Lords Sitting of 17 June 1904

EARLDOM OK NORFOLK.
Petition of Charles Botolph Joseph Lord Mowbray, Lord Segrave, and Baron and Lord Stourton of Stourton in the county of Wilts, praying that before the hearing of his Petition to Her late Majesty praying Her Majesty to determine in his favour the abeyance of the dignity of Earl of Norfolk a day may be fixed on which the Letters Patent of Creation, dated 1644, in favour of Thomas Howard Earl of Arundel and Surrey may be considered, and a decision arrived at whether the Duke of Norfolk has now any locus standi in the present case; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
EARLDOM OF NORFOLK.
Petition of Henry Duke of Norfolk that the prayer of the Petition, presented this day, of Charles Botolph Joseph Lord Mowbray, Lord Segrave, and Baron and Lord Stourton of Stourton may be refused, and for leave to lodge a supplementary case; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Scotch Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (Edinburgh) [H.L.].
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Barnet District Gas and Water Bill. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.].—(Huddersfield Order). A petition of Alfred Vansittart Frere, of 5, Victoria Street, London, Parliamentary
350
Agent, praying for leave to present a petition of the Longwood Gas Company against the Order, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 92 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and Standing Order No. 92 to be considered on Monday next in order to it being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
Skipton Water and Improvement Bill; North Western Electricity and Power Gas Bill. Committed.
New River Company Bill [H.L.]. Re turned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Kirkby-in-Ashfield Urban District Gas Bill. Returned from the Commons with | the Amendments agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting? Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill[H.L.]; Doncaster Corporation Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Order3 (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; I Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill; Barnet District Gas and Water Bill. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee adjourned this day at One o'clock; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting: Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [H.L.]; Doncaster Corporation Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; [H.L.]; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill; Barnet District Gas and Water Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Congleton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Tenterden; read, and agreed to.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill [H.L.]. Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

LEITH CORPORATION TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Moved, "That the Commons Message be considered."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh)
LORD HERMES: My Lords, as I had the honour of being Chairman of the Commissioners who considered this Bill, which has been brought forward by the Leith Corporation for the purpose of enabling them to construct electric tramways within their area, I think it is only fair that I should say a few words in defence of the decision to which my Committee came. In the first place, I think I have some right to complain of the suddenness of the attack. It was only yesterday that I read that a Petition had been presented to the other House asking that the decision to which we came should be altered and the question considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses. As the Committee sat about three months ago, it was necessary to refresh one's memory as to what took place, and I spent a good portion of this morning reading the proceedings of the Committee. It appears to me that when a Committee appointed for the purpose of considering Provisional Orders comes to a decision it would be as well, in order that the Members of both Houses should be acquainted with the facts, that a report of the proceedings should be placed in their hands before any discussion takes place; otherwise how can Members be acquainted with the grounds on which the Committee came to their decision?
We were unfortunately placed in this respect, that no Members of the other House were able to serve on the Committee. The Commissioners consisted of two noble Lords and two Members from the Extra-Parliamentary Panel. Naturally, therefore, when this subject was brought before the other House there was no one prepared to defend the decision to which the Committee had come. I think it would be advisable in future that one Member at least of the other House should serve on these Committees. The Bill which we passed, and against which a Petition has been presented by the tramway lessees of the city of Edinburgh, was introduced for the purpose of construct-
352
ing electric tramways within the burgh of Leith. This power was opposed by the corporation of the city of Edinburgh on the ground that they had electri tramways in their district, and that thes tramways went down one street which was part of the burgh of Leith. We did not refuse a locus standi to the corporation of Edinburgh; but apparently the corporation had let the; tramways within the city of Edinburgh, to certain lessees, who undertook to work them and also engaged to run an omnibus service down through Leith.
So far as I can make out from reading the discussion which took place in the other House—I have not seen the Petition —the only objection is that we have refused to these lessees a locus standi in respect of the omnibus service. It is rather a question whether we have not a perfect right to refuse a locus standi to the runners of an omnibus service when a tramway is about to be started; but in this case the omnibuses did not go down the same street. I will quote what was said on this subject by counsel—
"There is no substance in the objection. The omnibus service is in another district altogether. A tramway company which is-working its system in another territory has no locus standi to appear."
So far as the lessees of the tramway within the city of Edinburgh were concerned, we considered that they had no locus standi, and the only ground for their claiming a locus standi was that they had this omnibus service within the burgh of Leith. We heard counsel on both sides and came to the conclusion that it was it a case for a locus standi, and that the corporation of the city of Edinburgh were quite capable of protecting the interests, if any, of the lessees. The first reason for this decision was that the lessees had never been recognised by the Board of Trade; the second was that if there was a lease it was for tramways within the city of Edinburgh; the third was that the corporation of Edinburgh, as proprietors of these tramways, were sufficient to represent all the interests in that respect; and the fourth reason was that the proposed tramways would not trench upon the territory served by the omnibuses. And, notwithstanding the discussion which has taken place in the other House, I am still of opinion that we

353
were quite right in the decision at which we arrived.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, perhaps it will be convenient, in the absence of any representative of the Scottish Office, that I should state to the House the exact position in which we find ourselves. It is peculiar in this way, that there is no precise precedent, because this is the first occasion upon which either House of Parliament has taken advantage of the provisions of the statute under which these Provisional Orders are confirmed, to grant an appeal and to suggest the reference of the appeal to a in it Committee. With reference to what the noble Lord has said, I hope he will excuse me for saying that I think there is no ground for any feeling on his part that he has been placed in an unusual position by the decision of his Committee being attacked. This is certainly not the first time in the history of litigation—and I am perfectly certain it will not be the last—that the defeated litigant is disappointed with the decision of the Court, thinks it wrong, and would like to take any constitutional methods of again raising the question. There is no real attack upon the noble Lord or upon his Committee. Knowing the noble Lord's experience in these matters I think we may presume, and ought to presume, that the decision of his Committee was a right one; but there is a constitutional method of procedure open to anyone who has this sort of decision against him, and that procedure has been taken.
As to the suddenness with which it is brought forward, there is unfortunately no option in the matter. The provision of the statute is that if, after the introduction of a Confirmation Bill and before the expiration of seven days, any Petition is presented against the Order comprised in the Bill, it is lawful for any Member of the House in which the Bill originated to give notice that he intends to move that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. This Bill originated in another place. Within the last day or two a Petition was presented, and a Member of the House of Commons moved that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee. He was successful in that Motion, and the ordinary communication has been sent to this House of the decision come to
354
by the other House. I suppose it would be possible to argue that this House is master of its own procedure and might refuse to join with the House of Commons in the Joint Committee, but I am certain the noble Lord will not suggest the adoption of that course. After the Motion now before the House, which is "That the Commons message be considered," is disposed of, I shall move that the House do concur in the Resolution of the Commons that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I express no opinion whatever on the merits of the case. I know that the noble Lord and his Committee arrived at what they believed to be a right decision; that decision has been appealed against, and the ordinary procedure contemplated in the Act is that an opportunity of raising the question again should be given. I hope the noble Lord will disabuse his mind of the idea that there is any sort of attack on him or on the Committee over which he presided.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, "That this House do concur in the following Resolution communicated by the Commons, viz.: "That the Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh).
On Question, Motion agreed to, "and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.