§ Standing Orders, Nos. 7, 8, and 9, and Report of the Select Committee, further considered.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that when this subject was last before the House, they were discussing the Amendments to the seventh Standing Order, and several hon. Members who had voted against the adoption of three as the number of Members to serve on Private Bill Committees, had since informed him that they had done so under the belief that the number ought to continue to be five, and that they did not wish that the number should be fixed at four—the number which was substituted. But he had introduced various changes in the Resolutions for the purpose of making the other Orders conformable to the recent decision of the House, and he was afraid that he would not have time, before the close of the Session, to re-alter the scheme with a view to have the number fixed at three. Under these circumstances he would suggest to hon. Members that the best course to pursue would be to allow four to stand, for the present, as the number of the Committee. It would then be open for any hon. Member to move any alteration of the Resolutions he might think proper at the commencement of next Session; and upon that subject he bad to remind the House that there would be ample time for the adoption of such a course, inasmuch as no Committee would be appointed until three weeks after Parliament had re-assembled. In conclusion, he had to propose that Resolution 7 should be left as it then stood.
§ MR. WARNERsaid, he did not mean to oppose that proposal; but he wished to give notice that on the consideration of the Standing Orders at the commencement of next Session, he would move that the number of Members serving on Private Bill Committees should be reduced from four to three.
§ SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he should wish to make a few remarks upon the general way in which the Private Bill business of the House was conducted. He fully agreed that it was necessary that some alteration should be made, but he thought that the hon. and gallant Member was proceeding in a wrong direction. It had been proposed that Private Bills should, in the first instance, undergo an inquiry by a body of Referees, one of whom was to be an 2132 engineer. But he believed that it would be impossible to find a first-class engineer who would be disposed to undertake that duty; and if, on the other hand, it were intrusted to an inferior member of the profession, it was manifest that the decision of such a gentleman would carry with it no kind of authority. He would suggest that a Committee of the Officers of the House should be appointed for that purpose by the Speaker. A large number of Bills were brought forward by speculative parties, and the first thing that ought to be ascertained was whether these Bills were introduced by bonâ, fide capitalists. [Mr. AYRTON: What is a capitalist?] A capitalist was a man who was capable of carrying out what he undertook to do. The Committee, he suggested, would inquire into this subject, and much time and trouble would be saved by such an inquiry. Then the schemes brought before Committees were often of a competing character, and it was very probable that after such a preliminary inquiry many of them would not be heard of any further. There was another point to which he wished to advert. It was at present necessary that Bills should be deposited by the 23rd of December; and he would propose that within a month of that time petitioners should deposit their objections to each scheme. The result of such an arrangement would probably be that parties would often settle their differences without coming at all before the House. There were some thousands of Local Boards throughout the country, and petitions emanating from those Boards occupied very largely the attention of Select Committees, but he believed that many of the petitions were got up to enable the solicitor and clerk to the Board to spend a few days in London. He believed that the Committee of Officers would have no difficulty in knocking off one-half at least of these petitions. It was said that in the case of these Private Bills they might separate the merits from the facts, but that he denied, because the merits were often entirely involved in the facts. It was proper that undertakings, for whose promotion it was sought to obtain the authority of the House, should be backed by persons having ample capital at their command; but if the House was too rigid in demanding that the whole capital should be subscribed at once, they might impede most useful undertakings. If this principle had been insisted on, what would have been the result in such a case, for instance, as 2133 that of the Great Northern Railway, which saved to the country annually, £3,000,000. He would have the House remember that there was no class of enterprize which they clogged with such enormous penalties as railways, and he might mention a fact which occurred in his own experience to show how cheaply things of this sort might be effected. He had been a party to a contract in a foreign country, which involved an expenditure of £4,000,000, and the whole preliminary expenses to which they had been put scarcely exceeded £200. He wished to see existing interests properly protected, but they must avoid putting a damper upon fair enterprize legitimately represented by capital. He thought that if a Committee of the character which he had described was appointed, it would dispose of much of the surplus business of the House.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsuggested that it would be convenient if Members would confine their remarks to the question before them, which was that the number of the Committee should remain for the present four.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, the best time to introduce the general discussion on the Question would be on the Order as to Referees.
§ Standing Order, No. 7, as amended, agreed to.
§ Several Standing Orders amended, and agreed to, as far as 86 B.
§
COLONEL WILSON PATTEN moved the adoption of a new Standing Order (86 B),
The Chairman of Ways and Means, with not less than Three ether persons, who shall be appointed by Mr. Speaker for such period as he shall think fit, shall be Referees of the House on Private Bills; such Referees to form one or more Courts; Two at least to be required to constitute each Court: provided that the Chairman of any second Court shall be a Member of this House.
