페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

Chapter by desiring that “ As many as are of that opinion say,

_'Aye,'” and “As many as are of the contrary opinion say,

'No.'” On account of these forms, the two parties are
distinguished in the Lords as "contents” and “not con-
tents,” and in the Commons as the “ayes” and “noes.”
When each party have exclaimed according to their opinion,
the Speaker endeavours to judge, from the loudness and Speaker's

statement
general character of the opposing exclamations, which challenged.
party have the majority. As his judgment is not final,
he expresses his opinion thus: “I think the ('contents,'
or) ayes ' have it ;” or, “I think the ('not contents,' or)

noes' have it." If the house acquiesce in this decision,
the question is said to be “resolved in the affirmative" or

“negative,” according to the supposed majority on either
Dirisions side : but if the party thus declared to be the minority dis-
frirolously
claimed, see pute the fact, they say, “The contents'(or not contents'),
p. 370.

the 'ayes' (or ‘noes ') have it," as the case may be ; in Questions which case the Speaker puts the question a second time,

' in order that the numbers may be counted, by the process again stated, sce which is termed a division (see p. 354). p. 358. Members must bear in mind that their opinion is Voices on

the ques. collected from their voices in the house, and not merely tion. by a division; and that if their voices and their votes should be at variance, the voice will bind the vote. A member therefore who gave his voice with the "ayes” (or “noes”) when the Speaker took the voices, is bound to

vote with them.
Points of On the report of the Holyrood Park Bill, 10th August,
order raised
during di 1843, a member called out with the “noes," " The ‘noes'
Disions, see have it," and thus forced that party to a division, although

he was about to vote with the" ayes " and went out into the
lobby with them. On his return, and before the numbers
were declared by the tellers, Mr. Brotherton addressed the

not heurd

1 Practice on this point was formerly unsettled. It was debated in the house, 29th Feb. 1796. Mr. Pitt maintained that a member was at liberty to force his opponents to & division; whilst the Speaker pro.

nounced such conduct to be "un. becoming and contrary to the rules and practice of Parliament," 2 Hatsell, 201, n.; 1 Lord Colchester's Diary, 38. The debate is not to be found in the Parl, Hist.

[ocr errors]

Speaker, sitting and covered (the doors being closed), and Chapter
claimed that the member's vote should be reckoned with the _
“noes.” The Speaker put it to the member, whether he had
said, “ The noes’hare it;" to which he replied that he had,
but without any intention of voting with the "noes.” The
Speaker, however, would not admit of his excuse, but ordered
that his vote should be counted with the “noes,” as he had
declared himself with them in the house. This decision
was repeated on two subsequent occasions, and on the 4th
June, 1866, the Speaker condemned this practice of forcing
a division as “irregular and unparliamentary."1 The Time and

manner of objection that a member's vote was contrary to his voice dealing with

w an error in should be taken either before the numbers are reported by a division; the tellers, or immediately afterwards; and will not be see p. 363. entertained after the declaration of the numbers from the

chair.
A member It would seem, however, that by the ancient rules of the
changing
his opinion. house, a member was at liberty to change his opinion upon

a question. On the 1st May, 1606, “ A question moved,
whether a man saying yea' may afterwards sit and change
his opinion. A precedent remembered in 39 Eliz., of A resolu-
Mr. Morris, attorney of the Court of Wards, by Mr. Speaker, rescinded,
that changed his opinion. Misliked somewhat, it should "
be so; yet said that a man might change his opinion.”
A member who has made a motion is afterwards entitled
to vote against it, provided he gives his voice with the

“noes” when the question is put from the chair.
Orders and Every question, when agreed to, assumes the form either

of an order or a resolution of the house. By its orders, the
house directs its committees, its members, its officers, the
order of its own proceedings, and the acts of all persons
whom they concern; by its resolutions, the house declares
its own opinions and purposes.

tion

300.

17th July, 1854, 109 C. J. 373; 23rd June, 1864, 119 ib. 359; 176 H. D. 3 s. 235 ; 183 ib. 1919.

? 15th April, 1856, 141 ib. 1103.

31 C. J. 303.

227 H. D. 3 s. 473; 25th July, 1879, Sir H. Selwin Ibbetson, in committee of supply, Votes, p. 297.

[blocks in formation]

ments, see

P. 293.

rel.

