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

rs W TelnStdIe IL as IL was III TIE aut1ln-
istration of Thomas jefferson, during
which period it was the same that it had
been In the time of his predecessor. He
brought the genealogy of the previous
question down from very remote peri
cd, and that, too, one of the worst of
British history; but he showed that
though bearing the same name, the
present one differed from its ancestors,
and differed very much for the worse
If it was to stain the rules and orders
it ought to have new name, and be
called the gag law. In comparison with
the previous question, the sedition law
was as white IA woul-was, indeed, in
nocence itself. Instead of being, what
every rule of the the House ought to be
AN instrument for the advancement
and protection of the freedom of debate
it was perverted into an engine to in
tercept fair discussion, and prevent the
sense of the House from being taken
He showed from the rules of the
British House of Commons, laid down
by Mr.. Hatsell, that no instance ever
was known in that body of members
being prevented from discussing any
proposition, either Immediately, sub
j"dice, or that he wished to bring before
them. Not only Mr.. Hatsell, but Mr..
Onsaw, who so long presided in that
body, never saw member of the mi
nority or opposition bench refused a
hearing; they would as soon think of
stopping the vollied lightning of heaven
AS of stopping the elder Pitt. No; in
the British House of Commons debate
was free. He had ever been Whig-a
warm and sincere friend of the Revolu-
tion-but when he compared the tax
upon tea with this pernicious rule, "the
previous question: he doubted which
struck most deeply at the personal
rights of the people of America or at the
independence of the country.
Mr.. Clay rose in reply to MIR. Ran
dolph and endeavored to justify the
previous question, partly on the grounds
CT the constitutional right of the House
to make 1.-THE majority had the power
to make it, and therefore were right in
making it-partly on the expediency-
it was certainly eXpedient for the same
reason; besides which he thought the
public interest required it. He said Mr..
Randolphs history of the order had
itself shown that the previous question
was not resorted to until the abuse of
debate rendered it eXpedient, and in
illustrating this he reminded the House
of the very remarkable circumstance of
certain gentleman having, for the
purpose Of delay, spoken four and TWEEN
ty hours without stopping. He said
that the House must adapt its rules to
experience until the objects of its in
stitution were fulfilled. He did not
think it necessary to 60 to Great Brit
ian for precedents, but if they did he
could show the superior freedom of our
House, taking all the rules of the British
House of Commons together. They ha |
there, he said, previous question for
stopping members, peculiar to them
selyes-that was making noise to
drown the voice of the person who en-
deavored to speak. Another was that
there was no prOtracting IA debate be-
You'd the rising of the House. Here.
said Mr.. Clay, have we not had ques-
ton debating for six or seven weeks?
Mr.. Clay then adverted to the per-
sonal invectives in the British Parlia-
ment, contrary to all example in the
American House of Representatives. He
had himself in the short time he was in
London heard British minister high in
office charge member with wishing to
produce a revolution in the country, and
he had heard that memOer retort upon
the minister the charge of bribery and
corruption, and tell him that he ought
to lose his head. What would be the
situation of the House, asked Mr.. Clay,
without such rule as the previous
question, and what was it more than a
declaration of the House that it had
heard enough and would proceed to de-
eide, and that the majority was not to
be controlled by the minority?
Mr.. CASTOR followed in an elaborate
speech, in the course of which he said :
at is Indispensable before we proceed
further in the consideration of this sub
ject that we should perfectly understand
what is our previous question. Gentle
men may incautiously suppose that it is
the same with what has been called the
previous question elsewhere. This
would be a most fatal mistake. Our pre-
vious question is altogether sui generis,
the only one of its kind and to know it,
we must consider not merely what is
written of it in our code but what it has
been rendered by exposition and con-
struction.
sour previous question can only be
admitted when demanded by majority
of the members present. 1t is question
whether the question under debate shall