§ MR. MASSEYsaid, that there was nothing in the Order to designate the character of the Referees. He thought it undesirable that they should be Members of the House, and would therefore propose to introduce the words "not being Members of this House."
§ Amendment proposed, after "persons," to insert "not being Members of this House."—(Mr. Massey.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENquite ac- 2134 corded with the suggestion, which he understood to be required by the rule of the House.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he understood that his hon. and gallant Friend had, on a former occasion, expressed his opinion that one of the Referees should be an engineer; he did not, however, state whether he meant a civil or a military engineer. If the former, it was quite clear that the engineer should be one of the second or third class, for a first class engineer could scarcely afford to give up his time to the discharge of such duties. If, however, his hon. and gallant Friend meant that he should be a military engineer, the civil engineers would say that he was not practically conversant with the important questions that would be submitted to him.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, if his hon. Friend looked at the proposed Order he would find that it did not provide for the appointment of an engineer as one of the Referees. He (Colonel Wilson Patten) had alluded merely to the possibility of one of those Referees being an engineer. He recollected the case of a Committee sitting for nine days on the consideration of an engineering question, and at the end of that time they were obliged to ask the Government to lend them an engineer to help them in their difficulty. The request having been complied with, the Government engineer settled the matters at issue within forty-eight hours, to the satisfaction of all parties. The result was the construction of the celebrated tubular bridge over the Menai. There was no necessity to mention an engineer at all in the Orders, but he had no doubt the Speaker would exercise his discretion in the appointment of such an officer in whom they would all have confidence.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, a great complaint was made about the pressure of Private business, but he himself had not served on a Committee for three years, and he could not help thinking that if the labour was more fairly distributed among Members there would be less dissatisfaction. He believed it would greatly facilitate business if, at the close of an inquiry into the merits of each Bill that occupied any considerable time, one or two Members of the Committee were relieved by fresh Members. The proposed Referees would practically supersede the Select Committees altogether, for if they discharged the duties sought to be confided to them there would hardly be anything left for 2135 the Committees to do. He was opposed to the appointment of engineers as Referees. Even if an engineer of any eminence were found willing to act as a Referee, he would probably he interested professionally in many of the works upon which he was called to decide, and the decision of a man occupying a lower position in his profession would not give satisfaction to the parties. Perhaps the office of Referee would be intrusted to that fortunate class of men who were supposed to be capable of doing everything—barristers of seven years' standing. To designate a man as a Referee would not endow him with any special knowledge or fitness for the performance of these duties. When a Private Bill Committee first met the Members did not know what it was they were going to try. Then came counsel, with their long and rambling speeches, and perhaps after two or three hours the Committee began to see daylight as to the question which they would have to try. There was nothing placed before them for their guidance in the nature of pleadings, as was the case in any proceedings before an ordinary court. The parties who went before them ought at least to be required, in the first instance, to put in a written statement of facts, showing what their case was, what they proposed to prove, and what they asked for; and some officer of the House should be appointed to whom those statements of facts should be referred, and who should deal with them very much as a Judge in Chambers dealt with pleadings which were objected to for some reason or other. By that means he was of opinion that the inquiry before the Committee would be simplified and the Committee's labours considerably lightened.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, that the Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means had proposed an Amendment to prevent any other Member of that House except himself from being a Referee. It was difficult to understand how that hon. Gentleman should himself have proposed such an extraordinary Amendment. Let them look for a moment at what would be its effect. The Speaker was to appoint the Referees. It was not provided that they should be officers of that House, but it was intended that they should be divided into several courts; and, as the Chairman of Committees of Ways and Means could only be Chairman of one of those courts, the result would be that other courts would be set up in no way connected with that House, and in which 2136 no Member of that House would sit, so as to be able afterwards to afford it any information which might be required respecting the proceedings of one of those courts. It was provided that the decision of such a court, so disconnected from that House, was to be final, and binding upon the Committee as far as concerned the matters referred to it. Considerable embarrassment might ensue from such a state of things. If the proceedings of one of those courts, acting without the presence of a Member of the House, should be in any way impeached, there would be no one in Parliament to explain them, unless indeed the Referees were to be summoned to the Bar of the House. Thus, persons not responsible to the House would be made absolute masters of the proceedings of the House. It was said they could not have another Member of the House, besides the Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means as a Referee, because he must be paid; but there were many Members of the House who devoted their time and attention to carrying out its wishes without payment. The exclusion of Members from the office of