SECOND READING. (Hansard, 23 March 1865)

LORD HOUGHTON,
in moving that this Bill, which had come from the House of Commons, be now read a second time, said, that its object was to enable Private Bill Committees of the other House to give costs in cases where they thought there had been a vexatious and unwarrantable opposition on the one side or the other. The debateable part of the measure consisted of two clauses. The first of these provided that when a Committee of the House of Commons unanimously reported that the preamble of a Bill was not proved the opponents should be paid the costs of their opposition. He admitted that in this matter legislation came rather late, and that this was a case of shutting the stable door after a great many horses had been stolen. Innumerable vexations had been caused to persons who had been compelled to petition against Private Bills, especially against Railway Bills, and of these hardships no doubt some of their Lordships had been the victims. There was in the House of Commons at the present moment a very strong feeling against allowing a Bill which had once been rejected to go to a second reading—an objection which was recently very strongly manifested in the case of the contest between the Great Northern and Great Eastern Railway Companies. That feeling had, no doubt, mainly arisen from the want of a measure of this kind; because, if this Bill became law, those who introduced vexatious Bills, and put either landowners or companies to expense would themselves be losers. The second clause enacted that when a Committee unanimously reported that opposition had been unfounded the promoters should recover costs. This part of the Bill would require serious consideration in Committee, because it was possible that there might be cases in which private individuals would suffer severely from coming into collision with powerful companies. He did not, however, look upon that as a very immediate danger, because he contemplated that this Bill would act rather by exciting fear and 76 preventing the evils against which it was directed than by active operation for their remedy. All the questions which would arise were rather matters for discussion in Committee—when it would, he thought, be desirable to insert a clause extending the operation of the Bill to Committees of their Lordships' House—than for debate upon this stage of the measure, and therefore, without further observations, he would move that the Bill should be read a second time.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, that he entirely approved the principle of the Bill, and rejoiced that it had passed through the House of Commons; because in former times the objection which was generally raised to the proposal of such a measure was that it would never receive the sanction of that House. He concurred with the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill in desiring that its operation should be extended to Committees of their Lordships' House, and suggested that another Amendment would also be required. As the measure was now drawn costs could not be recovered from the promoters of a Bill unless the preamble was unanimously rejected by the Committee. That was a reasonable arrangement as far as public companies were concerned; but as private individuals seldom opposed the whole Bill, but only so far as it affected their own property, the same argument did not apply to them. He thought that if a petitioner showed that his rights had been wantonly interfered with and obtained a protecting clause he ought to have his costs.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that he entirely concurred with the noble Chairman of Committees, and he should be happy to communicate with the noble Lord who had moved the second reading of the Bill, and assist him in preparing a clause which should extend the operation of the measure in the manner which had been suggested.