LIBRARY OF THE University of California. Class OOCUMENn ^EPT, REPORT. PRIVATE BUSINESS. Ordered, hy The House of Conih , 21 yovember 1902. LONDON; PRINTED FOR HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICi; BY WTHAN AND SONS, LIMITED, FBITKB I^NE, E.G. And to be purchased, either ductaiy «r through any J ircni EYRE AND SPOTTISWOODE, East HiiiDiNG Street, Flk' . EC; aua 32, Abingdon Street, Westminbtjb, S.W. ; OLIVER and BOYD, Edinbtiuoh; or £. f ONSONBY, 116, Gbafton Stbbst, DruLiN, 1902. 378, [Ptnce 2s. Id.] Un £>» ^ "if? *s> r-J'^ -vu' s , 'i^'if^-i*^'*'''!^' -/* 1(9 t-t vo-t € bvA,5iv-ec^ Jby,i950;Beale, (B.) Mr. Gray, Mr. Beale, Mr. Morse and other witnesses agreed in ^169' °^^^' suggesting that Petitions for leave to bring in a Private Bill to the House of Commons might be abolished. These petitions are a mere formality, and' they are not required in the case of Bills originating in the House of Lords. (C.) The evidence shows that petitions against Bills could be deposited at a fixed and earlier date than they are at present. This would avoid SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. Y considerable delay. Mr. Lowther sees no objection to the petition being Lowther, 117, deposited at a fixed date, in which opinion Mr. Pritt. Mr. Brevitt, Pritt, 425 et seq. ; Mr. Boyce, Mr. Baker, and Mr. Beale agree. One of these witnesses Brevitt, 1294; suggested 12th February as the date, another 10th February, and ?°u*^^' I ^^7 .' Mr (jray suggested that Bills should be divided into classes with a BealT'2122 ' fixed date for deposit of petitions against Bills in each class in order to go^jj^m Carter avoid the pressure he thought a single date might lead to. 1113 «t seq. (D.) There was practical unanimity as to the delay caused by the ^^^7> 2083. proceedings under Standing Orders 62-66 in connection with what are known as WharnclifFe meetings ; Sir Chandos Leigh and Mr. ^Ponham chandos Leigh, Carter were agreed on this point and suggested the adoption of Standing 266. Order 91 of the House of Lords, a view in which Mr Pritt concurred. Bonham Carter, Under this Standing Order second reading must take place within ^?^- 14 days of first reading. (E.) Mr. liowther and Mr. Beale suggested a fixed date after which Lowther, 47; no second reading of a Bill originating in the House of Commons should Beale, 2154. be allowed, and Mr. Beale and Mr. Morse made the suggestion that Beale, 2133; proof of the Wharncliffe meeting should be given in Committee. Morse, 3210. (F.) On the subject of the date at which the Examiners take up the Bills, viz., the 18th January, Mr. Campion stated that there was no Campion, 1618, reason, so far as the Examiners were concerned, why the interval 1634. between the deposit of the Bill and the sitting of the Examiner should be so long, and that an earlier date might be fixed. (G.) Mr. Pritt suggested that the Counsel to the Speaker and the Pritt, 640. Counsel to the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords might be empowered to determine in- which House of Parliament the respective Private Bills should be first considered, and that this could be done before a Session commenced. (H.) The evidence also showed that considerable delay arises from the Baber, 1799; difficulty in securing early reports from the Government Departments Boyce, 1571, that the staff of specialists employed on them is limited, and the time ^»'°. «''*?-. i»i«». between the deposit of Bills and the meeting of the House too short for overtaking the work. Mr. Boyce suggested that Bills should be grouped earlier so that the Department would know in what order they were to be taken, and Mr. Beale made the suggestion that they should be Beale, 2129. grouped according to the amount of opposition. (I.) In regard to the Court of Eeferees, Mr. Parker Smith suggested P. Smith, 1345, that at least three members of it should be Members of the House, and i^^^ = Mellor, that the Deputy Chairman should tie made Chairman of the Court, and * ^^*' as a paid official of the House should devote his energies to this and other work connected with Private Bill legislation ; the latter view was also expressed by Mr. Mellor. Mr. Beale considered the court expensive Beale, 2126. and unnecessary, and prefers the system in the House of Lords. Mr. Lowther considered that the eight days' notice allowed to promoters Lowther, 51. might be reduced, an opinion shared by Mr. Bonham Carter but strongly Bonham Carter, objected to by Mr. Pritt. Mr. Lowther and Sir Chandos 1 eigh would |^^23 ; Fntt, allow the Committee to grant costs in the cases of frivolous and Qij^ndos i.eigh vexatious objections. Mr. Parker Smith suggested that Standing Orders 203,211;' 133a and 135 should be amended so that persons or associations in- Lowther, 136. directly affected by Bills should be allowed a loa(S standi. fqA^i™^*^' ^^^^' (J.) Some evidence was given in favour of strengthening the Com- p g^jj^jj 139^. mittee on Unopposed Bills. Boyce, 1914. ' (K.) On the subject of discussions in the House on Private Bills, the practice of moving instructions on second reading was deprecated by Mr. Lowther and Mr. Bonham Carter. Mr. Lowther, Sir Chandos g^^^'^^V^' Leigh, Mr. Pritt, Mr. Beale. would limit discussion on second reading ^^s^*™ ^"^ ^^' to questions of principle, and thought that the decision as to what dis- Lowther, 11—49 ; cussions should be allowed should be decided by a Committee of the Leigh, 218; House. Mr. Pritt considered discussion .should be on second reading, P"**' ^^^~^^^ ' whilst Mr. Mellor suggested it should be limited to third reading. ^^^®' ^J^;^- Mr. Beale and Mr. Morse considered that the reason for opposing the ^jg^^^ 726 second reading of a Bill should be stated when the Bill is blocked. g , '2143- Morse, 2179*. Tl REPORT FROM THE Lowther, 34-91 U0-U6. Pritt, 505 ; Baker. 1783, 1874. App. 6. Beale 2149 ; Pritt, 459, et seq. Baker 1902; Pember 2463 ; Brevitt, 1244; the Associations represented, 1765. (L.) A considerable amount of evidence was given on the subject of the extension of the Provisional Order system. Mr. Lowther was in favour of preventing corporation and other authorities coming by Bill for powers which they could obtain by Provisional Orders. Mr. Pritt and Mr. Baker expressed their disapproval of this ; but the latter witness was in favour of rendering it possible to obtain by one Pro- visional Order powers which could under the existing law only be obtained by several separate Orders. (M.) Thy evidence in regard to the fees charged in respect of Private ' Bihs showed that during last year the fees received in this House for Private Business amounted to 40,683/., and the approximate estimate of the charges incurred in connection with the salaries of officials connected with Private Business in the House of Commons for the year ending March 31, 1902, was 11,792/. The scales of fees in the House of Lords and the House of Commons vary. The opinions of witnesses differed as to whether or not fees should be reduced, but there would seem to be agreement that the fees in the two Houses should be assimilated. Mr. Beale did not consider the fees too high. Mr. Pritt thought they might unduly press on local authorities. Mr. Baker and Mr. Pember expressed a like opinion with regard tO' Petitioners against Bills. Mr. Brevitt was in favour of reduction, and Ml Baker considers they should be reduced by one-half Recommendations. 16. Your Committee recommend that all Private Bills should be deposited in the House of Commons on 17th December instead of 21st December. 17. Your Committee are of opinion that the petition for leave to introduce a Bill in the House of Commons is unnecessary and should be discontinued. 18. They further recommend that the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, or their Counsel, should determine before the end of January in each year, in which House the respective Bills should be first considered. 19. Your Committee recommend that the first reading stage of Private Bills in the House of Commons should be dispensed with, as being a mere formality, and that Bills should be deemed to have been read a first time on passing the Examiners on Standing Orders. The abolition of the two stages mentioned above will necessitate a re-arrangement of the House Fees, certain of which are payable at those stages. This would form part of the general revision proposed later. 20. Your Committee recommend that the date for the sitting of the Examiner should be altered to 12tli January, the dates for memorials against Bills being correspondingly altered, and the date for the deposit of money under Standing Order 57 iDeing altered to 9th January. 21. Your Committee recommend that all Petitions against Private Bills should be deposited on or before 12th February in each year. 22. The attention of your Committee has been directed to the delay which arises from the fact that no limit of time is fixed under Standing Orders 68, 63, and 66 between the first reading of a Company Bill and the reference to the Examiner, and your Committee recommend that compliance with these Standing Orders should be proved within a fixed period of five weeks from the date on which the Bill passed the Examiner on preliminary Standing Orders. 23. After investigating the total costs incurred by bringing opposed Bills before Parliament, your Committee think that a Joint Committee of the two Houses should be appointed with a view to a general revision of the scale of fees, and their being made identical in the two Houses. SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. VU 24. It has been suggested tbat the cost of the Parliamentary Notices now required by the Standing Orders might be considerably reduced if they were assimilated to the more summary form of notices required by the Light Railway Commissioners, and in the case of a Provisional Order, your Committee believe that the public and all parties interested would be suffi- •ciently safeguarded and at least equally well informed by a shorter form of notice. 25. Another important proposal in the interests of economy was made to us with respect to the amalgamation into one office of the Private Bill Offices of the two Houses. In such an office Bills and Petitions might be deposited once for all, economies in the stafi' might be effected, one set of uniform fees might be charged, and all formal proceedings connected with Bills might be simplified. There would appear to be no constitutional objection to such a reform, and your Committee think it deserves to be carefully considered by a Joint Committee, including the two Chairmen of Committees of both Houses. 26. Your Committee recommend that as soon as possible after the date fixed for the deposit of Petitions against Bills, all opposed Bills should be grouped and the order in which groups should be taken fixed, with a view to facilitate the work of the Government Departments, and they are of opinion that the Local Government Board should make its reports on Private Bills at an earlier date than hitherto. 27. Your Committee recommend that a new Standing Order should be drawn up requiring a Board of Trade Report on all proposals for supplying electrical energy. This might be modelled on Standing Order 155. 28. Your Committee are of opinion that if the General Public Health Legislation of England and Wales were brought up to date, the necessity for many of the Bills now promoted by Local Authorities for the purpose of obtaining extended powers in relation to matters of Public Health or Local Government would be removed and this class of Committee work greatly reduced. 29. Your Committee recommend that the Court of Referees should be reconstituted, and consist of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, with seven other Member's of the House of Commons nominated by Mr. Speaker, with the assistance of not more than two officials of the House, acting as assessors. This Court should have power to award costs analogous to that possessed by Committees of the House, and should also have larger discretionary powers with regafd to granting a locus standi to Petitioners who satisfy them primd facie that they are likely to be injuriously affected by a Bill, but whose cases are not covered by existing Standing Orders. 30. Your Committee recommend that Standing Order 133* should be amended so that associations or bodies sufficiently representing interests or traffic affected by Bills other than those specified in that Order should be allowed a locus standi ; also that Standing Order 135 which gives a locus standi to owneis, &c. of property " in " a street through which it is proposed to construct a tramway, should be extended to owners, &c. of property, the access to which is materially dependent on the said street, also that the said Standing Order should be extended, by adding the words " or road " after the word " street." 31. Your Committee recommend that steps be taken to secure as long an interval as possible between the hearing by the Court of Referees of the objections to Petitions against a Bill, and the sitting of the Committee on the Bill; otherwise one of the main purposes of the Com-t fails, viz., the saving of the expense of preparing for the Committee stage in cases where the locus standi is disallowed. 32. Several witnesses urged that the discussion of Private Bills in the House itself should be limited to one stage only, and that instructions to Bills should not be permitted. It appears, however, from a Paper handed in Vlll REPORT FROM THE by the Chairman of Ways and Means that during the 10 years preceeding 1901, the average number of hours per annum spent on such discussion was 28, but that in 1901 it rose to 53, but during last session only 13 hours and 55 minutes were occupied in discussing the second readings of Private Bills, and that no instructions were moved. Your Committee therefore believe that the new rules of the House relating to Private Business may tend to reduce the length of the discussions on Private Bills, and are unvrilling, without further experience of the new rules, to advise that the control of the House over Private Bills should be more limited than at present. 33. On the subject of Joint Conunittees of the two Houses, and the extension and alteration of the Piovisional Order system, your Committee do not feel they can report, as these matters should form the subject of consideration for a Joint Committee of the two Houses. 34. Attention was drawn to the difficulty of getting members to sit on Private Bill Committees, but your Committee have reason to think that many members escape serving on these Committees altogether, and from a return made to the House of Commons in 1900, it appears that 275 members (omitting members of the late and present Government) never served at all on Private Bill Committees during the whole of the last Parliament. Your Committee recommend, therefore, that the Committee of Selection should take steps to see that all Members who are available should be sunnnoned in due turn to serve on Committees. 35. Your Committee think that steps should be taken to secure more uniformity in the decision of Committees on opposed Bills than is possible at present, when each Commit'/Ce acts as an independent unit without sufficient opportunity of examining into the precedents cited to them. They see no reason why there should not be kept in the Committee Office an official record of any important decisions on points either of practice {e.g., the award of costn, refusal to hear counsel) or of principle {e.g., the granting of compensation to the rates in the case of large demolitions of property, the grant of any exceptional terms for loans or payment of interest, or the creation of any important powers or obligations in excess of the ordinary law). Some of these matters are, in the case of Corporation Bills by Standing Order No. 173a, required to be reported to the House, but no record is required or is kept, and a new Chairman is often at a great disadvantage in dealing with such questions. The evil would be much more serious if it were not for the careful attention given to aU novel and doubtful proposals in Bills by the Chairman of the House of Lords who, by raising objection to them in an early stage, often induces the promoters to modify or withdraw them. They think that his action might well be reinforced in this House by providing the Chairmen of Committees and officials with a carefully kept record of decisions and precedents on such points as they have mentioned, as well as by the deposit of a copy of the printed Minutes of Proceedings of every Private Bill Committee of both Houses, such copy to be kept in the Committee Office, and to be available for the use of any Chairman. 36. It would also be desirable that the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, as well as the Chairmen of other Groups of Private Bills, should, from time to time confer tosfether so as to secure uniformity of decision, as far as possible to deal with any new question that may arise. 37. The evidence taken go6s to show that, while the composition of Com- mittees on opposed Bills gives general satisfaction, that of Committees on unopposed Bills might well be strengthened. The duties of the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House itself have now become so exacting that it is clear that he cannot at many periods of the Session exercise adequate supervision over unopposed business. Your Committee are of opinion that a careful and thorough examination of unopposed Bills is required in the public interest, as such Bills often contain large and far- reaching powers which it may be contrary to the public advantage to grant, although it may not happen to be to the interest of any individual to SELEC?r COMMITTEE ON PKIVATE BUSINESS. IX oppose them. They also often contain financial proposals of large import- ance which can only be sanctioned after full examination. To master the multifarious proposals of this class of Bills means in itself heavy work which cannot be expected from tlie Chairman of Committees even when aided by the Speaker's Counsel. 38. Your Committee therefore recommend that the Deputy Chairman should be a salaried official of the House, and should be made responsible in the absence of the Chairman for all Private Business both in and out of the House (except so far as it may be dealt with by opposed Bill Com- mittees), and that a panel of four members should be appointed by the Committee of Selection to assist the Chairman or Deputy Chairman with the Committees on unoppo.sed Private Bills. Any points in these Bills which affect the Public Interest or which Avould create new precedents, and which are not specially reported on by a (Government Department, should be brought to the attention of this Committee by the Speaker's Counsel. 39. Your Committee think that if such a Committee (of which the quorum should be three) were constituted, it might be empowered to decide minor points in dispute between the parties to opposed Bills, which cannot be settled by agreement, but which are not worth taking before? an opposed Bill Committee, and on which both parties are willing to accept the decision of a more smnmary tribunal. This power would be somewhat analogous to the power of conciliation, in case of disputes between traders in railway com- panies, vested in the Board of Trade, a power which has been found by experience to save time and expense. 40. Your Committee consider that the Member who introduced the Bill should (as at present) be summoned to attend the meeting of the Committee, but they recommend that neither he nor the Speaker's Counsel should be a member of the Committee. 41. Cases have occurred from time to time in which Promoters or Peti- tioners have been unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense, as for instance, by the withdrawal of Petitions or Bills at the last moment, and without due notice, when all the expenses necessary for the hearing have been incurred. Those cases are not covered by the Standing Orders and the Costs Act as they stand at present, and your Committee consider that the Standing Orders, and if necessary, the CJosts Act, should be amended so as to cover them. 42. Your Committee had evidence that objections are from time to time taken successfully to Petitioners being heard on matters which they seek to raise, on the ground that they are not sufficiently specified in their Petition, with the result that they are imperfectly heard or are compelled to withdraw and oppose in the other House, whereas if an amendment of the Petition were .allowed the matter might well be fully heard and a second opposition avoided. Standing Order 128 affects to provide for amendment, but it is a dead letter. Your Committee recommend that, after reasonable notice when practic- able, powers of amendment of Petitions should be given to the Com- mittee to whom the Bill is referred. 43. Your Committee recommend that Standing Order 110 (Road Bills) should be omitted as obsolete, and that Standing Order 208* be amended so as to admit of the unopposed Orders in a Provisional Order Bill proceeding, although others are opposed. 44. There are two matters relating to the procedure before Committee on Private Bills to which your Committee consider af tention should be called. Your Committee think it would materially conduce to the better guidance of a Committee on an opposed Bill if, in cases where the petitioners call no evidence, the counsel for the promoters were allowed the right to sum up his evidence before the counsel for the petitioners is heard, as is the practice in Courts of Law 0.23 b X KE1?©BT : — PUIVATE IJUSINESS OQM^UTEE;;, The second point is the following :-- , • ; .; Where two or more Bills are heard tc^ethei-, - counsel for the promoter of the second [or third] is, according to present ordinary practice, allowed; to address the Committee once ■only, viz., either before or after calling his witnesses, as he may elect. • On several occasions during recent Sessions he has been allowed by special leave of the Committee to make a short statement, mainly in explanation of his own case, before calling his witnesses, and to address the Committee again at a later stage in support of his whole case and against that of the other Bill or Bills. ' This new practice has been found of advantage to both the Committee and the parties, and your Committee recommend that it be generally adopted in place of the present one. XI J tu PROCEEDINGS ,0F THE COMMITTEE. U Mr. Jeffreys. Mr. Flynn. Moudau, 'I'ird June 1 902. MEMBERS PRESENT^: . Mr. Worsley Taylor. Mr. Brynmor Jones. Mr. Jeffreys was called to the Chair. Tl 10 Committee deliberated. '"*' ' '' ''■ ' i}''-'^^'-^^ [Adjournetl.,tiU f jjiesd^y,, 8th July, at Half-past Eleven o'clock. Tue^-dap, Stk Juli/ '190-2. '" MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Jeffreys in the Chair. Mr. Brynmor Jones. ' ' ■ ■ | ' ■. Mr. Worsley Taylor. Mr. Rensliaw. j Mr. Brand. Mr. Hobhouse. | The Right Honourable James WiUiaiio Lowtlier, M.P., and The Honourable Sir Chaindos Lcifih, K.C.B., K.C., were examined. ■ ; !,'•?■', [Adjourned till Thursday next, at Half-past Eleven o'clock. Thursday, lOth July 1902. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Jeffreys in the Chair. Mr. Hobhouse. |i Mr. Worsley Taylor. Mr. Renshaw. \ Mr. Brynmor Jones. The Hon. Sir Ghandos Lqigh, k.c.b., k.c, was further examined. m Mr. G. Ashby Pritt was examined. f [Adjourned till Tuesday next, at Half-past Eleven o'clock. 0.23 . l^' 2 Xll PROCEEDINGS OF THE Tuesday, 15th Jul// 1902. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Jeffreys in the Chair. Mr. Kenshaw. |- Mr. Brynmor Jones. Mr. Hobhouse. j Mr. Arthur Brand. Mr. Worsley Taylor. ! The Right Hon. T. F. Halsey (a Member of the House), the Right Hon. J. W. Mellor, k.c. (a Member of the House), and Mr. W. Gibbons, were examined. [Adjourned till Thursday next, at Half-past Eleven o'clock. Thursday, 17 tk July 1902. Mr. Renshaw. Mr. Worsley Taylor. MEMKERS I'RESENT : Mr. Jeffreys in the Chair. Mr. Hobhouse. The Right Hon. ./. W. Mellor, K.c. (a Member of the House), was further examined. Mr. R. W. Monro, Mr. A. Bonham Carter, c.b., and Mr. Horatio Brevitt, were examined. [Adjourned till Tuesday next, at Quarter-past Eleven o'clock. Tuesday, 22nd July 1902. members PRESENT: Mr. Jeffreys in the Chair. Mr. Hobhouse. | Mr. Worsley Taylor. « Mr. Renshaw. ' j Mr. Brynmor J ones. Mr. J. Parker Smith (a Member of the House) and Mr. H. E. Boyce, were examined. [Adjourned till Thursday next, at Half-past Eleven o'clock. Thursday, 2Mt July 1902. members present: Mr. Jeffreys in the Chair. Mr. Hobhouse. j Mr. Worsley Taylor. Mr. C. W, Campion and Mr. C. E. Baker, were examined. [Adjourned till Tuesday next, at Half -past Eleven o'clock. SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. XIU Tuesday, 2Qth July 1902. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Jeffreys in the Chair. Mr. Renshaw. | Mr.'Hobhouse. Mr. Worsley Taylor, k.c. | Mr. H. E. Boyce was further examined. Mr. /. S. Brale and Mr. Sydnsy Morse were examined. [Adjourned till Tuesday next, at Half-past Eleven o'clock. Tuesday, bth Augiist 1902. members present : Mr. Jeffreys in the Chair. Mr. Hobhouse. | Mr. Renshaw. Sir Ralph Littler, K.c, C.B., Mr. C. E. Troup, C.B., and Mr. E. H. Feirilyer, K.c, were examined. [Adjourned till the Autumn Sittings. Wednesday, 12th November 1902. MEMBERS present: Mr. Jeffreys in the Chair. Mr. Hobhouse. I Sir C. Renshaw, Bart. Mr. Worsley Taylor. | Mr. Brynmor Jones. Draft Report, proposed by the Chairman, read the first time, as follows : — " 1. Your Committee has sat on nine days, and has received evidence from several Members and Officials of the House of Commons, from Officials of the House of Lords, and from professional and other representative witnesses experienced in the business of Private Bill Legislation. " 2. The Order of Reference to your Committee makes it necessary that in the first place they should refer to the existing Standing Orders which regulate the course of Private Bill Legislation in the House of Commons. " 3. The Standing Orders provide for publication of notices in the ' Gazette ' and local newspapers in the months of October and November, but not later than 27th November. Notices have to be served on owners, lessees, and occupiers on or before ] 5th December. Plans to be deposited by 30th November, and in some cases notices are required by 31st December, and monc}- deposits have to be made by 15th January. All private Bills must be deposited in the House of ^ ^ 3^ Commons by 21st December in each year, and printed copies deposited on the same date at tiic (H. c.). Treasury and other public Departments, and provision is made by which the reports of thUT1-Ep ON PUIVATE HUSIXESS. • , .- "(E.) Mr. Lowtlier ;uid Mr.Biiiilo .suggested a tixcil date after which no second reading of Lowther, 47; a. Bill originating in the House, of Commons should be allowed, and Mr. Beale and Mr. Morse Reale, 2154. made the suggestion that proof of the Whanicliffe meeting should be given in Committee. Beale, 2i:w ; _^ '"' . . ° . . . Morse, 2210. ".(F.) On the subject of the date at which the Examiners take up the Bills, viz., the 18th January, Mr. Campion stated that there was no reason that the interval between the 16*18^1634 deposit of the Bill and the sitting of the Examiner should be so long, and that an earlier date might be fixed. ; , , . , "(Gr.) Mr. Pritt suggested that the Coimsel to the Speaker and theCoimsel to the Pritt, 640. Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords might be empowered to determine in which House of Parliament the respective Private Bills should be first considered, and that this could be done before a Session commenced. " (H.) The evidence also shows that considerable delay arises from the difficulty in securing early reports for the Government Departments that the staff of specialists employed on them is hmited, and the time between the deposit of Bills and the meeting of the House too short for ov(>rtaking the work. Mr. Boyce suggests that Bills should be grouped earlier so that the Departuient would know in what order they were to be taken, and Mr. Beale made the suggestion that they should be grouped according to the amount of opposition. " (I.) Ill regard to the Court of Referees, Mr. Parker Smith suggested that at least three members of it slionld be Members of the House, and that the Deputy Chairman should be made Chairman of the Court, and as a paid official of the House should devote his energies to this and other work connected with Private Bill legislation; the latter view was also expressed by Mr. Mellor. Mr. Beale considers the court expensive and unnecessary, and prefers the system in the House of Lords. Mr. Lowther considers that the eight days' notice allowed to promoters might be reduced, an opinion shared by Mr. Bonham Carter but strongly objected to by Mr. Pritt. Mr. Lowther and Sir Chandos Leigh would allow the Committee to grant costs in the cases of frivolous and vexatious objections. Mr. Parker Smith suggests that Standing Orders 132a and 135 should be amended so that persons or associations indirectly affected by Bills should be allowed a locus standi. Bills (J.) Some evidence was given in favour of strengthening the Committee on Unopposed " (K.) On the subject of discu.ssioiis in the House on Private Bills, the practice of moving instructions on second reading was deprecated by Mr. Lowther and Mr. Bonham Carter. Mr. Lowther, Sir Chandos Leigh, Mr. Pritt, Mr. Beale, would limit discussion on second reading to questions of principle,, and think that the decision as to what discussisns should be allowed should be decided by a Committee of the House. Mr. Pritt considered discussion should be on second reading, whilst Mr. Mellor suggests it should be limited to third reading. Mr. Beale and Mr. Morse consider that the reason for opposing the second reading of a Bill should be stated when the Bill is blocked. : " (L.) A considerable amount of evidence was given on the subject of the extension of the Provisional Order system. Mr. Lowther is in tVwour of preventing corporation and other authorities coming by Bill for powers which they can obtain by Provisional Orders. Mr. Pritt and Mr. Baker express their disapproval of this ; but the latter witness was in favour of rendering it possible to obtain by one Provisional Order powers which can under the existing law only be obtained by several separate Orders. _ " (M.^i The evidence in regard to the fees charged in respect of Private Bills .shows that durinw last year the fees received in this House for Private Business amounted to 40,683?. and tlie approximate estimate of the charges incurred in connection with the salaries of officials connected with Private Business in the House of Commons for the year ending 31st March 1902, was ll,792i. The scales of fees in the House of Lords and the House of Commons vary. The opinions of witnesses differ as to whether or not fees should be reduced, but there would seem to be agreement that the fees in the two Houses should be assimilated. Mr. Beale does not consider the fees too high. Mr. Pritt thinks they may unduly press on local authorities. Mr. Baker and Mr. Peniber expressed a like opinion with regard to Petitions against Bills. Mr. Brevitt is in favour of reduction, and Mr. Baker considers they should be reduced by one-half. Baber, 1799 ; Boyce, 1571, 1578 et ■\eq., 1918. Beale, 2129. P. Smith, 1345, 1368 ; Mellor, 769 et seq. Beale, 2125. Lowther, 51. Bonhain .' Carter, 1123 ; Pritt, 485 aiifl 487; Chandos Leigh, 203, 211; Lowtlier, 136. P. Smith, 1.360, 1361;. . P. Smithi 1391 ; Bove, 1914. Lowther, 42. Itonhain Carter, 1137. Lowther, 11- 49 ; Leigh. 218; Pritt, 43.3-523 ; Beale, 2136. Pritt, 436 ; Mellor, 7211. Beale, 2143 ; Mor.se, 2179. Lowther, 34- 91, 140-146. Pritt, 505 ; Baker, 1783, 1874. Apji. 6. Beale, 2149 ; Pritt, 459 et seq. ; Baker, 1902 ; Peniber, 2463; Brevitt. 1244 ; the . Associations represented, 176.5. " Becomjiexdations.! " 16. Your Committee recommend that all Privatei Bills should be deposited in the House of Commons on l7th December instead of 21st December. " 17. Your Committee are of opinion that the petition for leave to introduce a Bill in the House of Commons is unnecessary and should be discontinued. " 18. They further recommend that the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of Comrnittees in the House of Lords, or their Counsel, should determine before the end of January in each year, in which House the respective Bills should be first considered, and that the first reading stage in the House of Commons should be dispensed with. " 19. Your Committee recommend that the date for the sitting of the Examiner should be altered to 12th January and that all Petitions against Private Bills should be deposited on or before 12th February in each year. XVI PROCEEDINGS OF THE Appeniiix No. 9. Parker- Smith, 1373. Parker- Smith, 13t)ii and 1361. Appendix No. 2. Commit tei's on opiK>se(l BUls. Gray, 2(HtS. " 20. The attention of your Committee has been directed to the delay which arises from the fact that no Hmit of time is fixed under Standing Orders 62-66 between the first reading of a Company Bill and the reference to the Examiner, and your Committee recommend that compliance with these Standing Orders should be proved within a fixed period of five weeks from the date on which the Bill passed the Examiner on preliminary Standing Orders. ■' 21. Some witnesses thought the House Fees too high, but after investigating the total costs incurred by bringing opposed Bills before Parliament, it was found that the House Fees in the larger Bills bore a very small proportion to the total costs, and in the smaller cases the Fees were about one-fourth or one-fifth of the total costs. The Chairman of Ways and Means was not in favour of reducing these Fees ; but your Committee think that the Chairman of the Lords and Chairman of Ways and Means, with certain officials of both Houses whom they might select, should confer together with a view of a general revision of the scale of fees, and making them identical in the two Houses. " 22. Evidence was given that if Bills of a similar character were grouped together. Government Departments might take them in order, and thus make their reports earlier to the Committees, and your Committee recommend that this should be done, and also express an opinion that the Local Government Board should endeavour to make their reports on Private Bills earlier than at present. " 23. The evidence taken shows that if the General Public Health Legislation in England were brought up to date the necessity for many of these Bills would be removed, and this class of Committee work greatlv reduced in volume. " 24. The Court of Referees or of Locus Stavdi is constituted under Standing Order 87, and consists of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and not less than three other persons appointed by Mr. Speaker; your Goinmittee therefore reconnneTid that the Court should oe reconstituted, and consist of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, and that all its members should be Members of the House of Commons, with the addition of two officials nominated by Mr. Speaker, and that this Court should have power to award costs analogous to that possessed by Committees of the House, and also that the Court should have larger discretionary powers with regard to granting a locus standi to Petitioners who satisfy them prima facie that they are likely to be injuriouslv affected by a Bill, but whose cases are not covered by existing Standing Orders, and that Standing Order 133a should be amended so that associations or persons representing interests or traffic affected by Bills other than those specified in that Order ; also that Standing Order 135, which gives a locus standi to owners, &c. of property ' in ' a street through which it is proposed to construct a tramway, should be extended to owners, &c. of property, the access to which is materially de'pendent on the said street ; also that the word ' street ' should be extended, e.g., by adding such words as ' road ' or place, should be allowed a loctos standi. " 25. Several witnesses urged that the discussion of Private Bills in t/te House itself should be limited to one stage only, and that instructions to Bills should not be permitted ; but as it appears from a Paper handed in by the Chairman of Ways and Means that during last Session only 13 hours and 55 minutes were occupied in discussing the second readings of Private Bills, and that no instructions were moved, your Committee believe that the new rules of the House relating to Private Business tend to reduce the length of the discussions on Private Bills, and are unwilling to advise that the control of the House over Private Bills should bo more limited than at present. " 26. On the subject of Joint Committees of the two Houses, and the extension and alteration of the Provisional Order system, your Committee do not feel they can report, as these matters should form the subject of consideration for a Joint Committee of the two Houses. " 27. Attention was drawn to the difficulty of getting members to sit on Private Bill Committees, but your Committee have reason to think that many members escape serving on these Committees altogether, and from a return made to the House of Commons in 1900 it appears that 275 members (omitting members of the late and present Government) never served at all on Private Bill Committees during the whole of the last Parliament. " Your Committee recommend, therefore, that more care should be taken by the Committee of Selection in summoning all members in turn to serve on Committees. " 28. Your Committee think that steps should be taken to secure more uniformity in the decision of Committees on opposed Bills than is possible at present, when each Committee acts as an independent unit without any guidance from recorded precedents other than the ex parte statements of counsel. They see no "reason why there should not be kept in the Committee Office an official record of any important decisions on points either of practice (e.g., the award of costs, refusal to hear counsel) or of principle (e.g., the granting of compensation to the rates in the case of large demolitions of property, the grant of any exceptional terms for loans or payment of interest, or of any important powers or obligations in excess of the ordinary law). Some of these matters are, in the case of Corporation Bill's by Standing Order No. 173a, required to be reported to the House, but no record is required or "is kept, and a new Chairman is often at a great disadvantage in dealing with such questions. The evil would be much more serious if it were not for the careful attention given to all novel and doubtful proposals in Bills by the Chairman of the House of Lords, who, byWsing objection to them in an early stage, often induces the promoters to modify or withdraw them. They think that his action might well be reinforced in this Ilouse l)y providing the Chairmen of Committees and officials with a carefully kept record of decisions and precedents on such points as they have mentioned, as well as by the purchase of a copy of the Minutes of Proceedings of every Private Bill Committee of both Houses, such copy to be kept in the Private Bill or Committee Office, and to be available for the use of any Chairmfin. SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. XVI] " 29. On points of practice it might also be desirable that the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills should from time to time confer, either among themselves or together with Chairmen of other opposed Bill Committees, so iis to maintain some uniformity in their decisions, and to deal with any new questions that may arise. " 30. Cases have occurred from time to time in which Promoters or Petitioners have been unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense, as, for instance, by the withdrawal of Petitions or Bills at the last moment, and without due notice, when all the expenses necessary for the hearing ^™''''>^'- ^^ have been incurred. Those cases are not covered by the Standing Orders and the Costs Act as they stand at present, and your Committee consider that the Standing Orders, and if necessary the l^"'^^*^' "^^ Costs Act, should be amended so as to cover them. " 31. Your Conmiittee had evidence that objections are from time to time taken successfully s. o. i28 to Petitioners being heard on matters which they seek to raise, on the ground that they are not (l^ower ti> sufficiently specified in their Petition, with the result that they are imperfectly heard or are tiin)"^ *'*'^' compelled to withdraw and oppo.se in the other House, whereas if an amendment of the Petition were allowed the matter might well be fuUv heard and a second opposition avoided. " Standing Order 128 aft'ects to provitte for amendment, but it is a dead letter. " Your Conniiittee recommend that, especially after reasonable notice when practicable, powers of amendment of Petition should be given at the Committee stage, and possibly earlier, analogous to those which exist and are freely used under Order 28 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Judicature. 32. There are two matters relating to the procedure before Committee on Private Bills to Procedure Baker, 19()6. which your Conunittee consider attention should oe called. " They think it would materially conduce to the better guidance of a Committee on an opposed Bill if, in cases where the petitioners call no evidence, the counsel for the promoters were allowed the right to sum up his evidence before the counsel for the petitioners is neard, as is the practice in Courts of Law. " The second point is the following : — " Where two or more Bills are heard together, counsel for the promoters of the second or (third) is, according to ])resent ordinary practice, allowed to address the Committee once only, viz., either before or after calling his witnesses, as he may elect. " On several occasions during recent Sessions he has been allowed by special leave of the Committee to make a short statement, mainly in explanation of his own case, before calling his witnesses, and to address the Committee again at a later stage in support of his whole case and against that of the other Bill or Bills. " This new practice has been found ot advanttige to both the Comnxittee and the parties, and Your Conunittee recommend that it be generally adopted in place of the present one." Motion made and Question, — That the Draft Report proposed by the Chairman be read a second time paragraph by paragraph — (The Cluii rman), — put, and agreed to. Paragraphs 1 — 11, agreed to. Paragraph 12 : Amendment proposed, in line 2, to lea^•e out the words " The court consists," in order to insert the word " consisting " — (Mr. Hohhov se), — instefid thereof Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the paragraph, — put, and negatived. Question, That the word " consisting " be there inserted, — put, and agreed to. Another ■Amendment proposed, in line 3, after the word "persons" to in.sert the words •' appointed by Mr. Speaker "—(Mr. Worsley Taylor). — Question, That those words be there inserted, — put, and agreed to. Another Amendment proposed, in line 3, after the last Amendment, to insert the words " The persons at present apixjinted are live Members of the House of Conuiions, Mr. Speaker's Counsel and the Referee ' — (Mr. WorsLey Taylor). — Question, That those words be there inserted, — put, and agreed to. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. Paragraph 13, amended, and agreed to. Paragraph 14, agreed to. Paragraph 1 5, postponed. Paragraphs 16 and 17, agreed to. Paragraph 18 : Amendment proposed, in line 3, to leave out all the words from the word " considered " to the end of the paragraph in oi-der to insert the words " Your Connuittee reeoumiend that the first reading stage of Private Bills in the House of Commons should be dispensed with as being a mere formality, and that Bills should be deemed to be read a first time on passing the Examiner on Standing Orders " — (Mr. Wordey Titi/iw)— instead thereot 0.23 c before Coni- iiiittec. XVin PROCEEbiNGS OF THE Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part ot the paragraph, — put. and negatived. Question, That those words be there inserted, — put, and agreed to. Another Amendment proposed, after the last amendment, to add the words " The abolition of the two stages mentioned aV)ove will necessitate a re-arrangement of the House fees, certain of which are payable at these stages. This would form part of the general revision proposed later " — (Mr. Woraley Taylor).— QueHtwii, That those words be there added, — put, and agreed to. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. Paragraph 19 : Amendment proposed, in line 2, after the word " January," to insert the words " the dates for the memorials against Bills being correspondingly altered, and the date for the deposit of money under Standing Order 57 being altered to 9th January " — (Sir C. Renshaw). Question, That those words be there inserted, — put, and agreed to. Question put. That the paragraph, as amended, stand part of the Report. — The Committee divided : Noe, 1. Mr. Worsley -Taylor. Ayes, 8. Mr. Hobhouse. Mr. Brynmor Jones. Sir Charles Renshaw. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. Pai'agraph 20, agreed to. Paragraph 21 : Amendment proposed, in line J , to leave out the words " Some witnesses thought the House fees too high, but" — (Mr. Hobhouse). — Question, That those words stand part of the paragraph, — put, and negatived. Another Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the words "After investigating" in order to insert the words ; — ■ "1. As regards House fees, there seems no doubt that, considering the large increase of fee receipts in recent years, the net annual profits derived by the Exchequer from Private Bill Business (excluding any charges for the use of the (Jommittee Rooms in the two Houses), are at least as high as the estimate adopted by the Select Committee on the Private Bill Pi-ocedure (Scotland) Bill, which sat in the year 189S, viz., 32,496?. The Report of that Committee ends with a strong recommendation thgl ' those who are responsible for fixing these fees should materially reduce them' (p. iv). In this reconuiiendation we concur, subject to the following remarks: — " 2. While the representatives of local authorities are inclined to demand a large reduction of fees all round, we have evidence to show that the grievance is much more keenly felt in the case of small than of large undertakings, and especially where there is no opposition to the Bill. While the fees form only a small proportion of the total cost of large and keenly fought measiu'es, brought forward mostly for the profit of their promoters, they amount to one-third or even one-halt of the cost of small unopposed measures, many of which are promoted by local authorities for the public advantage. The figures we have had laid before us show that the minimum charge for an unopposed Private Bill not opposed in either House is estimated to be 192?. (80?. in the House of Commons, 112?. in the House of Lords), r " 3. Several witnesses have complained of the want of uniformity of fees in the two Houses. While those of the House of Lords are not uniformly higher, they arc apparenth' more burdensome in the earlier stages of Bills than those of the Hou.se of Commons. Subject to our subsequent suggestions for amalgamatuig the two Private Bill Offices, thus securing complete uniformity of fees, we recommend that the House charges be carefully revised by a Joint Committee of both Houses with a view to relieve both prcjmoters and petitioners from what may fairly in many cases be considered excessive charges in proportion to the size and character of the undertakings " — (Mr. Hobhouse). Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the paragraph. — The Committee divided : Noes, 2. Mr. Hobhouse. Sir Charles Renshaw. Ayes, 2. Mr. Brynmor Jones. Mr. Worsley-Taylor. Whereupon the Chairman declared himself with the Ayes. Another amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out all the words from the words " it was " to the word "but" in line "5," both inclusive — (Sir G. Rensliaw). — Question, That those words stand part of the paragraph, — put, and negatived. Another amendment proposed, in line 6, to leave out all the words from "the Chairman" to the word " together," in line 7, in order to insert the words " a Joint Committee of the two Houses should be appointed with a view to a general revision of the scale of fees, and to their being made identical in the two Houses" — (Mr. Hobhouse) — instead thereof. SELECT COMMITTEE ON -PRIVATE BUSINESS. XIX Question, That the words proposed to bo left out stand part of the paragraph, — put, and negatived. Question, That those words be there inserted, — put, and agreed to. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. Paragraphs 22 and 23, disagreed to. Paragraph 24 : . Amendment proposed, in Hne 1, to leave out all the words from the words " The Court " to the word " Speaker " in lino 3 — (Mr. Hobhoicse). — Question, That those words stand part of the Report, —put, and negatived. Another Amendment proposed, in line 4, to leave out all the words from the word " Means " to the word " Speaker," in line 6, in order to insert the words " with seven other Members of the House of Commons nominated by Mr. Speaker, with the assistance of not more than two Officials of the House acting as assessors." — (Mr. Worsley Taylor.) Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the paragraph, — put, and negatived. Question, That those words be there inserted, — put, and agreed to. Another Amendment proposed, in line 11, to leave out all the words from the word " Order" to the end of the paragrapii — (Mr. Ilobhoiise). — Question, That the words proposed to bo left out .stand part of the paragrapii, — put, and negatived. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. [Adjourned till Tuesday next, at Half-past Eleven o'clock. Tuesday, I'^th November 1902, MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Jeffreys in the Chair. Mr. Hobhouse. I Mr. Brand. Mr. Worsley Taylor, ) Mr. Brynmor Jones. Paragraph 25 : Amendment proposed, in line 3, after [the word " during " to insert the words " the 10 years preceding 1!)01 the average number of hours per annum spent on such discussion was 28, but that m 1901 it rose to 58, but during " — (Mr. Hobhouse). — Question, That those words be there inserted, — put, and agreed to. Other Amendments made. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. Paragraph 26, agreed to. Paragraph 27 : Amendment proposed, in line 6, to leave , out the words "more care should be taken" — (Mr. Hobhouse). — Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the paragraph, — put, and negatived. Another Amendment proposed, in line 7, after the word " Selection " to insert the word.s " should take stops to see " — (Mr Worsley Taylor). — Question, That those words be there inserted, — put, and agreed to. Other Amendments made. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. Paragraphs 28 and 29, amended, and agreed to Paragrapii 30, agreed to. Paragraph 31, amended, and agreed to. Paragraph 32, agreed to. 0.23. d XX/ PROCEEDINGS OF THE Amendment proposed, That the following new paragraph be inserted in the Report : " It has been suggested that the cost of the Parliamentary notices now required by the Standing Orders might bo considerably reduced if they were assmiilated to the more summary form of notices required by the Light Railways Commissioners, and in the case of a Provisional Order. Your Committee beheve that the public and all parties interested would be sufficiently safeguarded and at least equally well informed by a shorter form of notice " — (Mr. HobUouse). — Question proposed, That the proposed paragraph be inserted in the Report. Amendment proposed, in line 6, after the word " notice,"" to add the words " at any rate, in the of those inserted in the local newspapers " — (Mr. Worsley Taylor).