associate Portfolio Manager—Science & Engineering: Mohammad Salman Khurshid
Senior Manager—Content Development: Shalini Jha
Content Developer: Ranjana Chaube
Production Head: Satinder S Baveja
Assistant Manager—Production: Jagriti Kundu
General Manager—Production: Rajender P Ghansela
Manager—Production: Reji Kumar

Information contained in this work has been obtained by McGraw Hill Education (India), from sources believed to be reliable.
However, neither McGraw Hill Education (India) nor its authors guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information
published herein, and neither McGraw Hill Education (India) nor its authors shall be responsible for any errors, omissions, or
damages arising out of use of this information. This work is published with the understanding that McGraw Hill Education
(India) and its authors are supplying information but are not attempting to render engineering or other professional services. If
such services are required, the assistance of an appropriate professional should be sought.

Typeset at APS Compugraphics, 4G, PKT 2, Mayur Vihar Phase-III, Delhi 96, and printed at

Cover Printer:

Visit us at: www.mheducation.co.in

 Dedicated to

Sow Surekha Ashok Kamthane

(Mother of Amit Ashok Kamthane)
 Preface

It gives us immense pleasure to bring the book ‘Programming and Problem Solving with Python’. The
book is intended for the students in initial years of engineering and mathematics who can use this
high-level programming language as an effective tool in mathematical problem solving. Python is
used to develop applications of any stream and it is not restricted only to computer science.
We believe that anyone who has basic knowledge of computer and ability of logical thinking can
learn programming. With this motivation, we have written this book in a lucid manner. Once you
go through the book, you will know how simple the programming language is and at the same
time you will learn the basics of python programming. You will feel motivated enough to develop
applications using python.
Since this book has been written with consideration that reader has no prior knowledge of
python programming, before going through all the chapters, reader should know what are the
benefits of learning python programming. Following are some of the reasons why one should
learn python language.
• Python language is simple and easy to learn. For example, it has simple syntax compared to
other programming languages.
• Python is an object-oriented programming language. It is used to develop desktop, standalone
and scripting applications.
• Python is also an example of free open source software. Due to its open nature one can write
programs and can deploy on any of platform, i.e., (Windows, Linux, Ubuntu and Mac OS),
without changing the original program.
Thus, due to the features enlisted above, python has become the most popular language and is
widely used among programmers.

Use of Python in Engineering Domains

Computer Engineering
Python is used in computer engineering
• To develop web applications
• By data scientists to analyse large amount of data
• In automation testing
viii Preface

• To develop GUI-based applications, cryptography and network security and many more
applications
Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering and Electrical Engineering
• Image processing applications can be developed by using python’s ‘scikit-image’ library
• Widely used in developing embedded applications
• Develop IOT applications using Arduino and Raspberry pi
Python can also be used in other engineering streams such as mechanical, chemical, and
bioinformatics to perform complex calculations by making use of numpy, scipy, and pandas library.
Thus, the end user of this book can be anyone who wants to learn basics of python programming.
To learn the basics, the student can be of any stream/any engineering/Diploma/BCA/MCA
background and interested to develop applications using python.

Organization of the Book

The book is organized into two parts. The first part covers fundamentals of computer programming
while the second part covers topics related to object-oriented programming and some basic topics
on data structures.
In the first part of the book, the readers will learn about basics of computer, basics of python
programming, executing python programs on various operating systems (Chapter 1), data
types used in python, assignments, formatting numbers and strings (Chapter 2) operators and
expressions (Chapter 3), decision statements (Chapter 4), loop control statements (Chapter 5) and
functions (Chapter 6).
In the second part, the readers will be introduced to creation of classes and objects. The concept
of creating list and strings using classes are discussed in Chapters 7 and 8. Reader will also
become aware of basic topics of data structures, i.e. searching and sorting (Chapter 9) since it is
one of the most important concept and used in almost all real-world applications. Various concepts
and features of object-oriented programming such as inheritance, accessibility, i.e. encapsulation
have been covered in Chapter 10. Chapter 11 comprises one of the major important data structures
of python, i.e. tuples, sets and dictionaries in great detail whereas Chapter 12 explains graphics
creation using turtle. Finally, Chapter 13 will help the readers to understand the need of file
handling and develop real-time applications based on it. Thus, after going through the second
part of the book, the readers will be in a position to create a software application by considering
flexibility, and reusability.

Online Learning Centre

The text is supported by additional content which can be accessed from the weblink
http://www.mhhe.com/kamthane/python. The weblink comprises
• Problems for practice
• Solutions Manual (for Instructors and Students)
• PPTs
• Useful web links for further reading
 Preface ix

In the end, we would like to express gratitude to all our well-wishers and readers, whose
unstinted support and encouragement has kept us going as a teacher and author of this book. Any
suggestion regarding the improvement of the book will be highly appreciated.

ASHOK NAMDEV K AMTHANE

AMIT ASHOK K AMTHANE

Publisher’s Note
McGraw-Hill Education (India) invites suggestions and comments from you, all of which can be
sent to [email protected] (kindly mention the title and author name in the subject line).
Piracy-related issues may also be reported.
 Visual W

All chapters within the book have been structured into the following important pedagogical
components:

Decision Statements
• Learning Outcomes give a clear idea to the 4
students and programmers on what they will
learn in each chapter. After completion of 4.1 Introduction
CHAPTER OUTLINE
4.6 Boolean Expressions and Relational
4.2 Boolean Type Operators
chapter, they will able to comprehend and apply 4.3
4.4
Boolean Operators
Using Numbers with Boolean Operators
4.7 Decision Making Statements
4.8 Conditional Expressions

all the objectives of the chapter. 4.5 Using String with Boolean Operators

LEARNING OUTCOMES

• Introduction explains the basics of each topic After completing this chapter, students will be able to:

bool

and familiarizes the reader to the concept being Boolean Relational > <,>= <= !=

if
dealt with. if
if else

if-elif-else

conditional expressions

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Write a program to create a list with elements 1,2,3,4 and 5. Display even elements of the list
PROGRAM 8.1 using list comprehension.

List1=[1,2,3,4,5]
print(“Content of List1”)
print(List1)
List1=[x for x in List1 if x%2==0]
print(“Even elements from the List1”)
print(List1)
• Programs are the highlighting
Output Generate 50 random numbers within a range 500 to 1000 and write them to file
feature of the chapters. Ample
PROGRAM 13.3
Content of List1
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
WriteNumRandom.txt.

from random import randint # Import Random Module

programs have been provided
[2, 4]
fp1 = open(“WriteNumRandom.txt”,”w”) # Open file in write mode
for x in range(51): #Iterates for 50 times
against each sub topic to effectively
x = randint(500,1000) #Generate one random number
x = str(x) #Convert Number to String
strengthen the learnt concepts.
fp1.write(x + “ “) #Write Number to Output file
fp1.close() #Finish Writing Close the file

Output File
 Visual Walkthrough xi

• Mini Project consists of a problem MINI PROJECT Turtle Racing Game

statement that will compel the readers to three red green black

think and make use of various concepts

learnt to solve real-life problems through
programming.

