XXVII.

arranged otherwise, in order to meet the convenience of Chapter counsel." Committees have also resolved that no counsel should be permitted to cross-examine witnesses, who had not been present during the examination-in-chief, nor to re-examine unless he had been present during the entire cross-examination; 2 but in 1891, when (for the first time since the years 1847 and 1861) it was sought to make the first part of this rule effective, and the chairman of a committee proposed to enforce it, the proposal was not adopted, nor did it meet with the concurrence of the chairmen of other committees; the latter part of the rule, as to reexamination, has been more closely observed.

When the speeches and evidence in support of petitions against the preamble are concluded, the counsel for the bill replies on the whole case. If the petitioners have not called witnesses or put in evidence, the counsel for the bill has no right to a reply: but in some special cases, where new matters have been introduced by the opposing counsel (as, for example, Acts of Parliament, precedents, or documents not previously noticed 5), a reply, strictly confined to such matters, has been permitted. Where there are numerous parties appearing on separate interests, the committee will make such arrangements as they think fit for hearing the different counsel. Any documents, or minutes of evidence on bills of a previous session, that may have been referred to the committee,' may be commented upon by counsel, and considered by the committee.

1 Suppl. to Votes, 1852, p. 287. 2 Suppl. to Votes, 1847, vol. ii. pp. 1457. 1477; Resolutions of general committee of railway and canal bills, 1861.

3 City and South London Railway Bill, 1891, MS. Minutes of Evidence, 13th March, p. 7; Central London Railway Bill, 1891, ib. 4th March, P. 54.

In 1853, on the Edinburgh, Perth, and Dundee Railway Bill, the committee held that the counsel for the bill was not entitled to a general

reply; but that his reply must be
confined to the case of the only peti-
tioner who had adduced evidence,
Suppl. to Votes, 1853, p. 720.

Great Western Railway, &c.,
Bill, Suppl. to Votes, 1854, p. 495,
&c.

Suppl. to Votes, 1852, p. 288. In 1853, the committee on a group of (Severn Valley) railway bills decided to hear two counsel only on the whole case presented by several bills, Suppl. to Votes, 1853, p. 1031. Supra, p. 791.

Chapter When the arguments and evidence upon the preamble Question
XXVII. have been heard, the room is cleared, and a question is amble.

put, "That the preamble has been proved," which is resolved
in the affirmative or negative, as the case may be.1 Or,
where there are competing bills in the same group, the cases
are heard together, according to a long-established course
of procedure, and the decision of the committee is postponed
until after they have heard the evidence in support of all
the bills; and occasionally, where the subject-matter of

2

In the case of an omnibus bill, or bill for the authorization of several separate undertakings, it is usual to prove the preamble in sections, a question that "so much of the preamble as relates thereto " being put and decided by the committee with regard to each section.

2 It may be convenient to state briefly the procedure followed in recent cases by committees who have had to consider two [or more] competing bills.

(1) The counsel for the first bill, -"Bill No. 1"-opens his case and calls his witnesses, who are subject to cross-examination by the counsel for the second [or the second and third] of the competing bills"Bill No. 2" [and "Bill No. 3"]and by the counsel for any other parties who appear as petitioners against Bill No. 1.

(2) These petitioners against Bill No. 1 are then heard, their counsel making his speech, and calling the evidence offered in support of their

case.

(3) Counsel for Bill No. 2 next
opens his case in a statement ex-
planatory of the purposes of his bill,
and calls his witnesses, who can be
cross-examined by the counsel for
Bill No. 1 [and for Bill No. 3], and
by the counsel for other parties
appearing as petitioners against Bill
No. 2; and

(4) The case of these petitioners
against Bill No. 2 is then heard.
[Where there are more than two
competing bills :-

(4a) Counsel for Bill No. 3
here opens the case for his bill
in a statement explanatory of
its purpose, and calls his wit-
nesses, who can be cross-exam-
ined by the counsel for Bills
No. 1 and 2, and by the counsel
for other parties appearing as
petitioners against Bill No. 3;
and (46) the case of these peti-
tioners against Bill No. 3 is
then heard. (4c) Counsel for
Bill No. 3 is then heard to sum
up in support of his bill as
against the other competing
bills, and in reply to the evidence
adduced in opposition to it.]
(5) Counsel for Bill No. 2 is heard
to sum up in support of his bill as
against Bill No. 1 [and Bill No. 3],
and in reply to the evidence adduced
in opposition to Bill No. 2.

(6) Counsel for Bill No. 1 makes
his general reply.

(7) The committee give their decisions on the preambles of all the competing bills, and subsequently consider the clauses of the bill or bills of which the preamble is declared to be proved.

