THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.

77

Another exception to the rule of priority is when a motion has been made to strike out or agree to a paragraph. Motions to amend it are to be put to the question before a vote is taken on striking out or agreeing to the whole paragraph.

But there are several questions which, being incidental to every one, will take place of every one, privileged or not, to wit, a question of order arising out of any other question must be decided before that question. 2 Hats., 88.

A matter of privilege arising out of any question, or from a quarrel between two members or any other cause, supersedes the consideration of the original question, and must be first disposed of. 2 Hats., 88.

Reading papers relative to the question before the House. This question must be put before the principal one. 2 Hats., 88.

Leave asked to withdraw a motion. The rule of Parliament being that a motion made and second is in the possession of the House, and cannot be withdrawn without leave, the very terms of the rule imply that leave may be given, and, consequently, may be asked and put to the question.

SEC. XXX.-THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.

When any question is before the House, any member may move a previous question, "Whether that question (called the main question) shall now be put ?" If it pass in the affirmative, then the main question is to be put immediately and no man may speak anything further to it, either to add or alter. Memor. in Hakew., 28; 4 Grey, 27.

The previous question being moved and seconded, the question from the Chair shall be, "Shall the main question be now put ?" and if the nays prevail, the main question shall not then be put.

This kind of question is understood by Mr. Hatsell to have been introduced in 1604. 2 Hats., 80. Sir Henry Vane introduced it. 2 Grey, 113, 114; 3 Grey, 384. When the question was put in this form, "Shall the main question be put?" a determination in the negative suppressed the main question during the session; but since the words "now put" are used, they exclude it for the present only; formerly, indeed, only till the present debate was over (4 Grey, 43), but now for that day and no longer. 2 Grey, 113, 114.

Before the question "Whether the main question shall now be put?" any person might formerly have spoken to the main question, because otherwise he would be precluded from speaking to it at all. Mem. in Hakew.

The proper occasion for the previous question is when a subject is brought forward of a delicate nature as to high personages, &c., or the discussion of which may call forth observations which might be of injurious consequences. Then the previous question is proposed; and in the modern usage, the discussion of the main question is suspended, and the debate confined to the previous question. The use of it has been extended abusively to other cases; but in these it has been an embarrassing procedure; its uses would be as well answered by other more simple parliamentary forms, and therefore it should not be favored, but restricted within as narrow limits as possible.

Whether a main question may be amended after the previous question on it has been moved and seconded, 2 Hats., 88, says, if the previous question has been

moved and seconded, and also proposed from the Chair (by which he means stated by the Speaker for debate), it has been doubted whether an amendment can be admitted to the main question. He thinks it may, after the previous question moved and seconded; but not after it has been proposed from the Chair. In this case, he thinks the friends to the amendment must vote that the main question be not now put; and then move their amended question, which being made new by the amendment, is no longer the same which has been just suppressed, and therefore may be proposed as a new one. But this proceeding certainly endangers the main question, by dividing its friends, some of whom may choose it unamended, rather than to lose it atltogether; while others of them may vote, as Hatsell advises, that the main question be not now put with a view to move it again in an amended form. The enemies of the main question, by this maneuver to the previous question, get the enemies to the amendment added to them on the first vote, and throw the friends of the main question under the embarrassment of rallying again as they can. To support his opinion, too, he makes the deciding circumstance, whether an amendment may or may not be made, to be, that the previous question has been proposed from the Chair. But, as the rule is that the House is in possession of a question as soon as it is moved and seconded, it cannot be more than possessed of it by its being also proposed from the Chair. It may be said, indeed, that the object of the previous question being to get rid of a question, which is not expedient should be discussed, this object may be defeated by moving to amend, and, in the discussion of that motion, involving the subject of the main question. But so may the object of the previous question be defeated, by moving the amended question, as Mr. Hatsell proposes, after the decision against putting the original question. He acknowledges, too, that the practice has been to admit previous amendments, and only cites a few late instances to the contrary. On the whole, I should think it best to decide it ab inconvenienti, to wit: which is most inconvenient, to put it in the power of one side of the House to defeat a proposition by hastily moving the previous question, and thus forcing the main question to be put unamended; or to put it in the power of the other side to force on, incidentally at least, a discussion which would be better avoided? Perhaps the last is the least inconvenience; inasmuch as the Speaker, by confining the discussion rigorously to the amendment only, may prevent their going into the main question, and inasmuch also as so great a proportion of the cases in which the previous questions is called for, are fair and proper subjects for public discussion, and ought not to be obstructed by a formality introduced for questions of a peculiar character.

