HL Deb 11 July 1845 vol 82 cc390-4
Lord Brougham

then asked their Lordships if it was their intention to proceed with the Adjourned Debate on the following Resolution, as amended, which, he thought, would put a stop to a good deal of hardship and oppression, viz.:— That where any Party or Parties have appeared and contested any such Bills at the Bar or in the Committees of the House, it shall be lawful for the House or Committees, if in their Discretion they shall think fit, to direct the Expences of such Party or Parties incurred in the Proceedings before this House or its Committee to be paid by the opposite Party promoting the Bill; the Amount of suck Expences to be ascertained and certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments or Clerk-Assistant, by like Taxation and in the same Manner and upon the same Terms in all respects, as Costs on Appeals and Writs of Error are directed to be ascertained and certified by the Standing Order of this House, of the 3rd of April 1835 No. 215; and that the Petitioners for any such Bill, or some of them, as shall be approved by the Clerk of the Parliaments, shall, before the same is read a Second Time, give Security to the said Clerk, by Recognizance to be entered into to The Queen, of the Penalty of 5,000l., conditioned to pay all Expences which may be ordered by the House or the Committee to be paid to any Party or Parties opposing the Bill: That where any Committee has directed Expenses to be paid by any such Party, it shall report such Direction to the House specially, with the Circumstances inducing them so to direct."

The Duke of Richmond

suggested, that where the opposition was vexatious, the parties opposing should be made to bear the costs.

The Earl of Wicklow

said, that in all ordinary suits the person who lost was made to pay costs; and it certainly appeared rather absurd to him that in these suits those who were in the right, if they happened to be promoters of the Bill, should have to bear costs.

Lord Brougham

explained that, in ordinary cases where an action was brought, it was presumed that the defendant held some property belonging to the plaintiff. If a verdict were found for the plaintiff, he had, for a certain time, been kept out of that which belonged to him; and therefore the defendant was saddled with all costs. In this case the fact was different, for parties appearing to contest any of these Bills were about to have their property taken from them whether they would or no; and for that reason he thought that, even if unsuccessful, the House or Committees should have the discretion of directing the expenses to be paid by the party promoting the Bill.

Lord Monteagle

supported the Resolution. As powerful companies would, in the progress of railroads, become opponents of Bills, unless security were taken against undue opposition to, as well as undue promotion of, railways, injustice would be done. He proposed that recognizances should be taken on both sides.

Lord Brougham

altered the Resolution conformably to this suggestion.

Lord Redesdale

objected to the requiring recognizances, which would operate to the exclusion of the poor man.

Lord Brougham

said, that in the case of a poor man, recognizances, to whatever amount, would, in effect, be merely nominal.

The Duke of Richmond

said, it was well known that in this city there was a certain class of low attorneys, who had no character to lose, who could get up opposition to Bills, and that was what he wished to guard against. He believed that by and by the great body of the people would not be satisfied unless they had a railroad within a mile of their own houses.

Lord Wharncliffe

said, the power of inflicting costs should be given by Act of Parliament. He should take the sense of the House upon the Resolution. It was certainly wrong to do it by means of a Standing Order.

Lord Ashburton

took the same view of the subject.

The Earl of Wicklow

said, the Resolution as it stood would interfere with the right of petitioning. If a petition was presented and referred to a Committee, the poorest man must be prepared with his recognizances. Were their Lordships ready to place such a bar against the right of petitioning?

Lord Brougham

said, the Resolution could never injure any man whose property was affected by a railway. It was monstrous to say that the opposition of a man against his property being taken away without his consent, could be frivolous. Noble Lords were running away with a false idea. If this Resolution were to be put off day after day, he should wash his hands of it. He had reported the Resolution from the Committee, which was unanimous, and the House were now about to reject it, and pass a Bill. They might do so, and send their Bill down to the other House, and then (as had been done with some of the best Bills) a Minister might get up and say, "I have considered this matter, and I think there is not time to pass the Bill this Session." And men's property would be taken away without the possibility of getting the costs of resistance. He would, however, defer the Resolution till Monday.

