78. The last case, for the introduction of subsidiary motions, is when the assembly is satisfied with the subject-matter of a proposition, but not with the form of it, or with all its different parts, or desires to make some addition to it. The course of proceeding then is, to bring the proposition into the proper form, and make its details satisfactory, by means of amendments, or of certain [p55] proceedings of a similar character, and having the same general purpose in view. The latter will be first considered.

Sect. I. Division of a Question.

79. When a proposition or motion is complicated, that is, composed of two or more parts, which are so far independent of each other, as to be susceptible of division into several questions, and it is supposed that the assembly may approve of some but not of all these parts, it is a compendious mode of amendment to divide the motion into separate questions, to be separately voted upon and decided by the assembly. This division may take place by the order of the assembly, on a motion regularly made and seconded for the purpose.

80. When a motion is thus divided, it becomes a series of questions, to be considered and treated each by itself, as an independent proposition, in the order in which they stand; and when they have all been gone through with and decided, the result will be the same, as if motions to amend by striking out the several parts had been made and put to the question. When a motion for a division is [p56] made, the mover ought to specify in his motion the manner in which he proposes to make the division; and this motion, like every other of the nature of an amendment, is itself susceptible of amendment.

81. It is sometimes asserted, that it is the right of every individual member to have a complicated question (provided it is susceptible of division) divided into its several parts, and a question put separately on each, on his mere demand, and without any motion or any vote of the assembly for that purpose. But this is a mistake; there is no such rule of parliamentary proceeding; a complicated question can only be separated by moving amendments to it in the usual manner, or by moving for a division of it in the manner above stated.

82. It is not unusual, however, for a deliberative assembly to have a rule providing for the division of a complicated question (provided it is susceptible of division) into its several parts, upon the demand of a member. When this is the case, it is for the presiding officer (subject of course to the revision of the assembly) to decide, when the division of a motion is demanded, first, whether the [p57] proposition is susceptible of division, and, secondly, into how many and what parts it may be divided.

83. A proposition, in order to be divisible, must comprehend points so distinct and entire, that, if one or more of them be taken away, the others may stand entire and by themselves; but a qualifying paragraph, as, for example, an exception or a proviso, if separated from the general assertion or statement to which it belongs, does not contain an entire point or proposition.

Sect. II. Filling Blanks.

84. It often happens, that a proposition is introduced with blanks purposely left by the mover to be filled by the assembly, either with times and numbers, or with provisions analogous to those of the proposition itself. In the latter case, blanks are filled in the same way, that other amendments by the insertion of words are made. In the former, propositions to fill blanks are not considered as amendments to the question, but as original motions, to be made and decided before the principal question.

85. When a blank is left to be filled with a [p58] time or number, motions may be made for that purpose, and the question taken on each by itself, and before another is made; or several motions may be made and pending before any of them are put to the question. This last mode of proceeding, which is the most usual as well as convenient, requires that the several propositions should be arranged, and the question taken on them, in such order as will the soonest and with the most certainty enable the assembly to come to an agreement.

86. In determining upon the order to be adopted, the object is not to begin at that extreme, which and more being within every man’s wish, no one can vote against it, and, yet, if it should be carried in the affirmative, every question for more would be precluded; but, at that extreme, which will be likely to unite the fewest, and then to advance or recede, until a number or time is reached, which will unite a majority.

87. Hence, when several different propositions are made for filling blanks with a time or number, the rule is, that if the larger comprehends the lesser, as in a question to what day a postponement shall take place,—the [p59] number of which a committee shall consist,—the amount of a fine to be imposed,—the term of an imprisonment,—the term of irredeemability of a loan,—or the terminus in quem in any other case, the question must begin a maximo, and be first taken upon the greatest or farthest, and so on to the least or nearest, until the assembly comes to a vote: But, if the lesser includes the greater, as in questions on the limitation of the rate of interest,—on the amount of a tax,—on what day the session of a legislative assembly shall be closed, by adjournment,—on what day the next session shall commence,—or the terminus a quo in any other case, the question must begin a minimo, and be first taken on the least or nearest, and so on to the greatest or most remote, until the assembly comes to a vote.[Footnote 13]

[p60]
Sect. III. Addition,—Separation, Transposition.