— Question, That those words ■put, and agreed to. case be there added, Couuuittoes on imopposed Btlfe. Mellor, 740, " 7«ft. Plirker SSmth, 1373. Kritt, 591. Paragraph amended and inserted in the Report. Another Amendment proposed. That the following new paragraph be inserted in the Report : '' The evidence taken goes to show that, while the composition of Committees on opposed Bills fives general satisfaction, that of Committees on unopposed Bills might well be strengthened. The uties of the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House itself have now become so exacting that it is clear that he cannot at many periods of the Session exercise adequate supervision over unopposed business. Your Committee are of opinion that a careful and thorough examination of unopposed Bills is required in the public interest, as such Bills often contain large and far-reaching Eowers which it may be contrary to the public advantage to grant, although it may not happen to e to the interest of any individual to oppose them. They also often contain financial proposals of large importance which should only be sanctioned after full examination. To master the multifarious proposals of this class of Bills means in itself heavy work which cannot be expected from the Chairman of Committees even when aided by the Speaker's Counsel. Your Committee, therefore, recommend that the Deputy Chairman should be a salaried official of the House, and should be made responsible, in the absence of the Chairman, for all Private Business both in and out of the House (except so far as it may be dealt with by opposed Bill Committees), and that a panel of four members should be appointed by the Committee of Selection to assist the Chairman or Deputy Chairman with the Committees on unopposed Private Bills. Any points in these Bills which ati'ect the Public Interest or which raise new precedents, and which are not speciallj' reported on by a Government Department, should be brought to the attention of this Committee by the Speaker's Counsel" — (Mr. Hobhouse). Paragraph amended and inserted in the Report. Another Amendment proposed, That the following new paragraph be inserted in the Report : " Your Committee think tnat if such a Committee (of which the quorum should be three) were constituted, it might be empowered to decide minor points in dispute between the parties to opposed Bills, which cannot be settled by agreement^ but which .are not worth taking before an opposed Bill Committee, and on which both parties are willing to accept the decision of a more summary tribunal. This power would be somewhat analogous to the power of conciliation, in case of disputes between traders in railway companies, vested in the Board of Trade, a power which has been found by experience to save time and expense " — (Mr. Hobhouse). Paragraph inserted in the Report. Another Amendment proposed. That the following now paragraph be inserted in the Report : " Your Committee consider that the Member who introduced the Bill should (as at present) be summoned to attend the meeting of the Committee, but they recommend that neither he iu)r the Speaker's Counsel should be a member of the Committee" — (Mr. Hobhouse). Paragraph inserted in the Report. Another Amendment proposed. That the following new paragraph be inserted in the Report : " Your Committee recommend, That a new Standing Order should be drawn up requiring a Board of Trade Report on all proposals for supplying electrical energy. This might be modelled on Standing Order 155 " — (Mr. Hobhouse). Paragraph inserted in the Report. Another Amendment proposed, That the following new paragraph be inserted in the Report : "Your Committee recommend that Standing Order 110 be omitted as obsolete." — (Mr. Hobhouse). Paragraph inserted in the Report. Another Amendment proposed. That the following new paragraph be inserted in the Report : " Your Committee recommend that Standing Order 133a should be amended so that associations or bodies sufficiently representing interests or traffic affected by Bills other than those specified iii that Order, should be allowed a Locus standi, also that Standing Order 135, which gives a lornis standi to owners, &c., of property ' in ' a street through which it is proposed to construct a tramway, should be extended to owners, &c. of propert}^ tlic access to which is materially dependent on the said street, also that the said Standing Order should be extended by adding the words ' or road ' after the word ' street.' " — (Mr. Worsley Taylor). Paragraph inserted in the Report. SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. XXI Another Amendment proposed, That the following new paragraph be inserte:! in the Report • " Your Committee recommend, That Standing Order 208a be amended so as to admit of the Unopposed Order in a Provisional Older Bill proceeding, although others are opposed." — ''Mr. Hohhov^e). Paragraph inserted in the Report. Another Amendment proposed, That the following new paragraph be inserted in the Report : Boyce 1946« " Another important proposal in the interests of economy is that made to us with respect to the '^'^^ ^^''' amalgamation into one office of the Private Bill Offices of the two Houses. In such an office Bills and Petitions might be deposited once for all, economies in the staff might be effiicted, one set of uniform fees might be charged, and all formal proceedings connected with Bills might be simplified. There would appear to be no constitutional objection to such a reform. And your Committee think it deserves to be carefully considered by a Joint Committee, including the two Chairinen of Committees, of both Houses." — (Mr. Hobhouse). , . , Paragraph inserteid in the Report. Another Amendment proposed, That the following new paragraph be inserted in the Report : " Your Committee recommend that steps should be taken to secure as long an interval as possible between the hearing of the Court of Referees of the objections to Petitions against a Bill, and the sitting of the Committee on it. Otherwise, one of the main purposes of the Court fails, viz., the saving of the expense of preparing for the Committee stage in cases where the locii^ standi is disallowed." — (Mr. Worsley Taylor). Paragraph inserted in the Report. Another Amendment proposed, That the follo\ving new paragraph be inserted in the Report : " Your Committee recommend that as soon as possible after the date fixed for petitions against Bills all opposed Bills should be grouped, and the order in which groups should be taken fixed with a view to facilitate the work of the Government Departments, and they are of opinion that the Local Government Board should make its reports on Private Bills at an earlier date than hitherto." — (Sir Charles Renshaw). Paragraph inserted in the Report. Another Amendment proposed. That the following new paragraph be inserted in the Report : " Your Committee are of opinion that if the General Public Healtli Legislation for England and Wales were brought up to date, the necessity for many of the Bills now promoted by Local Authorities for the purpose of obtaining extended powers in relation to matters of Public Health or Local Government would be removed, and this class of Committee work greatly reduced). — Sir ■Chaiies Revsluiw). Paragraph inserted in the Report. Postponed paragraph 15. . . . Amendments made. Another Amendment proposed in line 36, after the word " fixed " to insert the words " butr he : stated that the fixing an earlier date might cause difficulty in preparing the cases for and against memorials, and that the bulk of the Bills are got through in about eight or nine days " — (Mr. Wwsley Taylor). — Question put. That those words be there inserted. — The Committee divided : Aye, 1. j Noe, 1. Mr. Worsley Taylor. ) Mr. Brynmor Jones. Whereupon the Chairman declared himself with the Noes. Other Amendments made. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. Question, That the Report, as amended, be the Report of the Committee to the House, — put, and agreed to. Ordered, To Report. [ xxii ] LIST OF WITNESSES. Tuesday, 8th July 1902. PAGE- The Right Honourable James William Lowther (a Member of the House) ... i The Honourable Sir E. Chandos Leigh, k.c.b., k.c. ------ --15 Thursday, lOih July 1902. The Honourable Sir E. Chandos Leigh, K.C.B., k.c. - - 21 Mr. George Ashby Pritt - 31 Tuesday, loth July 1902. The Right Honourable Thomas F. Halsey (a Member of the House) - - - - 45 The Right Honourable John W. Mellor (a Member of the House) 51 Mr. William Gibbons 62. Thursday, 17th July 1902. The Right Honourable John W. Mellor (a Member of the House) 6T Mr. R. W. Monro ... 69- Mr. Alfred Bonham-Carter, c.B. --72' Mr. Horatio Brevitt ...-.-.------ 78- Tuesday, 22,nd July 1902. Mr. James Parker Smith (a Member of the House) ---.----87 Mr. Herbert Edward Boyce ---96 Thursday, Mth July 1902. Mr. Charles Walter Campion 106' Mr. Charles Edmund Baker - 113- Tuesday, '29th July 1902. Mr. Herbert Edward Boyce - 123 Mr. Albert Gray 127 Mr. James Samuel Beale - 137 Mr. Sydney Morse - - - - - 141 Tuesday, 5th August 1902. Sir Ralph D. M. Littler, K.c, c.b. 146- Mr. Charles Edward Troup, c.b. - -157 Mr. Edward Henry Pember, K.C. -- 160- [ 1 ] MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Tuesday, 8th July, 1902. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Brand. Mr. Hobhouse. Mr. Jeffreys. Mr. Brynmor Jones. Mr. Renshaw. Mr. Worsley-Taylor. The Right Honourable A. F. JEFFREYS m the Chair. The Right Honourable James William Lowther (a Member of the House), Examined. Chairman. 1. You are Chairman of Commitee of Ways and Means ? — Yes ; I have been so since 1895. 2. You know the terras of the reference to this Committee : — " That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether subject to the change in the time at which private business is taken under the Resolution of 1st May 1902, any alterations in the Standing Orders are desirable in the nterests of economy, efficiency, and general convenience " ? — Yes. 3. With regard to any alterations which you may think necessary, will you kindly state in the first place whether you think private business can be conducted under the new rules in a similar way to the procedure imder the old rules ? — So far as we have had experience of the new rules, I think they have been conducive to private business being cut down to narrower limits. It is quite possible that the fact that it has now to come on at nine o'clock acts rather as a deterrent to discussion. I have no doubt (although I have not heard so from agents), that it is not a con- venient hour for the agents or parties, and therefore, wherever it is possible to arrive at an arrangement, an arrangement has been arrived at. In fact, on several occasions, since the new rules have come into operation, there have been Bills set down for nine o'clock and a discussion expected, and at the last moment arrangements have been come to and the time of the House has been saved. Therefore, so far as the new rules go, I think their working has been conducive to an economy of the public time. 4. Do you think it would be possible to get the Bills ready earlier in the Session for discussion by Committees ? — That involves a number of questions, or rather it involves the alteration of a great number of dates. I do not say it would not be possible, I have no doubt it would be possible ; but it would mean first of all that 0.23. Chairman — continued. the Bills themselves should be deposited earlier. At present the date for the deposit of Private Bills is the 21st of December ; then come the Christmas holidays, and it means that the officers of the House and the Government Departments cannot get to work upon the Bills before the beginning of January. Now, where there are some 250 Bills deposited, it means a great deal of time and labour for the officers of the House whose duty it is to read these Bills to get them read by the time the Session begins. It is necessary that Lord Morley and his officials in the other House, and that Sir Chandos Leigh in this House, should read the Bills carefully before we can take the first step which is required, which is to divide the Bills between this House and the other House. Until the Bills have been thoroughly read and understood and co-ordinatefi it is impo.ssible to arriv6 at any principle under which the Bills can be grouped and divided between the two Houses. That is the first step we have to take when Parliament meets. But if the Bills were deposited a month earlier, say, in the middle of November, or the beginning of November, no doubt that work could be accom- plished by Christmas, and we should then be able at once, as soon as Parliament met, the very first day, to divide the Bills, and they could go forward in ordinary course. 5. Do you think it would be any hardship upon the parties introducing Bills to make them deposit them a month earlier, say, by the 21st November ? — That would entail that the pre- liminary notices which have to be published, should also be published a month earlier. It woidd also entail the draughtsmen who prepare these Bills, getting to work a month earUer, and the Parhamentary agents should set to work a month earlier ; and these questions are a good A deal MIXUIES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 8 July 1902.] The Eight Hon. J. W. Lowther (a Member of the House). [Continued. Chairman — continued. deal mixed up with the length of the legal Long Vacation. I am not in a position to say whether between the end of the legal Long Vacation and any date the Committee might think right to fix for depositing Bills, there would be time to draft the Bills, or not. Of course there is a great deal of work to be gone through by Parliamen- tary agents in connection with the protiio- tion 01 the Bills before they arrive at the final stage of drafting;, and no doubt the actual drafting must take some time. May I also add that one of the great difficulties at present as to getting on with Bills earlier in the Session is the fact that the Standing Orders require that every private Bill should be deposi- ted in the office of the Local Government Board. Every private Bill has to be considered by the officials of the Local Government Board, and if they think it desirable, reported on. Now it is perfectly impossible for them to report on every private Bill with any great celerity. The staff IS small, the number of men in the office who know the work, who know what is required and who have the precedents at their fingers' ends, is naturally limited ; and tliey can only get through a certain number of Bills per day. But if the Bills were deposited in the office of the Local Government Board and the other public offices at the beginning or the middle of December, there would then be very much longer time for the officials of the Department to employ them- selves in drawing up their reports upon these Bills. , 6. Requiring the Bills to be deposited earlier would not increase the expense at all, would it ; the expense would remain exactly the same as it is now, I suppose ? — I do not think the expense would be affected. •'7. Must all private Bills be referred to the Local Government Board ? — I think every private Bill has to be referred to the Local Government Board. Mr. Hobhouse. 8. At what stage ? — When it is deposited. ;9. After deposit and before second reading ? — At the moment of deposit, a copy of the Bill has to be deposited in the private Bill office here, and at the same time, copies have to be deposited at the office of the Local Government Board, and at the office of any other public department which may be interested in the Bill. Standing Order 33 says : " On or before the 21st day of December, a printed copy shall be deposited (1) of every private Bill at the office of His Majesty's Treasury, at the Local Government Board, and at the General Post Office." Chairman. 10. Then you think it would certainly bo for the general convenience of this House, and in the interests of greater efficiency, if private Bills could be deposited a month earlier than they are jjoyp- ? — X thmk so. My experience is that at the beginning of a session the time of honourable Members is not very fully employed. During the months of February, and March there are very few Committees sitting, if any; there is nothing particular for Members to do in the Chairman — continued. mornings, and if they could get to work upon the Committees then, it would be a great ad- vantage to Members, v.'ho would then be able in the summer months, May, June and July, to give more of their time to the public busmess than they are able to do at the present moment. 11. Do you think it would be advisable to re- duce the stages on which discussion could be taken upon the Bills in the House ? — I have always hold that the House is very seldom in a position to give a really sound judgment upon the second reading of a Bill, unless the Bill raises some definite and new principle. Upon such a Bill, of course it is right that the House should pronounce an opinion. But, as a rule, I think the discussions upon second reading are conducted upon ex-parte statements. I believe, and I am sorry to think it is so, that a good deal of " lobbying " goes on in respect of Bills, both tor and agamst them, and the House has really not before it the materials to enable it to arrive at a sound judgment. Members come in and vote for all sorts of reasens, and often for no reasons at all, one way or the other, without being fully acquainted with facts which would enable them to arrive at a sound decision. The idea has passed through my mind that it might be perfectly possible to pass a Standing Order — a sort of self-denying ordinance, — by which the House should surrender its right upon second reading (and, indeed, upon every stage but one) to discussion upoti Private Bills except in cases where such Bills raise novel principles. 12. Who would decide which were those cases? — My own idea is that the Standing Orders Committee might very fairly decide whether a Bill came within the definition of containing some new principle or of being of such im- portance that the House itself ought to pro- nounce an opinion upon it on the second reading. I am strongly of opinion that the House at some stage or other of every Private Bill ought to have the opportunity of pronouncing upon it ; but it seems to me that the most desirable stage Avould bo at the final stage. 13. On the third reading? — On the third reading, when the promoters of the Bill have inserted such clauses as the Committee before whom the Bill has gone consider desirable, or when the promoters have entered into such terms with their opponents as their opponents were willing to agree to. On the third reading the House would have the whole matter before it in complete form, and it might then accept the Bill or reject it. 14. Of course the only thing would be that if you had a debate on a third reading, and the Bill was rejected, all the expense incurred would be wasted ? — That is quite true. I think that is a lesser evil than allowing parties to incur considerable expense and throwing out their Bill upon second reading upon insufficient grounds, and often, as I say, upon ex parte statements not cross-examined to, and statements which very often win not bear investigation. 14 a. Of course if second reading debates were abolished that would accelerate the work of the Bills coming before Committees ? — It would. 15. Committees often have to wait until Bills are SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 8 July 1902.] The Eight Hon. J. W. Lowtheb (a Member of the House). [Continued. Chairman — continued. are read a second time ?— Yes, at the present time it very often happens that when promoters put a Bill down for second reading, objection is taken to it and in order to endeavour to an-ivo at an agreement with their adversaries as thoy hope, the second reading is put off, and then it is i3ut off" again and again, and that causes great delay. The Committee on the Bill cannot sit, of course, until the second reading is passed and so Bills get put off" to a very lato date. I may s&y at pre- sent there is one Bill which now stands for second Reading for the 24th of July. Mr. Brand. 16. Wliat chance has that Bill of getting through ? — None. I think the.' have no right to suspend a bill in that way. Chxiirman. 17. Why is it put off till the 24th of Jidy ?— I cannot tell you. It is a London County Council Bill. I have some figures here which I think nught possibly be of interest to the Committee with regard to the amount of time occupied by private business during the last ten years, I ought to say that these are only approximate figures. They were given to me by the late Mr. Jenkmson last year, and 1 have had them brought up to date, as far as possible. In the year 1893 the amount of public time occupied by private business during the Session was 22 hours, 25 minutes ; in 1894, it was 23 hours 40 minutes ; in 1895 it was 24 hours 20 minutes; in 1896 it was 41 hours; in 1897 it was 26 hours, 25 minutes; in 1898 it was 23 hours, 35 minutes; in 1899 it was 24 hours, 30 minutes; in 1900 it was 45 hours, 50 minutes; in 1901 it was 53 hours, 50 minutes ; and up to the 12th of June this session, 1902 , it was 17 hours and 10 minutes. 18. Do you know what caused the sudden jump as between 1899 and 1900. Up to that date the average time was, approximately, 24 hours ; then suddenly it got up to 45 hours and 53 hours, did it not ? — Yes. I Avill say the freater interest taken by Members in private usiness, to put it as euphemistically as one can. 19. You implied just now that a good deal of the time taken up in discussion by private Members on second reading was rather — I do not like to say wasted time, but not very well employed time ? — For the reason I have given : that Members are acting on ex parte statements, and not upon sworn evidence cross-examined to. On third reading it would be otherwise. On third reading you have the minutes of evidence given before the Committee upon oath, cross- examined to by able counsel, and in that way the truth is more likely to be arrived at than where it is merely upon statements appearing in memorials circulated by the agents representing either party. 20. Do you wish to say anything about the work done before Committees when Private Bills are brought before Comrnittees ?— I think, on the whole, the decisions of Committees give satisfaction. Of course occasionally one hears a OTumble at some decision, but speaking gene- rallv, on the whole, I believe the work is well done, and gives satisfaction to the parties. 0.23. The Gka irTTMn — continued. Committees, of course, are acting judicially; and, as this Committee is no doubt aware, every member of a Select Committee upon a Private Bill has to make a declaration to the effect that" neither he nor his constituents are interested in the Bill ; and he has to make another declara- tion, to which I attach great importance, that he will not give a decision without having heard the evidence, which is equivalent in my mind to the oath which is administered to any jury in a court of law when they are called upon to hear a case. 21. Can you tell us now something about the ■ Erocedure with regard to unopposed Bills, they ■ ave to be deposited at a certain date ? — Yes. The Promoters of a Bill do not know whether their Bill will be opposed or not until the Pe- titions are lodged against it. There may be Petitions lodged against the Bill which for a time is opposed, and then the opponents being settled with and the Petitions being withdrawn, ■ that Bill becomes an unopposed Bill. All un- ■ upposed Bills are sent to the Unopposed Bill Committee. The Unopposed Bill Committee consists of myself, Sir Cliandos Leigh, and one other Member, either a Member interested in ' the Bill or some other Member, very often Mr. > Parker Smith. 22. You and Sir Chandos Leigh, of course, sit as officials of the House ?— Yes. 23. Who nominates the third Member ? — In the case of Bills originating in the House of ■ Commons the Member whose name is on the back of the Bill attends, but in cases of Bills originating in the House of Lords we always ■ take Mr. Parker Smith ; it might be anybody, ■ but it so happens that Mr. Parker Smith is pre- pared to give his time and attention to the matter, and he attends. 24. Do you appoint the third Member ? — I do not know with whom the power rests, but what really happens is that my clerk, Mr. Horace West, writes to him and asks him if he would attend upon that particular occasion, so as to make a tnird Member of the Committee. 25. What happens after a bill is declared un- opposed ; does it then come before you and Sir Chandos Leigh ? — What happens is this : The promoters generally come to my clerk, Mr. Horace West, and say, " We want to get on with this Bill ; what day can you give us " ? Mr. Horace West consults me, and I select whatever day I am free. Before that day arrives Sir Chandos Leigh reads the Bill carefully in con- junction with the reports, if any, of the Govern- ment Departments, ne sends lor the agent for the Bill, and he goes through all the different paragraphs of those various reports, and asks the agent to comply with them, and if the reports are not complied with he asks him the reason why he proposes not to comply. As a rule the reports are complied with, but there are cases in which the promoters have reasons, which they think good ones, for not complying with the reports of the Government Departments. Those particular points are reserved for the decision of the Unopposed Bill Committee, and when the Bill comes before us, sitting as the Unopposed Bill Committee, we then take those reserved a2 points, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 8 July 1902.] The Right Hon. J. W. Lowther (a Member of the House). [Continued. Chairman — continued. Soints, hear the arguments of both sides and ecide upon them. 26. Of course from the necessary call upon your time you are obliged to rely upon Sir Sir Chandos Leigh's reading the Bills ; you have not time to read them yourself? — I do read them if they come on earlier in the session, when my time is not so fully occupied, but at this time of the session, when I am sitting froiu a quarter or half-past two every day until midnight, it is really more than I can undertake to do, to read the Bills through and to go through them with the reports and prepare myself in regard to them. Sir Chandos Leigh does all that work for me leaving for my decision, or rather for the decision of the Unopposed Bill Committee, such points as may still be in dispute between him and the agents after they have gone through the Bill. 27. Of course we know how occupied your time is, and we ought to apologise lor calling you here this morning, but as a ma^.ter of fact you rely upon Sir Charles Leigh and the Govern- ment departments, I suppose ; the Government departments have naturally read the Bill ?— They have read the Bill and have made reports upon it. Those reports are sent to my office and we consider them very carefully, and wo have to give reasons why we do not comply (if we do not comply) with any particular demand con- tained in these reports. If you look carefully through the Parliamentary papers which are circulated day by day, you will find the reports from the Unopposed Bill Committee upon all such matters as the Standing Orders require should be reported upon, with reasons given for dissenting from the Reports of the Goverment Departments, or showing Cvd. the Appendix very often) how the Reports of the Government Departments have been met in dealing with the Bill 28. In fact, if you had not such a reliable Counsel as Sir Chandos Leigh, many of the Bills might slip through, I suppose, without much criticism ? — Certainly ; if it depended solely upon myself, I am afraid I should not be equal to the whole work. I could not give the time that is now required for public business, and at the same time give such thorough attention to private business as is necessary ; that is really more than one man's work. But I would like to guard myself by saying that if this Private Bill work came on earlier in the session I could do a great deal more, and when it comes on early in the session I do then read carefully through the Bills and Reports. But, of course, whatever we do, there must be a certain stream of work at this period of the session, because there are all the House of Lords Bills coming .down to us ; that is to say, about half the number of Bills begin to come down to us during the latter half of the session. 29. Might not that be accelerated in the same way if they were deposited earlier ? — I am afraid I have not made it quite understood what happens. AH Bills are deposited on the 21st December. The Promoters do not know then whether their Bill will be a House of Lords Bill or a House of Commons Bill. The first thing Chairman — continued, that happens in the Session is that the Lord Chairman and myself meet and we formally divide the Bills between the two Houses. A Bill then becomes either a House of Commons Bill or a House of Lords Bill. Then the Lords set to work upon their Bills and the Commons set to work upon their Bills. The Bills which have been before the Commons early in the Session go up to the Lords late in the Session, and the Bills which have been in the Lords early come down to the Commons late ; there- fore it is not a question of depositing Lords Bills earlier. 30. You say that Bills which have been early in the Lords come here late ? — Yes, because the Lords have occupied some time considering them ; they may have been two or three months, Serhaps, considering them before the Bills come own to us. 31. What I asked was, if all the Bills were depo.sited a month earlier, would not the House of Lords Bills come down here earlier in the session, instead of creating the press of business, which you say there is now ? — "They would come a little earlier, but, of course, they must come after the Commons Bills. 32. Quite so; they would all be got forward with earlier in the session, I presume ? — I can- not tell you whether the Committees in the Lords would be manned as readily early in the session as the Committees of the House of Com- mons could be ; that is a matter that is entirely within Lord Morley's knowledge. I do not know whether it may be more difficult to get Peers to sit upon Private Bill Committees in the earlier montns of the session, than it is to get them to sit in the summer. As to that, I could not speak, but, of course, the earlier you get to work the earlier you finish. 33. I do not know whether we ought to ask you anything about the costs of private Bills ?— I can only form the same opinion, with regard to that question, as any other Member. I am strongly against making private Bill legislation cheap. I am in favour of keeping up the fees. I do not, of course, want to see parties put to excessive expense, but I am not at all in favour of making private Bill legis- lation cheap and easy, because I think, a^ it is already, there are a certain number of persons who come up and get their Bills through and then when they have got their Bills sell them ; they try to make what money they can out of their Act, and I am afraid if it were made cheap and easy, it would only encourage speculators to come here a great deal more than they do now. I think the cost of getting a Private Act of Parliament is a test of bona fides on the part of Promoters and one which I should be rather sorry to see destroyed. 34. On the other hand, of late years a great many municipal bodies have introduced Bills for tne benefit of their own boroughs ; would it not be advisable to reduce the cost to them in some way ? — I think municipal boroughs come here very much because they think they can get better terms out of Committees of Parliament than they can from the Government Departments. What I should like to see intro- duced SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 8 Jidy 1902.] The Right Hon. J. W. Lowther (a Member of the House). [CmUinaied. Chairman — continued. 'duced would be a Standing Order to the effect that no body should come here to ask for powers which they can obtain by Provisional Order or which they can obtain by applying to a •Government Department. I think that would relieve this House of a considerable amount of work, and it would also give a greater check upon the expenditure than now exists, because there is no doubt that the Government Departments ■are more easily able to check the expenditure .and to compare it with the liabilities of those who come here with legislative proposals, than a Committee of the house can do ; they have machinery at their disposal in the shape of ■engineers" and financial advisers and experts whom they can send down to hold local inquiries, -which a Committee of the House has not got. 85. Then you are in favour of Provisional ■Orders in many instances taking the place of private Bills before this House ? — Yes. I have not thought the matter out quite fully yet, but I am not sure it would not be possible in the case of English private Bills to follow the same principles asare laiddR[VATE BUSINESS. 8 July 1902.] The Right Hon. J. W. Lowther (a Member of the House). [Continued, Mr. Hohhouse — continued. Private Bill business so far as you cannot deal with it ? — He is kind enough to do so when I ask him to do so. Of course, during the time Avhen I was unfortunately absent for some three months at the beginning of the session, he very kindly undertook all my work in that respect and carried it through with great satisfaction to the parties ; but in ordinary circumstances I should not think of asking him to do that. 87. You would not regard it as part of his official duties, under the Standing Order appoint- ing him ? — No, I think not ; I think he would be entitled to do it. No objection could be raised to his doing it, but I should not person- ally for a moment desire to put it upon him, unless I was unfortunately prevented by illness from doing it myself, when, of course, somebody would have to do it, so that the parties should not be delayed. 88. Provided you were not incapacitated by illness, you would not consider there was the same obligation u.poii him to deal with un- opposed Bdls in Committee, we ^^^ll say, as there is upon vou as Chairman of Ways and Means ? -No. " 89. That IS to say, his appointment as your deputy must be regarded as a limited one, and, I think, was rather made with a view to the con- duct of business in the House itself, than with a view to private business ? — I think so ; I think that Avas the idea with which the Standing Order was passed. 90. Now, I want to ask a question or two in regard to opposed Bills. Many of the Bills which come before opposed Committees, Gas and Water Bills, or instance, involve comparativeh' small questions, do the)' not ? — Yes, very small some- times. They are questions of extension of time and very small questions. 91. Y'^ou would be of opinion that they could be dealt with, as a rule, better by means of Provisional Order inquiries conducted locally ? — Yes, I think so, as regards a great number of them. 92. There is no need, is there, to employ very leading counsel in such cases as that ? — No. 93. The tendency of the work before opposed Bill Committees in Parliament has been, has it not, rather to concentrate the work in the hands of a few very clever men, who are paid accordingly ? — ^My knowledge of the work of Parliamentary Committees, I am afraid, is not very recent. I do not sit on Private Bill Com- mittees now, of course, and I do not very often go into the rooms, so that I do not know very much about the practice recently ; but there is no doubt that a few good men get the bidk of the worlv. 94. Whereas it would be possible to deal with many of these minor Bills with the aid of local counsel or juniors, who might be sent down, who would be quite competent to deal with the matter ? — I think so. 95. Have you paid any attention to a possible extension of the Provisional Order system ?— You mean to other subjects than those which may be dealt with now ? I am afraid I cannot say any- thing that would be really of any assistance to you upon that point. 96. Have you paid any attention to this ques- 0.23. Mr. Hobhoune — continued, tion : The desirability of securing some uniform- ity of decision between the chairmen of ditierent Opposed Committees, on what I may call technical questions ? Let me mention one or two points within my own experience ; questions of the terms of loans, questions of compensation to the rates where property is taken ;- also questions of practice, as, for instance, as to the right of counsel to speak in certain cases and the right of raising certain points ; would not it be a great advantage in the conduct of this business it the Committee of Chairmen, the Railway and Canal Committee, I think it is called, were occasionally to consult together on such questions and try to lay down some general rule of practice ? — I think it might. Care would have to be taken that a certain amount of elasticity was preserved, but certainly on all questions or practice I think it would be very desirable that the practice should be the same. I was not aware that there was really any serious diti'erence. 97. Chairmen, as you will understand, are often put into a difficult position by counsel quoting precedents which they cannot check. A precedent can be cited for everything, so far as ray experience goes, at the Parliamentary Bar, but the Chairman have no record of former de- cisions to which they can refer, and they have no common rules of action : would it not, in your opinion, be of advantage if there was some means of securing what I may call a code (without .suggesting anything that is not elastic) giving some common directions to Chairmen of Private Bill Committees ? — Yes, I see no objection to that ; I think that would be desirable. 98. Otherwise different Bills may be dealt with in very different ways, though tliey raise the same principle ? — Yes. 99. With regard to a possible Joint Inquiry on Bills, would there not be some advantage in having a Joint Committee stronger than any individual Committee that could be appointed in this House ; I mean stronger in numoers, and to a certain extent in experience. Could you not man a Joint Conmiittee of six or se\-en members ? — I do not incline to increasing the size of the Committee. I think a small Com- mittee will attend more regularly; they will feel the responsibility greater, and they will give more attention to the matter than a larger one.. I should be against increasing the number beyond four. 100. Do you consider that a Committee of four is better than a Committee of live, as they have in the House of Lords. I will put it to- you in this way: The Chairman has his vote and also his casting vote ; and it may happen on the Committee, and does happen sometimes, that there are two Members one way and two Mem- bers the other. In that case the Chairman has- the case entirely in his hands, if he can get one member of the Committee to agree with him ? — Yes. 101. Would there not be an advantage in having a Committee of five in cases like that ? — No, I am against overruling the Chairman : 1 think the Chairman is the man who really gives the greatest amount of attention, and upon him the matter rcallv devolves, and B ' I think 10 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 8 July 1902.] The Right Hon. J. W. Lowther (a Member of the House). [Continued. Mr. Hobhouse — continued. T think he ought to have the responsibility and the power. Mr. Brynmor Jones. 102. I only wish to ask vou one or two ques- tions on one topic only, tinder the new rule, I think you have to decide when the second read- ing of a private Bill is to be put down in case it is opposed ? — Yes. 103. Have you found any difficulty in arrang- ing for the discussion of such second reading ? — I nave not tor the present ; but I am beginning to see that I shall have difficulty. I shall have difficulty, for instance, this week. I had arranged to put all the Twopenny Tube Bills down for next Thursday ; they will, no doubt, occupy a ■considerable amount of time, and those who are hoping to use Thursday evening for other purposes are, of course, annoyed at finding that their time will be occupied for private business, and I think I shall have to endeavour to make some other arrangement. 104. Has objection been taken to putting down Private Bill business on Thursday nights, on Supply nights ? — Not until yesterday, vmen ob- jection was taken by Mr. John Redmond ; I heard him ask a question about it yesterday. May I add that possibly it may cause delay, and I think that it will cause delay. Under the old rules the promoters put down their Private Bills for whatever day suited them, quite regardless of the public interest ; however important the public matter that was coming on Avas going to be they did not care a rap about that, they put their private Bill down first, and it bad to take precedence, and the discussion lasted one, two, or three hours, according to the nature of the objection. Now I think it would be necessary in some cases to delay these Bills a little, by finding a suitable evening lor their discussion. 105. It seems to me that the rights of private Members may be still further curtailed under this system if you should find it necessary to put down private Bills on a Friday for instance ? • — I cannot put Bills down for a Friday. The Standing Order says that no opposed Bills shall be put down on Friday at all. Mr. Brand. 106. In your remarks about the possibility of assimilation of the English Private Bill practise to the Scotch practise, would be possible in the case of such a small Bill as was mentioned by Mr. Hobhouse, a gas Bill or a corporation Bill for the extension of boundaries and so on, that a local inquiry should take place without any great inconvenience ; could not any machinery be devised by which these small Bills should be sent down for local inquiry which would not involve the difficulties of big counsel going down, and so on ? — Yes, I think it is possible that the line might be drawn differently in any future English Act from what it is in the Scotch Act. In the Scotch Act we have to decide whether the Order does or does not " relate wholly or mainly to Scotland " or whether it is "of such a character or magnitude or raises any such question of policy or principle" that it ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order. Those words might be altered and they Mr. Brand — continued, might be narrowed in the case of England, so as to say that only matters of comparative unim- portance should be sent into the country for decision, and that matters of importance should be retained here. 107. Exactly. There would be a good deal of advantage in a Bill that comes before your Police and Sanitary Committee, being inquired into locally, and a large saving of expense, would there not ? — Well, there is another side to that question. I think if the inquiry is held locally tne power of the corporation makes itself more strongly felt at a local inquiry than it does here ; and it is very undesirable, I think, that a great number of the clauses which are now contained in cori3oration improvement Bills should become law; they often go a great deal beyond the ordinary law of the lanti, and I think it is very desirable that they should be dealt with, if possible, here, upon some general principles. 108. That remark does not apply, of course, to Gas Bills ?— No. 109. Now just a word about the Joint Com- mittees to which you gave, may I say, a qualified approval. Do you think the parties Avould be satisfied with one inquiry. Should there not be some machinery for an appeal to a Judge in Chambers ? — The successful parties would be satisfied, no doubt ; the unsuccessful parties would not. I am afi'aid that is all I can say upon the matter ; half would and half would not. 110. You would not suggest an appeal of any kind whatever from the Joint Committee ? — I do not myself believe that so much injustice is done by Committees as to make an appeal absolutely necessary. I think sometimes possibly a Com- mittee may make a mistake, but it is not beyond the power of being remedied, because the next year a fresh Bill could be introduced. 111. Now with regard to acceleration, you do not think that much advantage can be gained by altering the dates on which Bills can be de- posited ? — Yes, I should be in favour of altering the date. I should put it a month earlier at least. 112. You stated at the beginning of your evidence that the number of hours this session up to the present moment empl-jyed in private business in the House is 17 ? — -I think that was up to the 12th of June. 113. That, I presume, is a good deal in conse- quence of the new Standing Orders ? — I think partly, no doubt. Mr. Worsley Taylor. 114. I think I understood from you that your view was that there could be no material im- provent in the distribution of business unless the dates for deposit were altered and made earlier. You see none consistent with the maintenance of the existing dates of deposit ? — I think, with the dates as they are at present, it becomes very difficult to get the committees to work earlier, for the reasons which I have detailed, namely, the necessity of carefully reading on the part of officials of this House and the other, and the necessity of the Government Departments con- sidering the Bills and drawing their reports. 115. So that an alteration in the time of deposit is essential ? — I think so. 116. Now, would earlier deposit of petitions be SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 11 8 July 1902.] The Right Hon. J. W. Lowther (a Member of the House). [Continued. Mr. Worsley Taylor — continued. be of any assistance in any subsequent considera- tion of the Bills ? — I think it would. I see no reason why petitions should not be deposited within a certain number of days after the deposit of the Bills, instead of waiting for the first or second reading. 116*. If I remember aright the present date is ten days after first reading, is it not ? — Yes. 117. And you would see no objection to their being deposited at a given interval after, say, they have deposited the Bill ? — After the deposit of the Bill on a fixed date. 118. You would then, I take it, know at a much earlier stage what Bills were opposed and what were not ; and therefore you would know earlier how you could best accelerate them ? — Yes, I think there would be that advantage. I may say that that is the system which obtains now with regard to Scotch Provisional Orders. Lord Morley and I do not meet now to decide whether the Scotch Provisional Orders shall go on as Orders or as Bills until the petitions have been deposited; so that when we have them before us we know the nature of the Orders and we also know the number and nature of the dif- ferent petitions against each Order. 119. Has any reason su why, in the interest of the parties, petitions should not be deposited earlier ? — There may be some question of expense. 120. Perhaps that might be rather a matter Yes. ■gested itself to you for the agents ? Mr. Renshaw. 121. Perhaps I might ask you whether the Eractice under the Scotch procedure is different •om the English practice in this respect, that in the Scotch practice the petition is addressed to Parliament as a whole, whereas in the English practice the petition is addressed to each House ? — That is perfectly true. Of course, the petitions we get in this House are petitions to the House of Commons, and in the other House the petitions are petitions to the House of Lords ; but there is no reason, I think, why the petitions should not all be petitions to Parliament, and it would only be a matter of depositing one copy in this House and one copy in the other. They are all printed and it would only require altering the heading, " Petition to Parliament " would be sufficient, and probably the one heading would be enough. Mr. Worsley Taylor. 122. Does any earlier date suggest itself to you for the presentation of petitions. I do not know whether you have considered that suffi- ciently ? — No, I have not considered it very care- fully ; I have not got any view upon it. 123. Anyhow you would be in favour of an earlier deposit ? — Yes, I see no objection to that ; and I see an advantage from our point of view, from the point of view of the House itself I see an advantage ; there may be objections on the part of promoters and Parliamentary agents, but I am not aware of them, but from the point of view of Members of the House I think it would be an advantage. 124.' And you would be able to get Com- mittees to work earlier ? — Yes. 0.23. Mr. Worsley Tayior— continued. 125. Rather connected with that question, I do not know whether you have gone mto the question of the Court of Referees. I suppose the object of that court is a double one, partly to save the time of committees not having to dis- cuss questions oi locus standi, as is done in the other House ; and, secondly, to save the costs, to the parties in this sense, that if a petitioner is told in time that he is not to have a locus standi, ho is thereby saved the expense of get- ting up his brief and getting his witnesses and so on ? — Yes. 126. In order that it may fulfil the second condition, I take it, it is necessary that the decision should be given sufficiently early to prevent his taking those steps ? — Yes. 127. If the petitions were put in earlier, then,. I take it, the Court of Referees also, as well as the Committees, would be able to deal with them earlier ? — They could sit the very first day Parliament met, so far as that goes. 128. So that the accelerating of the date of petitioning would benefit not only the general procedure, but also the particular one of the Court of Referees ? — Very much so. 129. Is there any rule now as to to the relative stage of a Bill at which the Court of Referees sit — is there so much time before the meeting of the Committee or anything of that kind, or is there any rule of practice ? — No, I think the rule is that the promoters of any private Bill who intend to object to the right of^ petitioners to be heard, shall give notice not later than the eighth day after the day on which the petition has been deposited in tne Private Bill Office. 130. Then there is no rule and no fixed prac- tice of the Court of Referees to prevent their entertaining disputed questions of locus at the earliest possible date ? — No. 131. And I suppose it would be desirable that they should do that ? — Yes. I believe at present if promoters give notice of objection within the eight days, that they want their case to come on, they are called upon by the Clerk to the Referees- or by the proper authorities, to give an under- taking that they will not object to other peti- tioners as well. I do not know if the honourable Member follows me. Supposing the jiromoters of a Bill were to give notice one day after the deposit of the Petition, their case might come on in three days, and they might then say, " Well, we have got eight days, and there are only four days elapsed; we will try and deposit objections to other peti- tioners." That has been thought to be undesirable, and therefore wherever Promoters have given notice within the eight days that they wanted to go on with their Bill, they have also had to give a guarantee that they would not object to other petitioners; and when they have done that, their case has been heard at once. 132. I suppose it is a fact within your know- ledge now, tliat for one reason or another, objec- tions to locus standi are frequently heard on the very eve of the Committee sitting? — Yes ; I think that is so. 133. So that the advantage which is to be expected from that court is lost to that extent, for that reason ? — Yes. B 2 134. And 12 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN HEKORE THE 8 July 1902.] The Right Hon. J. A^'. Lowther (a Member of the House). [Continued. Mr. Worsley Taylor — continued. 