This article examines two parts of the procedural framework of the Irish house of commons in the 17th and 18th centuries. In contrast to the Westminster house of commons, precedents and standing orders played a less prominent part in the operation of the Irish House. The article examines how the Irish house of commons used and made precedents and standing orders. In the 17th century the House not only looked to its own precedents but also to Westminster procedures, which exercised a strong pull. Westminster procedures were imported as rules and orders. By the end of the century the House effectively did not use its own precedents as a source for its constitutional claims. From 1695 to 1715 standing orders were used by the Irish house of commons as one method to secure new privileges as a representative body, to assert its claims, especially to the control of finance, and to regulate and improve its integrity and efficiency of operation. The stimulus and conduit for change were a growing print culture, the shared political alignment of politics in Westminster and Dublin and contacts between politicians and parliamentary officials. Standing orders allowed Westminster practices to be adopted silently under the cloak of ‘the constitution of parliament’, possibly to protect and enhance emerging ‘patriot’ sensibilities. After 1715 the pace of change slowed and the Dublin House diverged from Westminster in its approach to standing orders. Members assumed that these lasted no longer than a parliament and required revival. The Irish house of commons established neither a definitive compendium nor authoritative arbiter of its rules. Westminster standing orders and manuals exercised a major, even predominant influence, but were used à la carte, and interpretation of procedural rules was often through debate, some of which was muddled, and application was determined by those who could command a majority.

中文翻译：

---

17 和 18 世纪爱尔兰下议院的议事规则和先例

本文考察了 17 和 18 世纪爱尔兰下议院程序框架的两个部分。与威斯敏斯特下议院相比，先例和常规在爱尔兰议院的运作中发挥的作用不那么突出。这篇文章探讨了爱尔兰下议院如何使用和制定先例和常规命令。在 17 世纪，众议院不仅参考了自己的先例，而且还参考了威斯敏斯特程序，这些程序具有强大的吸引力。威斯敏斯特程序是作为规则和命令导入的。到本世纪末，众议院实际上并没有利用自己的先例作为其宪法主张的来源。从 1695 年到 1715 年，爱尔兰下议院使用常设命令作为一种方法来确保作为代表机构的新特权，主张其权利，特别是对财务的控制，规范和提高其完整性和运作效率。推动变革的动力和渠道是不断增长的印刷文化、威斯敏斯特和都柏林政治的共同政治联盟以及政客和议会官员之间的接触。议事规则允许在“议会宪法”的外衣下默默地采用威斯敏斯特的做法，可能是为了保护和增强新兴的“爱国者”敏感性。1715 年之后，变化的步伐放慢了，都柏林议院在处理常规命令方面与威斯敏斯特发生了分歧。成员们假设这些持续时间不超过议会并且需要复兴。爱尔兰下议院既没有制定明确的纲要，也没有制定其规则的权威仲裁者。à la carte，程序规则的解释经常是通过辩论，其中一些是混乱的，应用是由那些可以控制多数的人决定的。