Cf. Thames Steamboat Trust Bill and Thames River Steamboat Service Bill (Group D), 1903; Cork City Railways, &c., Bill and Cork Link Railways Bill (Group 5), 1906; Kingscourt, &c., Railway Bill, Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill, and Newry, &c., Railway Bill (Group 5), 1900; Derby Corporation, Sheffield Corporation, and Leicester Corporation Water Bills, 1899 (Minutes

upon pre

Clauses considered.

In

XXVII.

bills in the same group has been partly the same, com- Chapter
mittees have heard the cases separately, but have deferred
their decision till after the conclusion of the last case.
some cases, the committee have resolved that the clauses
which the promoters had agreed with the opponents to
insert in the bill, should be produced before they proceeded
to decide on the preamble.1

The committee call in the parties and acquaint them
with their decision regarding the preamble; and, if the
preamble be proved, they then go through the bill clause by
clause. Where petitioners appear against a clause, or
propose amendments, they are heard in support of their
objections or amendments, as they arise; or opposed clauses
may be postponed and considered at a later period in the

of Proceedings, Group B, 24th April,
9th May, 7th, 8th, and 9th June,
1899).

In the last-named case, the com-
mittee, during their consideration
of the three bills, were empowered
by an instruction of the house
(passed on the motion of the chair-
man of the committee) to consoli-
date the bills; and accordingly,
having formally passed the preambles
of the three bills, they struck out
all the clauses, and proceeded to
consider a consolidated bill (against
which the parties petitioning against
all three bills were heard), and to
report this consolidated bill (Der-
went Valley Water Bill) to the
house, 154 C. J. 229. 267.

. Prior to 1897 it was not the practice to permit the counsel for the second [or third] of two [or more] competing bills to make more than one speech. Cf. the Minutes of Evidence, 11th of March, 1897, before the committee on the Highland Railway (Inverness, &c.), Invergarry, &c., Railway, and North British, &c., Railway (three competing bills), Group 5, 1897; and the Report of the Select Committee on Private Business (H.C. Paper No. 378) of 1902, p. x.

Where the same petition has been

presented against all of the competing
bills, committees, instead of hear-
ing the petitioners against each of
the bills at separate times, have
heard them against all the bills
after the counsel for the last of the
competing bills had made his open-
ing statement and called his evi-
dence, but before he proceeded to
sum up his case in reply (Thames
River Steamboat Service Bill and
Thames Steamboat Trust Bill
(Minutes of Evidence, Group F,
20th April), 1904; Invergarry, &c.,
Railway Bill and North British, &c.,
Railway Bill (Minutes of Proceed-
ings, Group 5, March 11-22), 1897;
&c.

It may be noted that, in consider-
ing competing cases, some com-
mittees, instead of following the
order of procedure indicated above,
have considered each bill separately,
although deferring their decision on
the preambles of each bill until the
case on the last bill had been con-
cluded. Cf. Proceedings of the
Committees, in the Lords, on the
London Electric Power Bills, 1905,
and on the Penllwyn and other
Welsh Railway Bills, 1906.

1 North Metropolitan Railway Bill, Suppl. to Votes, 1854, p. 451.

XXVII.

Chapter proceedings, if the committee think fit. In accordance with the rules of the house in committee in dealing with a public bill, when all the clauses of the bill have been disposed of, new clauses may be offered either by members of the committee or by the parties.

An alternative clause prepared by petitioners is frequently produced and considered in connection with a clause which is formally before the committee, and which may be amended or negatived in consequence; but if the clause be negatived, the alternative clause strictly should only be added when all the remaining clauses of the bill have been disposed of. Counsel claim the right of reply when they have brought up a new clause: but a distinction should be drawn in this respect between a purely alternative clause and a new clause; such an alternative clause is produced only in support of the argument against, and is virtually an amendment to, a clause already formally before the committee, and it should be treated as an amendment only, without any right of reply; while counsel proposing a new and substantive clause for the consideration of the committee, when no other clause was before it, would not be so limited.1

It is at this time also that officers of public departments Clauses desired by sometimes appear, to secure the insertion of clauses pro-public detective of the property or interests of the Crown, or of navi-partments. gations, and tidal lands, or otherwise concerning the public interests. But, except in cases in which the consent of the Crown may be withheld from a bill, government departments are without any means of enforcing the adoption of their clauses, either by the parties or the committee; and their relations to the committee and Parliament are often not a little anomalous. It has, indeed, been determined that public departments have no right to be heard, except upon petition.2

This rule as to the hearing of counsel on an alternative clause has received the assent and approval of Mr. Pope, Q.C., and Mr. Pember, Q.C.

2 Thus, in 1858, the Office of Works and Public Buildings was refused a hearing against the Victoria Station and Pimlico Railway Bill, as the board had not

It must be borne in mind that the committee may not Chapter admit clauses or amendments which are not within the

XXVII.