HL Deb 01 August 1899 vol 75 cc970-87

Order of the Day for the House being put into Committee, read.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

My Lords, on the motion that the House go into Committee on this Bill, I wish to say a single word. It will be in the recollection of your Lordships that on Thursday last we had a most interesting speech from the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, and it was the general opinion of the House that the noble Earl should take some part in the proceedings in Committee. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland told us that he would have an interview with the Chairman of Committees, and that, as a result, some agreement with regard to Amendments would no doubt be come to. He expressed the hope that when we came to the Committee stage he would be in a position to tell us that arrangements had been arrived at in this respect. I would ask whether the noble Lords have come to any agreement as to the amendment of the Bill in detail, and whether it is their intention to make these Amendments on the present stage, or on the Standing Committee, or on the Report stage.

* THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH)

My Lords, the Amendments standing in my name, almost without exception, are those agreed upon between the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees and myself. With one exception, I think, I have accepted every Amendment he suggested. The one I did not accept had reference to the personal position of the Chairman of Committees. I understand that in the House of Commons the Chairman is appointed for the Parliament, whereas in this House he is appointed for the session. The noble Earl's Amendment on this point could be inserted on the Report stage if necessary. I think the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees will bear me out when I say that there is contained in the Amendments standing in my name on the Paper every suggestion, with that one exception, which he made to me.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)

I confirm what has fallen from my noble friend. He was good enough to consult me with regard to the Amendments, and I have nothing further to suggest. I shrink from creating such a precedent as that hinted at by my noble friend opposite, and I think it would be extremely inconvenient that I should, as Chairman of the Committee, take part in the discussions and move Amendments when the House is in Committee. My predecessors never did it, and I cannot help thinking that it would constitute a precedent which ought not to be created. With regard to the Amendment which my noble friend opposite, the Earl of Camperdown, has moved on Clause 9, I am quite as anxious as either of the noble Lords opposite to render the process as cheap and as speedy as possible, but I confess I do not like the idea of doing away with an appeal to the Joint Committee altogether. I do not like the suggestion of my noble friend that this appeal should only be allowed on a motion in the House itself. I think it is very objectionable that in every case of opposition—I do not think these cases will be frequent—there should be practically a debate in the House as to whether the matter should go to a Joint Committee or not. It is impossible that the House can sift the evidence and get to the bottom of the matter in dispute, and therefore I would venture to ask your Lordships not to assent to that Amendment, but to leave the Bill as it stands. I do not think it will be prudent or wise to dispense with the power of rehearing before a Joint Committee.

House in Committee, according to Order.

Clause 1 amended and agreed to.

Clause 2:—

* LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I have an Amendment to this clause which was foreshadowed on the Second Reading by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, and which, after consideration, I have agreed to accept. It implies that the Chairmen shall report upon every case.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 11, to leave out 'the Chairmen report, and it appears from such report,' and insert 'it appears from the report of the Chairmen.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

Amendment agreed to.

* LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My next Amendment is to leave out Subsection 5. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown) has an Amendment standing in his name on the Paper to the same effect, and I have agreed to accept it on the suggestion of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. The fifth sub-section provides that, except under the provisions of this Act, it shall not be lawful to apply to Parliament by Private Bill for powers which may be obtained by Provisional Order in terms of this Act. The point is covered by words at the beginning of the first clause.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 35, to leave out Sub-section (5)."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

I understand that there will be no possibility of anyone applying for a Private Bill for Scotland without complying with the provisions of this Bill.

* LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Clause 1 provides that when any public authority or persons desire to obtain Parliamentary powers in regard to any matter affecting public or private interests in Scotland for which they are entitled to apply to Parliament by a petition for leave to bring in a Private Bill, they shall proceed by presenting a petition to the Secretary for Scotland, praying him to issue a Provisional Order. If the Chairmen report that the matter is one which should be dealt with by a Private Bill there will be the Private Bill procedure, as at present.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:—

* LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The Amendment to this clause standing in my name was drafted at the suggestion of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees. I think it is also in the direction suggested by the noble Earl opposite, and unless there is any objection taken I shall not reargue the point.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 39, to leave out 'no report,' and insert 'the Chairmen report that the Provisional Order may proceed.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:—

