their object. Whether it may be amended shall be examined hereafter.

2d class. If postponement be decided affirmatively, the proposition is removed from before the House, and consequently there is no ground for the Pr. Qu. commitment, or amendment. But, if decided negatively, that it shall not be postponed, the M. Q., may then be suppressed by the P. Q. or may be committed, or amended.

The 3d class is subject to the same observations as the 2d. The 4th class. Amendment of the M. Q. first moved, and afterwards the P. Q., the question of amendment shall be first put.

Amendment and postponement competing, postponement is first put, as the equivalent proposition to adjourn the M. Q. would be in parliament. The reason is that the question for amendment is not suppressed by postponing or adjourning the M. Q. but remains before the House whenever the M. Q. 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 ex"On motion to amend a bill, any one may press. 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 were moved on the original or M. Q., 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 M. Q., 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 8th rule of 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 embarrassment, is not allowed. 3. The same result may be had more simply by voting against the previous question, commitment or amendment.

Suppose a commitment moved of a motion for the previous question, or to postpone or amend. The 1st, 2d and 3d reasons before stated all hold good against 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 9th 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 other 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, &c." 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 M. Q. 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 was wished to be amended. In this form it becomes only an 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 35.]

[In filling a blank with a sum, the largest sum shall be first put to the question by the 13th 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 quiem, 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 that extreme, which, and

* In filling up blanks, the largest sum, and longest time shall be first put. Rule 13.

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 to a number which will unite a bare majority. 3 Grey, 376, 284, 385. "The fair question in this case is not that to which and more all will agree, but whether there shall be addition to the question." 1 Grey, 365.

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.

SEC. 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 any thing 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. 28.

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 favoured, 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 whe