[110th Congress House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 109-157]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hruletx-38]                         

[Page 241-243]
 
                    sec. xxxiv--the previous question

  When any <<NOTE: Sec. 461. The previous question of 
Parliament.>> question is before the House, any Member may move a 
previous question, ``Whether that question (called the main question) 
shall now be put?'' If it pass in the affirmative, then the main 
question is to be put immediately, and no man may speak anything further 
to it, either to add or alter. Memor. in Hakew., 28; 4 Grey, 27.
  The previous <<NOTE: Sec. 462. Manner of putting the previous 
question.>> question being moved and seconded, the question from the 
Chair shall be, ``Shall the main question be now put?'' and if the nays 
prevail, the main question shall not then be put.


[[Page 242]]


  In the modern practice of the House the previous question is put as 
follows: ``The gentleman from ------ moves the previous question. As 
many as are in favor of ordering the previous question will say aye; as 
many as are opposed will say no'' (V, 5443).

  This kind of <<NOTE: Sec. 463. History, use, etc., of the previous 
question of Parliament.>> question is understood by Mr. Hatsell to have 
been introduced in 1604. 2 Hats., 80. Sir Henry Vane introduced it. 2 
Grey, 113, 114; 3 Grey, 384. When the question was put in this form, 
``Shall the main question be put?'' a determination in the negative 
suppressed the main question during the session; but since the words 
``now put'' are used, they exclude it for the present only; formerly, 
indeed, only till the present debate was over, 4 Grey, 43, but now for 
that day and no longer. 2 Grey, 113, 114.
  Before the question ``Whether the main question shall now be put?'' 
any person might formerly have spoken to the main question, because 
otherwise he would be precluded from speaking to it at all. Mem. in 
Hakew., 28.
  The proper occasion for the previous question is when a subject is 
brought forward of a delicate nature as to high personages, &c., or the 
discussion of which may call forth observations which might be of 
injurious consequences. Then the previous question is proposed, and in 
the modern usage the discussion of the main question is suspended and 
the debate confined to the previous question. The use of it has been 
extended abusively to other cases, but in these it has been an 
embarrassing procedure. Its uses would be as well answered by other more 
simple parliamentary forms, and therefore it should not

[[Page 243]]

be favored, but restricted within as narrow limits as possible.

  As explained in connection with clause 1 of rule XIX, the House has 
changed entirely the old use of the previous question (V, 5445).