ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

IX.

statement

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 contents," 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 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 Divisions side: but if the party thus declared to be the minority disfrivolously claimed, see pute the fact, they say, "The 'contents' (or 'not contents'), 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 which is termed a division (see p. 354).

p. 370.

not heard again

stated, see p. 358.

Points of order raised

[ocr errors]

the ques

Members must bear in mind that their opinion is Voices on 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

66

noes") when the Speaker took the voices, is bound to vote with them.1

On the report of the Holyrood Park Bill, 10th August, during di 1843, a member called out with the "noes," "The 'noes' visions, see have it," and thus forced that party to a division, although

P. 346.

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

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 a division; whilst the Speaker pro

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

Chapter

IX.

Speaker, sitting and covered (the doors being closed), and
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' have 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." The Time and
objection that a member's vote was contrary to his voice dealing with
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.2

1

manner of

an error in

tion

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 resoluMr. Morris, attorney of the Court of Wards, by Mr. Speaker, rescinded, see p. 300. that changed his opinion. Misliked somewhat, it should be so; yet said that a man might change his opinion." s 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

resolutions.

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.

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.

3 1 C. J. 303.

227 H. D. 3 s. 473; 25th July, 1879, Sir H. Selwin Ibbetson, in committee of supply, Votes, p. €97.

[blocks in formation]

on moving amend.

ments, see p. 293. Amend

ments to be

seconded, see p. 299.

CHAPTER X.

AMENDMENTS TO QUESTIONS, AND AMENDMENTS TO

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

principle of

ment.

Restriction THE object of an amendment may be to effect such an Objects and alteration in a question as will obtain the support of those an amendwho, without such alteration, must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon, or to present to the house an relevant, 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, "That," and to substitute in their place other words of a different import (see p. 284). In that case the debate that Debate on follows 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 themselves 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.1

amend

notice of

Previous notice of a matter brought before the house by When way of amendment is, as a rule, unnecessary. Notice, amendhowever, 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,

P.

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

U

necessary.

Order in moving amend

ments.

Various

modes of amendment.

To leave out words.

X.

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.1

2

The time for moving an amendment is after a question Questions fully put, has been proposed by the Speaker, and before it has been see p. 311. 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 call, p. 311. 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:

An amendment may be made to a question, (1) by leaving out certain words; (2) by leaving out certain words in order to insert or add others; (3) by inserting or adding certain words.

1. When the proposed amendment is to leave out certain words, the Speaker says, "The original question was this," stating the question at length; "Since which, an amendment 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 ments, see amendment, and the question, as first proposed, is put by p. 290. the Speaker. If, however, the question, "That the words Division on stand part of the question," be negatived, the question is ment, see p.

19 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1663.
284 H. D. 3 s. 641; 163 ib. 1424.

1486; 246 ib. 265; 25 ib. 80; 282
ib. 1869.

amend

an amend.

358.

[ocr errors]

Chapter put with the omission of those words; unless another amendment be then moved for the insertion or addition of other words.

Addition of words

p. 294.

1

out words,

2. When the proposed amendment is to leave out certain To leave words in order to insert or add others, the proceeding and to incommences 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 inserted or added instead thereof. This latter question thereto, see being resolved in the affirmative, the main question, so 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 proposed to be left out stand part of the question." By and amendsuch a vote, however, he merely declares his opinion to be ment are adverse to the amendment.2 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

[blocks in formation]

question

both ob

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »