Amendments to proposed amendment, or to alter words proposed to be inserted, it is sometimes arranged that only the first part of the original amendment shall be formally proposed, in the first instance, so as not to preclude the consideration of the second amendment. This course is not often resorted to in the house itself, except upon the consideration of bills, as amended, or addresses to the Crown, or extended resolutions:1 but is continually adopted in the proceedings of committees of the whole house. The convenience of the house may also be consulted, in some cases, by the withdrawal of an amendment, and the substitution of another, the same in substance as the first, but omitting certain words to which objections are entertained. An amendment may, at any time, be withdrawn, in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as a motion. On the 2nd May 1882, an amendment was, by leave of the house, withdrawn, after the words of the original motion had been negatived, and the question had been proposed for adding the words of the amendment. An amendment cannot be withdrawn in the absence of the member who moved it.5 Another proceeding may also be resorted to, by which an amendments. amendment is intercepted, as it were, before it is offered to the house, in its original form, by moving to amend the first proposed amendment. In such cases the questions put by the Speaker deal with the first amendment as if it were a distinct question, and with the second as if it were an ordinary amendment. The original question is, indeed, for a time, laid aside; and the amendment becomes, as it were, a substantive question itself. Unless this were done, there would be three points under consideration at once, viz., the question, the proposed amendment, and the amendment of that amend 1 Resolutions relating to public business, 26th Feb. 1880; 250 Hans. Deb. 1450; and in 1882; 274 Ib. 46. 247. 252. Mr. Speaker Brand's Note Book, 4th April 1879. 2 See Amendments in Committee on the Government of India, 7th and 14th June 1858, &c. 3 See Mr. Duncombe's amendment (Education), 22nd April 1847; 91 Hans. Deb. 3rd Ser. 1236. 4 Wigan writ; 137 Com. J. 172. 5 151 Ib. 952. ment: but when the question for adopting the words of an amendment is put forward distinctly, and apart from the original question, no confusion arises from moving amendments to it, before its ultimate adoption is proposed.1 1 It appears, from a curious letter of the younger Pliny (Plinii Epistolæ, lib. viii. ep. 14), that the Roman senate were perplexed in the mode of disentangling a question that involved three different propositions. It was doubtful whether the consul, Afranius Dexter, had died by his own hand, or by that of a domestic; and if by the latter, whether at his own request, or criminally; and the senate had to decide on the fate of his freedmen. One senator proposed that the freedmen ought not to be punished at all; another, that they should be banished; and a third, that they should suffer death. As these judgments differed so much, it was urged that they must be put to the question distinctly, and that those who were in favour of each of the three opinions should sit separately, in order to prevent two parties, each differing with the other, from joining against the third. On the other hand, it was contended that those who would put to death, and those who would banish, ought jointly to be compared with the number who voted for acquittal, and afterwards among themselves. The first opinion prevailed, and it was agreed, that each question should be put separately. It happened, however, that the senator who had proposed death, at last joined the party in favour of banishment, in order to prevent the acquittal of the freedinen, which would have been the result of separating the senate into three distinct parties. The mode of proceeding adopted by the senate was clearly inconsistent with a determination by the majority of an assembly; being calculated to leave the decision to a minority of the members then present, if the majority were not agreed. The only correct mode of ascertaining the will of a majority, is to put but one question at a time, and to have that resolved in the affirmative or negative by the whole body. The combinations of different parties against a third cannot be avoided (which after all was proved in the senate); and the only method of obtaining the ultimate judgment of a majority, and reconciling different opinions, is by amending the proposed question until a majority of all the parties agree to affirm or deny it, as it is ultimately put to the vote. I was indebted to the late Mr. Rickman for a reference to Pliny's letter, accompanied by a very animated translation, which I regret is too long to be inserted. The following is another example of the mode of determining a question without amendment, which involved a distinct contradiction. During the rivalry between Pompey and Cæsar, it was proposed in the senate, either that they should both give up or both retain their troops. It is stated by Plutarch, that "Curio, with the assistance of Antonius and Piso, prevailed so far as to have it put to the regular vote. Accordingly he proposed that those senators should move off to one side who were in favour of Cæsar alone laying