SEC. XXXI.-AMENDMENTS.

On an amendment being moved, a member who has spoken to the main question may speak again to the amendment. Scob., 23.

If an amendment be proposed inconsistent with one already agreed to, it is a fit ground for its rejection by the House, but not within the competence of the Speaker to suppress as if it were against order; for were he permitted to draw questions of consistence within the vortex of order, he might usurp a negative on important modifications, and suppress, instead of subserving the legislative will.

Amendments may be made so as totally to alter the nature of the proposition; and it is a way of getting rid of a proposition, by making it bear a sense different from what it was intended by the movers, so that they vote against it themselves. 2 Hats., 79, 4, 82, 84. A new bill may be ingrafted by way of amendment, on the words "Be it enacted," &c. 1 Grey, 190, 192.

If it be proposed to amend by leaving out certain words, it may be moved, as an amendment to this amendment, to leave out a part of the words of the amendment, which is equivalent to leaving them in the bill. 2 Hats., 80, 9. The parliamentary question is, always, whether the words shall stand part of the bill.

When it is proposed to amend by inserting a paragraph, or part of one, the friends of the paragraph may make it as perfect as they can by amendments before the question is put for inserting it. If it be received, it cannot be amended afterward, in the same stage, because the House has, on a vote, agreed to it in that form. In like manner, if it is proposed to amend by striking out a paragraph, the friends of the paragraph are first to make it as perfect as they can by amendments, before the question is put for striking it out. If on the question it be retained, it cannot be amended afterward, because a vote against striking out is equivalent to a vote agreeing to it in that form.

When it is moved to amend by striking out certain words and inserting others, the manner of stating the question is first to read the whole passage to be amended as it stands at present, then the words proposed to be struck out, next those to be inserted, and lastly the whole passage as it will be when amended. And the question, if desired, is then to be divided, and put first on striking out. If carried, it is next on inserting the words proposed. If that be lost, it may be moved to insert others. 2 Hats., 80, 7.

A motion is made to amend by striking out certain words and inserting others in their place, which is negatived. Then it is moved to strike out the same words, and to insert others of a tenor entirely different from those first proposed. It is negatived. Then it is moved to strike out the same words and insert nothing, which is agreed to. All this is admissible, because to strike out and insert A is one proposition. To strike out and insert B is a different proposition. And to strike out and insert nothing is still different. And the rejection of one proposition does not preclude the offering a different one. Nor would it change the case were the first motion divided by putting the question first on striking out, and that negatived; for, as putting the whole motion to the question at once would not have precluded, the putting the half of it cannot do it.*

But if it had been carried affirmatively to strike out the words and to insert A, it could not afterward be permitted to strike out A and insert B. The mover of B should have notified, while the insertion of A was under debate, that he would move to insert B; in which case those who preferred it would join in rejecting A.

*In the case of a division of the question, and a decision against striking out, I advance doubtingly the opinion here expressed. I find no authority either way, and I know it may be viewed under a different aspect. It may be thought that, having decided separately not to strike out the passage, the same question for striking out cannot be put over again, though with a view to a different insertion. Still I think it more reasonable and convenient to consider the striking out and insertion as forming one proposition; but should readily yield to any evidence that the contrary is the practice in Parliament.

After A is inserted, however, it may be moved to strike out a portion of the ori. ginal paragraph, comprehending A, provided the coherence to be struck out be so substantial as to make this effectively a different proposition; for then it is resolved into the common case of striking out a paragraph after amending it. Nor does anything forbid a new insertion, instead of A and its coherence.