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

My Lords, I have an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Clause 4, which provides that: (1) On or before the first day of January next after the commencement of this Act there shall be formed a panel of persons (hereinafter referred to as the extra-Parliamentary panel) qualified by experience of affairs to act as Commissioners under this Act. (2) The extra-Parliamentary panel shall be formed in manner following; that is to say—

  1. "(a) The Chairmen, acting jointly with the Secretary for Scotland, shall nominate twenty persons qualified as aforesaid, and the persons so nominated shall constitute the extra-Parliamentary panel, and shall remain thereon until the expiration of five years, any casual vacancy on the panel caused by death or resignation being filled up by the Chairmen acting jointly with the Secretary for Scotland.
  2. "(b) At the expiration of every period of five years the extra-Parliamentary panel may be re-formed in like manner and with the like incidents."
I have put this Amendment down with a view to secure that this preliminary local inquiry shall be conducted by a Commission consisting purely of Members of the two Houses. It is unfortunately an arithmetical fact that Clause 4 comes before Clause 9, but really and truly it depends so very much on what the noble Lord does with reference to Clause 9 whether I attach any importance to Clause 4 at all. If there were to be only one inquiry, I think it is desirable that it should be a purely Parliamentary inquiry; but, if there is to be a second inquiry, I should omit the Parliamentary panel altogether, and leave the local inquiry to be conducted by the extra-Parliamentary body. Holding that view, I think it will be the most convenient thing for the House and for myself if I refrain from moving my Amendment now, and wait until I see what the noble Lord will do with regard to my Amendment to Clause 9. In the event of Clause 9 being omitted, I reserve to myself the power of moving to omit Clause 4 at a later stage.

* LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I think it will also be for the convenience of the House if the arguments on Clause 9 are reserved till we reach that clause.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Then the noble Lord does not move his Amendment to omit Clause 4?

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

Not at this stage.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:—

* LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The first Amendment to this clause standing in my name was also suggested by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees. The clause, as it at present stands, provides that when it is determined that Commissioners shall be appointed for the purpose of inquiring as to the propriety of making and issuing a Provisional Order or Orders under this Act, the chairmen shall, with due regard to the character and magnitude of the provisions in the proposed Order or Orders, appoint four Commissioners for that purpose, and shall, at the same time, nominate one of the Commissioners as chairman. My Amendment proposes to leave out the words, "with due regard to the character and magnitude of the provisions in the proposed Order or Orders."

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 37, to leave out from 'shall' to 'appoint' in line 39.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

* LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Section 6 of this clause enacts in case of any casual vacancy among the Commissioners, or in the office of Chairman of Commissioners, caused by death or resignation, or inability to give attendance, such resignation shall be filled up by the Secretary for Scotland by appointing a member of any of the panels, and in the case of a vacancy in the office of chairman, by nominating as chairman one of the remaining Commissioners. I move to omit the words "and in the case of a vacancy in the office of chairman, by nominating as chairman one of the remaining Commissioners." It is not thought necessary to put in those words, because they will limit the discretion of the Secretary for Scotland in the appointment of a chairman in a manner which is not desirable.

Amendment moved— In line 24, to leave out from 'panels' to the end of the sub-section."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The two Amendments standing in my name deal with Sub-section 8, which provides that Scottish Members of either House of Parliament shall not be disqualified from acting as Commissioners at the local inquiry. I move to substitute "neither" for "not," and to insert after "acting" the words "not preferred" on line 35. The clause, as it stands, I think, gives Scottish Members a preference which is undesirable. It would be a modified form of Home Rule which does not obtain in regard to England and Ireland, and which I do not think would prove to the advantage of Scotland.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 35, to leave out 'not' and insert 'neither,' and after 'acting' insert 'nor preferred.'

* LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I do not think this Amendment would make any real difference, and therefore I will offer no objection to it.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

I agree with the noble Lord that the Amendment will not make any difference, but I think it is rather a direction against entrusting Scottish Members with the duties under this Bill. It seems to me that as the clause stands, it leaves it perfectly open to the Selecting Committee to select such Members of Parliament and such Peers as may be convenient. I think the words proposed by the noble Earl below the Gangway would almost amount to a warning to the Chairmen not to take Scottish Peers and Members of Parliament except under exceptional circumstances. Surely it is much better to leave the thing open, and allow the Chairmen to decide the point.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I am afraid I read the section exactly contrary to the noble Lord. I have heard arguments put forward for the appointment of Members belonging to a particular division of the United Kingdom to deal with matters affecting that particular division. I think it is quite right to say that Scottish Members shall not be disqualified, but I can conceive an argument being set up that the special mention of Scottish Peers and Members of Parliament in this way means that they are to be preferred. If you are to make a special mention of Scottish Members, it is only right that you should say they are neither to be disqualified nor preferred.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:—

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I have an Amendment to leave out Subsection 3, which provides that the Commissioners may hear and decide upon the preamble before discussing clauses. The procedure adopted in the sub-section is that of the House of Commons, which differs from that of your Lordships' House, and I think it would be much better to leave it to the Committee to proceed as they think best. In the House of Commons they first of all pass the preamble, which is the principle, and then proceed to discuss the clauses. In your Lordships' House the procedure is the reverse, and much more in accordance with common sense. Committees of this House, after the case for a Bill has been heard, decide whether or not the Bill may proceed. If it may proceed, the Chairman says so, and the clauses are then gone through. After that has been done, and the Committee are convinced that all the clauses are in good order, they then, and not till then, pass the preamble, which means the passing of the Bill. I hope your Lordships will agree to my Amendment, and omit altogether the direction as to procedure.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 8, to leave out sub-section (3).—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

* LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I do not agree with the noble Lord as to the procedure in this House being different from that in the other House. When I have to act as Chairman of a Private Bill Committee, the procedure has generally been to decide on the preamble before going through the clauses. However, I will not discuss the matter here. I have no objection to leaving out the sub-section. It is quite obvious that the Committee will have this power whether the sub-section is in or not, and I think it would be better, on the whole, to leave it out.

Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.

Clause 9.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Lords, I have an Amendment to move to this clause. The clause provides that if, before the expiration of seven days after the Second Reading of a Confirmation Bill in the House in which it originates, a petition is presented against any Order comprised in the Bill, the latter shall be referred to a joint committee of both Houses, which shall hear evidence. The effect of this provision is that in the House in which the Bill originates, and in that House alone, a Joint Committee must be granted as a matter of course, if a petition is presented, and I move to leave out the words, "the House in which it originates," on line 11, and to insert "either House," and on line 12, after the first "Bill," to insert, "and if upon motion made either House do resolve that it is expedient to inquire into the propriety of assenting to the prayer of the said petition." The Bill, as it stands, gives the petitioner, who, presumably, has presented his case at the local inquiry unsuccessfully, the right to come to the House in which the Bill originated and demand a Joint Committee. It appears to me that that would be giving too much power to the petitioner under a Bill which is not of first-rate importance, and would cause unnecessary expense. I am very much in favour of retaining the authority of Parliament over these matters. One of the objects of the Private Legislation Procedure Bill is to diminish the expenses of Private Bill Legislation, and I think the only way in which that can be done is by giving the Houses of Parliament some control over the granting or other wise of these Joint Committees. If my Amendment is adopted, the first subsection will read:— If, before the expiration of seven days after the Second Reading of a Confirmation Bill under the immediately preceding section, in either House a petition be presented against any Order comprised in the Bill, and if, upon motion made, either House do resolve that it is expedient to inquire into the propriety of assenting to the prayer of the said petition, the Bill shall, subject to the Standing Orders, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament," etc. The difference is that in the clause as it stands the petitioner has an absolute right to claim a Joint Committee, whereas if my Amendment is adopted the Houses of Parliament will be given some control over the granting or otherwise of these Joint Committees. I agree with the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees that it is, as a matter of principle, undesirable that these matters should be discussed by the whole House, but at the same time I do not see my way out of that difficulty except by incurring another difficulty which seems to me much greater—namely, a considerable increase in the expense. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will accept my Amendment.

