ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

No reserved speech on moving adjourn ment, &c.

In committee.

New question.

3

XII.

this manner, was precluded from afterwards addressing the Chapter
house upon the same question, or was heard merely by
the indulgence of the house: 1 but under present usage, the
option of speaking at a subsequent period of the debate has
been conceded. But in moving a motion for adjournment,
or an amendment, a member cannot avail himself of this
privilege, as he must rise in his place to make the motion,
and thus cannot avoid addressing the house, however
shortly. Accordingly, in such a case, the mover and, in
like manner, the seconder of a motion for an adjournment
or of an amendment have not the power of reserving their
speech until a future occasion during the debate. And as
a member who moves an amendment cannot speak again,
so a member who seconds an amendment is equally unable
to speak again upon the original question, after the amend-
ment has been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of. In Debate on
both cases, the members have already spoken while the supply, see
original question was before the house, and before the P. 609.
amendment had been proposed from the chair.5 For
the same reason, a member who has addressed the house
in moving the second reading of a bill, cannot move
the adjournment of the debate, unless an amendment has
been since proposed."

3. In a committee of the whole house the restriction upon
speaking more than once is altogether removed, as will be
more fully explained in speaking of the proceedings of com-
mittees (see p. 385).

The adjournment of a debate does not enable a member
to speak again upon a question, when the discussion is re-
newed on another day, however distant: 7 but directly a new
question has been proposed, as, "that this house do now
adjourn,'
""that the debate be adjourned," "the previous

1 28th Feb. 1821, 4 H. D. 2. s. 1013.

2 19th March, 1872, 210 H. D. 3 s. 304.

Mr. Bernal Osborne, 21st July, 1851, 118 ib. 1147. 1163; Mr. Lowe, 11th June, 1855, 138 ib. 1300. 1756.

21st June, 1892, 5 Parl. Deb. 4

s. 1744.

5 237 H. D. 3 s. 1532; 240 ib.
123; 241 ib. 1311; 89 Parl. Deb. 4 s.
1077. 1128.

6 227 H. D. 3 s. 1659.
71 C. J. 245.

going into

XII.

1

[ocr errors]

Chapter question," or an amendment, members are at liberty to speak again; as the rule applies strictly to the prevention of more than one speech to each separate question proposed : but a member who has already spoken to a question, or has moved or seconded an amendment thereto,2 or a motion for the adjournment of the debate, may not rise again to move an amendment, or the adjournment of the house or of the debate, or any similar question, though he may speak to these new questions when proposed by other members. On the 27th October, 1884, an amendment having been moved to add words to the address in answer to the Queen's speech, that being the third day of the debate, that amendment was amended, without opposition, by leaving out the earlier portion of it, when a doubt was raised whether the amendment so amended had not become a new question, upon which members who had already spoken might again address the house: but, after full consideration, it was ruled that it was still the same question. A member, however, Speech on who has already spoken, may rise and speak again upon order. a point of order or privilege, if he confines himself to that subject, and does not refer to the general tenor of a speech.5

Point of

order

raised, see p. 349.

Inter

"order,"

point of

debate.

For preserving decency and order in debate, various rules Order in ruptive cry, have been laid down, which, in the Lords, are enforced by &c., see p. the house itself, and in the Commons by the Speaker in the first instance, and, if necessary, by the house. The violation

345.

66

of these rules any member may notice, either by a cry of order," or by rising in his place, and, in the Lords, addressing the house, and, in the Commons, the Speaker. When a member speaks to order, he must simply direct attention to the point complained of, and submit it to the division, see decision of the Speaker (see p. 349).

Sitting covered during a

p. 310.

165 H. D. 3 s. 826.

2 190 ib. 674; 211 ib. 870; 212 ib. 1118.

3 Ten divisions took place, 17th June, 1870, upon questions of adjournment, to defeat the Clerical Disabilities Bill. The rule which prevents a second speech upon the same question was strictly enforced;

and when the minority was reduced
to twenty-one, it happened that not
more than six members of that party
were in a condition to move further
adjournments.

10.

293 H. D. 3 s. 298; 140 C. J.

195 H. D. 3 s. 2008.

Rules for members

speaking.

Referring

XII.

The rules for the conduct of debate divide themselves Chapter into two parts, viz.: I., such as are to be observed by members addressing the house; and, II., those which regard the behaviour of members listening to the debate.

I. (1) A member, while speaking to a question, may not allude to debates of the same session upon any question or bill not then under discussion; (2) nor speak against or reflect upon any determination of the house, unless he intends to conclude with a motion for rescinding it; (3) nor allude to debates in the other house of Parliament; (4) nor utter treasonable or seditious words, or use the King's name irreverently, or to influence the debate; (5) nor speak offensive and insulting words against the character or proceedings of either house; (6) nor refer to matters pending a judicial decision; (7) nor reflect upon the conduct of the sovereign or of other persons in authority; (8) nor make personal allusions to members of Parliament; (9) nor obstruct public business.

(1) It is a wholesome restraint upon members, to preto prior de- vent them from reviving a debate already concluded; and there would be little use in preventing the same question or bill from being offered twice in the same session, if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.1 The rule, however, is not always strictly enforced peculiar circumstances may seem to justify a member in alluding to a past debate, and the house and the Speaker will judge, in each case, how far the rule may fairly be relaxed. On the 30th August, 1841, for instance, an objection was taken that a member was referring tɔ a preceding debate, and that it was contrary to one of the rules of the house. The Speaker said, "That rule applied Personal explanain all cases: but where a member had a personal com- tion, see p. plaint to make, it was usual to grant him the indulgence of making it." And again on the 7th March, 1850, he

1 See H. D. 28th Feb. 1845, where Mr. Roche had come from Ireland on purpose to ask Mr. Roebuck a question, but was stopped by Mr.

