alterations and additions as may be found necessary in each assembly. The regulations relating to the observance of decorum, generally, of which the above constitute a part, have already been stated,1 and are commonly established in the rules and orders of each assembly. 1 See also ante, § 373. 58* LAW AND PRACTICE OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES. PART SIXTH. OF THE FORMS AND METHODS OF PROCEEDING IN A LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. THIRD DIVISION. OF ASCERTAINING THE SENSE OF THE ASSEMBLY IN REFERENCE TO ANY QUESTION BEFORE IT. 1783. ALL the proceedings, which have thus far been described, have only had for their object to bring a proposition into a form to be put to the question; that is, a form in which the sense, will, or judgment of the house, in reference to the subject under consideration, can be expressed by a simple affirmative or negative; it being clear, that no proposition can receive the consent of the house, or of the greater number of the members, unless it is in such a form as to be simply affirmed or denied. The subject of this division is treated of, in four chapters, namely: I. Of the right and duty of members to vote; II. Of the different modes of taking a question; III. Of the question thus taken; IV. Of the addition or disallowance of votes. CHAPTER FIRST. OF THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF MEMBERS TO VOTE. 1784. As the members of the house are also members of the body politic, and connected with their fellow-citizens in all the ordinary relations of life and of business, it may, of course, sometimes happen, that they are themselves personally interested in the questions that come before them in their capacity of legislators. When this is the case, decency requires that members so situated should not sit as judges, and, by their suffrages, decide their own case; but justice also requires, that their interests should not be compromised without their being heard. It is a rule, therefore, that, when a member is personally concerned in a question,— either as involving his character and conduct, — his right as a member, or his pecuniary interest; he is first to be heard in his place, if he desires it, and is then to withdraw from the house, during the debate and until the question is decided.1 1785. The precise time when a member is to withdraw is not in all cases the same; it depends entirely upon the application of the principles above stated, to the particular circumstances of each case. The member is entitled to be heard; but he cannot be heard until he knows what is alleged against him; and he ought at all events to withdraw before the debate commences. In practice, therefore, the time at which a member should withdraw is determined by the nature of the subject-matter in which he is concerned, or of the charge against him. When this is contained in, or founded upon, reports, petitions, or other documents, or words spoken and taken down, which sufficiently explain the charge against the member, or the subject in which he is personally interested, it is usual to have such paper read, and for the member to be heard in his place, and then to withdraw before any question is proposed.2 But if the charge or subject-matter is only contained in the question itself, the member is entitled to have the question proposed, and is then to be heard, and to withdraw after the question has been proposed, and before the debate, properly speaking, has commenced.3 1 See also ante, § 656, as to preliminary and collateral questions. 2 Hatsell, II. 170, 171, note. 3 May, 264, 265. 1786. It does not seem sufficient, however, that there should have merely been some report, or some other proceeding in the house, in order that a member should be heard upon the same, and then withdraw; the rule appears to apply only to the case of a report, or other previous proceeding, which contain a direct and pointed accusation.1 1787. Where the charge against a member is one, in reference to which witnesses are examined, as, for example, where articles of impeachment are exhibited against a member, and witnesses are thereupon examined, the member is to be heard in his place, and withdraw after the examination of the witnesses.2 1788. If a member should neglect or refuse to withdraw at the proper time, the house will order him to withdraw. Thus, in the lords, Lord Pierpoint, in 1641, and Lord Herbert of Cherbury, in 1643, were commanded to withdraw; and, in the commons, in 1715, it was ordered, upon question and division, "that Sir Wm. Wyndham do now withdraw." 3 1789. The duty of the members of our legislative assemblies to vote in all questions that may arise therein, is commonly expressed by a rule in affirmance of the common parliamentary law, and another rule providing "that no member shall vote on any question in the event of which he is immediately and particularly interested,” and sometimes it is added, "distinct from the public interest." Concerning the rule, as thus expressed, and its practical application, three remarks are to be made: first, that it does not change the rule of the common parliamentary law, as above laid down, but merely confines the interest in the question which excludes from the right of voting to pecuniary; second, it provides no means, any more than the common parliamentary law, of enforcing its own execution, and, notwithstanding the rule, members may vote or not, as they please; and third, it does not apply to merely preliminary or incidental questions, on which interested members are allowed to vote.5 1790. If a member, whose duty it is to withdraw, should notwithstanding be suffered to remain in the house, and to vote on the question, either from inadvertence, or because his interest in it is not known or pointed out, his vote may be disallowed by the house, on a motion made and question proposed for that purpose; and, in such a case, the question on the motion to disallow the |