* MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said, he wished to put a question to Mr. Speaker on a point of Order with reference to the Period of Qualification and Elections Bill. The question was whether that Bill did not go beyond the Order of Leave, and whether, therefore, under Rule 224, which provided that a Bill not prepared pursuant to the Order of Leave or according to the Rules of the House must be ordered to be withdrawn, it would not be necessary to order the withdrawal of the Bill? The leave given was to introduce a Bill
To reduce the period of qualification for Parliamentary and local government electors, and to provide for the half-yearly registration of such electors and to provide for taking; the polls at a Parliamentary General Election on one day, and to restrict plural voting at Parliamentary elections, and for purposes consequential thereon.Sub-section (f) of Clause 3 proposed to enact that—The time appointed for the meeting of Parliament may be any lime not less than 20 clear days after the Proclamation.He submitted that the interval between the Proclamation and the meeting of Parliament had nothing whatever to do with any of the purposes for which leave was given to bring in the Bill, and that it was not consequential upon any of those purposes. Sir Erskine May, on page 497 of the 1868 edition of his book, thus dealt with the point—In preparing Bills care must be taken that they do not contain provisions not authorised by the Order of Leave, that their titles correspond with the Order of Leave, and that they are prepared in proper form; for if it should appear, during the progress of a Bill, that these Rules have not been observed, the House will order it to be withdrawn. A clause, for instance, relating to the qualification of Members was held to be unauthorised in a Bill for regulating the expenses at elections. Such objections, however, should be taken before the Second Reading; for it has not been the practice to order Bills to be withdrawn after they are committed on account of any irregularity which can be cured while the Bill is in Committee, or on re-commitment. But, in the case of the Income Tax and Inhabited House Duties Bill, 1871, objection having been taken after the Report, and the re-commitment of the Bill, that the Bill comprised provisions relating to the Inhabited House Duty which were beyond the Order of Leave, and that the Second Reading had been agreed to under a misapprehension of its contents, the Government at once consented to withdraw the Bill.245 He submitted that, in the case of the present Bill, the want of agreement with the Order of Leave vitiated the whole of the proceedings. Sir Erskine May also said that, in the case of a Bill which should have originated in Committee of the whole House, inasmuch as it imposed a charge on the taxpayer, all subsequent proceedings were vitiated, and must be commenced again. He would cite three out of the numerous precedents upon the point which were to be found in the Journals of the House. In the case of an Expenses of Elections Bill, 1835, on the Order of the Day being read for its Second Reading, notice having been taken that the Bill contained a clause which did not come within the Order of Leave, it was ordered that the Order for the Second Reading be discharged and the Bill withdrawn. Again, in 1847, on the Order of the Day being read for the Second Reading of the New Zealand Bill, notice was taken that the Bill was not prepared in accordance with the Order of Leave, and the Bill was withdrawn. The third instance was recorded in the Journals of the House of the 11th May, 1871. On the Order for going into Committee on the Income Tax and Inhabited House Duty Bill being read, notice was taken that it purported to be an Income Tax Kill, but that, in fact, it re-imposed the Tea Duty, and it was ordered that the Order for going into Committee be discharged, and the Bill was withdrawn. It was alleged at the time, and be believed it was not disputed, that that particular Bill had been read a second time before being circulated amongst Members, but he submitted that this did not touch the Rule which had been agreed upon by the solemn decision of the House, and which could not be altered, as far as he was aware, by any authority. He submitted that as the provision of the present Bill to which he had referred did not come within the scope of the title; that the clause to which he had referred was no part of the purposes for which leave had been given, and was not consequential—which he submitted meant necessarily consequential—on any one of them, the Order for the Second Reading must be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is quite entitled at any time before the Second Reading of a Bill to call attention 246 to what he may consider imperfections in its title as not concerning the scope and purport of the Bill. I understand that the specific point to which he has referred is this. There is a sub-section of the Bill—Sub-section (f) of Clause 3—which states that—
