Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow 91.: Procedure in the House: Amendments 21 APRIL, 1868 - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part I November 1850 - November 1868

Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part I November 1850 - November 1868

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Collection: The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill

91.: Procedure in the House: Amendments 21 APRIL, 1868 - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part I November 1850 - November 1868 [1850]

Edition used:

The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part I November 1850 - November 1868, ed. John M. Robson and Bruce L. Kinzer (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1988).

Part of: Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, in 33 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.


91.

Procedure in the House: Amendments

21 APRIL, 1868

PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 191, col. 1030. Reported (in one sentence) in The Times, 22 April, p. 6. Mill spoke during an extensive discussion in Committee of Supply on Ayrton’s motion to amend a resolution of the House dating from 1858, “That when it has been proposed to omit or reduce items in a Vote the Question shall be afterwards put upon the original Vote or upon the reduced Vote, as the case may be, without amendment,” by replacing the final two words with “unless an Amendment be moved for a reduction of the whole Vote”

(col. 1025).

mr. j. stuart mill said, that as it appeared likely that this matter would go back for re-consideration, he might be permitted to suggest a further point. The Motion of his honourable and learned Friend was on a very important and very valuable subject, and formed part of the largest questions. The rules which, in the course of centuries, had been elaborated in this House for the conduct of the Business had been most deservedly admired. But difficulties might arise when the House could only have one Amendment on the same point; because, as soon as one Amendment had been rejected, it had resolved that the original Motion should be put unamended. It might be well for the House to examine this point. According to the rule of the French Chamber, whatever number of Amendments there might be moved, the question of precedency was decided in this way:—The Amendment which was farthest from the original Motion was put first, and if this were lost, the others were put in succession. Might it not be as well to adopt the plan here?

[The matter was resolved by a Government resolution on 28 April that provided for a final vote on the original or amended motion (cols. 1464–6).]