Motions for adjourning and the debate. 3 IX. motions in chair, the question, having been entered on the minutes, is, Chapter of course, printed in the votes. If the proceeding superseded by adjournment be a motion, to bring the matter again before the house, a notice of the motion must be renewed (see p. 265); if an order of the day, &c., is so superseded, the order of the day must be revived (see p. 263). When a motion for adjournment has been negatived, it Similar the house may not be proposed again without some intermediate committee, proceeding; hence arises the practice of moving alternately, see p. 390. "That this house do now adjourn," and "That the debate be now adjourned." But a member who has moved the adjournment of the house is not entitled to move the adjournment of the debate, as he has already spoken to the main question. The latter motion, if carried, merely defers the decision of the house, while the former, as already explained, supersedes the question altogether; and therefore members who only desire to postpone the debate to another day, should refrain from voting for an adjournment of the house, as that motion, if carried, would supersede the question which they may be prepared to support.1 If, at the moment for the interruption of business under the standing orders (see p. 216), a motion for the adjournment of the house, or of the debate, has been proposed from the chair, such motion lapses without question put, pursuant S. O. 1, to the provision in standing order No. 1; and other Appendix I. restrictions placed upon the use of these motions, for purposes of obstruction, are treated among the rules of debate (see p. 316). Motions lapse on interrup. tion. Previous question. 5 2. The object of the previous question is to withhold from the decision of the house a motion that has been proposed 12 Hatsell, 109, note; 2 Lord Colchester's Diary, 129. * See proceedings, 23rd Nov. 1819, 41 H. D. 136; Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, 12th May, 1851, 106 C. J. 216; Election Petitions Bill, 29th June, 1857; Night Poaching Prevention Bill, 1st Aug. 1862, 117 ib. 388; Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill, 1881, 136 ib. 49-51, &c. 3184 H. D. 3 s. 1450. 4 An instance of this occurred on the 23rd March, 1848, on a motion relative to the game laws, 97 ib. 963; and again on the 2nd March, 1875, on Mr. Fawcett's motion relating to education in rural districts. See Mr. Speaker's evidence before committees on public business, 1848, 1854; and Report of Committee on Public Business, 1858. IX. "2 Chapter from the chair, by a motion which compels the house to decide, in the first instance, whether the original motion shall or shall not be submitted to the vote of the house. In the Lords, the Lord Speaker puts the question, "whether the original question be now put." In the Commons, the words of this motion are, "That that question be not now put; and, if it be resolved in the affirmative, the Speaker is prevented from putting the original question, as the house has thus refused to allow it to be put. The original motion may, however, be brought forward again on another day, as the decision of the house merely binds the Speaker not to put the question thereon at that time. If the previous question be resolved in the negative, the original question on which it was moved must be put forthwith, no amendment, nor debate, nor motion for adjournment being allowed, because, as the house has negatived the proposal, "That that question be not now put," the question must accordingly be put at once to the vote. stages of The previous question has been moved upon the various Previous stages of a bill, but it cannot be moved upon an amend question on ment; though, after an amendment has been agreed to, the bills. previous question can be put on the main question, as amended. Nor can the previous question be moved upon a motion relating to the transaction of public business or 1 71 L. J. 581; 74 ib. 87; motion respecting Russia, &c., 28th Jan. 1808, 110 ib. 22. This form of previous question was used by the Commons, 6th Sept. 1641, 2 C. J. 281. 2146 ib. 96. The Speaker, with the concurrence of the house, first put the previous question in these words, 20th March, 1888, 143 ib. 112, because the motion, "That the question be now put," is akin to the closure motion (see p. 218). The new form of motion also enables the members who support the previous question to vote "aye," when that question is put from the chair. For illustrations of the former practice, see 2 Hatsell, 122, n.; Lex. Parl. 292; Harbours of Refuge, 19th June, 3 3 1 C. J. 226. 