페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

Chapter “order of leave”;or which are not authorized by a
XXVII.

previous compliance with the standing orders applicable to
them, unless the parties have received permission from the
house to introduce certain provisions, in compliance with
petitions for additional provision. But if the committee
are of opinion that such provisions should be inserted, the
further consideration of the bill can be postponed, in order
to give the parties time to petition the house for additional
provision. A committee has refused to entertain a clause
which the promoters of a bill had agreed upon with
another company, and proposed to insert in the bill, even
when it appeared that the petition of that company had
been withdrawn, on condition of the introduction of
that clause. In such cases, however, which are of rare
occurrence, a committee has consented to the promoters
calling witnesses representing the company concerned,
or has offered to obtain power from the house to hear
the company, notwithstanding the withdrawal of their
petition."

A committee has also inserted clauses compelling a Enforce-
railway company, under penalty of a suspension of its pledges.
dividends, to apply to Parliament in the next session, for
a bill to authorize the construction of a line of railway
which the company had pledged itself to make. And the
in such cases have not been sub- witnesses should be created or ad.
jected to cross-examination.

mitted; (Mr. Speaker's MemoIn 1906, however, representations randum to Clerk of Committees, were made to Mr. Speaker, on behalf June, 1906). of the parliamentary bar, as to a Cf. supra, p. 715, n. 2. growing tendency on the part of ? Vide supra, p. 725; and London private bill committees to hear and North Western (Northampton statements or evidence, tendered by Branch) Bill, Suppl. to Votes, 1853, officers from government depart. p. 964; and ib. p. 1255; and Bradments, without permitting these ford Tramways, &c., Bill, 1899, officers to be cross-examined in the Suppl. to Votes, p. 1341. same manner as the witnesses called 3 Colne Corporation Bill, 1905, before the committee in the ordi. (Minutes of Evidence, Police and nary way (see infra, p. 825) by the Sanitary Committee, 3rd April). parties promoting and opposing the + Thames Tunnel Railway Bill, bill. And Mr. Speaker laid it down Minutes of Group 2, 1860. · that every witness before a private s South Western Railway (Capital

bill committee should be liable to and Works) Act, 1855; Suppl. to cross-examination, as in a court of Votes, 1853, p. 945; and ib. 1855, p. justice, and no privileged class of 251. Cf., in this connection, Report

hapter XXVI.

preamble of a bill has been negatived, on proof that it was Chapter

a violation of a pledge previously given by a company." Preamble 1 If the proof of the preamble be negatived, the committee of bill not proved. report to the house, “That the preamble has not been

proved.”

In 1836 the committee on the Durham (South West) Railway Bill were ordered to reassemble, “ for the purpose of reporting specially the preamble, and the evidence and reasons, in detail, on which they came to the resolution that the preamble had not been proved.” 2

It has been ruled that when a committee have resolved that the preamble of a private bill has not been proved, and ordered the chairman to report, it is not competent for them to reconsider and reverse their decision, but that the bill should be recommitted for that purpose. This course, however, of recommitting a bill of which the committee has reported the preamble "not proved” is unusual and requires a strong case to be made out for its adoption. In 1854 the preambles of two out of three.competing railway bills were declared not proved: but the successful bill, after it was reported, having been withdrawn, the two other bills were recommitted, and the preamble of one of them was declared to be proved. In 1861, in the case of the Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway bill, the committee reported that the preamble had not been proved : but all opposition having been subsequently withdrawn, the bill was recommitted to the former committee, who reported the preamble proved, and the bill was passed. In 1874, in the case of the Bolton-le-Sands, Warton and Silverdale Reclamation Bill, the committee having reported

of Select Committee on Railways
(Ireland) Amalgamation Bills, 1899,
154 O. J. 373-4.

Eastern London Railways Bill, 1902,
113 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1154.

• Group 1, Suppl. to Votes, 1854,
pp. 175. 415.

1 Mid-Sussex, &c., Railway Bill (Group 3), 1860.

: 91 C. J. 396.