Turtle Racing Track

penup(), pendown(),
forward(), right(), goto(), color(), shape(), speed() left()

Note: The del operator uses index to access the elements of a list. It gives a run time error if the index
• Notes have been inserted in each chapter
is out of range.
Example: to provide valuable insights based on
>>> del Lst[4]
Traceback (most recent call last):
programming concepts. Notes shall
File “<pyshell#37>”, line 1, in <module>
del Lst[4]
also act as precautionary statements for
IndexError: list assignment index out of range readers to solve programming problems
effectively.

SUMMARY
• A concise Summary has been listed at
chapter-end to reiterate vital points and
describes in short, the complex concepts
covered within the chapter.

• Key Terms enlists important keywords

and concepts covered within the chapter.
KEY TERMS

The def keyword:

Positional arguments:
• Extensive Review Questions presented Keyword arguments:
Local and global scope of a variable:

at the end of each chapter comprise The return keyword:

Lambda:

Multiple Choice Questions, True False REVIEW QUESTIONS

statements, Exercise Questions and
A. Multiple Choice Questions
Programming Assignments. This would
help in analyzing the learnt information.

x = 10
def f():
x= x + 10
print(x)
f()
 Acknowledgements

We would like to express deep sense of gratitude to Professor B. M. Naik, former Principal of
S. G. G. S. College of Engineering and Technology, Nanded, who constantly praised and inspired
us to write books on technical subjects and whose enthusiasm and guidance led us to write this
book.
Special thanks are also due to Dr. L. M. Waghmare, Director, S. G. G. S. Institute of Engineering
and Technology, Professor Dr. U. V. Kulkarni, HOD, CSE and Professor P. S. Nalawade of S. G. G. S.
Institute of Engineering and Technology Nanded for encouraging us to write this book on Python.
We are grateful to Professor Dr. Mrs. S. A. Itkar, HOD, CSE and Professor Mrs. Deipali V. Gore
of P. E. S. Modern College of Engineering Pune, for supporting us while writing the book. We
are also thankful to the staff members (Santosh Nagargoje, Nilesh Deshmukh, Kunnal Khadake,
Digvijay Patil and Sujeet Deshpande) of P. E. S. Modern College of Engineering for their valuable
suggestions.
Furthermore, we would like to thank our friends—ShriKumar P. Ugale and Navneet Agrawal—
for giving valuable inputs while writing the book. Also, we would like to thank our students—
Suraj K, Pranav C, and Prajyot Gurav—who offered comments, suggestions and praise while
writing the book.
We are thankful to the following reviewers for providing useful feedback and critical suggestions
during the development of the manuscript.

Vikram Goyal IIIT Delhi

Partha Pakray NIT, Mizoram
Harish Sharma RTU, Kota
Shreedhara K.S. University BDT College of Engineering, Karnataka
S. Rama Sree Aditya Engineering College, Andhra Pradesh
Sansar Singh Chauhan IEC-CET, Greater Noida

Lastly, we are indebted to our family members—Mrs. Surekha Kamthane (mother of Amit
Kamthane), Amol, Swarupa, Aditya, Santosh Chidrawar, Sangita Chidrawar, Sakshi and Sartak for
their love, support and encouragement.

