COMMITTEES OF APPEALS ON PRIVATE BILLS. (Hansard, 15 February 1827)

§ Mr. Littleton
said, that the machinery of the resolutions which he had 514 formerly introduced, relative to appeals on private bills, would be incomplete, if the House did not sanction an additional resolution, subjecting the party appealing to the payment of all costs and expenses, in case the committee of appeal declared the petition to be frivolous and vexatious. It was necessary that the-House should do this with as little delay as possible, because he knew that one report at least was about to be presented, relative to which it was probable there would be an appeal. He had, some time since, proposed two measures for the purpose of carrying his object into effect. One was, to compel the petitioner to enter into recognizances to defray such costs as might have been incurred before the committee, in case the appeal should be considered frivolous and vexatious. Some gentlemen, however, especially those of the learned profession, had objected to this, on the ground, that there existed no precedent, where one branch of the legislature assumed the power of taking money from individuals. In all cases of that nature, it was observed, it must be the concurrent act of the three estates. He had next proposed, that the party or parties appealing should deposit a certain sum of money to meet the expenses incurred if the appeal should be considered frivolous and vexatious. Against that, however, it was objected, that where the parties were, poor, the call for a deposit of money would effectually prevent the appeal, let the grounds of it be ever so just. He had, therefore, in the interval since the former resolutions were carried, endeavoured to collect the opinions of the gentlemen (especially of the legal profession) who had objected to these two propositions; and he had now their concurrence in the propriety of the resolution which he was about to lay before the House. His proposition was, that one or more of the parties appealing should enter into a penal bond, for a certain sum, covenanting to defray such costs and charges as might he incurred by the other side, in case the committee of appeal reported the petition to be frivolous and vexatious. The hon. gentleman then moved, "That no proceeding shall be had on any petition so referred to a Select Committee, unless the petitioner, or one of the petitioners, in case there be more than one, shall, within two days after presenting such petition, or within such further time as 515 shall be limited by the House, enter into a bond or obligation to the agent or agents, or sonic person named for that purpose by the agent or agents of the opposite party or parties, according to a form to be approved of by the Chief Clerk, or one of the Clerks Assistants of this House, in the penal sum of 500l. and with two sufficient sureties, to be approved of by one of the said Clerks in the penal sum of 250l. each, conditional, to be void, in case the said Petitioner, or Petitioners shall duly pay all costs, charges and expenses of the party or parties who shall appear before the House in opposition to such petition (such costs, charges, and expenses to be found and assessed by one of the Clerks of this House, for the time being) in case the said Select Committee shall report to the House that the said Petition appeared to them to be frivolous and vexatious."

§ Mr. G. Bankes
was anxious that the question, which was of considerable importance, should be postponed to another night, in order that it might be properly discussed. In his opinion, the objections which were raised against the resolution which called on parties to enter into recognizances, applied with equal strength to the present proposition. If a man was poor, he could not enter honestly into a bond for 500l., since he knew that if the committee voted his petition frivolous and vexatious, he could not meet it: and thus the right of appeal was virtually denied to him. Besides, how could they expect a poor man to procure two sureties in 250l. each? The resolution gave a great advantage to the rich man, while it precluded the poor man from seeking redress. In fact, he thought it was very unjust to impose on individuals the necessity of entering into such a bond. He did not wish that the expenses attending the private business of the House should be increased. On the contrary, fie hoped they might be lessened; and if no other member made the attempt, he would hereafter bring before the House some proposition with the view of effecting; a diminution of the expenses attendant on private bills. He was convinced that such expenses frequently operated as impediments to improvements in the country. To effect such diminution of the expenses would not affect the officers of the House, as they were not paid by fees; those fees going to a treasury fund. The expenses 516 frequently operated as reasons for not applying for bills, or for not coining to the House to renew most useful acts respecting roads, &c. The parties were deterred by the expenses; they being 500l. or 600l. for each bill. There was no necessity for the enormous expense to which parties were now exposed. On account of the importance of the present proposition, and that it might be considered before a fuller House, he would move, "That the Debate be adjourned to Monday."

Mr. Alderman Waithman
observed, that the expenses incidental to getting private bills through the House were enormous; and, instead of increasing them, some means ought to be devised for reducing them. He was of opinion that the debate ought to be adjourned.

§ Mr. Littleton
said, that the House could not be considered to be taken by surprise, as the measure had already been discussed twice. He understood also, that it had been agreed to in its present shape, by those gentlemen who, on the former occasions, objected to its adoption. He was anxious that the measure should be speedily disposed of, as he understood there were several reports ready to be brought up, and that in one of them an appeal was to occur. As the resolution did not possibly impose any grievance, but merely specified the mode in which a favour was to be granted, he was determined to take the sense of the House on the question.

Mr. Batley
agreed with the hon. member for Corfe Castle in thinking the measure impolitic. It might also have the additional inconvenience of bringing the privileges of the House in contact with a court of law.

§ Mr. S. Bourne
thought that all scruples on legal points might be silenced, when it was recollected, that the resolution was drawn up by the Attorney-general. Unless this resolution was carried, the other measure of the hon. member would be incomplete.