Referees was a step in the wrong direction, and they ought to insist that where the Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means could not preside, some other Member of the House should preside in his stead, so that they might be satisfied that no error or injustice was committed in a finding which would bind the House as well as the parties interested. The House ought to take care how it allowed itself to be discredited in this matter, otherwise the country would regard the House of Lords as the only branch of the Legislature fit to conduct this important description of business. It appeared as if the House of Commons, having first abandoned the privilege of dealing with Private Bills as money Bills, was now going to abandon the privilege of dealing with them at all. Before depriving themselves of that power, hon. Members ought well to weigh the results which were likely to follow. If they conducted the proceedings of their Committees like any other tribunal in and out of this country, they would get rid of many of the difficulties which beset their private legislation. That House was almost the only tribunal which attempted to conduct litigious business without rules of procedure. Preliminary steps ought to be taken to clear the ground for the final inquiry before the Committee, and the parties should come before it with 2137 some precise issues to be tried. Instead of the vague preamble of a Bill which was now submitted to a Committee, they should have a detailed and specific pleading, such as was in use in the Law Courts at Westminster. A company approaching that House should be required several days beforehand to send in a tabulated estimate of the cost of their scheme and a succinct and accurate statement of its engineering features. If improvements like these were adopted it would be unnecessary to call in the aid of Referees at all. Moreover, the proposed system would frequently involve the necessity of double or triple references, and he was therefore afraid that the expenses to the suitor would only be increased.
§ MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, no two Members appeared to be of the same opinion with regard to the description of persons who should be appointed Referees. One suggested engineers, another barristers of seven years' standing, and the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets that one of them should be a Member of that House. He (Mr. Baillie) thought there would be great difficulty in getting any hon. Member to undertake so onerous a duty. He was disposed to agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury, that the vast amount of private business arose from the laxity with which the Standing Orders of the House were carried out. In practice they acted as a positive encouragement for bringing forward schemes for the sole purpose of being afterwards disposed of. He did not think the proposed change would be found to work successfully.
§ MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, his experience of Private Bill Committees was that the time of the Committee and the money of the parties were frequently wasted in the process of proving matters which might be proved before the parties went before the Committee at all. Engineers were called to contradict engineers, and much needless expense was incurred in consequence. Great saving of time and money would be obtained by a preliminary inquiry before Referees, and there would be no necessity for having questions re-opened after the Referees had reported. It had been stated that an inquiry in the last Session had cost over £60,000—and he would venture to say that one half of the money was spent in proving facts that might have been previously established. There was not a strict analogy between these Com- 2138 mittees and ordinary tribunals, and it would be impracticable to tie them down by the fixed rules adopted in the Law Courts. He contended that it was unfair to charge these Committees with arriving at random conclusions, without rules, for at present their practice was tolerably uniform, and they had rules which were now generally followed. He wished to see the existing machinery strengthened and made more efficient and economical in its working, and for that purpose he thought the Committees should be armed with additional powers. As to the Referees, whether they were or were not Members of that House he would have perfect confidence in them.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, that besides saving the time of the House, hon. Members should see that they also saved the time and the pockets of the public. But he did not see how this was to be effected by the establishment of a third tribunal, which might have no effect in the other House, and would, in his judgment, both increase the expense, and waste the time of the public. Referees were to be appointed to go into the details now investigated by ten or a dozen Committees. Committees often neglected details for want of time; and no three men could do ten times the work so neglected by the Committees. It was out of the question, It was proposed further that three Referees should enter into traffic and engineering details, which sometimes took six weeks in one particular case. In his opinion, the only way of reforming the procedure in Private legislation was for the two Houses to concur in a mode of saving time and expense.
§ MR ROEBUCKdoubted, whether the mere fragment of the House of Commons which remained on that, the almost last day of the Session, was in a position safely to alter the whole Private legislation of the country. Was it decent? He would appeal to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whether at so late a period so great a change should be made? It would be better to defer the subject to the early part of the next Session, in a full and fresh House. The hon. and learned Member moved that the Debate be adjourned for a month.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYseconded the Motion. As there was a probability of a general election early next year, and the greater portion of the metropolitan lines were now conceded, he thought it likely that the Notices for Private Bills next November would be comparatively 2139 few in number. They were quite at sea as to what the proposed Referees were to do, but they ought not to hurry the discussion of the subject.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Roebuck.)
