EXPENSES OF PRIVATE BILLS. (Hansard, 23 February 1847)

§ MR. HUME
said, that he was about to propose the reappointment of a Committee, which sat last Session, for the purpose of inquiring into the Private Business of the House, with the view of reducing the expenses connected therewith. The suggestions contained in the report of the Committee which sat last Session, had, in several instances, been acted upon with great advantage, and particularly as re- 392 spected the proving of Standing Orders. Under the old system, it frequently happened that 200 or 300 witnesses were detained in town for upwards of twenty days, at the expense of the promoters of a Bill, whilst the Standing Orders were being proved; but now the business was despatched in a couple of days. One very important object, however, had still to be effected, and that was the establishment of a table of fees, by which the charges of promoters and opponents of Private Bills should be regulated. Every tribunal but the House of Commons had enforced a system of that nature. In the early part of the Session, he proposed a resolution on the subject; but it then appeared to be the opinion of the House that it would be the better course for him to bring in a Bill to effect the object which he had in view; but he found that so much difference of opinion prevailed with respect to the mode of taxing costs, that he found himself obliged to propose the reappointment of the Committee to consider that point. He, therefore, moved— That a Select Committee be appointed to continue the inquiry into the Private Business of the House, the expenses attending the obtaining of all Private Bills, including all the expenses of the opponents as well as the promoters of Bills, and the taxing of expenses thereto.

SIR W. JAMES
asked, whether the inquiry of the Committee could not be extended to Bills already passed? He thought some retrospective investigation called for; the contradictory legislation of the House on Private Bills produced great inconvenience. In the town he represented (Hull), different local Bills contained contradictory enactments.

§ MR. HUME
said, the inconvenience had been already provided for as far as the expressed opinion of a Committee could go. It had recommended that, in all cases in which corporate bodies applied to Parliament for new Bills, they should be, if possible, consolidated into one measure, avoiding contradictory clauses; that Bill to be the only measure regulating the local business of the corporation.