    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 117th Congress]
    [117th Congress]
    [House Document 116-177]
    [Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
    [Pages 249-251]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                        sec. xxxiv--the previous question

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

    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.

    [[Page 250]]

    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.

    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

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

    [[Page 251]]

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