PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEES. (Hansard, 4 December 1826)

§ Mr. Littleton
rose to move the resolution, directing that any individual who appealed from the decision of a committee on a private bill, should, in the first instance, deposit the sum of 500l., to meet such costs and expenses as might ultimately be awarded by the select committee, which he had felt it his duty on a former evening to withdraw, in consequence of the request of several honourable members. He now meant to move this resolution in substance; but, with such an alteration, as would, he trusted, remove the objections that were urged against it. He here thought it right to state, that a precedent 225 for the principle on which this resolution was founded existed in the uniform practice of that House, which made it imperative on every parliamentary agent to deposit a certain sum with the proper officer for the payment of fees; the amount of which fees was, after the case was disposed of, settled by the House. In his view of the subject, the whole system which he wished to introduce would be completely useless, unless such a security as that which the resolution set forth were given. It was his firm conviction, that it would effectually prevent frivolous and vexatious appeals against the decision of committees on private bills.—The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, That the party or parties complaining, or their agents, shall, previously to the balloting for such select committee, deposit with the clerk of the fees the sum of 500l., for the payment of such costs as may be awarded against him or them; and shall, at the same time, sign a note in writing, declaring that the whole or any part of that sum, shall be paid in such manner as the select committee shall adjudge.

§ Mr. G. Bankes
observed, that a great part of the argument against the resolutions of the noble member for Northamptonshire (lord Althorp), with respect to bribery at elections, on a former evening, turned on the right of the House to award costs; and he could not easily divide the two cases. In his opinion, the final decision with respect to costs should not be left with the committee; and therefore he thought it would be right, supposing the House to be favourable to the resolution, that these words, "unless the House should otherwise direct," or words to that purport, should be added. By this alteration an opportunity would be given to the House to remedy any wrong, or to rectify any error, in the adjudication of costs, which might be committed by the select committee. He was aware that this ultimate appeal to the House might occasionally take up a considerable portion of their time; but it appeared to him, that the interests of justice required such a course.

§ Sir T. Acland
said, he would not, as some gentlemen had done, condemn in toto committees on private bills. He believed, generally speaking, that substantial justice was administered by those committees. They frequently forwarded, matters which 226 tended greatly to the public good, and decided with the least disadvantage to adverse parties, whose interests were affected by particular measures. Cases, however, had occurred, in which misconduct was apparent; and therefore he was friendly to a court of appeal, before which persons complaining of being aggrieved might be heard. At the same time, he thought it was absolutely necessary that some security should be given, to prevent frivolous and vexatious complaints from being preferred.

Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that, on the whole, he thought great benefit would result, if the House laid down some specific rule, in accordance with which an appeal might be made against the decision of a committee, instead of leaving the matter in so indefinite a shape as the present resolution did. The resolutions, generally, went to purify the constitution of committees; and therefore appeals were likely to be less numerous than they otherwise would be. But he hoped, if it appeared that injustice had been done to an individual, that he would not be debarred from redress because he could not put down 500l. A poor man ought to have liberty to say, "It is true, I have not 500l. to advance; but I will state my case to the House, and call on them to do me justice." The House ought to reserve to itself the right of doing justice to an individual, in any stage of a private bill.

§ Mr. Calcraft
felt the proposition for a deposit of 500l. to be most objectionable. It would be adding materially to the difficulties which poor people had to encounter, in procuring justice from a committee. Be the case of oppression what it might, it was quite clear, that unless the appellants possessed considerable resources, they could not obtain justice at the hands of a committee. After having been defeated before one committee and incurred great expense, persons feeling themselves aggrieved could not come before this new tribunal without depositing 500l. He had but little expectation that benefit would be derived from the resolutions; and he thought that, in receiving them, the House had suffered the conduct of private-bill committees to be greatly overcharged. From his own experience of those committees, he was convinced that justice had generally been done by them. It seemed to be supposed, that there was at present no appeal from the decision of a commit- 227 tee. But there was an appeal to the House; and they had seen instances in which, when the committee up stairs was mistaken, the case had been set to rights by the House. That he conceived to be a far better tribunal than the new one devised by his hon. friend. Fie thought this deposit of 500l. should be given up altogether, and that the parties who alleged that they had suffered wrong should appeal at once to the House. He would recommend his hon. friend to suffer the other resolutions to be carried into effect; and, when he saw how they worked, he might, if he thought proper, introduce a bill, enacting that appellants should enter into recognizances, which would be a much better mode, than that of calling on individuals to put down the sum of 500l.

Mr. G. Lamb
said, his doubts as to the legality of calling on appellants to put down 500l., out of which costs were to be awarded, were removed by the satisfactory precedent which had been adduced by his hon. friend. He should vote for the resolution; because the very existence of an appeal committee argued the necessity of its having the power to award costs.

§ Mr. Littleton
was of opinion, that a deposit ought to be required generally, leaving it to the House to depart from that practice in any particular case, if they thought fit. If, however, the House would consent to adjourn the debate to a future day, he would in the interim reconsider his resolution, and endeavour to make such alterations as would obviate the objections which were made to it in its present shape.