HC Deb 20 March 1902 vol 105 cc526-31

(3.10.) MR. CARVILL (Newry) moved that the Order for the committal of this Bill be road and discharged; that the Bill be referred to a hybrid Committee of five Members; and that all petitions against the Bill presented not later than five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee. He said that public bodies in Ireland interested in the Bill were taken by surprise, and that was duo to the inconsistency of the House itself A similar Bill was decisively rejected last year, and if there had been any idea that that decision would be reversed in the present year petitions against the Bill would have been presented. Now the time for presenting petitions had passed, and unless this Motion were agreed to the Bill would go through as an unopposed measure.

* MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Member will not be in order in arguing against the propriety of the decision the House came to. The House has ordered the Second Reading of the Bill and has referred it to a Select Committee. The only question is whether that or another Committee should deal with the Bill, and the hon. Member cannot argue that the Bill ought not to have been read a second time.

MR. CARVILL

said he had not intended to put his argument in that form. He was simply trying to find a reason why he should ask the House to grant the relief for which he prayed. He suggested that that reason was to be found in the inconsistency of the House itself. Those for whom he spoke would have lodged petitions against the Bill had they had any idea that parliament would have reversed its decision, which it did without a single argument or fresh fact being adduced. He thought he could show that no new facts were brought forward.

* MR. SPEAKER

I have already informed the hon. Member that he cannot argue against the decision of the House. I hope he will observe my ruling.

MR. CARVILL

regretted that he was precluded from bringing forward what he believed to be a serious grievance.

* MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member does not quite understand my ruling. He is at liberty to say that certain persons were not prepared to deal with the question in Committee because they had taken it for granted that the Bill would not be read a second time, and had consequently not petitioned against it. He can ask for the appointment of a hybrid Committee, but he is not at liberty to argue against the decision which the House came to on the Second Reading.

MR. CARVILL

said he was trying to suggest reasons why public bodies affected should he put into a position to lay their allegations against the Bill before a Committee. Otherwise he feared it would go through as an unopposed measure. He confidently asked the House to grant this relief.

MR. PATRICK WHITE (Meath, N.)

seconded, and said his constituents were taken entirely by surprise by the action of the House. They were most vitally interested, and greatly desired to appear before the Committee. He, therefore, hoped the House would meet them in a fair spirit.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for Committal of the Kingscourt, Keady, and Armagh Railway Bill be read, and discharged; that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of five Members, three to be nominated by the House, and two by the Committee of Selection.

"That all petitions against the Bill presented not later than five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee.

"That such of the petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their counsel agents, or witnesses, be heard on their petitions against the Bill, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.

"That the Committee have power to send for persons, Papers, and records.

"That three be the quorum."—(Mr. Carvill.)

* MR. LONSDALE (Armagh, Mid)

submitted that the Motion was most unusual and irregular, and in the case of an ordinary Bill involving no new principle it was unprecedented. He had no desire to stand in the way of any legitimate discussion. Two petitions had been presented against the Bill, and if, according to the practice of the House, they were entitled to any locus standi to be heard before a Select Committee, he was quite satisfied. It would establish a very unfortunate and pernicious precedent if parties, being in doubt as to whether they had a locun standi before a Select Committee, were able to obtain the reference of the measure which they opposed to a hybrid Committee. Such a course would put the promoters to very considerable expense when there was no locus standi whatever.

MR. McGOVERN (Cavan, W.)

supported the Motion on the ground that the interests of his constituents were seriously compromised. He failed to see what possible objection there could be to allow all persons interested an opportunity of opposing the Bill in a legal manner.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)

said that hon. Members did not realise how far they were asking the House to depart from its usual practice. There were definite Standing Orders which laid down the manner in which petitions should he lodged against a Bill, and as one who frequently took the Chair in the Court of Referees, he urged that such a Motion ought not to be agreed to unless very special reasons were shown for taking the Bill out of the regular course. He might point out that hybrid Committees were usually formed in cases in which private interests were involved in a public Bill, and when it was thought proper that private individuals should have the right of being heard. Then, too, they were sometimes formed in cases in which very general interests were affected by a private Bill. But having listened carefully to what had fallen from the hon. Members he saw no reason for taking this Bill out of the ordinary course.

MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)

said that the circumstances might justify some special consideration, but the Motion went too far. The only claim which could be made was that petitioners against the Bill should not be excluded because the usual time for presenting petitions had passed. So great were the dangers and inconveniences of departing from the usual procedure, that if his hon. friend could only obtain satisfaction by substituting a hybrid for a Select Committee, he should feel obliged to vote against his hon. friend's Motion. But if he would modify his Motion with a view to getting permission for those for whom he spoke now to lodge a petition which would stand the scrutiny of the Court of Referees, he would give him his support.

(3.26.) MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea, District)

hoped that the hon. Member for Newry would not press his Motion, in view of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Partick, whose remarks were founded on long experience. The Private Bill procedure of Parliament had stood the test of time, and he thought that it would be unwise if the House in a particular case departed from the ordinary rule. In his judgment, no case had been made out of an exceptional character in respect of this Bill. If it could be shown that either by accident or mistake the persons opposing this Bill failed to lodge their petitions in time, no doubt some way could be found out of the difficulty.

MR. CARVILL

I say that public bodies affected were taken by surprise.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES

That could hardly be said, as the Bill was before the House last year.

MR. CARVILL

And then the decision was the other way. My constituents believed in some continuity of policy on the part of the House.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES

said he was sure the Private Bill Committee would consider any proper representations that might reach them.

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. JEFFREYS,) Hampshire, N.

thought that the hon. Member had taken an unusual course. If the Motion was carried and the Bill referred to a hybrid Committee, not only would the petition to which the hon. Member referred be heard, but other petitions as well. It would cause a great deal of trouble to hear these petitions, and the effect might be to defeat the Bill altogether. The time had of course expired for lodging petitions, but the course to adopt might be similar to the case last session when the Chairman of Ways and Means moved the House to suspend one of the Standing Orders, so that the petitioners might be heard on their case upstairs. He hoped the House would not assent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. CARVILL

After the explanation just made and the suggestion thrown out by the Deputy Chairman. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion. I shall in due course make the appeal suggested, and I hope thus to get the relief I am asking for.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.