RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 25 February 1884)

§ MR. HIBBERT
, in rising to move— That the Committee of Selection do appoint a Committee, not exceeding Seven in number, to whom shall he referred all Private Bills promoted by Municipal and other Local Authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police or Sanitary Peculations which deviate from, or are in extension of, or repugnant to, the general Law:—That Standing Order 173a shall he applicable to the said Committee:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum, said, as his right hon. Friend the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who took great interest in the question, was not present on Monday last, when an understanding was come to on the subject of this Motion, he wished to explain what had occurred. On Tuesday the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) opposed the second reading of certain 1834 Municipal Bills, because they contained clauses extending the general law. It was suggested that the House should allow the Bills to be read a second time, on the understanding that they should be referred to a Special Committee, who would take into consideration all the proposals contained in them which altered the general law. It was quite clear that the object which the right hon. Gentleman had in view when the Committee of 1882 was appointed would be secured by the adoption of this course. The House and the country were very much indebted to his right hon. Friend, and the other hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Committee with him two years ago, for the attention and labour they had bestowed upon the question; and he ought to explain how it was that the Standing Order, which was founded upon the recommendation of that Committee, had not been found to give that satisfaction which had been expected. He was informed by the Local Government Board that many Bills which contained clauses of this character last year went before Private Bill Committees, and that those Committees took very little notice either of the Report of the Local Government Board or of the Standing Order proposed by his right hon. Friend two years ago. He could go into detail, and point out in what respect many of the Bills departed from the Standing Order; but he did not think it was necessary to take up the time of the House. He thought the House would agree with him that Bills of this kind should receive proper consideration; and it was considered by the Local Government Board and by the Home Office that all Bills which contained clauses which extended the general law, either in reference to sanitary improvements or improvements of police, should be as far as possible referred to the same Committee. Having that object in view, and desiring to give every credit to his right hon. Friend for what he had done in the matter, he trusted the House would assent to the appointment of this Committee, so that all these different Bills might have full and fair consideration, and something like uniformity be secured in the manner in which they were dealt with.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, he was glad to hear the explanation of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert), as he thought the House would naturally expect to have some good reasons given to them for dealing with these very important Bills in an exceptional manner. His hon. Friend had done no more than justice to the labours of the Committee of 1882, and he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) might say, in respect to those labours, that on that occasion, for the first time, the attention of Parliament was directed to the anomalous character of the proceedings, which, from year to year, were being conducted in the Private Bill legislation of the House, and which involved serious alterations of the existing law. With a view of conducing to the public, as well as private interests, special provisions had been enacted by the Standing Order in regard to Railway, Gras, and other Bills; but Bills promoted by the corporations of large communities were now becoming an important part of the Private Bill legislation of the House of Commons. Such Bills, in the interest of the Municipalities, were obliged to deal with subjects which would be much more properly dealt with under the general law. The Committee, of which he had the honour to be Chairman, dealt fairly, but stringently, with the Bills which came before them; and, as the outcome of their labours, a Standing Order was formed, which the House was pleased to adopt, which was intended to give security that similar Bills introduced in future should be dealt with in the same way. What he understood his hon. Friend and the Government to object to was that although the Standing Order was sufficient for this purpose, there was no security that it would be carried out with uniformity in regard to all the Bills that might be brought before different Committees in the course of the same Session. Under the Motion of Reference now proposed, he understood that it was intended to send all these Bills before the same Committee, and to make it compulsory that the Standing 1836 Order passed in 1882 should apply to them. If that was so, he could not agree with what his hon. Friend had just said, that the Standing Order had failed in its object. On the contrary, all that he understood was that it had failed to be uniformly applied by all the Committees appointed last year; and on that account, and that account only, the hon. Gentleman proposed that another Special Committee should be appointed. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) agreed, therefore, that it was desirable that the Motion should be adopted, and that the same policy should be pursued as in other Sessions, so that there might be more uniform dealing with these subjects under the provisions of the Standing Order which was passed in 1882 upon the Report of the Committee to which he had referred.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he wished to put a question to the hon. Gentleman who proposed the alteration of the Standing Order (Mr. Hibbert). He wished to know whether the Instruction to the Committee would include questions relating to licensing, because he understood that the Leicester Corporation Bill contained provisions which would affect that matter?

§ MR. HIBBERT
The Leicester Corporation Bill is one of the measures that will come before the Committee.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he was glad to hear that that was the case, because he was given to understand that in other instances some extraordinary provisions had been adopted in regard to licensing, which went far beyond the provisions of the Act of George II.

§ MR. HIBBERT
was understood to say that the Leicester Corporation had agreed to withdraw the extraordinary provisions from the Bill.

§ MR. A. M'ARTHUR
said, that as reference had been made to the Leicester Corporation Bill, he wished to state that the opposition—if it could be called opposition—of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), when the question was before the House a few days ago, arose from some misapprehension on his part; but his hon. and learned Friend was now satisfied that there was nothing objectionable in the Bill. He (Mr. A. M'Arthur) desired also to say he was informed, on the highest authority, that the Bill had been thoroughly discussed in Leicester, 1837 and was carried, notwithstanding some opposition, by a majority of 4,000 or 5,000 votes. It was also incorrect to state that it was intended to convert the Wednesday market into a Saturday market. He was told that the new site was much more suitable and convenient for a market than the one to be abolished, that it was twice the size, and almost within a stone's throw of the old market, and that the proposals of the Corporation in this respect were unquestionably approved by a large proportion of the population. Seeing that there was nothing objectionable or unusual in the Bill, he failed to see any necessity for sending it to a Special Committee, the effect of which would simply be to retard the progress of a measure which authorized a much needed improvement, and for no useful purpose. He, therefore, hoped the Leicester Bill would not be sent to the proposed Committee.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
said, he had just one word to add in regard to this matter. He thought the Government had done good service to the House in proposing the Motion, and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who had so much signalized himself by his endeavour to deal with the subject, would not be likely to oppose the Motion which had been made. He (Mr. Hopwood) had watched the Reports which had been presented to the House by some of the Committees who had inquired into these matters, and although the House desired, by this Standing Order, that the Committee should give some reasons and explain why they departed from the general law or increased the stringency of these provisions, those reasons were generally of a laconic kind—such, for instance, as "We allowed this because we thought it right." He thought the Instruction given by the House had been hardly fulfilled, and, as that was so, and as there was a possibility of the old neglect upon this subject becoming chronic and being repeated from year to year, he thought the Government had very wisely brought forward this Resolution at this stage. He wished to express his entire satisfaction as to the course which had been taken, because he thought it was essential that, as far as possible in all matters of this kind, the law of the land should be uniform.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
asked who was to decide whether a particular Bill contained provisions that were repugnant to the general law? Was it to be left to some Department in the House of Commons, or to the Local Government Board, or to the Home Office? There was another question he also wished to ask. Supposing a Bill, as originally framed, included clauses which were considered to be repugnant to the general law by the authorities, whoever they might be, and the promoters of the Bill consented to withdraw such clauses, would the Bill so amended be withdrawn from the Committee; or, if the Committee was once seized with it, would it be necessary for them to go through with it?

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, he thought it would be a matter for the Chairman of Committees to decide what were the Bills which ought to go before the Committee. In regard to the other question, he thought that if clauses which involved an extension of the law in regard to sanitary or police improvements were withdrawn, the Bill would then plainly come under the ordinary Rules which regulated Private Bill legislation.