The Government of England (Vol. I)Lowell, A. Lawrence (Abbott Lawrence)
History
The Government of England (Vol. I)
Lowell, A. Lawrence (Abbott Lawrence)
Great Britain -- Politics and government
A bill may be introduced in one of three ways. A motion may be made for
an order for leave to bring it in, accompanied by a speech explaining
its objects, and followed by a debate and vote. This was formerly the
only method, and debates lasting over several days have occurred at this
stage.[274:1] Amendments might be moved hostile to the provisions of the
bill. In fact the adoption of such an amendment to a militia bill caused
the fall of Lord John Russell's ministry in 1852. Now only important
government bills are introduced in that way; for by a standing order
adopted in 1888 a motion to bring in a bill may be made at the
commencement of public business, and after brief explanatory statements
by the mover and one opponent the Speaker may put the question.[274:2]
From the length of time taken by the speeches this is known as the
ten-minute rule. After an order to bring in a bill has been obtained in
either of these ways, the question that the bill be read a first time is
voted upon without amendment or debate.[274:3] Finally, in 1902, a still
more expeditious process was established. It permits a member to present
his bill, which is read a first time without any order or vote of the
House whatever.[274:4]
[Sidenote: Second Reading.]
The next step, and, except on great party measures, the first occasion
for a debate, is the second reading. This is the proper stage for a
discussion of the general principles of the bill, not of its details,
and amendments to the several clauses are not in order. The methods of
opposing the second reading are somewhat technical. The form of the
question is "that this bill be _now_ read a second time"; and a negative
vote does not kill the bill, because it does not prevent a motion to
read it being made on a subsequent day.[274:5]
In order to shelve the bill without forcing a direct vote upon it, the
habit formerly prevailed of moving the previous question;[275:1] but
this was open to the same objection, and had, in fact, the effect of the
American practice of moving to lay the bill upon the table. A similar
difficulty arises when an amendment is moved stating some special reason
for not reading the bill. It may express the sense of the House, but it
does not necessarily dispose of the measure. Of late years, therefore,
it has been customary to move that the bill be read this day six months,
or three months, the date being such as to fall beyond the end of the
session. On the general principle that a question which the House has
decided cannot be raised again, such a vote kills the bill. Nor does it
make any difference that the House happens to be sitting at the end of
six months, for that date is treated as a sort of Greek calends that
never comes.[275:2]
[Sidenote: Committee of the Whole.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account