‘To which Sr. Walt. Raleigh replied’

In sampling data drawn from a quarter-millennium of parliamentary experi­ence, Jefferson required a method to organise his Manual. First, he digested data into the Pocket-Book’s 588 entries.

Sections of his Manual. This did not proceed smoothly at first. Three of his earliest entries appear below.

[1] The three estates are. 1. The King. 2. The Lords. 3. The Commons.

[2] It had been usual for the kings of England by their charters to give to towns a right of sending members to parliament.

[8] Matters of parl. are not to be ruled by the Commons law: 4. Inst. 17. L. par. C.2 p. 56. Nor doth it belong to the judges to judge of any law, custom or privilege of parl. 1. Inst. 50. L. parl. 56.³²

Great Britain’s ‘three estates’ did not serve as a point of departure for Jef­ferson. Other difficulties presented themselves. While Jefferson was serving in France (1784-89), Jefferson purchased his edition of Hatsell’s Precedents of Proceedings in Paris (1785, 3 vols.). By the time he was sworn in as Vice­President (4 March 1797), Jefferson had noted Hatsell’s Precedents in a single entry. Jefferson must have decided to study other authorities before he gave Hatsell’s work the close reading it deserved.³³

(In the preamble to the 1801 edition of his Manual Jefferson regretted incomplete access to the print resources he needed. After Jefferson rushed his Manual to press in 1801, he was mortified to discover that John Hat­sell had published a fourth volume, subtitled Relating to Conference and Impeachment (1796). Jefferson published a revised version of the Manual in 1812. For this edition he engaged the services of a different printer.)

An episode involving Sir Walter Raleigh - who founded the first English colony in Virginia - must have caught Jefferson’s eye.

1601. 43. Eliz. Sr. Walt. Raleigh speaking at a Commee., Sr. Edw. Hobby told him “he should speak standing that the house might hear him.” To which Sr. Walt. Raleigh replied “that being a Commee., he might speak sitting, or standing.” Dewes 630. Col. 1. 2. Hats. 77.³⁴

It would be another 152 entries (and after March 1797) before Jefferson cited Hatsell on a second occasion. At this point Jefferson took the full mea­sure of Hatsell as a fellow investigator, judging by his 28 entries. Noting the difference between practice in Commons and the Senate in his Pocket-Book entries, he sprinkled these comparisons liberally throughout his Manual.

Even before Jefferson’s interest in all things Hatsellian took flight, he found himself in a position to test his mastery of the seventeenth century’s how-to literature. Jefferson’s entry No. 249 reads

When the bill is read the third time, the clerk delivereth it to the speaker, who reads the title thereof & openeth the effect of the bill, & telleth them that the bill hath now been thrice read, & that with their favors he will put it to the question for the passing; but pauseth a while that men may have liberty to speak thereto; for upon the third reading the matter is debated afresh, and for the most part, it is more spoken unto this time, than upon any of the former readings. Hakew. 153.3⁵

Jefferson’s reference to Hakewill’s Modus Tenendi Parliamentum (1671) draws our attention to his reliance on if-then-else instructions from the previous century. Hatsell relied on these instructions to structure the sin­gle sentence anecdotes that he gathered into his data sets. Careful reading suggests that Hatsell’s reasoning framed his selection of vignettes to suit his instructions, the latter following Hakewill’s fashion. Henry Scobell also made himself a master of these prescriptions.

1 Any Member of the House may offer a Bill for Publique Good, except it be for imposing a Tax;

2 which is not to be done but by Order of the House first had.

3 But if any Member desire, That an Act made and in force, may be re­pealed or altered, he is first to move the House in it, and have their Resolution, before any Bill, to that purpose may be offered;

4 and if upon the Reasons shewed, for repealing or altering such Law, the House shall think it fit, they do usually appoint one or more of the Members to bring in a Bill for that purpose.³⁶

Although Scobell was fond of ‘but’ and ‘except’ - as suitable to chain propositions - he preferred to exploit the potential of nested if-then-else expressions. Scobell’s flair for the algorithmic was evidenced by his nesting Number 4 within Number 3. Scobell rattled off 169 such instructions, list­ing rules guiding Commons in its consideration of instructions he gathered in his chapter on ‘Publique Bills’.³⁷ Judging by his 46 citations to Scobell, Jefferson found this approach useful. In turn, that citation count compares well with his 123 total citations to Hatsell’s Precedents. Jefferson could not have compressed the Manual’s handling of coded procedures into his 31,000 words without a clear understanding that if-then-else instructions supplied the raw material best suited to the Manual’s purposes.³⁸

By the time Jefferson had digested 588 entries into his Pocket-Book - and turned his attention to the Manual - he had washed his hands of data sam­pling. Jefferson’s approach was light on a taxonomy populated by exam­ples; instead, the Manual stressed the function of selected algorithms. Had John Hatsell time and inclination to compose a manual on Jefferson’s plan, he would likewise have been able to produce a work of 30,000 to 40,000 words.

The Senate’s Rules for Conducting Business and Jefferson’s Manual (based on these Rules) offered the reader equivalent coverage - more or less - judging by their scope. That was very much to Jefferson’s pur­pose. The legislator was at liberty to read one together with the other. He might, indiscriminately, dip into either work. The limited scope of his Precedents of Proceedings was not Hatsell’s fault. The House of Com­mons did not devote comprehensive attention to public business - as measured by Standing Orders declared - until these topics required its attention at the middle of the nineteenth century. One could compose an entire study to explain why Commons delayed its attention to a subject that occupied the attention of other parliamentary assemblies around the world. If the phrase ‘Westminster model’ means anything - and given current usage, it is worse than meaningless - it would reliably convey the British attitude that, as to coding public business, the House of Commons saluted the motto ‘far niente’ as its flag of convenience.