ASHOK NAMDEV K AMTHANE

AMIT ASHOK K AMTHANE
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
House of Commons, as peculiar. Steele described the House of his
day as being composed of silent people oppressed by the choice of a
great deal to say, and of eloquent people ignorant that what they
said was nothing to the purpose.[324]
It was not until the Georgian age that parliamentary oratory reached
its heyday. Then, too, speeches began to lengthen, and by the time
Lord North became Prime Minister it was not unusual for a member
to address the House for two or three hours on end. Lord Brougham
once spoke for six hours on the amendment of the law. Even in
Walpole's day occasional prolixity was not unknown. One Hutcheson,
member for Hastings, when the Septennial Bill of 1716 was under
discussion, made a speech of which the summary fills more than
twenty-five pages of the Parliamentary History.[325] Again, when
David Hartley, a notorious bore, rose to speak one day, Walpole went
home, changed his clothes, rode to Hampstead, returned, changed
once more, and came back to the House to find this tiresome
member still upon his legs.[326]
Chatham was the first statesman to make a habit of delivering long
speeches. The practice was never popular, and has now fallen into
desuetude. The rising to his feet of a tedious member has ever been
the signal for the House to clear as though by magic. Sergeant
Hewitt, member for Coventry in 1761, was a well-known
parliamentary emetic. "Is the House up?" asked a friend of Charles
Townshend, seeing the latter leaving St. Stephen's Chapel. "No,"
replied Townshend, "but Hewitt is!"[327] The departure of his
audience is, however, a hint to which the habitual bore is generally
impervious. A dull and lengthy speaker, addressing empty benches in
the House of Commons, whispered to a friend that the absence of
members did not affect him, as he was speaking to posterity. "If you
go on at this rate," was the unkind reply, "you'll see your audience
before you!"[328]
When Gladstone brought in his first Budget in 1853 he spoke for five
hours. He had been advised by Sir Robert Peel to be long and
diffuse, rather than short and concise, seeing that the House of
Commons was composed of men of such various ways of thinking,
and it was important to put his case from many different points of
view so as to appeal to the idiosyncrasies of each.[329] In the days
of his Premiership, however, Gladstone's speeches were considerably
shortened, and even the introduction of so momentous and intricate
a measure as the Home Rule Bill of 1886 was accomplished in three
and a half hours. Lengthy speeches are no longer fashionable,
though Mr. Biggar spoke for four hours on a famous occasion in
1890, and Mr. Lloyd George occupied the same time in unfolding the
much-discussed Finance Bill of 1909.
Though the oratorical masterpieces of the past may, for the most
part, be dull reading, to the student or historian they must always
prove interesting and instructive, as revealing those peculiar qualities
which appeal to a parliamentary audience. They explain to a certain
extent what it is that a speech must possess in order to meet with
the approval of either House.
Parliament—and more especially the House of Commons—is no very
lenient critic; but it is a sound one. It pardons the faults of style or
manner due to inexperience; it tolerates homeliness that is the
outcome of sincerity. It has a keen eye for motives, and anything
pretentious or dishonest is an abomination to it. Matter is of far
greater importance than manner, and Parliament agrees with Sir
Thomas More that whereas "much folly is uttered with pointed
polished speech, so many, boisterous and rude in language, see
deep indeed, and give right substantial counsel."[330] Sincerity, in
fact, has far more influence in the House of Commons than either
brilliancy or wit, and any attempt at platform heroics is certain to
fail. There is nothing the House is so fond of, Sheil used to say, as
facts.[331] There is nothing it so much resents, we might now add,
as violations of good taste. This fastidiousness is no doubt of
modern growth, for we find Burke's coarseness readily condoned,
and Sheil himself lapsing into occasional vulgarity.[332]
Like all assemblies of human beings, Parliament has always
welcomed an opportunity for laughter. In the House of Commons the
poorest joke creates amusement; the man who sits upon his hat at
once becomes a popular favourite; a "bull" is ever acceptable. When
Sheridan, in 1840, attacked another member, saying, "There he
stands, Mr. Speaker, like a crocodile, with his hands in his pockets,
shedding false tears!" the House rocked with laughter.[333] Yet the
phrase did not originate with Sheridan, but was one of the many
"bulls" that had been coined by that prince of bull-makers, Sir Boyle
Roche. It was Roche who declared that he could not be in two
places at once "like a bird"; who attempted to "shunt a question by a
side-wind"; and announced that he was prepared to sacrifice not
merely a part but the whole of the Constitution to preserve the
remainder! "What, Mr. Speaker!" he inquired on a famous occasion
in the Irish House of Commons, "are we to beggar ourselves for fear
of vexing posterity? Now, I would ask the honourable gentleman,
and this still more honourable House, why we should put ourselves
out of our way to do anything for posterity; for what has posterity
done for us?"[334]
"The House loves good sense and joking, and nothing else," said Sir
T. F. Buxton, in 1819; "and the object of its utter aversion is that
species of eloquence which may be called Philippian."[335]
Sentimentality of any kind is rarely tolerated in Parliament, as may
be seen by the indifference with which Burke's dagger and Lord
Brougham's melodramatic prayer were greeted. When Bright, during
the Crimean War, delivered himself of that famous phrase, "The
Angel of Death has been abroad throughout the land; you may
almost hear the beating of its wings!" it was a question as to how
members would take so sentimental a simile. Had the speaker
substituted the word "flapping" for "beating," as Cobden afterwards
observed to him, they would have roared with laughter.
The House of Commons, as a writer has remarked, is a body without
any principles or prejudices, except against bores. "He who comes to
it with a good reputation has no better chance than he who besieges
it with a bad one. It rejects all pretensions it has not of itself
justified, and all fame it has not itself conferred."[336] It has, indeed,
always been remarkable for a great reluctance in confirming
reputations for oratory gained elsewhere. Wilkes could sway the
populace with his grandiloquent declamations, but failed
ignominiously in Parliament; Kenealy was refused a hearing. The
chastening effect of the Lower House is notorious, and many a
conceited, self-opiniated individual has found his level after a brief
course of subjection to what Sir James Mackintosh called the "curry-
comb of the House of Commons."[337]
Besides bores and demagogues, of which it is justly intolerant, the
House of Commons may at one time be said to have numbered
lawyers among its pet aversions. The latter are apt to lecture their
fellow-members as though they were addressing a jury, explaining
the most patent facts, and generally assuming a didactic air which
the House finds it difficult to brook.[338] This perhaps explains the
failure of such distinguished men as Lord Jeffrey and Sir James
Mackintosh, both eloquent lawyers who made little or no mark in
Parliament, and of many other "gentlemen of the long robe," as
Disraeli contemptuously called them.
Speaking in Parliament is indeed a matter very different to
addressing an audience in the country, on the hustings, or in some
local town hall. The platitudes that evoke such enthusiasm when
delivered from a village platform fall very flat in either House. The
chilling atmosphere and sparse attendance of the Lords is not
conducive to feelings of self-confidence: the critical gaze of fellow-
members in the Commons is little calculated to alleviate a sudden
paroxysm of shyness.
The unknown parliamentary speaker is greeted with a respectful but
ominous silence when he rises to his feet. He misses the applause of
electors or tenantry to which he is accustomed in his constituency or
on his estate. He has no table on which to place his sheaf of notes;
there is no water-bottle at hand to moisten his parched lips or give
him a moment's pause when the stream of his eloquence runs
temporarily dry. He cannot choose the best moment for delivering
his speech, but must be content to take such opportunities as are
afforded by circumstances. In the House of Commons a member
may have waited half the night to catch the elusive eye of the
