"In the lords not only those peers who are present may vote in a division, but, on certain questions, absent peers are entitled to vote by proxy, and their votes are numbered with the rest; the joint majority of votes and proxies being decisive of the question. The following rules and restrictions are incident to the right of voting by proxy;—

"No lord of this house shall be capable of receiving above two 'proxies, nor more to be numbered in any cause voted. All proxies 'from a spiritual lord shall be made to a spiritual lord, and from a 'temporal lord to a temporal lord.

“If a peer having leave of the king to be absent from Parliament, 'gives his proxy, and afterwards sits again in the house, his coming and sitting again in Paliament doth determine that proxy.

"If a peer having leave to be absent, makes his proxy and returns, ' he cannot make a new proxy without new leave.

"That proxies may be used in preliminaries to private causes, but 'not in giving judgment.

"That no proxy for the future shall be made use of in any judicial cause in this house, although the proceedings be by way of bill.' And this rule is extended to the trial of controverted elections of the representative peers of Scotland.

"That a lord having a proxy and voting on the question ought to 'give a vote for that proxy in case proxies be called for.

"That the proxy of no lord shall be entered the same day on 'which he has been present in the house, and that no proxy entered ' in the book after three of the clock, shall be made use of the same 'day in any question, and that the clerks give an account thereof to

'the house."

“It is also a rule that no proxy can be used in a committee of the whole house.

"The most usual practice is for lords to hold the proxies of other lords of the same political opinions, and for the votes of both to be declared for the same side of a question. This is the true intent of a proxy; but it occasionally happens, that a lord has been privately requested by another lord, whose proxy he holds, to vote for him on the opposite side; in which case, it is understood to be regular to admit their conflicting votes in that manner. But it is said, that this variation from the ordinary rule is permitted upon the supposition, that between the time of voting and of declaring the vote of the proxy, a lord may be supposed to have altered his own opinion; for the form of the proxy would appear to delegate to the lord who holds it, the absolute right of decision for the absent lord, without any reference to the opinions of the latter, expressed after the signature of that instrument.

"A practice, similar in effect to that of voting by proxy, has for many years been resorted to in the House of Commons. It has been shown, that no member can vote unless he be present when the question is put; and no sanction has ever been given, by the house, to any custom partaking of the character of delegation. But a system of negative proxies, known by the name of pairs, enables a member to

absent himself, and to agree with another member that he also shall be absent at the same time."-pp. 278, 279.

When Mr. May gives the mode of conducting public business in debate he is succinct and extremely useful. Very few persons, even of those who are called upon to preside at public meetings or at Boards for the management of Companies or Societies, are aware of the mode in which public business can be most efficiently conducted. The rules of proceeding in the two houses of parliament are assumed to be the model, but it frequently happens, although Peers and Prelates are in the chair, that neither the party presiding nor the body of the meeting has any distinct notion of what those rules are. In both houses every matter must be determined on a motion put by the Speaker and affirmed, negatived, or avoided by the house itself. Notice of the motion is given for convenience sake in the Lords, and the quantity of business has not required any strict rule as to time. In the Commons the case is different, and the pressure of motions brought forward by individual members has led to a sessional resolution, which prevents the Order Book from being occupied on motion days for more than a fortnight in advance, if the motion be opposed or likely to lead to debate; no positive rule is laid down as to the time which must elapse between the notice and the motion; motions for leave to bring in bills of trifling interest and for returns are frequently given on the day preceding the motion; for unopposed returns there is a separate notice paper, and they are brought on at any convenient period. An unopposed motion, if no member object, may be brought on by consent of the house without previous notice; whilst matters directly cencerning the privileges of the house, provided they have arisen recently, are brought on without notice, and have precedence of orders of the day as well as of notices of motion. If the question be simply resolved in the affirmative or negative there is little trouble; it is when the question is sought to be evaded or superseded that the difficulty arises; and here Mr. May tells us that,

"The modes of evading or superseding a question are, 1, by adjournment of the house; 2, by motion that the orders of the day be read;' 3, by moving the previous question; and 4, by amendment.

"1. In the midst of the debate upon a question, any member may move that this house do now adjourn,' not by way of amendment to the original question, but as a distinct question, which interrupts and supersedes that already under consideration. If this second question be resolved in the affirmative, the original question is superseded: the house must immediately adjourn, and all the business for that day is at an end. The motion for adjournment, in order to supersede a

question, must be simply that the house do now adjourn; it is not allowable to move that the house do adjourn to any future time specified; nor to move an amendment to that effect, to the question of adjournment. The house may also be suddenly adjourned by notice being taken that forty members are not present, and an adjournment caused in that manner has the effect of superseding a question in the same way as a formal question to adjourn, when put and carried. In either case the original question is so entirely superseded, that if it has not yet been proposed to the house by the speaker, it is not even entered in the Votes, as the house was not fully in possession of the question before the adjournment.

"If a motion for adjournment be negatived, it may not be proposed again without some intermediate proceeding; and, in order to avoid any infringement of this rule, it is a common practice for those who desire to avoid a decision upon the original question, on that day, to move alternately that this house do now adjourn,' and 'that the debate be now adjourned.' The latter motion, if carried, merely defers the decision of the house, while the former, as already explained, supersedes the question altogether: yet members who only desire to enforce the continuance of the debate on another day, often vote for an adjournment of the house, which, if carried, would supersede the question which they are prepared to support. This distinction should always be borne in mind, lest a result should follow that is widely different from that anticipated. Suppose a question to be opposed by a majority, and that the minority are anxious for an adjournment of the debate; but that on the failure of a question proposed by them to that effect, they vote for an adjournment of the house: the majority have only to vote with them and carry the adjournment, when the obnoxious question is disposed of at once, and its supporters have themselves contributed to its defeat.