134. And you think it would be very desirable to alter that ?— Yes. 135. I think at present the Court of Referees have no power to award costs ? — No. 136. Do you see any reason why they should not in the case of frivolous objections on peti- tions, just as much as in the case of petitions against Bills ? — I think there would have to be some limiting words, " frivolous or vexatious." 137. Clearly. But do you see any reason why in principle they should not have an analagous power ? — No. Personall}^ I should be prepared to go further in allowing Coimnittees to award costs. 138. You would widen the limiting words ? — • Yes, I think I should. 139. But you would be in favour of the Court ■of Referees having an analogous power ? — "Vf es, I see no objection to that. 140. With regard to what is called the exten- sion of the Provisional Order system and also the matter of a Joint Committee, I take it that the other House would have to concur in regard to both of those matters ? — It would be desirable to get the other House to concur, but I do not know that it would be absolutely necessary. Supposing this House wore to pass a Standing Order to the effect thatthey would not entertain any Bill which contained matters which could be obtained by a Provisional Order, that would not concern the other House ; but it would be practically applicable to all Bills, because promoters even, if they started in the other Hoiise, would know that they would be met with that Standing Order here. 141. Would you allow, for instance, a Bill to originate in the other Hou.se go through its stages there, and then come down here and be subject to that ? — Yes, I should make them subject to that ; they would do it at their risk ; they would bo aware of it. 142. Do you mean by extending the system of Provisional Order, not the Provisional Order as we understand it at present, but what we may call the Scotch procedure system ? — That would certainly require an Act of Parliament, and it would require the assent of the other House. 143. If I followed you, what you had in your mind was, not an extension of existing Provi- sional Order system as wc know it under that name that is to say, a local inquiry, say, by an officer of the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board ? — I throw it out for the con- sideration of the Committee whether it would be possible to save the time of Parliament in that way. 144. Then if I followed you, your suggestion was a two-fold one, corning under the head of the extension of the Provisional Order system. First you suggest an extension of the Provisional Order system as we know it now, that is, a local inquiry followed by a confirming Bill in Parlia- ment ? — Yes. 145. Do you mean, then, that you would suggest an extension on the existing lines, that is, a local inquiry followed by a confirming Bill which may be opposed in the House ? — Yes, I think that would be desirable, or the other. Of course, if the Committee appi-oved of the other, and if Parliament approved of the other, namely, what I will call the Scotch principle, then the Mr. Worsley Taylor — continued, first one to which I have referred would be unnecessary ; but if the Committee did not see its way to recommending the Scotch principle, I think the other would bo desirable. There are at the present time, I have no doubt, many matters which are included in Private Bills which might bo dealt with by Provisional Orders. 146. 1 was just going to ask you what class of Bills have you in your mind now ? — There are Bills promoted by corporations which are a sort of onmibus Bills. Corporations come here and they include in their BiUs every sort of thing, tramways, gas, extension of time for one thing and another and other matters, which I believe could be dealt with by Provisional Order ; and their excuse is, " Ah, well, we had our Bill before Parliament, and therefore we thought it was better to put every thing into it." " We had our Omnibus Bill and therefore we put all these things in." 147. That was one of the points that I had in my mind. I am glad you mentioned it. How would you deal with the case of an omnibus Bill where certain objects in your view and in the view of Parliament were apt for Provisional Order and certain others were not but such as ought to go to the Committee of the House ( — We should deal with them in the same way as we do under the Scotch Acts. You mean sup- posing the Scotch principle were applied ? 148. I was following out at present, the first suggestion, viz,, an extension on the present • system of Provisional Order. Supposing you found an omnibus Bill and came to the conclu- sion that certain matters in it might well be dealt with on the Provisional Order basis and certain others ought to be referred to a Com- mittee, how would you deal with the Bill then ? — We should sever it in two and part would go on as a Provisional Order and part would come here as a private Bill. 149. So that you would have as to part of the Bill, first a local inquiry and then the right to oppose in the House, and as to the other the present right to oppose in the House ? — Yes, that IS so under the Scotch Act. If any of these Provisional Ordei's contain matters, part of which should go on as a Bill and part as a Provisional Order, we report accordingly and they are divided ; they are split ; a portion goes on as a private Bill and a portion goes on as a Provisional Order. 150. Then as regards a Joint Committee. I take it clearly that the other House would have to concur in that ? — Yes. 151. So that no alteration of the standing orders of this House alone could bring that about ? — No. 152. I suppose in your experience there have been many ca.ses in which trie decision of one House has, as a fact, been reversed by the other ? — Yes, both ways. 153. And there have been proceedings time after time on the same matter where it has been an important Bill ?• — Yes. 154. And the Bill has been rejected ? — Yes. Very often fresh evidence is obtained. The petitioners in the first House find out' what their weak points are, and they fortify them- selves and strengthen their case upon that, and they SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 13 8 July 1902.] The Right Hon. J. W. Lohther (a Member of the House). [Continued. Mr. Worsley Taylm- — continued. they are able to present a better ease in the second House than they could in the first. 155. With the result that a Bill that has been passed in the first House because of their want of knowledge has been rejected in the second by the light of fuller knowledge ? — Yes. 156. And I suppose the practice before Com- mittees is peculiarly liable to that, in that there being no pleadings the petitioners do not know fully the case against them until they hear it in Committee ? — ^Tnat is so. 157. And I suppose there are cases in which the interests of third parties are affected by the proceedings in one House ? — Yes. 158. And in consequence of that, it being behind their backs, they have no possibility of appearing in the first House and their only remedy is to appear in the second House > — Yes. 159. Have you, in the analyses that you gave us of the time occupied in different sessions by the debates on second or third reading, how much was on second reading and how many were on third ? — I could work it out, but I have not got it analysed. 160. Or how many Bills, as a matter of fact, out of the total number opposed, were rejected by the House, or in how many cases instruc- tions were carried ? — I am afraid I have not got that. Mr. Revshaw. 161. In your opinion the result of the new rules and the earlier meeting of the House will act very prejudicially with regard to the time available for" the work in the Committees of the House when the second reading stage is passed and the House is in Committee ; when the Hou.sc has gone into Committee upon Bills, Members' time will be much less available for sitting in Committee on private Bills, now that the House meets at 2 o'clock, than before ? — Yes, I think so, because their attendance is sooner required. I have, for instance fre- quently been in the chair on the Committee stage of the Education Bill before half-past 2, and Members, in theory at all events, ought to be present when the Committee begins to sit. 162. And you, therefore, regard the earlier portion of the session as much more valuable now for the purpose of getting forward private Bill legislation than it has been up to the time of passing the new rules i — Yes, I think they have made a difference, and also for the general convenience of Members. There is no doubt that in the summer months. Members do not ■want to spend their whole time down here in the mornings — it is asking too much of them. 163. Might I ask you whether you could have a paper prepared and put in, which would show the dates at which Committees on private Bills have sat, say the earliest six Com- mittees in each session for the last six years ? — I think we could get it from the Committee Clerks' office. 164. Could you tell the Committee to-day generally, not with any particular date what the ordinary time is which has elapsed between the meeting of Parliament and the date that Com- Mr. RensJutiv — continued. mittees generally begin to sit ? — I .should think there will be about a month or six weeks. 165. More often six weeks than a month ? — Well, it depends very much upon when Easter comes. If Laster comes early there is a tendency to put all Committees off until after Easter ; if the House meets late and Easter comes early there is practically nothing done before Easter. 166. You have alreadv given the Committee your views with regarcl to the desirability of starting the procedure earlier than at present, but could you tell the Committee whether it would be possible for the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and yourself to meet prior to the meeting of Parliament for the purpose of deciding what course should be taken with regard to Bills ? — I would not like to say without looking at the Standing Order whether we could do it There is nothing physical to prevent it. 167. It would almost seem to follow necess- arily, that if the House is to be in a position to deal with Bills and refer them to Committees at the very beginning of the sittmg of the House, the two chairmen must be set in motion earlier than they are at present ; that is to say, before the meeting of the House ? — Yes. 168. You see no difficulty in that ? — No. What delays us in coming together is that Lord Morley and Sir Chandos Leigh have not had time to master this great detail of Bills. As soon . as they have got the Bills read and annotated, and carefully co-ordinated and ar- ranged, then we can meet and go forward ; but until that period is reached it is no use meeting 169. Then I think you told the Committee that your view was that the interval at present existing for petitioning could be done away with, that is to say, the 10 days which elapse now after the first reading of a Bill, could be shortened under any circumstances ?— -Not that the interval could be done away with but that the time might be hung on to an earlier date. It might be dependent upon an earlier date; it might be made dependent upon the date of deposit, and not upon the date of first reading. 170. There is no reason under the existing arrangement why the 10 days should be con- tinued, is there ; because, as a matter of practice, is it not the object of petitioners always to delay their petition to the last of the 10 days ? — Yes, I think they do. I do not quite know why they do it, but I have no doubt there is some good reason for it. 171. I have only one or two other questions connected with the procedure to which you referred; you have given the Committee your evidence with regard to locus standi, and I understand that that evidence is generally in favour of the continuance of the existing system of having a locus standi court ? — Yes. 172. Has the expense of Bills in Parliament, do you think, been increased or reduced by the existence of the locus statuli court since 1865 ? — I am afraid my experience does not go back far enough to say of my own knowledge, and it is not a question that I have studied. 173. Nothing of the kind exists in the House of 14 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 8 July 1902.] The Right Hon. J. W. Lowther (a Member of the House). {Continued. Mr. Renshaw — continued, of Lords ? — No ; each Committee decides the question of locus standi for itself 174. And on the Scottish Private Bill Pro- cedure nothing of the kind has been proposed ; each Committee decides questions of locus standi for itself?— Yes. 175. And if that system were applied to England, you would suggest that the Committee should deal with all questions of locus standi ? — I should like some more time to consider this matter. 176. With regard to the question of a re- hearing, I should like to call your attention to one of the clauses of that Act with regard to procedure on Confirmation Bills. Clause 9 pro- vides that it shall be lawful "if before the expiration of seven days after the introduction ot a Confirmation Bill under the immediately preceding section in the House in which it originates, a petition be presen*^ed against any order comprised in the Bill, it shall be lawful for any Member to give notice that he intends to move that the Bill shall be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament." That is a re-hearing by a joint committee ? — Yes. 177. " And in that case such motion may be moved immediately after the Bill is read a second time, and if carried, then the Bill shall stand referred to a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament," and so on ? — Yes. 178. What I want to ask you is this : That clause as it is in the Act at present differs from the clause introduced into the Bill, by which the re-hearing was to be given on petition subject to the petitioners running the risk of being cast in costs by a bare majority. Do you thmk that would be a greater protection to those who are petitioning Parliament than the clause of the Act as it now stands, Avhich provides that you must set the House in motion before you can get a re-hearing. I do not want to refer to specific cases that have occurred in the House ?— I am afraid I have not formed an opinion with regard to that. 179. It is rather a serious matter to say that you are to have no re-hearing except upon a vote of the House, is it not ? — Yes. I remember there was a case in which the whole matter was gone into, and generally the opinion, I think, of the House was, that it was very undesirable to re-open what had been done in the country, or to re-hear unless there was some new fact or fresh evi- dence. 180. And you think on the whole that one hearing would be sufficient ? — I have no reason to suppose otherwise, so far as the Act has worked at present. I have not heard any com- plaints. CJiairman. 181. Did I correctly understand you in answer to a question just now to say that you thought one evening a week ought to be allowed to pri- vate Bills ?— No. 182. It was in answer to Mr. Brynmor Jones ; I did not quite catch it. You said that there would be some difficulty in getting in all the private Bills ? — What I mean is that there will Chairman — continued. be some delay. Take the case of these Twopenny Tube Bills, for instance, which is a case in point. I have no doubt that the promoters would' like very much to put them down for this evening, and if they were down for this evening what would become of the prospects of the Education Bill ? If they were not completed this evening the promoters would like to put them down for to-morrow evening. If so, what would happen to the Education Bill ? And so on. They 'may be used as instruments of ob- struction. I put it perfectly frankly before the Committee. I can quite conceive of circum- stances arising under which private Bills may be used for the purposes of obstruction. In order to avoid and guard against that it may become necessary that a certain amount of delay should be interposed, and that instead of the Bills being taken, as it were, to-day or to-morrow,. I may have to put them possibly for Wednesday of next week or Thursday next week, so as to avoid their being used for those purposes. That is where the delay would occur. 183. Have you considered whether it is desirable in the interests of pi-omoters and other parties to private Bills, to have one evening a week set aside ? — The difficulty is the uncertainty. You might set aside one evening a week and in some cases it would not be enough, while in other cases it would be a great deal too much; possibly there might be. nothing at all, or the discussion might take five or 10 minutes, and then there is always the uncer- tainty of what would follow. In another case, if you have an accumulation of Private Bill questions, one evening a week of three hours might be quite insufficient. Mr. Renshaw. 184. On that point, might I ask you whether you have ever considered the question of second reading and discussions in regard to Private Bills' being referred to a Standing Committee to be appomted like the Grand Committee on Trade, or on Law ? — I think my suggestion is a better one, that the established Standing Orders Com- mittee should decide whether the Bill is to have • a second reading debate or not. 185. But that debate in that case would have to take place in the House ? — Yes. 186. If a Grand Committee were established it could take place before the Grand Committee ? — I do not thmk the House would be prepared to divest itself of its power. ChairTTMn. 187. Only one other question with regard to ■ Private Bill Committees : do you think it would be advisable to give them greater powers towards awarding costs in frivolous cases ? — Yes, I rather incline that way. 188. You think it would be advisable to increase their powers ? — Yes. 189. Could you say what you would suggest with regard to the greater powers of awarding costs ? — I have not considered the words carefully, . but, as a general principle, I think the Com- mittee sits, or ought to sit, as a judicial tribunal and my endeavour always is to make it as . judicial as possible; and that being so, I see no objection SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUSINESS. 15 ; 8 July 1902.] The Right Hon. J. W. Lowthek (a Member of the House). [Continued. Chairman — continued. Chairman — continued. objection to their having a greater power of private Bills unopposed, and also Provisional .awarding costs. I limit myself to that. I will Order confirming Bills, from the year 1891 to iust hand in here a paper giving the number of 1901, which may be useful The same was Jianded in, and is as follows : — Number of Private Bills — Unopposed and Referred to the Chairman of Ways and Means ; also Provisional Orders. 1891. 1892. 1893. 1894. 1895. i 1896. 1897. 1898. 1899. 1900. 1901. Total number of Bills introduced. 72 219 175 161 153 216 262 228 249 258 223 Unopposed Bills. 95 115 107 100 18 41 71 127 145 122 123 Provisional Orders. 56 43 51 54 57 63 57 49 53 47 52 Total. ~ 151 158 1.58 154 75 104 128 176 198 169 175 The Honourable Sir E. Chandos Leigh, k.c.b., k.c.. Examined. Chairrrvan. 190. You have been Speaker's Counsel for some years ? — Since 1884. 191. And you have had of course a great ex- perience both of Opposed and Unopposed Private Bills ?— I have. 192. I dare say you have heard part of the evidence which Mr. Lowther has just given ? — I have been trying to take a note of what Mr. Lowther said, and perhaps I had better deal with it while it is fresh in my mind. I agree with him on some points, but I do not agree with him in all The first question of which I have made a note is the division of Bills. I get my Bills on the 21st of December. This year there were 236, or some such number. 193. Do you mean 236 Bills in the House of Commons or 236 in all ?— I mean about 236 Bills in all ; I have to read them all, and owing to Par- liament meeting on the 16th of January they had to be read between the 21st of December and Chairman — continued. the 16th of January. The result was that the moment those Bills were read through cursorily, I made an appointment with Mr. Albert Grey. That is following out an idea of Sir Joseph Warner's and mine. In old days my predecessor never saw the counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees, and the Bills were divided when Lord Redesdale and Sir George Rickards and the Chairman of Ways and Means of that date saw the Parliamentary agents ; but afterwards Sir Joseph Warner and I always met, because there Avere certain Bills which we thought ought to go necessarily to the House of Commons, and certain Bills which ought to go necessarily to the House of Lords. At that meeting Mr. Grey and I now divide the Bills carefully, and we give notice to the agents how we have divided the Bills, two or three days before they are seen by Lord Morley and Mr. Lowther ; so that if they say, " Please let this Bill go to 1{5 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 8 July 1902.] The Hon. Sir E. Chandos Leigh, k.c.b., k.c. [Contintied. Oh aim] -continued. " Please let this Bill go to the If we find their stantial one, we agree is that to the House of Commons," or vice versa, House ot Lords." reason a valid and sub- to it. The consequence when Lord Morley and Mr. Lowther meet them there is hardly anj' objection to our division ; all the agent.s are pleased, and I know of very few instances in which there is any objection taken to the division Avhich Mr. Grey and myself have set before Lord Morley and Mr. Lowther. 194. How soon can j'ou get the Bills; imme- diately after the 21st of December? — I get the Bills on the 21st of December. The House of Lords gets them on the I7th of December. 195. As a matter of fact, when do you get them to go through ? — I get them on the 21st. 196. You begin to read them then ? — I read them the iiioraent 1 get them. The House of Lords, as 1 say, gets them on the I7th of December. 197. And does Mr. Grey begin them then ? — Yes, he begins them then. I think it would be a most convenient thing if Bills were deposited in both houses on the 17th of December mstead of in the House of Commons on the 21st, and I can see no reason why they should not be. There may of course, be diffi- culties which the Parliamentary agents will have to deal with in their evidence, in depositing them earlier. Perhaps the Committee would like to know what the dates are with reference Chair man — contimiud. to these Bills. They have to be advertised, and the last advertisement is on the 27th of No\-em- ber. Then there are the plans which have to be deposited, and that is by the 90th of November. Then there are the notices which are given to landowners who are affected, and that is l)V the 15th of December; so that the print of the Bill would be deposited two days afterwards in the House of Lords, and on the 21st of December in the House of Common.s. I have given you the nvmiber this year, as T think, 230. These Bills were read by me before the 16th of Januaj'y, and owing to Parliament meeting so early these Bills were not divided by Lord Morley and Mr. Lowther until the 30th of January. As a rule, when Parliament meets in February, the Bills are generally divided two or three days after- wards. AVe try to do it as quickly as we can, but Parliament meeting so early, wo thought thcTe was no absolute necessity. An honourable Mem- ber on my left asked Mr. Lowther a question which he was not prepared to answer, namely, as to the dates when Committees first met during the last four or five years. I hav ^ got a paper here which gives that information, which T will hand in. If you notice, this year Parlia- ment meeting oii the lOtli of January, Petitions became due on the 11th of February, and (Com- mittees met on the 25th of February ; that is tar the earliest of any year. Possibly Mr. Ashby Pritt, who I believe is coming to give evidence, Avill have some further explanation to give. T]te Falser is handed in, and is as follows:- Parliament Met House of Commons. House of Lords. Session. Petitions Due. Committee.s Met, Petitions Due. Comiiiittees Meti 1898 - - - - 8 Feb. 26 Feb. 15 Mar. 28 Feb. 15 Mar. 1899 - - - ,- 1900 - - - - 1901 - - - - 1902 - - - - 7 Feb. 30 Jan. 14 Feb. 16 Jan. 25 Feb. 23 Feb. 8 Mar. 11 Feb. 14 Mar. ' 27 Feb. 13 Mar. 23 Feb. 21 Mar. j 8 Mar. 25 Feb. ; 11 Feb. ! 14 Mar. 13 Mar. 19 Mar. 4 Mar. Mr. Hobhouse. 198. Is the date at which petitions are put in regulated by the meeting of Parliament? — Petitions against necessarily came in earlier this year. 199. By what date have they to be deposited ? — Witliin 10 days after the first reading. Chairman. 200. You heard what Mr. Lowther suggested about the Bills being deposited earlier. What do you sa}- to that ? — T am afi-aid there would be a great difficulty ; I have given you the dates. 201. \^^ly should they not all be put back ? — That is a (piestion which I must leave to the Parliamentary agents to answer ; I do not think I can say anything upon it. My own idea is Chairman — contiimed. that I certainly ought to get my Bills on the I7th of December instead of the 21st. 202. You ought to get them on the same day as the House of Lords get them ? — Yes, that is all I can say. 203. You do not know why you do not ? — I am going back to the dark ages, but I believe originally- thev were all deposited in the House of Lords and lu the House of Commons on the 21st of December. Then Lord Redesdale, I believe, wanted to read his BiUs a little earlier, and so in favour of the House of Lords the date was changed to the I7th. Then, just running through Mr. Lowther's evidence, the next point which he was asked was with reference to the second reading of a bill which was put down SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 17 8 July 1902.] The Hon. Sir E. Chandos Leigh, k.c.b., k.c. [Continued. Chairman — continued. down for the 24th of July. I think one ought to mention what that bill is. It i.s the London County Council (Water Purchase) Bill, and the reason why it was put down so late was in order to see whether the Government London Water Bill was safe, with the view that when it was safe, that Bill would be withdrawn ; and it will be withdrawn in that event. That is the history of that. Then the next point that I think you asked him about was unopposed Bills. Mr. Lowther was asked who were the Members who were summoned on the Un- opposed Bills Committee, I wish to say that the reason why Mr. Parker Smith is so generally summoned is because he sits on all railway Bills, and he sits on all Bills which come down from the House of Lords. 204. But the question I asked Mr. Lowther was, why does he sit ? — Because it has been a sort of custom to ask a particular Member if he has any objection to attend in the case of all House of Lords Bills ; the custom emanates from the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I thought Mr. Lowther would have answered it himself, — but that really is the explanation. Mr. Brand. 205. Who sat before Mr. Parker Smith ?— Mr. Wodehouse. Chairman. 206. The object of summoning a third mem- ber being to secure a quorum ? — Yes, it is a mere matter of form, bvit it is very important because it is of the greatest advantage to us if we have a difficult railway Bill, or if we have a difficult House of Lords Bill. In fact I think when you, sir, were sitting we asked Mr. Parker Smith once or twice to come, -so as to have a second Member and a second Member of such experience and who happenos to be also acting as Chairman of the Court of Referees. I should really suggest myself, that the Unopposed Bills Committee would be considerably strengthened if instead of asking, as we do now, as a matter of form, the Member whose name is on the back of the Bill to attend, and who very rarely attends ; some- times his constituents wish him to come and watch a local bill ; we could have some per- manent second Member like Mr. Parker Smith on all the Committees. I have often felt that. 207. In addition to the Chairman of Ways and Means and yourself ?— Yes. Things are now, of course, very considerably altered. When I first came here there were hardly any departmental reports at all. The Board of Trade used to send a written report, the Local Government Board had just begun to send reports, the Home Office never sent reports, and the Board of Agriculture was not in existence. Now we get voluminous reports, especially from the Local Government Board ; and as you, sir, in your experience, find very often difficult questions arise in dealing with these reports, such as the repayment of local loans, and consequently it is advan- tageous that the Chairman of the Committee, whether it be the Chairman of Ways and Means, or the Deputy Chairman, should have the assistance of an experienced Member to back his 0.23. Chairman — continued. opinion. Then I think a question was asked of Mr. Lowther with reference to costs, and whether he was inclined to diminish the fees that are at present charged. Upoa that I agree with Mr. Lowther. I do not think that the fees should be reduced. It is a curious thing but we certainly have not found that the latge amount of fees which are supposed to be paid have in any way diminished the number of Bills promoted by local authorities ; because in the first year that I was Speaker's Counsel there wore 16 Bills promoted by corporations and this 3'ear there are 55 ; and there is no doubt that many municipalities now bring in Bills to compulsorily acquire gas and water undertakings, which in former days was not the case. In former days gas Bills and water Bilh. were especially in the hands of companies, but now even although the com- panies are doing their work admirably well,, the local authorities promote Bills to secure for themselves against their will and without their consent, the undertakings of gas com- panies and water companies; and that is spreading all over the place. You, Sir, may remember a Bill (I certainly shall not mention names) which came before you in which a company promoted a Bill for watct- works and that company could not raise its capital or anything. This year the same agents brought forward a Bill to enable that district and a neighbouring rather big place to join together and constitute a Water Board. Tliat Bill came before us unopposed, and there was this very curious phase in the Bill : that the Joint Board was to pay the expenses of the Water Com- pany's undertaking which had been promoted, five years before. Naturally you asked the question : " But do you mean to say that they have agreed to that ?" — to which the Clerk to the Local Board ^aid — " Certainly we have, and we must stand by our agreement." That only shows the way in which these things are spread- ing. I have here a very valuable note from Mr. Bonham Carter which he gave me when I was examined before the Committee on Repayment of Local Loans, I do not think I need go into it now, to show the growth and progress of these compulsory acquisitions of gas and water under- takings by municipalities all over the country. 208. Is that a tabular statement from year to year? — It shows the rise and progress of the movement. Possibly you may have to call Mr. Bonham Carter on two points if the Committee think well. One point is that he is what I call rather the guardian of the Court of Referees, and is in a better position to answer questions about the Court of Referees than either the Chairman of Ways and Means or myself; and in addition to that, on all questions of periods and intervals about which you may wish to ask me some questions, and have asked Mr. Lowther some, Mr. Bonham Carter having brought out the last edition of "May's Parliamentary Practice," would probably be able to give you better information than either of us. 209. Before we leave the question of the Court of Referees, let me ask you this : although the Chairman of Ways and Means is nominally C Chairman 18 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 8 July 1902.] The Hon. Sir E. Chandos Leigh, k.c.b., k.c. [Continued. he very per- Chairman — continued. Chairman of the Court of Referees, seldom sits in it ? — Very seldom. 210. In fact, he has not time to attend to all these multitudinous duties ? — No ; our manent chairman is Mr. Parker Smith. 211. Rather your permanent chairman is the Chairman of Ways and Means ? — He is ex-officio; ' but I mean the actual chairman. Perhaps I had better deal now, while we are on the subject of the Court of Referees, with the matter of costs. . We are not a committee, we are a court ; we cannot award costs and the chairman has no . casting vote. The costs in a committee are given under a public Act, and a casting vote is given to ; the chairman of a committee by the standing order. I remember perfectly well a case in which the Court of Referees were equally divided and we had to re-hear the case in order to get an unequal number. With reference to costs I am very much inclined to agree with Mr. Lowther; I think if the Court of Referees could give costs it would not be at all a bad thing. There is one thing which I ought to mention with reference to the Court of Referees which was alluded to by Mr. Lowther, and that is about the eight days' notices of objection. My own idea is that pro- ' moters could give notice in a shorter time ; I should have allowed them four days for , giving their notices of objection instead of eight ; but I believe the Parliamentai-y agent who will be called before you will snow that there would be difficulties about it and will . give you the reasons for that. But I cannot see any reason why we should sit so late. It is perfectly possible for us to sit immediately after the second reading, or certainly a week or so before the Committees are grouped. As a . matter of fact and as a matter of practice, a Committee, we will say, is fixed for next Thurs- day, and we happen to be sitting to-day to "dispose of the objections. I do not think we need wait so long. Mr. Brand. 212. That is a very short interval? — But it perpetually happens. I do not see why we shoidd not have sat a week or two aero. CftaifTixan. 213. Who can alter that ? — It is a matter of practice and I think it might be altered in the ■Chairman of Ways and Means Rules which he is supposed to frame. I see no difficulty in the ' Court of Referees meeting earlier. 214. Then that could be altered by the •Chairman of Ways and Means without reference to the House ? — 1 think it could, but I will ask you to ask Mr. Bonham-Carter upon that ; I will ■ not pledge myself to that. Then I think you were asking about second readings in the House of Lords. In the House of Lords, of course, the Chairman of Committees stands in a totally ■difif'erent position. We do not get oppositions on second reading in the House of Lords, because Lord Morley can stop a Bill on second reading. 215. He has to propose the second reading? — He has to move it, and he sends for the agent •end says, " I cannot move this Bill ; I do not intend to do it. You may get any private Peer to move it you like." But what is the use of Chairman — continued, that ? So that verv often, I am bound to sa\- when I get a very doubtful Bill which I do not thmk ought to go on, in dividing the Bills I say to Lord Morley, "Will you take this Bill?'" Both this year and last year I knew of two Bills in which I said, " Will you take this Bill ? " and he said, "Yes, I will;" and he stopped it on second reading, and the Bill has gone. Ho ' is autocratic in that way. 216. That is to say, virtually he is autocratic, but any private Peer might move the second reading, just as a private Member may in the House of Commons i"— Yes ; but what would bo the use of that ? Mr. Brynnxor Jones. 217. You do not recommend that practice in the House of Commons, do you ? — 1 do not think the House of Commons would tolerate it ; they have constituents to think of. Chairman. 218. Have you anything to say on the subject of second reading debates ?— I have a little paper here which may be useful. I have here the number of Bills which have been opposed on second reading, beginning with the year 1886 ; I have the number of Bills as to which notices of instruction were given, beginning with the same year; they are not exactly carried down from year to year; but I had better hand in the paper. Without going through them all, in 1886 there were 17 Bills opposed on second reading ; I cannot say how many were successfully opposed and how many were not ; and notices of instruction were given on six others. Now I find that in 1893 there were 29 Bills opposed on second reading and six notices of instruction given ; in 1897 — I am takingithe largest — there were 37 Bills opposed on second reading, and seven notices of instruction given; and in 1899 there were 43 Bills opposed on second reading, and 13 notices of instruction given. The pape f was handed in and is as follows : — Year. Number of Bills Opposed on Seconil Heading. Nnniher of Bills as to which 1 " Notices of 1 Instruction " were ^iven. 1886 17 6 1891 - - 10 12 1892 - - 14 16 1893 - - 29 6 1894 - - 16 13 1895 - - 19 6 1896 - - 22 1897 - - 37 7 1 98 - - 20 10 1999 - - 43 13 1900 - . 34 13 1901 - - 25 16 219. You do not know how many of those oppositions were successful ? — No, I cannot say. 220. Not SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 19 8 July 1902.] The Hon. Sir E. Chaxdos Leigh, k.c.b., k.c. [Continued. Chai7-7nan — continued. 220. Not many ? — Certainly not many ; the proportion would not be more than 8 or 9 per cent. 221. On that particular point do you think from your experience that it would be sufficient to have one aiscus.sion in the House instead of two that we are liable to now ? — I cannot say that I altogether aoree with Mr. Lowther about the third reading. There is first of all the point that you put to him, namely, the question of expense. You must remember that the Bill on third reading has been through all the Com- mittee stage, it has been through every stage of consideration and report, and then at the very last stage all the trouble and expense may be thrown away ; whereas although I do not ap- prove of these oppositions on second reading as a rule, very often when there is notice of opposi- tion on second reading the Parliamentary agents are able to agree upon amendments ; and in several cases (and this bears upon the question you asked me just now, namely, how many of these oppositions to second reading were successful) having agreed to amendments, the objections are dropped and the bill disa,ppears from the notice paper, and passes second reading without objec- tion. If Mr. Lowther's plan were adopted there would be first of all, all the expense : secondly, no amendments could be agreed upon, and fur- ther, the result would be that at the very last stage no objections could be dropped, and the Bill would either go out or would pass. On the whole, therefore, I cannot agree with Mr. Low- ther as to that. 222. But do you agree that there should be only one discussion taken either on second reading or on third reading ;' — If there is a dis- cussion taken at all, then I have always been of opinion that some tribunal ought to adjudicate wliether that discussion is a fair one upon a question of principle , and if it is a fair one it ought to be allowed. But if it is a mere unim- portant or frivolous one, then the Committee or whatever body you refer it to, ought to say we shall not allow this to go on. 223. Then do you agree with Mr. Lowther when he said that he thought the Standing Orders Committee ought to decide that ? — I have not always held that opinion. The Standing Orders Committee is a committee with a quorum of live, and I think it would be difficult to get them together. If the Standing Orders Committee is to decide, then I think a standing order ought to be framed allowing their quorum to be reduced to three for that particular pur- pose. I think it is putting a certain amount upon the Standing Orders Committee, but that is a minor point. I was of opinion that the best tribunal would be the Chairman of Ways and Means, with you, sir, as the deputy chairman, and with myself sitting as an assessor ; I thought that would make a fairly strong body to decide upon a point like that. " But I know that Mr. Lowther entertains a very strong opinion about the Standing Orders Committee, and I do not want to differ from him. 224. Then the outcome of what you say is that if there should be one debate at all it ought 0.23 Chairman — continued . to be on second reading in preference to third reading ? — Yes, I think so. 225. You'think so decidedly ?— Yes, I prefer it on second reading; but with that qualification which I have given you, that leave ought to be given. 226. But you will not advocate one body more than another to give that leave ? — No { I am quite content to accept what Mr. Lowther said on that point. My plan would bo putting a great burden upon Mr. Lowther and yourself no doubt, and perhaps I ought not to stick to my old opinion. Now, there was a question raised in another Committee, before which I have been examined, which seemed rather to permeate their minds, and the idea was put to Mr. Lowther ■ to-day ; there seemed to be a sort of idea that whatever Lord Morley did in the Upper House ' was neccessarily accepted by us here. I beg altogether to differ from that. It is true that Lord Morlev goes most carefully into the Bills with Mr. Albert Grey, but you, sir, yourself, on two occasions this year altered the period for repayment of loans as it came down settled by the House of Lords, and I think Mr. Lowther has altered it on two more, shortening the period allowed for the repayment of the loan. 1 merely give that as an instance to show that we do not necessarily acquiesce in what the House of Lords htis done before us. 227. And were those alterations approved by the House of liords when the Bills went back ? —Yes, they were accepted ; but I am bound to say I generally make a point of going over to Mr. (jrey and saying, " Wo have done this ; I hope there will be no friction about it " — and I give him my reasons for doing it. And I have never had one single instance of friction in that matter between ourselves and the House of Lords. Mr. Renshaw. 228. That is in the case of unopposed Bills ? — Yes ; but I go further. I have now and then suggested to the honourable chairman of a committee on an opposed Bill that I thought the period was too long, which had boon approved by the House of Lords. I see one honourable chairman here who has condescended more than once to come and have a talk with me about these matters, and I have always given him the best advice I could in the matter, and I think once or twice in his experience we have changed the periods, which have been approved. 229. We need not go into the periods of repayment, because that is being dealt with by another Committee ; but there ought to be some uniform principle with regard to that, no doubt ? — Yes. 230. But that is beyond the scope of our inquiry ? — Yes. Do you wish me to say any- thing about Joint Committees ? 231. Yes, if you please ? — Of course the pass- ing of the Scotch Private Bill Procedure Act has considerably altered the position with regard to Joint Committees, because virtually, all the Scotch Bills now go to a quasi Joint Commiteee, and the only thing is this : Is it altogether cer- tain that a Joint Committee is not disadvan- c 2 tageous 20 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 8 .Tidy 1902.] The Hon. Sir E. Chandos Leigh, k.c.b., k.c. {Continued. Mr. Renshaw — continue'^1. tageous to opponents who ought to be considered and protected ? Several cases arise in my mind where the injurious features of a Bill were not iiRoertained until the Bill was in or through Committee in the First House, where the Petitioners entirely failed to obtain protection, and yet secured all they asked for in the Second House. That is one of my objections to a Joint Committee. An honourable Member on my left, I think it was, asked about an appeal. I remember, as far back as 1888, I gave evidence on this very point before a Joint Committee of both Houses, where I said they ought to have an appeal ; but that is not only my view, it is the view, I understand, of every experienced Parliamentary agent. But there is another objection that I have to Joint Com- mittees, and that is, that if you have Joint Committees you must have them for all Bills ; but of late years we have been rather in the habit of referring to Joint Committees some very big Bills, one very big Irish Bill I remember ; and there has been this London Water Bill, which it is true is a Government Bill, and I could mention three or four more, the Dublin Corporation Bill was another. You are thus giving these enormous undertakings only one chance, while small gas and water companies and small railway undertakings get a double chance. If there is to be a Joint Com- mittee I am strongly of opinion that it ought to extend to all Bills. I do not like myself. Mr. Renshaw — continued. although I have been a party to it, exceptional cases going to a Joint Committee. I have rather altered my opinion in that matter ; I was rather in favour of it. 232. Then on the whole would you advocate one Joint Committee instead of two separate Committees of the two Houses, as we have now ? — No, I would sooner really stick to two Com- mittees, as at present. Mr. Brand. 233. It stands to reason that the Parlia- mentary agents and counsel would be benefited ? — Yes, on the question of expense, but I do not enter into that. Cliairman. 234. Upon that we will ask the agents what their views are ; but we are asking you as an official of the House ? — Certainly. 1 do not see my way to these joint Committees at present ; I go no further than that. Mr. Hobhouse. 235. Can you give us a statement of the cost of private Bills, snowing the amount of fees paid in each year ? — I think you had better ask Mr. Gibbons, the head of the Public Bill Department; he will tell you all about fees. I have a few remarks to make about fees but not bearing upon the subject which you indicate. SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 21 Thursday, 10th July, 1902. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Brand. Mr. Hobhouse. Mr. Jetfreys. Mr. Brynmor Jones. Mr. Renshaw. Mr. Worsley-Taylor. The Right Honourable A. F. JEFFREYS in the Chair. The Honourable Sir E. Chandos Leigh, k.c.b., k.c, further Examined. Chairman. 236. What is your opinion with regard to procedure by Provisional Orders as compared with Private Bills ? — In certain cases Provisional Orders cannot be obtained. 237. Will you state shortly what those oases are ? — The principal case is that of compulsory water rights. I believe in Scotland compulsory water rights may be obtained by Provisional Order ; I am not sure as to Ireland, but certiainly they cannot in England. 238. Do, you mean that if you want compul- sory powers for the purchase of land or under- takings you must have a Bill ?— Not necessarily ; but as regards water rights you cannot obtain compulsory water rights in England at all events by Provisional Order. I will not speak positively as to Scotland, perhaps Mr. Pritt will be able to give information as to that. As regards the question you were asking, as to whether com- pulsory powers to take land can be obtained by Provisional Order, I may say that in Local ijrovernment Board Orders they can be obtained in certain cases, viz., first of all, for houses for the labouring classes, secondly, for street im- provements, and thirdly, for sanitary purposes. 239. A Provisional Order is a great saving of expense to the parties, is it not? — I am not altogether so sure of that. In the first place, if it is opposed in its initial stages, there has to be a local inquiry. I speak feelingly, because a near relation of mine, my eldest brother, had to oppose a Coventry Sewerage Provisional Order, and the local inquiry alone cost him a very large sum. 240. That is very unusual, is it not ? — It is an exceptional case. 241. An Ordinary Provisional Order costs a comparatively small amount as compared with a Bill through Parliament, does not it ? — Perhaps I may point out the various steps. First of all there is the local inquiry. We will say the Local Government Board make the Order ; then it has to come up to London to be confirmed as a Public Bill ; then it may be opposed at each stage; it may be opposed in the House of Commons and opposed in the House of Lords. 242. But as a general rule Provisional Orders are not opposed, are they ; they come before the Chairman of Committees as Unopposed Bills ; is not that so ? — A good many are opposed ; for in- stance, even this morning I see another Pro- visional Order is opposed in the House of Commons. Chairman — continued. 243. That is very unusual, is it not ? — I should think, there are 20 to 30 in the year that are opposed. 244. Out of what number ? — That I cannot say. 245. Do you suppose there are 3 or 4 per cent, that are opposed ? — I cannot answer that ques- tion, but I notice a good many Provisional Orders are opposed. In fact. Sir John Brunner's Committee tne other day had three Provisional Orders, every one of which was fought to the death, and then they may be fought again in the House of Lords. So that as a rule, I would say Provisional Orders do save expense, but you must always bear in mind tnat Provisional Orders may be opposed at each stage. 246. In the interests of economy and general convenience, what is your opinion as to whether we should have more of these Provisional Orders instead of Bills in Parliament ? — 1 think it would save expense; but of course as Mr. Lowther said, very often a BiU is introduced with certain clauses put in, which, if those clauses were not put in, could go on as a Provisional Order. 247. I think Mr. Lowther said that sometimes parties came for a Bill because they thought they could get more from Parliament than they could from a Government Department ? — That is so, particularly with regard to the question that arose the other day as to the length of time for the repayment of loans. They sometimes put in two or three Police and Sanitary clauses which have to come before a committee. A notable instance was a Nottingham case two or three years ago where everything could have been obtained by Provisional Order, but that they put in a clause to make themselves an insurance company to insure their own buildings. That of course woidd have to be done by a Bill. There was one very necessary Police and Sanitary clause which was put in, and the consequence was that it had to go before the Police and Sanitary Committee, and although it was virtually an unopposed Bill, it must have run them into very gi*eat expense. 248. We heard from the Chairman of Ways and Means at the last sitting, that of course he had to leave a great deal of criticism of unopposed Bills to you, as his time was very fully occupied; what would happen if you were incapacitated ? — Mr. Bonham Carter would look after it. I m'g'^t rdd this to what the Chairman of Ways and 22 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 10 July 1902.] The Hon. Sir E. Chandos Leigh, k.c.b., k.c. [Continued. Chairman — continued. and Means said. Lord Morley having of course no night work, has a good cJeal of time on his hands, and all these Bills are examined by Lord Morley, whether they begin in the House of Lords or whether they begin in the House of Commons, before they come to me; so that I have the advantage of Lord Morley's criticisms. If I do not understand or agree with those criticisms I go over and talk to Mr. Gray, the Lord Chairman's Counsel. You may remember, for inslance, when you were sitting the other day when the Bill was actually in Committee I asked Mr. Gray if he would kindly step over and see lis about the matter. 