Chapter

XXVII.

1

"order of leave"; or which are not authorized by a
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been withdrawn, on condition of the introduction of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,s
or has offered to obtain power from the house to hear
the company, notwithstanding the withdrawal of their
petition.1

ment of

A committee has also inserted clauses compelling a Enforcerailway 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-
jected to cross-examination.

In 1906, however, representations
were made to Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the parliamentary bar, as to a
growing tendency on the part of
private bill committees to hear
statements or evidence, tendered by
officers from government depart-
ments, without permitting these
officers to be cross-examined in the
same manner as the witnesses called
before the committee in the ordi-
nary way (see infra, p. 825) by the
parties promoting and opposing the
bill. And Mr. Speaker laid it down
that every witness before a private
bill committee should be liable to
cross-examination, as in a court of
justice, and no privileged class of

witnesses should be created or ad-
mitted; (Mr. Speaker's Memo-
randum to Clerk of Committees,
June, 1906).

1 Cf. supra, p. 715, n. 2.
2 Vide supra, p. 725; and London
and North Western (Northampton
Branch) Bill, Suppl. to Votes, 1853,
p. 964; and ib. p. 1255; and Brad-
ford Tramways, &c., Bill, 1899,
Suppl. to Votes, p. 1341.

Colne Corporation Bill, 1905,
(Minutes of Evidence, Police and
Sanitary Committee, 3rd April).

Thames Tunnel Railway Bill,
Minutes of Group 2, 1860.

5 South Western Railway (Capital
and Works) Act, 1855; Suppl. to
Votes, 1853, p. 945; and ib. 1855, p.
251. Cf., in this connection, Report

Preamble

of bill not proved.

preamble of a bill has been negatived, on proof that it was Chapter a violation of a pledge previously given by a company.1

If the proof of the preamble be negatived, the committee 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.5 In 1861, in the case of
the Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway bill, the com-
mittee 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 C. J. 373-4.

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

2 91 C. J. 396.

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

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

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

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.

XXVII.

Chapter that the preamble had not been proved, the bill was afterXXVII. wards recommitted to the former committee, with an in

struction 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.1

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

1129 C. J. 174. 217, &c.

2157 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.

signed the petition for the

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).

Alterations

in preamble.

XXVII.

bill, as individuals; and claimed to proceed with the bill Chapter
in that capacity: but the committee resolved, "That the
counsel for the promoters having stated that the com-
missioners 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 determina-
tion of the committee not to favour any evasion of the
Towns Improvement Act, and of the injunction founded
upon it.1 Attempts were afterwards made, without success,
to obtain a rehearing, but the committee adhered to their
determination.

Alterations may be made in the preamble, subject to the 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.

Costs

awarded in certain circumstances to

bill.

In 1865 the important principle of restraining vexatious litigation by awarding costs was first introduced. Under the Parliamentary Costs Act, 1865, 28 & 29 Vict. c. 27, when petitioners a committee (in either House of Parliament) on a private against a bill shall decide that the preamble is not proved, or shall private 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 2 report, with respect to any or all of the petitioners against the bill, that such petitioner or petitioners have been unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense in defending their rights, such petitioner or petitioners shall be entitled to recover Or to the costs from the promoters. On the other hand, when a

promoters of a private bill.

1 Group K, 1873 (Minutes, 7th May).

2 It has been held that the Act has been duly complied with, if all the members of the committee present at the hearing of the case, provided that they form a quorum, have unanimously reported in the manner

prescribed for entitling parties to
recover costs. (Minutes of the police
and sanitary committee (consisting
of nine members, with a quorum of
five), Lancaster Corporation Bill,
1888; &c.)

3 Costs granted to petitioners:-
Great Western Railway Bill, 1866

3

III•

XXVII.

Chapter committee unanimously reports that the promoters have
been vexatiously subjected to expense by the opposition of
petitioners, they shall be entitled to recover costs from
those opponents; but it is provided that no landowner
who bona 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 provisional confirming provisional orders may award costs in like manner, and under the same conditions, as in the case of a private bill. In the case, however, of certain provisional orders,2 granted under the Allotments Act, 1887, the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1892,5 and the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897,6