Speaker; 7th Aug. 1876, 231 H. D.

3 s. 749; 238 ib. 1403.

259 H. D. 3 s. 486; see also 65 ib. 642, 26th July, 1842.

319.

XII.

ence in de

Chapter said, "The house is always willing to extend its indulgence, when an honourable member wishes to clear up any misrepresentation of his character: but that indulgence ought to be strictly limited to such misrepresentations, and ought not to extend to any observations other than by way of correction." Again, on the 3rd March, 1856, a noble lord was allowed to refer to a former debate by way of personal explanation: but directly he proposed to introduce new matter, he was stopped by the Speaker; and the same. rule was explained and enforced on the 26th February, No refer 1858, on the 4th June, 1863, and on other occasions.1 Nor is a member allowed to refer to a speech made in a comproceedings mittee of the whole house. This rule, however, does not apply to debates upon different stages of a bill; and after the passing of an Act, allusions have been allowed to debates during its progress, while discussing a proclamation issued under that Act. And upon a motion for Resolutions practically rescinding a resolution of the house, reference has been permitted to the debate upon that resolution.* There appears, however, to be a technical difficulty in the strict enforcement of the rule in committee, where a debate in another committee is referred to, as one committee is not supposed to be cognizant of the debates of another.5

bate to committee

before report, see p. 492.

rescinded,

see p. 300.

2

from news

papers.

A member may not read any portion of a speech, made in Reading the same session, from a printed book or newspaper. This rule, indeed, applies strictly to all debates whatsoever, the publication of them being a breach of privilege: but of late years it has been relaxed, by general acquiescence, in favour of speeches delivered in former sessions. It is also irregular

17th March, 1850 (Mr. Campbell and Mr. B. Osborne), 109 H. D. 3 s. 462; see also 30th March, 1846 (Sir J. Graham and Mr. Shaw), 85 ib. 300; 140 ib. 1708; Sir R. Bethell, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Warren, 149 ib. 1014; 235 ib. 503. 1192; 236 ib. 36. 172; Sir W. Marriott, 10 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 523.

2 154 H. D 3 s. 985.

3 Royal Titles Act, May 11th, 1876, 129 ib. 374.

• Controller of the Stationery

Office, 1877, 235 ib. 1703.

5 In committee of supply, Education Vote, 12th June, 1856, 142 ib. 1534.

203 ib. 1613, &c.

On the 17th May, 1794, Sir W. Young objected to the reading of a speech of Sir R. Walpole: but the Speaker decided it to be regular, drawing a distinction between the speeches of dead and living members, 31 Parl. Hist. 527.

Reflecting upon votes of the house.

Allusions

to debates in the other

house.

XII.

to read extracts from newspapers, letters, or other docu- Chapter
ments referring to debates in the house in the same session.1
Indeed, until 1840, the reading of any extracts from a
newspaper, whether referring to debates or not, had been
restrained as irregular. On the 9th March, 1840, the Speaker
having called a member to order, who was reading an
extract cut out from a newspaper, as part of his speech, Sir
Robert Peel said it would be drawing the rule too tightly
if members were restrained from reading relevant extracts
from newspapers; and with the acquiescence of the house,
the member proceeded to read the passage from the news-
paper. On the 14th February, 1856, when a member was
called to order for reading an extract from a newspaper, the
Speaker stated that, on a former occasion when he had
attempted to enforce this rule, he had been overruled by
the house. On the 9th March, 1857, in committee of
supply, the chairman made a similar statement.3

(2) The objections to the practice of referring to past
debates apply, with greater force, to reflections upon votes
of the house, unless made for the purpose of justifying a
motion that the vote be rescinded. Those reflections not
only revive discussion upon questions already decided, but
are wholly irregular, inasmuch as the member is himself
included in, and bound by, a vote agreed to by a majority.1
Reflections also on the action taken by the Speaker, the See also
chairman of ways and means, and the house upon a closure 219.
motion are not permitted.5

(3) The rule that allusions to debates in the other house are out of order, prevents fruitless arguments between members of two distinct bodies who are unable to reply to each other, and guards against recrimination and offensive language, in the absence of the party assailed: but it is

127th Feb. 1846 (Mr. Ferrand), 84 H. D. 3 s. 232; also 154 ib. 1200; 162 ib. 1885; 168 ib. 1198; 183 ib. 826; 191 ib. 2030; 206 ib. 1330; 208 ib. 1604; 241 ib. 831.

2 52 ib. 1063-1065.

3 140 ib. 764; 144 ib. 2106.
42 Hatsell, 234, n.; see also 185

H. D. 3 s. 1123; 186 ib. 885.

5 328 ib. 1899; 329 ib. 58; 354 ib. 431; 9 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 450; 10 ib. 1411; 11 ib. 1839; 12 ib. 412-423. 835. 1197-1202; 16 ib. 1968; 39 ib. 867; 40 ib. 1731; 61 ib. 863; 110 ib. 499, 510; 151 ib. 980.

closure, p.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »