    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 115th Congress]
    [115th Congress]
    [House Document 114-192]
    [Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
    [Pages 127-130]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                     sec. i--importance of adhering to rules

    [[Page 128]]

    and experienced Members, that nothing tended more to throw power into
    the hands of administration, and those who acted with the majority of
    the House of Commons, than a neglect of, or departure from, the rules of
    proceeding; that these forms, as instituted by our ancestors, operated
    as a check and control on the actions of the majority, and that they
    were, in many instances, a shelter and protection to the minority,
    against the attempts of power.'' So far the maxim is certainly true, and
    is founded in good sense, that as it is always in the power of the
    majority, by their numbers, to stop any improper measures proposed on
    the part of their opponents, the only weapons by which the minority can
    defend themselves against similar attempts from those in power are the
    forms and rules of proceeding which have been adopted as they were found

    [[Page 129]]

    necessary, from time to time, and are become the law of the House, by a
    strict adherence to which the weaker party can only be protected from
    those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to
    check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest
    to large and successful majorities, 2 Hats., 171, 172.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec. 283. Rules as related to the privileges of
    minorities.

      Mr.  Onslow, the ablest among the Speakers of the House of
    Commons, used to say, ``It was a maxim he had often heard when he was a
    young man, from old

      \1\Jefferson's Manual was prepared by Thomas Jefferson for
    his own guidance as President of the Senate in the years of his Vice
    Presidency, from 1797 to 1801. In 1837 the House, by rule that still
    exists, provided that the provisions of the Manual should ``govern the
    House in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are
    not inconsistent with the Rules and orders of the House.'' Rule XXIX,
    Sec. 1105, infra. In 1880 the committee that revised the Rules of the
    House declared in their report that the Manual, ``compiled as it was for
    the use of the Senate exclusively and made up almost wholly of
    collations of English parliamentary practice and decisions, it was never
    especially valuable as an authority in the House of Representatives,
    even in its early history, and for many years past has been rarely
    quoted in the House'' (V, 6757). This statement, although sanctioned by
    high authority, is extreme, for in certain parts of the Manual are to be
    found the foundations of some of the most important portions of the
    House's practice.

    Sec. 284. The Manual as a statement of parliamentary
    law.

        The Manual is regarded by English parliamentarians as the best
    statement of what the law of Parliament was at the time Jefferson wrote
    it. Jefferson himself says, in the preface of the work:

      ``I could not doubt the necessity of quoting the sources of my
    information, among which Mr. Hatsel's most valuable book is preeminent;
    but as he has only treated some general heads, I have been obliged to
    recur to other authorities in support of a number of common rules of
    practice, to which his plan did not descend. Sometimes each authority
    cited supports the whole passage. Sometimes it rests on all taken
    together. Sometimes the authority goes only to a part of the text, the
    residue being inferred from known rules and principles. For some of the
    most familiar forms no written authority is or can be quoted, no writer
    having supposed it necessary to repeat what all were presumed to know.
    The statement of these must rest on their notoriety.

      ``I am aware that authorities can often be produced in opposition to
    the rules which I lay down as parliamentary. An attention to dates will
    generally remove their weight. The proceedings of Parliament in ancient
    times, and for a long while, were crude, multiform, and embarrassing.
    They have been, however, constantly advancing toward uniformity and
    accuracy, and have now attained a degree of aptitude to their object
    beyond which little is to be desired or expected.

      ``Yet I am far from the presumption of believing that I may not have
    mistaken the parliamentary practice in some cases, and especially in
    those minor forms, which, being practiced daily, are supposed known to
    everybody, and therefore have not been committed to writing. Our
    resources in this quarter of the globe for obtaining information on that
    part of the subject are not perfect. But I have begun a sketch, which
    those who come after me will successively correct and fill up, till a
    code of rules shall be formed for the use of the Senate, the effects of
    which may be accuracy in business, economy of time, order, uniformity,
    and impartiality.''

      Jefferson also says in his preface, as to the source most desirable at
    that time from which to draw principles of procedure:

    Sec. 286. Relations of the parliamentary law to the early
    practice of Congress.

        ``But to what system of rules is he to recur, as
    supplementary to those of the Senate? To this there can be but one
    answer: To the system of regulations adopted for the government of some
    one of the parliamentary bodies within these States, or of that which
    has served as a prototype to most of them. This last is the model which
    we have all studied, while we are little acquainted with the
    modifications of it in our several States. It is deposited, too, in
    publications possessed by many, and open to all. Its rules are probably
    as wisely constructed for governing the debates of a deliberative body,
    and obtaining its true sense, as any which can become known to us; and
    the acquiescence of the Senate, hitherto, under the references to them,
    has given them the sanction of the approbation.''

      Those portions of the Manual that refer exclusively to Senate
    procedure or that refer to English practice wholly inapplicable to the
    House have been omitted. Paragraphs from the Constitution of the United
    States have also been omitted, because the Constitution is printed in
    full in this volume.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [[Page 130]]

    Sec. 285. Necessity of rules of action.

      And  whether these
    forms be in all cases the most rational or not is really not of so great
    importance. It is much more material that there should be a rule to go
    by than what that rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding
    in business not subject to the caprice of the Speaker or captiousness of
    the members. It is very material that order, decency, and regularity be
    preserved in a dignified public body. 2 Hats., 149.

    * * * * *

      Whether the House is in order so that a Member may proceed in debate
    is determined by the Chair (Speaker McCormack, Dec. 9, 1963, p. 23831;
    Apr. 23, 2008, pp. 6748, 6749), who may refuse to proceed with business
    in the face of a breach of decorum (Mar. 13, 2014, p. _), such as the
    mass presence of Members in the well while not under recognition (June
    22, 2016, p. _). Alleged partiality in making such a determination has
    been renounced (July 31, 2008, p. 17495). The comportment of a presiding
    officer has formed the basis of a question of privilege (Aug. 3, 2007,
    p. 22783).