[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, April 10, 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.”