Page:Rulesofproceedin00cush.djvu/8

4

Closure (Fr. cloture).—This is a "vote of urgency" to close a debate. It is to all intents and purposes the "previous question" of American parliamentary law. The motion is that "the question be now put," and it can be carried by a majority of 100, with the approval of the Speaker. (222.) The Speaker may decide that the question has not been sufficiently debated, and refuse to apply the closure, at his pleasure. Under the second rule of procedure in the Commons, adopted under Mr. Gladstone's direction, only the Speaker could demand the closure. This has been amended so as to transfer the power from the Speaker to any member of the house.—The Speaker is allowed to propose, at his discretion, the previous question rule, that "the question shall be put," but the division cannot be taken without the consent of 200 members, or with the opposition of 40 members, when more than 100 favor it. These numerical limitations paralyze the operation of the "previous question," which is seldom called for in the Commons. Obstruction is almost as easy under the amended as it was under the old rules, and debates are as interminable as ever. This is likewise the case in our own House of Representatives. Debates over childish points of order were never more prolonged than during the last session (1888-89) of the Fiftieth Congress. Motions for the previous question, to call the roll, to take the yeas and nays, and to adjourn, etc., almost superseded all other business during the first month of the session. Never was a more ridiculous spectacle presented of the puerile spirit of the House, and of the impotence of respectable parliamentarians to check filibustering. Thus, on January 11th, a whole session was consumed over Clause 5 of Rule XVI., in an attempt to check business by a motion for adjournment. The rule is as follows:—