249. You think in that way due safeguards are taken against Bills getting through without sufficient criticism ? — I am sure of it. 250. Is there anything else you wish to say in addition to the evidence you have already given? — I think not. I have spoken about Provisional Orders ; and I gather you do not wLsh to go into the question of local inquiries. 251. I think that would be outside the scope of this inquiry ? — As Mr. Lowther was asked a question about it I thought I might, perhaps, say a word upon the subject of local inquiries. 252. I think I will not myself ask you any questions upon that point, but will leave it to any honourable Member who desires to ask any question ? Mr. Renshaiv. 253. I think in your evidence the other day you suggested that the Bills ought to be in your hands by the I7th of December ? — That is so. 254. That is the date at which they reach the Lord Chairman ? — That is so. 255. You heard, did you not, Mr. Lowther's evidence in which he suggested that an earlier date than that should be taken ? — I did. 256. What are the reasons which lead you to think that an earlier date, say the 21st of No- vember or the 1st of December, could not be taken ? — That would involve putting everything on a month earlier. 257. Quite so ? — On that point, again, I think I must refer to Mr. Pritt. I gave the dates, if you remember, at the different steps ; I gave the 27th of November, and one or two other dates. The notices having to be given on the 15th of December I thought it scarcely possible that Parliamentary agents could be in time to deliver their Bills to me before the 17 th. Of course I myself, personally, should like to have them deposited earlier. 258. That is to say, in your opinion there would be no difficulty, so far as the officials of the House of Commons were concerned, in fixing a date earlier than the 17th of December? — It would not affect the officials of the House of Commons, but it very likely would materially affect the course of procedure which has to be adopted by Parliamentary agents. 259. But then Parliamentary agents would have this advantage, would they not, that if Committees of this House and the other House were taking up Bills and considering them at an earlier period of the Session, they would be free Mr. Reiifihaw — continued. at the end of the Session for carrying on the- work in connection with the Bills for the coming^ Session ? — There again I must say I think they are the best judges of that ; perhaps you would kindly ask that question of Mr. Pritt. Then there is another consideration : The authorities at the House of Commons and those of the House of Lords, are equally affected by any ante-dating ; we could make no ante-dating without the mutual consent of the House (if Lords. 260. It would involve an alteration of the Standing Orders of the House of Lords as well as of our House ? — Yes ; it would never do to have one set of Standing Orders in the House of Commons and another in the House of Lords, as. regards the deposit ot Bills. 261. Still, there is a difference in the dates at the present time, is there not ? — Yes, but it would be putting the whole proceedings on a month earner. 262. Then as regards the point which was put to you just now by the Chairman in connection with the substitution to a larger extent of Provi- sional Orders for matters which are dealt with by Bills at present. Mr. Lowther, I think, expressed the opinion that no persons ought to be entitled to petition this House for Bills for powers which they could obtain by Provisional Order ? — I take- it that what Mr. Lowther meant was this : That these people ought not to be able to put into their Bills, we will say, Tramways, Compulsory Water rights, and all that sort of thing, but that they ought to be confined to what tliey could obtain by Provisional Order under Section 234 of the Public Health Act and Part V. of the Public Health Amendment Act, 1890. That would be a very difficult thing to work. Take the large corporations, for instance, they would have to have two sets of Bills ; they would have to have a Provisional Order Bill, so far as I can make out, under which they would obtain their borrowing powers, and also the creation of Stock under Part V. of the Public Health Act ; and then they would have to have another Bill. I think in the case of small towns and places, I should rather like to see a check put upon it. 263. But you think that a check of that sort would be effective in reducing the number of Bills introduced into this House. You referred to the case of a Nottingham Corporation Bill„ the whole of the provisions they came for in that Bill, if I remember rightly (and I was a Member of the Committee that sat upon that Bill), with the exception of the insurance powers, could have been dealt with by Provisional Order T — And there was one Police and Sanitary clause which was essential for them ; I think it was with regard to wagons. 264. It was a clause about leading two cai-ts one after the other; with that exception, the whole of the provisions could have been dealt with b}'^ Provisional Order, and they could have got it very cheaply, instead of which they had to pay these high fees and attend before a Committee ; and then in the end they did not get their insurance powers, did they ? — I think they got them in a limited form. 265. I should like to ask a question as to the date at which at present the Examiners begin, sit SELECT COMMHTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 23 10 July 1902.] The Hon. Sir E. Chandos Leigh, k.c.b., k.c. [Continued. Mr. Renshaw — continued. «it publielv, to go into Standing Order question.s — that is hxcd at the 18th of January, is it not ? — That is so. 266. That date would be liable to alteration it the other dates were altered ? — That would be liable to alteration. But in a great many cases •delay takes place before the Examiners can deal witli the Bills. Thev meet on the 18th of January, but there is delay in a great many Bills from various causes. In the first place, perhaps, •the most important cause of delay is this ; that promoters try to settle with the local authorities ; m all, or most Tramway Bills there is that -ditticulty. You will remember there was a debate in the House of Commons on Mr. Chaplin's ■motion as to altering Standing Order 22. That motion was defeated, but Standing Order 22 no •doubt causes considerable delay in the case of Tramway Bills. I have known instances (and I Lave mentioned the fact in another Committee) in which very onerous conditions have been placed upon promoters before the local authori- ties would allow their Bills to go on. I need not go over the ground again, but I remember two cases in which so onerous were those obligations that I had to go to the House of Lords and show them to Lord Morley. Mr. Lowther, on my advice, cut out (although it was an agreed clause) no less than eighteen or . twenty of those sub-sections ; and when it got to the House of Lords Lord Morley cut out something like fifteen more. They were onerous ■conditions opposed to public policy. I give that as an instance of the way in which delay takes place very often before the Exairiiners can deal Avith the Bills. Then as regards other causes of delay, I do not propose to deal vnth some suggestions which I have here on a printed paper, for 1 think they will be more properly dealt with by Mr. Ashby Pritt, but I may say that another cause of delay would be the Wharncliffe meeting in the case of Com- panv Bills. The practice in the House of Lords IS different under Standing Order 91 of that House, which says that these " Bills shall be read a second time not later than the fourteenth day after the first reading thereof." That affects the Wharncliffe meetmg. Very often when 1 have put a Bill down to commence in the House -of Lords it has happened to me that the agents have come and said, " Please let this Bill begin in the House of Commons because we shall not be in time vnth our Wharncliffe meeting — the House of Lords have fixed fourteen days as the latest day after the First Reading " ; and I have accordingly had to shift the Bill and let it begin in the House of Commons. I may say, as a matter of history, in the old days the submission of the Bill to the Wharncliffe meeting need not have been proved until the Bill came to the Second House ; but there was this great objec- tion to that, that any dissentient shareholder who had a locus under the Standing Order could not be heard in the First House, so that he was oal purposes." It now and then does occur that Insurance Bills may happen to have a clause which cannot be passed in that House because it is in the nature of a Stamp Duty or something of that sort, and in that ease that clause is loft in italics, and is put in in Com- mittee of the whole House here. 332. Where it refers merely to local taxation then it may originate in the House of Lords ? — Yes, but in that case I always ask the agents to italicise clauses which cannot begin in the House of Lords. 333. As is done in a Public Bill ? — I was not aware that that was so. : 334. Are those italicised clauses supposed to come to us in blank in the case of Private Bills ? — Yes, and then they are put in by the Committee of your House. That is a point which one has to be careful about in dividing the Bills ; that shows the necessity for reading all your Bills before you divide them. 335. But questions of the length of terms of loans and that kind of thing, are dealt with equally in both Houses ? — Yes, because the Standing Order is perfectly clear about that. Ii says, " which refer to rates assessed and levied by local authorities for local purposes." 336. Then 1 may take it that as regards the ^oat mass of Bills you have a pretty tree hand m dividing between the two Houses ? — Quite a free hand, but as I said in my evidence in chief, of late years I have always made a practice of con.sulting the Lord Chairman's Counsel in the other House, so that by putting our heads together we divide the Bills as we think they ought to be divided. 337. Your object being to give each House a fairly equal amount of work ? — Now they do take an equal amount, but in the old days, in Lord Redesdale's time, the House of Lords did not take nearly so many Bills. 338. Have you any more figures to give us at present with regard to the increase in the number of Private Bills of late years ? — I think a Return is to be made up in regard to that. I think you may take it for the last 10 years there has been a pretty equal average. Last year there were 30 more than this year. Of course now there is a slight diminution because the Scotch Bills are not included. There Avere-29 Scotch Provisional Orders this year, and out of those only seven were referred as Private Bills, so that you may take off 22 which otherwise would have commenced in this House if there had been no Scotch Procedure Act. 339. Has the volume of Private Bill business materially increased since the last Select Com- mittee reported in 1888. Perhaps the figures which are being prepared ■will show that ? — If they have not increased numerically to any great extent, there are a great many more difficulties since 1888 on account of the local authorities' Bills having so materially increased. 340. Many of the Bills are longer and more complex than they used to be ? — Yes. 341. That is specially true, I suppose, of heavy Corporation Bills'? — Yes, I used general ■words "Local Authorities Bills," because it 0.23. Mr. Hobhouse — continued. also has to do with the small local authorities. They give (juite as much trouble as the big ones. 342. Therefore the work of examining the Bills is much heavier than it used to be ?— Yck. 343. With regard to Corporation Bills they used to be all refori-ed to the Police and Sanitary Committee, w(>rc thoy not ? — If they contained police and sanitary clauses, but not otherwise. 344. That was the case with the mass of Corporation Bills, was it not ? — As regards about half of them. 345. Now the Police and Sanitary Committee has been given up, has it not ? —It is given up, but still the Bills are referred to a Special Com- mittee, [n fact we do not have a Chairman who has not been accustomed to police and sanitary work. The two standing Chairmen now are Mr. Bill and Mr. Hey wood Johnstone. 340. There are now two Committees that deal with those Bills ? — Yes. 347. If the mass of business was greater there might have to be three ? — Yes. 348. Do you consider that is an improvement on the old practice of referring them all to one Committee ? — One Committee could not get through the work. There was also this point : When there was one Committee on Police and Sanitary Bills, suppose the Committee was nine,. very often only four or five would attend and make up a quorum, and the Members attended most irregularly. Now those Bills are referred to an ordinary Committee who have to sit day by day and Members cannot be absent. We had, in fact, to divide the Police and Sanitaxy Committee into half and set up a second Committee. 349. The dividing of the Committee was done as a matter of necessity ? — It was. 350. The object of sending all the Police and Sanitary Clauses before one Committee was to get uniformity of practice ? — To get uniformity of practice, but now having two experienced gentle- men who have sat on Police and Sanitary Bills, I think there is uniformity — I do not think it has been broken. 351. Not at present, perhaps; but I suppose you would agree there mi^ht be some advantage m securing uniformity of practice in this class of Bills by conferences between the Chairmen ? — I think they have them now — I cannot speak for the Chairmen, but I think they consult each other. 352. Now let me ask one or two questions with regard to Provisional Order Bills. You anticipate that in many cases they are as expensive as Private Bills ? —In some cases. I gave instances of where there was a local inquiry and afterwards opposition in both Houses. [ cannot tell you the percentage of those cases. 353. That is sjirely an extreme case, is it not, in respect of Provisional Orders ? — It is an extreme case. 354. Is it not the fact that the great majority of Provisional Order Bills haying been carefully inquired into by Government Departments pass through Parliament without opposition ? — I grant that. 355. With comparatively little expenses ! — 1 do not know about the expense. D 2 356. Would is MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 10 July 1902.] The Hon. Sir E. Chandos Leigh, k.c.b., k.c. [Continued. Mr. Hobhouse — continued. 356. Would you accept this figure : that in the case of the purchase of water or gas under- takings by district authorities, if it is done by Private Bill, unopposed, it usually costs the Council from 400^. to 5001. ; whereas, if it is done by Provisional Order, unopposed, it only costs 80Z. ? — I daresay that may be so — I do not know. 357. In the case of dealing with matters like water and gas, and other purely local matters, which do not raise either tne interests of great railway companies, or such questions as are raised by Election Petitions, there is no need in a case like that to take the most expensive counsel, is there ? — No, not when it is only dealing with small matters like that. But, of course, it is different where it gets to be a tight. Take, tor instance, the case where a local authority wants to compulsorily acquire a gas undertaking, and that does not satisfy all the consumers then the tight is very strong and very often there are competing Bills. Supposing a gas company comes, we will say, for additional capital, or a gas company comes to extend its limit — that is the time that the local authority produces a Bill too, and there are competing Bills between the two. 358. But those questions are often, or indeed, usually settled by the inquiry before the Board of Trade officers, are they not ? — Oh, no ; they aje fought in the House. 359. Sometimes ? — In a great many cases. 360. Will you be able to give us any figures later on as to the proportion of Provisional Order Bills which are opposed and unopposed ? — I am afraid that is hardly within my province — I should have to have assistance from the Private Bill Office, or somewhere, if I were to give any figures of that kind. 361. I did not mean to press you as to tltaift — I only wanted to ask whether yon weie in a position to give that evidence ? — No-, I am luot.. Possibly Mr. Munro, who has been stuiraioaed here as a witness, who has lately been elevated to the position of chief clerk in the Hous« of Lords, may be able to give you that inforaaatdJon. He was the guardian of our Provisional Orders in both Houses and he can tell you a great deal about them. 362. I believe it is the duty of certaia Gororn- ment departments to report uptoi certain classes, of Bills ?— It is. 363. Do you consider that duty could te ox- tended with advantage ? — I do not know if it could be extended. ^64. Let me put to you one case within your knowledge, as well as mina In the case of Bills which are now becoming more common, in- volving large questions of electric powers, it is not the duty at present of ajiy Government department, is it, to report upon those Bills ?— I may be wrong, but I thought they did report upon them. It promoted by a local authority, I am informed the Local Govenment Board re- ports upon them, but Mr. Pritt will be able to answer as to that, because the reports come to the Parliamentary agents as well as to me. S65 You do not remember the case we had the other day with regard to applying electric Mr. Hobhouse — continued. power to all underground railways ? — Yes, I remember the case. 366. In that case it did not fall within the duty of any Government department to report ? — That is a case which I am rather astonished the Board of Trade did not report upon. It is a matter that comes more within the province of the Board of Trade. 367. Are you aware that under the Standing Orders there is no duty cast upon them to report in such a case, because it is not the case of a railway ? — Is the honourable Member referring to the question of its being a tramway ? 368. No, it was in the Metropolitan District Railway Bill ; it was an electric power cable ; it was a question merely of supplying motive power. However, if -it is not within your recollection, I will ask another witness about it. Now I want to ask you a question or two as to the composition of Committees. You told us in regard to Unopposed Bill Committees, in the case of House of Commons Bills, in addition to the Chairman and yourself, there has to be a Member, whose name is on the back of the Bill, and one other Member " not locally or otherwise interested in the Bill"— it is Standing Order 137 ? — Yes ; and if you will read on in the Standing Order, it says " or a referee." So that, as a matter of fact, there need only be present, the Chairman of Ways and Means and a referee. The Member whose name is on the back of the Bill is summoned, but he need not be there. The Chairmain and myself will con- stitute such a Committee as can go on with the Bill, but in Railway Bills and in House of Lords Bills it has been always the practice to have one special Member, that special Member at present being Mr. Parker Smith ; but he need not necessarily attend. 369. Does he, as a rule, usually attend ? — As a rule Mr. Parker Smith attends a great deal, and if he says he cannot attend, I sometimes say, "can you come in upon one particular Bill, because a question of difficulty may arise on it, and I should like the Chairman to have your assistance." That is how I manage it now. 370. I suppose now that there is a Deputy Chairman it is easier to work ? — I have known no instance where the Chairman and Deputy Chairman have sat together. 371. Has the Deputy Chairman a right to sit with the Chairman under the Standing Orders ? —That is a question which I have not yet con- sidered. I suppose he would have the right to attend under tne words, " one other Member not locally or otherwise interested therein." He would be a Member not locally or otherwise in- terested. 372. He would have a right to sit under those words ? — Yes. 373. But not ex-offi.cio?—'No, I do not think so. 374. Does not it happen under the now rules of procedure that it becomes almost impossible at certain periods of the Session for the Chair- man of Ways and Means to sit on these Com- mittees ? — Yes. 375. Owing to his having to take the chair so much earlier ? — Yes. We try to arrange it, and he has been able to do it except during the time of SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 29 10 July 1902.] The Hon. Sir E. Chandos Leigh, k.c.b., k.c. [Continued. Mr. Hohhouse — continued, of his illness when the Deputy Chairman sat all through instead of him. 376. Still the strain would be great? — The strain would be great. 377. Therefore it might be desirable to make some alteration in the Standing Order that would strengthen the tribunal ? — I think we could see our way to do that. There seems to be a sort of idea in the House that unopposed Bills are not thoroughly threshed out. I beg rather to differ from that because, personally, I thresh them out to the very best of my power. But I must say that such a Committee as I sug- «rest would considerably strengthen the hands of the Unopposed Bill Committee, and that is a -Committee we will say, consisting either of the -Chairman or Deputy Chairman, Mr. Parker Smith, or some Member Avho permanently attends in the case of the House of Lords Bills, and myself That would make a fairly strong committee. 378. Would it not be desirable to have two gentlemen of that description, so that one might be always sure of atteudmg ? — Yes. There is no objection to the number. They formally sum- mon the Member whose name is on the back of the Bill. He might attend or not as he liked. Sometimes they do wish to be there; if their constituency has a particular interest in the Bill they like to see tneir Member there; so we summon him. 379. That does not apply to a Bill that comes down from the House of Lords ? — No, it does not. Mr. Parker Smith is the fixed Member there. 380. But is not there somewhat the same reason for summoning the Member to whose constituency the Bill refers in the one case as in the other ? — Yes, I think on any recommenda- tion from this Committee we might see our way to making an alteration of that Standing Order 137 ; that is all I can say ; I cannot go further than that now. Mr. Brand. 381. What is the reason for the distinction between Railway, Canal, and Divorce Bills and other opposed Private Bills. You see the words in brackets in the Standing Order ? — That helps one. On every unopposed Private Bill let us deal only with the word " Railway ; " Mr. Parker Smith is the person on all Railway Bills ; on Canal Bills it would be the same. A Divorce Bill is a Bill which I have very little to do with. Divorce Bills now would apply to Ireland, and they are always settled in the House of Lords before they come to us. Mr. Hohhouse. 382. Is there any other Standing Order relat- ing to unopposed Bills Committees on Railway Bills, because this exception of Railway Bills by this Standing Order seems to leave them unpro- vided for ? 383. I cannot tell at this moment: perhaps another witness will be able to answer that question. One word with regard to opposed Bills Committees. Do you agree with the view which Mr. Lowther expressed that imder no circumstances, even in the case of Joint Com- mittees, was it desirable to have more than four Members ? — As long as the Chairman gets a Mr. Hohhouse — continued. casting vote ; that is Mr. Lowther 's idea, because the Chairman, I fancy he said in his evidence, is the person who took the main burden upon himself, and therefore, if the Committee were equally divided it was a good thing that the Chairman should have a casting vo^e. Those were his reasons, I think I am right in saying. 384. Supposing a Joint Committee was con- stituted, and you wished to secure a casting vote to the Chairman, that is to say, yoM wished the numbers to be not odd but equal, would not a Committee of six in that case be better than a Committee of four ? — If there is a Joint Com- mittee, as at present constituted it follows the rule of the House of Lords, and the Chairman would have no casting vote; I think that is clear. 38.5. In a Joint Committee I believe the rules of the House of Lords prevail ? — That is what I said, both with regard to locus standi and with regard to there being no casting vote of the Chairman. 386. I was asking vour opinion generally as to the constitution of Committees on opposed Bills ; what do you consider the best number ? — I like the present constitution in the House of Commons, with the Chairman having a casting vote. 387. You consider the number four a perfect numb<;r? — Yes, and with the difficulties of getting Committees in the House of Commons now, there being so many public Bills that they have to sit on, if you increased the number to five you would have still gi-eater difficulty in getting Members to serve. 388. I quite understand that the number could not be increased if it was a House of Commons Committee alone. I was supposing that it was a Joint Committee ? — You mean with eight or nine Members ? 389. I ask you what is the best number in your opinion for a Joint Committee ? — With the Chairman having a casting vote; I prefer not to go into that. 890. You do not wish to go into that ? — No, Joint Committees are some way off yet ; it is a matter for great consideration. 391. Passing to another point, to what extent do you consider it your duty to give advice to Chairmen of opposed Bills Committees ? Do you put your views before them ; do you originate advice, or do you wait until the Committee seek your advice ? — On that point I may say this : Take the Local Government Board Report, which comes before me as well as before the Chairman of the opposed Bills Committee. I see something very special in that Local Govern- ment Board Report which I particularly want to call the attention of the Chairman to. I take upon myself the responsibihty of coming up into the room and asking the Clerk if the Chairman would have a word with me. So also, if I saw some extraordinary clause which I disapproved of, I should adopt the same proce- dure, and then it would get to the ears of the Chairman, and he could send for me or not as he chooses. 392. You would send a notice to him in writing? — I should probably come up into the room and show the clause to the Clerk and he would call the Chairman's attention to it. 393 You 80 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 10 July 1902.] The Hon. Sir E. Chandos Leigh, k.c.b., k.c. [Continued. Mr. Hohhouse — continued. 393. You would communicate with the Chair- man, in very exceptional cases ? — In exceptional cases. 304. But }ou would not consider it part of your duty to attempt to secure uniformit}- of decision in any particular class of cases ? — No. 395. Such as the terms for loans ? — No, because the Local Government Board you see, would call attention to that, and it would be rather an audacious interference on my part to go up and dictate to a Committee who have the whole of the facts before them. There is an elasticity about these things. In some cases the time for repayment of loans might be extended by one Chairman, the necessity for which would not arise on a dilfercnt state of facts before another. 39(). Then in your opinion there is no reason for any further step.s being taken to secure uni- formity of decision as between different Com- mittees ? — No, I do not think there is. Mr, Renshaw. 897. I should like to ask you whether vou think it Avould be possible to fix a date after which no Second Reading of a Bill introduced into the House of Commons should take place, whether it would have the effect of expediting the Second Reading of Bills ? — The same as Standing Order 91 of the House of Lords ? 398. What is the date in Standing Order 91 ? — I think is 14 days after the First Reading. 399. No, I will not put the question in that ^ay then ; I will put it whether a certain date from the commencement of the Session could be fixed after which the Second Reading of Bills should not take place ? — I cannot answer that question ; I should prefer Mr. Pritt to answer it. 400. If a provision of that kind could be made it would no doubt prevent the unnecessary delay in the Second Reading of Bills which does take place ? — Yes, there is delay. Very often agents come to me and say, "Will you allow this Bill to be put off a fortnight or three weeks ? ". 401. The other question that I should like to ask you is this. Part of the delay in regard to the consideration of Private Bills arises from the amount of work which has devolved upon the Chairman of Committees. The delay which occurs in certain c^ses in regard to the progress of Private Bills arises from the difficulty ot the Chairman of Committees finding time for that particular branch of work, does it not ?^I do not think so. 402. Do you know any instance of that having happened ? — I know of no instance ; it is rather the other way. The Chairman of Committees Secretary invariably sees that a Bill has been read a second time, and says, " we ought to be able to take this — it is unopposed," and he sends to the agents, and it is the agents Avho saj' " we are not ready with it." We are always ready. 403. With regard to unopposed Bills that come before the Chairman of Ways and Means, is it the fact that the Chairman's powers with re- gard to taking clauses out of those Bills, or inserting provisions in the Bills, is practically unhmited, except in so far as a question may be Mr. Renshaw — continued. raised by a Member in the House of Commons? — If the Chairman .saw an objectionable clause against public polic}', he would take it out. 404. He has ecjual power of putting in a clause, has he not ? — He might put in a clause. 405. And on that there would be no clieek, unless in some way or other attention was called to it in the House itself ? — That is so. I re- member our altering a clause and substituting a new clause for it. Mr. Holihouse. 406. Has the Chairman of Ways and Means any power in the case of a Bill, a portion of which he considers raises important questions that ought to be heard before an Opposed Bills Committee, of sending that poition of the Bill to a Committee ? — I have never known an instance of that. Under Standing Order 83 he would simply recommend that the Bill be treated as an opposed Bill. ^ 407. The whole Bill ?— Yes, the whole of it would go to an Opposed Bill Committee. It would not last long because there would be no opponents. Mr. Brand. 408. So far as the powers of the Unoppnts, and the system under which the big railway corporations and bodies of that kind do ? — I answer with some hesitation, but I think there is a difference certainly to this extent: that I do not think any railway comj^any has ever asked its agent to share profits, using a familiar expression. I believe it is not an uncommon practice (but you must not afek me for instances) for arrangements to be made between town clerks and their Parliamen- taiy agents for some division in some way of the pi-ofits, of both you understand, resulting from the proceedings m l-'arliamcnt. ()09. And the effect of such a sub-division of <;hargcs must, undoubtedly, be rather to increase the total amount of costs in Parliamentary con- a substantial share lould like to modify I do not think it Mr. Renshaw — continued, tests ? — I think that is rather human nature, and it also, ot course, is an inducement to the agent to increase, as far as possible, the charges which he has to send in to the ultimate client if he has to share those charges. 610. So that the general view which the public hold, that the fees to this House and the tees to counsel constitute the greater portion of the costs of these contests, in the case of Bills promoted by municipal and urban authorities may not hold good, and it may be due to the fact that their own officials hi many instances are obtainins of the costs of Bills ?— -I one of your expressions, would be fair to say " in many instances " ; I do not think it is so to any great extent. I think as a general rule the greater part of the costs is the cost of counsel and the lees ; and there are some instances, but not many, in whicli the costs would be increased by the arrangement that I have mentioned. Personally, I have no knowledge of any such case. I should like to say that. 611. I should be sorry if I led you to think for a moment 1 1 am sure the Committee will not think so), that in asking the question I had any motive in obtaining your personal opinion upon it I — Thank you. 612. With regard to notices ; there are certain provisions with regard to notices at present which I presume you regard as difficulties in the way of patting back the dates in respect of peti- tions to Parliament for Bills ; is not that so ? — Yes. 613. Those notices are the notices whicli have to be given to landowners, and the notices which have to be published in the " Gazette " and in the local newspapers ? — Yes. 614. Those notices are expensive, are they not, at present; the system under which they are given is one of considerable expense ? — The ex- pense has been (jonsiderably reduced in recent years by the establishment of the practice under which the notice for a Bill relating to numerous objects, what wo call in short an omnibus Bill, may be split up so that only the part need he published in each county relating to that county ; and I do not think the notices themselves, the advertisement notices, are a very expensive matter now. 61.5. But the advertisement notices that you put in the public papers are very long notices ? — Yes, they are sometimes. 616. And if in larger type a very short notice was put in, saying that at certain places, V)ooks of reference could be obtained in which all the information could be got that is now put in in such small print that no human being over 40 could read it, that would be much cheaper I — Yes. I think you have in your mind the notice under the Light Railways Act, which is very much shorter. 617. There is a notice under the Light Rail- ways Act, which is much shorter, whicli is quite as effective, is it not, for all purposes of protect- ing the general public ? — Yes. 618. And in your opinion the expense of these notices might bo reduced by a charge in regard to SEF.ECT COMMIITKE OX riilVATE lUJSlNESS. 4,n 10 Juhj 1902.] Mr. Pritt. [Continued. Mr. Rensliav! — continued. to tho provisions of the Standing Orders about thoni ( — Yes. (US). Then the dates? of those notices I think are approximately these. The Gazette notice has to be pubUshcd in October or November ? — Yes. 620. Do you .see an}' objection to making it obhgatorv that those advertisements shoukl be published in October in place of the alternative month of November ? — No other objection than the one I have already stated, that it means necessarily antedating all the other proceedings. 621. But T think xrhen you answered that question to the Chairman just now, yon were perhaps not [>aying sutiicient regard to the foct that it you antedated these notices, and there- fore the work of Parliament was earlier brought forward and earlier accomplished, there would be more free time at the end of the Session for agents to go on with the work for the ensuing Session, would there not ? — No doubt, to some extent. 622. And that, thei-efore, the general objection which you take to the difficulty which will arise from antedating would not hold good if von really foimd that you got relief at the end of the Session ? — Yes. I should like, if you will allow me, to substitute " parties " for " agents." I am not putting it upon the personal ground of the agents, I am puttmg it on the ground of all Sirties interested in the business of promoting ills. 623. The next date is that deposits have to be made on or before the 30tn of November. Would there be any difficulty in making it the 31st of October or the 15th of Noven^ber ? — The 15th of November would be better than the 31st of October, but I think you would find that great objection would be taken to putting it tonvard a month, as I have said. 624. Then the petition for the Bill at present has to be brought in by the 21st of December in this House, and the I7th of December in the House of Lords ? — Yes. 625. Do you think that there are, having regard to what I have pointed out to you as to what the general result of any system of ante- dating would bo, any insuperable objections to making those date the 1st of December in each case ? — If you decide to alter the previous dates there would be no objection ; it would follow that a corresponding alteration of the later date cannot be objected to. 62(). If that was the case and the system was adopted which prevails under the Scotch Stand- ing Orders, namely, that petitions against the Bill must be lodged within four weeks of the petition for the Bill, that is to say, at a fixed date, you would have all the petitions in before the 31st of December ? — Yes. 627. Then that would simplify the existing system and enable matters to be dealt with at earlier stages with regard to the work in Parlia- ment, would it not ? — No, I do not think so, so long as the sitting of Parliament is continued at the same time. I think there is ample time between the present dates at which these pro- ceedings have to be taken and the sittings of Parliament. 628. May [ put this to you on that point: 23. Mr. Eenshaw — continued. that in tho evidence which Mr. Lowther gavo the other day he stated distinctly that in the last six years no Committee of Parliament had sat within 35 days of tho sitting of Parliment, in one case 41 days and in another case 42 dajs. Is not that an enoi'mous waste of Parliamentaiy time ?— I agree ; but .still I do not think it is a neces.sary waste. As I stated at the beginning of my evidence, I really think Bills could be got ready for eai'lier consideration in the Hou.sc if it was understood that they were required to be got ready, and that Committees were ready to deal with them '.vhen they were ready. It is a long interval, 1 agree, and an unnecessary long intei'val. 629. And bearing in mind the fact that it is the very time of the year when honourable Members are most free from engagements and most ready to devote themselves assiduously to Private Bill work, it would in your opinion be a great convenience, would it not, if Committees could begin at the beginning of the Session instead of as now veiy often not until after Easter ? — Undoubtedly, but I do not think that in order to secure that result it is necessary that you should expedite the preliminary proceedings. 630. With regard to the question of fees, I understand your view to be that it would be desirable to make the higher fee chargeable at the last stages of the Bill. Have j'ou ever looked at the new table of fees under the Provisional Order (Scotland) Act ? — No, I am afraid I know very little about that Act. 631. Are you not aware'what the changes made with regard to fees are, simplifying the number of stages at which fees can Tie charged ? — No. 632. Do you think it would be desirable to simplifj^ the number oi stages at which fees can be charged ? — Yes, it sounds so. 633. With regard to the Provisional Order .system to which reference has been made, I think when Sir Chandos Leigh was in the chair he referred to you as likely to be able to give us information as to the different subjects for which power could be obtained under the Provisional Order sj^stem in Scotland (I am not now speak- ing of the new private business procedure) and in England. Ai-e you aware what those differ- ences are ? — I am afraid I cannot say ; ni}'' experience of Scotch practice is not very great. 634. May I ask you whether it is not the case that under the Public Health Act of 1897 in Scotland very extended powers arc given under which Provisional Orders can be asked for in respect of the acquisition of land and wat«r rights '. — Yes. 635. And whether it is not the case that you would need to alter the general law under which Provisional Orders can be applied for in England if it was wislicd to extend that system ? — Yes, 1 presume so. 636. The Act to which I referred, the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, has a long clause, Clause 145, and in that clause, in sub-section (7), there is a provision that " every Bill for confirm- ing any .such Order shall, after the Second Heading in the House in which it originates, be referred to a Select Committee, or if the two Houses of Parliament think fit so to order, to a F 2 Joint 44 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 10 July 1902.] Mr. Pritt. [Continued. Mr. Renshaw — continued. Joint Committee." You think it would be a great benefit in our Parliamentary practice in regard to the Provisional Order system for the ■whole of the United Kingdom, if we were to establish a system of Joint Committees to deal with questions Avhich have already been the sub- ject of local inquiries in the locality ? — Yes, that is what I intended to say. I think so. 637. I do not know whether your attention has been called to it, but under Sub-section (9) of that same section provision is made that " the Committee by a majority may award costs which shall, unless the Committee otherwise direct, include all costs from the date of the memorial." Would you be disposed to give that power to a Joint Committee with regard to all Provisional Orders ? — I see no reason for not doing so. 638. By a majority? — By a bare majority I do not know ; it would depend upon the numbe of the Committee. Mr. Renshaw — continued. 639. You observe that in nothing ^vith regard to that clause there is unreasonable " or vexatious" words to which vou attach some iniportance ? — I have not considered the section I am afraid ; I have not got it before me ; but I am bound to add that if it is good for Scotch Provisional Orders I do not see why it should not be equally good for English Provisional Orders. It is a considerable extension of the present practice. 640. You think that Standing Order 79 which regulates the action of the two Chairmen in regard to the division of Bills between the two Houses should be done away with ? — Yes, I think that the two counsel are quite competent to settle that question of the division of the Bills. SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 45 Tuesday, 15th July 1902. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Brand. Mr. Hobhouse. Mr. Jeflreys. Mr. Brynmor Jones. Mr. Renshaw. Mr. Worsley-Taylor. The Right Honourable A. F. JEFFREYS in the Chair. The Right Honourable Thomas F. Halsey (a Member of the House), Examined. Chairman. 641. You have kindly come to give evidence with regard to Private Bill procedure and we should like to put to you a few qiiestions. You know what the reference to the Committee is as to whether we could make any alteration of the Standing Orders " in the interests of economy, •efficiency, and general convenience " ? — Yes. 642. I think you are the Chairman of the ■Committee of Selection ? — Yes, and also of the Standing Orders Committee. 643. ft is your Committee's business, is it not, to select the Committees who hear Private Bills ? — Yes, with the exception of the Chairmen of Railway Bills, who are selected from among the Members of the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, of which Sir John Kennaway is the Chairman, with that exception, we choose the Committees for all Private Bills. 644. Who has the appointment of those Chairmen ? — We appoint that Committee at the beginning of the Session, and the Chairman, too. Then, as regards every railroad or canal Bill (though we have not had any canal Bill lately), as regards any railway or tramway, in- cluding anything in the shape of a railroad, they appoint the Chairman from one of their own body, and then we add the other three mem- bers. 645. They appoint their particular Chairman for the particular Bill or group of Bills ? — Yes, and we appoint the other three members. We appoint the Chairmen and all the members of all the other Paivate Bill Committees. 646. Do you always re-appoint the Chairmen ; or do they occasionally lapse ; do you make it a rule to re-appoint the same Chairmen year after year ? — You mean the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills ? We usually re-appoint them, unless we have to fill up any vacancies which there may be from time or changes. 647. How does a vacancy occur ? — Sometimes a member says he does not wish to continue, and at other times there may be a vacancy through a death or resignation. 648. Do you ever inquire into the efficiency of Chairmen ? — We rather look to Sir .John Ken- naway as regards that. If there is a vacancy to be filled, I generally consult with him and hear Chairman— cow tinned. his views; at any rate, as to whom he would think fit, or I suggest somebody to him. And as regards other Chairmen, I always try to find out what 1 can as to their efficiency, and I hear indirectly sometimes. 649. In your experience has a Chairman ever been removed from the panel for inefficiency ?— No, I cannot say that. It would be a serious thing, because the man might come and ask why he was removed, and one could hardly tell him it was on account of inefficiency. I suppose probably if there was a reserve of efficient men on the Committee Sir John Kennaway would not appoint him to act; and in the same way in tne case of the other Committees of which we appoint the Chairmen, we some- times have private information that possibly a Member may not be quite equal to act as Chair- man for the class of Bills which he would have to deal with, and we take care when discussing whom we should put on as Chairman not to put him on. 650. So far as you and your Committee are concerned as regards railway Bills the Chairmen are appointed for the whole Parliament ? — Yes. 651. It has been suggested with regard to shortening the procedure of Bills through Parliament that one discussion in Parliament should be sufficient, either on second reading or on third reading. Have you any opinion to offer upon that point ? — I am not quite clear about that, because a Bill might be so altered in Committee as to raise ques- tions of principle which it might be desir- able that the House should have an oppor- tunity of discussing again either on report or on third reading, whichever you like. I should think myself the report itself would be the best stage for it. I think there is no doubt a great many Bills are quite needlessly discussed on second readings, when no question of principle is involved. Of course it is a difficult question, because every now and then private Bills are brought in which do involve questions of very important policy for the country or principles which may render discussion in the House not only advisable but absolutely neces- sary, as, for instance, the Channel Tunnel Bill, of which 46 MINUTES OF EVIOEXCE TAKEN' BEFOKE THE 15 July 1902.] The Right Hon. T. F. HALSEy (a Member of the House). [Gwitiniied. on the .second reading tendency has been, at any rate it the alteration of the rules, for Chairmun — continued. which we used to hear a good deal a few years ago, which involved questions of national defence, which it was of course highly important to have discussed. On the other liand I thinlc there is a great deal too much discussion at the present day Bills, and the was so before it to increase. 652. Would you allow these discussions to take place subject to the approval of some higher official or a Comniitteo of the House ? — The difficulty woidd be to decide to whom you would entrust the duty of giving such approval, 653. In the first place, do you approve of the idea? — ^I approve of the idea. I think, if you could devise a satisfactory body whom you could trust to say "This Bill involves questions of principle which it is desirable the House .should discuss," it might certainly .save a good deal of time. 654. Subject to .some supervision of that sort you would allow both discussions to take place, both on second and on third reading ? — I think so ; because a Bill might be so completely altered in Committee as to make it desirable that the House should have an opportunity of discussing it. 655. Do you think your Committee of Selection would be prepared to take over those duties ? — I hardly think they would. Our duties are of a more judicial character. We never go into the merits of a Bill in any shape or form. We always recognise our duty as being entirely of a judicial character, the questions coming before us having to be decided on statements which are put before us, and if necessary on evidence also, as to whether in any case in which the Examiner reports a non-compliance with the Standing Orders it is desirable to allow them to be dispensed with or not, but if we were to decide whether a Bill should be discussed m the House or not that might involve tiie taking of evidence of witnesses, and, perhaps, hearing speeches of counsel because I unagine the promoters of a bill would naturally prefer that their bill should not be discussed, and therefore they would ask to bo allowed to be heard in opposition to any proposal to have the bill discussed. 656. You would only have to criticise those bills of which notice of opposition had been given on second or third readmg, I presume ? — I am not quite clear that that Avould be so invariably, because it sometimes happens there may be very important principles involved in a private Bill which, owing to there being no local or personal opposition to it, might slip through unopposed. I think there ought to be somebody who should examine all Bills witli the view to guard against such a thing as that. 657. But at present, at any rate, l^)y far the great majority of private Bills get through with- out any discussion in the House? — Yes. The great majority of co\u'se do not involve any question of prmciple or policy, and in those cases 1 do not tliink it dcsiralilo there should bo dis- cussion. Chairman — continued. 658. At any rate you do not think that your Committee could undertake that duty ? — I think we could hardly undertake it. I think if we did, it would weaken our influence very much, because at present the Standing Orders Com- of pri v a te -mittce is (composed of some of the oldest and most experienced members of the House, and at the same time we have never recognised service on the Standinff Order Committee as exempting men from serving on Private Bill Committees. If we had that work to do, [ think, after we had gone into the Bills in that way, it would b© difficult for any honourable Member of our Committee to serve upon Committees upon the Bills. 659. As a matter of fact, thev never do serve upon Committees upon Private bills, do they ? — ■ 1 think cc;rtain of the Members sometimes would serve ; they serve as chairmen occasionally. 660. Have you any opiiiion to offer to us as to what official or what Committee should under- take this business ? — ^No ; I think that is rather a difficult question. I do not know whether the House woidd approve of it, but the idea has sometimes strucK me whether the Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means would do it. Of course, they have already plenty of work to do, or else, perhaps, they might undertake it. The Chairman of Ways and Means, I think already has to examine every private Bill for other reasons, and, therefore, he is more cog- nisant of these matters. 