in one session, his suspension on the third occasion should
continue for a week, and until a motion had been made upon
which it should be decided, at one sitting, by the house, whether
the suspension should then cease or not. The general election,
which took place two months later, restored Mr Gladstone to
power and to the leadership of the house. Mr Parnell returned
to parliament with a more numerous following, and resumed his
former tactics. In January 1881 the Protection of Persons and
Property (Ireland) Bill was introduced. For twenty-two hours
Parnell fought the motion giving precedence to the bill, and for
four sittings its introduction. The fourth sitting lasted fortyone
hours. Then Mr Speaker Brand intervened, and declined
to call on any other member who might rise to address the
house, because repeated dilatory motions had been supported
by small minorities in opposition to the general sense of the
house. He added: " A crisis has thus arisen which demands
the prompt interposition of the chair and of the house. The
usual rules have proved powerless to ensure orderly and effective
debate. An important measure, recommended by Her Majesty
nearly a month since, and declared to be urgent in the interests
of the state by a decisive majority, is being arrested by the
action of an inconsiderable minority, the members of which
have resorted to those modes of obstruction which have been
recognized by the house as a parliamentary offence. The dignity,
the credit, and the authority of this house are seriously threatened,
and it is necessary they should be vindicated. . . . Future
measures for ensuring orderly debate I must leave to the judgment
of the house. But the house must either assume more
effectual control over its debates, or entrust greater powers to
the chair." The Speaker then put the question, which was
carried by an overwhelming majority. Then followed the
decisive struggle. Mr Gladstone gave notice for the next day
(Feb. 3) of an urgency rule, which ordered, " That if the
house shall resolve by a majority of three to one that the state
of public business is urgent, the whole power of the house to
make rules shall be and remain with the Speaker until he shall
declare that the state of public business is no longer urgent."
On the next day a scene of great disorder ended in the suspension
of the Nationalist members, at first singly, and afterwards in
groups. The urgency rule was then passed without further
difficulty, and the house proceeded to resolve, " That the state
of public business is urgent." The Speaker laid upon the table
rules of sufficient stringency, and while they remained in force
progress in public business was possible. During this session the
Speaker had to intervene on points of order 935 times, and the
chairman of committees 939 times; so that, allowing only five
minutes on each occasion, the wrangUng between the chair and
members occupied 1 50 hours.
The events of the session of 1881 and the direct appeal of the Speaker to the house proved the necessity of changes in the rules
■w.. ^ — of procedure more drastic than had hitherto been The Closure., ., ., ., r ir,
proposed. Accordingly, m the first week of the
session of 1882 Mr Gladstone laid his proposals on the table, and in moving the first resolution on 20th February, he reviewed, in an eloquent speech, the history of the standing orders. It was his opinion, on general grounds, that the house should settle its own procedure, but he showed that the numerous committees which, since 1832, had sat on the subject, had failed for the most part to carry their recommendations into effect from the lack of the requisite " propelling power, " and he expressed his regret that the concentration of this power in the hands of the government had rendered it necessary that they should undertake a task not properly theirs. He noted two main features in the history of the case: (i) the constantly increasing labours of the house, and (2) its constantly decreasing power to despatch its duties; and while he declared that " the fundamental change which has occurred is owing to the passing of the first great Reform Bill, " he pointed out that the strain had not become intolerable till the development in recent years of obstructive tactics. He defined obstruction as " the disposition either of the minority of the house, or of individuals, to resist the prevailing will of the house otherwise than by argument, " and
reached the conclusion that the only remedy for a state of things by which the dignity and efficiency of the house were alike compromised, was the adoption in a carefully guarded form of the process known on the Continent as the " cloture." He explained that in his early years the house was virtually possessed of a closing power, because it was possessed of a means of sufficiently making known its inch nations; and to those inclinations uniform deference was paid by members, but that since this moral sanction had ceased to be operative, it was necessary to substitute for it a written law. The power to close debate had been of necessity assumed by almost all the European and American assemblies, the conduct of whose members was shaped by no traditional considerations; and the entry into parliament of a body of men to whom the traditions of the house were as nothing made it necessary for the House of Commons to follow this example. He proposed, therefore, that when it appeared to the Speaker, or to the chairman of committees, during any debate to be the evident sense of the house, or of the committee, that the question be now put, he might so inform the house, and that thereupon on a motion being made, " That the question be now put, " the question under discussion should be forthwith put from the chair, and decided in the affirmative if supported by more than 200 members, or. when less than 40 members had voted against it, by more than 100 members. This resolution was vehemently contested by the opposition, who denounced it as an unprecedented interference with the liberty of debate, but was eventually carried in the autumn session of the same year, after a discussion extending over nineteen sittings.
On the 20th of November the standing order of the 28th of February 1880, providing for the suspension of members who persistently and wilfully obstructed the business of the house or disregarded the authority of the chair, was amended by the increase of the penalty to suspension on the first occasion for one week, on the second occasion for a fortnight, and on the third, or any subsequent occasion, for a month. The other rules, framed with a view to freeing the wheels of the parliamentary machine, and for the most part identical with the regulations adopted by Mr Speaker Brand under the urgency resolution of 1881, were carried in the course of the autumn session, and became standing orders on the 27th of November.
Mr Gladstone's closure rule verified neither the hopes of its supporters nor the fears of its opponents. It was not put into operation until the 20th of February 1885, when the Speaker's declaration of the evident sense of the house was ratified by a majority of 207 — a margin of but seven votes over the necessary quorum. It was clear that no Speaker was likely to run the risk of a rebuff by again assuming the initiative unless in the face of extreme urgency, and, in fact, the rule was enforced twice only during the five years of its e.xistence.
In 1887 the Conservative government, before the introduction of a new Crimes Act for Ireland, gave efficiency to the rule by an important amendment. They proposed that any member during a debate might claim to move. " That the question be now put, " and that with the consent of the chair this question should be put forthwith, and decided without amendment or debate. Thus the initiative was transferred from the Speaker to the house. Mr Gladstone objected strongly to this alteration, chiefly on the ground that it would throw an unfair burden of responsibility upon the Speaker, who would now have to decide on a question of opinion, whereas under the old rule he was only called upon to determine a question of evident fact. The alternative most generally advocated by the opposition was the automatic closure by a bare majority at the end of each sitting, an arrangement by which the chair would be relieved from an invidious responsibility; but it was pointed out that under such a system the length of debates would not vary with the importance of the questions debated. After fourteen sittings the closure rule was passed on the i8th of March and made a standing order.
In the next session, on the 28th of February 1888, the rule was yet further strengthened by the reduction of the majority necessary for its enforcement from 200 to 100, the closure rule remaining as follows:-
