CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 23 July 1877)

§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEY,
in moving that the Consideration be deferred for three months, said that the original estimate on the Bill, when presented to the House of Lords, was £12,000, upon which a deposit of 5 per cent was made. That estimate had now been increased to £40,000, while the deposit had not been correspondingly increased. The Select Committee of the House of Commons had passed the Bill, inserting the following clause:— Whereas it appeared that the said Estimate was wholly insufficient, and that to complete the works a further sum will he required, it shall not be lawful for the company to put any of the powers of this Act in execution until they have deposited a further sum in the Court of Chancery of £1,400. A Bill passed upon such a Report as that would be a violation of the Standing Orders of the House. The argument used by the promoters of the Bill was, that the increase had been caused by the House of Lords striking out the clause relating to steam power; but the original Bill provided for the use of steam or other power, and an equal expense would follow upon the use of either power. He submitted that the extra deposit provided for in the clause he had read did not meet the case, as it was not done under 1654 the authority of the Standing Orders and would enable the promoters to keep their powers hanging over the parties concerned without giving the required guarantee in the shape of the proper deposit paid at once. It was an illustration of the evils that might arise if the Report of the Committee was acted upon, that the the promoter of this Bill had become a bankrupt since it passed the House of Lords, and had parted with his interest in the Bill, thus indicating that the additional deposit of 5 per cent had not been made, because he was unable to provide the deposit, and therefore unfitted, to be entrusted with a concession of this sort. This case would make a bad precedent and open a door to all the evils which the Standing Order was intended to prevent. Although the deposit had, within the last day or two, been paid, yet he held that the Standing Orders had not been strictly observed, and he intended to divide the House, unless a statement by the Chairman of the Committee could remove the objections which he had expressed. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill.

§ MR. RODWELL
said, he knew nothing of the facts of the case, but he looked upon it as a question of principle; and if what the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) had stated was correct, it seemed to him there had been a gross infringement of the Standing Orders. The question would arise whether it was such an infringement as would be fatal to the Bill. In his experience, it was an unprecedented case. Two Standing Orders were involved. One provided that a deposit should be paid into the Court of Chancery in Ireland, for the purpose of guaranteeing those whose property was affected, and in order to show the bona fides of the scheme. In the interest of the public that was a most important Standing Order; for parties might bring forward Bills which would greatly affect the public interest and the interest of property, and yet not have any capital to warrant their undertaking. In this case the Committee had exceeded their duty, and had misunderstood their 1655 duty, because until the Standing Orders were complied with, no Committee could deal with such a question as this at all. In this case £600 was the deposit originally made, and £2,000 was the deposit required. A few years ago, a special tribunal was instituted to inquire into the question of estimates, and the Bill would at once have been stopped on the showing before that tribunal that the estimate was insufficient, or that the deposit was insufficient. In both those respects there had been a default, and if the Bill was sanctioned without further investigation all Standing Orders had better be erased. The matter should be referred back to the Standing Orders Committee, because no private Committee could take upon itself to do what was in direct violation of the Standing Orders. No case similar to this had arisen in his Parliamentary experience.

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,
as Chairman of the Committee on the Bill under notice, said, the Committee did not state that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, because it was their opinion, so far as they could tell, that they had been complied with. The question was entirely one of estimate. The Bill came before the Committee supported by the local authorities and by the townships through which the tramways would pass, and by the Corporation of the City of Dublin; in fact, there was no opposition to it at all, except from the tramway company which had already many tramways in the vicinity of Dublin, and which did not oppose so much on the ground of competition, as on the ground of jealousy at the introduction of a new company in the neighbourhood of Dublin. As regarded the estimate, no doubt it was a rather startling fact in Committee when it appeared that the original estimate of £12,000 was proposed to be increased to £40,000; but, in the first place, this increase was honestly and straightforwardly stated in answer to a question of the counsel for the Bill; and the circumstances of the increase were not the subject of much evidence, as the opponents did not attempt to prove that the original estimate was insufficient. The Committee were unanimously of opinion that there was no evidence to show that the original estimate had been insufficient; but as in consequence of the change made at the instance of the Board of Trade in the 1656 House of Lords, whereby steam was struck out of the Bill, the expense would be greatly increased, it seemed to them a case in which a change had become necessary. They did not act hastily; they sent a message to Mr. Rickards, the Speaker's Counsel, requesting him to advise with them. He asked were they satisfied that the original estimate was bonâ fide? They said they were. Were they satisfied that the application was straightforwardly made? They were satisfied of that. Then he said the Bill might be saved by putting into it a clause which he would draft. That clause had been embodied in the Bill, and was to the effect that before any of the works were executed, an additional amount should be deposited. That increase had been deposited. Another change had also been made, greatly to the advantage of the Bill, and it came in a shape which commended itself to the Committee, because of the substantial character of Mr. Lombard, the gentleman who promoted it. There could be no doubt that the works would be carried out satisfactorily and substantially. The Committee were satisfied that there was no mala fides in the case. He admitted that it was exceptional, but did not think it would constitute a precedent; or even if it did, that it would be otherwise than a good one. He believed the Committee were right in the course they had taken, acting as they did, not on their own opinion alone, but on the advice of Mr. Rickards. When a good deal of time had been spent upon a Bill of this sort, which was supported by all the local authorities and opposed by no one of importance, it was a pity that it should be opposed by a technical objection raised at the last stage.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, this was a very important point, well deserving the attention of the House. The House would recognize the pains and care which the Committee had brought to this inquiry, and it was important to avoid diminishing the authority of a Select Committee; but the statements made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bodwell) showed that this was a very exceptional and peculiar case. In 1850 and in 1853 questions of the sort arose, and a Motion was made, to refer the Bills to the Examiner of Private Bills, that he might report to the House whether or 1657 not there had been any infractions of the Standing Orders. He would not prejudge this case, but would be satisfied if they could obtain the Report of the Examiner. It appeared to be exceedingly doubtful whether the Committee had observed the Standing Orders, and especially that one which was intended to prevent schemes obtaining the authority of Parliament which might be used in order to occupy the ground, and prevent the operation of genuine companies. It was also intended to prevent such things as occurred in foreign countries, where persons obtained concessions, and made what they could out of them. The only security Parliament had been able to devise had been to require that the estimates of these schemes should be bonâ fide, and that a sufficient deposit should be made. It would be lamentable if, on the decision of a single Committee, they were to deviate from those rules which had obtained hitherto general approval, and to depart from the spirit of the Standing Orders. But they had a Committee on Standing Orders, with an Examiner, who reported to the Committee. He should be sorry if there were any division on the question, as it might put the parties in a false position, and inflict unnecessary hardships on the promoters of the Bill. If the Bill was referred back to the Committee it would go to the Examiner, and if they thought the circumstances were such that the House might take an exceptional course the matter would be regularly proceeded with. He thought if both the Motion and the Amendment were withdrawn, it would be well if a Motion was passed, which he would then move, that the Bill, as amended in Committee, be referred to the Examiner of Petitions on Private Bills, to inquire whether the Amendments involved any infraction of the Standing Orders of the House.

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH
expressed his readiness to accede to the course suggested by the Chairman of Ways and Means.