Restrictions in proposing amendments. amendments. Several amendments may be moved to the same question; but subject to these restrictions: 1. No amendment can be made in the first part of a question, after the latter part has been amended, or proposed to be amended; but each separate amendment must be offered in the order in which, if agreed to, it would stand in the amended question.1 2. When the house have agreed that certain words shall stand part of a question, it is irregular to propose any amendment to those words; as the decision of the house has already been pronounced in their favour. But this rule would not exclude an proposed at the proper time. when the house have agreed to question, their decision may not be disturbed by any amendment of those words. addition to the words, if 3. In the same manner, add or insert words in a But when a member desires to move an amendment to a part of the question proposed to be omitted by another amendment, or to alter words proposed to be inserted, it is sometimes arranged that only the first part of the original amendment shall be formally proposed, in the first instance, so as not to preclude the consideration of Amendments to the second amendment. Another proceeding may also be resorted to, by which an amendment is intercepted, as it were, before it is offered to the house, in its original form, by moving to amend the first proposed amendment. This can be done when the original amendment proposed is, to leave out or to insert or add certain words; or when certain words have been left out of a question, and it is then proposed to insert or add other words instead thereof. In such cases an amendment may be proposed to the proposed amendment, and the questions put by the speaker thereupon, deal with the first amendment as if it were a distinct question, and with the second as if it were an ordinary amendment. 1 2 Hats. 123. 2 See Case of Duke of York, 64 Com. J. 131. A short example will make this complicated proceeding more intelligible. To avoid a difficult illustration, (of which there are many in the Journals,') let the simple question be, "That this bill be now read a second time;" and let an amendment be proposed, by leaving out the word "now," and adding "this day six months;" let the question that the word "now" stand part of the question, be negatived, and the question for adding "this day six months," be proposed; an amendment may then be proposed thereto, by leaving out "months," and adding "weeks," or by leaving out "six months," and adding "week," "fortnight," &c., or by leaving out "six," and inserting "two," "three," or "four." The question will then be put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed amendment." If that be affirmed, the question for adding "this day six months," is put; and if carried, the main question, so amended, is put, viz. "That this bill be read a second time this day six months." But if it be resolved, that "six months" shall not stand part of the proposed amendment, a question is put that "week" or "fortnight,' &c. be added; and if that be agreed to, the first amendment, so amended, is put, viz. that the words "this day week" be added to the original question. That being agreed to, the main question, so amended, is put, viz. "That this bill be read a second time this day week." It must be observed, that no motion to amend a proposed amendment can be entertained, until the amendment has, for the time, assumed the place of the original question, and become, as it were, a substantive question itself; otherwise there would be three points under consideration at once, viz. the question, the proposed amendment, and the amendment of that amendment. But when the question for adopting the words of an amendment is put forward distinctly, and apart from the original question, no 1 See Com. Gen. Journ. Indexes, 1774-1837, tit. Amendments. confusion arises from moving an amendment to it, before its ultimate adoption is proposed.' It may sometimes happen, that an amendment clashes with the proposal of the previous question; in which case, the priority of either would depend upon the period at which the conflict arises. If the members who are about to offer these conflicting motions could previously arrange, with each other, the intended order of proceeding, it would generally be most convenient to move the amendment first; because it is manifestly reasonable to consider, in the first place, what the question shall be, if put at all; It appears, from a curious letter of the younger Pliny (Plinii Epistolæ, lib. viii. ep. 14), that the Roman senate were perplexed in the mode of disentangling a question that involved three different propositions. It was doubtful whether the consul, Afranius Dexter, had died by his own hand, or by that of a domestic; and if by the latter, whether at his own request, or criminally; and the senate had to decide on the fate of his freedmen. One senator proposed that the freedmen ought not to be punished at all; another that they should be banished; and a third, that they should suffer death. As these judgments differed so much, it was urged that they must be put to the question distinctly, and that those who were in favour of each of the three opinions should sit separately, in order to prevent two parties, each differing with the other, from joining against the third. On the other hand, it was contended that those who would put to death, and those who would banish, ought jointly to be compared with the number who voted for acquittal, and afterwards among themselves. The first opinion prevailed, and it was agreed that each question should be put separately. It happened, however, that the senator who had proposed death, at last joined the party in favour of banishment, in order to prevent the acquittal of the freedmen, which would have been the result of separating the senate into three distinct parties. The mode of proceeding adopted by the senate was clearly inconsistent with a determination by the majority of an assembly; being calculated to leave the decision to a minority of the members then present, if the majority were not agreed. The only correct mode of ascertaining the will of a majority, is to put but one question at a time, and to have that resolved in the affirmative or negative by the whole body. The combinations of different parties against a third cannot be avoided (which after all was proved in the senate); and the only method of obtaining the ultimate judgment of a majority, and reconciling different opinions, is by amending the proposed question until a majority of all the parties agree to affirm or deny it as it is ultimately put to the vote. (I am indebted to the late Mr. Rickman for a reference to Pliny's letter, accompanied by a very animated translation, which I regret is too long to be inserted.) and, secondly, whether the question shall be put or not. Unless this course were adopted, an amendment, which might alter the question so as to remove objections to its being put, could not be proposed; for if the previous question were resolved in the affirmative, it must be put immediately by the speaker as it stands; and if in the negative, the question would no longer be open to consideration. But if the amendment has been first proposed, it must be withdrawn or otherwise disposed of, before a motion for the previous question can be admitted. If, on the other hand, the previous question has been first After previous proposed by the speaker, no amendment can be received question proposed. until the previous question is withdrawn. If the members who moved and seconded the previous question, agree, by leave of the house, to withdraw it, the amendment may be proposed, but not otherwise. If they refuse to withdraw it, the previous question must be put and determined. If, however, the house should generally concur in the amendments which were precluded from being put, they would permit a new and distinct question to be afterwards proposed, embodying the spirit of those amendments, upon which a separate vote might be taken. In the commons, every amendment must be proposed and seconded in the same manner as an original motion; and if no seconder can be found, the amendment is not proposed by the speaker, but drops, as a matter of course, and no entry appears of it in the Votes.2 1 36 Com. J. 825. 2 8th February 1844 (Mr. Roebuck). CHAPTER X. THE SAME QUESTION OR BILL MAY NOT BE TWICE OFFERED Object of the rule. Exceptions. Votes rescinded, It is a rule, in both houses, not to permit any question or bill to be offered, which is substantially the same as one on which their judgment has already been expressed in the current session. This is necessary, in order to avoid contradictory decisions, to prevent surprises, and to afford proper opportunities for determining the several questions as they arise. If the same question could be proposed again and again, a session would have no end, or only one question could be determined; and it would be resolved first in the affirmative, and then in the negative, according to the accidents or the tricks to which all voting is liable. But, however wise the general principle of this rule may be, if it were too strictly applied, the discretion of Parliament would be confined, and its votes be subject to irrevocable error. A vote may therefore be rescinded,' notwithstanding a rule urged (April 2d, 1604,) "That a question being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the house." Technically, indeed, the rescinding of a vote is the matter of a new question; the form being to read the resolution of the house, and to move that it be rescinded; and thus the same question which had been resolved in the affirmative is not again offered, although its effect is annulled. The same result is produced when a resolution has been agreed to, and a motion for bringing |