[BILL 70.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 23 July 1879)

§ MR. RYLANDS
I rise to a point of Order. My objection to the second reading of this Bill is, that the Bill now in the hands of the House is different from the Bill originally introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that upon the main point there can be no difference of opinion—namely, that when a Bill is introduced into this House it becomes the possession of the House; and it is clearly not in the right of any private Member to make any alteration in it, without the direct instruction of the House so to do. I wish, Sir, to refer to one or two precedents which appear to bear out the proposition which I now venture to submit to the House—that is, that the Bill now before the House cannot be read a second time. I find that in 1850, Mr. Stuart Wortley brought in a Bill to legalize the marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Mr. Stuart Wortley had obtained leave to introduce the Bill; but in the course of a few days, and before he was to move the second reading of the Bill, it was discovered that the Bill, as introduced, had not been fully matured, and Mr. Stuart Wortley told the House that he had introduced a clause in the Bill which he contended might not materially affect the principle of the Bill. On being appealed to, on the 18th February, 1850, the then Speaker, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, ruled that it was not competent for any Member to make any other than a clerical alteration in a Bill which had once been introduced and read a first time. On the occasion of the second reading of the University Tests Bill, on the 28th March, 1115 1873, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney, then the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), the hon. Member in charge of the Bill admitted that in the course of the previous few days he had made an arrangement to modify the wording and provisions of the Bill; upon which, Sir, you were appealed to, and you gave decided answer in these words— There is no principle more clearly laid down in this House than this—when a Member has introduced a Bill to the House it ceases to be in that Member's hands, and passes into the possession of the House. No essential alteration of that Bill, at any stage, may then be made without the distinct Order of the House."—[3 Hansard, ccxv. 303.] The only other precedent to which I wish to refer is one which occurred on the 23rd of January, 1878, when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) brought in his Hypothec Bill. He made alterations in that Bill before the second reading, and when the second reading was called, objection being taken to the Bill being dissimilar with the one originally introduced, you, Sir, ruled that— Hon. Members might make clerical or verbal alterations in Bills; but it would not be in Order for any hon. Member to move the second reading of a Bill which, although bearing the same title, differed materially and substantially from the measure which he had obtained leave to introduce."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxvii. 362.] I am quite aware that in the last ruling of the Chair there were words introduced which were not in the ruling of the previous Speaker on a similar question, or in the ruling of you, Sir, on the University Tests Bill. For instance, in 1850, Mr. Shaw Lefevre ruled that it was not competent for any hon. Member to make other than clerical alterations in a Bill; and in 1873, you, Sir, ruled that no essential alterations could be made in a Bill without the direct Order of the House. But, in 1878, I observe that other words are introduced in the ruling of the Chair; for you, Sir, ruled that it was necessary that there should be some material and substantial difference in the measure in order to prevent its being read a second time. I will proceed to show that the Bill which is now on the Table of the House is not the same Bill which was introduced by the Government. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the 1116 Exchequer will refer to the 2nd clause. In line 18 of the 2nd clause of the original Bill there was a blank in reference to the amount to be repayable upon public loans. That blank has been filled up in the substituted Bill by the addition of the words "four and a quarter per cent." I shall not, however, rest upon that as a very material alteration; but I will come to what I consider a very material alteration. In Clause 4 of the first Bill there occur the following words:— So much of section eleven of the Public Works Loans Act, 1875, and so much of any Act relating to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland as authorises the repayment of a loan by means of an annuity is hereby repealed so far as relates to any loan granted after the first day of April, 1879. But, in the new Bill, the words "and so much of any Act relating to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland" are omitted. I contend that that is a very material alteration. The effect of that alteration is, that the Bill which authorized the Public Works Loan Commissioners to grant Public Works Loans on annuity, and which originally applied to England and Ireland, is now left to apply to Ireland alone. In the 5th clause of the Bill there is also an important alteration. In the original Bill the clause ran as follows:— Nothing in this Act shall apply to any loan granted before the 1st of April, 1879, nor to any instalments subsequently advanced in respect of such loan. Of course, this was a general saving clause to all loans prior to 1879; but there is a further provision in the new Bill to this effect— Nor to any advance which the Public Works Loans Commissioners are authorised to make by sections four and five of the Public Works Loans Money Act, 1876, and the Acts in those sections mentioned, to the Port Patrick and Belfast and County Down Railway Companies, and for improving the harbour of Colombo. Now, this constitutes an entire difference in the Bill, for new matter is included in the clause. Well, Sir, I will only allude briefly to the last alteration which occurs in Clause 6, line 25. The old clause had reference to the repayment of the advances to the Public Works Loan, Commissioners; but the clause in the substituted Bill also provides that— Every sum so advanced shall be repaid, and the interest from time to time accruing thereon 1117 shall be paid, out of the sums paid or applicable in or towards the discharge of the principal or interest of any loan granted by the Public Works Loans Commissioners either before or after the passing of this Act, or the advance of such sum, and, if such sums are insufficient, shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. Now, I submit that these alterations are not in the nature of clerical or verbal alterations, but in the nature of alterations that affect the scope of the Bill. They clearly affect the material points of the Bill; and, therefore, I must contend that we ought not to be called upon to read the Bill a second time. I venture to submit, Sir, the 4th clause, by the omission of the words "and so much of any Act relating to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland," has an application very different and more restricted than that which was intended in the Bill originally placed on the Table of the House. I think that is a sufficient justification why the Bill, having been altered while in the possession of the House, should not be read a second time, and why the Order should be discharged.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, that, before Mr. Speaker gave the House the benefit of his opinion, he should like to make one or two observations in support of the course taken by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), and especially in reference to the material character of the alterations which had been made in the Bill. The Bill was one of only seven clauses, and no less than four of them had been altered by five distinct and separate alterations. One of the alterations was the omission of words which were in the original Bill, and the others were the addition of words which appeared for the first time in the substituted measure. As regarded those additions, there was one which his hon. Friend had not referred to, but which, however, was of very great importance. The concluding words of Clause 4 of the new Bill did not appear in the Bill as originally presented. These were "which is not to be repaid within twenty years." By that additional paragraph a whole class of loans was excluded altogether from the action of the clause; and if it were within the province of any Member of the Government to make a change of that kind, it appeared to him that an absolutely new Bill might be brought in, under the cover of the first reading 1118 of a totally different Bill. The same remark applied to the alteration of Clause 5, by which a very important Consolidation Act, including many other Acts, and especially referring to two classes of loans, was for the first time excluded from the operation of the Bill. He could not see how, under such circumstances and alterations so considerable in their character, the House could be called upon to consider the second reading of the Bill which was certainly not read a first time some time ago.

