§ LORD REDESDALE, Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, brought up a Special Report, stating that this Bill ought not to be proceeded with, inasmuch as certain notices, which were required to be given in the case of Private Bills, had not been given, and thus the Standing Orders had not been complied with, and that the Bill should not be allowed to proceed.
§ LORD BEAUMONTsaid, he was not going to impugn the decision of the Standing Orders Committee. He concluded that that Committee had come to a correct conclusion, on the supposition that this was a Private Bill. But their Lordships, in his opinion, would establish a bad, if not a dangerous precedent, if they too considered it as a Private Bill, and thereby prevented a great public benefit from being 2 immediately accomplished. The Bill, referred to by the Committee as a Private Bill, was a Public Bill, introduced by the Government for the removal of one of the greatest nuisances in this immense metropolis; and, as a sanitary measure, was of as great public interest as any that could be introduced into the Legislature. It had been introduced into the other House of Parliament, not as a Private Bill on petition, but as a Public Bill on Motion. If it had been a Private Bill, notice ought to have been given to certain parties interested in it in October last; but it was a Public Bill of great importance, and Government did not resolve upon its nature and character till February last. In consequence no notice was given of it as a Private Bill to the parties interested therein. The Government, the other House of Parliament, and the Standing Orders Committee of that House, considered it as a Public Bill, and proceeded with it accordingly. It was proceeded with in the House of Commons, he once more repeated, as a Public Bill, with this one exception, that a reference was made to the Standing Orders Committee at one stage of the Bill; and the Standing Orders 3 Committee, considering it to be a Bill more of a public than of a private nature, and likewise considering that substantial ustice would be done in the Select Committee, with respect to all parties who were interested, came to the conclusion that, though it was a Public Bill, one public notice of it ought to be given, and that public notice was given on the 18th of March in this year, in the London Gazette. The Select Committee then proceeded with it as a Public Bill—so, too, did the House of Commons; and to this House it came up as a Public Bill, and nothing else. Thus far as to the argument that it came up as a Public Bill from the other House; but however that might be, it was open to their Lordships to consider it in their discretion either as a Public or as a Private Bill. The question, then, really before them was this, "Is this a Bill involving great public interests, or is it a Private Bill affecting only the pocket interests of private individuals? In similar cases, as in the Metropolitan Cemeteries Bill, their Lordships had considered the Bills as Public Bills, and did not refer them to the Standing Orders Committee as Private Bills. Even supposing it were a Private Bill, he thought their Lordships should consider whether it was not one of such importance as to require that their Standing Orders be dispensed with. The House ought not to lose sight of the object which it had in view when it passed the Standing Order in question. The Standing Orders were adopted with the intention of preventing private property being dealt with, without ample notice and time being given to enable the parties having an interest in the property to put themselves in a position to state their case, and to oppose the proposed measure. Had the city of London that notice and that time given and allowed them? He maintained they had. The subject had been for years before the public; it had been discussed frequently in Parliament. It was noticed in all the public journals—the City of London was fully aware of the intention of Government—the Government had communicated officially on the subject with the City—the City would have been no wiser if the Standing Orders had been complied with; they had had equitable, if not legal, notice. Their Lordships, therefore, were inflicting no injury by not insisting on compliance with the Standing Orders. He should therefore move, as an Amendment— 4
That considering the Smithfield Market Removal Bill partakes more of the Nature of a Public Bill than of the Nature of a Private Bill, this House is of Opinion that Compliance with the Standing Orders of the House respecting Private Bills should not be required in the Case of the said Bill, and that the said Bill be proceeded with as a Public Bill.The Corporation of London had had ample equitable notice of it, and might, if they had chosen, have claimed to be heard at the bar by counsel against it.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYobserved, that it was a thing quite unheard of to propose such an Amendment, or rather to make such a Motion without notice.
§ LORD BEAUMONTwas quite prepared to give notice of his Motion, if it were deemed necessary.
§ EARL GREYrequested his noble Friend to withdraw his Motion now, and give notice of it for Thursday.
§ LORD LYNDHURSTobserved, that there were several clauses in this Bill which constituted it a Public Bill, and, if so, it was not liable to the Standing Orders.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, it had always been the practice, whenever private property was in any way touched in a Bill, to consider it a Private Bill. The Standing Orders had been passed for the protection of private rights and private property, on both of which this Bill made a direct attack. A great principle was involved in their Lordships' decision that evening. If their decision was against complying with the Standing Orders, a door to injustice would be opened, which they might never be able to close. The evidence laid before the Standing Orders Committee was such that they could not resist the force of it.
LORD BROUGHAMthought it was very necessary that their Lordships should consider whether this was a Private or a Public Bill. He thought that it would be bettor for his noble Friend opposite (Lord Beaumont)—to the propriety of whose Amendment he fully subscribed—to omit the preamble of it, and to move that their Lordships should exercise their discretion, and dispense in this case with the Standing Orders. Undoubtedly they had that discretion; if they had it not they would be the mere slaves of the Standing Orders. He had no fear of their Lordships being suspected of injustice, or of their losing the respect and attachment of their fellow-countrymen, by adopting the Amendment of his noble Friend.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.