Table of

AMENDMENTS TO QUESTIONS, AND AMENDMENTS TO Contents, see Intro

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. duction. Restriction The object of an amendment may be to effect such an Objects and on moring

w principle of amend. alteration in a question as will obtain the support of those an amenda

se who, without such alteration, must either vote against it or men Amend- abstain from voting thereon, or to present to the house an ments to be

de alternative proposition, either wholly or partially opposed see p.: 293 ; to the original question. This may be effected by moving intelligible; and to omit all the words of the question after the first word, seconded, p. 299. “ That,” and to substitute in their place other words of a different import (see p. 284). In that case the debate that Debate on

amendfollows is not restricted to the amendment, but includes the ments. motive of the amendment and of the motion, both matters being under the consideration of the house as alternative propositions. If the amendment be to leave out or to add words only, debate should be restricted to the desirability of the omission or the addition of those words.

The confusion which must arise from any irregularity in the mode of putting amendments, is often exemplified at public meetings, where fixed principles and rules are not observed ; and it would be well for persons in the habit of presiding at meetings of any description to make themselyes familiar with the rules of Parliament in regard to questions and amendments, which, tested by long experience, are as simple and efficient in practice as they are logical in principle." Previous notice of a matter brought before the house by When

notice of way of amendment is, as a rule, unnecessary. Notice, however, must be given of amendments on going into ments is committee of supply (p. 246); of clauses on the consideration of a bill by the house (p. 246); of the names of members to

amend

necessary.

1 Mr. Reginald Palgrave has done good service in this respect,

by the publication of "The Chair-
man's Handbook."- Author's Note.

P.

ments,

be nominated by way of amendment, on a select committee Chapter
(p. 246); and, under certain conditions, of an amendment
to an instruction (p. 482), and such amendments can be
moved only by the members in whose names they stand

upon the notice paper. Order in The time for moving an amendment is after a question Questions moving

fully put, amend has been proposed by the Speaker, and before it has been see

put. A member who has given notice of an amendment is
not entitled to precedence on that account, and to be heard
before a member who rises to speak to the question ;? as,
according to the rules of debate, the member who first rises
and is called by the Speaker, being in possession of the Speaker's
house, is entitled to conclude with any motion which may
properly be made at that time. Nor, though a contrary
practice prevails in proceedings on a bill (see p. 484), if
a series of amendments are proposed to a motion, can
members claim, unless they rise to speak, to be called
in the order in which their notices stand upon the notice
paper (see p. 610). The order and form in which the
points arising out of amendments are determined are as

follows:-
Various An amendment may be made to a question, (1) by
modes of

leaving out certain words; (2) by leaving out certain
words in order to insert or add others ; (3) by inserting

or adding certain words.
To leave 1. When the proposed amendment is to leave out certain
out words.

words, the Speaker says, “ The original question was this,”
stating the question at length; “Since which, an amend.
ment has been proposed to leave out the words," which
are proposed to be omitted. He then puts the question,
“ That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the
question.” If that question be resolved in the affirmative, Debate on
it shows that the house prefer the original question to the men
amendment, and the question, as first proposed, is put by p. 290.
the Speaker. If, however, the question, “That the words Division on

i un amend. stand part of the question,” be negatived, the question is m

358. 1 9 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1663.

1486; 246 ib. 265; 25 ib. 80; 282 : 84 H. D. 3 s. 641; 163 ib, 1424. ib. 1869.

amend. ment.

amend.

ents, see

[ocr errors]

nd to in.

Chapter put with the omission of those words ; unless another

amendment be then moved for the insertion or addition
of other words.
2. When the proposed amendment is to leave out certain To leave

im out words, words? in order to insert or add others, the proceeding an commences in the same manner as the last. If the house sert or add

others. resolve " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question,” the original question is put: but if they resolve that such words shall not stand part of the question, by negativing that proposition when put, the next question

proposed is that the words proposed to be substituted, be
Addition inserted or added instead thereof. This latter question
of words
there to see being resolved in the affirmative, the main question, so
p. 294.

amended, is put. It is sometimes erroneously supposed
that a member who is adverse both to the original question
and to the proposed amendment, would express an opinion
favourable to the question, by voting “ That the words when the

D. question
proposed to be left out stand part of the question.” By
such a vote, however, he merely declares his opinion to be me

We both obadverse to the amendment. After the amendment has jected to. been disposed of, the question itself remains to be put, upon which each member votes as if no amendment whatever had been proposed. If, however, he be equally opposed to the question and to the amendment, it is quite competent for him to vote with the “noes” on both.

A misunderstanding, however, sometimes arises in the application of this rule. On Tuesday, 9th March, 1886, on a motion of Mr. Dillwyn, condemning the continuance of the Church of England in Wales, an amendment was moved by Mr. Albert Grey, when the government and other members, being equally opposed to the motion and the amendment, voted that the words proposed to be left out should stand part of the question, intending to vote against the main question when proposed. They accordingly went into the lobby with the supporters of the original

and amend. ment are

1 It is not competent to move to leave out all the words of a question. The initial word “that” must, at

least, be retained.

? 191 H. D. 3 s. 708.

« 이전계속 »