Lord Wharncliffe

said, the House had no right to exercise the power, if they had it, of requiring every person coming there against a Bill to give recognizances. No alteration could reconcile him to the Resolution.

Lord Brougham

That seals the fate of the Resolution. If Her Majesty's Government oppose the Resolution, I, as an individual, must submit.

The Lord Chancellor

I do not consider this to be a question of the Government's.

Lord Wharncliffe

I speak as a Member of the House of Lords.

Lord Brougham

The Resolution does not interfere with the right of petition; even the Amendment does not interfere with that right. It does not prevent the presentation of petitions, but the granting of the prayer of the petition. The right of petition is not the right to have the prayer of the petition granted, but to have it received and read.

Lord Portman

thought that all this matter should be regulated by Act of Parliament. The proper way was to send a Bill for the consideration of the other House, or to receive a Bill from that House for their Lordships' consideration. There was a reference in the noble and learned Lord's Resolution to a Standing Order, which was made effectual by an Act of Parliament brought in by Lord Eldon, who must have considered it necessary to have an Act of Parliament to tax costs. It was the first time it was ever proposed by a Standing Order to give costs in their legislative proceedings. He thought the House would be wise if they adopted the view of the President of the Council, and negatived the Resolution.

Lord Brougham

said, he had never heard so many mistakes in any one speech as in that which the noble Lord who had just sat down had thought proper to make.

The Earl of Devon

objected to the Resolution in toto. It held out to the people this:—"We must receive your petitions, but we will put such a clog upon the right as will make it nugatory." He would not be a party to such a Resolution.

The Lord Chancellor

said, his noble and learned Friend did not press the Resolution now; he wished to withdraw it, and to bring it forward amended on Monday.

Lord Wharncliffe

The noble and learned Lord has no right to withdraw the Resolution without the consent of your Lordships.

The Marquess of Lansdowne

Then I move that my noble and learned Friend have leave to withdraw the Resolution. I move this without giving any expression of opinion. The only modes of proceeding are by Resolution or by Act of Parliament, and the best course is, to allow my noble and learned Friend to consider between this and Monday whether it should be by Resolution or by Bill.

The Lord Chancellor

observed, that it had been stated that the House of Commons were disposed to concur in the Resolution; if so, they would agree to a Bill.

Lord Brougham

was repeating several of his arguments in explanation, as well as in support of the Resolution, when

The Earl of Devon

made an observation which was not distinctly heard, relative to the number of times the noble and learned Lord had spoken in the course of the evening.

Lord Brougham

continued, and said he should speak in that House as often as he pleased, without considering whether it was pleasing to the noble Lord or otherwise. If the noble Lord did not like his speeches, he was not compelled to listen, to them, and he certainly did not care for the noble Lord's attention. When the noble Lord sat at that Table he was compelled to listen to him, but he was not compelled now; and, therefore, if the noble Lord did not wish to do so he had the means of relieving himself. He (Lord Brougham) did not object to listen to the noble Lord; but when he did so, instead of interrupting him, he should adopt those means and relieve himself.

The Earl of Devon

My Lords, I shall not comment upon the good taste and the personal feeling which have prompted the noble Lord to make the observations which your Lordships have just heard. I do not know whether it be a well-merited observation; but as the noble and learned Lord has now avowedly and openly put himself in a position of defiance of this House, it becomes necessary to consider what are the rules and orders of the House upon this subject; and I tell the noble and learned Lord that, although he tells us in the strong language he is accustomed to use, that he will speak in this House as often as he likes, when he does again speak twice or thrice on the same question, contrary to the rules of this House, I shall call upon your Lordships to vindicate and enforce these rules.

Lord Brougham

I hope there will be equitable justice extended to all, on both sides of the House. I never rise frequently unless other noble Lords do so.

The further debate thereon, adjourned to Monday.

House adjourned.