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHalso thought it would be best to let the subject stand over until next Session. He was prepared to agree to a reduction in the number of the members of Select Committees, but the question of appointing Referees required further consideration. He thought that the appointment of Referees to sit simultaneously with Committees would add to the complexity of Private business, and would certainly not diminish the expense. At the same time he could not see why the parties should not be required to agree upon certain facts, such as the population of towns, distances, &c, the inquiry into which under the present system greatly lengthened the sittings of Committees.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENhoped the House would not adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Very many equally important measures were passed by more thinly attended Houses than the present. It was singular that the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster should support a further postponement, because it was at his suggestion that the subject had been referred to a Committee. The hon. Baronet also nominated three Members to serve upon that Committee, but neither of those Members had suggested any objections, and even the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets allowed the report to be passed unanimously. He had no special affection for his own proposition, and had only brought it forward under the belief that it would tend to the public advantage. Reference had been made to the desirability of equalizing the labour thrown upon Members by serving upon the Select Committee, but he could assure the House that the Committee of selection endeavoured as much as possible to divide the labour. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, who ought, perhaps, to have made his suggestion in the Select Committee, alleged that these propositions, if carried, would lower the authority of the House of Commons. It was difficult to understand how that could be, seeing that the House of Lords, as well as that House, now referred two branches of Private Bills to Commissioners 2140 out of Parliament. Having been for thirty years connected with the Standing Orders Committee, he had always found the same objections raised whenever attempts were made to alter the mode of dealing with Private business. Thus it was always urged that no fixed rules were laid down for the guidance of Committees, but whenever he appealed to lawyers to frame such rules he found that no two of them could agree. He thought the plan he proposed would be for the convenience of the Members and for the advantage of the public.
§ MR. LOWEhoped the House would not hastily reject a carefully considered proposition, which was placed before them upon great authority, and which was called for by a serious emergency. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield was in error in supposing that the House would resume this question with equal effect at the beginning of next Session. If Parliament meant to keep the Private business in its own hands, some material changes in the mode of managing it must be made, and, above all, the serious defect of having the same case tried twice over by two independent tribunals. The main objection urged against the plan of Joint Committees of the two Houses was, that it would be impossible for the other House to furnish its due proportion of working Members to sit upon these Committees. It was therefore obvious that the first thing to be done was to reduce within manageable limits the amount of business to be thrown upon the Committees, and the question then arose how could that reduction be brought about. It would be impossible to introduce anything in the nature of pleadings without increasing the existing confusion. The only way was to require that measurable and ascertainable facts, such as engineering works, traffic, &c should be inquired into primarily and agreed upon, and that duty could best be performed by persons whom experience would render familiar with such details. The effect of such a plan would be to diminish the amount of labour now cast upon Members of the House, but if the House rejected this Referee proposal he did not see how the amount of business was to be reduced.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHfeared that if the Motion for postponement was agreed to there would be nothing done in this matter for a couple of years, inasmuch as there was every probability of a general election next year. He, however, hoped that some further explanation would be 2141 given as to the character of the Referees whom it was proposed to appoint.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought the House was much indebted to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the pains he had taken with regard to this matter. There was a great deal to be said in favour of the scheme now under consideration, but at the same time he was fully alive to the fact that this was the last day but one of the Session, and that much might be said against as well as for the plan. There appeared to be doubts in the minds of many hon. Members who had expressed their opinions, as to whether this was the best scheme that could be desired, and whether it might not be possible to devise some other mode of management. The hon. and gallant Gentleman told them the Committee had been unanimous in their opinion upon these propositions, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman should think it right to take the sense of the House upon them, the Members of the Government could not, in fairness, vote against them. He would, however, put it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman as a matter of discretion as well as of expediency, whether it would not be the better course to consent to postpone dealing with the subject until another Session? It would not be prejudicial to the plan to consent to such a postponement, for it must be borne in mind that there was always at the beginning of a Session a certain interval before Public business could be commenced, and that interval would afford a convenient opportunity of considering the best mode of dealing with the Private business.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he was always desirous of yielding, if possible, to the noble Lord's opinion, but in this instance the noble Lord was mistaken as to the effect of a postponement. To defer dealing with this subject until next Session, meant putting it off until the year 1866. There would be Referees to be appointed and rules to be drawn up which would prevent any action being taken next Session upon the Resolutions, if agreed to. He should leave it to the House to decide whether this subject should be now dealt with, or be put off for another year.
§ Question put:—The House divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 51: Majority 37.
§ MR. MASSEYhoped that three Members would be appointed on the Committee 2142 of Referees who should not be Members of that House.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONhoped that the Chairman of Ways and Means would not think it necessary to press his Amendment, as Members of the House might be found willing to act as Referees without payment, and it would be unadvisable to pass a Resolution precluding their appointment.
