« 이전계속 »
during the session, regarding traffic in intoxicating liquor, Chapter
was free to deal therewith.
substantial change in its object, will not be sufficient to
It is also possible, in other ways, so far to vary the
1 26th March, 22nd April, 1890, 145 C. J. 214. 257; 343 H. D. 3 s. 1170.
2 95 C. J. 495; 55 H. D. 3 s. 553.
3 115 C. J. 249; Mr. Speaker Denison's Diary, 45.
• 201 H. D. 3 s. 824. See also 176 H. D. 3 s. 497.
s See also Parliamentary Affirmation, 253 ib. 1266 ; Mr. O'Donnell's Suspension, 261 ib. 1985; Railway Servants (Hours of Labour), 349 ib. 1176.
• See, for example, General Conway's motions on the American war, 22nd and 27th Feb. 1782, 38 C. J.
Chapter distinct motions were made upon the subject of opening
letters at the post-office, under warrants from the secretary
Nor can a proposal contained in an amendment, which
house during the same session. Votion
As a motion which has been withdrawn, or has not been Motions tithdraton,
withdrawn see p. 280 seconded, has not been submitted to the judgment of the
u 01 ve may be house, the motion may, therefore, be repeated.
repeated. On the 7th December, 1857, a resolution was proposed for And
motions extending limited liability to joint-stock banks, to which an su
w ica & superseded. amendment was proposed affirming the same principle in a modified form. The house refused to permit either of these propositions to form part of the question, which was, con. sequently, reduced to the single word “that.” On the 11th
814.861; proceedings upon the malt duty in 1833, 88 ib. 195. 317; and upon the sugar duties in 1845, 100 ib. 59. 69. 81.
1 100 C. J. 42. 54. 185. 199. 214. : 76 H. D. 3 s. 1021.
3 10th Feb. 1873; Business of the house, 214 ib. 287; 303 ib. 1708.
See motion on Railway Bills withdrawn 16th, and renewed 23rd May, 1845, 80 ib. 432. 798.
February following, a bill to the same effect was brought in Chapter without objection, the house having pronounced its judgment upon a question not substantially the same. So, again, on the 31st March, 1859, an amendment was proposed, but not made, to a proposed amendment on the second reading of the Representation of the People Bill, expressing an opinion in favour of the ballot : but this was held not to preclude a motion, on a later day, for bringing in a bill for the taking of votes by way of ballot.2
On the 5th March, 1872, a resolution was moved impugning thegeneral operation of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and enumerating several points in which it failed, including the payment of school fees to denominational schools. In opposition to it, an amendment was carried, affirming that it was too soon to review the provisions of the Act. On the 23rd April, Mr. Candlish brought forward a motion for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the 25th clause of the Education Act, which authorized the payment of school fees to denominational schools. Exception was taken to this motion, on the ground that substantially it had been embraced in the resolution of the 5th March, and was excluded from consideration by the amendment. But it was held that a resolution in terms so general could not prevent a member from moving for leave to bring in a bill to repeal a single clause of the Act. Moreover, a motion for leave to bring in this bill differed essentially from a resolution condemning, in general terms, the operation of the Act. Nor does the rejection of an instruction to a committee on a bill prevent the house from entertaining a separate bill during the same session, which deals with the object of such instruction.
So also, when an objection was taken, 20th July, 1870, that one of the objects of the bill then under discussion was to effect the repeal of an Act, a proposal which the house had negatived during that session, and that the bill, therefore,
i See also proceedings on Negro Apprenticeship, 1838, 93 C. J. 418. 541.
? 114 ib. 145. 170. 3 127 ib. 78. 156.
- Medical Relief Disqualification Parliamentary Elections Bill, 1885, 294 H. D. 3 s. 1938; 140 C. J. 78. 317; see also p. 306.
Chapter could not be considered, the Speaker overruled the objec
tion. As he pointed out, the bill had been introduced
the schedule by the committee on the bill. Procedure In passing bills, a greater freedom is admitted in proposing Rule as o bills, ses p. 475.
questions, as the object of different stages is to afford the bills.
insertion or omission, whether the same amendment has Contra been, in a former stage, accepted or rejected.” 2 The same dictory
clauses or amendments may be decided in one manner by ments not the permitted
the committee, in a second by the house on the report,
several decisions will not be manifest when the bill has
On the 8th August, 1836, a clause, which was added on
1 203 H. D. 3 s. 563. ? 2 Hatsell, 135.
* 91 C. J. 762. 817. In 1844, an amendment of Lord Ashley's (for ten hours' labour) having been carried against the government in the Factories Bill (which limited the hours of labour to twelve), the government withdrew the bill, and
brought in another to the same effect, which was ultimately carried; and thus the decision of the house, upon Lord Ashley's amendment, was virtually reversed, 3 Lord Dalling, Life of Lord Palmerston, 136, n.
• 119 C. J. 425. 436, &c.; 176 H. D. 3 s. 1611.
Bills once passed or rejected.
When bills have ultimately passed, or have been rejected, Chapter the rules of both houses are positive, that they shall not be introduced again : but the practice is not strictly in accordance with them. The principle is thus stated by the Lords, 17th May, 1606 1
“That when a bill hath been brought into the house, and rejected, another bill of the same argument and matter may not be renewed and begun again in the same house in the same session where the former bill was begun: but if a bill begun in one of the houses, and there allowed and passed, be disliked and refused in the other, a new bill of the same matter may be drawn and begun again in that house whereunto it was sent; and if, a bill being begun in either of the houses, and committed, it be thought by the committees that the matter may better proceed by a new bill, it is likewise holden agreeable to order in such case, to draw a new bill, and to bring it into the house."
It was also declared, in a protest, signed by seven lords, 23rd February, 1691, in reference to the Poll Bill, in which a proviso contained the substance of a bill which had dropped in the same session, “ that a bill having been dropped, from a disagreement between the two houses, ought not, by the known and constant methods of proceedings, to be brought in again in the same session.” The Lords, nevertheless, agreed to that bill, but with a special entry, declaring that they would not hereafter admit, upon any occasion whatsoever, of a proceeding so contrary to the rules and methods of Parliament.2
In the Commons, it was agreed for a rule, 1st June, 1610, that “no bill of the same substance be brought in the same session.” But a second bill has been ordered, with a special entry of the reasons which induced the house to depart from the usage of Parliament. And when part of a bill has been omitted by the Lords, and the Commons have agreed to such amendment, the part so omitted has been renewed, in the same session, in the form of a separate bill. Thus when the Lords struck out a provision in the
12 L. J. 435.
3 s. 1348; 62 C. J. 61.
* Drainage (Ireland) Bill, 1863, 118 C. J. 24. 203.