« 이전계속 »
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
noes' have it." If the house acquiesce in this decision,
“negative,” according to the supposed majority on either
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.
he was about to vote with the" ayes " and went out into the
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.
Speaker, sitting and covered (the doors being closed), and Chapter
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
a question. On the 1st May, 1606, “ A question moved,
“noes” when the question is put from the chair.
of an order or a resolution of the house. By its orders, the
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.
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
1 Mr. Reginald Palgrave has done good service in this respect,
by the publication of "The Chair-
be nominated by way of amendment, on a select committee Chapter
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
leaving out certain words; (2) by leaving out certain
or adding certain words.
words, the Speaker says, “ The original question was this,”
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.
nd to in.
Chapter put with the omission of those words ; unless another
amendment be then moved for the insertion or addition
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
amended, is put. It is sometimes erroneously supposed
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.