‘A time appointed, it shall be accordingly read by paragraphs’

Hatsell’s attention to the intersection of word-management and time­management returns discussion to the inquiry posed above: why did the acquisition of technical skills by members of a legislative assembly matter? Hatsell made the connection between ‘strict adherence’ to the ‘forms and rules of proceeding [which are] the Standing Orders of the House’ and the ability of ‘minority’ members to ‘defend themselves’.⁵⁷

Obviously members (in the minority) would want to acquire technical proficiency with the prevailing practice and procedure of the assembly in which they served.

When any ordinance is introduced by report or otherwise, it shall be read a first time for the information of the house without debate. The President shall then put the following question “Shall this ordinance be read a second time.” If it passes in the affirmative then a time shall be appointed for that purpose when it shall be read and debated by paragraphs and when gone through, the question shall be “Shall this ordinance be read a third time”; if agreed to, and a time appointed, it shall be accordingly read by paragraphs, and if necessary debated, and when gone through the question shall be “Shall this ordinance pass”: if the vote is in the affirmative, a fair copy shall then be made out and signed by the President and attested by the Secretary in Congress and recorded in the Secretary’s office.⁵⁹

Given that there are only five things one can do with words brought for­ward for an assembly’s consideration - accept or reject the proposition as a whole or, on the other hand, add, delete or substitute words and phrases within the text - Rule No.

Congress approved new rules governing and guiding members in the work of adding, deleting and substituting words. No. 16 permitted debate to be cut off if that was the ‘judgment of two states at least’. No. 14 governed motions managing word choices, with the canonical exceptions: amending, closing debate, postponing or committing the proposition to a committee. The remaining 21 rules addressed time-management in ordered discourse and supplied like guidance. Rule 13 provided that no ‘member shall speak more than twice in any one debate’. Rule 23 barred ‘assent or dissent to the motion’ to be indicated other than through the monosyllables ‘aye or no’. Americans did not employ the practice of sending members out of the chamber.

Hatsell’s Members/Speaker (1st ed., 1781) addressed the same issues that Congress faced earlier that year. When the London Merchant-Taylors Com­pany petitioned Commons, the ‘Question... That the Petition be brought up’ failed, thanks to a 71-60 vote against their petition. For details to sup­port his point, Hatsell reached back to 10 December 1702. The command that ‘Ayes go forth’ derived from the rational hope, expressed by 60 mem­bers, that the petition would survive to reach the floor of the chamber. The ‘Ayes’ lost by 11 votes.⁶⁰ Eleven votes might seem a narrow margin at a few centuries’ remove, but at the time the margin signalled Commons’ lack of interest in moving forward on the Taylors’ petition. That was the end of the matter. Commons’ procedures permitted its members to score their individual assessment of the Taylors’ petition - this is the service rendered by the device, to move the ‘previous question’ - without the body having taken a position on the merits of the issue.

Hatsell carefully distinguished between approval and rejection of text taken as a whole - what I term action totaliter - and consideration of words and phrases - Jefferson’s Manual will term this action gradatim. Jefferson had in mind word choices made and recorded in order, that is, one after the other. Stating the correct rule of action - who is to ‘go forth’ from the chamber - called on the Speaker’s talents in stage managing the choreog­raphy by which ‘aye’ or ‘no’ must ‘go forth’, that is, at his command. In this regard Hatsell portrayed - in decidedly hostile terms - the service of Speaker William Lenthall, who presided in the House during the ill-fated Long Parliament. Being ‘obnoxious, timorous, and interested’ - Hatsell spared no pejoratives - Lenthall was ‘often much confused in conveying the sense of the House, and drawing the debates into a fair question’. Hatsell further stressed his disapproval by comparing Lenthall’s failings as Speaker with Henry Elsynge’s service as Clerk of the House of Commons (1640-49). ‘Mr. Elsyng was always observed to be so ready and just, that generally the House acquiesced in what he did of that nature’.⁶¹

The comparison between personalities serving the House - one of few Hat­sell permitted himself - highlighted his assessment of skills that the Speaker and Clerk should offer the House. If the House of Commons regarded its Speaker as competent, the House may be said to have placed its trust in the Speaker’s word-management skills. Lenthall should have developed the tal­ent to solicit ‘the sense of the House’ and draw ‘debates into a fair question’. Hatsell’s comparison reflected the intimate connection between time- and word-management as this connection flourished in the study interval.