Amendments moved— In page 7, line 11, to leave out 'the House in which it originates,' and insert 'either House'; and in line 12, after the first 'Bill' insert 'and if upon motion made either House do resolve that it is expedient to inquire into the propriety of assenting to the prayer of the said petition.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown)

* LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, as I indicated on the Second Reading, I have great sympathy with the object which the noble Earl has in view, but the Amendment as it stands will not effect that object as far as the other House is concerned. After the Second Reading has taken place in the House of Commons, I understand that a Bill of the kind contemplated stands automatically referred to a Committee, and does not go back to the House of Commons as whole until the Committee has reported, whether that Committee be an unopposed Committee or a Select Committee. There is, therefore, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, no stage at which that House could resolve that it is expedient to do this or that. In this House, and under our procedure, it could, of course, be done by a motion, but not in the House of Commons. I think it is admitted by everybody that in the case of some Bills, at any rate, there must be a second inquiry. In the case of a Bill of an important character, provision for a second inquiry is necessary, and in any case provisions prejudicial to absent parties might be inserted in an Order, and it is only fair that those parties should have the opportunity which a second hearing will afford of appealing against those provisions. Great difficulty would be experienced in discriminating between those cases in which it is really necessary to have a second inquiry, and those in which it is not. It would have to be decided by a Vote in the House, to which I have great objection. The Amendment would prove a temptation to those interested in Private Bills to use the House as a whole for the discussion of those Bills, a practice which is inconvenient and ought not to be resorted to more often than is absolutely necessary. It may be said that there will not be a large number of Bills in which this can happen, but I do not think it is advisable that we should do anything which would stimulate that practice. I am sorry this discussion has had to be taken while the noble Earl is in the chair, but he has stated that the Amendment ought not to be accepted. The safeguard against the abuse of this second hearing, and it is a most efficient one, lies in the power of the Joint Committee, if they feel that the second inquiry has been forced by the undue obstinacy of one of the parties, to give costs against that party. The last sub-section of Clause 9 provides that unanimity is not necessary on this point, and that the Joint Committee may, by a majority, award costs. If, however, there is disclosed a strong feeling by your Lordships that the risk of the discussion of Bills in the full House would not be so great an evil as the provisions in this clause as it stands, I would be quite willing to put down a clause, drafted under the guidance of the officers of the other House of Parliament, for discussion at a later stage, but I am afraid I could not support it very warmly. I have arrived at that conclusion almost entirely on the ground that, whatever may be the defects under the procedure as now prescribed in this Bill, the risk of having discussions on the merits of private legislation in the whole House is one which ought not to be unnecessarily run. I was interested to hear the noble Lord (Lord Tweedmouth) say that he would be prepared, if there was a double inquiry, to omit the Parliamentary panel altogether, and allow the first inquiry to be held by the extra-Parliamentary panel. That is entirely my own view. That is the form in which the Bill was introduced, and no one regrets more than I do that the change has been made, but it was made and agreed to in deference to what we believed to be the overwhelming opinion in another place. To make such an Amendment now would be to imperil the Bill, and, though my sympathies are with the noble Lord opposite on this point, I could not hold out any hope of such an Amendment as he has suggested being accepted.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

If the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees and the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland are both against me, it will not be much use dividing on the point, but I will readily accept the offer made to me by the noble Lord, and if he will give me the clause which was drafted I could, if it would meet the case, put it down on the Report Stage, when it could be discussed by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees.

* LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I will give the noble Lord the terms of the Clause.

