A QUESTION OF ORDER.

Evening Post, Volume XXX, Issue 61, 9 September 1885, Page 2

A QUESTION OF ORDER.

If members had been anxious to seriously consider Mr. Macandrew's insular separation motion last night, and had stopped to think for a moment, those who were in favour of it, and also of Captain Russell's motion to rednoe the Pnblio Works Estimates by half-a-million, would have found themselves in an awkward predioament. There was no possible connection between the two subjects, yet the one was put as a counter proposal to the other. The Acting Speaker's method of putting the question reminded us of one of Lord Dundreary's "widdles," or of thoße arithmetical questions whioh Bones sometimes submits to Tambo, to the effeot that if half-a-dozen herrings cost fiveponce, what will the prioe of seven ounces of butter be ? As no one seemed disposed to regard Mr, Macaodrow's proposal seriously, no prootioal inoonvenienoe arose la&t night, bnt this might not be the case on some future ocoasion if the same praotice should be followed. The matter is therefore worth oalling attention to. Ou the motion for going into Supply any member has the right of ventilating a grievance, and of moving any motion he likes, provided it does not anticipate any motion on tho order paper. When the motion was made la«t night that the Speaker do leave the ohair in order that the House might go into Committee of Supply, Mr. Macandrew availed himself of his privilege, and moved bis resolution in favour of a Royal Commission on the aubjeot of insular eeparation. After a brief discussion the motion for tho Speaker leaving the ohair was negatived by a large majority. The question of going into Supply was thus for tho time disposed of, and Mr. Maoandrew's became a substantive motion, and properly subject to the same rules as to amondment as any ordinary motion before the House. Now, an amendment must be relevant to the subject of a motion. It is an abuse of language to term a separate and distinct motion on a totally different subjeot 'an amendment. .Captain Russell's proposal relating to a red.uotion.bf the estimates was a perfectly legitimate amendment io $ motion for going into supply, but it was coj; in spy sense an amendment on Mr. Macarid^ew's motion, and it should not have been accepted ■■ as such. The question of supply had been for the time disposed of, and no amendment should have been accepted whioh was not pertinent to the subjeot of Mr. Maoandrew's motion or did not propose to deal in some form pr other with the same Bubjeot. The question of supply bad been superseded, and the motion became subjeot to the ordinary ruled of discussion. Thus, for instance, supposing Mr. Hobbs moved his motion for ,t]ie produotion of Dr. Grabham's recommendations re Hospitals and Charitable JnptitntionH, the Speaker would not permit Mr. G. F. Riohardson to move, as an amendment, his resolution calling for a return of fchoooßt of the Dnmmyism Enqury in Otago. Tho ono has no relation to or connection with the other, nor had Captain Russell's motion oonneotion with or relation to Mr. Mooandrew'B. The course which the Aoting Speaker ahonld have adopted was to allow tho House first to deal with Mr. Maoandrew's motion, or any pertinent amendment to it, and then, when it was done with, the question of supply wonld again have oome up, and Captain Bnssell would have been at liberty to move hie resolution as on amendment on the motion that the Speaker do leave the ohair. The object of aft Parliamentary rules ib to afford members the Invest possible opportunity of distinctly recording their opinions upon eaoh and every subjeot brought before the House. The aooeptanoo of Captain Russell's proposal, as an amendment on Mr" Macandrew'g, deprived them of this right. There was potting inconsistent, antagonistic, or conflicting between the two ; the amendment ' inno way travereedihfl motion, and the House might quite properly and consistently have accepted both ; yet member? yore impaled upon the horns of a dilemma— ltysy were forced to yote against one or other proposition, while possibly a good many of them) approved of both. It is not oftonthatwe' have occasion to question Mr. Hamlin's prooednre in regard to points of order, but we mußt certainly take exception to t&e course he on this occasion adopted as AatingSpeaker. It wonld be a dangerouß and improper precedent to establish. |