Closing debate

[Guest DrEntroy]

This is purely a historical question... I am aware if the strange history if the "previous question" to some extent, however how did (or perhaps it wasn't done ?) one close debate under Jefferson's manual or in parliament when the previous question was instead used to kill a question ? If this forum is inappropriate I would very much appreciate a pointer to another forum.

[Dan Honemann]

This is purely a historical question... I am aware if the strange history if the "previous question" to some extent, however how did (or perhaps it wasn't done ?) one close debate under Jefferson's manual or in parliament when the previous question was instead used to kill a question ? If this forum is inappropriate I would very much appreciate a pointer to another forum.

To understand the history of this motion, the place to begin, I suppose, is to carefully read the rather extensive footnote on pages 117-18 of the 1915 Edition (which you can find online). You should also, of course, read Section XXXIV of Jefferson's Manual if you want to know what it says.

I think you will find that, historically, adoption of the motion did, in fact, cause the main motion to be put to a vote, without further debate.

[Guest Edgar]

Click here for the 1915 Edition of Robert's Rules and click here for Jefferson's Manual.

[Guest DrEntropy]

Thanks all for the responses.  Note that I am aware that the previous question, if adopted, caused the main motion to be put to a vote without further debate, but originally this was not the main purpose of the motion, rather it was offered by someone hoping that it would not be adopted and this would kill the main motion. As far as I can tell from my research there was no other motion at the time of Jefferson's writing that was intended solely to close debate. Is this accurate?

[Dan Honemann]

Thanks all for the responses. Note that I am aware that the previous question, if adopted, caused the main motion to be put to a vote without further debate, but originally this was not the main purpose of the motion, rather it was offered by someone hoping that it would not be adopted and this would kill the main motion. As far as I can tell from my research there was no other motion at the time of Jefferson's writing that was intended solely to close debate. Is this accurate?

To the best of my knowledge, at the time of Jefferson's writing there was no other rule in the House intended solely to close debate (but I don't consider myself to be an expert on this subject).

More detail on the history of the Previous Question in the House will be found in Volume V of Hinds' Precedents (although I suppose you have already reviewed this).

http://www.gpo.gov/f...HINDS-V5-11.pdf

[Guest DrEntropy]

Thanks again, and yes I have read that section of Hinds', in fact that is sort of where this silly quest got started!

[DrEntropy]

Thanks again, and yes I have read that section of Hinds', in fact that is sort of where this silly quest got started!

When I said "read" I meant skimmed. Now, after a more careful reading, I find that there was a mechanism at least to suppress debate (From Vol V, section 5446):

"In the Commons [uK] there was no protracting a debate beyond the rising of the House, and they often stopped a Member speaking by making noises to drown his voice."

Interesting mechanic.

BTW, reading Hind's is always interesting. For example it is fascinating how often the house has decided to interpret a rule one way and then later decided to interpret it another way, often whatever way was most convenient for the situation.

[Dan Honemann]

BTW, reading Hind's is always interesting. For example it is fascinating how often the house has decided to interpret a rule one way and then later decided to interpret it another way, often whatever way was most convenient for the situation.

An honorable tradition, not likely to be cast aside (see RONR, 11th ed., pp. 251-52).