661. He has not to examine every opposed Bill, but only unopposed Bills ? — T did not know how that was ; 1 had an idea that he had cog- nisance to a certain extent of every Bill. 662. Is there any way which you could sug ■ gcst for promoting greater efficienc}' or general convenience as regards Private Bill jjroccdiu-e in the House ? — No. It has always struck me as. involving as a rule (though there again there may be exceptions), waste of time and great expense that Bills should be fought tooth and nad, you may say, in a Committee of this House or of the other House, as the case may be, and then come down from that House to this or go from this House to that and be fought again on exactly the same points. That is only my own personal opinion. It may be desirable in certain cases ; but I have often thought that as regards the great majority of Bills a strong Joint Com- mittee of the two Houses, if it could be arranged, would be better than the Bill going separately before a Committee of each House ; it would save time and trouble; and in this House, at any rate ([do not know, of course, how it would be in the other House), it would be a great saving of the labom' of the Committee of Selec- tion, because it would relieve them of the labour of getting so many Mon)bcrs to serve on Private Bill Committees, which is always an increasing difficulty every year. If we could hav(! Joint Committees a certain proportion of the Com- mittee woiTld be manned from the other House, and it woidd relieve this House very nuich of the gi'eat pressure of a duty which most honour- able Membei-s look upon as a verv disagreeable one, and one to be shirked, if possible. 663. You find you haA'e more difficulty in getting SELECT COMMITTEE ON J'RIVATE BUSINESS. 47 15 Jidy 1902.] The Right Hon T. F. Halsey (a Member of the House). {^Continued. Cluiirman — continued. getting Members to serve on these Committees now than you had formerly ? — Yes, I think that difficulty lias for many years been increasing. It may be partly because the number of Private Bills has increased a good deal of late years, and it may be that you i-eally want more Com- mittees ; I do not know how that is. No doubt you could get that from statistics and returns of the House. 663*. Are you aware that in the Inquiry into Private Bill procedure in 1898 Sir John Mow- bray made the same remark that you have made to-day ? — Yes, I remember he did. 664. At that time he said there was the greatest difficulty in getting Members to serve upon Committees ? — Yes. 665. If that difficulty has been accentuated every year since, as you say, one would think that by this time you would find nobody to serve upon a Committee ? — We do find it very hard sometimes, towards the end of a session especially, to get Members to serve. In this very .session, for instance, at this moment we have proctically exhausted nearly all the members of the Opposition that we are likely to get any work out of, and we shall have to make up two or three Committees, I think, entirely from one side of the House. The Opposition, I understand, do not object to that, in fact, an honourable Member on the Committee of Selection suggested tliat we being the larger party ought to take a larger share of the work ; but on the other hand 1 do not like the idea, and as a body we do not like the idea of manning a Committee entirely from one side, because it might give rise to comments. I think I am right in saying that at this moment there is, or will be shortly, one Committee manned entirely from Members on our side of the House. 66G. That was because you had exhausted the Members on the other side ? — Yes, because we had gone through all the Members on the other side whom we could get any service out of The character of Members, of course, has changed very much of late years ; we have more business men and more lawyers, and so on, and a number of Members object very much, especially if their business or work is in "^London, to being brought here in the morning to serve every day on a Committee that Avould take them away from their business. 667. Do you allow such excuses to hold good ? — We consider each case on its merits, but when a man comes and tells us (of course everything that is told us in the Committee of Selection is in strict confidence, and so T do not refer to any particular case) " If you insist upon my serving upon this Committee, I can only say my partner is ill, and I have nobody but myselt to attend to my business, and if I am to come here every day of the week except Saturday, either my business will go to smash and 1 shall become bankrupt, or 1 shall have to resign my seat " ; when he tells us that he may be exaggerating or he may not, but one is bound to believe him, and it makes it a very seiious responsibility to put one's foot down in a case like that and insist upon the Member serving. GG8. What, course do you pursue in regard to Chairman — continued. the lawyers in the House ? — We Uxke each case on its merits. In former days, as Sir John Mowbray said either in the evidence to which you have referred or in an answer to a question in the House (I forget which), the practice was that if a man was a practising barrister his name was at once struck oft' ; but we do not do that now ; we put them on the panels unless we know that they are really men who are so busily engaged in the courts that we feel it would be hardly feir, except in a case of great emergency, to drag them away from their work. There are other (^ases which we are doubtful about, and we consider each case, as I say, on its merits, and if we think right we put down the man's name on the panel. Then that man gets notice that he is on the panel, and he must be in attendance at a certain time to serve if required. Then if he objects he at once comes to us and gives reasons why he should not be called upon to serve, and we con- sider whether the reasons are sufficient or not. But as regards barristers there is of course the difficulty, that in the case of very successful men, leading men, for instance, of the class of the law officers of the Crown, and ex-law officers oi the Crown, they are very busy men, whom you could hardly ask to come and serve on Committees for perhaps a week or a fortnight on some question of the South Pedlington Gas Bill or something of that kind. On the other hand, there is another class of barristers to whom the same sort of difficulty applies. [ am speaking now only of what I have been told, because I am not a barrister myself; but I understand there is a certain class of barristers who are just beginning to rise and make their way, to whom it is a matter, perhaps, of even more vital necessity than the other class I have mentioned, that they should be able to be in Court day by day, because there are a ^reat many others who are equally good with them, and if they were away for a week serving on a Committee perhaps the solicitors who emploj them might might give the brief to some other man, who is equally good, and would do the work as well, and he might be kept on, and these Members might slip out ; so if tney had to serve on Committee it might be the means of seriously injuring them in their start in life. I have been told that that is so' 669. You think that your Standing Orders Committee could not undertake to supervise and decide as to whether a Bill should be discussed in the House ? — I think not. 670. But you approve of that idea >. — I think if something of the kind could be devised it would be a very good thing. Of course any duty that the House puts upon us we sliould endeavour to discharge to the best of our ability, but at the beginning of the session we have a great deal of work to get through. Now, practically, our work is very nearly over; we sliall have a meeting this afternoon when I think we shall have only one case before us, and we are no doubt nearly getting to the end of our work now ; but at the beginning of the session we have, as I say, a great deal of work ; there are a considerable number of cases of non-corp- plianco which come up to us ; some of them are very simple, and it would only take a few minutes 48 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOBE THE 15 July 1902.] The Eight Hon T. F. Halsey (a Member of the House). {Continued. Chairman — continued. minutes just to read through the statements, but in other cases it involves a good deal of dis- cussion and very careful consideration. It would increase the work very much at the beginning of a session, and I doubt if some of the Members would care so much to serve ; and it ought to be a strong Committee. Mr. Hohhouse. 671. One question with regard to this matter of second reading ; I daresay your attention has been directed to the evidence that was given by Mr. Lowther on this subject before this Com- mittee ? — No, I have not seen it. 672. Perhaps I might read you a short extract from his evidence He was asked at Question 50 : •' You propose that that should be a matter that should be decided by the Standing Orders ("ommittee ?" and he says, " Yes, it has been suggested that the powers should rest with me, with the Chairman of Ways and Means ; but 1 do not think that is very desirable. It would be rather difficult work to throv.' upon one individual. The Standing Orders Committee are already constituted ; they ah-eady deal with questions of the suspension of Standing Orders. This very case would really be a question of the suspension of Standing Orders, therefore I think they would be the proper body to consider it. The way in which it would work would be this : the opponents to a private Bill who think that some novel principle is involved, or that the Bill is of very great magnitude and ought to be discussed, or who have some other reason which they consider sufficient, would memo- rialise the Standing Orders Committee to suspend the Standing Orders in that case, and to order the Bill for second reading. Then the promoters of the Bill would state their case. The Standing Orders Committee would meet in ordinary course and would decide the question. They could hear the parties, if necessary, or they could simply decide upon the memorials which were presented to them." That was Mr. Lowther's suggestion, I daresay you Avould agree with him to this extent, that it might be objectionable to throw that task upon a smgle individual, upon the Chairman of Ways and Means ? — Yes, I can understand that feeling. On the other hand, I believe that a great many tasks of that sort are practically discharged by the corresponding official in the other House withovit any difficulty. 673. We cannot follow the precedents of the other House in all respects ? — I quite see that. 673*. Would you be disposed to go so far as this: that if some small Committee could be found to discharge such a duty as this it might be a great convenience to the House ? — I quite think that. The main objection I see to what you read from Mr. Lowther's evidence is this : that I do not know that it would always be safe to leave the power oi determining whether a Bill should be discussed in the House or not, entirely to the opponents of the Bill, because the opponents might be people opposing it in some personal or local interest of their own, and they might not trouble about questions in which their personal interests were not involved. 674. Surelv the suggestion is not that it Mr. Hohhouse — continued. should be left to them to determine it, but that they should be the persons to put the Standing Orders Committee in motion ? — Yes, that is what I mean. They might perhaps not feel disposed to raise the point ; there might be some point which was really very important, from a national or public policy point of view, which might not affect their opposition, and they might not think it worth while to put in motion the Standing Orders Committee, and so- a thing which might be very objectionable from a national point of view might slip through without any discussion simply because it did not affect the interests of the opponents. 675. Surely, as matters stand at present, the discussion on second reading are always initiated by opponents ? — I do not know if that is so. I think sometimes honourable Members look at Bills themselves and discover some principle- involved, and then they put down notice of opposition, or they could do so. 676. But that would still be so, would it not ? — If the words you read would cover that, well and good, but as I gathered from the words you read, it seemed to me that the only power of moving would be in the case of the actual opponents of the Bill, who might be opposing it on private grounds. 677. Of course, if it is a Bill of public interest, such as the Channel Tunnel Bill to which you referred, it would be open to a Member of the Government, for instance, to raise the question ? — If that would be so, my objection is met, but 1 did not think it was quite clear from the passage you read to me, however, I have not seen the evidence. 678. You think it might be possible to work out a system of that kind which would be a great convenience to the House through the- instrumentality of a small Committee ? — Yes, but I am not quite as clear as Mr. Lowther seemed to be, that the proceeding would be so simple as he thinks, because I cannot help thinking that the defenders of a Bill, at any rate, if not the opponents, would say " We ought to have the case fairly put forward; we ought to have counsel come and make speeches, and we ought to have ■witnesses broughl, here if necessary," and it might practically end in a much bigger inquiry than merely having written statements as he suggests. 679. At the same time it would not be necessary for the Committee to go into the merits of either side, but only into the general circum- stances of the Bill ? — I do not think it would be desirable that they should, but at the same time I think it would be very difficult to keep the question out in some cases. I should prefer cer- tainly that an independent small Committee should be appointed, at any rate at first, and then if it was found in practice that it worked well and that it was work that might be added to the Standing Orders Committee, it could be altered afterwards, but I think I should like to see the experiment tried in the first place by a small independent Committee ; you would not want a very large Committee. I should think the smaller the better. 680. With regard to another subject do you not think that it would be an advantage if the time for serving on Private Bill Committees during SELECT COMMiriEE OX I'RIVATE BUSINESS. 49 15 July 1902.] The Kight Hon, T. F. Halsey (a Member of the House). [Vimtinued. Mr. Hohhouae — continued. »t the promoters can renew their attempt Another year, whereas when once a decision has been given against an opponent, if there is only one inquiry, he has not another chance '.■ — That no doubt is quite true, but if a Bill has been thoroughly threshed out and gone into in one House I CIO not think (I am speaking without T)ook), you very often see a contrary decision given by the other House, although you may occasionally. 711. Is that your impression ? — That is my impression; I have no statistics on the subject. 712. Then I will not deal with cases. Now you said you did not see the advantage of having a Bill opposed in the second House on exactly the same jfrounds of objection as hi the first ?— My own idea was that it was a needless expense both to promoters and to opponents. 713. JJo you know what proportion of Bills are opposed in the second House at all ? — No, I ■could not say that. Those particulars perhaps might be obtainable in the office. 714. Do you know in what proportion of the iMses which are opposed in the seco;;d House the opposition is such as you have described ; that is to say, on exactly or substantially the same grounds ? — No, I do not. I quite admit there are exceptions to the rule. To name a very Mr. Worsley-Taylor — continued. recent instance, in the case of my own county coimcil the agent let a Bill slip through in this House without discovering that there was a clause in it which .-ippeared to him at any rate to iujnriously affect the interests of our county. VVe found it out, and we at once took steps to oppose in the other House, and I understand it has just been considered and we have been successful in our opposition. That is a case that rather tells against my theory I admit, but still I believe there is a saying that hard cases make bad laws, and I think we must look to the general rule. 715. Just to follow that out, take the case you put where the facts were exactly the same in the se(;ond House, but where those facts involved important questions of principle; do you see any reason why, it being an important question of principle, opponents should not have the right of discussing it even although the facts were absolutely the .same in the second House ? — It is a difficult question of course, and there is a good deal to be said on both sides, but I have (confidence in Committees of either House, and if the thing was thoroughly threshed out (and if it was an important thing no doubt it would be) witli the able counsel whom parties have to put the case before the Committee on both sides, I should be inclined to accept the decision of the Committee even if I did not always like it. 716. I put this case: Suppose an important (luet.tion of principle involved, an important question of private rights mixed up with a question of public policy; if the proceeding were by private Bill, as of right the Bill would have to go through the two Houses, why iu the case of a private Bill would you deny a similar right to the opponents ? — I do not propose that the de- cision of one Committee of either House as now (!onstituted should be binding : but I think a Joint Committee of the two Houses, as I said, would be such a strong tribunal that their decision ought to be final. I do not think any serious injustice would be done. Occasionally, as we all know, the decisions of other courts are not considered quite satisfactory. The Right Honourable John \V. Mellok (a Member of the House), Examined. C'hairma7i. 717. You are a Member of the House of Commons, and you have been Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, and therefore \nu have had a good deal of experience of Private Bills ?— Yes. 718. I do not know whether you have heard I he evidence given to us on the first day, but it was .said that the Bills came late to the House iif Commons in con.sequence of having to be (lepo.sited only on the 21st of December, and it WHS suggested that they should be deposited earlier ; have you got any remark to make on that point ? — that woukl be a matter with wliich I had very little to do. The question of the time of the deposit of Bills is really better explained by the agents. Mv impression (it is 0.23. GhairTuan — continued. not worth very much) is, that they might be deposited earlier with advantage. 719. So as to be in the hands of Committees earlier ? — So as to be in the hands of Committees earlier. 720. With regard to what has been said before this Committee as to the procedure in the House, do you advocate that there should be two discussions on Priviite Bills, both on second reading and on third reading ? — No, I think myself that a discussion on third reading would be better. Of course the objection to that is this : that the expense has then becui incurred, whereas if the Bill were thrown o;!t upon second reading that expense would not be incurred, but I think the Ctmimittee will G 2 fjrtd 52 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 15 July 1902 ] The Right Hon. J. W. Mellok (a Member of the House). [Gontinited. Chairman — continued. find that the number of Bills which are thrown out upon second reading is very small. 721. Do you think it would be better only to have one discussion on third reading or to still allow two discussions, subject to the approval of some official or some committee ? — I think, myself, the discussion on third reading wovild be sufficient. I am not sure that it is desirable in every case to have discussions in the House. If there was a Committee, the Committee might, on appeal being made to them, give permission for discussion on the second or third reading, but the difficulties with regard to such a Committee have just been pointed out by Mr. Halsey. When I was Chairman, I thought that a Committee of that kind might be formed which should consist of the Chairman of Ways and Means, or rather the Deputy- Chairman of Ways and Means, and deputies Avho were appointed by the Speaker. That is one suggestion. On the other hand undoubtedly the Committee on Standing Orders would be a very good tribunal to undertake this duty, if they could undertake it. 722. Would you state whether you would advocate that or not'; would you advocate only one third reading discussion, or would you advocate that we should have discussions, as we have now in the House, subject to the approval of some Committee or official ? — I think, on the whole, one discussion on third reading, as things stand at present, would be sufficient ; that is to say, assuming you keep this system. 723. Then you must remember that if you have only one discussion on third reading, if the Bill is thrown out upon third reading, all the trouble and expense has been wasted ? — That is quite true. 724. That might be avoided if you had the dis- cussion on second reading ? — It might be avoided if vou had the discussion on second reading ; but the number of Bills, as I said before, thrown out on second reading is so small that I doubt whether there would be any great practical injustice done by having the discussion on third reading ; that is, assuming you keep the matter in the hands of the House of Commons, as it is at the present time. If you have Joint Committees, then I think there would be still less objection, because as I think, as has been pointed out, Joint Committees are strong Committees, and people would be saved the double expense, and nc't only would they be saved the double expense but the time of Members of Parliament would be saved. I do think it is a serious tax upon Members of Parliament, considering the gi-eat amount of Private Bill work that there is, to require them to sit upon these Private Bill Com- mittees. 725. Then let us understand, you would ad- vocate a Joint Committee instead of two Com- mittees of the Houses ? — Yes. 726. And at the same time you would allow discussions on both stages of a Bill in the House, would you ? — No, I think I still would confine it to a discussion on third reading in each House. 727. Let me remind you of a case which took place last Session in which a large company CI tail -ma n — continued. were endeavouring to take up certain water rights over a poor rural district ; that Bill was- thrown out on second reading in the House, and the reason given was that it seemed to be an arbitrary measure and that the people who lived in that rural district could not afford to fight it through the stages of Committee ? — There is no doubt there would be very much fewer discussions on second reading if it was not so expensive for the opponents to come and ap- pear before Committees. 728. If your scheme held good and you had only a discussion on third reading, the people in the case of the Bill I mention would have been put to all the hardship and expense of opposing the Bill through all its stages ? — That is so no doubt. 729. That would be an injustice, would it not ? — There are cases undoubtedly in which hard- ship would be inflicted. I do not suggest there are not ; but I say they would be veiy rare. But it might bo met in other ways. I am not at all sure it would not be better that there should be some committee to give people leave to appear in person before Committees of the House c/ Com- mons to set forth their grievances in opposition to a Bill. That is one system. But there is another. 730. One moment before you pass from that. Would not that extend the time of sittings of Committees to an enormous extent ? — I do not think it would. I think it would veiy often very much shorten the discussion, because a man who appeared in person and told his story would be a short and not a long witness, and he would have to go to no expense. If he was a poor man he could come before the Committee and tell them his story. 731. Under certain conditions he can still do' so, that is to say, if he has a locus sHndi ? — But he has to go before the Court of Referees and get a locus standi. 732. But surely you would not allow him to come without a 'locus sta/adl ? — No ; but I think the rules of the Court of Referees might be re- laxed with regard to some of the cases, and people might be allowed to come and tell their own story. Then I should like to say something more with regard to this point. The Unopposed Bill Committee deals with all Bills in respect of which the petitions have been withdrawn ; that is to say, where the petitioners have been settled with by the promoters of the Bill and the pe- titions withdrawn ; but it does not at all follow that an unopposed Bill which is vinopposed in that sense, is a Bill that ought to pass. It comes before the Unopposed Bill Committee ; but they have no information and no means of knowing whether this Bill ought to be allowed to pass or not, because there is no person before the Un- opposed Bills Committee to represent the public. The Public Departments send Reports before the Unopposed Bills Committee, but they only report upon matters which affect their own depart- ments ; and, therefore, so far as the interests of the public at large are concerned, there is no person before the Unopposed Bills Committee to represent the public. 733. Does not the Chairman represent the pub- lic ? — But the Chairman can get no information It SELECT COMMITTEE 0\ PBIVATE BUSINESS 58 15 July 1U02.] The Ki"ht Hon. •). \V. iMellor (u Member of the House). [Continued. ClMirman — continued. It \fi quite true that upon the materials betore him the Chairman acts and tries to do his best for the public; but all the information the Chairman gets is the information afforded by the people in favour of the Bill ; and therefore he never knows whether the Bill ought to be allowed to pass or not. I had a case oefore me when I was Chairman of Ways and Means which illustrates my meaning; it was a question of water rights. I should have known nothing whatever about the grievance with regard to that Bill if it had not been that the Member who represented the district through which the Bill was to come into operation (1 forget the exact nature of the Bill), was on the Unopposed Bill Committee, and he said to mo, "1 wish to call your attention to the fact that this Bill takes away the water rights of a number of jioor cotta- gers along the line " (naming the line), " without compensation ; those poor cottagers are not here, they cannot come here, and there is no redress." Thereupon I said to the agents, " Before I allow this Bill to pass you must satisfy the Com- mittee with refflxrd to this matter," and I ad- journed the Bill for a fortnight. In the mean- time explanations were made, which were satis- factoiy. and then the Bill was allowed to pass. If it had not been for the accident of this Member being on the Committee we should never have known anything about this ; the Bill would have passed the Unopposed Bill Conmiittce and would have gone through the House as an unopposed Bill. 734. How do you suggest to remedy that ? — There was a case in the House of Commons which possibly the Members of the Committee may remember, it was a Scotch Bill. That Bill had passed the Unopposed Bill Committee when some Members of the House of Commons Avere told that it was a Bill that interfered with some very fine scenery in Scotland, indeed there was a Petition sent to the House of Commons from nearly all the artists in Scot- land against the Bill : and on looking into the matter it seemed as if the railway company Avas going really to destroy the view and to seriously affect a very beautiful piece of scenerjs and Mr. Bryce and certain other private Membei-s opposed the Bill on third reading on those facts. It was plain a-s the discussion proceeded that if the facts in our possession then had been com- numicated to the Private Bill Committee, they would not have allowed the Bill to pass without some investigation. What the Chairman would have done is, that he would have sent the Bill upstairs to a Committee in order that they might investigate the matter. In the result the House of Commons did that very thing ; they appointed a Committee to sit upstan-s and inquire into all the circumstances. They inquired into the circumstances and altered the Bin. Of course the question is, upon what persons or upon what department tliat duty ought to fall. I know at the time I thought the Home Office would be the proper Depart- ment of the Government to take up this matter, and that some person ought to appear before these Committees who should represent the public — that is to say, some officer of the Home Office. Chairman — continued. 735. Would you say the Home Office or the Local Government Board ? — I am not sure that is a departmental question — I rather think the Home Office would be the best. 736. But you think there ought to be some official before the Committee on Unopposed Bills in order to check any irregularities in a Bill ? — Yes. Of course I am assuming in that answer that you keep the Unopposed Bill Committee. 737. Now, with regard to the Unopposed Bill Committee, from your experience of that Com- mittee do you think it is right that the super- vision and criticism of Bills should rest with the Speaker's Counsel, as it does now, instead of actually with the Chairman of Committees ? — No, I do not. 738. What is your opinion with regard to that ? — I think the Unopposed Bill Committee ought to be abolished, that is to say, it ought not to sit as it does now. I think it would bo very much to the advantage of the public if all these Bills came before an ordinary Committee in the ordinary way, and that some official, either from the Home Office, as I suggested just now, or from the Local Government Board, appeared before that Committee to watch the Bills in the interests of the public. In that w&y you would have a better tribunal. The matter, mstead of being settled in the room of the Chairman of Ways and Means, Avould be tried judicially, and I think that would be a very much better course. Of course, the Speaker's Counsel might sit with that Committee ; there is no reason why he should not. 739. Is it the fact that although the Unop- posed Bill Committee is generally supposed to consist of three Members, as a matter of fact it nearly always consists of the Chairman and the Speaker's Counsel ? — That is so. 740. And the supervision of the Bills really rests almost entirely with the Speaker's Counsel ? —That is so, because the Chairman of Ways and Means, has a gi-eat deal too much to do. 741. That is your experience ? — That is mj- experience. For mstance, the Chairman of Ways and Means has, the first thing in the morning, or some time in the morning, to go through all the amendments to the Bill on which he is pro- bably sitting during the sittings of the House. Yesterday afternoon and evening, for instance, the Chairman of Ways and Means was sitting as Chairman of the Committee of the House on the Education Bill. In the morning he has to go through the amendments in regard to the Bill ; it is a very laborious and somewhat diffi- cult thing ; and if he is to do his duty he ought to be able to devote the whole morning to it. But he cannot do that, because he very often has to come down to the House of Commons about eleven or half- past eleven o'clock to sit upon the Unopposed Bill ( 'ommittee, or to have before him promotersandopponentsin cases where they want his intervention. So that the time of the Chairman of Waj's and Means is very much occupied and he has a great deal too much to do. It is very difficult for anybody to do all that work and to sit till late at night in the House of Commons besides. The remedy I think is the remedy which I suggested in the House r.A MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 15 July 1902.] The Right Hon. J. W. Mellor (a Member of the House). [(-'iriiiinuol. Chahinan — continued. House, when I spoke upon these new rules ; i thought then, and I think now, that there ought to be a second Chairman ap- pointed as ;in official of the House, paid and appointed in the same way as the Chairman of Ways and Means, who should have control of the private Bill business. It ijhould bo assigned to him and he .should ..attend to that part of the duty. In that way assuming you keep to the present system you would enable the Chairman of Ways and Means to do his work with much more satis- faction to himself and to all concerned. 742. That of course applies more to the middle and latter part of the session when Bills get into Committee, than the earlier part :' — That is so. At the same time in the earlier part there is a certain amount of work that has to be done with regard to jjrivate Bill business by the Chairman of Waj-s and Means. For instance as things stand at present there is goiiig through of the Bills; he lias to meet the Lord Chairman in the other House and to sit and hear what the agents have to say and to separate the Bills into two classes and to determine which shall begin in the House of Commons and which shall begin in the House of Lords. That is a matter that takes a good deal of time ; that has to be done very early in the session. 743. Then you would have the private Bill procedure, so far as imopposed Bills are con- cerned, rather modelled on the House of Lords procedure ? — I do not know exactly what the House of Lords procediu-e is in that respect. 744. The House of Lords procedure is ver}- much what you describe. The Lord Chairman goes carefully through the Bills instead of the Speaker's Counsel ? — Yes. 745. Of course, as you say, that would be quite impossible for the Chairman of Ways and Means ti) do under the present .system ? — Quite impos- i-ible. The Chairman of Ways and Means cannot tind time to read his Bills. In the House of Lords, of course, it is easier for the Lord Chair- man in that House, because the House of Lords does not sit so long at night. • 746. Have you anything to say with regard to Standing Ord.er 22 in reference to consents in tlie case of tramways Bills ? — Yes. I should like to say something as to that. I think the consent in that case undoubtedly ought to be given before the Bill is deposited, and that it ought to be a real consent — in the ordinary sense of the term " consent." 747. May I remind you what the Standing ( )i'der says as to consent in the case of Tramway Bills — it is Standing Order No. 22 ; — " In cases of Bills to authorise the laying down of a tram- way the promoters shall obtain the consent of the local authority of the district or districts through which it is proposed to construct such tramway." But they may give such consents at iuiy period before the Committee stage ? — Yes. 748. Would it, in your opinion, be reasonable tu make it read in this way : " In cases of Bills to authorise the laying down of a tramway the })romoters shall " (then inserting these new words^ " on or before the 15th day of December inmiediately preceding the application for any Gha Irnuvii — continued. such Bill obtain the consent of the local autho- rity," &c. I. — I think it would. 1 think it is very desirable that those consents should be obtained before the Bill is deposited. 749. It is an unreasonable anomaly in your view that they should be able to appear as petitioners against the Bill at any time before the Committee stage ? — Quite so. If there was a petition lodged by a local authority against the Bill, they ought only to be heard with regard to any alterations that may have taken place in the Bill since the consent was given — smce the Bill was deposited. 750. You think that woidd simplify the pro- cedure ■ — I think it woidd. 751. You have told us you approve of a third reading discussion only ? — Yes. 752. And that you approve of a Joint Com- mittee ? — Yes, I have heard it suggested that there might be cases in which a Joint Com- mittee might make some difficulty, but I have never met with stich a case. I have never my- self met with any c^ase which could not be, in my opinion, satisfactorily disposed of by a Joint Committee. 753. If the suggestion were carried out that these Bills shotild be tried before a Joint Com- mittee, do you not think that you ought to allow both stages of a Bill to be discussed in tiie House— for you would be taking away one tribunal you see ? — That is very true, but at the same time the third reading discussion is a very full discussion. Of course you could still keep two stages — not the second reading, but the Report stage and the third reading stage. I think the third reading stages ought to be regarded as appeals to the House from decisions of Connnittees ; that is my idea. 754. To stim up your evidence again : yoti ap- prove of one thu'd reading discussion. Joint Committees and a Committee on unopposed Bills rearranged in the way j^ou suggest ? — Precisely. 755. 1 do not know whether you would like to say anything with regard to economy, or as to the expenses or fees of the House ? — I noticed from the short note that I saw of the evidence of the Chairman of Ways and Means, that he thought it undesirable to diminish the cost of private l^ill legislation. I am not prepared to go quite so far. [ think it may be that the evil which he anticipates may exist to a certain extent, namely, that people may be induced to speculate in Bills if you reduce the cost to promoters. I have never come across a case of that kind, but the Chairman has, and therefore there are such cases. But where I think the cost ought to be reduced is in the case of small opponents, that is to say, poor opponents to private Bills. I do think that there the whole costs of opposition are very considerable. ' and the people are very often frightened or induced not to take steps against private Bills because of the expense. As I said _]ust now, I think that is a cause of a good many of these oppo.sitions to Bills on second reading. 756. Because they are afraid of the expense of contesting these Bills before Committees ? — Yes, tiike for instance the case of Irish Bills. The expense of contesting an Irish Bill for a man of cmly moderate means in Ireland is verv ureat. He SELECT COMMITTEE OX PRIVATE HUSINESS 55 15 July 1902.] The Right Hon. J. W. Mellor (a Member of the House). [Continued. Chairmu n — continued. Ho has to come over to London, to bring his witnesses all over to London, to employ counsel and agents, and all that ; and it is a very serious matter. The consequence is that you see a great many motions against the second reading of Irish Bills (indeed j'ou used to do so also as regards Scotch Bills). 757. Then would you have the system of Provisional Orders more extended than it is ? — I think the system of Provisional Orders is a very good .system. 758. Of course that is a very great saving of expense ?— I think so, and I do not see why that system should not be extended. For my part I should like to see a local inquiry, "l b(4ievc the private business of the House would bo much more satisfactorily done by a local inquiry than it can be done by people sitting in London who do not know the locality and who simply have to act upon the description of those who profess to know it. 759. We have heard that that would increase the expense, that the fees of these great lawyers going down to the country, and the agents, would cost a great deal more than if the cases were heard here ? — If that is so you must have a very inefficient taxation of costs; because the check upon all that is the taxation of costs. Of course you could say to promoters. If you choose to take some leader of the Bar from London, we will say to Scotland, you nmst pay for it, but I shall not allow the opponents to pay any part of that cost. 7G0. But in Scotland they have their own counsel ? — I ought not to say Scotland, but take for instance, England, take Yorkshire for ex- ample : Supposing you have a local inquiry in Yorkshire, to take counsel from London is a luxury. If promoters think their interests will be served by taking counsel trom London down to Yorkshire at any time, they ought to pay for it, and the other side ought onlv to pay a pro- portion of the fee — that is, such a fee as the Taxing Master thinks is feir. 761. Of course with your experience you would know that if the inquirv is held here, a great counsel may be engaged m two or three cases on the same day, if ho goes down to Yorkshire, he gives up the whole of his day and perhaps more on a single case ? — Yes, but there are plenty of counsel in Yorkshire who would conduct the case with great ability, without doing any in- justice to anybody. 762. You think that a local inquiry would conduce to economy ?— I think that a local inquiry, with a proper system of taxation, would conduce very much to economy, and I have no doubt whatever that it would enable a Committee to arrive at the truth nmch more easily than they do now. 76;-t. Then with regard to another matter. Do you think it would be for the benefit of the House, that so many Membei"s should be taken away on Committees / — No ; if I am to criticise the Scotch system, that is the fault I should find with the Scotch system. I do not think Members of Parliament ought to be taken awfiy from London to sit upon these local inquiries — my own opinion — and I believe Clutirvwv — continued. when I say this, I am representing the opinion of a great number of people who had a great deal of experience in this matter, — is that the panel niight be formed by the chair- men of the county councils in those various counties, to hold the.se local inquiries ; and I think that would give satisfaction to the public and to all concerned. 764. Then do you mean to say you would advise Parliament to delegate its powers to coimty councils in those cases ? — Yas, because its appeal jurisdiction would remain with Parlia- ment ; so that if anything went wrong, you have only to go to the House of Commons or to the House of Lords, or to both, to set it right. In the Scotch system it is so. The other day there was an application in the case of a Scotch Bill that had Tbeen tried in Scotland, and the House decided that any persims coming to them must come by way of appeal and that unless they made a prima facie case of grievance the House would not entertain it because they considered the matter ought to be settled in Scotland. That struck me as a very salutary ruling. The effect of that would be, if they were people who had any real grievance, to have tlioir grievance brought out in Parliament, and if the House so desired the}' could always refer it to a Joint Com- mittee in London, which would give a re-trial and a second hearing, and that would effectually prevent any mjustice being done. 765. Have you anything else you wish to sa}- with regard to these inquiries ? — I think it would be found, that certain county councils in York- shire and Lancashire were quite willing and ready to undertake these inquiries. 766. Would they be ready to undertake these duties after they have liad the question of education thrown upon them ? — That is a question which it is very difficult to answer. 1 think possibly it maj- be found that they would rather sit upon these inquiries than have t(^ conduct these schools under the Education Bill. 767. You do not think the}' could do both ? — I do not know; I should like to ask their opinion about that. Mr. Menshatv. 768. I understand you to say with regard to the position of the Chairman of Ways and Means in this House, that you consider from your experience, which is a considerable one, that the work devolving upon him is greater than he can pi'operly overtake ? — I do. 769. You think lie ought to be relieved by the appointnient of a Deputy Chairman, which the House has now made ? — Well, I think that the Deputy Chairman ought to be a salaried official of the House, just as the Chairman of Ways and Means is ; because I think you ought not in any way to put the Deputy Chairman in an inferior position. If he is to exercise all powers which are now put upon the Chairman, undoubtedly the Deputy Chairman ought to be an official of the House. 770. Then would not the benefit of making the Deputy Chairman a paid official be that he would then be able to have relegated to him specially the 56 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN KEF01!E THE 15 Jidy 190-2.] The Right Hon. J. W. Mellor (a Member ot the House). [L'ontinnetl. Mr. Renshaiv — continued, the very onerous and laborious duties connected with Private Bill legislation in the House ? — That is so. 771. You think in connection with the dis- charge of that duty to the House there ought to be associated with him a periniinent Committee which would have referred to it, in addition to other matters that would naturally come before it, all unopposed Bills ? — Yes, I thmk that would be a very good plan. 772. And it should be the duty of that Com- mittee presided over by the Dcputv Chairman to inquire into all questions that might be brought before that Committee as affecting public rights ? — Quite so. 773. I think you suggested in the course of your evidence that it would be desirable that this matter of inquiring into public rights should be left in the hands of the Home Office ? — Yes. 774. You would suggest, of course, as the Home Office would not apply to all parts of the United Kingdom, that other departments should be selected for Scotland and Ireland ? — Yes ; I merely suggested the Home Office because of the very great variety of these public rights ; I thought the Home Office probably would be the best Office to entrust the duty to in England. 775. I should like to ask you whether you do not think it would be possible for the House itself to have an official appointed, in a somewhat ■different position to the Counsel to the Speaker at present, who should have the duty of looking after these matters ? — No, I cannot say that I do, I think the Counsel to the Speaker per- forms a very useful duty. 776. Do you not thmk that it is rather an .anomaly that apparently almost the only duty of the Counsel to the Speaker, as he is called, is, not to act as Counsel to the Speaker, but always to act in connection with private Bill legislation and with the Chairman of Committees ? — The Counsel to the Speaker is the adviser to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is the Deputy Speaker. But 1 have known the counsel to the Speaker consulted by the Speaker. I do not know a case in which he was consulted by the present Speaker, but I have certainly known cases in which he was consulted by Mr. Speaker Peel. 777. In regard to private Bill legislation ? — No, not always, but in respect of matters which were brought to the attention of the Speaker. 778. With regard to questions of drafting ? — Questions of drafting — yes, and others. 779. Not with regard to questions of procedure ; because there Mr. Speaker consults — not the Counsel, but the clerks at the Table ? — If I remember rightly, it was rather with regard to the construction of statutes. I think that was the point upon which Mr. Speaker Peel consulted the counsel to the Speaker. 780. Would you refer to such a Committee as you indicated your preference for such matters as are now discharged by the Committee on Standing Orders ? — -Yes, I think I should. I think, supposiiiff you had a strong Committee, such as it would be with the Deputy Chairman and the Members that I suggested, you might give them the duties which are now discharged by the Committee on Standing Orders. Mr. RensJiaw — continued. 781. What number of Members would you suggest should form that Committee ? — Five, I think. 782. Not .seven ? — It might be, but I think five is the least number. 783. Might I carry that last question a little further, and ask you whether you think it would be possible for that Committee to consider and decide questions of locus standi also, and get rid of the Court of Referees as at present consti- tuted ? — I am not sure as to how tar the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means under those cir- cumstances would have time ; but if he had time undoubtedly it would be desirable that that Committee should discharge all those duties. 784. But if the Deputy Chairman who was ex-officio the Chairman of the Committee had not time actually to take the chair at Commit- tees when it sat on questions of locus standi, it would be delegated to the Chairman of the Com- mittee ? — I think if those duties were imposed on that Committee it would be better that the Committee should consist of seven. 785. You think that a strong Committee con- stituted in that way would really be able to deal with the whole of the questions connected with Standing Orders, with locus standi, and Avith unopposed Bills ? — I think so. The fact is the Committee would be so strong that they would have great weight with the House, and consequently some questions which are now occa»sionally raised would not be raised at all. 78(3. Now with regard to a question that was put to you as to the reference of Bills to Joint Committees instead of the Bills going before Committees of the two Houses, do you think that if Bills were referred to a Joint Committee there ought to be a possibility of rehearing by a subsequent Joint Committee, and if so under what circumstances ? — I think any rehearing ought to be by Order of the House — that is of one House or the other. I do think that it would be desirable to keep the power as a sort of appeal ; at the same time such cases would be extremely rare. A strong Committee of the two Houses would prevent appeals. It has always been found, I think, that a strong Court diminishes the number of appeals very con- siderably, and that if you have (such as you would have in a Joint Committee of the two Houses) a strong tribunal there would be very much fewer appeals than there would be in the case of a weak Committee. 786*. But you still think that on the hearing by a Joint Committee there should be, after re- ference to the House and the decision of the House having been obtained, the possibility of a rehearing ? — I think so. 787. That would get over the objection which has been urged as to the Joint Committee being final in its decision ? — Quite so. 788. Now there is one question to which the attention of the Committee has been directed, but which I do not think you were asked any question about, that is, as to the methods by which the progress of Bills could be hastened in the House. Is it your opinion that the date at which petitions for Bills nad to be deposited at present, viz., the 21st of December, so far as the House SELECT COMMirrEE ON PRIVATE lU'SINESS. 57 16 July 1902.] The Right Hon. J. W. Mellor (a Member of the House). [(Jontinw d. Mr. Renshaw — continued. House of Commons is concerned, is too late, liaving regard to the early period in the ensuing year at which the House generally meets now ? — That is a matter, I think, upon which a Chair- man of Ways and Means has very little inform- ation or knowledge, because he never sees those Bills. 789. The question I wish to lead up to I will put in this way. If it was not practicable to make arrangements for lodging petitions for Bills at an earlier date than at present, do you think there would be any objection to fixing a date, say 30 days after the presentation of pe- titions in favour of Bills, for petitions in oppo- sition to Bills ; that is to say, that petitions in opposition would be lodged prior to the meeting of Parliament? — I see no objection to that whatever ; it would be in the nature of pleadings, that is to say, it is like the old bill of complaint and answer. I think it would be, I thmk, a desirable course. 790. You say that with the knowledge that at present 10 days is allowed from the first reading of the Bill to the presentation of peti- tions m the House ? — Yes, I do not myself think that is necessary. 791. And that impedes the progress of Private Bill legislation in the earlier part of the session ? — I have no doubt it is so. 792. Mr. Lowther stated the other day in his evidence to us that in recent years a period of from 35 to 41 days has elapsed between the date of the meeting of Parliament and the sitting of the first Committees on Private Bills. Is it your opinion that that is too long a period ? — I think it is a great deal too long a period. I think it would be very much to the advantage of the House if these Committees could sit a great deal earlier. 