Speaker—though a man who wishes to make his maiden speech is
usually accorded this privilege—and, by the time his turn comes,
most of his choicest and brightest thoughts have already been
anticipated by former speakers. It is not, therefore, to be wondered
at that many men find themselves unequal to the task of passing
successfully through this ordeal, and that the maiden speech of a
future statesman has often proved a complete fiasco.
In 1601, we read of a Mr. Zachary Lock, a member who "began to
speak, who for very fear shook, so that he could not proceed, but
stood still awhile, and at length sat down."[339] This same
experience has since befallen many another politician. The bravest
men become inarticulate in similar circumstances. After the naval
victory of June 1, 1794, Vice-Admiral Sir Alan Gardiner received a
vote of thanks from the House of Commons, and, though he had
taken the precaution of fortifying himself with several bottles of
Madeira, could scarcely summon up courage to mumble a reply.[340]
And in our own time we have seen another gallant officer overcome
with "House-fright" to such an extent as to be unable to deliver the
message which, in his official capacity as Black Rod, he had brought
to the Commons. John Bright never rose in the House without what
he called "a trembling of the knees." Gladstone was always intensely
nervous before a big speech. Disraeli declared that he would rather
lead a forlorn hope than face the House of Commons.
 RICHARD BRINSLEY SHERIDAN
FROM AN ENGRAVING BY J. HALL AFTER THE
PAINTING BY SIR J. REYNOLDS
A good description of the sensations felt by a panic-stricken member
making his debut is given by Lord Guilford, son of Lord North, whose
appearance in the House was brief, if not exactly meteoric. "I
brought out two or three sentences," he says, "when a mist seemed
to rise before my eyes. I then lost my recollection, and could see
nothing but the Speaker's wig, which swelled and swelled and
swelled till it covered the whole House."[341]
The failure of a first speech has not always been the presage of a
politician's future non-success. Addison broke down on the only
occasion on which he attempted to address the House, yet he
reached high office as Irish Secretary before he had been nine years
in Parliament.[342] Walpole's first speech was a complete failure, as
was, in a lesser degree, Canning's, though both were listened to in
silence. Even the silver-tongued Sheridan himself made a poor
impression upon the House with his earliest effort. After delivering
his maiden speech, he sought out his friend Woodfall, who had been
sitting in the gallery, and asked for a candid opinion. "I don't think
this is your line," said Woodfall. "You had much better have stuck to
your former pursuits." Sheridan pondered for a moment. "It is in
me," he said at length with conviction, "and, by God, it shall come
out!"[343] It certainly did.
Disraeli, as is well known, was not even listened to, and had to bring
his maiden speech to an abrupt end. "The time will come when you
shall hear me!" he exclaimed prophetically as he resumed his seat.
Such treatment was, however, unusual, for though the House of
Commons is occasionally, as Pepys called it, a beast not to be
understood, so variable and uncertain are its moods, new members
are commonly accorded a patient and attentive hearing.
Sometimes a momentary breakdown has been retrieved under the
stimulus of encouraging cheers from the House, and an infelicitous
beginning has led to an eloquent peroration. Lord Ashley, afterwards
Earl of Shaftesbury, had prepared a speech on behalf of the Treason
Bill of 1695, which enacted that all persons indicted for high treason
should have a copy of the indictment supplied to them and be
allowed the assistance of counsel. He was, however, so overcome
with nervousness on rising to his feet, that he could not proceed.
Wittily recovering himself, "If I, who rise only to give my opinion on
the Bill now depending, am so confounded that I am unable to
express the least of what I proposed to say," he observed, "what
must be the condition of that man who without any assistance is
pleading for his life, and is under apprehensions of being deprived of
it?" He thus contrived to turn his nervousness to good account.
Again, when Steele was brought to the bar for publishing "The
Crisis," a young member, Lord Finch, whose sister Steele had
defended in the "Guardian" against a libel, rose to make a maiden
speech on behalf of his friend. After a few confused sentences the
youthful speaker broke down and was unable to proceed. "Strange,"
he exclaimed, as he sat down in despair, "that I cannot speak for
this man, though I could readily fight for him!" This remark elicited
so much cheering that the member took heart, rose once more, and
made an able speech, which he subsequently followed up with many
another.[344]
Although early failure is no sure gauge of a politician's reputation or
worth, many a happy first speech has raised hopes that remained
eternally unfulfilled. In the eighteenth century James Erskine, Lord
Grange, made a brilliant maiden effort in the Commons and was
much applauded. But the House soon grew weary of his broad Scots
accent, and after hearing him patiently three or four times, gradually
ceased to listen to him altogether.[345] William Gerard Hamilton,
secretary to Lord Halifax (Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland), and
afterwards Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, though not fulfilling
Bolingbroke's definition of eloquence,[346] earned the title of "single-
speech Hamilton" by one display of oratory which was never
repeated.
It is customary for the parliamentary novice to crave the indulgence
of the House for such faults of manner or style as may be the result
of youth or inexperience. This modest attitude on the part of a
speaker inspires his audience favourably; they become infused with
a glow of conscious superiority which is most agreeable and inclines
them to listen with a kindly ear to the utterances of the budding
politician. Not always, however, is this humility expressed. William
Cobbett began his maiden speech on January 29, 1833, by
remarking that in the short period during which he had sat in the
House he had heard a great deal of vain and unprofitable
conversation.[347] Hunt, the Preston demagogue, showed his
contempt for the Commons and his own self-assurance by speaking
six times on six different subjects on the very first night of his
introduction.[348] William Cowper, afterwards Lord Chancellor,
addressed the House three times on the day he took his seat.
In the House of Lords, too, can be heard maiden speeches delivered
in many varying styles. One perhaps may be made by an ex-Cabinet
Minister, a distinguished member of Parliament recently promoted to
the Upper House, apologising in abject tones for his lack of
experience, and commending his humble efforts to the indulgence of
his audience. Another emanates from some youthful nobleman who
has just succeeded to a peerage, whose political experience has yet
to be won, and who addresses his peers in the didactic fashion of a
headmaster lecturing a form of rather unintelligent schoolboys. It is
not so very long ago that a young peer—who has since made the
acquaintance of most divisions of the Supreme Court, from the
Bankruptcy to the Divorce—astonished and entertained his
colleagues by closing his peroration with a fervent prayer that God
might long spare him to assist in their lordships' deliberations.
There is a golden mean between the two styles, the humble and the
haughty, which it is well for the embryo politician to cultivate before
he attempts to impress Parliament with his eloquence.
Oratory has been defined in many different ways by many different
writers. Lord Chesterfield and Dr. Johnson, respectively, described it
as the power of persuading people, or of beating down an
adversary's arguments and putting better ones in their place. The
business of the orator, according to Sir James Mackintosh, is to state
plainly, to reason calmly, to seem transported into vehemence by his
feelings, and roused into splendid imagery or description by his
subject, but always to return to fact and argument, as that on which
alone he is earnestly bent.[349] Gladstone, again, defined oratory as
the speaker's power of receiving from his audience in a vapour that
which he pours back upon them in a flood.
Oratory is perhaps the gift of the gods, but skill in speaking is
undoubtedly an art that can be acquired by practice, if sought
diligently and with patience. Demosthenes gloried in the smell of the
lamp; Cicero learnt every speech by heart. The former would go
down to the seashore on a stormy day, fill his mouth with pebbles,
