Kari Palonen The Politics of Parliamentary Procedure The Formation of the Westminster Procedure as a Parliamentary Ideal Type Barbara Budrich Publishers Opladen • Berlin • Toronto 2016 .
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of Barbara Budrich Publishers. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from Die Deutsche Bibliothek (The German Library) (Unrevised) Paperback Edition © 2016 by Barbara Budrich Publishers, Opladen, Berlin & Toronto www.barbara-budrich.net ISBN 978-3-8474-0787-4 (Paperback) eISBN 978-3-8474-0293-0 Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeiche- rung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Die Deutsche Bibliothek – CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Ein Titeldatensatz für die Publikation ist bei der Deutschen Bibliothek erhältlich. Verlag Barbara Budrich Barbara Budrich Publishers Stauffenbergstr. 7. D-51379 Leverkusen Opladen, Germany 86 Delma Drive. Toronto, ON M8W 4P6 Canada www.barbara-budrich.net Jacket illustration by Bettina Lehfeldt, Kleinmachnow, Germany – www.lehfeldtgraphic.de .
Table of Content Acknowledgements . 9 1. A procedural perspective on parliamentary politics . 11 1.1 Conceptualisation and transformation of the procedural ideal type 12 1.2 Max Weber on ‘objectivity’ as a procedural concept . 13 1.3 The procedural character of ideal-typical parliamentary politics . 15 1.4 Westminster procedural tracts on the parliamentary ideal type . 20 1.5 Procedure and conceptual changes . 22 2. History of Westminster procedural tracts . 27 2.1 The genre of procedural tracts . 27 2.2 A note on the origins of the English parliament and the Modus . 29 2.3 Tracts from the Elizabethan era . 31 2.4 The source-based tracts and their use in the struggle with the Stu- arts . 35 2.5 Procedural tracts after the Glorious Revolution . 38 2.6 John Hatsell’s codification of procedure . 40 2.7 Tracts for the French Revolution: Samuel Romilly and Jeremy Bentham . 42 2.8 Thomas Erskine May: Treatise and minor works . 46 2.9 Popularisation of procedure and comparative perspective . 51 2.10 Westminster procedure for foreign audiences . 54 2.11 Twentieth-century procedure: Gilbert Campion . 56 2.12 Contemporary procedure: J.A.C. Griffith & Michael Ryle . 58 2.13 The changing agenda of procedural controversies . 59 5 .
3. The agenda of parliamentary powers . 61 3.1 Parliament vs. the crown . 61 3.2 The parliamentary freedom of members . 67 3.3 Procedural means for the parliamentary control of government . 78 3.3.1 Impeachment and other legal tools . 78 3.3.2 The publicity of debates . 80 3.3.3 Parliamentary questions . 84 3.4 Vote of no confidence . 88 3.5 Procedure as a form of protection for parliament and its members 94 3.5.1 Procedure as a limit to arbitrary powers . 95 3.5.2 Consequences of a lack of procedure . 97 3.5.3 Protecting parliament against its own members . 100 3.5.4 The priority of unwritten rules . 101 4. Conceptualisation of parliamentary debating . 107 4.1 Debate as a basic parliamentary operation . 109 4.2 Concepts of Westminster procedure . 113 4.3 Two styles of debate: House and Committee . 121 4.3.1 The origins of committees . 122 4.3.2 Two types of debates . 126 4.3.3 Reforming the committee system . 131 4.4 Regulating debates – forms and practices . 136 4.4.1 The Speaker . 136 4.4.2 Tactical uses of procedure . 139 4.4.3 Parliamentary evils to be avoided . 145 4.5 Unparliamentary language vs. fair play . 151 5. Times of parliamentary debate . 159 5.1 Separation of items of debate . 160 5.2 The politics of amendments . 165 5.3 Times of adjournment . 170 5.4 The passage of motions through parliament . 178 5.5 Times of debate and dissensus . 188 6 .
