PETITIONS AGAINST RAILWAY BILLS. (Hansard, 13 February 1846)

§ MR. STRUTT
, in bringing up the Report of the Sub-Committee of which he is the Chairman (No. 1), took occasion to ask the opinion of the House with regard to the course to be adopted in treating petitions against Railway Bills referred to the Committees on Standing Orders, which were not themselves prepared in compliance with the provisions of the Standing Order No. 111-A, which required "that the name or short title by which such Bill had been entered at the Private Bill Office should appear in the beginning of such petition." In one of the cases (the Exeter, Yeovil, and Dorchester) which had been referred to the Committee of which he was chairman, there were no fewer than five petitions against the Bill, not one of which complied with that Standing Order. The same thing had occurred with several others. Of course if the irregularity had been detected when the petitions had been presented at the Table of the House, they would not have been referred to the Select Committee on Private Bills, and could not have come before him. As the case stood, however, the Sub-Committee felt that it was one not relating to themselves alone, but to the practice of the House; and they, therefore, resolved to lay the matter before it, and to take the opinion of the House upon it.

§ MR. GREENE
, though anxious at all times to enforce the Orders of the House, entertained some doubts whether the Committee would be justified in rejecting those petitions. Although the Order 111-A was plain and definite enough, there was no penalty whatever attached to it. It did not say that the parties who should neglect to comply with its provisions should not be heard; and under such circumstances it would be rather hard that after parties had presented petitions in a form that they had no expectation would be refused, they should be refused a hearing without some degree of notice. In the present instance he thought that they must pass over the irregularity. It would be utterly impossible, in the enormous mass of petitions on Railway Bills presented nightly in the House, to observe whether they were or were not prepared in compliance with the Standing Orders. The Committee should have power 835 to deal with them; and he should, therefore, move, on Monday next— That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Petitions for Private Bills, and to all Committees upon Private Bills, not to hear parties on any Petition hereafter referred to them, which shall not be prepared and signed in strict conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House. That instruction would comprehend every irregularity, not that alone under consideration, and Committees would be thereby empowered to deal with them at once. In the present instance, the House having sent the petitions to the Committee for consideration, the Committee could not refuse to entertain them; but on all future occasions there would be a strict rule adopted, of which parties would have full notice.

§ MR. ENTWISLE
thought it very hard that parties promoting Railway Bills should be put to immense expense and inconvenience to meet those who made objections on the grounds of non-compliance with the Standing Orders of the House, when those objectors themselves had not complied with the Standing Orders on Petitions, while the grounds of objection were frequently of the most trifling description. He thought that there was no excuse for parties who, in complaining of non-compliance with Standing Orders, did not themselves comply with them. They should not be heard.

§ MR. STRUTT
said, that the omission having been in the House, and not before the Committee, the Committee could not properly deal with it.

§ MR. ELLIS
thought the wording of the Standing Order 111-A, not itself sufficiently definite. It required the name or short title of the Bill to be placed at "the beginning of the petition." Now the object was to have it placed as a heading, for the insertion of the name or short title in the first paragraph would not be sufficient. The House should mate the Standing Orders definite, complete, and clear.

§ MR. GISBORNE
could not see why any indulgence should be shown to those parties who complained of the non-compliance of others with the Standing Orders of the House, by petitions not prepared in compliance with them. These petitions should not be received, and if his hon. Friend persisted in admitting them, he (Mr. Gisborne) would divide the House upon it.

§ SIR W. HEATHCOTE
said, that it was the House that must deal with the petition, for the Committee had not the power. There was a distinction between this case and others under the Standing Orders. The Standing Order 111-A, required certain conditions to be complied with; but when 836 the Committees were required to ascertain that they were complied with, it was so stated in the Standing Order itself. When, however, the House passed over its own rule, and referred a petition to the Committee, it could not be rejected by the Committee, but, in case of an irregularity, it must come to the House for instruction. The hon. Member for Derby, therefore, was right in reporting the matter to the House.

§ SIR GEORGE CLERK
thought the matter required serious consideration. There would be some difficulty in enforcing the provisions of the Standing Orders at times—for instance, in the case of parties four or five hundred miles off forwarding petitions against Bills. They might be sufficiently able to give such description as would serve to identify the Bill they desired to oppose; but they might be unable to ascertain the exact name or short title by which the Bill was described in the Private Bill Office. He thought it would be most advisable that the Report should be received and laid on the Table. It could be then printed and taken into further consideration on Monday.