793. Within about a week of the meeting of Parliament ? — I do not see why not, unless there is some practical difficulty with which 1 am unacquainted. There may be some reason known to the agents that I do not know of, why it would be difficult to get the matter ready ; but if it could be done it would clearly be to tlie advantage of the House of Commons, because the work of members would be spread more evenly over the whole time. 794. And not only that, but having regard to the new rules, and the fact that the House now meets at two o'clock in place of three, would not the starting of Committees to work in the period when the House is engaged itself in second readings and business of that kind, make it easier for Members to 'give a more prolonged and steady attention to Private Bill Committees when they were sitting ? — Yes, I think so. 795. And that would be a valuable im- provement ? — Yes, I think so. 720. Do you see any objection, from your experience in past years, to a fixed date being settled, after which Bills originating in the House of Commons should be refused a second reading. No doubt you are aware that at present the second reading is not infrequently delayed of Bills, and that that throws back the Committee work, and having regard to those two facts, do not you think it would be desir- able that the House should fix a date after which 0.23 Mr. Renshaw — continued. second readings should not be taken ? — Yes, I do. It must of course be subject to this : that in case of any extraordinary circumstances arising, the House should have power to alter the date by suspending the Standing Order. 797. Or would you leave such a matter as that to the decision of the Commitee that you have already suggested ? — Yes, I would ; that is to say, the Deputy Chairman would then apply to the House to suspend the Standing Order if the Committee thought it should be done. 798. I think, in regard to the subject of a local inquiry, you are opposed to those local in- quiries being made bv Members of this House, as has been the case m Scotland ? — Yes. 799. You are aware, I suppose, that in the case of Scotland there has been i.o difliculty in securing the attendance of Members where Bills have been submitted to them ? — I was not speaking so much with regard to the conve- nience of Members themselves, although that ought to be considered ; I was referring to the constituents who are entitled to the services of their Member while Parliament is sitting in London. I do not know what the Scotch con- stituents would say, because I have no experi- ence on that subject in Scotland, but I can only speak with regard to English Members, take Yorkshire, or Lancashire Members, that the constituents would be very much aggrieved if their Members were taken away, say, either to try a case in Scotland or in Cornwall or Wales, or any other place. 800. I think you suggest that the panel for carrying out local inquiries should be constituted by the chairmen of county councils ? — Or by a committee of county councils. 801. What reason have you for excluding the municipal bodies altogether from that sugges- tion ?— I do not know that I have any particular reason ; the only thing that occurred to me about it was that as a railway, say, runs through a considerable district the countv council is the best body nf people to undertake the appoint- ment of the tribunal that is to sit upon it ; you are more likely to get local knowledge, which is what you want from the county council than from the council of a municipal borough. At the same time I do not want to express any very positive opinion as to the exclusion on inclusion of municipal authorities. That is a question really for consideration when the scheme is brought forward, but I think that some sort of body representing these people, such as in York- shire and Lancashire where you get first rate county councils, who thoroughly understand all the detail of these matters, would be a very good one for this purpose, I have no doubt. 802. Would it not be rather a case of appoint- ing judges in their own cases ? — No, I do not thmk so. Why should it ? No man would sit who had any personal interest in the Bill ; and I do not think you suffer at all from local know- ledge. I believe myself that you would get these things tried in a much more satisfactory way by people who had local knowledge. 803. Is not the interest very much the same interest whether it is a county interest in Corn- wall or in Yorkshire ? — I do not quite appreciate the question. H 804. I only 58 MINl.'TES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 15 Jwljl 1902.] The Right Hon. J. W. Mellor (a Member of the House). [Continued. Mr. llenshaw — continued. 804. I only asked that with a view of asking you this question: Whether you do not think that on the whole it would be better that that some outside authority like the Secretary of State should nominate the panel for the various areas if such a panel was constituted ?— I do not know that there is any great objection to that, except that I think these great county councils, representing, as they do, enormous and very important districts, would be very capable of forming an excellent panel. Mr. Worsley -Taylor. 805. Would you preserve the existing system of Provisional Order Inquiry ? — ^I thmk you might extend it. 806. But would you interfere with the existing system, first of all; would you substitute, in other words, your new tribunal for the existing one where now a Provisional Order is possible ? —Wherever a local inquiry is necessary, I think it would be better done by such a tribunal as I suggest. 807. So that you would alter the existing tribunal ? — On the other hand, the persons who are sent down to make the local inquiry under the present system are all skilled people, and I have no doubt that the local inquiries are con- ducted very satisfactorily ; but at the same time I think uniformity of system would be a good thing. 808. Uniformity of procedure, you mean ? — Uniformity of procedure ; that is to say, that the tribunal that should make the local mquiry in one case should make the local inquiry in the other. 809. So as to preserve continuity of principle ? —Yes. 810. Do you think you could secure that better by such a local tribunal as you have referred to than you do under the existing sys- tem of inspectors sent down by the Local Government Board, say ; vou think you would not secure greater uniformity by means of them ? — I doubt it. I do not myself see any great advantage. I do not mean to say for a moment that they do not do their work well ; I have no doubt that they do ; but at the same time I think you would secure greater uniformity and you would have the work equally well done or better done if you had a local tribunal. 811. To what class of cases would you extend the system to which it does not now apply ? — That is a question that it is somewhat difficult to answer. I think it might be extended in <5ases where the cost is a serious matter. 812. You mean relatively unimportant cases ? — Relatively unimportant cases. 813. But have you in your mind any class of case where a Provisional Order is not now possible, to which you would extend the system ? — At the moment I cannot answer that question. 814. Then subject to considering the question of altering the tribunal, would you in the rest of the procedure maintain the present system of the decision of the first tribunal coming before Committees of this House, or would you adopt the .suggestion which has been made, that you need not have a double inquirv here, but that you would have a confirmation by a Joint Corn- Mr, Worsley -Taylor — continued. mittee of the two Houses ? — Certainly I would have a confirmation by a Joint Committee. 815. So that your idea would be to extend, if possible, the existing system, substitute what you consider might be a better tribunal, and have the case confirmed by a Joint Committee of the two Houses ? — Confirmed on appeal by a Joint Committee. I say on appeal, because I daresay you may recollect that when the Scotch Bill passed through the House of Commons indeed when it became an Act, some people supposed — indeed I think the Lord Advocate supposed — that people would be able to come to the House of Commons as a matter of right; having had their local inquiry in Scotland, if they are dissatisfied they would come to the House simply as a matter of right without making any case. Mr. Renshaw. 816. A Joint Committee of the two Houses ? — Yes : but I was speaking of the coming from Scotland. But the House of Commons decided that they must come by way of appeal. Mr. Worsley Taylor. 817. The House of Lords?— The House of Commons. I was on it when the matter took place, and the Lord Advocate upon that discus- sion said that he was under the impression up to that moment that people should come with- out making a primd facie case, but the House on the other hand decided by a large majority. I do not know that it went to a division, but there was evidently a very strong feeling in the House — that it ought to be only on appeal, and thereupon the Lord Advocate said that whatever his own private opinion might have been, he should certainly give way to the opinion of the House, and that for the future people must come by way of appeal. 818. Then your suggestion is that, unless the House gave leave, there should be no appeal from this outside tribunal ? — Precisely. 819. Composed of members appointed by the county council ?— Composed of members ap- pointed by the county council. 820. And an appeal would be got by appeal to the whole House ?— By appeal to the whole House. 821. And discussion in the House ? — And discussion in the House. 822. In your view is that a satisfactorv way of dealing with tha merits of a question wfiich hsf been discussed by a qiuisi judicial court ?— -Yf because I think there ought to be no appt unless a strong case is made. If the perj. aggrieved, or who think themselves aggrieved, are capable of making a strong case, then they can come to the House with case ; but I do not think there ought to be any appeal from such a tribunal unless a very strong case is made. 823. Would you have this procedure for the benefit of the House or for the benefit of the parties ? — For the benefit of the public. 824. The House and the parties to the case ? — Yes. I should like to point out in answer to that, that when people come to ask the assistance of Parliament they must be content to put up with such conditions as Parliament puts upon them SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 59 15 July 1902.] The Right Hon. J. W. Mellor (a Member of the House). [Continued. Mr. Worsley -Taylor — continued, them. It is not like an ordinary cause in which A has been injured by B, and brings an action ; but people who come to Parliament come to ask the assistance of Parliament ; that is to say, they appeal to the public to enable them to do some- thmg which they could not do without the assistance of Parliament, and therefore the matter ought to be treated in a somewhat different way from the way you would treat an ordinary cause. 825. Is there any hardship that is now com- plained of by people to your knowledge under the present system ? — The only hardship that I have heard ot is that people complain very nnich of the cost of private litigation, as they call it — really private legislation — I have heard com- flaints both from promoters and opponents, but think the people who have the real grievance are the opponents —that is to say, people who oppose for some private interest. 826. Now?— Now. 827. Do you think their grievance would be less if you took away their chance of appeal ? — I think their grievance would be much less if they could have a local tribunal, and came before the people in any shape they pleased and tell them their story. 828. Without the right to appeal ? — I would leave the right of appeal. 829. By leave of the House ? — I would leave the right to appeal to the House, because it is relatively an inexpensive procedure, and a man who is one of the opponents of a Bill, who would be injured in his rights, whether it is a water-right or any other right that he has — say, the right, for instance, of fresh air, or prospect from his house, or anything else — if the local tribunal did him any injustice, would be able to come to the House itself and ask for a re- hearing. 830. Then how would the House be informed of the facts ? — Either he must go to some Mem- ber and tell him his story and ask him to bring it before the House, or he must petition the House in some form or other. 831. There would be statements of facts on both sides ? — Yes. 832. And each side would get hold of certain Members and post them in the facts and get them to represent them ? — Just as they do now on second reading. 833. Do you consider the second reading procedure, as it is now, satisfactory ? — No, 1 do not. 834. The promoter is the man who seeks to alter the law, I take it ? — Yes. 835. The opponent is the man who is brought there to oppose him ? — That is so. 836. You know that there are a fair proportion of cases in which the decisions of one House are J reversed upon appeal by the second House, and ^ that that occurs both on decisions of the other House reversed in this, and on decisions of this House reversed in the other House ? — I think that such things are comparatively rare. 837. Do you know the proportion of Bills which are opposed in the second House ? — No, I do not. 838. Do jou know the proportion of opposed Bills in which the decision is rever>-od ? — No, 1 0-23 Mr. W or aley -Taylor — continued. do not, but I fancy it is very small. The advantage of the joint tribunal would be that you would in one sense put an end to litigation. If you have a Joint Committee, people appear before the Joint Committee and take its decision. There must be some body which should be able to give a final decision. The mischief of all our system is, that you can go to so many different tribunals, and increase the expense. I believe myself that one great advantage of a Joint Committee would be that it would be a strong Committee, and would put an end to much of the difference and dispute which takes place over these Private Bills. Mr. Brynmor Jones. 839. As I understand your evidence-in-chief you think that upon the whole the public, or certain classes of the public, do not get a fair opportunitv of being heard in i-egard to these Private Bills ? — I do in certain matters. 840. What was in my mind was a case like this, which came before the Court of Referees. A Railway Bill containing no clauses in regard to workmen's cheap trains ; the local authority was not able to get a locu8 standi according to our rules. That is the kind of hardship I think in your mind ? — It is. 841. And your idea is that the Home Office, or some other authority, should appoint, in re- gard to all public Bills, an officer to watch the interests ot the classes ot the public that it concerns ? — Precisely ; to protect those people who cannot protect themselves. 842 Again, you think in your experience that the somewhat rigid Standing Orders as to the [)resentations of petitions against Bills, operate lardly either in regard to classes, or in regard to individuals ? — I think some of them do. 843. Would you allow, for instance, without the cumbrous formality of a printed petition, an ordinary ratepayer to come before a Private Bill Committee or the Joint Committee that you suggest ? — I am in favour myself of very much extending the power of people to come before a Private Bill Committee with an individual case, say, for instance, a man who has a grievance ; let him come before the Committee and tell his story (and, as we know, a man who does that can come without counsel or solicitor or any- body else) and the Committee will listen to him. 844. As I understand the practice, certainly in a case when I was Chairman of a group of Private Bills not long ago, one person at any rate was heard in person, but in that case he had been adroit enough to comply with the Standing Order in some way or other, so that no objection could be taken to his being heard without counsel or agent ? — I think, myself, if such a Committee was formed as I suggest, or rather as was suggested to me, a strong Com- mittee, they might have power to give permis- sion to people in cases where thev thought jus- tice required it, to appear before tlie Committee and tell them their story. I think it is very desirable to encourage people to do that. 845. Now with regard to the extension of the Provisional Order sj'stem. which involves the (li.scussion of the issues in reeard to Private H 2 ' Bills 60 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 15 July 1902.] The Right Hon. J. W. Mf.lloe (a Member of the House). [Continued. Mr. Brynmw Jones — continued. Bills by local inquiry, I understand that you think there would not be the slightest injustice or difficulty caused to promoters or opponents in regard to obtaining counsel or expert assist- ance on the spot, as a general rule > — I think not. 846. In your part of the country is it the case that a strong local Bar is now generally rising in the big towns ? — I think you may say with regard to England that in every town there is a local bar at the present moment, in every big town certainly in Yorkshire and Lancashire there are very large local bars. 847. In your now somewhat lengthened ex- perience at the Bar, do you think it very much matters whether there are two senior counsel or two junior coun.sel, supposing they are fairly matched?— I do not think it does. ' I think so long as counsel is, as you say fairly capal)le, he can put his case before such a tribunal as I suggest in a way they that can thoroughly appreciate and understand, and I do not thmk any injustice would be done. 848. Have you known cases in which junior counsel have been brought up from localities owing to their special knowledge of the locality, even before Private Bill Committees ? — Yes, I have known such cases. 849. And you think on the whole that local . inquiries would tend to diminish the cost of private Bill legislation '. — Yes, I think a local inquiry, accompanied by an efficient taxation of costs, would tend to diminish the cost. 850. There is one other question I want to put to you, I do not know that you have exactly touched upon this point. Supposing that our existing system or private Bill legislation remains, or supposing it was modified by the creation of a Joint Committee such as you have suggested, do you think that the Court of Referees ought to remain? — No ; as I say, if you increase the number of that Committee to seven, I would give them the duties of the Court of Referees. In that way you would diminish the number of Standing Committees of the House. 851. Under the present system do you think the Court of Referees does useful work and tends to efficiency and economy ? — Yes, on the whole I think it does useful work ; it is a strong court, and in my experience a very good court. Mr. Hobhouse. 852. As regards local inquiries, do you think there is an advantage sometimes in enquiring into local matters on the spot, from this ]Joint of view, that a view may be obtained of the actual circumstances of the case ? — Precisely. 853. For instance, the breadth of a stieet may be realised in the case of a tramway inquiry ? — Certainly, I can only say with regard to myself, when at one time I had a great experience in these matters, in every compensation case in which I was ever engaged, the first thing 1 did was to go and get a view, and I have known judges do that ; I have known judges go from the assize town to the spot and look at the flace, in order to inform tneir own minds ; and believe that one groat advantage of a local tribunal would be that the Members would Mr. Hobhouse — continued. be able to go to the place and look at the place and see the physical features of the ground, and so would be much more easily able to judge whether the evidence was of value or not. 854. And then with regard to the counsel, in the great majority of these smaller matters it is not necessary, is it, to have the eminent leaders of the Parliamentary bar down to attend to them ? — No ; it is really almost ludicrous to suggest that it is necessary. 855. And you are aware, no doubt, that in these rooms eminent leaders may be retained, but they cannot give undivided attention to any particular matter unless it is reall}' a matter of tirst-rate importance ? — 1 think the attention of counsel, who is able to devote his whole time to the matters, is of course better than part of the attention of a counsel who, under any cir- cumstances, cannot. It would be hard upon counsel to suggest that any counsel does not attend to his business. The real truth is that counsel may get a brief in a particular matter, and then, after he has taken the brief and studied the case and the case is about to come on, he finds something else unexpectedly, is put down on that day which he has expected to come on another day in which he is also ready, and therefore he has no time to return his brief and get the assistance of anybody else, and he has to do his best. That is the cause of a great deal of the difficulty. 856. And the evil arises to a great extent from so many Committees sitting at the same time ? — Yes. 857. If the work was more evenly distributed over the session there would not be the same difficulty of getting counsel to attend to their cases ? — Oh no. 858. But supposing that you had these local inquiries, parties would be a^^le to get the un- divided attention of good counsel ? — They would. 859. Which in many cases would be quite as good as, if not better than, the casual attention of a first rate leader of the Parliamentary bar ? — That is so. If I remember rightly when I first went to Leeds there was at that time a local Bar of some forty barristers living and practising in Leeds. Chairman. 860. And what are there now ? — That I do not know. 861. I thought you were going to compare them ? — No, I cannot. Even at that time tnere were some forty. I have no doubt the Bar is scattered all over Yorkshire now. I know there are barristers at Bradford and in all the big towns. Mr. Hobhouse. 862. Now with regard to unopposed Bills, you have advocated a new tribunal of this House to deal with them. Have you considered whether it would not be possible, and perhaps more satisfactory, to have a Joint Committee of both Houses to deal with unopposed Bills. It has been 'suggested to us that the Petitions against a Bill might take the form of a Petition to Parliament, SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 61 15 Jnly 1902.] The Right Hon. J. W. Mellor (a Member of the House). [Continued. Mr. Hobhmiae — continued. Parliament, and not a Petition to the individual House, and in that case there might be an Unopposed Bills Committee set up as a Joint Committee of the two Houses to deal with unop{)osed Bills once for all. Do you see any objection to that i — I see no objection at all. 863. In that case it might be possible, might it not, to form a strong tribunal with a com- paratively small number of Members from each House ? — Quite so. The reason I answered the question in the way I did before was on the assumption that the present system was going to remain. If you are going to alter the present system and have Joint Committees of tlie two Houses, then I think a Joint Committee for the purpose of unopposed Bills would be a very good thing. 864 But even if you did not adopt a system of Joint Committees for opposed Pnvate Bills, at any rate not make it tae rule, there might still be a system of a Joint Committee for Un- opposed Bills, because it would not be open to the same objections as are urged against a Joint Committee for Opposed Bills ? — Yes, and the stronger you make the tribunal the better. 865. Ajid you might have the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords sitting with the Chairman or Deputy- Chairman in this House, or one of them might always be present as the Chairman of that tribunal ? — That would be much to the advantage of the public. 866. But I understand your view to be that whatever change is made, it is desirable that in this House there should be a paid Chairman or Assistant Chairman responsible for the un- opposed legislation ? — Quite so. 867. Supposing that no large changes were made in this matter, would it still be desirable to modify Standing Order 137, which constitutes Committees on Unopposed Bills. You see under that Standing Order, Committees on unopposed Bills are at present constituted by the Chairman, one of ihe Members ordered to prepare and bring in the Bill, and one other Member not locally interested therein. In the case of a Lord's Bill, there is no provision there that a Member locally interested shall form part of that tribunal. Would it, in your opinion, be desirable that in the case of any Bill, whether it originated in the House of Lords or the House of Common, there should be a Member on the Committee who iiad some local knowledge ? — I think it is very desirable. I do not quite know what the meaning of the Standing Order is, whether "not locally or other-nise interested," means pecuniarily interested. 868. I think it has the same meaning as the Standing Order which constitutes Committees on opposed private Bills, where a Member is required to sign a declaration that he and his constituents are not interested in the matter 1 I am not sure. CJuiirman. 869. I am not sure about that ; I think it is " financially interested ;" that is the sense usually attributed to it ?— I have thought so, but I was not sure. Mr. Brand. 870. You are strongly in favour of a Joint Committee, and, as you state, a strong Committee. Would you suggest a permanent Committee, and that the members of that committee be taken permanently ? — For unopposed Bills, do you mean ? 871. No; for opposed Bills?— No; I should suggest that the joint committee should be arranged on the present system — say two Peers and two Members. 872. Otherwise there would be a difficulty in getting Members to sit continuously '. — No, they could not sit continuously. CJui irman. 873. On that point you have laid great stress upon a Joint Committee being a strong Joint Committee. Why should a Committee composed of two Peers and two Commoners be stronger than four Conmiuners or four Peers ? — It is not quite in that sense that I used the words " strong Committee ; " what I meant was this, indeed, I think Mr. Halsey said very much the same thing : that when you send to the House of Lords, when you have a Joint Committee, they generally appoint two Peers, one certainly, but generally two, who have been experienced members either of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords. I cannot say that I ever practised very much before Committees of either House, but when I began at the bar I did occasionally practice before Committees of the two Houses, and certainly I think that the Lords who sat upon those Committees did their work remarkably well. It is simply a question of experience ; it is not a question of a man being a Peer or a Commoner ; an experienced Com- moner is better than an inexperienced Peer. 874. I want you to explain in what way you thought a Joint Committee would be a strong Committee, as you laid stress upon the word; that is to say, stronger than the present Com- mittees ?— The reason is this, that the work is so great now in the House of Commons that they haye ^eat difficulty in forming Com- mittees at all, and therefore they have no means of selection in the sense of selecting experienced Members ; they have to put inexperienced Members on Committees at once, as soon as they become Members of Parliament. But if you diminish the number of Members you require by halving the number (which you would do) both in the House of Lords and House of Commons, then you get the ex- perienced halves both in the House of Lords and House of Commons put upon these Joint Committees; and so you get a stronger Committee than you would have oy having inexperienced' Members. I think the Comrnittee would agree that in these matters experience is most important. 875. There is one other point I should like to ask you about. You said that you advocated a Joint Committee on unopposed 'Bills, but if you had one Joint Committee to take all theunopposed Bills how could they ever get through them ? — If you had one Joint Committee on unopposed Bills, you would have the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, the Deputy Chairman (my idea was) of Committees of the House of Commons 62 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 15 July 1902.] The Right Hon. J. W. Mellor (a Member of the House). [Continued. Chairman — continu ed. Commons, another Peer put on, and a Member interested, and the two Counsel, the Counsel to the Lord Chairman and to the Chairman of Ways and Means ; and that woidd form alone a strong Committee. 876. It would be a very strong Conmiittee ; but what I wanted to ask you was how could they get through the great number of unopposed Bills that come before the two Houses. At the present time they are divided as you know, a certain number of unopposed Bills came before the House of Lords, and a certain number before our House, and as it is, I think you said when you were Chairman (and it has been found out since), the number of these unopposed Bills is constantly increasing, and often as many as eight or nine, or even more, come before the Chairman on some particular day ? — The Lord Chairman has not got the night work. 877. That is true, but if they formed one Committee and all these Bills for both Houses are to come before them, how could they get through the work ? — In this way ; in case the work was found to be too much, one chairman might sit one day and one another. 878. Divide the Committee you mean ? — Only Chairman — continued, in that sense. I should keep the extra Peer and commoner and the two counsel always there. I do not think there would be too much work for such a body as that constituted in that way. 879. I was asking you on the understanding that the Bills should be more thoroughly in- vestigated than they are at the present moment. As you know, now we take Unopposed Bills at a very rapid rate ?— Yes, but I thmk in that case having the two counsel to the two Speakers there, having these extra Members I suggest and the two Chairmen arranging to sit according to convenience, you would find that that would form a strong Committee and that you would be able to do the work in a much more .satis- factory way than it is done in the present time. 880. One more question. With regard to witnesses that come before the House of Lords, as you know before the Lord Chairman they give evidence on oath. Do you think that it would be advisable to introduce that course here in the House of Commons ? — No, I do not. 881. You take the man's statement ? — I am afraid I must say the real check in my opinion, and my experience, is not so much the oath as the cross-examination. Mr. William Gibbons, Examined. Chairmun. 882. Will you state exactly what your position is in the House ? — Principal clerk of the Public BiU Office, and also Clerk of the Fees and Pay- master. 883. You, of course, have great experience of the cost of private Bills getting through the House and, naturally, of the fees charged by the House ? — Only as regards fees ; I do not know anything of the cost except as to the fees payable to the House of Commons. 884. Will you kindly tell us shortly what the fees are ? — It depends upon whether they are unopposed Bills and whetner they raise money. The lowest cost of getting a Bill through that is unopposed and does not raise capital amounting to 100,000i., comes to 801. in the House of Commons, that is to say, if it passes through the unopposed BUls Committee without amendment. Mr. Brand. 885. Is that the lowest ? — In the case of an Kstate Bill or a Divorce Bill, there are half fees charged ; but that is the ordinary cost. Mr. Brynmor Jones. 886. You said something about 100,000Z. ?— If the capital raised is under 100,000i. there is only a single fee charged on the first, second, and third readings and report. If they raise 100,000i. and over there is an ad valorem charge on the different stages, and the extra fees make a diffe- rence of &51. for a House of Commons Bill. If they raise capital up to 100,000i. and the Bill is unopposed, the cost would be 145^ Chairman. 887. Can you tell us the difference between the fees in this House and in th(^ Houce of Chairman — continued. Lords ? — Generally speaking the House of Com- mons fees on Bills with small capital are lower than those in the House of Lords. So far as I can make out, the lowest charge in the House of Lords would be 112i. to Wll., depending I think on the length of the Bill. 888. Is that the fees for the introduction of the Bill ? — That is for the passing of the Bill through the House of Lords ; their lowest charge would come to from \\2l. to Wll., depending on the length of the Bill. Their charges vary from ours, and then they have an ad vcdorem charge. 889. The Committee would like to know at what stages of the Bill these fees are paid, so much for the introduction, and so on ? — There is a table of fees at the end of the Standing Order on the last page, page 111. 890. That gives the scale ; but what I want you to kindly do is to compare the cost of fees per day in this House with the fees in the House of Lords ? — One cannot compare them exactly unless one takes the total, because their fees are charged on a different system. They charge a large fee on second reading, while our fees are more equally distributed over the | different stages. And one cannot compare each daily charge by the two Houses, because if you look at the House of Lords fees they are arranged upon quite a different plan, and to get to a comparison total you must total up the different items. They have a first reading charge of M., and a second reading charge of 81/. 891. What have we got ? — £. 15 for each of those stages. 892. That is to say, the fees for those stages in this House are 30/., and are 86/. in the House of Lords ( — Yas. Then their third reading fee would SELECT a)MMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 63 15 Jtdy 1902.] Mr. Gibbons. [Continued. Chairman — continued. would bo less than onrs, but their grand total for an unopposed Bill would be some 3.5Z. more. 893. Can you state for what reason that is ? — No. Of course they have been drawn up by different bodies. I think ours is the more equitable plan, because the House of Lords charge 811. for the second reading fee, and the Bill may be thrown out in Committee afterwards. They have incurred their large fee and got nothing for their money. 894. On the other hand are not our fees per diem higher than those in the House of Lords ? — That is when we get to the Committee stage. The promoters pay more than in the House of Lords, but the petitioners against the Bill pay more in the House of Lords than they do in our House. 895. Will you kindly tell us what promoters pay in our House ?— In our House promoters pay, before a Committee with counsel, 101. per diem. 896. What do they pay in the House of Lords ? — They pay 81. on the first day, and 4i. per day afterwards. 897. Is there any reason why the scale of fees in both Houses should not be more uniform ?— I should think it would be better if it could bo arranged. There is no reason they should not be on the same scale, so far as I can see. 898. On the whole, so far as you can see, the fees in the House of Commons are lower than in the House of Lords ; is that so ? — Till you get to Bills of large capital ; then no doubt when we get to a capital of over 500,000^. there is a treble fee charged on first, second, and third readings, and report in the House of Commons ; so that that brmgs it up above the charge in the House of Lords; but till you get up to a capital of 500,000?. the House of Commons fees are less. 899. Can you tell us what becomes of these fees ? — They ultimately go into the Exchequer, but for the last few years they have been what are called appropriations in aid ; they are paid over to the Paymaster General for the payment of expenses in the House of Commons, and any surplus goes to the House. Until within a few years they used to go direct to the Exchequer, but now they are called appropriations in aia. 900. How much do they come to in a year in the aggregate ? — I have them made out tor the last 10 years ; for the last 10 years they aver- aged 32,000?. odd. 901. Is their tendency to increase or diminish ? — They have increased considerably the last three years, but they got to their highest amount in 1900, when they reached 45,000?. ; last year they dropped to 40,000?. This year I suppose they will be considerably less, not above 35,000?. Mr. Renshaw. 902. Is that the fees of both Houses ? — No, of the House of Commons only. ChaiiToan. 903. Then 32,000?. is comparatively a small average, it is taken on a number of years in which the fees were small ? — -Yes. 904. For ihe last three years they are over 40,000?. ? — Yes, during the last three years they have been higher, but they are diminishing again Chairman — continued. last year and this year. Their highest point for a great many years was reached in 1900. 905. Have you any opinion to offer as to the amount of these tees, wliether they ought to be reduced or not ?— Perhaps that is rather a matter of policy. It is my business to collect all the right charges. As regards a comparison between the two Houses, I think our fees seem to be based on a fairer principle, viz., that they should be charged equally at tne different stages with an ad valwem tee. It does not seem to be an unsound principle; where you are getting power for a very large work, and raising a large capital, the amount of fees is a very small per- centage of lIic moneys raised. They are vastly diminished from what they were. In 1864 they used to charge a tenfold fee for raising a million pounds; and a quadrupled fee is the highest charged now, whether it is 1,000,000?. or 10,000,000?. I should like to mention, as you asked me about promoters, that in the House of Commons the fees to opponents of a Bill are considerably less than in the House of Lords. I think in the House of Lords they pay, if with counsel, 10?. for the first day and 4?. for every subsequent day before Committee. In the House of Commons they pay 2?. per day only. 906. Now is it your duty to tax the Bills ?— I assess the fees to be charged. I have to read through the Bill to see what sum is to be assessed, whether a one fee Bill or a two fee Bill, according to the amount of capital to be raised. 907. You are not the taxing master ? — No. 908. Do you ever have any trouble with these fees ? — No, the money comes in very well ; I cannot say I have any trouble. Occasionally we have a memorial from the agent respecting the charges, and if necessary we go to tne Speaker for his decision. 909. He is the ultimate appeal ? — Yes, he is the final authority. There is an appeal to the Speaker in the case of any disputed charge ; but there have been very few since I have been in the office. 910. With regard to unopposed Bills, why should the fees in the House of Commons be so much less than in the House of Lords ? — I do not know how it was started. At the last revision of fees in 1864 the petitioners' fees were reduced, I think. They used to pay 5?. a day and it was reduced to 21. a day; and perhaps the House of Lords have not revised their fees so lately. I do not know when they revised their fees last. 911. These fees were all arranged by Par- liament as part of our Standing Orders ? — Yes. 912. And they could only be altered by a deci- sion of the House ? — Only by a Standing Order. 913. And therefore part of our business would be to recommend any alteration which we thought fit. May I take an instance of an unopposed Bill, which now apparently in the House of Commons costs ahout 84?. on an average, whereas in the House of Lords it costs about 130?. ? — I do not know where you get your figures. 914. I have three cases down there (handing a paper to the witness) and one over leaf? — I should not take these figures as quite accurate. 64 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE ,15 July 1902.] Mr. Gibbons. [Continued. Chairman — continued. If a Bill goes through the House of Commons, as I stated, without amendment and unopposed, it could be got through for 80^. 915. That is very near it ? — Yes, and I believe in the House of Lords the charge would come to U2l. to 117^. Mr. Hohhouse. 916. Those were minimum figures that you gave us ? — Yes. 917. There is nothing in the figures the Chairman has given to you that is on the face of them improbable ?— No, if it is an average, certainly not. CiiairTnan. 918. Then you do not wish to recommend any particular change to us in regard to these fees ? — No, I do not know that it is quite my business : it is rather a matter of policy. 919. Or to call our attention to anything? I think our fees are based on a sound principle, — an ad valorem fee on the amount of capital they raise and the more important, the powers they get ; it is a small percentage of the cost. And the charge before Committees is, \0l. a day, is rather more than in the House of Lords ; but that is really the tribunal for which they ought to pay perhaps. They work the members of Parliament in Committees and it seems fair that there should be a substantial charge for that. 920. You do not suggest that they pay Mem- bers of Parliament out of the fees ? — No, but they use the public tribunal. 921. Now, supposing there should be a Joint Committee, how would the fees be arranged then ? — There would only be one daily charge, I imagine; they would not have a double charge. 922. And that would have to be a matter of future arrangement by Parliament ? — That would have to be a matter of future arrange- ment between the two Houses. 923. But so far as you can see, you think that if any change should be made the House of Lords fees ought to be made similar to the House of Commons fees ? — I think ours are more simply arranged and on a fairer basis. Mr. Hobhouse. 924. You said that the fees are based on a principle. Whatever the principle may be, it has not much relation to the cost of the tribunal ? — No, it has not. 925. As a matter of fact, there is a very large profit made by the Houses of Parliament on private Bill legislation ? — There is no doubt about it 926. Can you give us any figures showing the cost of private Bill legislation at present ? — I could ovAy give approximate figures as to the cost of the official staff engaged on private business. 927. Can we have those figures ? — I can give a rough idea of them. 928. Perhaps you could prepare an accurate statement of them ? — I should have to take the cost of the Private Bill Office, a proportion of the Committee Office ; that is not quite easy to distinguish, because the officials of the Com- Mr. Hobhouse — continued, mittee Office are employed on public and private Bills, and I suppose the salaries of the referee the examiner, and the taxing master. Mr. Renshaiv. 929. Does not the Report of the Committee in 1898 on the Scotch Private Bill Procedure give that information both for the House of Lords and the House of Commons (handing the Report to the Witntss) ?— Yes, that would be a varying charge from year to year depending upon the seniority of the clerks. Chairman. 930. Perhaps you will put in a short state- ent like that ?— Yes, I tvill hand one in. ment Mr. Hobliouse. 931. 1 see in these figures that were given in 1898 that there was a net profit, or net balance I^had better call it, in the House of Lords, of 27,000Z. a year, and in the House of Commons over 25,000^. a year ?— Yes. 932. And really that is larger than the balance that was shown by the Report of the Joint Committe in 1888, when they put the amount of the House fees at about 60,000^., and the estimated cost of Private Bill Legislation 'at about 20,000^. ?— Yes, the fees are probably higher in the last few years than they were in 1888. 933. Is that due to an increase of business ? — Yes, the number of Bills have been larger. 934. And larger amounts proposed to be raised ? — Larger amounts proposed to be raised, and especially I think the local authorities have been bringing in large Bills relating to tram- ways, gas, and waterworks raising large sums of money. 935. It is not due to any alteration in the table of fees ?— No, (here has been no altera- tion. 936. Then I may take it the receipts have materially increased since 1888, and the net balance has materially increased ? — Yes, that is the balance of fees over the cost of officials connected with private Bills. 937. And these net balances are accounted as Appropriations-in-Aid of the expenses of the Houses of Parliament ? — The whole amount of fees goes to the Appropriations-in-Aid, and the House of Commons votes a sum in the Estimates to supplement the Appropriations-in-Aid. 938. They are credited to the particular Votes ?— Yes. 939. Then with regard to the diflference be- tween the two Houses, I gather that the fees charged the petitioners in the House of Lords are higher than those charged in the House of Commons ? — That is so. 940. That may be rather hard, may it not, on certain classes of petitioners ? — Yes, I think it may be. 941. Generally, I suppose, higher fees would tell more heavily against the poorer parties than against rich companies or rich corporations ? — Yes, I think so. 942. And where they are not actually pro- moting Bills, but they are forced to oppose them, then SELECT COMMITTEE ()^f I'KJVATE lU'SlNESS. ()5 15 July 1902.] Mr. Gibbons. [Continued. Mr. Hobhousc — continued. then it is rather hard on the poorer parties ? — Yes, no douht. 943. And with regard to the second reading fees, which are materially higher in the House of Lords than in the House of Commons, there it may be hard upon the parties if they fail to get their Bills ? — Quito so. 944. Therefore your view would be that the House of Lords fees might be, in some par- ticulars, with advantage assimilated to those in this House ? — That is my opinion. Mr. Brynmor Jones. 945. How does the matter work out in prac- tice ? Supposing I come and bring a petition against a Private Bill, have I to put down my two pounds before you accept the petition ?— No, vou may deposit a petition, but you will not be charged anything even for deposit, unless you appear before the Committee. I think in the House of Lords they charge you whether you appear or not; I am not sure about the practice. According to the Standing Order they can. 946. I sec for every day in which the petition- ers against the Bill appear before any Committee or the Court of Referees, such petitioners have to pay 21. a day ? — Yes. 947. Do the promoters pay anything for each day ? — They pay 10?. a day with counsel, and bl. without. 948. You do not actually collect the fees as you go along ? — No. 949. You trust to the agents ?— The Com- mittee Clerk keeps what is called the fee sheet, tabled up day by day of the appearances of the petitioners before the Committee for each day; that is sent to my office, the fees branch of it. and there it is booked in the ledger against the agents responsible for them, and the fees are collected from the petitioners before the Com- mittee on the Report of the Bill ; the promoters' fees are collected as the Bill leaves the House. 950. Have you ever found any default in regard to the payment of fees by petitioner ? — No, not default; cases have occasionally come before the Speaker, and we have had one or two cases of remission of fees on the ground of povertv in some hard case ; but I have had no difficulty in collecting the fees, we get in all the fees that are due. 951. Who would sue; have you ever had to sue for fees ? I gather from you that you have never had in your experience a case of suing for fees ? — No, we cannot sue for them. 952. The House seems to keep an account with the parliamentary agents ?— Yes, we send them in the charge, but we cou'd not recover them, I beHeve. They are only under a Standing Order, not by Act of Parliament ; I do not think we could recover them. 953. I think in the High Court you have to pay every charge biifure you get your procedure ? — -Probably they have power under Act of Parliament : we have not. 954. I tliink I was referred by Mr. Speaker's Counsel to you for an explanation of the classifi- cation of Private Bills. Can vou give us any such classitication ? — The only classification I pay attention to is the amount of money they take power to raise, to expend, or to borrow. 0.23. Mr. Brand. 955. The agents have to sign a book, have they not >. — They sign a book in the Private Bill Office. 956. Supposing there was any default, the only recourse you would have would be that the Speaker would say, you shall not practise in the House ? — Quite so, if an agent did not pay. 957. After proper application he would be posted in the Private Bill Office, and would not be allowed to take out an appearance again until he paid up ; is not that so ? — Yes. 958. Then a private person cannot come here and act as a Parliamentary agent without signing that book ? — No ; he has to take out an Appearance paper at the Private Bill Office and sign that booK. 959. Supposing you are a landowner and have a Incus standi before a Committee, can you state your own case without signing that book, and present your own petition ?— 3io ; before you arc heard you have to produce an Appearance paper at the Private Bill Office. 960. And nobody but a Parliamentary agent can do that ? — Yes, anybody can do it ; in fact, the only machinery by which a man becomes a Parliamentary agent, I believe, is by taking out this Appearance paper and signing the book. Mr. Brynmor Jones. 961. What the honourable Member asks is, supposing he was a landowner whose land is proposed to be taken by a Railway Bill, and he comes in person and gives his name and says, " That is my Petition against the Bill," are you bound to take the petition or not? — That is a matter for the Committtee to decide ; but I believe you can appear in person. You can deposit a petition at the proper time. You would have to deposit your petition at the Private Bill Office, and on the day that the Committee met you would have to take out an Appearance paper then and produce it before the Committee, and you would be heard. Mr. Brand. 962. The only difficulty one would have would be in conforming to the rules and regulations of the House ? — Yes. 963. When were these tables of fees, do you know? — I cannot say when they were estab- lished. 964. How is it that there is any difference in the scale between the two Houses ? — They are q^uite different bodies. The scales are settled simply by Standing Order. Ours was revised in 1864 ; I think that was the last revision. 965. The amount of money that is collected in this House formerly was under the jurisdiction entirely of the Speaker, was it not, many years ivgo ? — Yes, a great many years ago. 906. And he had control of it, not the Treasury ? — The Treasury have never had con- trol of the fees. At one time the whole esta- blishment was ])aid by fees, and 1 think the total fees were divided amongst the Speaker, the Clerk of the House, and the Serjeant. It is ancient history. I cannot give the exact details, but for some years past the fees have been practically paid into the Exchequer, and all the expenses paid out of the Votes. I 967. And 66 MINUTES OF EVIDEXCE TAKEN' BEKORE THE 15 July 1902.] Mr. Gibbons. [Contlv^ied. Mr. Brand — continued. 967. And the Speaker was responsible for the whole thing at that time ? — Yes. Mr. Worsley -Taylor. 