Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 662, 31 October 1884, Page 12

The point of order raised by Mr Bryce concerning the admissibility of the Treasurer’s District Railways motion was settled in a manner which is not altogether satisfactory to the judgment of persons outside the Rarliamentary arena. Mr Bryce wished a decision on the point whether or not such a motion could be discussed after the subject - matter of it had already been dealt with by the House in a Bill during the present session. The purport of the Speaker’s ruling was that a subject having been once dealt with by a motion, could not be reopened by another motion during the same session ; or having been dealt with by Bill, could not be dealt with by another Bill ; but that a Bill did not bar a motion, nor a motion a Bill. There are, however, many who hold that the vital question to be decided in any such case submitted is whether the House has already expressed its will (come to a determination) on the same matter during the session, and that the principle underlying the Speaker s ruling should be that the House will not in that session (either by a Bill or resolution) come to a different determination. In the case submitted by Mr Bryce the resolution was not con-trary-to a previous determination, for the House had passed the Bill. The fatal objection to the motion is that it substitutes a resolution of the House for an Act of the three brauches of the Legislature.