and speak loudly to the ocean, thus accustoming himself to the
murmur of popular assemblies; the latter on one occasion rehearsed
a speech so diligently that he had little strength left to deliver it on
the following day. The sight of a modern politician sitting on the pier
at Brighton delivering a marine address as intelligibly as a mouthful
of gravel would permit, is one that would only excite feelings of
alarm in the bosoms of his friends; the thought of a Cabinet Minister
fainting before his looking-glass, as the result of an excessive
rehearsal of his peroration, is more pathetic than practical. There is,
however, nothing to prevent a member of Parliament from practising
his elocution upon the trees of the forest, as Grattan did,[350] or
upon the House of Commons itself, and it is thus alone that he will
acquire proficiency in that art in which it is so desirable for the
statesman to excel. "It is absolutely necessary for you to speak in
Parliament," Lord Chesterfield wrote to his long-suffering son. "It
requires only a little human attention and no supernatural gifts."[351]
Charles James Fox resolved, when young, to speak at least once
every night in the House. During five whole sessions he held
manfully to this resolution, with the exception of one single evening
—an exception which he afterwards regretted. He thus became the
most brilliant debater that ever lived, "vehement in his elocution,
ardent in his language, prompt in his invention of argument, adroit
in its use."[352] He was, however, too impetuous to be as great an
orator as his rival Pitt, whose majestic eloquence was almost divine,
[353] and offended continually by the tautology of his diction and the
constant repetition of his arguments. The hesitation and lack of
grace of his delivery detracted greatly from the force of his
speeches; the keenness of his sabre, as Walpole said, was blunted
by the difficulty with which he drew it from the scabbard.[354] In a
comparison of the two statesmen, Flood calls Pitt's speeches
"didactic declamations," and those of Fox "argumentative
conversations."[355]
It was said that it required great mental exertion to follow Fox while
he was speaking, but none to remember what he had said; but that
it was easy to follow Pitt, but hard to remember what there was in
his speech that had pleased one. The difference between the two
men was the difference between the orator and the debater. It
resulted largely from the fact that the one gave much time to the
preparation of his speeches, while the other relied upon the
inspiration of the moment. Pitt, as Porson says, carefully considered
his sentences before he uttered them; Fox threw himself into the
middle of his, "and left it to God Almighty to get him out again."[356]
If the former was the more dignified as a speaker, the latter scored
by being always so terribly in earnest. Grattan, who affirmed that
Pitt's eloquence marked an era in the senate, that it resembled
"sometimes the thunder, and sometimes the music, of the spheres,"
and admitted that Pitt was right nine times for once that Fox was
right, declared that that once of Fox was worth all the other nine
times of Pitt.[357]
No doubt the Parliament of those days was not so critical a body as
it has since become. Lord Chesterfield, at least, held it in the
profoundest contempt. "When I first came into the House of
Commons," he says, "I respected that assembly as a venerable one;
and felt a certain awe upon me; but, upon better acquaintance, that
awe soon vanished; and I discovered that, of the five hundred and
sixty, not above thirty could understand reason, and that all the rest
were peuple; that those thirty only required plain common-sense,
dressed up in good language; and that all the others only required
flowing and harmonious periods, whether they conveyed any
meaning or not; having ears to hear, but not sense enough to
judge."[358] This scathing indictment of the intelligence of the
Commons may possibly have been true at the time when it was
written: it would certainly not be applicable to-day. Meaningless
periods, however harmonious, are no longer tolerated. In Lord
Chesterfield's day, however, sound seems to have been more
important than sense, as may be gathered from an account he gives
elsewhere of a speech made in 1751 in the House of Lords. He was
speaking upon a Bill for the Reform of the Calendar, a subject upon
which he knew absolutely nothing. To conceal his ignorance he
conceived the idea of giving the House an historical account of
calendars generally, from Ancient Egyptian to modern times, being
particularly attentive to the choice of his words, to the harmony of
his periods, and to his elocution. The peers were enchanted. "They
thought I informed," he explains, "because I pleased them; and
many of them said that I had made the whole very clear to them,
when, God knows, I had not even attempted it."[359]
The gift of oratory is most certainly heaven-born, but its
development demands a vast amount of purely mundane labour. The
best speeches have ever been those in the preparation of which the
most time and trouble have been expended. Burke's masterpieces
were essays, laboriously constructed in the study; Sheridan's
elaborate impromptus were carefully devised beforehand, and, if
successful, occasionally repeated.[360] Chatham, whose wonderful
dominion over the House does not perhaps appear in his speeches,
chose his words with the greatest care, and confided to a friend that
in order to improve his vocabulary he had read "Bailey's Dictionary"
twice through from beginning to end.
The fervid eloquence of such men as Plunket, Macaulay, Brougham,
and Canning—"the last of the rhetoricians"—was the fruit of many
an hour of laborious thought and study. Canning especially never
spared himself. He would draw up for use in the House a paper, on
which were written the heads of the subjects which he intended to
touch upon. These heads were numbered, and the numbers
sometimes extended to four or five hundred. Lord North, when he
lost the thread of his discourse, would look through his notes with
the utmost nonchalance, seeking the cue which was to lead him to
further flights of eloquence. "It is not on this side of the paper, Mr.
Speaker," he would declaim, still speaking in his oratorical tone;
"neither is it on the other side!" Then, perhaps, he would suddenly
come upon the desired note, and continue his unbroken oration
without a sign of further hesitation.[361] Bright used to provide
himself with small slips of paper, inscribed with his bon-mots, which
he drew from his pocket as occasion required. He excelled,
nevertheless, in scathing repartee. Once, during his absence through
illness, a noble lord stated publicly that Bright had been afflicted by
Providence with a disease of the brain as a punishment for his
misuse of his talents. "It may be so," said Bright, on his return to the
House, "but in any case it will be some consolation to the friends
and family of the noble lord to know that the disease is one which
even Providence could not inflict upon him."[362] He did not always
get the best of it, however, and when he ridiculed Lord John
Manners for the youthful couplet—
"Let wealth and commerce, laws and learning die,
But leave us still our old nobility!"
the author justly retorted that he would far sooner be the foolish
young man who wrote those lines than the malignant old man who
quoted them.
That speeches should be as effective when read as when delivered is
the highest quality of oratory. For this reason, perhaps, some
speakers write out their speeches and commit them to memory.
Disraeli did so with his more important orations, a fact which greatly
enhances the pleasure of their perusal. Macaulay followed the same
practice, and, indeed, it is said that the excessive elaboration of his
oratory sometimes weakened its effect. Lord Randolph Churchill's
earlier speeches were all memorised in this fashion. But it is not
every man whose memory is sufficiently retentive to enable him to
accomplish this feat, and a breakdown in the very middle of a
humorous anecdote thoughtfully interspersed in a speech is a
catastrophe which casts ridicule upon the speaker.[363]
Though matter may be a most important element in parliamentary
speaking, manner undoubtedly counts for a good deal. Demosthenes
practised declaiming with sharp weapons suspended above him so
as to learn to keep still, and, as we have already seen, had some
obscure reason for filling his mouth with pebbles. Neither of these
practices is to be commended to modern orators, many of whom
already speak as though their mouths were filled with hot potatoes,
while their habitual gesticulations, if made in the neighbourhood of
dependent cutlery, would result in reducing their bodies to one huge
