It was not until Feb. 188o that the house so far overcame its reluctance to restrict liberty of discussion as to pass, in its earliest form, the rule dealing with "order in debate." It provided that whenever a member was named by the Speaker or chairman as "disregarding the authority of the chair, or abusing the rules of the house by persistently and wilfully obstructing the rules of the house," a motion might be made, to be decided without amend ment or debate, for his suspension from the service of the house during the remainder of the sitting ; and that if the same member should be suspended three times 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 Gladstone to power and to the leadership of the house. Parnell returned to parliament with a more numerous following, and re sumed his former tactics. In Jan. 1881 the Protection of Persons and Property (Ireland) Bill was introduced. For 22 hours Par nell fought the motion giving precedence to the bill, and for four sittings its introduction. The fourth sitting lasted 41 hours. Then Mr. Speaker Brand intervened, and declined to call on any other member who might rise to address the house, because re peated 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 vindi cated. . . . 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. Gladstone gave notice for the next day (Feb. 3) of an urgency rule, which ordered, "That if the house shall re solve by a majority of three to one that the State of public busi ness 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 pro ceeded 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 pos sible. 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 wrangling between the chair and members occupied 15o hours.
fined 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." The power to close debate had been of necessity assumed by almost all the European and Ameri can 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 ex ample. 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 4o members had voted against it, by more than 10o members. This resolution was ve hemently 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 19 sittings.
On Nov. 20 the standing order of Feb. 28, 188o, providing for the suspension of members who persistently and wilfully ob structed the business of the house or disregarded the authority of the chair, was amended by the increase of the penalty to sus pension on the first occasion for one week, on the second occa sion 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 iden tical 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 Nov. 27.
Gladstone's closure rule verified neither the hopes of its sup porters nor the fears of its opponents. It was not put into op eration until Feb. 20, 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 existence.
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 dur ing 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. 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 de bated. After 14 sittings the closure rule was passed on March 18 and made a standing order.