In Senate, January 25, 1798, a motion to postpone until the second Tuesday in February some amendments proposed to the Constitution, the words "until the second Tuesday in February" were struck out by way of amendment. Then it was moved to add, "until the first day of June." Objected that it was not in order, as the question should be first put on the longest time; therefore, after a shorter time decided against, a longer cannot be put to question. It was answered that this rule takes place only in filling blanks for time. But when a specific time stands part of a motion, that may be struck out as well as any other part of a motion; and when struck out, a motion may be received to insert any other. In fact, it is not until they are struck out, and a blank for the time thereby produced, that the rule can begin to operate, by receiving all the propositions for different times, and putting the question successively on the longest. Otherwise it would be in the power of the mover, by inserting originally a short time, to preclude the possibility of a longer, for till the short time is struck out, you cannot insert a longer; and if, after it is struck out, you cannot do it, then it cannot be done at all. Suppose the first motion had been made to amend by striking out "the second Tuesday in February," and inserting instead thereof "the first of June," it would have been regular, then, to divide the question by proposing first the question to strike out and then that to insert. Now, this is precisely the effect of the present proceeding; only, instead of one motion and two questions, there are two motions and two questions to effect it-the motion being divided as well as the question.

When the matter contained in two bills might be better put into one, the manner is to reject the one, and incorporate its matter into another bill by way of amendment. So if the matter of one bill would be better distributed into two, any part may be struck out by way of amendment, and put into a new bill. If a section is to be transposed, a question must be put on striking it out where it stands, and another for inserting it in the place desired.

A bill passed by the one house with blanks. These may be filled up by the other by way of amendments, returned to the first as such, and passed. 3 Hats., 83.

The number prefixed to the section of a bill, being merely a marginal indication, and no part of the text of the bill, the clerk regulates that-the House or committee is only to amend the text.

SEC. XXXII.-DIVISION OF THE QUESTION.

If a question contain more parts than one, it may be divided into two or more questions. Mem. in Hakew., 29. But not as the right of an individual member, but with the consent of the House. For who is to decide whether a question is complicated or not?—where it is complicated?—into how many propositions it may be divided? The fact is, that the only mode of separating a complicated question is by moving amendments to it; and these must be decided by the House on a question, unless the House orders it to be divided; as, on the question, De

DIVISION OF THE QUESTION.

81

cember 2, 1640, making void the election of the knights for Worcester, on a motion it was resolved to make two questions of it, to wit: one on each knight. 2 Hats., 85, 86. So, wherever there are several names in a question, they may be divided and put one by one. 9 Grey, 444. So, 1729, April 17, on an objection that a question was complicated, it was separated by amendment. 2 Hats., 79.

The soundness of these observations will be evident from the embarrassments produced by the 12th rule of the Senate, which says, "if the question in debate contain several points, any member may have the same divided."

1798, May 30, the alien bill in quasi-committee. To a section and proviso in the original had been added two new provisos by way of amendment. On a motion to strike out the section as amended, the question was desired to be divided. To do this it must be put first on striking out either the former proviso, or some distinct member of the section. But when nothing remains but the last member of the section and the provisos, they cannot be divided so as to put the last member to question by itself; for the provisos might thus be left standing alone as exceptions to a rule when the rule is taken away; or the new provisos might be left to a second question, after having been decided on once before at the same reading, which is contrary to rule. But the question must be on striking out the last member of the section as amended. This sweeps away the exceptions with the rule, and relieves from inconsistence. A question to be divisible, must comprehend points so distinct and entire that one of them being taken away, the other may stand entire. But a proviso or exception, without an enacting clause, does not contain an entire point or proposition.

May 31.-The same bill being before the Senate. There was a proviso that the bill should not extend-1. To any foreign minister; nor, 2. To any person to whom the President should give a passport; nor, 3. To any alien merchant conforming himself to such regulations as the President shall prescribe; and a division of the question into its simplest elements was called for. It was divided into four parts, the 4th taking in the words "conforming himself," &c. It was objected that the words "any alien merchant" could not be separated from their modifying words, "conforming," &c., because these words, if left by themselves, contain no substantive idea—will make no sense. But admitting that the divisions of a paragraph into separate questions must be so made as that each part may stand by itself, yet the House having, on the question, retained the two first divisions, the words "any alien merchant" may be struck out, and their modifying words will then attach themselves to the preceding description of persons, and become a modification of that description.

When a question is divided, after the question on the first member, the second is open to debate and amendment; because it is a known rule that a person may rise and speak at any time before the question has been completely decided, by putting the negative as well as affirmative side. But the question is not completely put when the vote has been taken on the first member only. One-half of the question, both affirmative and negative, remains still to be put. Jour., June 25, 1795. The same decision by President Adams.

See Execut.