« 이전계속 »
Chapter “order of leave”;or which are not authorized by a
previous compliance with the standing orders applicable to
A committee has also inserted clauses compelling a Enforce-
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
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
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
Eastern London Railways Bill, 1902,
• Group 1, Suppl. to Votes, 1854,
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
litigation by awarding costs was first introduced. Under
* bill shall decide that the preamble is not proved, or shall bill,
insert any provision for the protection of any petitioner, or
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
been vexatiously subjected to expense by the opposition of
And by section 2 the Parliamentary Costs Act of 1871, 34 And on a
(121 C. J. 328); Brecon, &c., Rail.
1 Costs granted to promoters :North British Railway (Coatbridge, &c. (Bill, 1866 (121 C. J. 327); Hull
Docks Bill, 1867 (122 ib. 108) ;
350 & 51 Vict. cap. 48; and cf.
4 53 & 54 Vict. c. 70.
60 & 61 Vict. c. 38, s. 145; and