XXVII. Chapter "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another company, and proposed to insert in the bill, even when it appeared that the petition of that company had been withdrawn, on condition of the introduction of that clause.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,3 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- In 1906, however, representations witnesses should be created or ad- 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 Bradford Tramways, &c., Bill, 1899, Suppl. to Votes, p. 1341. 3 Colne Corporation Bill, 1905, Thames Tunnel Railway Bill, 5 South Western Railway (Capital 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 3 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 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 1 Mid-Sussex, &c., Railway Bill 291 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, Group 1, Suppl. to Votes, 1854, 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. 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.* 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. 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. 3129 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. bill, as individuals; and claimed to proceed with the bill 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 S. O. 149. to the bill. Such amendments, however, are to be specially reported. Costs awarded circum stances to against a private bill. In 1865 the important principle of restraining vexatious in certain 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 bill shall decide that the preamble is not proved, or shall 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 costs from the promoters. On the other hand, when a Or to the 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 3 Costs granted to petitioners:— Chapter 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. 1 And by section 2 the Parliamentary Costs Act of 1871, 34 And on and 35 Vict. c. 3, committees (in either house) upon bills for order bill. 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 (121 C. J. 328); Brecon, &c., Railway Bill, 1867 (122 ib. 109); Thames Embankment, &c., Bill, 1868 (123 ib. 193); Stockton-on-Tees, &c., Improvement 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 Railway (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 Evidence, Group 2, 5th and 6th March, 1891); Bank of Bolton Bill, 1895 (150 C. J. 231); Buxton Urban District 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). 453 & 54 Vict. c. 70. 55 & 56 Vict. c. 54. 6 60 & 61 Vict. c. 38, s. 145; and infra, p. 886. |