Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow CHAPTER XII.: OF AMENDMENTS. - The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 2

Return to Title Page for The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 2

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Economics
Subject Area: Political Theory
Subject Area: Law
Topic: Property

CHAPTER XII.: OF AMENDMENTS. - Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 2 [1843]

Edition used:

The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-1843). 11 vols. Vol. 2.

Part of: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, 11 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


CHAPTER XII.

OF AMENDMENTS.

At first sight, it would appear scarcely possible to class amendments, since they may embrace every modification which the human mind can conceive with respect to a given motion. Upon calling analysis, however, to our assistance, we shall discover that this difficulty vanishes.

All amendments are necessarily relative to the choice of terms, or to the mode of their connexion.

Amendments which relate to terms, can only have for their object one or other of these three objects—to suppress, to add, or to substitute. This last operation is effected by the union of the two first.

Amendments with reference to the connexion of ideas, can only have for their object—their division, their union, or their transposition.

Does the original proposition appear to me too complicated? I demand that it be divided, with the intention of allowing the assembly the power of rejecting one part, without rejecting the other.

Does it appear proper that two propositions which are separated in the original project, should be considered together, or one following the other? I demand their union.

Amendments which consist in transposing a certain word or phrase may have the effect of entirely changing the project: the word only, for example, placed in different situations, will produce a meaning totally different.

Amendments are thus reduced to six kinds, and are capable of receiving clear and precise denominations:—

Amendment{ Suppressive.
{ Additive.
{ Substitutive.
Amendment{ Divisive.
{ Unitive.
{ Transpositive.

These technical terms appear necessary to prevent the confounding of ideas which only differ from each other by very slight shades. Things which are not classified, and which have no proper names, are always ill understood, and cannot be designated but by periphrases which are often obscure.

A proper name is a great assistance to the understanding, to the memory, and to the communication of ideas. The greatest difficulty which can be alleged against new words is, that they are difficult to be understood; but those derived from more familiar terms are perfectly intelligible.

It frequently happens, that many amendments are offered upon one motion, and even amendments which refer to a previous amendment: this is what is called a sub-amendment. In what order ought they to be discussed? It is very difficult to give positive rules in this respect: each party will support the importance of his own, and seek to obtain priority. If a debate were always necessary to decide the matter, the principal question would be lost sight of, and the attention of the assembly exhausted upon these accessories.

These contests may be rendered more rare and short, by laying down as a general principle, that amendments upon the connexion shall always be taken into consideration first. What is their object? To place the objects to be discussed in the most suitable order: but this order, once formed, is that which most tends to produce a good discussion. Among this class of amendments, the divisive ought to have the priority. Complex questions are the occasion of the most obscure and obstinate debates.

Among amendments as to the choice of terms, it might also be laid down as a general principle, that suppressive amendments ought to have the priority over the two others of the same kind. The suppression of a single term may remove the strongest objections, and that which is omitted is no longer the subject of debate: on the other hand, additive or substitutive amendments may be productive of sub-amendments of the same species.

The value of these observations will only be fully apprehended by those who have had experience in political assemblies. They will be aware how much confusion is produced by multiplied amendments, and how happy it would be, if without absolute rules some thread could be found which would lead out of the labyrinth.

There remain many more difficulties upon this subject. When there are many additive amendments in concurrence, in what order should they be submitted to the vote? Ought they to be presented singly, or all at once? If they are presented singly, by deciding according to priority you do not give the others an equal chance. It is the same in elections. If you have to choose among many candidates, you do not treat them with equality if you put them to the vote one after another. He who is presented first, will in general have a great advantage; and if he be elected, the others would be rejected without having any chance of success. It is proper, therefore, to vote for rival amendments after the elective manner. I see no other inconvenience than the length of the process. It would be proper always to have recourse to this in cases of great importance. In ordinary cases, it may be allowed to the president to put amendments to the vote in the order which appears to him most suitable, it being understood, that if objection be made, it belongs to the assembly to decide.

It is scarcely necessary to say that amendments are only trials which ought to admit of every possible variation. If the amendment pass, it does not follow that the clause amended shall be adopted. The motion, thus modified, becomes the object of debate, and may be rejected. That which has been suppressed, may be re-established: that which has been added, may be struck out. Words may be placed and displaced, as in the corrections of style, without deciding upon the value of the composition, which after this labour may be condemned or destroyed.

One rule which ought to be absolute with respect to amendments, is—not to admit any which are insidious.

I call those pretended amendments insidious, which, instead of improving the motion, represent it as ridiculous or absurd, and which cannot be adopted without making the motion fall by means of the amendment itself.

Ridicule is useful for the overthrow of an absurdity which does not deserve to be seriously attacked; but an epigram in the shape of an amendment is a piece of wit which is unbecoming the gravity and the design of a political assembly. To propose an amendment, is to declare that one seeks to improve the motion, that it may become worthy of approbation: to propose an amendment which renders the motion ridiculous, is a species of fraud and insult, resembling that particular kind of impertinence which in society is called jeering.

Besides; these insidious amendments are altogether useless. They cannot pass unless the majority of the assembly be already disposed to reject the motion itself. It is therefore to go round about, in order to reach the end which may be attained by direct means. You only render necessary two operations instead of one. You begin by receiving the amendment which renders the motion absurd, and then reject the motion thus amended.

Let us apply these observations to the celebrated vote of the House of Commons in 1782—a vote which served as the foundation of a kind of revolution in the government:—

“It is declared, that the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and that it ought to be diminished.”

Let us suppose that one of the opponents of the motion had proposed that it be adopted, upon the insertion of the word necessary before influence.

Here would be an example of the amendment insidious; since the insertion of this word would have rendered the motion contradictory, and even criminal; and the amendment having been admitted, the motion ought to be rejected.

Another example:—A motion having been made for the production of all letters written by the Lords of the Admiralty to an officer of marines,—it was proposed to add as an amendment, the words “which letters may contain orders, or relate to orders not executed, and still subsisting.” The amendment having been adopted, the whole motion was rejected without a division.

This mode of procedure united both the inconveniences I have mentioned: insult and derision were its object—cunning and tergiversation were its means. It was entirely opposed to the maxim—suaviter in modo, fortiter in re.