Amendments (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

* LORD TWEEDMOUTH

I am afraid that as the noble Lord will not give the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) the crust he asks for, he will not be likely to give me the whole loaf for which I am about to ask—namely, the omission of the second Parliamentary inquiry altogether. I feel compelled, however, to take the opportunity of putting my views with regard to this question on record. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland said there was an admitted necessity in all quarters for a second inquiry. I think he is going rather far in saying that. I do not admit any such necessity, and so far as the predominant opinion of Scottish Members in the House of Commons is concerned they agree with me, for they voted, thirty-six for and nine against the omission of the second inquiry. The noble Lord has only given them half what they asked for by giving a local Parliamentary inquiry in the first instance. They also asked that the subsequent Parliamentary inquiry should be abolished, but that portion of their request has been refused. The noble Earl said he was interested to hear that I was in favour, if the Bill is to remain as it is, of the omission of the Parliamentary panel. I certainly am, for the reason that you would then, at any rate, get some relief for Members of both Houses of Parliament. In the Bill as it stands you throw on the two Houses the burden of both of these inquiries, because you are not going to call on the Members of the extra-Parliamentary panel until you have exhausted all means of pressure on Members of the two Houses of Parliament to sit on these Commissions. The First Lord of the Treasury made that point very clear in the Debate in the House of Commons. He explained that, in the event of it being found impossible to get two Peers to sit, the whole of the Commissioners might be Members of the House of Commons, and, in the event of no Members of the latter House being willing to act, Peers might be substituted. Not until the two Houses are exhausted will any call be made on the extra-Parliamentary panel. In my opinion it is desirable that Parliament should keep a firm hold over Private Bill procedure, and I think the very best form of inquiry that could be held is the Parliamentary inquiry by a Commission formed of Members of the two Houses of Parliament. That, I believe, will give by far the greatest confidence to applicants for these Provisional Orders and to the public generally. But I entirely join issue with the noble Lord when he says it is imperative that there should be a second inquiry, more especially if it is to be a Parliamentary one. I think, in Private Bill legislation, that one inquiry conducted by a Joint Committee of the two Houses is quite sufficient. That would remove one stage in the proceedings, and do much to cheapen the cost of Private Bill legislation. The noble Lord said that if there was no second inquiry it would be rather hard on those who were absent from the first inquiry. If there is only one inquiry, all persons interested in the Bill would be certain to appear before the tribunal. Besides, if the second inquiry is retained, no saving whatever will be effected in the cost of Private Bill procedure, for there will be the same protracted proceedings, with counsel and witnesses, at Westminster as at present. I will recite very briefly the stages of inquiry through which opposed legislation under this Bill will have to pass. There is, first of all, the application to the Secretary for Scotland, who inquires into it. The matter then goes before the Chairmen of the two Houses of Parliament, who again go into the subject. It then goes before the local inquiry, which I maintain will be fully as expensive as any inquiry held within the four walls of Westminster. It then comes back to the Secretary for Scotland, who brings in a Confirmation Bill. It is then referred to a second inquiry by a Joint Committee of the two Houses, and I defy anyone to tell me that that form of procedure is going to be in the slightest degree cheaper or simpler than the present procedure. Surely, in schemes under this Bill, which will not be large and important schemes, we might do away with the second inquiry, and make the experiment of a single inquiry to be conducted by a Commission of Members of Parliament and Peers. I again repeat that, in my opinion, if you retain the Bill in its present form, if you retain the double inquiry in the case of all opposed Bills, you will not have given anything to Scottish applicants for Provisional Orders in the way of simplicity or cheapness which they would not have under Private Bill procedure.

Amendment moved— In page 7, to leave out Clause 9."—(Lord Tweed mouth.)

* LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I cannot agree with the last remark of the noble Lord. I think we shall give a good deal to Scottish applicants, because I have every hope that the first inquiry, which will be conducted locally, will be conducted with such efficiency that there will be fewer appeals to the Joint Committee than the noble Lord seems to contemplate; but that there ought to be power for a second inquiry in some cases seems to be the general opinion of those who are skilled in Private Bill legislation. If it is known that there is only to be one inquiry, it will minimise the importance of the schemes which will be taken under the provision of the Bill. The noble Lord says that if there is only one inquiry people will be more anxious to be represented. I think the noble Lord has failed to grasp the point I endeavoured to make, which was that provisions are sometimes put into the Bill by the first Committee which are considered by those who are absent to be prejudicial to their interests. Those persons could not be present at the first inquiry, because they did not know that they would be in any way interested. I am afraid I must at this stage adhere to the clause as it stands.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

Having made my protest, and as it is a very hot afternoon and there are only a few Members on this side of the House, I shall not put the House to the trouble of dividing.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9, agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 15, agreed to.

Clause 16, amended, and agreed to.