968. Do you tax the whole costs of the Bills ? — No, I do not tax the costs at all. All I do is to read through each Private Bill to see what capital is raised, because it depends upon the amount of capital raised what ad valorem fee shall be charged at certain stages. 969. You have only to do with the House fees ? — Yes, 1 know nothing about the counsels' or agents' costs. 970. You could not give me an idea what per- centage of the total cost of a Bill the House fees would come to ? — I could give you the percentage of the cost of the fees compared with the capital raised, but I know nothing about the costs of counsel or agents. 971. And you could not give me any idea how they would compare with the like percentage in civil cases ? — ^fo. I have occasionally seen the_ amounts on taxation allowed. I think the taxing master would give you better evidence than I can, but I have seen the amounts allowed for some big bills, and I know that the House fees were a very small percentage. I saw 30,000/.. allowed for some competing Bill, and the House fees were about 300/. of that. 972. But I understand somebody is coming who can speak deiinitely as to that matter ? — Yes. 973. Only cne thing more. Are these fees charged act v(dorem just the same to all pro- moters of Bills alike; for instance, supposing you have people promoting an electrical power Bill for their own profit, or a railway company, or you have a local authority seeking power for waterworks and for the necessary money, that being non-productive works, are the same ad valorem fees charged ? — Yes ; just the same. 974. A local authority comes to raise 100,000/. for waterworks, out of which they will not make any profit. They have to pay just the same as any body promoting a Bill for profit ? — Yes ; on just the same principle. Mr. Renshaw. 975. I suppose you can bring up-to-date the two papers which are in the Appendix to the Mr. Renshaio — continued. Report on Private Bill Procedure -fScotland), both with regard to the estimated charges and with regard to the fees received from private Bills in the House of liords and in the House of Commons ?— Yes, I have the amount of fees up to the end of last year. Chairman. 976. I think it would be very useful if you could give us the amount of tliose fee.s in the shape of a paper ? — Yes, I will make it up from that and hand it in to the Clerk. Mr. Renshaw. 977. The only other question that I should like to ask you is, whether you are acquainted at all with the scale of fees which has been fixed under the Private Bill Procedure (^Scotland) Act 1899 ? — No, I am not ; it has not been brought before me. Chairvum. 978. A Member of the Committee wishes you to look at it and give your opinion whether that is a better scale of fees ; but I think, perhaps, you would rather not give an opinion upon this matter ? — I am not responsible for it at all. Those fees were drawn up, probably, by the Scotch Office and perhaps the Treasury 979. The fees in Scotland are regulated, and can be altered by the two Chairmen, the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of this House, with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland ; whereas these fees have to be altered by an Order of this House ? — Yes. 980. What are the fees charged for a Pro- visional Order ? — There are no fees charged to promoters because we look upon it that the Government are promoters, and so we do not go through the process of charging fees. The Government would be paying money out of one pocket into another. 981. If a Provisional Order is unopposed there are no fees at all ? — No fees to the promoters. If petitioners appear they would be charged for their appearance before the Committee. 982. The same as in the case of any other Private Bill ?_Yes. 983. But if it is an unopposed Provisional Order there are no fees at all V — No fees at all. SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 67 Thursday, 17th July 1902. MEMBERS PRESENT I Mr. Hobhouse. Mr. Jeffreys. Mr. Renshaw. Mr. Worsley-Taylor. The Right Honourable A. F. JEFFREYS in the Chair. The Right Honourable John W. Mellor (a Member of the House), further Examined. Chairman, 984. I believe you wish to supplement the evidence you gave at the last sittmg ? — Yes ; I was asked a question with regard to the duties of the Speaker's Counsel, and I said that I had known the Speaker consult the Speaker's Counsel upon public questions as apart from others. I find upon reconsideration that it is so ; but the questions upon which the Speaker consulted the Speaker's Counsel were questions as to whether a Bill ought to be introduced as a public or a private Bill ; that depended upon the construc- tion of the clauses of the Bill ; and it was in respect of those clauses that the Speaker con- sulted the Speaker's Counsel. I can add that both the present Speaker and the late Speaker have upon several occasions consulted the Speakers Counsel with regard to the private Bill business of the House. 985. Is there any other point you wish to refer to ? — -Yes, there is another point I omitted, and that was this : When I was Chairman of Ways and Means I found it a difficult and inconvenient matter to attempt to check references in Private Bills to public Statutes. I have known attempts to repeal or to alter parts of the public statutes in Private Bills. That, of course, is a dangerous and inconvenient course. To begin with, there is not a sufficient index to the private Acts of Parliament ; so that it is impossible by an examination of the index to ascertain as to whether in a private Act there is any reference to a public Statute. It seems to me that that is a matter which clearly ought not to be allowed, and I think there ought to be a Standing Order of the House to prohibit anything of the kind. At the present time there is only this check, that the Chairman, in either the one House or the other, upon noticinsj such a matter in a Bill, brings it to the notice of the House ; but I think it would be better and safer that a Standing Order should be made to prohibit anything of the kind. 986. Can you suggest what that Standing Order should be ? — The Standing Order must be an Order providing that no public Act should be affected by anything in a private Bill presented to the House in the ordinary way. 987. On the other hand, when a private Bill becomes an Act ot Parliament it has the sanction 0.23 Cliairman — continued. of Parliament, and has aU the authority of a public Act of Parliament, has it not ? — No doubt that is so, but it is in that that the danger lies,, because when a public Bill is presented to Parliament everybody has it before them, and it is, generally speaking, referred to a Committee of the whole House, and either on Second Reading or in Committee, or at some stage, any matter that has to be discussed is brought to the notice of the House, but where you have a Erivate Bill that is not so. No member of the [ouse ever has an opportunity of reading a private Bill (or very seldom) before the private Bill comes on in the House of Commons, and unless he has read it with very great care and referred to the public Statutes there is nothing to call his attention to the fact that it affects the public Statutes in any way. 988. You think we ought to have a new Standing Order preventing any private Bill which may become an Act of Parliament from interfering with a public Act of Parliament I — Precisely, providing that any portion of a private Bill which affects any public Statute should be struck out under a Standing Order or the Bill refused. 989. Is there anything else you wish to add ? — I think not. Mr. Hobhouse. 990. Does not that suggestion go rather too- far ? For instance would you apply it to all the Municipal Corporation Bills ; might there not be some reason for amending a public Act in the case of one of those big towns ? — Quite so, but then it ought to be done by public Bill. 991. But you know the Sifficulty in passing a public Bill ? — That no doubt is a practical diffi- culty, but then I do not think you ought to allow a dangerous system or a dangerous thing of this kind merely because of the difficulty of passing public Bills. 992. Is there not some provision at present (I have not been able to refer to the Standing Orders) in the case of such Municipal Bills that where there is a conflict between tnem and the general law the special attention of the House shoud be called to it ? — I am not aware of any Standing Order to that effect, I cannot find any, K but 68 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 17 Jidy 1902.] The Right Hon J. W. Mellor (a Member of the House). [Gontinxied. Mr. Hobhouse — continued. ibut I think it is in accordance with the practice that if the attention of the Chairman in either House is called to anything of the kind he then brings the matter to the notice of the House, of which he is Chairman, the object being that everybody may have public notice that a public Act is to be affected. 993. Could not the matter be dealt with by a Standing Order which said that in the case of such an amendment of the public law there should be a special report on tne subject to the House ? — No doubt that would be a safeguard to a certain extent. But then there is the difficulty to which I referred just now — namely, that in the index to the private Acts, or, indeed, the index to the public Statutes, there is nothing to show that any public Statute has been aii'ected by a particular private Statute. If you want to see what the law is upon any particular subject you can of course generally come to a conclusion by examining the public Statutes, but if at the same time you have this enormous labour of examining the private Acts, I think it would be quite impossible for anybody to be quite certain he had not overlooked something. 994. That might be cured by a better index, might it not ? — -No, I do not think it could — I ■do not think, to begin with, you could construct an index which would be satisfactory, and in the next place I think the risk is greater than any advantage that you gain by allowing the present system. 995. On the other hand you would admit that you would put these large Municipal Corpora- tions under serious disadvantage whenever they came for a codification of the general law if thoy had to do it by a public Bill ? — I myself have thought for some time that it is very desirable that a groat Corporation should come for a public Bill ui such matters. For instance, I will take a case, which I admit is an extreme case, the case of London. It strikes one as very remarkable that a Bill affecting so many people ,as the inhabitants of London should be a private Bill. 996. But it has been the habit very often in the case of London, to treat London legislation as a matter of public legislation, whereas that has not been the habit in the case of other big towns ? — That is so. Mr. Worsley -Taylor. 997. To follow up what you were saying just now, I take it that the case you were contem- plating would not be the case of some alteration m the public law as regards the whole public, but the case of some exception carved out in favour of a particular municipality that was seeking the alteration with regard to its own area ?— It might or might not be — probably it would be so, but at the same time it would always be difficult for a person not living in the borough, and not h?.ving access to the Records o^^ the boroughs to ascertain what the law really was. Mr. Worsley -Taylor — continued. 998. But I take it that if the attention of the Committee, anrl subsequently to the Committee stage, the attention of the House were dra^vn to the matter, the Report would call attention to the character of the alteration of the public law, that is to say, whether it was an alteration of the public law as concerning the whole of the public or an alteration in favour of the particular muni- cipality ? — No doubt if it were put upon the index to the public Statutes that such an alteration had taken place, there would be, of course, that additional safeguard, and very much trouble would be saved. 999. Would you consider putting it upon the index was necessary, supposing it were only a derogation in favour of a particvdar locality ? — Yes, I think so. There might be legal questions which lawyers have to coiisider. Chxiir'man. 1000. If you Avill allow me to interrupt you for a moment, I would point out in regard to a question put to you a short time ago that in Standing Order 173 A it is laid down that, " In the case of any Bill by a Corporation or other bodies, the Committee has to consider " (this is Sub-section A) " whether the Bill gives powers relating to police or sanitary regulations m conflict with deviation from, or excess of, the provisions of powers of the general law." There- tore Committees are specially instructed to consider those points, and I imagine the Govern- ment Department connected with the particular Bill or clause would take care to bring those Soints to the notice of the Committee ? — No oubt the Police and Sanitary Committee would take notice of such a point as that, but you vnW pardon me if I again repeat what I said just now, that one great difficuly is that you cannot ascertain the state of the law, when you have to look up a point. Supposing for instance a private Act has been passed which effects in any particular a public Statute any lawyer or any- body else who has to consider it, or whose opinion has been asked upon a question of law, would naturally look at the index to the public Statutes (because that is where you would look to see whether the law has been altered) ; if the law has been altered, however carefully in a private Bill, you cannot find that unless you nave been told that such a thing happened in a particular private Bill, and you are told where to look for it. That is the difficulty I see, and it is really a serious difficulty, because when afterwards the law has to be altered again, Ave will say by a public Bill, the person who draws the Bill, and indeed the House who considers it, might very easily proceed without any in- formation as to the tact that there had been an alteration of the law in a private Bill. I do not want to make more of the matter than ought to be made of it, but I do think it is an important matter. SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 69 Mr. R. W. MoNKO, Examined. ChairTnan. 1001. You deal with the fees, charged in the House of Lords, I believe ? — I am Taxing Officer of Private Bill Costs in the House of Lords. I do not deal with the fees. 1002. But you can tell us perhaps why there is such a divergency between the fees in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons ? — On the aggregate amount the divergence is not very great. The Accountant tells me that about ten years ago, he made out on the Com- mon's scale, the fees paid to the Lords, and on an aggregate of about £85,000, the difference was only £700; so that in the aggregate the difference does not come to very much. 1003. Do you know the reason why the fees should be so different. For instance, I think we were told, the fees per diem in the House of Commons are £10 and your fees in the House of Lords arc some very small amount — some £3 or £4 if I remember rightly ?— With Counsel they are £10 for the first day in the House of Lords, reducible, if the Committee goes on, to £4 a day afterwards. 1004. Then altogether in the aggregate, as you say, there may not be much divergence, yet the actual fees paid upon the presentation of a Bill and the other fees per day, are very different indeed ? — Yes. 1005. — Would it not simplify matters if they were all made the same ? — 1 think it would. It would be a convenience certainly to the agents and to all who have to make out the bills, but I should deprecate (perhaps from my having dealt with the Lords' fees) the Commons' fees being taken as the standard ; I think they might be compared and marshalled in some way. 1006. And a fresh scale made ? — Yes. 1007. It being referred to the two Chairmen or to some Committee to arrange ? — Yes. 1008. In a similar way as when the Scotch fees had to be altered, the two Chairmen and the Secretary of State for Scotland arranged them as they thought right ? — Yes. 1009. You would rather suggest that, if any alteration were made, it should be made in a similar manner to that adopted with those fees ? —Yes. 1010. Is there any other matter you could bring before the Committee with regard to economy and efficiency in dealing with private Bills ? — I should venture to agree vv'ith what the Chairman of Ways and Means said, that one would not wish to see the procedure very much cheapened, because I think that would lead to speculation; certainly I think it has always been the view of the Chairman of Committees to check the passing of Bills that take the form of concessions. 1011. I suppose you would not care to express an opinion as to whether a Joint Committee of the two Houses would be better than two separate Committees ? — I have an opinion of my own, but whether I should be justified in giving it I do not know. 1012. That is not a matter that relates to your office at all? — Not in any way. I think there is often. a. certain amount of friction in regard to Joint Committees^ and if that system Chairman — continued. were applied to private Bills generally the friction might increase. It is difficult to get Committees, and to get Peers and Members to attend. 1013. Have you got some figures you could put in shortly so as to enable us to compare the fees in the House of Lords with the fees in the House of Commons ? — I am afraid I have not. I think our accountant would be better able to give that. I have the total amount for several years. 1014. Would you kindly teU us Avhat they amount to ? — They amount on the average to about 35,0001., that is on the average of ten years. The figure I have got here is 37,000i. odd, but from that must be taken away rather more than 2,000J. for the judicial department fees, so that it comes to about '65,0001. 1015. That compares with the average we were given for the House of Commons of 32,000J. for the last ten years. Can you tell us from your figures whether the fees are increasing now in the aggregate, or the reverse— for the last three years, for instance ? — For the year 1899- 1900 they were 42,000?. odd, for 1900-1 4,7,0001., and in 1901-2 40,000i. Last year was a heavy one. Those figures include the judicial fees, for which you must take off" rather more than 2,000i. 1016. That compares almost exactly with the House of Commons fees for the last three years, which were given to us as 45,000?., 40,000?., and in this year probably less. Of course the fees depend upon how the work is divided between the two houses ? — Yes. 1017. I suppose the Bills are pretty equally divided now between the Houses ? — They are now almost equally divided. Formerly a large proportion began in the Commons and a com- paratively small number in the Lords. 1018. Therefore, if there wore Joint Com- mittees, the saving of expense would probably be in those fees, because there would be one set of fees, I suppose, to pay instead of two ? — There would only be one set of fees. The fees of a Joint Committee are taken by the House in which the bill originates. 1019. In th<»se large bills these fees do not amount to a great percentage on the capital, I suppose ? — In the House of Lords the fees vary according to the capital, especially on the second reading. 1020. Is there anything else you would like to say ? — If I may, I should like to draw atten- tion to a paragraph in the Report of a Committee of 1863 about the fees of Junior Counsel. 1021. Could this Committee deal with that matter? — I do not know. I have had many complaints about it, and this is the only oppor- tunity I have had of mentioning it. 1022. Will you state what you have to say ?— it is as regards the fees of junior Counsel. At the present junior Counsel receive the same fees, except upon the brief, as senior Counsel. 1 have an extract here from a book on taxation wliich perhaps I might read. 1023. Could you condense it all, or will you read it if it is not long ? — This is taken from Webster's " Parliamentary Costs," 4th edition, published in 1881. " Previously to 1864, the fees 70 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 17 July 1902.] Mr. R. W. Monro. [Continued. Chairman — continued. fees for Counsel were invariably as follows: — Retainer, 51. Ss. Od.; clerk, 10s. 6a.; brief (which does not cover the first day's attendance in committee), 101. 10s. Od. and upwards; clerk, 10s. 6d.; consultation, 51. 5s. Od.; clerk, 10s. 6d.: committee (each day), 101. 10s. Od.; clerk, 10s. 6d. Great dissatisfaction, however, having for some time existed in regard to the system under which fees were paid to Counsel, the subject engaged the attention of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Private Bill Legis- lation, which sat in Session, 1863, and that Com- mittee, after hearing the evidence of the Attorney-General on the subject, reported against the system as then existing. A general feeling, however, prevailing that it would be most advisable that any alterations in their fees should be made by the members of the Parlia- mentary Bar themselves, and an intimation having been conveyed to certain members of the House that the subject was under their con- sideration, no action was taken by the House in the matter when they carried out the other recommendations of the Committee in the beginnmg of Session, 1864. The above scale continues imaltered, as no further effective step was taken in the matter." I think that is the same now. 1024. But those fees are entirely voluntary fees paid by the agents or by the suitors, and are not in any way vmder the jurisdiction of either House of Parliament ? — I thmk that in the High Court, junior Counsel's fees and refreshers are limited by rule. 1025. It would be a very novel thing for Parliament to interfere with the fees of Counsel, would it not ? — At present junior Counsel receive just the same fees as senior Counsel. 1026. In the performance of your duties as Taxing Master how do you tax the costs ? — There is a scale of charges which I have to follow which is allowed by the two Houses. 1027. You simply see that the charges are according to that scale ? — As far as possible ; but there are a great many charges that do not come within the «cale, and then one has to exercise one's discretion. 1028. Would you exercise any discretion with regard to the fees of Counsel ? — They are so fixed by the custom of the Bar that I should not feel myself justified in taking action upon this particular point. 1029. Therefore you never interfere with the fees of Counsel ; is that so ? — I have told agents on one or two occasions to see Counsel and see if they could not get some reduction. In a case where the questions at issue were almost exactly the same in the second House as in the first, • I have called attention to it. 1030. Have you anything to do with the taxation of the costs of agents ? — Yes, it is the agents' bills that come before me for taxation. 1031. They must charge according to the scale ? — ^Yes, so far as the items come within the scale. 1032. Have you any suggestion to make with regard to that scale as to whether it is too high or too low ; a scale drawn up under the Standing Orders ? — Not under the Standing Orders, but by the House — it is approved by the Clerk of the to bring to our notice I has increased a srood deal Chairman — continued. Parliaments in the House of Lords, and by the Speaker in the House of Commons. 1033. Would you care to express an opinion as to whether that scale should be varied in any way ? — I think in the case of good agents, by which I mean, agents who have experience of this work and who bring great knowledge to it, the scale is fair and reasonable. 1034. Is there any other point you would like There is one item that lately in the way of expense, and that is the printing — I think every- thing is printed now. On this point I think perhaps tne scale of fees might be altered, because agents and solicitors charge for every time that a short clause for instance is printed,, not only for printing the clause but for going to the printers with the proof and having a revise and so on. That runs up the costs very much. I have occasionally reduced those charges. 1035. You have, on your own responsibility, reduced them ? — Yes. I have said, " You are going constantly to the printers, perhaps on the same day on two or three different clauses, and I think you ought to be satisfied with one charge for the day." 1036. Can you refer to any particular item in the scale which you think should be altered ?— I have not got the scale with me. 1037. Mr. RenshuuK] In your duty as Taxing Master of the House of Lords do the costs in connection with every Bill that is- promoted in the House come before you ? — No, only those that are brought to me for taxation. They are chiefly local authority Bills, because local autho- rities cannot borroAv money to pay for the Parliamentary costs without the costs being taxed. I should say, as a rule. Railway Bili.; never come before the Taxing Officer. 1038. They would be local authority Bills or municipal Bills promoted by municipal corpora- tions and bodies of that kind ? — Yes. 1089. Should you consider it any part of your duty to inquire as to what extent, in the case of such Bills, there was any division of fees between the Parliamentary agent promoting the Bill and the clerk to the local autnority, say, the Town Clerk ? — No, I do not think it is part of my duty. 1040. Do you think that any such system prevails ? — I have no doubt it does amongst certain agents. 1041. Not amongst the whole body of agents ? — Not amongst the whole body. 1042. But amongst certain agents you think it does ? — I believe so, certainly. 1043. Do you think that is conducive to economy in the progress of Bills through the House of Lords ? — I imagine it is conducive to promoting Bills. 1044. But not conducive to econom}'? — In some cases I believe, undoubtedly, the Clerk pays over anything he may receive to his Town Council. It is not a point upon which I am competent to speak. I heard of one case I think, certainly, in which a Clerk who had received a portion of the fees handed them over to his Town Council ; but I have so little know- ledge of this matter that I do not like to give a decided opinion. 1045. Could SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 71v 17 Jidy 1902.] Mr. R. W. Monro. [Continued. Cftairman — continued. 104-5. Could you state in the particular instauoe jou refer to what the auiouut so handed over was ?— ^No, I do not know the particulars ; J 'oonld not even remember the name of the case, but it was mentioned to me that it was done. 104(i. If there is a joint understanding of that sort as to the division of the fees between those who represent the municipal authority and those who are the Parliamentary agents, it is obvious that it is no one's interest in particular to reduoe the fees charged when the matter comes before you as Taxing Master ? — No. 1047. That you regard as an undesirable state of matters ? — I do. Mr. Wm'sley-'faylor. 1048u I suppose you would not propose that ithe fees of Counsel should be regulated by .Standing Order, would you ?— I tnink I am right in saying that in the High Court there is a limitation on the fees of junior Counsel (I am not speaking about the fees of senior Counsel ), and, of course, if there is any loss on tiiat, it is always open to counsel to get practically what fee he likes on the brief. There is no limitation on the brief fee. 1049. When you say there is a limitation on the fees in the High Court, do you mean some Order of the Court ? — I think so. 1050. Have you inquired into that point ? — I was certiimly told so. 1051. I will not trouble you further about that point, but I will just ask you this — Do you .•suggest that the fees paid to senior Counsel — I mean the refreshers per day — are too large I — I cannot judge about that. 10-52. You know what they are, of course ? — It would practically come to what value Counsel put upon, their services. '4053,, I. am speaking of the daily refreshers? — ^You mean the 10 guineas ? 1054. Yds, the 10 guineas. Do you know of any Civil Court or any of the legal proceedings .such as arbitrations in which clients can get the services of such men as the leaders of the Parliauientary Bar for 10 guineas a day ?— But I excluded myself from saying, anything about the fees of senior Counsel. 1055. But that ise.Kactly what I wanted to bring you to if you will allow nie. Do you know ofany other judicial proceedings, including arbitrations, in which, dealing with cases as heavy as those which come before Private Bill •Committees, clients are able to command the services of such men as the leaders of the Parliamentary Bar for refreshers of 10 guineas a day ? — No. _ .bon',), ..'•:' ;j > ' 'I'-ij 1050. So that taking the two togetiier, adding' together the 10 guineas of the junior, do you :suggest that the fees paid to the Counsel before Private Bill Committees are higher than for business of the same weight elsewhere ? — I ■cannot judge about that. 1057. Have you experience as to the amount of Counsel's fees in similar work outside these -No, I have not. rooms ; Mr. Hohhouse. 1058. There is a large balance to the good on 0.23. Mr. Hobhouse — continued. the receipts from private Bill legislation, every year is there not ? — Yes. 1059. How is that dealt with in the case of the House of Lords ?— It goes to pay the costs of the House of Lonis establishment. 1060. Is it included in the Estimates for the year anywhere ? — I was reading the evidence which Mr. Gibbons gave before this Committee at its last sitting, and I think what he states is perfectly correct, and that the same thing occurs in the House of Lords, viz., that the fees are taken as appropriations in aid of the expenses and then an estimate is made for what will be required beyond that amount only. 1001. I believe in the last return (the return for 1901) the Extra Receipts so appropriated amounted to over 44,000^. in the case of the House of Lords ? — I should not have thought it was so much as that. Do you mean the Extra Receipts beyond the cost of the private Bill legislation ? 1062. Yes. — I have never tried to estimate what the actual cost of private Bill legislation is. 1003. Do you consider it is a good plan to charge a high fee for the second reading of a Bill in proportion to the other stages .' — 1 have been so used to it that I have come to think it is, and I still think so, as checking undue speculation. 1064. Of course the result is that if a Bill is unsuccessful in Committee the charges are almost as high in your House for an unsuc- cessful Bill as they would be for a successful Bill ? — Possibly ; but I have often heard this said in the office by agents, " May I put ofi' my second reading as the Bill is a little uncertain and I do not want to incur the heavy fee." From that I have certainly thought that fees on second reading did stop undue speculation. 1065. Of course the speculation you speak of would be in the case of Bills promoted by private companies or private individuals ? — ProbaHv. 1066. Not in the case of Bills promoted by local authorities ? — No. 1067. You do not think there is the same need for heavy foes in the case of local authorities' Bills ? — No, I think it would be immaterial in that case. 1068. But at present they have to pay these heavy fees on the same footing as any private speculator ?— Yes. 1069. I have some figures before me showing that in the case of unopposed Bills the House fees amount to over 2001. — that is to say in the House of Lords about 130? , and in the House of Commons about 801. — do you think that is correct ? — I could not say for certain. I should pe sorry to give an opinion as to that. ■ 1070. You could not give us the minimum amount of fees for passing an unopposed Bill through your House ? — I cduld not give an opinion as to that that would be worth anything. 1071. What t wanted to get at was this : do you think there is any case for reducing the amount of House fees in the case of any class of Bills promoted by local authorities ! — I think some small authorities try to get Bills when they would do much belter to wait till they were larger. It does check them to that extent. L 1072. Do 72 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN HEFORE THE 17 July 1902.] Mr. R. W. Monro. [Continued. Mr. Hobhouse — continued. 1072. Do you think that is a good thing ?^ I do not think it is a bad one. 1073. Do you think some matters which are now dealt with by private Bills, in the case of small local authorities, might be better dealt with by Provisional Orders ? — I would rather see them so dealt with, but tha.t is only my private opinion. 1074. You have had, of course, large ex- perience of private Bills, and Bills have come before you Avhich related to matters which you think might have been dealt with by Provisional Order ?— Yes, certainly, I think so. 1075. The cost of Provisional Orders is very much less, is it not ? — Very much less. 1076. Could you give us any idea of the pro- portions of the items which go to make up the costs of a private Bill. There is, for instance, the cost of the shorthand writer's notes ; that is rather a heavy amount, is it not, in the case of opposed legislation >. — It is rather. 1077. I suppose that can hardly be avoided or reduced ? — I could not give an opinion as to whether they are fair fees for the shorthand writers to receive or not; I have had no ex- perience as to that. 1078. No; what I meant was that the system at present pursued is necessary ? — I think it is necessary that there should be a shorthand writer present. 1079. And that the printing should be done under great pressure ? — It is done under great pressure. 1080. I take it that thai is one of the reasons of the great cost ? — Yes. 1081. That is unavoidable under the present system ? — It has become so much the system that I do not think it could possibly be altered now. 1082. Do you think that the notices which have to be given under the Standing Orders involve great expense ? — I think that has been lessened of late years by not requiring a full notice to be given in every place, but only notice relat- ing to that particular place. 1083. You do not think that could be reduced materially. For instance, it has been suggested that notices should be much shorter in form, and should be rather a notice that reference might be made to the Bill deposited in a parti- cular office ? — I think a Parliamentary Agent who works notices and has to give and receive them would be far better able to give an opinion than I could — I could not speak to that. Mr. Worsley-Taylor. 1084. I did not quite understand an an.swer which you gave just now. Did you say that Bills- are promoted where procedure by Provisional Order is open now ? — To some extent I think that is so. 1085. But is that allowed? — There are many provisions in a private Bill which certainly might be obtained by Provisional Order. 1086. You mean where a sort of Omnibus Bill is promoted authorising some things which could not be got except by Bill and some which could be got by Provisional Order ? — Yes. 1087. That was the case you had in your mind, was it ? — -Yes, chiefly. 1088. I follow that, perfectly ? — If the powers,, for instance, of the Board of Trade were a little extended. Provisional Orders might be given much more freely. The Board of Trade has no power to give compulsory power for taking any land, however small the amount. 1089. Then you would propose to extend the system of Provisional Orders ? — I think it would save the time of Parliament very much if they were extended. 1090. To what class of cases would you propose- personally to extend it ? — Small piers and narbours. The Board of Trade have no authority to grant compulsory powers. The power is now entirely limited to matters coming within the- scope of the Public Health Acts. 1091. You would extend it to piers and harbours ? — Yes. 1092. And to anything else ? — And also they cannot deal with a matter where the capital involved is over 100,000L 1093. What class of matter ?— That would be- piers again. 1094. Is there any other class of subject you would suggest ? — I do not see why they should not grant compulsory powers in the case of Tramways. 1095. Cannot you get a Provisional Order for Tramways now ? — I do not think you can get compulsory powers for taking land if you want any. 1096. I simply want to exhaust the list of subjects you would suggest ? — Yes. Chaii-man. 1097. We have a witness coming who will be ie to speak on this question ; I suppose it is able to speak on this question ; I not really your particular business. is it ?— No. Mr. Alfred Bonham-Carter, c.b., Examined. Cliairman. 1098. You are the Official Referee of the House of Commons ? — Yes, I am Referee on private Bills of the House of Commons. 1099. As I daresay you heard at the com- mencement of the evidence before this Com- mittee, we were told that the reason why Bills came down to us so late in the House was because they were deposited very late — that is to say on December the 21st ? — Yes. Chairman — continued. 1100. We inquired as to whether the Bills could not be deposited earlier so as to be in our hands earlier ; nave you anything to say as ta that point ? — I think that they might be de- posited earlier, but not much earlier, as I think the remedy lies later on in the progress of the Bills — I think it lies in taking the deposit of petitions against Bills earlier. I do not think that the earlier stages with regard to a private Bill sei,E(;t committee on private husixess. r& 17 Jvly 1902.] Mb. a. Bonham-Carter, c.b. [Continued. Chairnrvun — -continued. Bill (tliat is to say the notices by advertisement in the Gazette and in the local papers) could very well be taken earlier. Of course in giving that opinion I am not a professional man. 1101. What is your reason for saying they -could not be taken earlier i — Because it is, I might say, the common opinion of the profession that they could not do it. 1102. But the Committee would like to have some reason tor that opinion ? — If I may take Mr. Lowther's evidence, lie admits that Parlia- mentary Agents have a great deal to do in the preparation of Bills. In answer to question 5 he says : " I am not in a position to say whether between the end of the legal Long Vacation and any date the Committee might thmk right to tix for depositing Bills, there would be time to draft the Bills, or not. Of course there is a freat deal of work to be gone through by 'arliamentary agents in connection with the promotion of the Bills before they arrive at the final stage of drafting, and no doubt the actual drafting must take some time." 1103. You agree with what Mr. Lowther says there ? — Yes, I do not mean to say that he does not go on subsequently to say that he holds the ■dates for notice by advertisement ought to be earlier ; but I cannot help thinking that it would be well to listen to the evidence of Parlia- mentary agents as to the possibility of doing this work, if one considers for a moment the great number of Standing Orders which refer to the deposit of Notices and Declarations and Estimates, and all those things which must be prepared ; I think one must listen to what the professional men say. 1104. In your opinion you would make no alteration in that respect ? — In my opinion I should make no alteration. I may add that I asked one Parliamentary agent the other day whether the putting in of these Notices by advertisement was ever done in October ; and he said " I know of no instance in which it is done ill October." 1105. There is no reason why it should be, under present circumstances, when the Standing \)rders says the Bills need not be deposited till December 21st ? — I only quote that to show the o])inion in their minds is, that they require all that time for the preparation and for the pre- liminaries of a Bill. You must remember that they have to prepare the notice for the Gazette and for the local papers, and that notice is the absolute foundation tor the private Bill, and it requires a great deal of tnought and con- sideration. HOG. Does that take a couple of months to di-aw up? — No, but they must have some holiday. 1107. What are your particular duties with regard to these Bills ? — As soon as the Bills are all deposited and the House meets, I select specially those Bills which we call " Miscellaneous, and I look through them more with reference to their having been grouped and struck in Committee, so that if I am called upon to sit as assessor upon one of those Committees I may be ready with my knowledge of the Bills and also in order that I may be able to give my opinion in case I am called upon, upon merits, of all these Bills. 0-23. Chairman— Gontmned. 1108. Otherwise you do not take any active part in the criticism of the Bills ?— No. 1 109. Can you give us any further informa- tion beyond what Sir C?handos Leigh said with regard to the division of these Bills between the Lords and Commons ? — No, I cannot, beyond what he said. He stated pretty clearly what are the lines that are followed in this division. If I may venture to say so, I do not think that a very intimate knowledge of a Bill is necessary to settle the question of division between the Commons and the Lords. I do not mean to say that, in the course of the Session before Bills come to be considered in Committee, whether opposed or unopposed, the Speaker's Counsel should not make himself thoroughly acquainted with ever}' Bill, and he does do so. 1110. Have you anything you wish to say with regard to Petitions against Bills ? Do you think a date ought to be fixed by which Petitions should be put in ? — Yes ; the date for the deposit of Petitions is governed by Standing Order 129. it is " not later than ten days after the first Reading." So long as that is the case I do not see that there is much opportunity for taking the Committees earlier. 1111. Would you then alter the date ? — I would. 1112. Would you make the date a fixed date / — I would make it a fixed date. 1113. What date would you suggest? — I would say, ten days from the 1st of Pebruary, so that the time would expire by the 10th of February. 1114. You would say that petitions should be lodged before the 10th of February >. — Yes; that the time for the deposit of Petitions should be from the 1st of February for ten days onward. 1115. You think that would expedite matters, and the Bills would be ready for Committee earlier ? — Yes ; I would offer an alternative to that, and it would be, that it should be ten days fi-om the Examiner's certificate with the endorse- ment of compliance. That might give you a little longer time, but I do not think it is so convenient as a fixed date because it would be a different date for each Bill. Perhaps you would let me give you an instance as to the dates to show how things are now. This year all the Bills were read a first time before the 3rd of February. Shortly after that, as you are aware, the Committee of Selection and the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills were struck and they sat; taking, say, the 3rd of February for the First Reading, that would bring the time for the deposit of Petitions against the Bill up to the 13th of February. As soon as that was done, on the 14th of February, the Committee of Selection sat and grouped the Bills and they put out the panel. On the 18th of February the Committees were struck, and on the 25th the first Committee sat. So that if by giving a date without reference to the sitting of the House for the deposit of petitions against private Bills you could get tnat over by the 10th of February, you would be exactly in the position in which the House has been this Session. And in this Session, Committees have been at work earlier than in anv Session of late years. L 2 " 1116. You •74 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 17 July 1902.] Mr. A. Bonham-Cartee, c.b. [Contintied. Chairman — continued. 1116. You ought to say I think why you fix the 10th of February, and why you do not make it the 1st, or any other date. Why do you fix the 10th of February ? — 1 say the 10th because the ten days have then expired. The Committee of Selection cannot proceed to the grouping of Bills till they know whether they are opposed or not. I take the 10th of February because by that date the bulk of petitions would be deposited. 1117. What I wanted to ask you was, why do you not take from the 20th of January to the 30th of January ; why do you fix the "lOth of February ? — Because you must get rid of the proceedings before the Examiner. 1118. And it takes all that time, does it? — Yes. 1119. You could not make it earlier? — You could not make the Examiner earlier ; the Examiner sits on the 18th of January. He has plenty of time under the ordinary circumstances, that is to say, if the House meets, as it ordinarily does, in the first week of February and seldom earlier, to get through all his bills before the House meets ; he begins on the 18th of January, but on January the 9th the memorials against the petitions for the bills have to be, for a 100 of them deposited ; so if you put the Examiner earlier you would have to put the deposit of memorials earlier, and that would bring it to the 1st of January, and the 1st of January would be too near to the deposit of the Bill. I did not mention, I think that bills might be deposited upon the 17th of December, the same day that they are deposited for the Lords; that would give four days. 1120. The 17th instead of the 21st?— Yes, the 17th instead of the 21st. The agents would ask that the petitions for the Bills should be allowed to stand over to the 21st, because they have to get the signatures and one or two declarations with regard to the petitions for the Bills, and that takes time. But there is one other point which I offer as a suggestion for expediting the sittings of Committees, and that is with refer- ence to the duties of the Examiner who under- takes to examine Bills after the First Reading. Those are the Bills which come from the House of Lords, and also Bills which are the subject of the Wharnclilfe Orders, with which you are well acquainted. The proof before the Examiner of these Wharnclilfe Orders and other Orders concerning Bills from the House of Lords is the cause of the delay in the progress of these Bills, so that the Second Reading, which is a certain bar to a Bill being considered by a Committee, is postponed. But it is on the motion of the Parliamentary agent that the day for hearing the case by the Examiner is arranged ; so that thus an unlimited interval occurs between the First Reading and the Report of the Examiner or of the Standing Orders Committtee. Standing Order 204 of the House says that the Second Reading shall take place after the report of the Examiner, or of the Standing Orders Committee, as the case may be. The House of Lords Standing Order 91, to which I would refer you, gets over this difficulty. 1121. What is the House of Lords Standing Order 91 ? — The House of Lords Standing Order 91 says that the Second Reading must take diairman — continued. place not later than 14 days after the report of the Examiner or of the Standing Orders Com- mittee as to the Wharncliffe Orders. 1122. It limits the time to that ?— Yes; and I should recommend the adoption of the House of Lords Standing Order 91. The result of that would be, that a Bill would be read a second time earlier, and the six da3's after the Second Reading which must elapse before the Committee can consider that Bill, will be provided for. 1123. Now will you say something about the Court of Referees, — how the parties get their locus standi ? — After the petitions against the Bill have been deposited by the opponents, the promoters of the Bill have eight days in which to deposit their notices of objection to those petitions. It has been suggested by Mr. Lowther that that eight days might be cut down to four ; but I am afraid it could not be so in justice to the parties. He quotes an instance in which a E remoter was extremely anxious to get on with is Bill, and as soon as the petition was deposited he went and deposited his Notices of Objection against the petition and said, " I am quite ready, you may appoint your sitting of the locus standi court ; I give up all right to give a Notice of Objection against any further petitions which might be deposited within the ten days ; let the case be heard at once." But that case exceed- ingly seldom happens, and it would not be quite fair to frame a rule upon so exceptional a case as that. You see it is a matter of some import- ance whether a Bill should be delayed and whether they will fight the petition or not ; they have to communicate with their clients and they do not always get their petitions directly; the opponent of a Bill is bound to deliver his petition to the promoters, but there is a little delay very often in getting it ; and then the agent has to consult his clients, and four days is not enough to settle whether they shall go to the expense of opposing these petitions. I do not think it could be done. One thing that they might do, if it were reduced to four days is this : The petitioners against a Bill would not deposit their petitions until the last day, the lOtn, and that would leave only four days to the promoters to determine whether they should oppose or not. 1124. We nave heard that the Court of Referees works very smoothly, and well ; and they get through their business very easily, do they not ? — Yes. 1125. There is no stoppage of the Bills there ? — No. I think those suggestions which I have made for putting the time for the deposit of petitions against a Bill earlier,. and with regard to the Second Reading, would give a longer interval between the decision of the Court of Locus Standi and the sitting of a Committee upon a Bill. That is a weak place decidedly : and that time I think would be provided for if this alteration in the deposit of petitions were made. 1126. Have you anything to say with regard to Bill's being referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses instead of two separate Com- mittees ? — I do not think the present system is a crying evil by any means. I have here now the number of the Bills originating in the House of Lords for the year 1 890 to last year. The number of House SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 75 17 July 1!)02.] Mr. A. Bonham-Carter, c.b. {Continued. Chavnium — continued. House of Lords Bills considered by House of Commons Committees (which in other words you may say were instances of a second hearing) in 1896 was 19. 1127. How many were rejected do you know ? — ^I ain not quite sure about that. 1128. Rejected or modified? — I cannot quite toll you that. I could not say how many were modified, but I could .say how many preambles were not proved. 1129. Will you kindly find out how many Bills were rejected and hand a paper in ? — ^Yes, in the House of Commons, only those Bills that came down from the House of Lords. 1 do not think I could find out what the decisions of House of Lords Conu^iittees were with regard to House of Commons Bills. 1130. You could not find out how many House of Lords Bills had been modified, had been altered by the House of Conuuons ( — It is very hard to say what a modification is. 1131. But you c "sufficiently representing the agriculture trade, mining, commerce, or traffic," I take it that there bicycles would constitute a traffic ? — Bicycles na doubt would constitute a traffic. 1451. Then some words such as that might meet the case ? — Some words such as that would meet the case. 1452. That would express your idea ? — It would. 1453. You have called attention to the differ- ent terms of the different Standing: Orders, some being mandatory and some permissive ; I will not follow that out, but I wanted to ask you about Standing Order 135, that is as to tramways. 