CAPTAIN JERVISwished to know if the court would be open to the public. He believed that the public, whose interests were concerned, would not have the same confidence in a body of paid Commissioners as they would in a court formed of Members of that House, from whom they would be more apt to expect an impartial verdict.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that the public would have access to the court as they now had to the Committees.
§ MR. ROEBUCKwished to know, whether the House was prepared to give power to any person to establish rules which they would not alter in the event of their being disapproved of by the House, because, if such rules should be made in the vacation, they would come into operation before the House met next Session?
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsuggested to the hon. Member for Sheffield the advisability of urging his objection when the clause to which he referred came on for discussion.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYdid not know how the House was to acknowledge the proceedings of any of those courts which were not presided over by one of their own Members. He thought it better that that question should be left an open one.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he was willing to let that question remain an open one.
§ MR. MASSEYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, as he found that the sense of the House was in favour of the matter being left open.
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDwished to call the attention of the House to the fact that, at present, the suggestion was that the Chairman of Ways and Means and three Referees should form two courts, so that the casting vote in either court must necessarily be exercised by the chairman in case of any difference of opinion between himself and the other Referee. This was the more to be regretted as the subjects to be decided by these courts were such as to involve much litigation and expense, and the Howe would find the same 2143 scheme brought before them year alter year in consequence of the dissatisfaction which the decision of one person must necessarily give. He would therefore suggest that each court should be composed of not less than three Members.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENwould agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsuggested the omission of the words "two at least to constitute each court."
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ MR. ROEBUCKthen moved in the place of the word "two" in line 4, to insert "three."
§ MR. SPEAKERwould point out to the House that such a Resolution would be tantamount to a direction to the Speaker to appoint five Referees instead of three as at present suggested.
§ MR. ROEBUCKobserved, that in order to constitute two courts there must be six persons appointed.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, the Order was to appoint not less than three persons.
§ MR. MASSEYsaid, it would be necessary to divide the Referees into two courts, in case the business should be too heavy for one to dispose of. He thought it would be unwise for the House to put an absolute prohibition upon the action of Mr. Speaker. A second court was only to be opened when the business was too much for one.
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, that if only one court was to be opened it would be better for it to be composed of three Referees, because if the court were composed of four, the Chairman would have a casting vote. Mr. Speaker's power of appointment would be exhausted in the first instance, unless they inserted the words "from time to time."
§ MR. MASSEYsaid, that the power of making further appointments was already provided for by the words "for such period as he shall think fit."
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he would move a proviso in reference to the second court, that the Chairman should be a Member of the House.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENthought that his hon. Friend was raising difficulties which would never occur. If they provided for every little difficulty, the occurrence of which was only possible, there 2144 would be no end to the provisions which they would have to frame.
§ MR. INGHAMwas of opinion that there was no necessity for the Chairman of the second court being a Member of the House.
§ SIR MORTON PETOcited the example of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Adair), whom no amount of work appeared to frighten.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHwould suggest that no such Referee, if a Member of the House, should receive a salary.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that the Chairman of Ways and Means was empowered in his absence to appoint one of the Referees to supply his place, and he thought that the Referee so appointed ought also to be a Member of the House.
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDthen moved, that the Chairman of the second court should be a Member of the House.
§ MR. LOWEregarded this Amendment as equivalent to resisting the formation of any second court at all, because he did not believe they would find a Member willing to undertake the drudgery which the office involved.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, that if Members could sit on Committees upstairs for four months there would be no difficulty in obtaining their services for a few weeks in the court below.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONagreed to the doctrine that the Chairman of the second court should be a Member of the House; the question was, Who was to appoint him?
§ MR. SPEAKERwould remind the House that he had no power to compel any Member to undertake the duty, and the possibility of putting such a provision into execution would entirely depend upon the willingness of any Member to fill the office. It would be compelling the Speaker to request, as a favour, some Member of the House to undertake the duty, and he thought that that was hardly the form in which the matter should be left.
§ MR. INGHAMsaid, the duties would occupy from ten in the morning to five in the afternoon daily, and perhaps not excepting Saturday. That would prevent the hon. Member who undertook the office from attending to his public duties.
§ MR. LYGONsaid, that if the duties did not deter the Chairman of Ways and Means from accepting the office in one court, he thought it ought not to deter any hon. Member from presiding over the second court.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYthought it would be much better to have only one court.
§
MR. DARBY GRIFFITH moved a proviso—
And provided that no such Referee, if he be a Member of this House, shall receive any salary.
