I have chosen to consider this subject in relation to the right of the whole body, and of one of its individual members, rather than to that of a majority and minority. The right to speak is an individual right. Limit it as you please, consistent with a single exercise of that right. But when this is taken away, or, which is precisely the same thing so far as it respects the principle of civil liberty, when it is in the power of one or many, at its sovereign will and pleasure, to take it away, there is no longer any right. We have our tenure of speech as the slave has his—at the will of a master.

But it is said that the Legislature must sometimes "act," and that individuals, by an abuse of this liberty of speech, prevent the whole body from "acting." All I say is, limit the exercise of the right as you please, only do not assume to yourselves the power of taking away the whole right, at your pleasure.

It is in this doctrine, of "the necessity of acting," that lies the whole mystery of that error which we are now combating. Strictly speaking, a Legislative body never "acts." Its province is to deliberate and decide. "Action" is, alone, correctly attributable to the Executive. And it will be found, that all the cases in which this necessity of "action" has been urged, have been cases in which the Legislative body has departed from its appropriate duties of deliberation and decision, and descended to be an instrument, or engine, of the Executive. I hesitate not to say, that this position may be proved by almost every instance in which this necessity of action has been urged. It was an Executive haste to its own purposes, which prevailed upon the Legislative body to deny, to its own members, their privileges.

It has been asserted, that "if this amendment passes, this will be the only deliberative body in the world which cannot stop debate." On the other hand I assert, that if this amendment does not pass, this will be the only deliberative body in the world, pretending to be free, in which it is in the power of a majority to force a decision, without any deliberation. It is not true that, in the British Parliament, the previous question stops debate and forces decision on the main question without deliberation. The previous question there, if decided in the negative, suppresses debate, by postponing the main question. And until 1807, the practice and rules of this House permitted debate of the main question, after an affirmative decision of a previous question. Whoever undertakes to examine the subject will find it as I have stated.

It is not true, that this power ever was, or ever can be necessary, in a Legislative body. In every case in which the previous question, according to recent construction, has been pressed upon the House, it will be found that there was no National or State necessity for an immediate decision. That is to say, in every instance it will be found, that it was of no sort of public importance whether the main question were taken on this day, on the next, or on a third day. Always the question might have been taken in a reasonable time; and every individual member, who chose to speak, might have had the privilege, if he pleased, of speaking, at least once. As far as I observed, all these pretences of necessity have been easily resolvable into party cunning. The subject was one difficult to maintain. It had popular bearings, which it suited not the pleasure of the majority to have investigated. They pressed the minority to instant decision, by refusing adjournment. And as it happens in all such cases, reaction is equal to action. The minority were put upon their mettle, and they put to trial the mettle of the majority.

It is undoubtedly true, that this power may be sometimes convenient. And this is the whole strength of the argument of those who oppose this proposition. The weak and aged members of the majority have been kept all night from their slumbers, by a hale and sturdy minority; which slumbers they might, by the way, at any moment have enjoyed, if that very majority had yielded the point of adjournment. And is this reason of convenience sufficient, in the estimation of this House, to justify it, in depriving this people, in the person of their Representatives, of the essential right of speaking upon this floor? Is this a justification for such an atrocious and exorbitant grasp at power? Our patriotism, nowadays, can submit to no sacrifices. We are not content with sleeping, if we please, every day in our seats, unless we can sleep also every night of the session in our feather beds. And these feather-bed patriots, as I understand, are all agog for a march into Canada; and, if we believe them, are desirous of nothing so much as showing how those can meet privation and watchfulness in the field, who think of nothing but comfort and sleep upon this floor.

I know there is another argument urged in favor of the assumption of this power by the majority, and that is, the haste and clatter which always attend the end of a session. Let our session be long or short, the event is, in this respect, always nearly the same. What with speeches and postponements, and laying down one piece of business half finished, and taking up another, the latter end of a session is a political chaos. The work of this and the other House, and that of the Palace into the bargain, is in fact sometimes to be washed up, in a night—and the members of all branches are knee-deep and shoulder-deep in the suds. Now, this shows the necessity, not of this unlimited power of the previous question, but of conducting public business with more prospective intelligence. The House is just like all other spendthrifts. It first wastes what is its own, and then seeks how it may make up its deficiency out of the property of other people. We pillage the public liberty, in order to compensate for legislative negligence.

I have often been puzzled to imagine a necessity, which could even apologize for such an assumption of power as the majority, by this new construction of the previous question, are attempting; and, until lately, I did not believe that it could possibly exist. The only case, in which there seemed to me to be an apology for resorting to it, was, the other day, when the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Troup) threatened to call the previous question upon the majority themselves. I admired both his manner and the occasion on which he introduced that idea. And really there was something like a necessity. If I understood the view of that honorable gentleman, it was, that he thought there was not fighting matter to spare in the stomachs of the majority; and he threatened them with the previous question, lest, peradventure, the whole war spirit should ooze away through the mouth. In this there was both discretion and patriotism.

Mr. Brigham said, that although he was forward in life, he was but of yesterday of this House, and that the rules and orders were not familiar with him. But he exceedingly regretted that this House, in their wisdom, ever found it expedient or proper to adopt a rule to deprive a minority, or an individual member of this House, of the freedom of debate, the freedom of speech, a privilege so much boasted of in this land of liberty. He observed that he had his rights in common with the other members of the House, and that he had his duties to perform. He was not ambitious to become a public speaker, nor would he say that he supposed he could speak to the edification or satisfaction of the House. But should he, on great questions, be denied the privilege of speaking? Suppose the question of peace or war should assume the aspect of solemnity, and it should become necessary and important that this House be made acquainted with the circumstances and disposition of the citizens of the several sections of the country—and suppose a member who is not much accustomed to speaking, silently sits until those gentlemen who are in the habit, and are fond of speaking, shall have exhausted themselves in debate—shall he, in that case, be denied the right of speaking—shall he be deprived of his constitutional privileges and his constituents of the right of representation on the floor of this House?

He said that he was bound by the oath of God to support the constitution, and to promote the welfare of his country; but, if his mouth is stopped, how can he execute his trust or perform his vows? For this House by a rule to interdict the freedom of speech, is an assumption of power, and a violation of right. He hoped, that the rule under consideration would be modified, and that the proposed amendment would be adopted. He wished that each individual member might be permitted to exercise his right of speaking to any question before the House, at least once, if he chooses.