wound. Sir Watkin Wynne and his brother were long known in the
House of Commons as "Bubble and Squeak," the former's voice
being a smothered mumble suggestive of suppressed thunder, the
latter's a childish treble. Mannerisms of gesture, as well as of
speech, are easily contracted. Lord Mahon, "out-roaring torrents in
their course," reinforced his stentorian lungs by violent gestures
which were at times a source of bodily danger to his friends. Once,
when speaking on a Bill he had brought in for the suppression of
smuggling, he declared that this crime must be knocked on the head
with one blow. To emphasize his meaning, he dealt the unfortunate
Pitt, who was sitting just in front of him, a violent buffet on the
head, much to the amusement of the House.[364] The gesticulations
of Sir Charles Wetherell, the well-known member, were less
dangerous, if quainter. He used to unbutton his braces in a nervous
fashion while addressing the House, leaving between his upper and
lower garments an interregnum to which Speaker Manners Sutton
once alluded as the honourable gentleman's only lucid interval. The
late Lord Goschen would grasp himself firmly by the lapel of his coat,
as though (to quote a well-known parliamentary writer) "otherwise
he might run away and leave matters to explain themselves."[365]
Parliamentary eloquence to-day makes up in quantity for what it
lacks in quality. The number of members who follow the advice of
the Psalmist and earn a reputation for wisdom by a continual policy
of eloquent silence[366] has dwindled to vanishing point, since to
speak in Parliament has come to be regarded as part of a member's
duty to his constituents. In Gladstone's first session, in 1833, less
than 6000 speeches were made in the House of Commons; fifty
years later the number had increased to 21,000; to-day the steadily
growing bulk of each volume of the "Parliamentary Debates" testifies
to the swelling flood of oratory which is annually let loose within the
precincts of Parliament. And if La Rochefoucauld's maxim be true,
that we readily pardon those who bore us, but never those whom
we bore, the House of Commons has need of a most forgiving spirit
to listen patiently to so much of what can only be described as vox
et praeterea nihil.
The level of eloquence is, no doubt, higher in the House of Lords
than elsewhere. Peers include a greater number of orators among
their numbers; opportunities for a display of their talents are more
rare; their powers are not dissipated in prolonged debates, as in the
Commons, but are reserved for full-dress occasions.
In neither House nowadays is there any exhibition of that old-
fashioned rhetoric, florid and flamboyant, which was once so
popular. What Mackintosh calls "an elevated kind of after-dinner
conversation," such as Lord Salisbury affected so successfully, is the
form taken by modern parliamentary eloquence. There are no
appeals to sentiment, no quotations from the classics, no bombastic
declamations.[367] The House of Commons is still "a mob of
gentlemen, the greater part of whom are neither without talent nor
information,"[368] and with such an audience learned generalities are
out of place. Passion has to a large extent given way to business,
and in Parliament to-day are rarely heard those "splendid common-
places of the first-rate rhetorician," which Lord Morley considers
necessary to sway assemblies.
We live in a material age. The flowers of rhetoric bloom no longer in
the cold business-like atmosphere of the parliamentary garden; only
the more practical but unromantic vegetables remain. The rich
embroideries of trope and metaphor have been roughly torn from
modern speech, leaving the bare skeleton of reason exposed to the
public gaze. The grandiose orator of the past, with his ornate
phraseology, his graceful periods, his quotations from the poets, has
been ousted by the passionless debater, flinging, like the improvident
O'Connell, his brood of robust thoughts into the world, without a rag
to cover them. No one to-day would dream of expending fifty
shillings—let alone fifty guineas—for the privilege of hearing a
modern Sheridan address a twentieth-century Parliament; no
modern Grattan (as Sheil might say) shatters the pinnacles of this
establishment with the lightning of his eloquence.
The successful parliamentary speaker is no longer one who is able,
in the words of Macaulay, to produce with rapidity a series of stirring
but transitory impressions, to excite the minds of five hundred
gentlemen at midnight, without saying anything that any of them
will remember in the morning.[369] Rather is he the cold judicious
politician who chooses his words less for their beauty than for their
immunity from subsequent perversion, who can crystallise in a few
brief sentences, within the compass of a few minutes, the opinions
that it would have taken his ancestors as many hours to express in
the turgid rhetoric of a bygone age. The orator—as the name was
once understood—is now a rara avis, but seldom raising his tuneful
voice above the raucous cawing of his fellows. And whoever feels
with Gibbon that the great speakers fill him with despair, and the
bad ones with terror, will leave the precincts of Parliament to-day
more often terrorstricken than desperate. That this should be so is
no reason for giving way to gloom or sorrow. Parliamentary
eloquence is not necessarily the sign of a country's greatness. The
English Parliament, which began by acclaiming Burke as the prince
of orators, soon became indifferent to his powers, and ended by
labelling him the "Dinner Bell." Fox has left no memorial of any good
wrought by his oratory. "Neither the Habeas Corpus Act, nor the Bill
of Rights, nor Magna Charta originated in eloquence," and if it be
true that "a senate of orators is a symptom of material decay,"[370]
we may look forward to the future of England with calm and perfect
confidence.
 CHAPTER XIII
PARLIAMENT AT WORK—(1)
In their efforts to grapple successfully with the ever-increasing mass
of business brought before them, modern Parliaments show a
tendency to prolong their labours to an ever-increasing extent. Each
succeeding session lengthens, as Macaulay said, "like a human hair
in the mouth."
In Tudor times the statutes to be passed were few in number, and
the time occupied in legislation was consequently short. Members
returned by "rotten" boroughs had no temptation to be prolix; their
seats did not depend upon their parliamentary exertions, and their
speeches were therefore commendably brief. Parliament to-day is
often censured for the sterility of its legislative output, but during
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries legislation in the modern
sense of the word scarcely existed at all. Its time was chiefly spent
in the discussion of libellous books and in disputes over
constitutional questions of privilege.
October and November were the months fixed for the meeting of
Parliament in Hanoverian times, and the prorogation usually took
place in April. From 1805 to 1820 it met after Christmas. Since 1820
February has been the month generally chosen. Nowadays, not only
have the sessions grown much longer—even the feast of St. Grouse
on the 12th of August is no longer observed by politicians—but the
hours of each sitting have been considerably extended. The session
of 1847 was prolonged over 293 days; the Parliament of 1852 met
on November 4 and sat until August 20 of the following year, and
during the last two months of that session the House of Commons
continued sitting for fifteen out of every twenty-four hours. In 1908,
which contained two sessions, the House sat for 253 days, and the
session of 1909 lasted from February 16 till December 3, during the
latter weeks of which all-night sittings were of the commonest
occurrence.
In proportion as the daily labours of the Legislature increased the
hour for commencing work became later and later. In Charles I.'s
time Parliament often met as early as 7 a.m., and would sit until
twelve, the afternoon being devoted to the work of the committees.
[371] Later on the hour of meeting was fixed for 8 or 9 a.m., and the
House usually rose at 4 p.m., or earlier. The Commons always
showed the strongest disinclination to sit in the afternoon, either
because the midday meal did not leave them in a fit condition to
legislate, or because no regular provision was made for lighting the
House when twilight fell. "This council is a grave council and sober,"
said a member in 1659, and "ought not to do things in the dark,"
and the Speaker would occasionally regard his inability to distinguish
one member from another as a sufficient excuse for adjourning the
House.[372] The practice of sitting regularly after dark did not