down his arms and Pompeius remaining in command; and the majority went over to that side. Again, upon his proposing that all who were of opinion Amendments to proposed amendments, leaving out words. Leaving out words and adding others. Where the original amendment is either simply to insert, add, or omit words, an amendment may at once be proposed to it, without reference to the question itself, which will be dealt with when the amendment has been disposed of. The most difficult form, perhaps, is when the amendment first proposed is to leave out certain words of the original question; and an amendment is proposed to such proposed amendment, by leaving thereout some of the words proposed to be omitted, and thus, in effect, restoring them to the original question. In such a case a question is first put, that the words proposed to be omitted, stand part of the proposed amendment. If that question be affirmed, the question is then put, that all the words proposed to be omitted, by the first amendment, stand part of the original question. But if it be negatived, a question is put, that the words comprised in the amendment, so amended, stand part of such original question.1 But where the original amendment is to leave out certain Words, in order to insert or add other words, no amendment can be moved to the words proposed to be substituted, until the house have resolved that the words proposed to be left out, shall not stand part of the question. But so soon as the question is proposed for inserting or adding the words of the amendment, an amendment may be moved thereto. A short example will make this latter proceeding more intelligible. To avoid a difficult illustration, (of which there are many in the Journals,2) let the simple question be, “That this bill be now read a second time;" to which an amendment has been proposed, by leaving out the word "now," and adding "upon this day six months;" and let the question that the word "now" stand part of the question, be negatived, that both should lay down their arms, 127 Com. J. 298; 39 Ib. 842; 64 Ib. 131; 134 Ib. 136. 2 See Com. Gen. Journ. Indexes, 1774-1865, tit. Amendments. 108 Com. J. 516. and the question for adding "upon this day six months," be to be relevant. An amendment should be relevant to the question to which Amendments it is proposed to be made. On the 28th February 1882, on a motion for declaring Michael Davitt incapable of being elected or returned as a member, an amendment was about to be proposed for an address to the Crown for a free pardon; but the Speaker interposed and pointed out that such an amendment was inadmissible, as it had no relation to the question before the house, but should form the subject of a distinct motion, after notice given in the usual manner. But 1 Dublin Waterworks Bill, 27th February 1849. 2 6th March 1840 (Supply), 101 Com. J. 865. 3 Education in rural districts (Mr. Pell and Mr. Wilbraham Egerton), 2nd March 1875; 130 Com. J. 70. 4 266 Hans. Deb. 3rd Ser. 1846; 11th May 1882; 269 Ib. 461; 3rd July 1882; 271 Ib. 1290; but see also 23 Ib. 785; 38 Ib. 174. And must be intelligible and consistent. Amendments moved before previous question. After previous question proposed. on a question re-affirming a resolution restraining Mr. Bradlaugh from taking the oath, an amendment in favour of an amendment of the Oaths Acts was held to be relevant and admissible. And in the case of an order of the day, the relevancy of amendments is specially enforced, except on going into Committee of Supply or Ways and Means.2 Every amendment proposed to be made, either to a question or to a proposed amendment, should be so framed that, if agreed to by the house, the question, or amendment as amended, would be intelligible and consistent with itself. It may sometimes happen, that an amendment clashes with the proposal of the previous question; in which case the priority of either would depend upon the period at which the conflict arises. If the members who are about to offer these conflicting motions could previously arrange, with each other, the intended order of proceeding, it would generally be most convenient to move the amendment first; because it is manifestly reasonable to consider, in the first place, what the question shall be, if put at all; and, secondly, whether the question shall be put or not. Unless this course were adopted, an amendment, which might alter the question so as to remove objections to its being put, could not be proposed; for if the previous question were resolved in the affirmative, it must be put immediately by the Speaker, as it stands; and if in the negative the question would no longer be open to consideration. But if the amendment has been first proposed, it must be withdrawn or otherwise disposed of, before a motion for the previous question can be admitted.3 If, on the other hand, the previous question has been first proposed by the Speaker, no amendment can be received until 1 267 Hans. Deb. 3rd Ser. 1882. 3 On the 1st April 1862, after an negative; 117 Com. J. 129. And the like proceeding occurred on the 9th June 1863 (Uniformity Act); 118 Ib. 269. See also proceedings relative to Kagosima, 119 Ib. 45; Denmark, Ib. 179; 174 Hans. Deb. 3rd Ser. 1376; Malt Duty, 120 Com. J. 117; 212 Hans. Deb. 926. |
