Results 81–100 of 436 for speaker:Mr John Rawlinson

Orders of the Day — Legitimacy Bill.: New Clause. — (Married parents.) (27 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Orders of the Day — Legitimacy Bill.: New Clause. — (Married parents.) (27 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: This is a Bill which gives legitimation to illegitimate children by the subsequent marriage of the parents, and the new Clause I am proposing would restrict that as regard certain cases. The history of this legitimation by subsequent marriage is well known to the House. By Roman and Scottish laws, and various other laws, it has always been possible for single people who have had illegitimate...

Orders of the Day — Legitimacy Bill.: New Clause. — (Married parents.) (27 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: I am always glad when some part of my speech is appreciated. I am not in favour of the Bill in its present form, and, if the hon. Member will look at the Order Paper, he will see my new Clause.

Orders of the Day — Legitimacy Bill.: New Clause. — (Married parents.) (27 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: The new Clause which I am moving is: Nothing in this Act shall operate to legitimate a person whose father or mother was married to a third person when the illegitimate person was born. It is certainly a restriction of the Bill, and my argument has been that the Bill in its present form is objectionable, because it goes too far. I am seeking to restrict it to this extent to exclude any child...

Orders of the Day — Legitimacy Bill.: New Clause. — (Married parents.) (27 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: And to society generally.

Orders of the Day — Legitimacy Bill.: New Clause. — (Married parents.) (27 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: Does the hon. and learned Member really suggest from his legal knowledge that there is no distinction between adultery in the case of a married woman and fornication in the case of an unmarried woman?

Orders of the Day — Legitimacy Bill.: New Clause. — (Married parents.) (27 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: The reason I am putting it as the birth of the child is that it is very easy to prove. The other is almost impossible. That is the reason I put it in the less extended form, which many people say is the law of Scotland, though there is some doubt on the point.

Orders of the Day — Legitimacy Bill.: New Clause. — (Married parents.) (27 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: I am afraid it does not in the least.

Orders of the Day — Legitimacy Bill.: New Clause. — (Married parents.) (27 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: I am not responsible in any way for that document.

Orders of the Day — Legitimacy Bill.: New Clause. — (Married parents.) (27 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: I am in no way responsible for that document. Its meaning is perfectly simple. The Clause was in the Bill last year, and I have no doubt that the person who drew up that petition was trying to put the Bill back into the position in which it was last year.

Orders of the Day — Legitimacy Bill.: New Clause. — (Married parents.) (27 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: Last year the House of Commons passed it with that in.

Orders of the Day — Legitimacy Bill.: New Clause. — (Married parents.) (27 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: Not so long as I.

Orders of the Day — Legitimacy Bill.: Clause 10. — (Short title and commencement.) (27 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) has simply suggested opposing the Third Reading of the Bill rather than moving its rejection. I did not have an opportunity of replying to the discussion in regard to the Amendment that I moved, out I venture to say that the Bill, without that new Clause in, is a far more dangerous Bill than it would be if that...

Orders of the Day — Legitimacy Bill.: Clause 10. — (Short title and commencement.) (27 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: Very likely; I am not in the least denying that.

Orders of the Day — Legitimacy Bill.: Clause 10. — (Short title and commencement.) (27 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: There is a large number of illegitimate children, many of whom are every bit as good as the legitimate. By this Bill you are legitimatising a certain number of them, but the number that would have been legitimatised by this Bill in its most extended form would be infinitesimal compared with the illegitimate children who remain. The number of people marrying subsequently to the birth of the...

Orders of the Day — London Traffic Bill.: Clause 10. — (Power to make Regulations.) (24 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: I hope that the Government will reconsider their position. I put my name down to this Amendment, although I am not particularly interested in this Bill, because I think that the Amendment affects the House of Commons very deeply. It is a perfectly simple Amendment. If a Regulation is highly objectionable, the only power which the House has over it is the power of a private Member, who gets up...

Orders of the Day — London Traffic Bill.: Clause 14. — (Expenses.) (24 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: May I suggest that, as the Bill will have to be recommitted in regard to one Clause, it would be better if it were recommitted in regard to this Clause also. That would allow an opportunity for the draftsman to consider a very difficult situation.

Great Britain and Mexican Government.: Prime Minister's Statement. (19 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: What has happened to Mrs. Evans?

Orders of the Day — London Traffic Bill.: New Clause. — (Particulars to be supplied by licence-holders.) (16 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: I am not in the least interested in the game which is being played, and I did not vote in the last division. I am interested in seeing that Clauses of this kind are thoroughly understood and discussed by the House. I did not vote against the Government last time, though I thought this Clause was exceedingly faulty. The matter should be carefully considered by the Law Officers, and a Clause...

Orders of the Day — London Traffic Bill.: New Clause. — (Particulars to be supplied by licence-holders.) (16 Jun 1924)

Mr John Rawlinson: I did not base what I said on the remarks of the Minister of Transport. Will an opportunity be given to any private Member to put down proper Amendments to this Clause when it is recommitted, quite apart from the views of the Minister of Transport?


<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>

Create an alert

Advanced search

Find this exact word or phrase

You can also do this from the main search box by putting exact words in quotes: like "cycling" or "hutton report"

By default, we show words related to your search term, like “cycle” and “cycles” in a search for cycling. Putting the word in quotes, like "cycling", will stop this.

Excluding these words

You can also do this from the main search box by putting a minus sign before words you don’t want: like hunting -fox

We also support a bunch of boolean search modifiers, like AND and NEAR, for precise searching.

Date range

to

You can give a start date, an end date, or both to restrict results to a particular date range. A missing end date implies the current date, and a missing start date implies the oldest date we have in the system. Dates can be entered in any format you wish, e.g. 3rd March 2007 or 17/10/1989

Person

Enter a name here to restrict results to contributions only by that person.

Section

Restrict results to a particular parliament or assembly that we cover (e.g. the Scottish Parliament), or a particular type of data within an institution, such as Commons Written Answers.

Column

If you know the actual Hansard column number of the information you are interested in (perhaps you’re looking up a paper reference), you can restrict results to that; you can also use column:123 in the main search box.