commence until the year 1717, when, by an order of the House, the
Sergeant-at-Arms was directed to bring in candles as soon as
daylight failed. Prior to that year the employment of artificial light
had to be made the subject of a special motion, and Sergeants were
sometimes reprimanded for providing candles without the necessary
order.
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the hours of sitting
varied from time to time. Up to 1888 the House of Commons sat
from 10 a.m. until 3.45 p.m. In that year the time for meeting was
fixed at 3 p.m. and this was subsequently postponed for an hour.
Saturday and Sunday have long been recognised as regular
parliamentary holidays, and on one other day in the week—either a
Wednesday or Friday—the House of Commons has adjourned at an
earlier hour than usual. This, however, was not always the case. In
Stuart times Parliament sometimes sat on Sunday and even on
Christmas Day,[373] and it was on a Sunday—December 18, 1831—
that the Reform Bill was read a second time. This, however, was an
exceptional instance, the adjournment over Saturday having been
initiated by Sir Robert Walpole, who, as a keen sportsman, was
always anxious to get away to the country, and believed that, as
Dryden says, it were:
"Better to hunt in fields for health unbought,
Than fee the doctor for his noxious draught."
In more recent times it became the fashion to adjourn the House on
Derby Day, in order to allow legislators to take part in the sport of
kings. In 1872, this adjournment was made the subject of a heated
debate, and though the division that ensued resulted in a large
majority for the holiday-makers, the claims of sport gradually gave
way to the more pressing demands of business, and ten years later,
when the Prevention of Crimes (Ireland) Act was under discussion,
the matter was considered too serious to allow of the usual Derby
Day adjournment. The late Sir Wilfrid Lawson once cynically argued
that if the Derby Day became a recognised official holiday the
Speaker of the House of Commons ought to go to Epsom in his
State-coach, "as he did at the thanksgiving for the Prince of Wales's
recovery." The game of politics is nowadays treated more gravely
than ever, and the most frivolous of modern politicians would
scarcely dream of suggesting that the stern business of Westminster
should be deserted for the pleasures of Epsom Downs. The House of
Lords has always, until a year or two ago, adjourned over Ash
Wednesday and Ascension Day, on the ground that if they met they
would be taken to Church at the Abbey; but lately they have braved
this terror and nothing so serious has happened.
Prior to 1882 the House of Lords met at five o'clock in the afternoon;
they now meet three-quarters of an hour earlier.[374] Except under
circumstances of special pressure they take holidays on Friday and
Saturday, and Sunday is, of course, for them, as for everybody else,
a day of complete rest. Occasionally on other days the amount of
work to be undertaken in the Upper House is so small as to be
accomplished in a few minutes. The Lords, as has been irreverently
observed, often sit scarcely long enough to boil an egg, and it is only
towards the end of the session that they are compelled to extend
their deliberations beyond the dinner-hour.[375]
The labours of the Commons are more arduous, and entail longer
hours of sitting. On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday the
House meets at 2.45 p.m. and continues sitting until 11 p.m., unless
the day's business has been disposed of before that hour. At eleven
o'clock the Speaker interrupts business, after which no opposed
matter can be dealt with, but, by a Standing Order, it is permissible
for a Minister of the Crown, at the commencement of the day's
work, to move the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule. In this case
no interruption takes place until the business under discussion is
finished.
All-night sittings are not uncommon nowadays, but in former times
they occurred but rarely. In 1742, the Speaker once sat in the Chair
for seventeen hours at a stretch, and some fifty years later we find
the Commons keeping an occasional all-night vigil. Sir Samuel
Romilly left the House one evening to go to bed, and returned the
next morning to find his colleagues still sitting. He began his speech
by saying that he made no apology for rising to address the House
at such a time, as seven o'clock was his usual hour for "getting up."
[376] In 1877, the Commons sat for a day and night, and again in
1881, the sitting on the latter occasion lasting forty-one hours; and
since that day many sittings have been prolonged over the twenty-
four hours. In 1909, the House sat after 1 a.m. o'clock on no less
than thirty-seven occasions, after 4 a.m. on ten occasions, and once
as late as nine o'clock in the morning.
Friday is, so to speak, a half-holiday for the Commons. On that day
the House meets at noon, the interruption of business occurs at five
o'clock, and, no matter what subject is under discussion, the House
adjourns at 5.30 p.m. Before 1902, Wednesday was the day chosen
for the short sitting, but the desire of many members to escape from
London at the end of the week led to a change, and it is now
possible for representatives from the most distant parts of England
to pay flying weekly visits to their homes or constituencies.
For a few years recently the House of Commons always enjoyed an
evening interval for dinner, but this agreeable adjournment was
reluctantly sacrificed in 1906, and the "Speaker's chop" is now
nothing but a fragrant memory. The dinner-hour is much too
precious to be wasted at any table other than that of the House, for
at 8.15 on many days any private business not disposed of at the
beginning of the sitting is given precedence of all else, and what is
known as "opposed" private business is also taken between that
hour and 9.30 p.m.[377]
For the information of members a daily "notice paper" is published in
two editions—a blue edition in the morning, and a white one in the
early afternoon—containing the orders of the day and all notices of
motions. To this is attached the "votes and proceedings," division
lists, and an account of the business accomplished at the last sitting.
In the "order book" of the House, also published daily, is a list of all
future business definitely assigned to any particular sitting; while
once a week a catalogue of all Public Bills that have been
introduced, and some report of their progress, is also included.
By no means the least arduous of the many labours of Parliament
are those which are undertaken by legislators serving upon the
various Committees, of which the public knows so little, but whose
work is very necessary to the carrying on of public business.
The appointment of Select Committees in both Houses has been
practised ever since the earliest days of Parliament. The duties of
these subsidiary bodies, which may be appointed for any purpose,
are prescribed by the terms of the reference: they may collect facts
for future legislation, investigate conduct, or examine the terms of a
Bill referred to them, thus saving the time of the House. To them go
all opposed Private Bills, when counsel appear to argue the merits of
clashing interests.
The system of Committees perhaps originated in the conferences
held in former times by the two Houses in the Painted Chamber.
There are records of small deliberative bodies, somewhat similar in
character to the modern Committees, in the middle of the sixteenth
century. By the time Queen Elizabeth came to the throne such
Committees were common, and were usually composed of members
of one or other House. Select Committees did not exist until the
eighteenth century, and were originally semi-judicial in character.
All members of the House of Commons are subject to be called upon
to serve on Select Committees, being chosen for the purpose by a
Committee of Selection, and the work thus done outside the actual
Chamber adds considerably to the daily labours of politicians. No
member may refuse to serve, if called upon to do so, and when, in
1846, Mr. Smith O'Brien declined to sit on an English Railway
Committee, he was confined in the Clock Tower in the custody of the
Sergeant-at-Arms.
The whole House can also resolve itself at any time into a
Committee, when its function becomes one of "deliberation rather
than inquiry."[378] Every Public Bill not referred to a Grand
Committee must be considered in a Committee of the Whole House,
and, indeed, the greater part of each session is occupied by this
stage of legislation. The Committee of Supply and the Committee of
Ways and Means are both "Committees of the Whole House," and
are appointed to discuss the financial projects of the Government,
