§ Sir F. BANBURYI wish to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, upon a question of procedure relating to the further stages of the Railways Bill, provided it passes the Second Reading. The custom of the House is that Bills dealing with private property should be sent to a Private Bill Committee. There are Bills dealing partly with private property which at the same time are partly public Bills. They have always been considered, as stated in Erskine May, as what are called hybrid Bills, and such Bills are referred, first of all, to a Private Bill Committee, where counsel can be heard, and are then taken in Committee of the whole House. There is a precedent for that in the turning over of the London Water Companies to the Metropolitan Water Board. The Bill went first to a Private Bill Committee, where counsel were heard; then it came back to this House and was considered here in Committee of the whole House. The same course was followed with the Bill dealing with the London dockyards. That Bill went to a Private Bill Committee and then to a Committee of the whole House. Those are examples within the last 15 or 20 years. This Railways Bill certainly deals with private interests; of that there can be no question. To a certain extent it is also a public Bill. Therefore I want to ask whether it does not fulfil the definition laid down in Erskine May and become a 43 hybrid Bill, in which case it should go first to a Private Bill Committee upstairs, where counsel can be heard, and then should come down to this House and be considered in Committee of the whole House. It might be considered—I do not express any opinion as to whether it is right or wrong—that if it is a Bill dealing with the whole of the railways it should be regarded entirely as a public Bill; but, if it is a Bill dealing only with some of the railways, I think there can be no question whatever that it is a Bill which should be dealt with as a hybrid Bill.
4.0 P.M.
If you look at Clause 3 you will see at once that there is an exception. The Great Western Railway is not dealt with as are the other railways. The other railways are formed into constituent groups and those constituent groups have subsidiary groups allotted to them. First of all they have to be formed into constituent groups. The Great Western Railway is a class all to itself and is made a constituent group in itself. Then, if you look at Clause 30, you will see that the Metropolitan Railway is left out of the Bill altogether. It cannot be argued that the Metropolitan Railway is merely an underground tube. It runs down into the country something like 40 miles. My hon. Friends below me say even 50 miles. Clause 30 exempts those railways whose rates have been fixed by special Acts of Parliament, and that includes, not only the Metropolitan Railway, but the District Railway, which also runs for a certain distance into the country, and, naturally, all the tube railways. I submit that this is a hybrid Bill, first of all, because it deals with private interests, and, secondly, because it does not deal with the whole of the railways but only with parts of the railways. Therefore, I venture to ask whether it ought not to go to the Examiners and be reported upon; whether, after Second Reading, it ought not to go upstairs to a hybrid Committee appointed partly by the Committee of Selection and partly by this House, and whether then it ought not to be considered by a Committee of the whole House.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe right hon. Baronet gave me notice before the Recess of his intention to raise this question. That has given me an opportunity of consulting all the experienced authori- 44 ties of the House. I find that they are unanimous—and after my own examination I hold the same view—that this is not a Bill of the nature of a hybrid Bill, which should go to a Private Bill Committee. The precedents quoted by the right hon. Baronet, I think, do not apply. If he were to continue his researches, he would find some much nearer parallels to the present Bill. Let him take, for instance, any one of the Irish Land Bills. They certainly affected private interests, but they were Bills dealing with matters of public policy, and it seems to me that this Railways Bill is eminently a measure dealing with a question of public policy.
The right hon. Gentleman raises two particular points. One I admit. The Bill affects private interests, but so do most of our Bills—the Finance Bill in particular—but we do not send them upstairs to be opposed by counsel. Then he raises another point, about two railways appearing to be dealt with differently from the bulk of the railways—one with regard to a certain group, and another with regard to a certain Metropolitan Railway. It is not for me to say whether that be a right or a wrong policy. It may arise from geographical or from other reasons with which I am not concerned; but you could hardly have a general Bill applying to all the main railways of the United Kingdom, without differences of circumstance being taken into consideration. Therefore, I am clearly of opinion that this is a public Bill, and that it must go through the ordinary procedure of the House.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMay I say that it is a matter of common knowledge that the Metropolitan Railway was included in the original Bill. Therefore, it would be perfectly easy to include the Metropolitan Railway.
§ Mr. SPEAKERVery likely the right hon. Baronet will propose to re-insert that in Committee?
§ Sir F. BANBURYNo, I should like to leave out all the railways.