Clause 17:—

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

I have an Amendment to this clause which is somewhat less drastic than the Amendment to delete the clause, which stands in the name of the noble Earl, the Earl of Camperdown. I think my Amendment will meet the exigencies of the case. I would propose that in line 37 the words "consider such objection, and may, if they think fit, either report to the Secretary for Scotland that such objection raises an issue or issues which ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order, or" be struck out. If these words are omitted, the clause will read: If any objection to any draft Order is made to the Chairmen on the ground that the undertaking proposed to be authorised by the Order will destroy or injure any building or other object of historical interest, or will injuriously affect any natural scenery, the Chairmen shall refer such objection to the Secretary for Scotland or to the Commissioners, as the case may be, who shall give to those by whom it is made a proper opportunity of being heard in support of it. I have as strong a desire as anybody to secure, as far as possible, the retention of objects of historical interest, and to prevent unnecessary injury to the beauties of my native country, but I think that to impose on the Chairmen of the two Houses the duty of considering objections on the ground that the undertaking proposed would destroy or injure any building or other object of historical interest, or would injuriously affect any natural scenery, is too much to expect from them.

Amendment moved— In line 37, to leave out the words 'consider such objection, and may, if they think fit, either report to the Secretary for Scotland that such objection raises an issue or issues which ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order, or.'"—(Lord Tweedmouth.)

* LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I would be prepared to go even further than the noble Lord, and not put the Chairmen to any trouble in this matter at all. I think the complaints should be made to the Secretary for Scotland, who should refer them to the Commissioners for inquiry. If the noble Lord will accept an Amendment in this form I will put it down for the next stage.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH assented.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

As the Chairmen are to go out of the clause, one of my objections to it disappears, but my chief objection is to the wording of the clause. The clause provides that: If any objection to any draft Order is made to the Chairmen on the ground that the undertaking proposed to be authorised by the Order will destroy or injure any building or other object of historical interest, or will injuriously affect any natural scenery," etc. I contend that it is too large a power to give to any person to say that if an objection to a draft Order is made on this ground the matter shall be inquired into. It may happen that one of your Lordships who had never been in Scotland might take it into his head that a Provisional Order might interfere with some scenery in Scotland, and in his zeal might make this objection, which would compel the promoter of the Provisional Order to undergo an elaborate procedure. It should be provided that this objection should only be lodged by a number of persons, but I move the omission of the clause altogether.

Amendment moved— In page 9, to leave out Clause 17."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

* LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I should be sorry to see the clause omitted altogether. There is a precedent for it in the Light Railways Act. I will, however, propose an Amendment at the next stage which will, I hope, go far enough to meet the objection of the noble Earl.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18:—

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

This clause enacts that the expression "agent" includes all law agents within the meaning of the Law Agents (Scotland) Act, 1873, any person entitled to practise as solicitor in any court of justice in England or Ireland, and any person entitled to practise as agent according to the practice and rules of either House of Parliament in cases of Private Bills and matters relating thereto. It seems to me that this is rather hard on the Scottish law agents, because they have not the power to appear in connection with Private Bills relating to England and Ireland. The clause, as it originally stood, provided that the expression "agent" should include any person who, at the passing of the Act, was entitled to practise as an agent according to the rules and practice in either House of Parliament in connection with Private Bills and matters relating thereto. This provision is much better than the one now in the Bill, which gives English and Irish solicitors power to practise in Scotland at the local inquiries held in connection with Scottish Bills. I object to the opportunity being taken in this Bill to confer on English and Irish solicitors powers which are not equally given to their Scottish friends on the other side of the Border.

* LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The noble Lord is correct in saying that these words were introduced in the other House. There is no exact precedent in this case, and therefore we could not go according to precedent. The inquiry which will be originated under this Bill partakes more of an Imperial nature than an inquiry in a Scottish court of justice, and therefore we did not resist the Amendment putting in these words in another place. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has, however, suggested to me that there are some difficulties in regard to this matter. Who would, for instance, exercise jurisdiction over the law agents who were practising in this way under this clause? I should like time to consider the noble Lord's Amendment, and I will give him my answer on Thursday. Still, I must say that the Scottish law agents are not the men I take them to be if they cannot hold their own in their own country.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

My point is that if you give this power to English and Irish solicitors you ought also to give Scottish law agents the power to appear here in connection with English and Irish Bills.

* LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I will consider the matter before the next stage of the Bill.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 189.)