“Then the Speaker stood up and said, ‘… All that will have a man that hath been against the Body of the Bill to be a Committee, let them show their opinions by saying Yea.’ And not one said Yea. ‘All that will not, say No.’ And all said No.”
I take this important precedent from Townshend’s “Historical Collections: or, An Exact Account of the Proceedings of the Four Last Parliaments of Q. Elizabeth,” pp. 208, 209. The same account is found also in D’Ewes’s “Journals of all the Parliaments during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth,” pp. 634-35.
Thus, on submission of the question by the Speaker, the House unanimously decided that they would “not have a man that hath been against the Body of the Bill to be a Committee.” According to the report, “All said No”; and that unanimous “No” is the voice of Parliamentary Law, repeated ever since. The phrase “against the Body of the Bill” is strong and suggestive, showing the purpose to exclude those who were unfriendly to the measure.
Following the history of the rule, we meet it again, as stated by Hakewel in his “Modus tenendi Parliamentum,” published in 1671:—
“He that speaketh directly against the body of the bill may not be named a committee; for he that would totally destroy will not amend.”[31]
Here again is the declared purpose to save the measure from the hands of enemies.
Then follows a case remarkable for words which have become familiar in Parliamentary Law. It was that of Colonel Birch, who, February 11, 1677, brought into Parliament a Bill for Settling a Public Register for Lands in the several Counties, and in his remarks said:—
“I begged you formerly not to put the child to a nurse that cared not for it. For it was formerly committed to two lawyers, and the thing was lost.”[32]