페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

supplied by the corporation to the townships mentioned in Chapter

XXVII. the bill; but Mr. Speaker stated that, although the proposed instruction was in order, it was contrary to all sound practice of the house in regard to private bills, and the motion was not made.

In 1896 an instruction was given, to the committee on the London County Council (Vauxhall Bridge Tramways) Bill, to take the evidence of the police upon the question of traffic. In 1902, the committee by whom the London United Electric Railways Bill and the Piccadilly, City and North-East London Railway Bill were considered, were instructed to take security, in each case, from the undertakers for the completion of the whole scheme of railways comprised in each bill; 8 but in the former case the parties did not proceed with their bill; 4 and, in the case of the latter bill, the committee made a special report stating that the conditions imposed by the instruction of the house could consequently not be complied with, and that the preamble could not therefore be proved. In 1893, the committee on the Weaver Navigation Bill were instructed to insert a clause requiring the trustees to come to Parliament within two years with such a bill as would enable Parliament to deal with the whole question of the trust. And in various other cases instructions have been given to committees on private bills directing them to insert certain clauses or words or to provide for certain specified objects. In 1888 an instruction was given to the committee on the Brixton Park Bill, that they do provide that the purchase of the park be not made till the

1 46 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 613. 623-5.

2 151 C. J. 68. And cf. in the same session, the instruction regard. ing the taking of certain evidence on the London and North Western Railway Bill, 151 ib. 184.

3 157 C. J. 361. 4 157 C. J. 443.

5 157 C. J. 447; 113 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1142, et seq.

o 148 C. J. 339.
· 155 C. J. 284; 156 ib. 76. 90.

257. 278; 157 ib. 82; and 159 jb.
250, (Friendly Societies). 157 C. J.
324. 360, (Workmen's Trains and
Fares). 152 C. J. 84; and 154 ib.
102, (acquisition of Open Space). 159
C. J. 257, and 136 Parl. Deb. 4 s.
92. 1060 (Committee on Maidenhead
Bridge Bill, 1904: to insert clause
providing for the payment by pro-
moters to Joseph Taylor of certain
costs). 157 C. J. 111; 160 ib. 63.
68-9. 98; &c.

Chapter opinion of the ratepayers of Lambeth had been taken on XXVII. 1. the desirability of the purchase;in 1890, to the com

mittee on the Warrington Extension Bill, that no provisions be assented to which would result in the borough being situated in more than one administrative county ;? and in 1894, to the committee on the Thames Conservancy Bill, that no further powers, than those already legally exercised, be given to the water companies to take water from the Thames. In 1902 the committee on the Leamington Corporation Bill were instructed that, if they allowed certain clauses, they were to report to the house their reasons for doing so;4 and instructions have frequently been given to committees directing them to omit certain clauses 5 or other specified portions 6 of a bill.

Occasionally the committee on a private bill are directed, by a mandatory instruction, to consider or inquire whether it is desirable to insert provisions, or to alter existing provisions, upon particular points ;? and other instructions, also mandatory, direct committees to inquire into and report upon matters which, in the opinion of the house, are relevant to the bill. For instance, instructions were given, in 1866, to the committee on the London (City) Corporation Gas Bill, to inquire into the Metropolis Gas Act, 1860,8 and, in the same year, to the committee on the London (City) Traffic Regulation Bill, to inquire into the best means of regulating the traffic of the metropolis ;' and in 1867 the committee on the East London Ivay wouisitors to and simione Ambies the

1 143 C. J. 105. A motion for a Tramways Bills); 153 ib. 136; 155 similar instruction on the Vauxhall ib. 80. 87; and 155 ib. 178 (HudPark Bill, 1888, was negatived, ib. dersfield Corporation Tramways (re166.

committed) Bill, 1900). : 145 C. J. 76.

In 1896 the committee on the 3 149 C. J. 56.

City and South London Railway + 157 C. J. 69. 222.

Bill were instructed to consider 5 145 C. J. 194; 146 ib. 94; 160 ib. whether, and what, provisions could 54. 60. 68-69.

reasonably be made for the preser0157 C. J. 86. 112; 158 ib. 62. vation of the church of St. Mary 81. 99; 159 ib. 107; 160 ib. 148; Woolnoth without preventing the and 152 ib. 324 (to strike out certain construction of the railway, &c., powers: Mersey Docks and Harbour 151 C. J. 169. Board (recommitted) Bill, 1897). 8 121 C. J. 136.

7 155 C. J. 73. 80. 91. 106, 119; 9 121 C. J. 106. &c. (as to provisions for cheap fares,

Water (Thames Supply) Bill were instructed to inquire Chapter into the Metropolis Water Act, 1852.

XXVII. In 1898 and in 1899 instructions were given to the committees on certain Irish Railway Bills a directing them to inquire and report whether the proposals of the bills would prevent or prejudice adequate competition.

In 1884 an instruction was moved to direct the committee on the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill to inquire and report whether the proposed railway would injuriously affect an open space in Dublin, and on its being objected that the committee already possessed the power to be conferred by the instruction, the Speaker said that the instruction, being mandatory, was perfectly in order. In other cases, the committee on a private bill have been instructed to take into their consideration the desirability of making provision for preserving or securing an open space."