§ MR. LYGONpointed out that if such a Referee were appointed with a salary his seat would be vacated on that account.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that the Chairman of Ways and Means was appointed with a salary, and did not vacate his seat. He was not an officer under the Crown.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it was quite clear that the Act only referred to appointments held under the Crown.
§ Proviso agreed to.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, he had now to put the Question that this House do agree with the Resolution of the Committee as amended. He would venture to point out that there had been considerable alteration made in it. It was his business to take upon him any duty the House might choose to impose upon him, but he would have been glad if in the course of the debate some indication had been given by the House with regard to the persons whom they might desire to be appointed as Referees. He had only been able to gather the opinion that the House was averse to the appointment of one class—engineers. When he accepted the duty, he believed that his services would be confined to the appointment of three Referees; and now it was extended possibly to five, and with the class of persons undetermined he could not help feeling that the duty was somewhat difficult to perform.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, there were two officers appointed by the Speaker to examine Private Bills; their appointment had given the utmost satisfaction; and he had no doubt that like satisfaction would be felt with regard to any appointment that might be made by the Speaker under this Bill.
§ Standing Order 86 B agreed to.
§ Standing Order 86 C,
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTEN moved that the Chairman of Ways and Means should be Chairman of the Referees.
§ COLONEL FRENCHhad heard nothing with reference to the amount of remuneration to be paid to the Referees. This 2146 was a mere experiment, and he wished to know whether the Referees appointed would be entitled to retiring pensions in case of failure?
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the scheme was experimental, If unsuccessful it would be put an end to, and there would be no pension or compensation. The salaries would have to be determined by a vote of the House.
§ MR. MASSEYthought that the rule before the House might be omitted, as it was inappropriate after the decision at which the House had arrived in the course of its discussion of the previous rule.
§ MR. HARVEY LEWISthought the question of remuneration ought to be fixed.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that in other Departments no difficulty had occurred in this respect.
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDasked, in the event of there being two courts, who was to be the Chairman of the second court?
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTEN moved the substitution of the words "first court" for "Referees" in the first part of the rule, which provided that the Chairman of Ways and Means should be the Chairman of the Referees.
§ The Order put, and negatived.
§ Order 86 D (Rules of Practice and Procedure to be made by Chairman of Ways and Means).
§ MR. ROEBUCKasked, whether these rules were to be acted on before the House had acceded to them? By such a course they would hand over to the Chairman of Ways and Means a power which should be retained in that House.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, the principle of framing these rules was taken from the system of the Courts of Law, and their only object was that the business should be carried on satisfactorily.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY moved after "may require" to insert "but only the Counsel shall appear before such Referees in support of a Private Bill, or in support of any petition in opposition thereto."
§ SIR MORTON PETOasked whether any counsel at all were necessary, as the solicitors and agents were quite competent to conduct the business. He believed that if counsel were let in, not one or two but half-a-dozen courts would be necessary.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, it was at the suggestion of the Parliamentary agents themselves that counsel were to be admitted. The Chairman of Ways and Means, however, would be empowered to regulate the proceedings before the Referees.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONthought that parties ought not to be deprived of the power of employing counsel as they pleased, especially as property to a large extent was involved in many cases that came before these Committees.
§ MR. BRADYsaid, that the lawyers and agents who had recommended that counsel should be heard before the Board of Referees, were the very parties who were specially interested in increasing the cost of those inquiries.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, that perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like the parties to toss up to determine which side should win. The employment of counsel was for the interest of the parties, who naturally desired that their case should be stated in the best manner, and the right to retain counsel for the purpose of these proceedings ought not to be restricted.
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsupported the proposal of the hon. Baronet, that only one counsel should be allowed to appear. It would not be desirable to leave it to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who was himself a barrister, to adopt what might appear an invidious rule to his profession.
§ MR. INGHAMthought the proposal of the hon. Baronet a reasonable one.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH,acknowledging the efforts of the President of the Board of Trade to regulate the fees of the Parliamentary Bar, asked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman could inform the House of any satisfactory result?
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he could not give much information on this subject beyond that which was already in the possession of the House. The doctrine which he held was simply this, that the fees of the Parliamentary Bar should be regulated as the fees in the ordinary Courts of Law and Equity were regulated. He was informed that the doors of the Committee-rooms were now thrown open, and that members of the Equity and Common Law Bars could now come in and practise there without incurring the displeasure of the Parliamentary Bar.
§ MR. COXpointed out that, by allowing only one counsel to appear for each party, 2148 the promoters would have but a single counsel against perhaps half-a-dozen retained for different petitioners against the Bill.
CAPTAIN JERVISthought the restriction a most salutary one, for the result would be the employment of one counsel, who would be present throughout the proceedings and attend exclusively to the case.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Order 86 D, as amended, agreed to.