825; 7 ib. 420; 8 ib. Previous question moved, after By amend ments. the meeting of the house, nor in any committee 2 (see pp. Chapter 385, 394, 420 n.). Nor can the motion for the previous IX. Previous question on The motion for the previous question may be superseded matters of privilege, by a motion for adjournment, and debate thereon may be see p. 275. adjourned.3 3. The general practice in regard to amendments is explained on p. 289: but here such amendments only will be mentioned as are intended to evade an expression of opinion upon the main question, by entirely altering its meaning and object. This is effected by moving the omission of all the words of the question after the word "that" at the beginning, and by the substitution of other words of a different import. If this amendment be agreed to by the house, it is clear that no opinion is expressed directly upon the main question, because it is determined that the original words "shall not stand part of the question;" and the sense of the house is afterwards taken directly upon the substituted words, or practically upon a new question. There are many precedents of this mode of dealing with a question: but the best known in parliamentary history are those relating to Mr. Pitt's administration, and the Peace of Amiens, in 1802. On the 7th May, 1802, a motion was made in the Commons for an address, "expressing the thanks of this house to his Majesty for having been pleased to remove the Right Hon. W. Pitt from his councils;" upon which an amendment was proposed and carried, which left out all the words after the first, and substituted others in direct opposition to them, by which the whole policy of Mr. Pitt was commended. Immediately afterwards an address was moved in both houses of Parliament, condemning the Treaty of Amiens, in a long statement of facts and arguments; and in each house an amendment was substituted, Speaker's private ruling, 30th 2 The report of the committee on 3131 C. J. 45, &c. 24 ib. 650; 30 ib. 70; 52 ib. 203; 93 ib. 418; Mr. Churchward, 19th March, 1867; employment of Indian Troops in Europe, 1878, 133 ib. 240, &c. Chapter whereby an address was resolved upon which justified the treaty.1 IX. Such objection not This practice has often been objected to as unfair; but the objection is unfounded, as the weaker party must always anticipate defeat, in one form or another. If no amendment be moved, the majority can negative the question itself, and affirm another in opposition to the opinions of the minority. On the very occasion a'ready mentioned, of the 7th May, 1802, after the address of thanks for the removal of Mr. Pitt had been defeated by an amendment, a distinct question was proposed and carried by the victorious party, "That the Right Hon. W. Pitt has rendered great and important services to his country, and especially deserves the gratitude of this house." Thus, if no amendment had been moved, the position of Mr. Pitt's opponents would have been but little improved, as the majority could have affirmed or denied whatever they pleased. It is in debate alone that a minority can hope to compete with a majority. The forms of the house can ultimately assist neither party: but, so far as they offer any intermediate advantage, the minority have the greatest protection in forms, while the majority are met by obstructions to the exercise of their will. inter rupted. These are the modes by which a question may be inten- Questions tionally avoided or superseded: but the consideration of a question is also liable to casual interruption and postponement from other causes, which are described on p. 269. The ancient rule that when a complicated question is pro- Compliposed to the house, the house may order such question tions. to be divided, is observed in the following manner. When two or more separate propositions are embodied in permissible a motion or in an amendment, the Speaker calls the attenon motions tion of the house to the circumstance; and, if objection be relating taken, he puts the question on such propositions separately, to the business of the house, see p. 268. 157 C. J. 419. 450; 36 Parl. Hist. 598-654. 686; 3 Stanhope's Pitt, 375-379; 43 L. J. 603. 2 A case precisely similar occurred on the 14th May, 1806, when a vote of censure on Earl St. Vincent's cated ques Question put. IX. restricting debate to each proposition in its turn; though Caapter 3 2 The When debate on a question is closed, the question must be put, which is done in the following manner. Speaker, rising from the chair, states or reads the question to the house, beginning with "The question is, that." This form of putting the question is always ob- Question fully put, served, and precedes (or is supposed to precede) every vote see p. 31! of the house, except in cases where a vote is a formal direction, in virtue of previous orders.* In the Lords, when the question has been put, the Speaker says, "As many as are of that opinion say, Content,'" and "As many as are of a contrary opinion say, 'Not content;"" and the respective parties exclaim, "Content," or "Not content," according to their opinions. In the Commons, the Speaker takes the sense of the house 1324 H. D. 3 s. 1828. See also Mr. Speaker's remarks, 17th July, 1905, 149 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 897. For references to the ancient and obsolete practice by which a complicated question was divided by order of the house, see 2 C. J. 43; 32 ib. 710; 33 ib. 89; 34 ib. 330; 35 ib. 217 (a question divided into five); 17 Hans. Parl. Hist. 429; 2 Hatsell, 118; see also 1 Cavendish Deb. 460-475; 2 Woodfall's Junius, 139; 22 L. J. 73; 24 ib. 466. 467; 4 Timberland's Debates of the Lords, 392. 2 Debate was, on a memorable occasion, closed by the action of Mr. Speaker Brand, who, on the morning of Wednesday, 2nd Feb. 1881, when the house had held a continuous sitting from the previous Monday, put the question on the motion for On the 9th April, 1866, the |