§ MR. CALLAN
supported the objections taken to the Bill. He thought that the Bill ought to be withdrawn, and a new measure introduced.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he desired to explain the facts of the case before Mr. Speaker pronounced upon the question of Order. Such a course would have the effect of shortening discussion, for, as they stood, they were very simple. The Bill had been introduced by him at a rather late hour, and no discussion occurred at that time. Unfortunately, however, the copy of the Bill which he had in his hand, and which was presented to the Clerk on that occasion and afterwards printed and distributed among hon. Members, was an imperfect one. It was usual in these cases that a draft should be sent for revision by the office which presented it, before it was circulated. If that had been done in this case, they would have seen that a wrong copy had been given in; but unfortunately that did not take place. When the mistake was discovered it was too late, inasmuch as the imperfect copy had been already circulated and placed in the hands of Members. As soon as the fact came to the knowledge of the Treasury, it was found that there were several provisions in the original Bill which required alteration, especially that which affected the Irish Land Act. On the 22nd February the incomplete Bill was circulated; but on the 26th February, only four days afterwards, the amended Bill was produced and circulated in a complete form. But this was a matter which occurred as far back as five months ago, and no one until now heard a whisper breathed upon the subject. He thought hon. Members might have managed to make known their objections to the measure before that moment. He, however, congratulated them upon their ingenuity 1119 in discovering the objection, and only disclosing it on the 23rd July. Of course, if Mr. Speaker should decide that the Government were out of Order in presenting this measure for a second reading, he had nothing to do but to withdraw it and ask leave to introduce another Bill.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed how the mistake had arisen. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) had not known of the difference between the two copies of the Bill until to-day, and he supposed that was the position of hon. Members generally. But the Government knew of the mistake some time ago, and what could have been easier than to avoid the present difficulty by the introduction of another Bill, and of explaining the mistake? That, however, had not been done. As it was admitted that the alterations in the Bill were not merely verbal alterations, he apprehended Mr. Speaker would rule that only one course could now be taken, and that was, that the Bill must be withdrawn.

§ MR. SPEAKER
It appears that the Public Works Loans Bill was ordered by this House to be printed on the 14th of February last, and that it was delivered on the 22nd of February. Subsequently, it was reprinted, and was delivered as a substituted Bill on the 26th of February. Now, if any material alterations in the Bill as originally printed were made in the substituted Bill, such a proceeding was, no doubt, irregular, and it does appear to me that the alterations in the substituted Bill were of such a material character as to render the proceeding irregular. The proper course to take, under these circumstances, would, therefore, be to ask leave to withdraw this Bill, in order to introduce a new Bill.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
Well, Sir, I have then no option but to take that course, after your ruling. I beg leave, accordingly, to move that the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Bill he discharged, in order that a new Bill should be introduced.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
desired to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Public Works Loans Bill had been upon the Paper upon the average twice a-week since it was read a first time. It had caused a great deal of interest in the House and in the country, and a number of Gentlemen had been brought down again and again in order to oppose the measure. This was especially the case at the earlier part of the Session, when it was possible that the Bill might be taken as the second Order. Lately, the right hon. Gentleman had promised that it should be taken only as a first Order, and that had, to a considerable extent, released hon. Gentlemen. Considering the lateness of the Session, he ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he could not hope to carry a Bill containing so much contentious matter; and it would be a great saving of time, and relieve many of the opponents of the measure, if he would now say that in the new Bill he would drop all contentious matter, at all events, for the present Session, and that he would be satisfied to introduce a Bill giving the Government all they required to meet the local requirements for the next 12 months.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
doubted whether it would be possible to pass the Bill this Session.