3 Group P, 1853, Suppl. to Votes, p. 957 ; Shrewsbury and Welshpool Railway Bill, 1858.

* Cf. the proceedings in the house on the Piccadilly, City, and North

6 116 C. J. 285. The Peterborough Water Bill, of 1875, was a similar case where the promoters' claim to a recommittal was conceded, though it was not proceeded with. And cf. infra, p. 819, note 2.

Chapteri that the preamble had not been proved, the bill was afterXXVII.,

wards recommitted to the former committee, with an instruction to the committee to strike out of the bill all powers for the compulsory taking of lands, to which any opposition was offered. In 1902, in the case of an omnibus bill—the South Eastern and London, Chatham and Dover Railways Bill—the promoters not having been able to accept the provisions suggested by the committee in one opposed portion, “Railway No.1,” of the bill, the committee reported that the preamble of the whole bill, including other and unopposed portions, was not proved. The bill was thereupon recommitted with an instruction to the committee to reconsider their decision upon so much of the preamble as did not relate to Railway No. 1; and the committee subsequently reported that they had done so and had found the preamble proved except in so far as it related to Railway No. 1.2 And in several other cases, where compromises have afterwards been effected, and the promoters have consented to make amendments, the bills have been recommitted for that purpose.3

Where it has appeared that the promoters of a bill were debarred by an agreement from executing the works proposed by it, the committee decided that the bill could not be further proceeded with.4

In the Kingstown Township Bill, 1873, while the case for the promoters was proceeding, it was made known that the town commissioners of Kingstown, by whom the bill was promoted, had been restrained by injunction from proceeding further with the bill, on the ground that they had failed to comply with the requirements of the Towns Improvement Act, 1847 (ss. 132, 133, and 142), and were not therefore entitled to come to Parliament. The commissioners, however, had also signed the petition for the

1 129 C. J. 174. 217, &c.

? 157 C. J. 306. 314. 330. 343; 110 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 759. And cf. the Proceedings on the North Cornwall Railway Bill, 1894, 148 C. J. 103. 108. 121.

3 129 C. J. 225; 132 ib. 177.

Devon Central Railways Bill, 1861 (Group 3, Minutes, p. 90); North British Railway (General Powers) Bill, 1881 (Group 12, Minutes, p. 2).

bill, as individuals; and claimed to proceed with the bill Chapter

ххун. in that capacity: but the committee resolved, " That the counsel for the promoters having stated that the commissioners had withdrawn from the promotion of the bill, the committee decided that they ought not to proceed further with the bill, and that they would report to the house that the preamble had not been proved.” This decision was founded, it is believed, upon the determination of the committee not to favour any evasion of the Towns Improvement Act, and of the injunction founded upon it. Attempts were afterwards made, without success, to obtain a rehearing, but the committee adhered to their

determination. Alterations Alterations may be made in the preamble, subject to the in preamble. same restriction as in the case of other amendments, that

nothing be introduced inconsistent with the order of

leave,” or with the standing orders of the house applicable 8. O. 149. to the bill. Such amendments, however, are to be specially

reported.
| In 1865 the important principle of restraining vexatious

litigation by awarding costs was first introduced. Under
in certain
circum.. the Parliamentary Costs Act, 1865, 28 & 29 Vict. c. 27, when
petitioners 'a committee (in either House of Parliament) on a private
against a
private

* bill shall decide that the preamble is not proved, or shall bill,

insert any provision for the protection of any petitioner, or
strike out or alter any provision for the protection of such
petitioner, and further unanimously? report, with respect
to any or all of the petitioners against the bill, that such
petitioner or petitioners have been unreasonably or vexa-
tiously subjected to expense in defending their rights,
such petitioner or petitioners shall be entitled to recover

Costs awarded

stances to

costs from the promoters. On the other hand, when a promoters of a private Group K, 1873 (Minutes, 7th prescribed for entitling parties to bill. May).

