ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Chapter

in the committee of supply is not in accord with the XXII. habitual practice of the house. In the contest which must, Part IV. during a debate, inevitably arise between a motion, and

an amendment proposing an alteration of the terms of the motion, undue priority is given to the second proposal, namely, to the amendment, if it be submitted for decision as a substantive proposal taking the place of, and as a substitute for the original motion. Yet a due position in debate must be secured for the amendment. The house, according to its ordinary mode of procedure, meets this difficulty by a method which secures equality of treatment between the motion and the amendment. Both proposals are simultaneMethod of ously submitted to consideration. The house is not asked proposing the question whether they approve of the amendment, or of the motion, but whether the motion shall be altered, so as to make way amendment, see p. 290. for the reception of the amendment.

on an

ments of a

grant.

This method of putting the question on an amendment Amendis disregarded in the committee of supply. When an amendment is proposed for the reduction of a grant, the motion originally proposed is wholly set aside, and can be withheld indefinitely from the decision of the committee; for the amendment, as proposed from the chair, takes the same form as the original motion, but offers, in lieu of the sum thereby demanded, a reduced sum for acceptance by the committee. The amendment thus takes the place of the original motion; and consequently, the rejection of the amendment does not, as would happen under the habitual usage of the house, bring the original motion under the decision of the committee, but leaves room for the proposal, without limit, of amendments in the same form, and of ever-varying amount.

Amendments based on the items of a grant.—The form of amendment hitherto considered is to obtain a reduction of the total grant proposed from the chair. Following the like method of procedure, a motion for a grant can be dealt with, in detail, by proposals to omit or to reduce the items of expenditure which compose the grant, in the manner

1 115 C. J. 191; 117 ib. 190; 143 ib. 492. 504, &c.

XXII.

Rules for prescribed by the following rules, which were, on the 9th Chapter February, 1858, and the 28th April, 1868, adopted by the house:

dealing with items.

Procedure thereon.

"That when a motion is made, in committee of supply, to omit or reduce any item of a vote, a question shall be proposed from the chair for omitting or reducing such item accordingly; and members shall speak to such question only, until it has been disposed of."

"That when several motions are offered, they shall be taken in the order in which the items to which they relate appear in the printed estimates."

"That after a question has been proposed from the chair for omitting or reducing any item, no motion shall be made, or debate allowed upon any preceding item."

"That when it has been proposed to omit or reduce items in a vote, the question shall be afterwards put upon the original vote, or upon the reduced vote, as the case may be."

"That after a question has been proposed from the chair for a reduction of the whole vote, no motion shall be made for omitting or reducing any item."1

Under these rules, the question upon the whole grant is first proposed from the chair; and if a motion be made to omit or reduce any item comprised in that grant, a question is put, that such item be omitted therefrom, or be reduced by a specified sum; 2 and when a reduction has been made in the amount of an item, a further motion may be made to omit the reduced item. Nor can the original motion for the whole grant be proposed until this method of amendment has run its course.

4

The rules framed for the guidance of the committee of supply have been enforced by the following decisions from the chair. In dealing with the items of an estimate, it has been ruled that items must be dealt with separately, and that an amendment including more than one item cannot be proposed by way of reduction of an item, but must be moved as a reduction of the whole grant.5 The rule which

1113 C. J. 42; 123 ib. 145. For debates on the committee practice prior to the adoption of these rules, see 145 H. D. 3 s. 1729. 2047; 146 ib. 58-68.

2 132 C. J. 138; 134 ib. 97, 396; 137 ib. 83; 139 ib. 404; 144 ib. 426. 431. 435.

3 119 ib. 211.

* 177 H. D. 3 s. 1990.

5 Chairman's ruling. On a proposal to move the omission of three items, he submitted for the decision of the committee the question upon the first item, 6th Nov. 1888, 330 ib. 497-499.

Part IV.

XXII.

Chapter prohibits any return in debate to an item prior to the item upon which debate has arisen, or a question has been proPart IV. posed, remains in force, after the withdrawal of the motion on which that question was founded; 1 nor can a proposal be made for the reduction of the whole grant, for the purpose of renewing discussion upon an item on which a question has been proposed, or debate arisen, or upon any item previous thereto.2

3

and lesser

sums.

The reduction of a grant or item must be of a substantial, and not of a trifling amount; 3 nor may a series of motions. be made upon the same grant, raising, substantially, the same issue. When two or more amendments upon the Greater same grant are, at the same time, tendered to the committee, the chairman puts first the amendment which proposes the largest reduction, and then, if that be not accepted, the lesser amendments; 5 still, as reductions are moved upon a grant independently the one of the other, a succession of reductions may be moved alternating between larger or smaller amounts, as may seem expedient to the movers, subject to the authority of the chairman, who may intervene to determine the most convenient order in taking the amendments offered."

in debate.

In accordance with general usage, the main principle Relevancy which governs debate in the committee of supply is relevancy to the matter which the question proposed from the chair submits to the committee. To this rule a necessary exception is made. The expenditure on the army services, though spread over various sources of outlay,

136 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1078.

2 21st April, 1884, 287 H. D. 3 s. 235; 22nd Aug. 1887, 319 ib. 1484. 1485.