The time appointed for the meeting of Parliament may be at any time not less than 20 clear days after the Proclamation.The hon. Gentleman says there is no reference to this in the title of the Bill. I may say I have already had considerable difficulty with the title of this Bill, and I will mention one point which has given me particular difficulty. It is with reference to Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, which enacts that—So much of any Act as requires that any person or premises shall be rated, or the name of any person shall be inserted in the rate book, or any assessed taxes on poor or other rate shall be paid for the purpose of entitling a person to be a Parliamentary or local government elector shall be repealed.The question which was put to me privately, and which I decided privately, was whether this was within the title, inasmuch as there was no specific reference in the title to the rating clauses. I would say first that the title of this Bill is so specific that, having entered into detail, it would naturally cause comment as to why any particular detail has been omitted. In fact, the very specific items mentioned in the title of the Bill necessarily call attention to what has been excluded from the title. I decided, however, in reference to the case I have mentioned, that the rating clauses were intimately connected with the period of qualification. If the period of qualification were shortened from 12 months to six months or throe months, that would necessarily affect the question of the rating clauses and the question of the voter being upon the rate book. Now, the hon. Gentleman asks me on another point whether the particular question of the alteration of time between the Proclamation and the meeting of Parliament is included in the title. I am clearly of opinion that it is included in the title, and for this reason. The hon. Gentleman will observe that the words at the end of the title are, "and for purposes consequential thereon." If the words had been "connected therewith" they would have no Parliamentary force or effect whatever; but the words "consequential 247 thereon" make a considerable difference. The hon. Gentleman will ask me why it is consequential, and consequential upon what? The period between the Proclamation of Parliament and the meeting of Parliament has already been the subject of several distinct Statutes. As the hon. Member has stated, the period has been 50 days, 40 days, and 35 days, and it is now proposed to reduce that time to 20 days. The reason for that period between the Proclamation and the meeting of Parliament was this: to give time for the Writs to reach remote constituencies, and to enable Members from all parts of the Kingdom to meet here in sufficient time for the meeting of Parliament, and that they might be able to get here without undue inconvenience; and looking at the state of locomotion in those days, the period was fixed to enable specifically the Member for Orkney and Shetland to get here in time. If it is enacted by a Parliament that there should be a taking of the poll throughout England on one and the same day, and a much earlier day than heretofore, this does away with the necessity for so very long a period elapsing between the Proclamation and the meeting of Parliament. That I take to be the direct and particular reason why the period between the Proclamation and the meeting of Parliament is altered. There would be no force in maintaining the old periods of 40, 50, or even 35 days when all the polls are held on the same day, because with a much shorter period than this it would be possible without inconvenience for all Members of the House to assemble at Westminster. Therefore, I take it that the alteration of the period to 20 days is directly consequential upon the enactment that all the polls shall be taken on the same day. I should like to add that the title of this Bill is unduly specific, and that there is no necessity whatever in the title of a Bill to enter into such particularities. All that is necessary—and it is a much safer process—is that the title of the Bill shall be in general terms and cover the general scope and purport so as to include all the subject-matters comprised in the Bill. In 1854 a Standing Order was passed which enacted that the admissibility of Amendments in Committee should be in future determined, not by the title of the Bill, but by its scope and 248 purport and substance, and that any Amendments relative to the subject-matter of the Bill should be admitted without an Instruction, and if during Committee any alterations are made beyond the title, then the title of the Bill could be amended. I have stated those facts to the House because a too specific and yet imperfect description may create considerable trouble in the event of there being left out all notice of particular clauses of the Bill. But in this case I think the provision for shortening the period of the meeting of the new Parliament is within the terms of the title and directly consequential on the provision for the taking the polls on one day. For these reasons I am clearly of opinion that the Bill need not be withdrawn and that the discussions on the Second Reading may proceed.