페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

tions

Chapter a rival scheme, they found it impossible to arrive at
XXVII.

anything more than a primâ facie opinion on the alterna-
tive sites suggested, or to come to any conclusion
concerning them,” and that “their experience may
justify some hesitation in the adoption of instructions
unaccompanied by adequate means for their perfect
fulfilment.” 1
Decisions of late years tend to establish the principle Instruc-

tions deal. that, having regard to the object and purposes of a private ing with bill, instructions must not deal with questions of publicly

of public policy, which more properly are the subject of a public bill, policy or

outside and that they must be relevant and cognate to the pro-scope

bili.
visions of the bill.
· In 1892 a bill (the Eastbourne Improvement Act, 1885,
Amendment Bill) was introduced to repeal a section, for
the prohibition of processions on Sunday, which had been
secured by the corporation of Eastbourne in their Act of
1885 ; and notice was given of a mandatory instruction
to the committee on the bill to insert further clauses, ex-
empting Eastbourne from the operation of the provision
contained in the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829,2 under
which Roman Catholic ecclesiastics are practically pro-
hibited from participating in processions. But Mr. Speaker
stated that the proposed clauses could not be engrafted on
the private bill before the house; and that it would be out of
order by an instruction on the bill in question to seek the
repeal, in the instance of a particular town, of provisions
contained in the general law and passed in the interests of
public policy.3

On the 8th March, 1892, notice was given of an instruc-
tion to the committee on the South Eastern Railway Bill,
to inquire into and report on the accommodation, &c.,
supplied to third-class passengers on the railway. The
Speaker privately informed the member in whose name it
stood that the instruction was not in order, on the ground
that the remedy (if legislation were needed) should be
1 146 C. J. 154. 388.

: 11th March, 1892, 2 Parl. Deb. ? 10 Geo. IV. c. 7. s. 26.

4 s. 627. P.

Зв

sought in a general statute applicable to all railways alike; Chapter that this would be a matter of general policy to be con

XXVII. sidered at the time, not of private, but of public business; and that it would be contrary to the practice of the house to single out the bill of a particular company and impose on it alone conditions applicable to railways generally." And later in the same month, the Speaker, on the same grounds, privately ruled an instruction to be out of order by which it was proposed to direct the committee on the London and North Western Railway Bill to insert a clause in the bill, limiting the hours of labour to eight per day. On the 15th March, 1901, three mandatory instructions, which it was proposed to move, to the committee on the Great Eastern Railway Bill, to insert certain clausescompelling the company to observe particular conditions in their dealings with their employés and in the terms under which the proposed works were contracted for, and to issue free passes over parts of the line to tenants of the dwellings to be erected under the bill outside London, were all ruled out of order by the Speaker, “because they sought to take the occasion of a private bill and the time

1 In 1894 notice was given of an the bill did not refer specially to instruction to empower a committee these points: that under the general to insert provisions in a railway bill law it was competent for a railway compelling the company to adapt company to make the extra charge and open their line-a mineral rail. in question and also to run express way--for the conveyance of pas trains without third-class carriages; sengers. But Mr. Speaker held and that it would be out of order that the proposal was one of general to require the committee to alter policy, which, if enforced at all, the general law in the case of a ought to be enforced on all suitable particular company (39 Parl. Deb. mineral railways, and that the 4 s. 1707). instruction could not be moved In 1901 it was proposed to move (Barry Railway Bill, 29th June, 1894, a mandatory instruction on the 26 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 561).

Great Southern and Western RailOn the 27th April, 1896, it was way Bill, to secure the insertion of proposed to move instructions die provisions restraining the company recting the committee on the Lon. from allowing preferential rates to don and North Western Railway passengers using the company's Bill to insert provisions com- hotel; but Mr. Speaker ruled that pelling the company to run third. the matter, being a general question class carriages, and to carry first of railway law, could not be raised and second class passengers without upon a particular bill, 97 Parl. Deb. an extra charge, on certain mail 4 s. 1312–1313, trains. Mr. Speaker stated that

Chapter of private business to discuss general questions which XXVII.

apply equally to all railways.”1 And on the 26th March, 1895, Mr. Speaker ruled that a proposed motion for a general instruction to every committee on any railway bill—directing them to inquire and report whether the Board of Trade had any complaint regarding the promoting company in respect of the Railway Regulation (Servants' Hours) Act, 1893, or of the conciliation powers under the Railway Traffic Acts-raised a question of general policy and ought not to be brought on at the time of private business.