88. When the matters contained in two separate propositions might be better put into one, the mode of proceeding is to reject one of them, and then to incorporate the substance of it with the other by way of amendment. A better mode, however, if the business of the assembly will admit of its being adopted, is to refer both propositions to a committee, with instructions to incorporate them together in one.

89. So, on the other hand, if the matter of one proposition would be more properly distributed into two, any part of it may be struck out by way of amendment, and put into the form of a new and distinct proposition. But in this, as in the former case, a better mode would generally be to refer the subject to a committee.

90. In like manner, if a paragraph or section requires to be transposed, a question must be put on striking it out where it stands, and another for inserting it in the place desired.

91. The numbers prefixed to the several [p61] sections, paragraphs, or resolutions, which constitute a proposition, are merely marginal indications, and no part of the text of the proposition itself; and, if necessary, they may be altered or regulated by the clerk, without any vote or order of the assembly.

Sect. IV. Modification or Amendment by the Mover.

92. The mover of a proposition is sometimes allowed to modify it, after it has been stated as a question by the presiding officer; but, as this is equivalent to a withdrawal of the motion, in order to substitute another in its place; and, since, as has already been seen, a motion regularly made, seconded, and proposed, cannot be withdrawn without leave; it is clear, that the practice alluded to rests only upon general consent; and, that, if objected to, the mover of a proposition must obtain the permission of the assembly, by a motion and question, for the purpose, in order to enable him to modify his proposition.

93. So, too, when an amendment has been regularly moved and seconded, it is sometimes the practice for the mover of the proposition [p62] to which it relates to signify his consent to it, and for the amendment to be thereupon made, without any question being taken upon it by the assembly. As this proceeding, however, is essentially the same with that described in the preceding paragraph, it, of course, rests upon the same foundation, and is subject to the same rule.

Sect. V. General Rules relating to Amendments.

94. All amendments, of which a proposition is susceptible, so far as form is concerned, may be effected in one of three ways, namely, either by inserting or adding certain words; or by striking out certain words; or by striking out certain words, and inserting or adding others. These several forms of amendment are subject to certain general rules, which, being equally applicable to them all, require to be stated beforehand.

95. First Rule. When a proposition consists of several sections, paragraphs, or resolutions, the natural order of considering and amending it is to begin at the beginning, and to proceed through it in course by paragraphs; and when a latter part has been [p63] amended, it is not in order to recur back, and make any alteration or amendment of a former part.

96. Second Rule. Every amendment, which can be proposed, whether by striking out, or inserting, or striking out and inserting, is itself susceptible of amendment; but, there can be no amendment of an amendment to an amendment: this would be such a piling of questions one upon another, as would lead to great embarrassment; and as the line must be drawn somewhere, it has been fixed by usage after the amendment to the amendment. The object, which is proposed to be effected by such a proceeding, must be sought by rejecting the amendment to the amendment, in the form in which it is proposed, and then moving it again in the form in which it is wished to be amended, in which it is only an amendment to an amendment; and in order to accomplish this, he who desires to amend an amendment should give notice, that, if rejected, in the form in which it is presented, he shall move it again in the form in which he desires to have it adopted.

97. Thus, if a proposition consists of AB, [p64] and it is proposed to amend by inserting CD, it may be moved to amend the amendment by inserting EF; but it cannot be moved to amend this amendment, as, for example, by inserting G. The only mode, by which this can be reached, is to reject the amendment in the form in which it is presented, namely, to insert EF, and to move it in the form in which it is desired to be amended, namely, to insert EGF.

98. Third Rule. Whatever is agreed to by the assembly, on a vote, either adopting or rejecting a proposed amendment, cannot be afterwards altered or amended.