§
Order 86 E,
The Referees shall inquire into all or any of the following matters as to which parties petitioning against any Bill desire to be heard in opposition, viz.—1. In the case of Bills of the Second Class for authorizing the construction of Works, the engineering details of the undertaking, the efficiency of the Works for the proposed object, and the sufficiency of the estimate for executing the same; 2. In the case of Bills for authorizing a new line of railway, the statistics of the traffic proposed to be accommodated; 3. In the case of Waterworks Bills, the nature and amount of the existing and the proposed source of supply, the qualify of the water in each case, and the provisions as to storage reservoirs; 4. In the case of Gas Bills, the quality of the gas, the existing supply and its price, the amount of pressure, the cost of production, and the modes of testing the purity and illuminating power of the gas,
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that after the length of time which had already been occupied in that discussion, he would propose that No. 2 in 86 C, which was the only debateable point he believed that still remained, should be left open for consideration in another Session, when he would move it as a special Resolution.
§ SIR MORTON PETOsuggested, that Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 should be postponed till another Session.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYremarked that this regulation referred to railways, and would involve the whole question.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the inquiries contemplated in No. I would really place the whole Bill within the jurisdiction of the Referees, whose decision was to be practically without appeal. A noble Lord in the other House was said to be the House of Lords as far as Private Bills were concerned. He was not prepared to make these Referees in the same way the House of Commons.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, the sole effect of the provision would be, that where questions relating to engineering matters were concerned, they would go before the Referees instead of the Committee. He begged, as the discussion had taken 2149 this turn, to move "That Order 86 stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONwas disposed to agree in the objections of the hon. and learned Member. The efficiency of the works for the proposed object and the sufficiency of the estimate were really inferences from facts. It seemed to him, therefore, that the Referees ought to report the facts, as well as the inference which they drew from those facts.
§ SIR MORTON PETO moved the postponement of Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, which, he thought, would be better inquired into next Session. This proposal would practically constitute two trials of the whole affair instead of one, whereas he had understood that the business of the Referees would be simply to denude the inquiry before the Committee of all unnecessary matter.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that if these paragraphs were struck out the omission would make perfect nonsense of the whole scheme. The facts into which the Referees were to inquire had nothing to do with the merits; they were only the facts upon which the merits depend, and they could be as well ascertained by other parties as by Members of the House.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHthought the engineering details and the sufficiency of the estimate were matters which could properly be ascertained by the Referees.
§ MR. SPEAKERhaving put the Question that Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 be struck out,
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, it appeared to him that such a proposition amounted to asking the House to reconsider their decision. They had decided to constitute Courts of Referees, and it was now necessary to decide what questions should be referred to them. If those four clauses were now to be postponed until next Session they would simply have wasted four hours in a discussion upon them. That would give to their proceedings the character of a farce.
§ SIR MORTON PETOsaid that, under the circumstances, he would not press the Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he would have no objection to strike out No. 2 in order to save the time of the House, and he would undertake to bring it forward again next Session. With regard to the remaining clauses, they were mere matters of fact upon which he believed there would be no difference of opinion.
§ No. 2 struck out.
2150§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENthen moved the adoption of Standing Order, 86 F,
So soon as the inquiry into the matters referred to them upon any Bill has been completed, the Referees shall make their Report upon the same to the House, and the Report shall thereupon stand referred to the Select Committee on the Bill. No further evidence shall be taken by the Committee to prove or disprove any of the facts reported by the Referees.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSON moved the insertion, after the word "House," of the words "stating the facts on which their opinion is founded." He thought it but right that the Select Committee should be put in possession of that information.
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDthought that if the opinion of the Referees was to be final, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would only open the door to useless criticism.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENconcurred with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that such an Amendment would only provoke unnecessary discussions.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONdid not propose that it should be competent to the Committee to prove or disprove the facts into which the Referees had already inquired; but unless a report of the facts was before the Committee it could not arrive at a conclusion as to whether the inference drawn by the Referees was a correct one, and he was not prepared to deprive the Committees of the House of the power to judge of the inference which should be drawn from ascertained facts.
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDreiterated his objections to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
§ MR. INGHAMsaid, the Referees would have to state the result of certain facts, but the Committee would have no power to go into the details by which the Referees had arrived at them. The policy of the measure would remain in the discretion of the Committee.