the one to supervise expenditure, the other to devise taxation.
A Committee of the Whole House differs in no respect from the
House itself, save that it is presided over by a chairman in place of
the Speaker, and that the mace is removed from the Table. There
are also some changes in the procedure of debate, as, for example,
the cancelling of the rule forbidding a member to speak twice on the
same question.
The idea of forming the House itself into a committee has
developed, like so many parliamentary institutions, gradually and
almost unconsciously. In days when the Speaker was too often the
spy of the King it was considered advisable to get rid of him, and
this could best be done by turning the House into a Committee and
putting some other member in the Chair.
The Chairman of Committees in the Lords, and the Chairman of
Ways and Means, or his deputy, in the Commons, takes the Chair
when the House is in Committee, but it is permissible for either
House to nominate any one of their number as a temporary
Chairman.[379]
As a substitute for Committees of the Whole House in the Commons,
two large Standing Committees, sometimes called Grand
Committees, numbering from sixty to eighty members, are appointed
to consider respectively all Bills relating to Law and Trade committed
to them by the House. Besides the smaller committees already
referred to there are Sessional Committees, appointed for each
session, consisting of from eight to twelve members—as, for
instance, the committee on Public Accounts, which meets once a
week to look into the department of the Auditor-General—which
control the internal arrangements of the House; and joint
Committees of the two Houses, which discuss matters in which both
are interested.
In the Lords also Standing Committees were instituted in 1889, but
these were to supplement and not supersede the Whole House
Committee stage, and after an experience of more than twenty
years have proved their insufficient utility, they were abolished on
June 24, 1910.
In the sixteenth century committees generally met outside the
House, in the Star Chamber, in Lincoln's Inn, or elsewhere, but they
have not done so for many years, numerous committee-rooms being
nowadays provided within the precincts of the House.
At the commencement of every session the House of Lords elects a
Chairman of Committees from among its own members. His duty it
is to preside over Committees of the Whole House, or over Select
Committees on whom the power of appointing their own Chairman is
not expressly conferred. He is a salaried official of Parliament, and
receives a sum of £2500 a year for his services. Similar duties are
undertaken in the House of Commons by a Chairman of Committees
and a Deputy Chairman, at salaries of £2500 and £1000 respectively.
The Crown usually appoints by commission one or more Lords to
supply the place of Lord Chancellor, should that official be
unavoidably absent. On emergency it may be moved that any lord
present may be appointed temporarily to sit Speaker. In the House
of Commons the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy
Chairman are similarly empowered to replace the Speaker when
absent.
The problem of providing a substitute for the Speaker was not
settled until 1855, prior to which date no steps seem to have been
taken to fill the Chair in the event of a Speaker's sudden illness or
absence. It appears to have been considered inadvisable to frame
any scheme of relief which should facilitate his frequent absence. It
was, further, the general sense of the House that no temporary
president could command that implicit acquiescence in the rulings of
the Chair which is so necessary for the maintenance of order in
debate.
To the Chairman of Committees, whom one would regard as a
natural substitute for the Speaker, the House has never been willing
to accord the complete consideration to which the Chair is entitled;
the fact that he is liable at any moment to sink again into the body
of the House robs this official of much of his authority. In the reign
of James I. we find a Chairman complaining that some member had
threatened to "pull him out of the Chair, that he should put no more
tricks upon the House." And in 1810 another member, Fuller by
name, who had lost the Chairman's eye and his own temper, called
that official a "d—— insignificant puppy," and said that he didn't care
a snap of the fingers for him or for the House either.[380]
The question of replacing the Speaker has, therefore, always been a
delicate one, and for many years no attempt was made to solve it.
In 1656, owing to the illness of Sir Thomas Widdrington, another
member occupied the Chair for a period of a few weeks, and, during
the next few years, several Speakers complained of ill-health and
were temporarily relieved. From 1547, when the Journals
commence, to 1660, the Speaker was only absent on twelve
occasions, and during the next hundred years the records of the
House show only six cases of absence. The inconvenience caused by
the rule which necessitated an adjournment on such occasions—
curiously few in number though they were—can readily be imagined.
On the death of Queen Anne, in 1714, the whole proceedings of
Parliament were delayed, and the sittings postponed from day to day
owing to the Speaker being away in the country and taking a long
time to travel to London. The duty of being ever in his place at times
involved great hardships. Addington was obliged to take the Chair
three days after the death of his father, persevering by a painful
effort in this stern adherence to the path of duty.[381]
In the year 1640, a prolonged session was the cause of many
members absenting themselves from their places in the House of
Commons. In order to ensure a more general attendance it was then
determined that the Speaker should not take the Chair unless there
were at least forty members present in the House. This rule still
holds good, and to-day, if a quorum of forty is not obtainable before
four o'clock, the sitting is suspended until that hour. Should the
same difficulty arise after four o'clock, the House is adjourned until
the next sitting day.[382] An exception is made in favour of the hour
between 8.15 and 9.15, but if a division be taken during that hour in
the absence of a quorum, the business in debate must be postponed
and the next business brought on. When, too, a message from the
Crown is delivered, the House of Commons is held to be "made"
even though forty members are not present. On such an occasion
the business of the day can be proceeded with so long as no notice
is taken of the absence of a quorum.
It is not the Speaker's (or Chairman's) duty to notice the absence of
a quorum, but if his attention is drawn to it by a member he must at
once rise in his place and proceed to count the House. There is a
well-known story of a prolix member speaking to empty benches in
the Commons who referred sarcastically to the packed audience
hanging upon his words, and was interrupted by the Speaker, who at
once proceeded to "count out" the House, and put an end to the
sitting as well as to the member's oration. The Speaker's inability to
count the House out of his own accord has occasionally given rise to
inconvenient situations. Lord George Gordon once rose and
requested permission to read from a book, which was granted. He
then proceeded to read the Bible until the House dwindled from
upwards of four hundred members to two, namely, the Speaker and
Lord George himself, who had the indecency to keep the former in
the Chair till the candles were "fairly in the socket."[383]
In the House of Lords three peers form a quorum. If, however, thirty
lords are not present on a division upon any stage of a Bill, the
question is declared to be not decided, and the debate is adjourned
until the next sitting. Lord Rosebery, in 1884, recalled an occasion
when a noble lord, Lord Leitrim, addressed a quorum of the House,
consisting, besides himself, of the Lord Chancellor and the Minister
whose duty it was to answer him, for four mortal hours. Another
instance of the same kind is supposed to have occurred when Lord
Lyndhurst was on the Woolsack and a noble lord spoke at
considerable length to an audience of even smaller proportions.
After a time the Chancellor became very weary and could scarcely
conceal his impatience. "This is too bad," he said at length, "can't
you stop?" Still, the peer prosed on, showing no sign of reaching his
peroration. Finally, Lyndhurst could stand it no longer. "By Jove," he
cried, suddenly inspired with a brilliant idea, "I will count you out!"
As he and the speaker only were present in the House at the time,
the Chancellor was able to do this, and the long-winded nobleman
was effectually silenced.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookluna.com