recover costs. (Minutes of the police ? It has been held that the Act and sanitary committee (consisting has been duly complied with, if all of nine members, with a quorum of the members of the committee pre- five), Lancaster Corporation Bill, sent at the hearing of the case, pro- 1888; &c.) vided that they form a quorum, have 3 Costs granted to petitioners :unanimously reported in the manner Great Western Railway Bill, 1866

Or to the

Chapter committee unanimously reports that the promoters have
XXVII.

been vexatiously subjected to expense by the opposition of
petitioners, they shall be entitled to recover costs from
those opponents; 1 but it is provided that no landowner
who bonâ fide, at his own sole risk and charge, opposes a
bill which proposes to take any part of his property, shall
be liable to any costs in respect of his opposition.

And by section 2 the Parliamentary Costs Act of 1871, 34 And on a
and 35 Vict. c. 3, committees (in either house) upon bills for order bill.
confirming provisionalorders may award costs in like manner,
and under the same conditions, as in the case of a private
bill.2 In the case, however, of certain provisional orders, 2
granted under the Allotments Act, 1887,3 the Housing of
the Working Classes Act, 1890,4 the Allotments (Scotland)
Act, 1892,5 and the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897,6

provisional

(121 C. J. 328); Brecon, &c., Rail.
way Bill, 1867 (122 ib. 109); Thames
Embankment, &c., Bill, 1868 (123
ib. 193); Stockton-on-Tees, &c., Im-
provement Bill, 1869 (124 ib. 150);
Great Eastern, &c. (Metropolitan
Railways) Bill, 1870 (125 ib. 93);
North Eastern Railway (Additional
Powers) Bill, 1874 (129 ib, 126);
Metropolitan Railway Bill, and
North British Railway (General
Powers) Bill, 1881 (136 ib. 102. 191);
Hull Extension, &c., Bill, 1882 (137
ib. 177); Great Eastern Railway
(General Powers) Bill, 1883 (138 ib.
183); Sunderland, &c., Water Bill,
and Metropolitan Outer Circle Rail.
way (Extension of Time) Bill, 1891
(146 ib. 161. 390); Dublin Southern
District Tramways Bill, 1893 (148
ib. 467) ; Manchester, Sheffield,
and Lincolnshire Railway Bill, 1896
(151 ib. 187); Leeds Corporation
Water Bill, 1901 (156 ib. 323); Great
Northern Railway (No. 1) Bill,
1902 (157 ib. 197), &c. And cf.
Dublin Southern Tramways Bill,
1893 (148 ib. 467 ; and Minutes of
Evidence, Group 9, 27th July, 1893).

1 Costs granted to promoters :North British Railway (Coatbridge, &c. (Bill, 1866 (121 C. J. 327); Hull

Docks Bill, 1867 (122 ib. 108) ;
London, Blackwall, &c., Railway
Bill, 1870 (125 ib. 94); Tivy Side
Railway Bill, 1872 (127 ib. 212);
Ely and Bury, &c., Railway Bill,
1875 (130 ib. 319); Skegness, &c.,
Tramways (Abandonment) Bill, 1886
(141 ib. 206); Folkestone, Sandgate,
&c., Tramways Bill, 1891, in which
case the petitioners had been offered
a protective clause by the committee
(146 ib. 139; and Minutes of Evi-
dence, Group 2, 5th and 6th March,
1891); Bank of Bolton Bill, 1895
(150 C. J. 231); Buxton Urban Dis-
trict Council Bill, 1902 (157 ib.
275).
2 Costs granted to petitioners :-
Local Government Provisional
Orders (Atherton, &c.) Bill, 1877
(132 C. J. 426); Tramways Orders
Confirmation (No. 2) Bill, 1878 (133
ib. 258).

350 & 51 Vict. cap. 48; and cf.
proceedings and report (17th June,
1891) of the committee on the
Allotments Provisional Order Bill,
1891 (costs granted to promoters).

4 53 & 54 Vict. c. 70.
S 55 & 56 Vict. c. 54.

60 & 61 Vict. c. 38, s. 145; and
infra, p. 886.

« 이전계속 »