3 On the 9th June, 1879, the chairman declined to put the question on a reduction of 5l., 246 ib. 1439; 13th June, 1878, 240 ib. 1456. See also 9 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1293.

7th Aug. 1877, 236 H. D. 3 s. 592.

12th June, 1857, 145 ib. 1733; 21st July, 1879, 248 ib. 911. This,

and the practice mentioned on
p. 384, are the only instances in
which the spirit of the ancient rule,
now practically obsolete, regarding
charges upon the people, which pre-
scribed the order in which the
question upon greater and lesser
sums should be put from the chair,
affects the procedure of the com-
mittee.

14th Aug. 1848, 103 C. J. 405.
924; 111 ib. 101. 106. 124; 124 ib.
283.

the army

services.

XXII.

Part IV.

Debate on is expenditure devoted to one object. By established Chapter and navy usage, therefore, if the minister in charge of the army estimates has not made his general statement concerning the services for the year upon the question that the Speaker do leave the chair for the committee, he makes it upon the first vote that is proposed to the committee, namely, the vote which determines the number of the land forces that shall be maintained, or for their pay, and a general discussion upon the army services is taken thereon. A similar practice obtains in the case of the navy services.

Debate on

the civil services.

This power of general debate does not, however, sanction discussion in detail upon special subjects, which must be reserved until the grant for that special service is before the committee, such as the reorganization of the controlling authorities over navy expenditure, or the tactics adopted during naval manœuvres or an admiralty minute dealing with a court martial. After the pay, or wages vote has been agreed to, debate must be confined to the particular vote before the committee; 2 but if, in consideration of the pressing needs of the services, the number of men, and the grants for pay of the navy or army services are voted without full discussion, general debate has been permitted, in respect of the navy, upon the grant for victuals and clothing, and, in respect of the army, on the grants for provisions or clothing; though this permission has, at the discretion of the chairman, been refused, as when the claim was urged regarding debate on the navy services. sanction of the chairman for any such departure from the ordinary rules of debate must be obtained while the vote, upon which the general discussion is in order, is under consideration.5

8

The

No method has been established for obtaining in the committee a general discussion upon the administration of the expenditure sanctioned by the civil service estimates;

1303 H. D. 3 s. 1215; 333 ib. 1731;

9 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1278.

2 223 H. D. 3 s. 655; 63 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 355. 370.

3 267 H. D. 3 s. 851; 2nd March,

1891, 350 ib. 2039.

9th April, 1875, 223 ib. 655.
574 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1603; 91 ib.
1026; 142 ib. 1322; 154 ib. 102.

XXII.

Part IV.

Chapter and debate must be kept to the specific object of the grant which is placed before the committee.1 For instance, the grant for the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland does not justify a review of his conduct regarding prosecutions, -a subject which is relevant to the grant for public prosecutions. Criticism made on the grant for prisons upon the enforcement by the officials of the prison rules, was permitted, but not of the conditions imposed by those rules from a legislative point of view; nor can the circumstances attending the trial, which resulted in sending a prisoner to gaol, be discussed on the prisons vote.s

and excess

Debate on supplementary and excess grants is restricted Debate on suppleto the particulars contained in the estimates on which those mentary grants are sought, and to the application of the items grants. which compose those grants; and the debate cannot touch the policy or the expenditure sanctioned, on other heads, by the estimate on which the original grant was obtained, except so far as such policy or expenditure is brought before the committee by the items contained in the supplementary or excess estimates.

1 An attempt was made, without success, 12th June, 1857, 145 H. D. 3 s. 1712. In 1877, a statement regarding the civil services was made by Mr. W. H. Smith on the motion for going into supply, 233 ib. 651; but a similar attempt regarding the education vote during that session, by the vice-president of the committee of council, failed to obtain approval, 235 ib. 1048.

23rd Dec. 1888, 331 ib. 859: 20th Aug. 1889, 339 ib. 1827.

27th July, 1891, 356 ib. 447. 475.

4 302 ib. 794; 311 ib. 1418. 1424; report select committee on estimates (procedure) sess. 1888, No. 281, p. v.; questions 2. 164. 446. 705; debate on grant for diplomatic buildings (Egypt), 2nd March, 1893, and the Speaker's statement, 3rd March, in answer to a question put to him by the chancellor of the exchequer, regarding debate

on

Matters which can be

...

man, see p. 385.

supplementary estimates; "I have Authority
always, since being in the chair, of chair-
manifested great reluctance to an-
swer any question which might
seem to be in the nature of an appeal
from the chairman of committees to
myself: but the way in which the
right hon. gentleman has put his
question clearly indicates to me
that he does not wish to refer to me
as a court of appeal. . . . Undoubt-
edly, of late years a certain limita-
tion has been enforced upon the
discussion of supplementary esti-
mates. As a general rule, on the
supplementary estimates it is in
order to discuss only the particular
items which constitute the supple-
mentary estimates, and the sub.
heads of the original estimates can
only be referred to so far as they
are involved in the fair discussion of
the points contained in the items
asked for in the supplementary esti-
mates. Of course, it is quite obvious

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »