Sometimes, however, this has been abusedly used by adjourning it to a day beyond the session, to get rid of it altogether, as would be done by an indefinite postponement.

4. When the House has something else which claims its present attention, but would be willing to reserve in their power to take up a proposition whenever it shall suit them, they order it to lie on the table. It may then be called for at any time.

5. If the proposition will want more amendment and digestion than the formalities of the House will conveniently admit, they refer it to a committee. 6. But if the proposition be well digested, and may need but few and simple amendments, and especially if these be of leading consequence, they then proceed to consider and amend it themselves.

The Senate, in their practice, vary from this regular gradation of forms. Their practice comparatively with that of Parliament stands thus:

In their eighth rule, therefore, which declares that while the question 1s before the Senate no motion shall be received, unless it be for the previous question, or to postpone, commit, or amend the main question, the term postponement must be understood according to their broad use of it and not in the parliamentary sense. Their rule then establishes as privileged questions, the previous questions, postponement, commitment and amendment.

But it may be asked, Have these questions any privileges among themselves? or are they so equal that the common principle of the "first moved first put," takes place among them? This will need explanation. Their competitions may be as follows:

In the first class, where the previous question is first moved, the effect is peculiar; for it not only prevents the after motion to postpone or commit from being put to question before it, but also from being put after it; for if the previous question be decided affirmatively, to wit, that the main question

shall now be put, it would of course be against the decision to postpone or commit; and if it be decided negatively, to wit, that the main question shall not now be put, this puts the House out of possession of the main question, and consequently there is nothing before them to postpone or commit. So that neither voting for nor against the previous question will enable the advocates for postponing or committing to get at their object. Whether it may be amended shall be examinad hereafter.

Second class. If postponement be decided affirmatively, the proposition is removed from before the House, and consequently there is no ground for the previous question, commitment, or amendment; but if decided negatively, (that it shall not be postponed,) the main question may then be suppressed by the previous question, or may be committed or amended.

The third class is subject to the same observations as the second.

The fourth class. Amendment of the main question first moved, and afterwards the previous question, the question of amendment shall be first put. Amendment and postponement competing, postponement is first put, as the equivalent proposition to adjourn the main question would be in Parliament. The reason is, that the question for amendment is not suppressed by postponing or adjourning the main question, but remains before the House whenever the main question is resumed; and it might be that the occasion for other urgent business might go by, and be lost by length of debate on the amendment if the House had it not in their power to postpone the whole subject.

Amendment and commitment. The question for committing though last moved, shall be first put; because, in truth, it facilitates and befriends the motion to amend. Scobell is express: "On motion to amend a bill, any one may notwithstanding move to commit it, and the question for commitment shall be first put." Scob., 46.

We have hitherto considered the case of two or more of the privileged questions contending for privilege between themselves, when both are moved on the original or main question; but now let us suppose one of them to be moved not on the original primary question, but on the secondary one, e. g.

Suppose a motion to postpone, commit, or amend the main question, and that it be moved to suppress that motion by putting a previous question on it. This is not allowed, because it would embarrass questions too much to allow them to be piled on one another several stories high; and the same result may be had in a more simple way, by deciding against the postponement, commitment, or amendment. 2 Hats., 81, 2, 3, 4.

Suppose a motion for the previous question, or commitment or amendment of the main question, and that it be then moved to postpone the motion for the previous question, or for commitment or amendment of the main question. 1. It would be absurd to postpone the previous question, commitment or amendment alone, and thus separate the appendage from its principal; yet it must be postponed separately from its original, if at all, because the eighth rule of the Senate says that "when a main question is before the House, no motion shall be received but to commit, amend or pre-question the original question," which is the parliamentary doctrine also; therefore the motion to

postpone the secondary motion for the previous question, or for committing or amending, cannot be received. 2. This is a piling of questions one on another; which to avoid embarassment, is not allowed. 3. The same result may be had more simply by voting against the previous question, commitmer.t, or amendment.

Suppose a commitment moved of a motion for the previous question, or to postpone or amend. The first, second and third reasons before stated, all hold good againat this.

Suppose an amendment moved to a motion for the previous question. Answer: the previous question cannot be amended. Parliamentary usage, as well as the ninth rule of the Senate, has fixed its form to be, "Shall the main question be now put?-i. e., at this instant; and as the present instant is but one, it can admit of no modification. To change it to to-morrow, or any oth. er moment, is without example and without utility. But suppose a motion to amend a motion for postponement as to one day instead of another, or to a special instead of an indefinite time. The useful character of amendment gives it a privilege of attaching itself to a secondary and privileged motion; that is, we may amend a postponement of a main question. So, we may amend a commitment of a main question, as by adding, for example, "with instructions to inquire," etc. In like manner, if an amendment be moved to an amendment, it is admitted; but it would not be admitted in another degree, to-wit: to amend an amendment to an amendment of a main question. This would lead to too much embarrassment. The line must be drawn somewhere, and usage has drawn it after the amendment to the amendment. The same result must be sought by deciding against the amendment to the amendment and then moving it again as it wished to be amended. In this form it becomes only amendment to an amendment.

[When motions are made for reference of the same subject to a select committee and to a standing committee, the question on reference to the standing committee shall be first put. Rule 36.]

[In filling a blank with a sum, the largest sum should be first put to the question, by the thirteenth rule of the Senate,*] contrary to the rule of Parliament, which privileges the smallest sum and longest time. 5 Grey, 179; 2 Hats., 8, 83; 3 Hats., 132, 133. And this is considered to be not in the form of an amendment to the question, but as alternative or successive originals. In all cases of time or number, we must consider whether the larger comprehends the lesser as in a question to what day a postponement shall be, the number of a committee, amount of a fine, term of an imprisonment, term of irredeemability of a loan, or the terminus in quem in any other case; then the question must begin a maximo. Or whether the lesser includes the greater, as in questions on the limitation of the rate of interest, on what day the session shall be closed by adjournment, on what day the next shall commence, when an act shall commence, or the terminus a quo in any other case where the question must begin a minimo; the object being not to begin at [RULE 13. In filling up blanks, the largest sum and longest time shall be first put.]

that extreme which, and more, being within every man's wish, no one could negative it, and yet, if he should vote in the affirmative, every question for more would be precluded; but at that extreme which would unite few, and then to advance or recede till you get a number which will unite a bare majority. 3 Grey, 376, 384, 385. "The fair question, in this case, is not that to which, and more, all will agree, whether there shall be addition to the question." Grey, 355.

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 seconded 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.

SECTION XXXIV.

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. 1 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 bo 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., 28.

The proper occasion for the previous question, is when a question is brought forward of a delicate nature as to high personages, etc., 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 discusFion of the main question is suspended, and the debate confined to the pre vious 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., SS, 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 is 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 just been 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 lose it altogether; 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 manœuvre 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 circumstances, 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 it 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 & 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 question is called for, are fair