페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

during the session, regarding traffic in intoxicating liquor, Chapter
until provisions dealing with that subject had been placed
before the house by the government, was modified by a
subsequent resolution, which declared that, as the house
was made aware that the government did not intend to
undertake legislation regarding the liquor traffic, the house

was free to deal therewith.
Evasions of A mere alteration of the words of a question without any
the rule.

substantial change in its object, will not be sufficient to
evade this rule. On the 7th July, 1840, Mr. Speaker
called attention to a motion for a bill to relieve dissenters
from the payment of church rates, before he proposed the
question from the chair. Its form and words were differ-
ent from those of a previous motion, but the object was
substantially the same; and the house agreed that it was
irregular, and ought not to be proposed from the chair.
Again, on the 15th May, 1860, the order for the second
reading of the Charity Trustees Bill was withdrawn, as it
was discovered to be substantially the same as the Endowed
Schools Bill, which the house had already put off for six
months. So, also, on the 17th May, 1870, a motion for
an address in favour of emigration was not allowed to be
made, being substantially the same as a resolution which
had been negatived in the same session. On the 9th May,
1882, it was ruled by Mr. Speaker that a motion affirming
the necessity of legislation to enable members duly elected
to take their seats, was inadmissible, as an amendment to
the same effect, but in different words, had been negatived
on the 7th March.5

It is also possible, in other ways, so far to vary the
character of a motion, as to withdraw it from the operation
of the rule. Thus, in the session of 1845, no less than five

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
of state. They all varied in form and matter, so far as to
place them beyond the restriction : but in purpose they were
the same, and the debates raised upon them embraced the
same matters. But the rule cannot be evaded by renewing,
in the form of an amendment, a motion which has been
already disposed of. On the 18th July, 1844, an amendment
was proposed to a question, by leaving out all the words after
“that,” in order to add, “ Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, esq.,
be added to the committee of secrecy on the post-office :”
but Mr. Speaker stated that, on the 2nd July, a motion had
been made, “that Mr. Duncombe be one other member of
the said committee;" that the question had been negatived;
"and that he considered it was contrary to the usage and
practice of the house that a question which had passed in the
negative should be again proposed in the same session."
The amendment was consequently withdrawn.2

Nor can a proposal contained in an amendment, which
has been practically negatived by a decision of the house,
whereby it was determined that the words of the original
motion, on which that amendment was moved, shall
“stand part of the question," be again submitted to the

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.

ied to

Chapter could not be considered, the Speaker overruled the objec

tion. As he pointed out, the bill had been introduced
before the house had arrived at that decision, and the
provision for the repeal of the Act might be struck out of

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.
opportunity of reconsideration; and an entire bill may be
regarded as one question, which is not decided until it has
passed. Upon this principle, it is laid down by Hatsell,
and is constantly exemplified, “ that in every stage of a
bill, every part of the bill is open to amendment, either for

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,
is.com and, formerly, might have been dealt with again on
mittee, see
R 485. the third reading; and yet the inconsistency of the

several decisions will not be manifest when the bill has
passed.

On the 8th August, 1836, a clause, which was added on
the report of the Pensions Duties Bill, to exempt the pen-
sion of the Duke of Marlborough from the provisions
of that bill, was struck out by amendment on the third
reading of the bill.3 In 1864, in committee on the Poisoned
Flesh Prohibition Bill, a clause was added, providing that
the bill should not extend to Ireland. This cause was left
out on the consideration of the bill, as amended, and lastly,
on the third reading, the bill was recommitted, when a
proviso was introduced imposing restrictions upon the
operation of the bill in Ireland.4

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.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Bills once passed or rejected.

XI.

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.
: 15 ib. 90.
3 1 C. J. 434; see also 158 H. D.

3 s. 1348; 62 C. J. 61.

* Drainage (Ireland) Bill, 1863, 118 C. J. 24. 203.

« 이전계속 »