"2. On a day upon which motions have precedence, a motion, 'that the orders of the day be now read,' is also permitted to interrupt. the debate upon a question; and if put by the speaker and carried in the affirmative, the house must proceed with the orders of the day immediately, and the original question is thus superseded. A motion for reading a particular order of the day, however, will not be permitted to interrupt a debate; and when the house are actually engaged upon one of the orders of the day, a motion for reading the orders of the day is not admissible, as the house are already doing that which the motion, if carried, would oblige them to do.

"3. The previous question is an ingenious method of avoiding a vote upon any question that has been proposed, but its technical name does little to elucidate its operation. When there is no debate, or after a debate is closed, the speaker puts the question, as a matter of course, without any direction from the house; but, by a motion for the previous question, this act of the speaker may be intercepted and forbidden. The words of this motion are, that this question be now put;' and those who wish to avoid the putting of the original question, vote against the previous (or second) question; and, if it be re

VOL. XV. NO. XXVIII.

E

solved in the negative, the speaker is prevented from putting the original question, as the house have refused to allow it to be put. It may, however, be brought forward again on another day, as the negation of the previous question merely binds the speaker not to put the main question at that time. If the previous question be put, and resolved in the affirmative, no words can be added to or taken from the main question by amendment; nor is any further debate allowed, or motion for adjournment before the question is put, as the house have resolved that the question be now put, and it must accordingly be put at once to the vote. In reference to this proceeding, it may be remarked, that according to the strict rule of debate, each member should speak directly to the question before the house; and, supposing this to be observed, the debate upon the previous question would be limited to the propriety of putting the question now, or at a future time; but, practically, the main question is discussed throughout. the rule were not evaded in this manner, the main question would be altogether excluded from discussion, merely because another question had been interposed; although, by affirming the previous question, the house would have agreed that the main question was a proper one to have been offered for their decision.

If

"The last two questions, viz. for reading the orders of the day, and the previous question, may both be superseded by a motion for adjournment; for the latter may be made at any time (except, as already stated, when the previous question has been resolved in the affirmative), and must always be determined before other business can be proceeded with. The debate upon the previous question may also be adjourned; as there is no rule or practice which assigns a limit to a debate, even when the nature of the question would seem to require a present determination. But when a motion has been made for reading the orders of the day, in order to supersede a question, the house will not afterwards entertain a motion for the previous question; as the former motion was itself in the nature of a previous question.

"4. The general practice in regard to amendments will be explained in the next chapter; but here such amendments only need be mentioned as are intended to evade an expression of opinion upon the main question, by entirely altering its meaning and object. This may be effected by moving the omission of all the words of the question, after the word 'that' at the beginning, and by the substitution of other words of a different import. If this amendment be agreed to by the house, it is clear that no opinion is expressed directly upon the main question, because it is determined that the original words shall not stand part of the question;' and the sense of the house is afterwards taken directly upon the substituted words, or practically upon a new question. There are many precedents of this mode of dealing with a question; but the best known in parliamentary history are those relating to Mr. Pitt's administration, and the peace of Amiens, in 1802. On the 7th May, 1802, a motion was made in the Commons for an address, expressing the thanks of this house to his Majesty for having been pleased to remove the Right Hon. W. Pitt

from his councils;' upon which an amendment was proposed and carried, which left out all the words after the first, and substituted others in direct opposition to them. Not only was the sense of the original question entirely altered by this amendment, but a new question was substituted, in which the whole policy of Mr. Pitt was commended. Immediately afterwards an address was moved in both Houses of Parliament, condemning the treaty of Amiens, in a long statement of facts and arguments. In each house an amendment was moved and carried by which all the declamation in the proposed address was omitted, and a new address resolved upon, by which Parliament was made to justify the treaty.

"This practice has often been objected to as unfair, and never with greater force than on these occasions. It is natural for one party, commencing an attack upon another, to be discomfited by its recoil upon themselves, and to express their vexation at such a result; but the weaker party must always anticipate defeat in one form or another. If no amendment be moved, the majority can negative the question itself, and affirm another in opposition to the opinions of the minority. On the very occasion already mentioned, of the 7th May, 1802, after the address of thanks for the removal of Mr. Pitt had been defeated by an amendment, a distinct question was proposed and carried by the victorious party, That the Right Hon. W. Pitt has rendered great and important services to his country, and especially deserves the gratitude of this house.' Thus, if no amendment had been moved, the position of Mr. Pitt's opponents would have been but little improved, as the majority could have affirmed or denied whatever they pleased. It is in debate alone that a minority can hope to compete with a majority: the forms of the house can ultimately assist neither party; but, so far as they offer any intermediate advantage, the minority have the greatest protection in forms, while the majority are met by obstructions to the exercise of their will.

6

"These are the four modes by which a question may be intentionally avoided or superseded; but a question is also liable to casual interruption and postponement from other causes; as, by a matter of privilege, words of heat between members in debate, a question of order, a message from the other house or a motion for reading an act of parliament, an entry in the Journal, or other public document. The rule, by which such documents are permitted to be read, though not absolutely without recognition in modern times, is so far restrained by more recent regulations with regard to motions and orders of the day, that it is almost obsolete, and a member would scarcely be permitted to avail himself of it, except for the purpose of reading some document strictly relevant to the question under discussion. These proceedings, however, may obstruct and delay the decision of a question, but do not alter its position before the house; for, directly they are disposed of, the debate is resumed at the point at which it was interrupted. In the House of Commons, another interruption was sometimes caused by moving that candles be brought in; but, by a standing order of the 6th February, 1717, it was ordered,