THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.
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.
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.
This kind of question is understood by Mr. Hatsell to have been
introduced in 1604. 1 _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 question is
brought forward of a delicate nature as to high personages, etc., 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.
Whether a main question may be amended after the previous question on it
has been moved and seconded? 2 _Hats._, 88, says, if the previous
question has been moved and seconded, and also proposed from the chair
(by which he means stated by the Speaker for debate), it has been
doubted whether an amendment can be admitted to the main question. He
thinks it may, after the previous question is moved and seconded; but
not after it has been proposed from the chair. In this case he thinks
the friends to the amendment must vote that the main question be not now
put; and then move their amended question, which being made new by the
amendment, is no longer the same which has just been suppressed, and
therefore may be proposed as a new one. But this proceeding certainly
endangers the main question, by dividing its friends, some of whom may
choose it unamended, rather than lose it altogether; while others of
them may vote, as Hatsell advises, that the main question be not now put
with a view to move it again in an amended form. The enemies of the main
question, by this manœuvre to the previous question, get the enemies to
the amendment added to them on the first vote, and throw the friends of
the main question under the embarrassment of rallying again as they can.
To support his opinion, too, he makes the deciding circumstances,
whether an amendment may or may not be made, to be, that the previous
question has been proposed from the Chair. But, as the rule is that the
House is in possession of a question as soon as it is moved and
seconded, it cannot be more than possessed of it by its being also
proposed from the Chair. It maybe said, indeed, that the object of the
previous question being to get rid of a question, which it is not
expedient should be discussed, this object may be defeated by moving to
amend, and, in the discussion of that motion, involving the subject of
the main question. But so may the object of the previous question be
defeated, by moving the amended question as Mr. Hatsell proposes after
the decision against putting the original question. He acknowledges,
too, that the practice has been to admit previous amendments, and only
cites a few late instances to the contrary. On the whole, I should think
it best to decide it ab inconvenienti, to wit: which is most
inconvenient, to put it in the power of one side of the House to defeat
a proposition by hastily moving the previous question, and thus forcing
the main question to be put unamended; or to put it in the power of the
other side to force on, incidentally at least, a discussion which would
be better avoided? Perhaps the last is the least inconvenience; inasmuch
as the Speaker, by confining the discussion rigorously to the amendment
only, may prevent their going into the main question, and inasmuch also
as so great a proportion of the cases in which the previous question is
called for, are fair and proper subjects for public discussion, and
ought not to be obstructed by a formality introduced for questions of a
peculiar character.