250. It is a principle of parliamentary law, upon which many of the rules and proceedings previously stated are founded, that when a question has once been put to a deliberative assembly, and decided, whether in the affirmative or negative, that decision is the judgment of the assembly, and cannot be again brought into question.

251. This principle holds equally, although the question proposed is not the identical question which has already been decided, but only its equivalent; as, for example, where the negative of one question amounts to the affirmative of the other, and leaves no other alternative, these questions are the equivalents of one another, and a decision of the one necessarily concludes the other.

252. A common application of the rule as to equivalent questions occurs in the case of an amendment proposed by striking out words; in which it is the invariable practice [p136] to consider the negative of striking out as equivalent to the affirmative of agreeing; so that to put a question on agreeing, after a question on striking out its negatived, would be, in effect, to put the same question twice over.

253. The principle above stated does not apply so as to prevent putting the same question in the different stages of any proceeding; as, for example, in legislative bodies, the different stages of a bill; so, in considering reports of committees, questions already taken and decided, before the subject was referred, may be again proposed; and, in like manner, orders of the assembly, and instructions or references to committees, may be discharged or rescinded.

254. The inconvenience of this rule, which is still maintained in all its strictness in the British parliament (though divers expedients are there resorted to to counteract or evade it),[Footnote 35] [p137] has led to the introduction into the parliamentary practice of this country of the motion for reconsideration; which, while it recognizes and upholds the rule in all its ancient strictness, yet allows a deliberative assembly, for sufficient reasons, to relieve itself from the embarrassment and inconvenience, which would occasionally result from a strict enforcement of the rule in a particular case.

255. It has now come to be a common practice in all our deliberative assemblies, and may consequently be considered as a principle of the common parliamentary law of this country, to reconsider a vote already passed, whether affirmatively or negatively.

256. For this purpose, a motion is made and seconded, in the usual manner, that such a vote be reconsidered; and, if this motion prevails, the matter stands before the assembly in precisely the same state and condition, and the same questions are to be put in relation to it, as if the vote reconsidered had never been passed. Thus, if an amendment by inserting words is moved and rejected, the same amendment cannot be moved again; but, the assembly may reconsider the vote by which it was rejected, and then the [p138] question will recur on the amendment, precisely as if the former vote had never been passed.

257. It is usual in legislative bodies, to regulate by a special rule the time, manner, and by whom, a motion to reconsider may be made; thus, for example, that it shall be made only on the same or a succeeding day,—by a member who voted with the majority,—or at a time when there are as many members present as there were when the vote was passed; but, where there is no special rule on the subject, a motion to reconsider must be considered in the same light as any other motion, and as subject to no other rules.