In 1884 an instruction was given to the committee on the Ennerdale Railway Bill, to inquire and report whether the proposed railway would interfere with the enjoyment of the public, and of visitors to the lake district, by injuriously affecting the scenery ; 5 and similar instructions were given, in 1887, to the committee on the Ambleside Railway Bill, and in 1897, to the committee on the Lochearnhead, Saint Fillans, and Comrie Railway (recommitted) Bill.? 1 122 C. J. 65.

instructed to inquire and report 2 Fishguard and Rosslare Rail. whether the railway would not ways and Harbours Bill, 1898 (for seriously injure Hampstead Heath, the acquisition of the undertakings 157 C. J. 366. of other railway companies, &c.), 153 - Corporation of London (Metro. C. J. 173. Great Southern and Wes- politan Market) Bill, and New River tern and Western and Waterford, Company Bill, 1896, 151 C. J. 55. &c., Railway Companies Amalga- 175. Bradford Tramways, &c., mation Bill, 1899, and Great Bill, 1899 (as to inclosure of Bail. Southern and Western Railway don Moor), 154 C. J. 185. Bill, 1899 (also for amalgamation), 5 139 C. J. 70. 154 C. J. 89. These bills were com. 6 142 C. J. 82. mitted to specially constituted ? 152 C. J. 223, 224; 49 Parl. Deb. committees.

4 s. 339-353. This bill (although, 3 139 C. J. 190; 287 H. D. 3. s. 875. in committee, an unopposed bill)

In 1902 the committee on the was recommitted to a specially conCharing Cross, Euston, and Hamp- stituted committee, the instruction stead Railway, &c., Bill, were being given at the same time.

Chapter
XXVII.

Permissive instructions may confer on committees powers Permissive of inquiry or legislation on matters relevant to the subject- tions.

1 Instrucmatter of the bill, which might not otherwise be brought to their attention, or which do not come within the ordinary scope of their inquiry.

In 1879 an instruction was given, on the Liverpool Lighting Bill (promoted by the corporation), empowering the committee to whom the bill was referred to inquire and report as to the conditions under which lighting by electricity should be sanctioned by Parliament in the case of local authorities or public companies."

In 1878 an instruction was given to the committee on the Manchester Corporation Water Bill, empowering them to consider the requirements of the populations between Manchester and the lake district, whence was to come the proposed supply. And in 1892, the committee on the Birmingham Water Bill received an instruction empowering them to inquire and report whether it were necessary to extinguish the rights of commoners and others over the large district proposed to be taken for the collection of the water to be supplied under the bill. Exception was taken to the instruction, as being unnecessary, but was overruled by the Speaker.3

In 1890 there was an instruction to the committee on the Metropolitan Railway Bill, empowering them to provide, if they thought fit, notwithstanding the standing order (No. 163) relating to the powers of purchase or

1 134 C. J. 87; but cf. ib. 112. 124. 314 for later proceedings in this case.

2 133 C. J. 68.

8 147 C. J. 97; 2 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 626. In 1894 there was a permissive in struction to the committee on the Furness Railway Bill, empowering them to inquire whether it was expedient to abolish certain dues (149 C. J. 74); and in 1902, the

committee on the North Metropolitan Tramways Bill were empowered to inquire, if they saw fit, as to the company's existing night service of cars (157 C. J. 131). In the latter case an amendment, proposed with the object of making this instruction mandatory instead of permissive, was negatived, 105 Parl, Deb, 4 s, 972-4,

amalgamation of companies, for the vesting in the company Chapter

XXVII. of another company's undertaking.1

In 1883 there was an instruction to the committee on the Metropolitan District Railway Bill, that they have power to insert a clause making it compulsory on the railway company to pull down certain ventilators sanctioned by an Act of a previous session. And on several subsequent occasions, the committee on a private bill have been similarly empowered, by a permissive instruction, to insert clauses or provisions for particular objects. In some cases, motions for permissive instructions have been with. drawn, or ruled out of order, as unnecessary, where the powers proposed to be conferred were such as the committee were already able to exercise. 4

The difficulty which may arise by the imposition on a committee of too wide a range of inquiry received an illustration in the case of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Bill, 1891. The committee were empowered to take evidence, and report whether the site of the terminus proposed by the bill was the best which could be devised in the interests of the people of London. The committee, by their special report, stated that “ in the absence of the definite plans which would be furnished by

1 145 C. J. 282. Similar instruc. tions were given in 1894 to the committee on the Fishguard Bay Railway, &c. (Purchases) Bill (149 ib. 92); and in 1895 to the committees on the Central Ireland Railway Bill (150 ib. 180) and the North British Railway Bill (150 ib. 176. 191 ; 33 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 396). In 1889 an in. struction was given to the committee on the Liverpool Corporation Bill similarly empowering them. notwithstanding the provisions then existing in a standing order (num. bered 171), to provide, if they thought fit, that the corporation might work tramways (144 C. J. 158; and standing orders of 1888).

· 138 C. J. 158; order discharged, ib. 284; Metropolitan Board of

Works (District Railway) Bill,
brought in for the same purpose,
ib. 242.
3 148 C. J. 187 ; 149 ib. 158; 150
ib. 115.

London and North Western Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill, 1898 (proposed instruction, April 29, to empower the committee to insert provisions for the regulation of traffic), 56 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1514. And cf. proceedings on the proposed instructions (withdrawn) on the Londonderry Improvement Bill, 1896 (151 C. J. 89; 38 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 661-672), and on the South Eastern and London, Chatham and Dover Railway Companies Bill, 1899 (154 C. J. 93; 68 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 940, &c.).

« 이전계속 »