§ MR. MASSEYsaid, the Amendment was no innovation on the existing practice. If the Referees were to report their conclusions without stating the facts upon which they were based, he did not think their Reports would have the confidence of that House. If the Committee had the power to refer the Report back for further consideration he thought it would be sufficient.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, the object of the Standing Order was to allow 2151 the details to be thoroughly investigated before the Referees.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the material facts were not, at present, the proper inquiry for a Select Committee. It would be the duty of the Referees to look into the details and see that they were sound.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYasked whether, if a Bill was unopposed, the details would be looked into and examined by the Referees?
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Question put, that the Order, as amended, be agreed to,
§ MR. ROEBUCKobserved that, in the case of a Water Bill, if the Referees had taken evidence as to the sufficiency of a puddle wall, the Select Committee would be precluded from making any inquiry as to whether the wall was sufficient or not; but if after the construction of the work the wall should fall, the world would say it had been approved by a Select Committee, when, in fact, the catastrophe would be due to the neglect of the Referees.
§ Standing Order, as amended, agreed to.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENthen proposed Standing Order 86 G—
The Select Committee to which any Bill has been referred may, subject to the approval of the Chairman of Ways and Means, refer any question arising in the course of their inquiry which they may deem suitable to be so referred to the Referees for their decision; such question to be stated in writing, and signed by the Chairman of the Committee. The Referees, so soon as their inquiry has been completed, to return the question, with their decision certified thereon, to the Chairman.
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD moved an Amendment, limiting the questions to be so referred to questions of fact.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, the Standing Order was framed at the suggestion of several experienced members of the railway body. A point had arisen the other day between the Great Northern and Great Eastern Railways with regard to the connection of the lines, which it would have been desirable, if it could have been done, to refer to arbitration. It was to meet a similar case that the Standing Order had been introduced.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought it would be putting an unlimited amount of labour upon the Chairman of Ways and Means, before the fact was ascertained that he would accept the duty. These Committees were to be permitted to make refer- 2152 ences to the Referees without the Referees being bound to undertake the duties.
§ MR. LOWEwas of opinion that the machinery of reference would break down under the additional work thus proposed to be put upon it.
§ MR. MASSEYhoped the House would not overburden the Chairman of Ways and Means.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Standing Order 86 G agreed to.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, this was the last of these Resolutions. If the experiment should fail, he would be one of the first to vote for its repeal. He thought, however, that it would be beneficial.
§ On the Motion of Colonel WILSON PATTEN Orders 113 and 113 A struck out.
§
Standing Order in lieu of 113 A (Absence of Members by Death or otherwise to be reported)—
If, at any time after the Committee on a Bill shall have been formed, a quorum of Members required by the Standing Orders cannot attend in consequence of any of the Members who shall have duly qualified to serve on such Committee having become incompetent to continue such service by having been placed on an Election Committee, or by death, or otherwise, the Chairman shall report the circumstances of the case to the House in order that such measures may be taken by the House as shall enable the Members still remaining on the Committee to proceed with the business referred to such Committee, or as the emergency of the case may require.
—put, and agreed to.
§ Standing Order 143,
§
MR. SCOURFIELD moved to insert after the word "railway," in line 13 of 48, the following words:—
The amounts subscribed and paid by the persons named and described in the Schedule to the Bill, the bonâ fides of such subscription, and the correctness of the names, residences, and description of the subscribers.
§ SIR MORTON PETOhoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, I and the other Resolutions of which the hon. Member had given notice, as they would be fatal to many great undertakings already in progress. He would be quite ready to consider the whole subject in another Session.
§ MR. MASSEYsaid, that the change which his hon. Friend proposed to make was one of a very extensive character, but it did not properly relate to the mere Standing Orders of the House. He would recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw 2153 the Amendment, and next Session to take the deliberate opinion of the House upon the subject.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Standing Order agreed to.
§
MR. TORRENS moved that the following be a new Order:—
That on every Private Bill to be considered by a Committee all Petitions presented by the Promoters, Opponents, or other parties Petitioning on matters connected with such Bill be printed, and a Copy of every Petition be placed in the hands of the Members of the Committee on its assembling.
§ MR. MASSEYsaid, that the proposal was one of a novel character, and would entail a considerable addition of expenditure on the parties. He did not say, however, that it ought on that account to be rejected. But he would ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion for the present so as to allow him (Mr. Massey) to confer with those persons concerned in the conduct of private business, and next Session he would have an opportunity of conferring with the hon. Member himself, and the result might be a proposition which would be generally acceptable.
§ MR. TORRENSintimated that after that assurance he would not press the Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Standing Orders relating to Private Bills repealed.
§ Ordered, That the several Orders, as reported by the Committee and amended by this House, be the Standing Orders of this House relating to Private Bills, and be printed. [No. 545.]