99. Thus, if a proposition consists of AB, and it is moved to insert C; if the amendment prevail, C cannot be afterwards amended, because it has been agreed to in that form; and, so, if it is moved to strike out B, and the amendment is rejected, B cannot afterwards be amended, because a vote against striking it out is equivalent to a vote agreeing to it as it stands.

100. Fourth Rule. Whatever is disagreed to by the assembly, on a vote, cannot be afterwards moved again. This rule is the converse [p65] of the preceding, and may be illustrated in the same manner.

101. Thus, if it is moved to amend AB by inserting C, and the amendment is rejected, C cannot be moved again; or, if it is moved to amend AB by striking out B, and the amendment prevails, B cannot be restored; because, in the first case, C, and, in the other, B, have been disagreed to by a vote.

102. Fifth Rule. The inconsistency or incompatibility of a proposed amendment with one which has already been adopted, is a fit ground for its rejection by the assembly, but not for the suppression of it by the presiding officer, as against order; for, if questions of this nature were allowed to be brought within the jurisdiction of the presiding officer, as matters of order, he might usurp a negative on important modifications, and suppress or embarrass instead of subserving the will of the assembly.

Sect. VI. Amendments by striking out.

103. If an amendment is proposed by striking out a particular paragraph or certain words, and the amendment is rejected, it cannot be again moved to strike out the same [p66] words or a part of them; but it may be moved to strike out the same words with others, or to strike out a part of the same words with others, provided the coherence to be struck out be so substantial, as to make these, in fact, different propositions from the former.

104. Thus, if a proposition consist of ABCD, and it is moved to strike out BC; if this amendment is rejected, it cannot be moved again; but it may be moved to strike out AB, or ABC, or BCD or CD.

105. If an amendment by striking out is agreed to, it cannot be afterwards moved to insert the same words struck out or a part of them; but it may be moved to insert the same words with others, or a part of the same words with others, provided the coherence to be inserted make these propositions substantially different from the first.

106. Thus, if the proposition ABCD is amended by striking out BC, it cannot be moved to insert BC again; but it may be moved to insert BC with other words, or B with others or C with others.

107. When it is proposed to amend by striking out a particular paragraph, it may be moved to amend this amendment, in three [p67] different ways, namely, either by striking out a part only of the paragraph, or by inserting or adding words, or by striking out and inserting.

108. Thus, if it is moved to amend the proposition ABCD, by striking out BC, it may be moved to amend this amendment by striking out B only or C only, or by inserting E, or by striking out B or C, and inserting E.

109. In the case of a proposed amendment by striking out, the effect of voting upon it, whether it be decided in the affirmative or negative according to the third and fourth rules above mentioned, renders it necessary for those who desire to retain the paragraph to amend it, if any amendment is necessary, before the vote is taken on striking out; as, if struck out, it cannot be restored, and, if retained, it cannot be amended.

110. As an amendment must necessarily be put to the question before the principal motion; so the question must be put on an amendment to an amendment before it is put on the amendment; but, as this is the extreme limit to which motions may be put upon one another, there can be no precedence of one over another among amendments to [p68] amendments; and, consequently, they can only be moved, one at a time, or, at all events, must be put to the question in the order in which they are moved.

111. When a motion for striking out words is put to the question, the parliamentary form always is, whether the words shall stand as part of the principal motion, and not whether they shall be struck out. The reason for this form of stating the question probably is, that the question may be taken in the same manner on a part as on the whole of the principal motion; which would not be the case, if the question was stated on striking out; inasmuch as the question on the principal motion, when it comes to be stated, will be on agreeing to it, and not on striking out or rejecting it. Besides, as an equal division of the assembly would produce a different decision of the question, according to the manner of stating it, it might happen, if the question on the amendment was stated on striking out, that the same question would be decided both affirmatively and negatively by the same vote.[Footnote 14]

[p69]
112. On a motion to amend by striking out certain words, the manner of stating the question is, first to read the passage proposed to be amended, as it stands; then the words proposed to be struck out; and, lastly, the whole passage as it will stand if the amendment is adopted.