6. Times of parliamentary agenda . 197 6.1 Pressure on parliamentary time . 199 6.2 The parliamentary calendar . 205 6.3 Time limits for parliamentary debates . 212 6.4 Adaptation of debates to parliamentary government . 221 6.4.1 Procedural limits to the government’s monopoly of initiative . 224 6.4.2 Rhetorical limits to governmental powers . 226 6.4.3 Two dividing lines in the House of Commons . 230 6.5 Limits to the governmentalisation of parliamentary time . 234 7. Temporal layers of parliamentary politics . 245 7.1 The politics and history of procedural tracts . 245 7.2 Conceptual changes in procedure tracts . 247 7.3 Adversarial and dissensual concepts of parliament . 251 References . 255 Abbreviations . 255 Parliamentary debates (consulted 2 August 2013) . 255 Parliamentary documents (consulted 26 December 2013) . 255 Parliamentary papers (University of Jyväskylä Library, consulted 2 August 2013) . 256 Other Primary sources (online publications consulted 25 December 2013) . 256 Literature . 261 Index . 267 7 .
Acknowledgements Twenty years ago I could not have believed that I would ever become a parlia- mentary scholar. Quentin Skinner’s Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes (1996) has inspired a number of scholars to reinterpret British parlia- mentary politics, and this book with its procedural perspective is the latest one indebted to Skinner and his rhetorical work. For ten years I have been delving into the strange world of parliaments from a scholarly distance. However, this study also manifests continuities with other major topics of my research profile: the concept of politics and its history, the principles and practices of conceptual history as well as Max Weber’s political thought and methodology in particular. While I am getting closer to political practice, in the study of procedural tracts I employ an indirect perspective on parliamentary politics. I take a historical approach to the study of politics, though I am not a historian by profession. Although the tracts studied concern the particularities of the British parliament, as a Weberologist I treat it as a his- torical approximation of the parliamentary ideal type. Quentin Skinner has read the 2012 draft of the manuscript, and Suvi Soini- nen the first draft of the present version. I am also indebted to two anonymous reviewers, whose comments prompted me to revise the entire narrative of the work. This work would not have been possible without Academy of Finland re- search grants. The project The Parliamentary Style of Politics (with Tapani Turkka, Suvi Soininen and Sarita Friman-Korpela) was followed by the Academy Professorship project The Politics of Dissensus. Parliamentarism, Rhetoric and Conceptual History (with Tapani Turkka, Taru Haapala and Hanna-Mari Kivistö as the core team; Anna Björk, Anna Kronlund, Jussi Ku- runmäki, Anthoula Malkopoulou, Onni Pekonen, Suvi Soininen and Tuula Vaarakallio as part-time participants; and Ratih D. Adiputri, Marie-Christine Boilard, Sarita Friman-Korpela and Hanna Kallio in the wider PhD team). The Finnish Centre of Excellence in Political Thought and Conceptual Change offered a broader range of cooperation opportunities (in particular, with Matti Hyvärinen, Pasi Ihalainen, Anitta Kananen, Kia Lindroos, Tuija Parvikko, Tuija Pulkkinen, Evgeny Roshchin, Henrik Stenius, Vasileios Sy- ros and Claudia Wiesner). 9 .
I am further indebted to the late Michael Th. Greven and to Jörn Leonhard for research periods at Warburg-Haus in Hamburg 2006 and at FRIAS, School of History, in Freiburg 2009, to José María Rosales and his research projects (an extensive volume by the Jyväskylä and Málaga teams, see Palo- nen/Rosales/Turkka (eds.), The Politics of Dissensus: Parliament in Debate, 2014) as well as to Pasi Ihalainen and Cornelia Ilie as co-editors of Parliament and Parliamentarism, forthcoming in the new European Conceptual Histories series. With Claudia Wiesner and Tapani Turkka I also co-edited the volume Parliament and Europe (2011). Among senior scholars, Frank Ankersmit, Pan- telis Bassakos, Hubertus Buchstein, Alan Finlayson, Marcus Llanque, Kyösti Pekonen, Markku Peltonen, Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark, Willibald Steinmetz and Nadia Urbinati have also inspired this study. Bill Hellberg has done a thorough job correcting my English. Anna Kron- lund proofread the version before submission to the publisher, and Eleanor Un- derwood suggested the final linguistic revisions. Jakob Horstmann and Sarah Rögl have been responsible for the ease of the publication process with Budrich Academics. Helsinki and Jyväskylä, May 2014 Kari Palonen 10 .