    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 109th Congress]
    [109th Congress]
    [House Document 108-241]
    [Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
    [Pages 240-242]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                        sec. xxxiv--the previous question

    [[Page 241]]

    may speak anything further to it, either to add or alter. Memor. in
    Hakew., 28; 4 Grey, 27.

    Sec. 461. The previous question of
    Parliament.

      When any  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

    Sec. 462. Manner of putting the previous
    question.

      The previous  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.

      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).

    Sec. 463. History, use, etc., of the previous
    question of Parliament.

      This kind of  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.

    [[Page 242]]

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

      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

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