Sect. VII. Amendments by inserting.

113. If an amendment is proposed by inserting or adding a paragraph or words, and the amendment is rejected, it cannot be moved again to insert the same words or a part of them; but it may be moved to insert the same words with others, or a part of the same words with others, provided the coherence really make them different propositions.

114. Thus, if it is moved to amend the proposition AB by inserting CD, and the amendment is rejected, CD cannot be again moved; but it may be moved to insert CE, or DE, or CDE.

115. If it is proposed to amend by inserting a paragraph, and the amendment prevails, it cannot be afterwards moved to strike out the same words or a part of them; but it may be moved to strike out the same words with [p70] others,[Footnote 15] or a part of the same words with others, provided the coherence be such as to make these propositions really different from the first.

116. Thus, if in the example above supposed the amendment prevails, and CD is inserted it cannot be afterwards moved to strike out CD, but it may be moved to strike out AC or ACD, or DB, or CDB.

117. When it is proposed to amend by inserting a paragraph, this amendment may be amended in three different ways, namely, either by striking out a part of the paragraph; or by inserting something into it; or by striking out and inserting.

118. Thus, if it is proposed to amend AB by inserting CD, this amendment may be amended either by striking out C or D, or inserting E, or by striking out C or D and inserting E.

119. When it is proposed to amend by inserting a paragraph, those who are in favor of the amendment should amend it, if necessary, before the question is taken; because if it is [p71] rejected, it cannot be moved again, and, if received, it cannot be amended.

120. There is no precedence of one over another in amendments to amendments by inserting, any more than in amendments to amendments by striking out.

121. On a motion to amend by inserting a paragraph, the manner of stating the question is, first, to read the passage to be amended, as it stands; then the words proposed to be inserted; and lastly, the whole passage as it will stand if the amendment prevails.

Sect. VIII. Amendments by striking out and inserting.

122. The third form of amending a proposition, namely, by striking out certain words and inserting others in their place, is, in fact, a combination of the other two forms; and may accordingly be divided into those two forms, either by a vote of the assembly, or on the demand of a member, under a special rule to that effect.[Footnote 16]

[p72]
123. If the motion is divided, the question is first to be taken on striking out; and if that is decided in the affirmative, then, on inserting; but if the former is decided in the negative, the latter falls, of course. On a division, the proceedings are the same, in reference to each branch of the question, beginning with the striking out, as if each branch had been moved by itself.

124. If the motion to strike out and insert is put to the question undivided, and is decided in the negative, the same motion cannot be made again; but, it may be moved to strike out the same words, and, 1,insert nothing; 2,insert other words; 3,insert the same words with others; 4,insert a part of the same words with others; 5,strike out the same words with others, and insert the same; 6,strike out a part of the same words with others, and insert the same; 7,strike out other words and insert the same; and, 8,insert the same words, without striking out anything.

125. If the motion to strike out and insert [p73] is decided in the affirmative, it cannot be then moved to insert the words struck out or a part of them, or to strike out the words inserted, or a part of them; but, it may be moved, 1,to insert the same words with others; 2,to insert a part of the same words with others; 3,to strike out the same words with others; or, 4,to strike out a part of the same words with others.

126. When it is proposed to amend by striking out and inserting, this amendment may be amended in three different ways in the paragraph proposed to be struck out, and also in the paragraph proposed to be inserted, namely, by, striking out, or inserting, or striking out and inserting. And those who are in favor of either paragraph must amend it, before the question is taken, for the reasons already stated, namely, that, if decided in the affirmative, the part struck out cannot be restored, nor can the part inserted be amended; and, if decided in the negative, the part proposed to be struck out cannot be amended, nor can the paragraph proposed to be inserted be moved again.

127. On a motion to amend, by striking out certain words and inserting others, the [p74] manner of stating the question is first to read the whole passage to be amended, as it stands; then the words proposed to be struck out; next those to be inserted; and, lastly, the whole passage as it will stand when amended.

Sect. IX. Amendments changing the Nature of a Question.

