Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1891-03-06

sure, every MEMBER not OF that majority,
from making known either his own sentl-
ments or the wishes or complaints of his
constituents in relation to any subject
under consideration or from attempting
to amend what is proposed as law for
the government of the whole nation.
$40 refuse to receive the petition of
the poorest and meanest member of
society alleging grievance and applying
to the competent authority for redress, is
an act of tyranny prohibited by the con-
stitution. =. Yet, by this detested rule
he, his neighbors, the whole community,
may be mulcted with taxes to an ndef-
mite amount and subjected to obligatory
rules of action, involving consequences
fatal to liberty, property, and life and
their recognized agents, their constitu-
tional counsel, their Representatives, not
suffered to allege grievance or offer
defense. 1t is vain to allege, in the
language of the speaker, that as the
House is permitted by the constitution
to determine the rules of its proceeding
it has perfect right to forbid discussion
when and as it pleases. :. They have
II right to be heard before their money is
voted or their liberty restrained, and he
is their delegated agent. The whole
Congress cannot, by law, deprive them
of their constitutional franchises to peti-
ton for redress of grievances and this
House is not competent to close the
mouth through which the petitioners
speak"
Mr.. Castor, after denying that the
constitution gave to Congress the right
to adopt the previous question, proceed.
ed to quote the following remark of a
celebrated speaker of the English House
of Commons, which remark also forms
the introduction to Jefferson's Manual of
Parliamentary Practice. Mr.. CASTOR
said:
"The celebrated Arthur Onslow (who
held the office of speaker of the English
House of Commons for more than three
and thirty years, and discharged its du-
ties with an ability and impartiality which
have never been supposedly used to re-
mark that nothing tended to throw more
power into the hands of administration
and of majority of the House of Com
mons than neglect of or departure from
its rules; that the forms of proceeding
as instituted by their ancestors operated
as check or control on the actions of
ministry, and were a shelter and protec-
ton to minority against the attempts
of those in power And the accurate
and iudcious iIatsell, who has recorded
this memorable observation, very prop
erly remarks that it is founded in good
sense, for that 1T is always in the power
of the majority, by their numbers, to
stop any improper measures proposed on
the part of their opponents, but the
only weapons by which the minority can
defend themselves against similar at
tempts from those in power are the
rules of proceeding, by a strict adher-
ence to which the weaker party can only
be protected from those Irregularities
and abuses which these forms were in
tended to check, and which the want,n-
ness of power is but too often apt to
suggest to large and successful MAORI
ties
Mr.. CASTOR traced the origin of the
previous question in the British Parla-
ment. Sir Henry Vane was the first
that ever proposed putting question
whether the question should be now
put" This was early In the seventeenth
century, and it may have been the elder
or younger Sir Henry. But when it be-
came rule of the House, it was still to
be withheld until every member who
desired to speak on the question had had
the opportunity of doing so. Hakewell
is quoted as follows:
III the matter moved to receive de-
bate pro and contra in that debate, none
may speak more than once to the mat
ter. And after some time spent in the
debate, the speaker, collecting the sense
of the House upon the debate, is to re-
duce the same into question, which he
is to PROFOUND, to the end that the
House in the debate afterward may be
kept up to the matter of that question,
if the same be approved by the House to
contain the substance of the former de-
bate"
1t was the right of every member to
speak once, if he wished it, to the mat
ter moved, and of this right he could
not be deprived by any use of the pre-
vious question: Hakewell proceeds to
state:
"lf upon debate it be much con-
troverted, and much be said against the
question, any member may move that
the question may be first made whether
that question shall be put, or shall be
now put, which usually is admitted at
the instance of any member, especially
II it be seconded and insisted on ; and if
that question being put pass in the af-
/ firmative, then the main question is to