On the 2nd March, 1886, a mandatory instruction was moved, on the Belfast Main Drainage Bill, to direct the committee to insert clauses, assimilating the municipal and parliamentary franchise and boundary of Belfast, and making consequential arrangements as to the election and number of aldermen and councillors and as to the division of wards. The chairman of ways and means deprecated the introduction of the question of assimilating the parliamentary and municipal franchises, upon a private bill dealing with the drainage of Belfast. And with regard to the proposal to alter the borough boundary (which involved the question of rating), he pointed out that, under the standing orders, every such alteration should be the subject of notice; and that, in this case, no such notice had been given, but, without any observance of the rules and forms laid down by the house, it was proposed that the committee must extend the boundary of the borough of Belfast. He accordingly moved the previous question, which was carried.3 In the case of another private bill, introduced in 1896, for the reduction of the municipal franchise in Londonderry and for increasing the number of the municipal wards and extending the municipal limits, an instruction was

191 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 55. On the travel over the line free of charge, 7th July, 1898, a motion for a man was similarly ruled out of!order, 61. datory instruction to secure the in- Parl. Deb. 4 s. 136. sertion, in the Fishguard and Ross. : Mr. Speaker's private ruling. lare Railways, &c., Bill, of clauses 3 141 C. J. 73; 302 H. D. 3 s. providing that members attending 1692-1751. their Parliamentary duties might

proposed and passed, directing the committee to inquire Chapter into the extension of the municipal franchise to all parlia

wie XXVII. mentary voters (excepting lodgers but including women)

and

“ to provide that the burgess lists shall be revised and made up by the same persons and at the same time as the parliamentary register, and, if they think fit, to make provision in the bill for the same.” 1

An almost identical instruction, however, which was also given in 1896, to the committee on the Dublin Corporation Bill, affords an illustration of the inconvenience that may arise from instructing a committee to deal with matters outside the scope of the bill. In the latter case the main purpose of the bill (which had passed through the Lords without opposition and was brought from that house late in the session) was to obtain legislative sauction to an agreement between the corporation of Dublin and several adjoining townships regarding the price to be paid for a supply of water; and on the 13th July, when the instruction was proposed—directing the Commons' committee upon the bill to inquire into and deal with the

1 Londonderry Improvement Bill, previously in force, the instruction 151 C. J. 89; 38 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 661- was in order, although he considered 672. Both upon this bill, and upon that, to enable the committee to a bill, of the same session, “to deal with the matter, an instruction extend the city of Belfast," &c. was necessary, 152 C. J. 62. 70; 46 (Belfast Corporation Bill, 1896, 151 Parl, Deb. 4 s. 151. 613-623. C. J.86; 38 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 563–591), In 1896 instructions were given an instruction was also moved, but to the committees on the Waterin neither case passed, to direct ford Corporation Bill and on the the committee to inquire into, and Drogheda Corporation Bill—both (if they thought fit) to alter the law being bills for extending the borough as to the mode of election of alder boundaries-to insert clauses promen and councillors.

viding for the reduction of the rated In 1897 the motion for an in occupation franchise for the muni. struction which was given to the cipal elections, 151 C. J. 53. 267. committee on the Dublin Corpora Cf. also the instruction given on the tion Bill of that session, directing Blackrock and Kingstown Drainage them to provide for conferring the and Improvement (recommitted) municipal franchise on women, was Bill, 1893, directing the committee objected to on the ground that the to insert new clauses assimilating bill did not propose any extension the rated occupation franchise for of the franchise; but Mr. Speaker the township elections in Blackrock held that, as persons would be to that in the Kingstown township enabled by the bill to get on the 148 C. J. 377. 486. 497. register on different terms to those

Chapter advisability of assimilating the municipal to the parliaXXVII.

mentary franchise, before the powers sought by the corporation in the bill were granted—Mr. Speaker expressed doubts as to whether this motion would be in order in connection with the terms of the bill; but on his being assured that there was no objection to it, the proposed instruction was moved and agreed to,' an additional instruction, which empowered the committee to deal with the law as to the election of aldermen, &c., and as to the appointment of certain officers elected by the corporation, being passed on the following day. The matter thus referred to the committee, however, assumed a controversial character; an objection to the effect that, in some of the amendments which they inserted in dealing with it, the committee had exceeded their powers, was raised upon the consideration of the bill as amended, and was sustained by Mr. Speaker; and on the 31st July, the bill was recommitted to another committee, who were subsequently instructed to bring the portion of it in question into harmony with the instructions given by the house. When the bill was finally returned to the Lords, it was referred by that house to the Examiners, who found that the standing orders had not been complied with in respect of the franchise clauses inserted by the Commons; 5 and these standing orders not being dispensed with, the Lords disagreed to the clauses and amendments dealing with the proposed alteration of the municipal franchise, assigning as a reason for doing so that no reference to these proposals had been contained in the notices for the bill, or in the bill as introduced into Parliament and passed by the first house, and that no opportunity had been given for persons, qualified to do

1 13th July, 1896 ; 42 Parl. Deb. bill was reported on 4th August 4 s. 1305; 151 C. J. 355.

from the committee to whom it was 2 14th July, 1896 ; 42 Parl. Deb. recommitted (151 C. J. 413); and 4 s. 1418; 151 C. J. 359.

was considered as amended and 3 151 C. J. 406; 43 Parl. Deb. 4 s. read the third time on 6th August 1234-1244. 1317-1318.

(151 C. J. 419; 43 Parl, Deb, 4 s. 3rd August, 1896 ; 43 Parl. Deb. 1651-1677). 4 s. 1329-1341 ; 151 C. J. 410. The 5 128 L. J. 371,

« 이전계속 »