128. The term amendment is in strictness applicable only to those changes of a proposition, by which it is improved, that is, rendered more effectual for the purpose which it has in view, or made to express more clearly and definitely the sense which it is intended to express. Hence it seems proper, that those only should undertake to amend a proposition, who are friendly to it; but this is by no means the rule; when a proposition is regularly moved and seconded, it is in the possession of the assembly, and cannot be withdrawn but by its leave; it has then become the basis of the future proceedings of the assembly, and may be put into any shape, and turned to any purpose, that the assembly may think proper.

129. It is consequently allowable to amend a proposition in such a manner as entirely to [p75] alter its nature, and to make it bear a sense different from what it was originally intended to bear; so that the friends of it, as it was first introduced, may themselves be forced to vote against it, in its amended form.

130. This mode of proceeding is sometimes adopted for the purpose of defeating a proposition, by compelling its original friends to unite with those who are opposed to it, in voting for its rejection. Thus, in the British Houses of Commons, Jan.29, 1765, a resolution being moved, “That a general warrant for apprehending the authors, printers, or publishers of a libel, together with their papers, is not warranted by law, and is an high violation of the liberty of the subject:”—it was moved to amend this motion by prefixing the following paragraph, namely: “That in the particular case of libels, it is proper and necessary to fix, by a vote of this house only, what ought to be deemed the law in respect of general warrants; and, for that purpose, at the time when the determination of the legality of such warrants, in the instance of a most seditious and treasonable libel, is actually depending before the courts of law, for this house to declare”—that a [p76] general warrant for apprehending the authors, printers, or publishers of a libel together with their papers, is not warranted by law, and is an high violation of the liberty of the subject. The amendment was adopted, after a long debate, and then the resolution as amended was immediately rejected without a division.[Footnote 17]

131. But sometimes the nature of a proposition is changed by means of amendments, with a view to its adoption in a sense the very opposite of what it was originally intended to bear. The following is a striking example of this mode of proceeding. In the house of commons, April10, 1744, a resolution was moved, declaring, “That the issuing and paying to the Duke of Aremberg the sum of forty thousand pounds, sterling, to put the [p77] Austrian troops in motion in the year 1742, was a dangerous misapplication of public money, and destructive of the rights of parliament.” The object of this resolution was to censure the conduct of the ministers; and the friends of the ministry, being in a majority, might have voted directly, upon the motion and rejected it. But they preferred to turn it into a resolution approving of the conduct of ministers on the occasion referred to; and it was accordingly moved to amend, by leaving out the words “a dangerous misapplication,” etc., to the end of the motion, and inserting instead thereof the words, “necessary for putting the said troops in motion, and of great consequence to the common cause.” The amendment being adopted, it was resolved (reversing the original proposition) “That the issuing and paying to the Duke of Aremberg the sum of forty thousand pounds, to put the Austrian troops in motion, in the year 1742, was necessary for putting the said troops in motion, and of great consequence to the common cause.”

132. It is a mode of defeating a proposition, somewhat similar to that above mentioned, to carry out or extend the principle of it, by [p78] means of amendments, so as to show the inconvenience, absurdity, or danger of its adoption, with such evident clearness, that it becomes impossible for the assembly to agree to it. Thus, a motion having been made in the house of commons, “for copies of all the letters written by the lords of the admiralty to a certain officer in the navy,” it was moved to amend the motion by adding these words:—“which letters may contain orders, or be relative to orders, not executed, and still subsisting.” This amendment being adopted, the motion as amended was unanimously rejected.

133. It will be seen, from the foregoing examples, that as the mover of a proposition is under no restriction as to embracing incongruous matters under the same motion; so, on the other hand, the assembly may engraft upon a motion, by way of amendment, matter which is not only incongruous with, but entirely opposed to, the motion as originally introduced; and, in legislative assemblies, it is not unusual to amend a bill by striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting an entirely new bill; or to amend a resolution by striking out all after the words “Resolved [p79] that,” and inserting a proposition of a wholly different tenor.