In the next session, on Feb. 28, 1888, the rule was yet further strengthened by the reduction of the majority necessary for its enforcement from 200 to 1 oo, the closure rule remaining as follows : That, of ter a question has been proposed, a member rising in his place may claim to move, "That the question be now put," and, unless it shall appear to the chair that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the house or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question, "That the question be now put," shall be put forthwith, and decided without amendment or debate.
When the motion "That the question be now put" has been carried, and the question consequent thereon has been decided, any further motion may be made (the assent of the chair as af ore said not having been withheld), which may be requisite to bring to a decision any question already proposed from the chair ; and also if a clause be then under consideration, a motion may be made (the assent of the chair as aforesaid not having been with held), "That the question 'That certain words of the clause de fined in the motion stand part of the clause,' or 'That the clause stand part of, or be added to, the bill,' be now put." Such motions shall be put forthwith, and decided without amendment or debate.
That questions for the closure of debate shall be decided in the affirmative, if, when a division be taken, it appears by the numbers declared from the chair that not less than 1 oo members voted in the majority in support of the motion.
The Guillotine.—The closure, originally brought into being to defeat the tactics of obstruction in special emergencies, thus became a part of parliamentary routine. And, the principle being once accepted, its operation was soon extended. It can now be put into operation not only in committee of the whole house but in any of the "grand" standing committees. Furthermore, the practice of retarding the progress of Government measures by amendments moved to every line, adopted by both the great political parties when in opposition, led to the use of what be came known as the "guillotine," for forcing through parliament important bills, most of the clauses in which were thus undis cussed. The "guillotine," means that the house decides how much time shall be devoted to certain stages of a measure, definite dates being laid down at which the closure shall be enforced and divi sion taken. On June 17, 1887, after prolonged debates on the Crimes Bill in committee, clause 6 only having been reached, the remaining 14 clauses were put without discussion, and the bill was reported in accordance with previous notice. This was the first use of the "guillotine," but the precedent was followed by Gladstone in 1893, when many of the clauses of the Home Rule Bill were carried through committee and on report by the same machinery. To the Conservatives must be imputed the inven tion of this method of legislation, to their opponents the use of it for attempting to carry a great constitutional innovation to which the majority of English and Scottish representatives were opposed, and subsequently its extension and development (1906—o9) as a regular part of the legislative machinery.
Supply Rule.—The principle of closure has been extended even to the debates on supply. The old rule, that the redress of grievances should precede the granting of money, dating from a time when the minister of the Crown was so far from command ing the confidence of the majority in the House of Commons that he was the chief object of their attacks, nevertheless continued to govern the proceedings of the house in relation to supply with out much resultant inconvenience, until the period when the new methods adopted by the Irish Nationalist party created a new situation. Until 1872 it continued to be possible to discuss any subject by an amendment to the motion for going into supply. In that year a resolution was passed limiting the amendments to matters relevant to the class of estimates about to be considered, and these relevant amendments were further restricted to the first day on which it was proposed to go into committee. This reso lution was continued in 1873, but was allowed to drop in 1874. It was revived in a modified form in 1876, but was again allowed to drop in 1877. In 1879, on the recommendation of the North cote committee, it was provided in a sessional order that whenever the committees of supply or of ways and means stood as the first order on a Monday, the Speaker should leave the chair without question put, except on first going into committee on the army, navy and civil service estimates respectively. In 1882 Thursday was added to Monday for the purposes of the order, and, some further exceptions having been made to the opera ion of the rule, it became a standing order. The conditions, however, under which the estimates were voted remained unsatisfactory. The most useful function of the opposition is the exposure of abuses in the various departments of administration, and this can best be performed upon the estimates. But ministers, occupied with their legislative proposals, were irresistibly tempted to postpone the consideration of the estimates until the last weeks of the session, when they were hurried through thin houses, the members of which were impatient to be gone. To meet this abuse, and to distribute the time with some regard to the comparative im portance of the subjects discussed, Balfour in 1896 proposed and carried a sessional order for the closure of supply, a maximum of 23 days being given to its consideration, of which the last three alone might be taken after Aug. 5. On the last but one of the allotted days at io o'clock the chairman was to put the outstand ing votes, and on the last day the Speaker was to put the remain ing questions necessary to complete the reports of supply. In 1901 Balfour so altered the resolution that the question was put, not with respect to each vote, but to each class of votes in the Civil Service estimates, and to the total amounts of the out standing votes in the army, navy and revenue estimates.