1 understood that you had in your view a difficulty with regard to the word " street," which you have explained, and you referred to the difficulty that there might be property which might be affected, although it was not in a street or a road. You referred to property standing back. Is not the difficulty in the Standing Order that is governed by the word " in," — " in any street ; in the par- ticular street," that is, fronting upon the par- ticular street through which the tramway is to pass ?— That again is a difficulty. 1454. And you have given two instances : one is property standing back from a street ; and the other a street crossing a street, which is an access to property ; you gave the case of an avenue, it might be a mile long, possibly, dependent upon the street through which the tramway runs for its access ? — Yes, that was the other case. 1455. Would some such words as these meet your view that of what a frontager should be : "The owner, lessee, or occupier of any hou.se, shop, or warehouse in or materially dependent for access on any street or road " ? — Yes, that kind of words would meet the other case?. 1456. Now would you look at the end of the last line but one in" the large paper copy of these- 91 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOEE THE 22 July 1902.] Mr. J. P. Smith (a Member of the House). [Continued. Mr. Worsley- Taylor — continued. these Standing Orders, after the words, " or in the conduct of his trade or business shall be entitled to be heard on such allegations." Now those allegations are, that the use of the trnm- way will injuriously affect him in the use or enjoyment of his premises. Do you observe that those words " on such allegations " are found as words of limitation of the right of locus only in that Standing Order, and that in others, as for instance 133a and 133b, the words are, " on such allegations against the Bill or any f)art thereof" Do you see any reason for that imitation in that particular Standing Order ? — I should say that the words " on such allega- tions " had no meaning. If they had a meaning I think it would be wrong. 1457. Do you know that the effect of that limitation is very seriously to curtail the rights of petitioners to go into the merits of a Bill when they get before Committee ? — I think when they get before Committee they should be entitled to be heard in just the same way as the man who gets his locus under one of the other Standing Orders. 1458. So that you see no reason why there should be a less locus in that case than in the other ?— Certainly not. 1459. So that those words might be expanded into " on such allegations against the Bill or any part thereof " ?— Or rather I would say, in the phrase that we usually use, it would require to be " on so much of the Preamble as relates thereto." 1460. No doubt, but in all the others you see those are the words. Take 133a, or 133b is the first one I have marked : " It shall be competent to the Referees on Private Bills, if they think fit, to admit the petitioners to be heard on such allegations against the Bill, or any part thereof" Of course, this is all subject to the remarks that you have made already as to the difference, some being mandatory and some permissive, because here, undoubtedly, this is mandatory, " shall be entitled," and it might well be that that would require alteration ; but subject to the discussion of that question, do you see any reason why the words should not be altered after " allegations " to " against the Bill or any part thereof?" — No, I do not. That is another instance of what I said, that these Standing Orders have been put in from time to time and without any uniformity of draftsmanship, which I think it is of great importance to go through. Mr. Brynmor Jones. 1461. Would you give a locus standi to front- agers, as we compendiously call the people under this Standing Order, against the finance of the Bill. We always limit it, do we not ? — It would be " against so much of the preamble as relates thereto," in the usual phrase that we follow. 1462. It is not usual to give a general locus to a frontager, is it ? — It would not be a general locus. Mr. Worsley -Taylor. 1463. First of all it would be limited by " on such allegations ?" — Yes. 1464. I am going to put to you another question on that. Do you see any reason why Mr. Worsley -Taylor — continued, there should not be a further power .of limitation to the Court of Referees, somewhat in this manner " on such allegations as they may think fit " ; so that if the petitionei-s raised, for instance — to take the illustration which has been put to your larger questions than you thought they ought to do on the face of their petition ; it would not follow of necessity that they ought to have a locua given them to go into all those points, but you might limit the right to go into certain allegations ? — That, I take it, we should do in any case. In the first place, of course, a fi-ontager is limited by the statements in his petition ; he cannot go outside the points that he raises in his petition. Sup- posing he raised objections, not merely to the engineering past his door, and that kind of thing, but to the whole finance of the Bill, then I take we should look into it to see whether for in- stance, he was doing it merely as a ratepayer, in which case he would be covered and would not be entitled to raise that part; or whether he had any right to object to the scheme as a whole on the ground that the finance was unsatisfactory. We have the power, which we continually in- exercise, of either disallowing the locus altogether or disallowing the locus except in regard to par- ticular clauses, and so much of the preamble .is relates thereto. 1465. But I do not think you have the power to limit his locus to certain allegations in the petition ?— No, we always limit the locus by the clauses in the Bill, and not by the allegations in the petition. 1466. And then he may claim the right to be heard on any allegations raised on the face of his petition, assuming only that they refer to the part of the Bill against which you have allowed a Iocim ? — Yes. Mr. Brynmor Jones. 1467. Is that quite so. This is a mandatory Standing Order ?— Yes. 1468. Our practice in regard to frontagers, I think, has been (you will correct me if I am wrong), that whatever is put in the petition we only give the locus to a frontager on the terms of this Standing Order, when he proves himself to be a frontager, and it is limited to the allega- tion of " injuriously affected in the use or enjoy- ment of his premises, or in the conduct of his trade or business " ; any other allegations are immaterial ? — Yes. Mr. Worsley -Taylor. 1469. But then the difficulty arises which I am putting to you, that that locus should be extended, tliat it might be a locus against the Bill or any part thereof, and therefore the allega- tions might be very considerably wider. What I put to you is that, assuming, on the one hand, , that the power to make allegations against the Bill were widened, in your view would it be right to give the Court of Referees the power to limit the allegations upon which the petitioners should be heard, in fact ? — Of course, the same objection to a mandatory order that I stated in regard to Standing Order 134 applies to this ; but I am taking it that you are arguing it as a discretionary Order. 1470 Tea SKl.F.CT COMMiriEE <)\ I'lil VA'IE lir.SIXESS. 95 22 Jidy 1902.] Mr. J. P. Smith (a Member of the House). ■[Continued^ Mr. W ordey-Tay lor— contmned. 1 1470. Yes; I said subject always to that? — Our practice has always been to limit the loniAs wo j^ive, not by statonumts in the petition, but by clau.'^es in the Bill and the ])arts of the preamble relating to it. What you ai'c a.sking now is a qties- tiou not referring to this special Standing Order only, but to all petitions that come before us e(]ually. 1471. That might arise possibly ; I have not considered it, I am bound to say, but this is rather a special case, and 1 am asking you with regard to this ; have you considered whether it would be desirable to enlarge the discretion (1 put it in that way) of the Court of Referees over this locus 1—1 think there would be diffi- culty in treating this particular locus in that respect, apart from all other loci; and I am inclined to prefer as a more definite line of demarcation, which, I think, very seldom leads to difficulty, defining the locun which we give by the things the man is to be allowed to object to in the Bdl. Then it is for the Committee to say whether they attach weight to particular argu- ments or whether they do not. I do not think that we can instruct the Committee what argu- ments they are not to listen to. 1472. Then I leave that question. You have made a suggestion now for what really amounts to a new Standing Order. I think the cases that you had in your mind of hardship where mterasts are materially afifected, but where vou cannot give a locus under the existing Standing Order would practically all fall under the defini- tion of " injuriously afteeted ? " — I think so. J 473. I will just suggest to you some words to see if they carry out your idea generally? — Before you do that, perhaps I might give an example of a case that came before us the other day when the honourable Member (Mr. Brynmor Jones) and I were sitting on one of the London County Council Bills ; that was the case of an electric generating station, and the petitioners were owners of a church on the adjoining land. Clause 35 of the Bill empowered the promoters to acquire land on which they might construct and maintain a station for generating electricity. The petitioners were the owners and the lessees of adjoining land outside the limits of deviation, upon which they had erected a church, and they claimed to be heard against the clause on the ground that the church would be injuriously affected by the excavations for and the erection of the station, and that the noise, vibration, and smoke from the works would cause great inconvenience to persons attending their church, and would render it impossible to conduct services: and they alleged that if the Bill passed they would not obtain adequate compensation uncler the general law. The promoters objected to the locus standi of the petitioners, as .the Bill did not confer any powers which would affect their property. The Chairman (that was myself) said, " The Court consider this a hard case, but the loc^Ls standi must be disallowed." 1474. You mean that was a case in which you thought as a matter of equity and merits there ought to be a locus, but according to the exist- ing practice you could not give it ? — We thought they would suffer in all probability, but that under existing practice we were not entitled to give them a locus. 0.23. you Mr. Worsley -Taylor — continued. 1476, And if it had been open to you, would have done so ?— Yes. , . 1476. That was a case of injurious affecting? —Yes. ! 1 If r. 1477. I suggest to you some such words as these : " In any case not specifically provided for by any other Standing Order or by the practice of the C'ourt, where the referees are of opinion that the petitioners sufficiently allege that substantial interests of or represented by the petitioners, will be materially and injuriously affected by the Bill, it shall be competent to them to, admit the petitioners to be hearu against the Bill or any part thereof " ; and I have added these words for consideration, " and on any such allegations as they may think fit." To those last words j'our former remarks of course apply, but so far as you can judge of it on the spur of the moment, would that fairly appear 'prima facie to carry out your view ? — That would certainly cover the cases which I have in mind. 1 should like to consider the question further before giving a final opinion, because I think there is also a danger in putting too wid^ a discretion into the hands of the Court of Referees, in their ceasing to have any binding rules upon them at all. I should not be prepared to put the Court of Referees into the condition of having an absolute unguided discretion in re- gard to each case that arose before them. ,I( think it is important that there should be^ governing principles known and accepted in re-;-; gard to their action. , , , -> i /, 1478. That was exactly the difficulty I- felt f and that was why I put the words to you, because that undoubtedly would amount to giving them an absolute discretion practically in all cases ; and I put it to you to see whether that difficulty ^ would arise in your mind, and if so whether you could suggest any words of limitation ? — That : difficulty does arise in my mind and it is the- difficulty of suggesting words of limitation that has made Parliament deal with cases of hardship^ in succession as they arose, as it did for instance last year in the case of underground waters. My own feeling would be in favour of a wide discretion which words such as yours would give, but at the same time, I recognise that there are strong arguments against it. 1479. But at the same time, although you see the difficulty, no means of limiting it have occurred to you so far ? — No means of limiting; have occurred to me so far, because all kinds of different hard cases may arise in different matters, so that vou cannot possibly foresee whether your words of limitation will not cut out just as hard cases as those that your Standing Order admits. 1480. That has been the difficulty ?— That has been the difficulty. 1481. The Standing Orders, or some of them, contain words of limitation, and they have caused that difficulty which you want to meet ? — That is so, Mr. Renshaw. 1482. T think you expressed an opinion just now in regard to a proposal that has been made to the Committee as to the possibility of con- joining the three Committees, the Committee on O Unopposed 96 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 22 Jnly 1902.] Mr. J. P. Smith (a Member of the House). [Continued. Mr. Renshaw — continued. Unopposed Bills, the Locus Standi Committee and the Committee on Standing Orders. You are adverse to that view ?— I am. 1483. You objected to it, I think, principally on the ground that the occupation already afforded to members on the Locus Standi Com- mittee was sufficient occupation ? — I think it is nearly sufficient. 1484. Are you aware what amount of work devolves upon the Committee on Standing Orders in reference to compliance with Standing Orders ? — No, I am not ; I have never had any- thing to do with that Committee, and I do not know. They deal with technical questions, — appeals from the examiner. 1485. It is obvious that a certain amount of delay in the progress of Bills must occur from the fact of so many Committees sitting, is it not ? — I do not see that the number ot Com- mittees increases the delay. I do not see that having a single Committee sitting would make the process any quicker. 1486. You would not see any advantage then, if it was not considered possible to unite the whole three Committees, in uniting the Locus Standi Committee and the Standing Orders Committee ? — No. 1487. Of course strengthening the Zocu-s Standi Committee in the way you suggest ?— No, because I think they deal with quite a different class of question, and I am not aware that the Standing Orders Committee makes any delay. At the same time if there was any special object in doing it, I think the Court of Referees could undertake the work ; but I see no particular gain in interfering with the existing Committee. 1488. You are aware that one of the principal , subjects remitted to this Committee to consider is, questions that may arise in consequence of the new rules of Procedure in regard to the Sittings of the House itself ? — Yes, 1489. Those rules of Procedure and the con- sequent earlier hour at which Parliament sits Mr. Renshaw — continued. will render it more difficult at certain parts of the Session to secure attendance on Private Bill Committees, will it not ? — Yes. 1490. And therefore it is desirable to expedite the appointment of these Committees and to establish them at as early a period of the Session as possible ? — Yes. 1491. Have you considered the questions which are involved in Standing Order 210 : " Every Petition against a Private Bill which shall have been deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than ten clear days after the first reading of such Bill," etc. ; do you think that there is any reason for the continuance of that period of ten days after the first reading of the Bill ? — There is certainly no reason so far as the Court of Referees or this House is concerned ; but the question seems to me one for those who are concerned in preparing the Bills and Petitions. 1492. That is to say, that the Petitioners for the Bill ought to have due and sufficient notice as to the Petitions against the Bill ? — Yes. 1493. But if it was found possible to fix a period from the date at which the Petition for the Bill had its origin, by which Petitions against the Bill must be lodged, do not you think that that would facilitate the earlier getting to work of Committees of the House ? — Certainly I do. Every step that could put forward, the times of the different stages would undoubtedly facilitate the work. Members have much more time on hand in the earlier part of the Session, acording to my experience, than in the later part. 1494. Are you acquainted at all with the work of the examiners in the House ? — No. 1495. Do you see any objection to the Petitions being called for against trie Bill before the ex- aminers have decided as to whether or not the Bill complies with Standing Orders ? — No, I see no reason why it should wait for that. The full precautions are taken in regard to most Bills. Mr. Herbert Edward Boyce, called in ; and Examined. Chairman. 1496. You have been a practising solicitor and have had some experience in railway busi- ness and are now one of the legal assistants to the Local Government Board ?— Yes ; my rail- way experience of course dates from some 30 years ago when I was an articled clerk, and now my post at the Board is that of legal assisUnt and Parliamentarv agent to the Board. 1497. We should like to ask you something about the various Provisional Orders which come before Parliament, and the procedure relat- ing to Provisional Orders ?— I might perhaps say shortly that from 1873 to the present time, all the Provisional Orders issued by the Board have practically come under my notice, either as preparing or revising them or as advising upon them. The number that have been issued since 1872 is 2,520. Those have involved the passing of 498 Confirmation Bills; and the number of Provisional Orders submitted to Parliament for confirmation but rejected is only 23 from 1872 to 1902. Chairman — continued. 1498. Only 23 out of that large number ?V- Absolutely rejected ; that is to say -where they have been opposed before a Committee, aud thrown out upon their merits. 1499. In a general way the Provisional Orders are not opposed, are they ? — ^I think you may take that generally, so far as my experience is concerned. The opposition is very slight. Mr. Hobhouse. 1500. Are those Provisional Orders or Pro- visional Order Bills ?— I meant the opposition to the Bills. I cannot speak practically as regards the opposition to the Order at the Local Inquiry. That IS a matter I only know incidentally. 1501. That was not the point of mv question. I want to know whether the number of 23, which you gave us as having been rejected, re- ferred to the Provisional Order Bills as a whole, to certain Orders in the Bills? — Certain or Orders in the Bills. 1502. Not SELECT COMMITTEE UN PRIVATE BUSINESS. 97 22 July 1902.] Mr. BoYCE. [Continued. Chairman. 1502 Not the Bills themselves? — Not the Bills themselves. Then since 1874, I have dealt with all matters relating to Confirmation Bills ia conducting them through both Houses of Parliainant. That applies not only to the English Local Government Board, but since 1899 I have acted in a similar capacity for the Local Government Board for Ireland. In that capacity I have passed 26 Bills in 1899, 1900, 1901, aad 1902, containing 68 Provisional Orders. Those Provisional Orders are on very much the same lines as the English Provisional Orders ; the only difference is this, and it is rather a material point, and that is why I men- tion it, that in Ireland, and I believe in Scotland also, the Irish Local Government Board can issue Provisional Orders for taking water rights compulsorily, which, unfortunately, the English Local Clovemment Board is not able to do. 1503. What are the the English Provisional Orders limited to ; can they deal with the com- pulsory acquisition of land ? — They can deal with the compulsory acquisition of land for every purpose of the Public Health Act. 1504. Only for the purposes of the Public Health Act ? — And under the Allotments Act they can ; but that is I think almost superseded by the Local Government Act, 1894, and those Orders for compulsory purchase of land under the Local Government Act, 1894, do not require Parliamentary confirmation. I think I am right in saying that our powers are confined to com- pulsory purchase under the Public Health Act, the Local Government Act, the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, the Housing of Working Classes Act, 1890, and the London Government Act, 1899. 1505. It is the fact, is it not that Provisional Orders are much less expensive than Private Bills ? — I should say so, certainly, because of the comparatively verv slight opposition that there is t ) them when tliey come to Parliament. 1 506. Then why are they not more used ; why do they not take the place more of Private Bills ? — [ think one of the principal reasons is this: If you take, for instance, an Order under Section 30 3 of the Public Health Act for altering Local Acts, that Section is very wide and in terms I suppose would even authorise the issue of a Provisional Order for extending the time for Chairman — continued. compulsory purchase of land; but that is a point where the powers of the section would never be exercised, because the preliminary notices would not have been given to the landowners who would be att'ected oy the compulsory purchase of land. I mention that simply as an instance. Then there is a difficulty also in that there is no general power to issue Provisional Orders for purposes such as you have in improvement Bills, unless\ there happens to be a local Act in the place dealing with those matters which can be altered for that purpose. The result is that we cannot initiate by Provisional Order legislation for locaT authorities for such matters as are included in the improvement Bills which go before the Police and Sanitary Committee, unless there is a local Act, as I say, and we cannot give further powers, say, for instance, the tuberculosis clauses that are now so common in local Bills, or any of the other sanitary clauses which are also included in improvement Bills. That is one weakness of the position, that although those are matters essentially in the purview of the Local Govern- ment Board as the Government Department having charge of the public health, the Board cannot give any powers of that kind unless it is found that in the particular locality there is a local Act which can be altered for that purpose. 1507. And as the Provisional Orders are so useful and so economical in carrying, would it be advisable in your opinion to amend the Public Health Act so as to enable Provisional Orders to have a wider scope ?— That is my opinion, and it hasbeen my opinion ever sincel888 that there ought to be an enabling power for a local authority (I am chiefly referring to local authorities, I have nothing to do practically with companies) to get a Provisional Order from the Local Government Board or the Board of Trade, as the case might be, for most if not for all the matters for which they have now to promote a Bill. 1508. But until the Public Health Act is amended in that direction it will not be pos- sible ? — Until further legislation, that is so. 1509. Do local authorities take advantage of these Provisional Orders now, as much as pos- sible? — Hardly; but the number of orders is very large, as you will see. I can give you the figures for the last three Sessions. (The Witness handed in the following Paper.) 0.23. 2 98 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 22 July 1902.] Mr. BoYCE. [Contitiued. The statistics as regards Provisional Orders for the last three Sessions— 1900, 1901, and 1902- are as follows : — 1900 - - - . 1901 - - - . 1902 ... - The subjects of the Orders were- 18 Bills containing 86 Orders. 17 „ „ 62 „ 18 „ 84 .. 1900. 1901. 1902 Public Health Act, 1875 Compulsory Purchase - - - Altering Local Acts Dissolution of S.D. District - Forming United Districts 33 29 2 23 16 5 24 36 1 7 Public Health (Ships) Act - Constituting permanent P.S.A. - 1 - Local Government Act, 1888 Borough Extensions Constituting County Boroughs Transfer of Powers (Sec. 10) - Altering a Confirming Act Extendmg Borrowing Powers 13 2 1 1 7 1 1 3 2 — 3 Gras and Water Works Facili- ties Acts. Housing, &c., Act, 1890 Gas Orders ----- Housing Order - - - . 2 1 1 4 1 3 Poor Law Acts Altering Local Act Extending Borrowing Power - 1 1 3 1 London Government Act Compulsory Purchase - - - Totals - - - - - 3 86 62 84 Chairman — continued. Under the London Government Act by incorpo- ration of the Local Government Act, 1888, the Metropolitan boroughs which have taken over the powers of the vestries have the power to come to the Board to issue a compulsory purchase order for acquiring land for any of the purposes which they took over from the vestries. 1510. With regard to these Provisional Orders, have they to be deposited on a certain date like Private Bills ? — Not by force of any statute ; there is no date fixed for depositing them by statute except in the case of Provisional Orders under the Gas and Water Acts ; and those as you see from the figures which I have given you, are very few — ^two, one and one in the three years. One of the great difficulties that has been experienced in the past has been in getting these applications made to the Board in time, so that such a large number of orders should be got through in time to introduce them into Parlia- ment, so as to comply with Standing Order 193a in your House, and so as to get up to the House of Lords under the Sessional Order in the House of Lords, which fixes the date for second reading of House of Commons Bills. 1511. Would you alter the Standing Order so as to make promoters deposit these Provisional Orders earlier ? — I am afraid that cannot be done by Standing Order. Chairman — continued. 1512. Must it be done by legislation ? — 1 am afraid so. If it could have been done in any other way I think it would have been done before now. The only way in which the Board are able to deal with that (^and it is getting now to be effectual) is that they issue certain Provisional Order Instructions in each year, somewhere about August or September, in which they fix certain dates for the deposit of the applications with the Board. Those dates are assimilated as far as possible, if you take the cases of compulsory pur- chase, which are very numerous, to the date fixed in the Standing Order for the deposit of the Bills. For instance, they have to be deposited with the Board on the 21st December, that is to say, if the notices were published in November. There is, under the Public Health Act, an alternative power to publish the notices either in September or Octo- ber, and if the notices were given in either of those months the application to the Board would be in the month following the notices; butyou may take it roughly that the last date for applications for compulsory purchase orders is the 21st December. 1513. That is to say, the same date as for the deposit of bills ? — That is so. 1514. But you think that that date might be made earlier ? — Yes, I think so ; I do not think there would be any hardship in that. 1515. How much earlier would you say the date SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 99 22 JvXy 1902.] Mr. BoYCE. [Continued. Chairman — continued. date could be made ? — I should make it a month earlier. That is only »s regards Provisional Orders ; that does not affect the Bills. 1516. But you would make the Provisional Orders to be deposited a month earlier ? — Yes, the application for them. . 1517. And you do not think that that would bo a hardship to the local authorities ? — No, and 1 do not think that that would involve any alteration of the statute. - 1518. Then who could order these applica- tions to be made earUer ; would it rest with the Local Government Board ? — I will look into that and let you know; my impression is that it might be done, but I am afraid that that would only have the effect of easing the Board and not Parliament. 1519. Why so ? — Because there is a tremen- dous amount of work in coimection with Pro- visional ' Orders, some of which (take the Local Acts Provisional Orders for instance) are dealt with in the same department as that in which the Board's reports on the Bills are dealt Avith and I am not quite sure whether even a month's antedating would have the effect of fetting the Confirmation Bills in much earlier, get my Bills into Parliament I think I may isay as early as any other Department, and I am veVy seldom late for the House of Lords Ses- sional Order except in the case of opposition in your House. i-'' 1520. Do you wish to offer any opinion as to the deposit of Private Bills being earlier than the 21st December ? — That is not a matter which affects the Board except in this point, that if the Bills were deposited earlier we shovild have so much more time for preparing the Reports. That is a very great difficulty and is, I am afraid, the cause of some delay in both Houses, because Bills may be grouped and ma}' be ready to be heard, but they cannot be usefully considered rintil Parliament has the Board's Reports upon the Bills and it is extremely difficult to arrange so as to mitigate that difficulty, becau.se we do not know the order in which the Bills will be ready for oi* be taken in a group. Li the first place, we do not know whether a Bill is opposed until a petition is presented ; then we do not know which Bill will be required first ; and, further, there are not only Select Committees being put out in this House, but there are at the same moment Select Committees being put out in the House of Lords. So that, although if, for argument's sake, your House only had to be consulted, we might be able to arrange the Reports for that, so as to get them out and not delay the Committee, it is next to impossible to present the Bills in such an order that we can prevent delay here or in the House of Lords. 1521. Have you regular officials who read all these Bills in order to make reports upon them ? — Yes ; they go to one Department in which the Bills are read through and noted, and the Reports are prepared in that Department. 1522. Have those officials time to read through all these numerous Bills by the opening of Parliament ? — That would be im])ossible, 1 think, because we have to read all the Bills. There are, of course, a good mixny Bills on which there is very little to be done ; there are a good Chairman — continued. many Railway Bills that we do not have to do anything on ; but there are points even on the Railway Bills that we may have to report upon, such as the Labouring Class Clause, or where they are proposing to stop up highways ; and sometimes you have a Tramways Bill where a local authority come into the Bill as a contributor. li°:23. But if the Bills were deposited earlier than the 21st December, your officials would have a longer time, or would have an earlier time to read through them and prepare their Reports to Parliament ? — Of course, they would have so much more time unless it had the effect of, at the same time, bringing the Com- mittee stage forward too. We should only have so much more time, assuming that the Com- mittee stage is not taken much before it is now. 1524. But the object of depositing the Bills earlier would be to get the C/ommittee stage on earlier, so as to get more forward with the Bills before the middle of the session ? — Then 1 am afraid that we should not get much gain if you bring the Committee stage on earlier. 1525. Why not ; because you say now that you are so pressed w^ith work that you cannot read throurfi the Bills in time ? — Supposing, for the sake of argument, that you brought forward the date for depositing the Bills, if that would have the effect of bringmg the Committee stage earlier, too, we should not be much better off. 1526. You would have exactly the same time ? — We should. 1527. And so you could prepare your reports as you do now for the Committees at an earlier date than you do at the present time ? — We should have the same pressure. 1528. Is the pressure too great at the present time ? — My own opinion is that it is, but that is a matter on which I would rather you took evi- dence from some of the members of the Board who have to deal with these matters. Then there is another point as regards the earlier deposit of Bills which has already been mentioned to you by a previous witness and that is that I am not quite sure that a local authority is in a position' to deposit its Bill very much earlier, because if you bring forward the date for the deposit of the Bill you must also I think bring forward the date for the deposit of the plans, which is at present the 30th of November. In the case of the local authority, say a borough, one-third of the borough council goes out and is re-elected every year. That third do not come into office until the 9th of November ; and if there is any Bill to be promoted it seems to be only right that the newly elected part of the council should have an opportunity of voting upon such a matter at that, and also of voting in the case of the formal resolution which must be passed in order to comply with the Borough Funds Act. A resolution lias to be passed to promote the Bill by an absolute majority of the whole council, and it would seem only rightthat, if possible, thp one-third newly elected in November, should have the chance of doing that. That could not take place until after the 9th of November; and of course the deposit on the 30fch of November would 100 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 22 July 1902.] Mr. BjOYCE. [Continued. Chairman — continued. would be governed to some extent by what was to be in the Bill. 1529. Then in your opinion would it be almost impcssible to deposit these Bills much earlier than the 21st of December ? — I think so. I speak more as regards local authorities, but that is my own view. 1530. Would it not be advantageous to fix a certain date for putting petitions against Bills ? — There, again, that is not a matter which affects the Board very much. 1531. Then I will not go into it. When you have these Provisional Orders, who examines the applications in order to ascertain whether the preliminary requirements have been complied with ? — That is done in the Department to which the Order belongs. If it is a case of a local Act, it is one Department ; if it is a case of compulsory purcha.se, it is another Department, and if it is a case of forming a united district for hospital purposes, it would go to the Medical Department to start with. 1532 Therefore, when these Provisional Orders come before the Committee they have been criticised very closely by some Depart- ment ? — All the preliminary stages the De- partment is responsible for. The issue of a Provisional Order by the Local Government Board is prima facie evidence under the statute that all the preliminary requirements have been complied with, the Department taking the place of the Examiner in the case of a Bill. 1533. Then what are the confirmation Bills which are introduced by Ministers ? — When there are sufficient Orders to group they are put into a Bill which merely contains a preamble reciting the issue of the Order the confirming section, perhaps a labouring class clause, if it hap- pens to be for taking land, and a short title clause, and the Order are included in the Schedule to the Bill. That is all the Confirmation Bill consists of Occasionally it is necessary to introduce some special clause into the Bill, which is cognate to an Order in the Bill, in case the scheme of the Order might be spoilt by some deficiency in the statutory fewer in the department that issues the Order, will give you an instance which will show you immediately what I mean. In the case of two Irish Orders this year under the Housing Acts, there was no doubt whatever about the merits of the two Orders ; they were unopposed ; but the local authority were running rather close to their margin of borrowing powers under the Public Health Act, and it was essential that these two schemes should be carried out, so the Local Govern- ment Board for Ireland at the instance of the Local Authority concerned, proposed that they should have a clause put into the confirming Bill taking any loans which were necessary for the pur- pose of those two orders out of the margin under the Public Health Act. Before that clause was inserted I consulted Lord Morley in the other House and the Chairman of Ways and Means in your House, because it is a well understood rule that no clause is put into a Confirmation Bill except by leave of those two oflScials. 1534. And these Confirmation Bills, I suppose, are generally unopposed ? — I think I may say the opposition is very slight. The opposition takes the form technically of opposition to the Bill of Cha irman — con tinued. coarse, but it is confined to the particular Order that the opponent wishes to alter. 1535. Do the new Standing Orders of the House of Commons make any difference to the procedure on Provisional Orders ? — Only to this extent, that if there were any opposition to a stage of a confirming Bill in the House, it would, I suppose, go over to 9 o'clock just as in the case of a private Bill ; but that is the only alteration which they really cause. 1636. That would not affect the Bill, then, im any degree ? — No, I do not think it does. 1537. Is there any Standing Order that you would like to call our attention to with regard to these Provisional Order Bills which requires alteration ? — There are two small points. I am a little doubtful whether the time for petitioning in your House is not a little too long. The effect as regards a Provisional Order Bill is this. I think the time for petitioning is ten clear days in the case of a Bill after first reading. Some years ago it used to be the same as regards a Pro- visional Order Bill — ten clear da}^s after first reading. But then those Bills, being printed by the Government Printer, were very much delayed after first reading, and the result was that the parties who wanted to oppose them could not get a print of the Bills in time ; and so the Standing Order was altered so that the time for peti- tioning should run from the time when the examiner appoints the Bill ; not from first reading. The examiner cannot appoint a Bill until a print is available for everybody. Tech- nically, of course, they have only got the seven clear days from the time that the examiner appoints, but, as a matter of fact, the opponent really has time to think about opposing from the date of the first reading. Another point is, as regards the interval which has to elapse between the second reading of a Bill and the committee stage. I do not quite know why it is fixed that there should be six clear days interval after the^ second reading of the Confirmation Bill before the Committee can sit ; certainly in the case of an unopposed Bill it seems unnecessary, and there is no such interval required in the House of Lords.. 1538. And you think that the interval might be lessened in this House ? — Unless there is. some reason of which I am unaware ; certainly in the case of unopposed Bills. 1539. In the Report of the Joint Select Com- mittee of 1888 on this subject, what did Mr. Courtney mean by saying that a great many unopposed Provisional Orders ought never to come before Parliament ? — His scheme under that Bill of 1888 was the widest that was pro- posed of course, but I take him to mean this i that there were a good manv things which re- quire confirmation by Parliament now which never need come before Parliament ; and if any legislation were proposed for extending Provi- sional Orders I should certainly suggest that it should do away with the necessity of bringing a good many Provisional Orders before Parliament at all. For instance there is one which I have in a Bill this year, an order for dissolving a special drainage district: it is simply because there happens to be a loan in that district which has to be dealt with by the order for dissolving the district, so as to put it upon some other authority. SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 101 22 July 1902] Mr. BoYCE. [Continued. CAairman— continued. authority, that necessitates it coming to Parlia- ment. If there were no loan the Board could ^dissolve that district without any question. 1540. The Local Government Board could do it ? — Yes, I certainly do not think that is a matter that Parliament need be troubled with. Then one of the most material things is the Orders for imiting districts. It seems to me that there is no necessity whatever for those coming to Parliament, for these reasons. It is not the practice now to unite districts that are not agreed. The Board have a great many agreements made for various purposes, chiefly for districts to unite for providing an infectious diseases hospital so as to prevent the multiplication of small hospitals. Each of those districts by itself •could provide a hospital without Parliament €ver knowing a word about it, and, in fact, if •they chose to pay for it out of current expenses, the Board need know nothing about it. It seems to me rather absurd that because three districts want to do in combination what each one can do by itself. Parliament should be troubled with having to confirm their union. 1541. On the other hand, in a case like that, is it much trouble to Parliament ; would not a Provisional Order of that kind be sure to go through unopposed ? — Those Orders practically would, but it might be in a Bill with an opposed Order, and, therefore, might be delayed. But -one of the principal reasons, apart from any -question or Parliamentary sanction, is this, that if they could be done by an ordinary Order these unions could be constituted all the year round, and so great delay would be avoided so far as the local authorities are con- cerned, and the Board would be relieved during the pressure of the Session. At present, you see, supposing three or four authorities chose to 'Combine now, they cannot get united until next Session. The result is that they cannot buy land, they cannot borrow money, and they •cannot put up the hospital. 1542. And do you find in your experience that several of these local authorities do com- bine ? — A great many. 1 543. Is it not a very customary thing for a local authority in each district to have its own infectious diseases hospital now ? — There are a good many, of course, but the combinations are very numerous. 1544. But you would not have to get a Provisional Order for a rural district and an urban district to join in an infectious diseases hospital ? — You would under the Public Health Act. 1545. As a matter of fact they do join without a Provisional Order ? — Then I think they only do that by means of a Joint Committee. 1546. I could give you two instances in which they have joined ; at any rate they built an in- fectious diseases hospital ? — And is that managed by a joint committee ? 1547. Yes, managed by a Joint Committee ? — I know that many of these joint Boards have ■originated in that way, but the weakness of that arrangement is that if they want to borrow money and they have only got a Joint Com- mittee the loan has to be separated. 1548. That is true ? — And the loan has to be Chairman — continued. borrowed in a certain proportion by each of the authorities that appoints the Joint Committee. That is the weakness of that ; whereas if you unite them and form the joint Board that is not necessary. 1549. Now would you have petitions deposited against certain portions of a Bill and not the whole Provisional Order Bill ? — That is prac- tically what it is now ; the Petition does not'go against the whole but against the particular Order. But then the difference between the two Houses on that point is rather material in considering the case of a Joint Committee. In your House if a Petition is presented against Order A and there are three or more Orders in the Bill, the whole Bill goes to a Select Com- mittee and the Select Committee deals with it ; but in the House of Lords if Order A is opposed, it is only that Order that goes to the Select Committee, and the whole Bill has to come back to a Committee of the whole House to deal with the whole Bill. 1550. Would it be possible to alter our Stand- ing Orders so as to admit of that change ? — Your Standing Orders are all right. 1551. I thought you said that in this House the opposition was to the whole Bill ? — No, technically the Petition is presented against the Bill, but it is allocated to the particular Order. Then the result in your House is, from my point of view, quite satisfactory. 1552. Then we must not deal with the House of Lords; we have nothing to do with their Standing Orders ? — No, but it arises rather in considering the question of a Joint Committee on Provisional Order Bills ; that is why I men- tion it ; it is not a matter which your House can correct, because it is in the other House, but it does affect incidentally the question of a Joint Committee. 1553. The very useful information which you have given us all relates to legislation, but we are sitting here to inquire as to whether there should be any alteration of the Standing Orders. Can you suggest any useful alteration of the Standing Orders dealing with Provisional Orders or dealing with your department ? — The only alteration which would, perhaps, facilitate matters would be if one or other of the Houses would refuse to forego the Committee stage in the case of Provisional Order Bills. My ex- perience as regards running these Confirmation Bills is that there is so little difficulty about it and there is so little opposition that I do not feel, except in point of time, the necessity for even a Joint Committee. 1554. It seems to me that most of the Pro- visional Orders, being unopposed, great delay cannot arise in getting them passed through the Houses ? — No. t do not experience any delay ; in fact, I suppose I run my Bills as quickly as anybody ; but I think that this House might get some relief about this time of the year, if the Bills were all to run up from your House to the House of Lords, instead of running both ways. That is my experience. I used very often to begin my Bills in the House of Lords, and I found it was so inconvenient coming crossways, and coming down to your House about this time of the year, that I dropped it, and now I always begin 102 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN KEKORE THE 22 July 1902 ] Mr. BoYCE. [Contimied. Chnirman — continued. begin my Bills in the House of Commons and go up to the House of Lords. ■ 1555. I suppose you would advocate that a great many of the Private Bills should be turned into J^rovisional Orders, where possible ? — 1 think so. I think that most things that now require a Private Bill might certainly in the case of a ■Local Authority be done by Provisional Order. ' 1556. And no Standing Orders require altera- tion to effect that, but legislation is required ^ — That is so. Take the case of gas and water. 1 do not know that there is anything so particu- liSrly sacred about a gas company's undertaking that the Board of Irade should not have the power to issue an Order to buy it compuUorily, just in the same way as the Local (Tovernment 'Board can authorise the compulsory piu'chase of a piece of land. 1557. As our reference is limited to an altera- tion of the Standing Orders. I do not think that •we need trouble you to go into any great detail with regard to these matters ? — Very well. I was only anxious that with regard to the Pro- visional Orders there should bo some record, by which I should be able to bring to the mind ■of the Committee, the procedure, because, as a matter of fact, I do not think there is any record 'of the mode in which Provisional Orders are carried from first to last in England. There was no information given to the Committee of 1888 as to how the Provisional Order system is worked, and although it may be outside the exact purview of this Committee, I should like to have it brought out somehow. 1558. If you could put in a memorandum we could iippend it to our report ; but no useful Sin-pose would be gained by our going into these etails, which are beyond the scope of our refer- ence, and which would require legislation ? — It is perfectly true that it does not affect the present 'procedure of the Committee, but if the Committee IS going to recommend any extension of Pro- visional Orders it seems to me that it would be well for the Committee to know exactly what they were recommending. 1559. Our reference is whether any alterations of the Standing Orders are desirable in the interests of economy, efficiency, and general con- venience. Can you put in in a succinct form a memorandum describing the procedure of Pro- visional Orders ? — Yes. 1560. Then the Committee will be glad if you will put in a short memorandum by which we can easily see what the procedure is : how Pro- visional Orders are obtained and the preliminary steps which are taken to obtain them. That you will do ? — Certainly. Mr. Renshaw. 1561. You have read the evidence given before us ? —Yes, I .have. 1562. You are aware that it has been stated in evidence that a period of from 35 to 42 days exists at the beginning of the Session during which no Committees of this House sit upon Private Bills ?— Yes. 1563. That of course is a serious amount to deduct from the total amount of time available for the consideration of Private Bills during the Session In your opinion to what is that long Mr. Renshaw — continued. delay in the setting up of Committees due ? — I should not necessarily knov^ that unles-s it came to this point ; that the Committees were ready to be set up and they were delayed through our lieports not being ready. Until a Bill is grouped we simply take the Bills up in the order that runs most convenient, the result is that when the group is formed we may have to see how long wc can get to get the Reports on those particular Bills out ; and the practice has been during the last iwo or three sessions, when the Committee of Selection puts the Bills into groups and arranges the Bills in the groups, for me to be there and to tell the Committee e.xacth^ the stage in which the report is on any particular Bill in those groups. For instance, I say that such and such a report is ready, or that such and such report cannot be out for a week. 1 have the information supplied to me so as to show exactly what the stage of the report is ; but I am afraid that there is some delay in (ionsequence of the impossibility of the Board getting their reports out at the time that a Bill is ready for Committee. 1564. Then if some method could be devised by which this grouping could take place before the meeting of Parliament, would it be possible for your department to have its reports ready at an earlier date ? — That moans that we should know the order in which the Bills would be taken, which is the great difficulty with us. 1565. Quite so ? — ^In answer to that I may say that the earlier we can know the order in which the Bills will be taken, of course the easier it will be for us to be ready for them. But then there is also the other House to con- sider, because it not only means knowing the order in your House, but it means knowing the order in the other House. Only this very last Session we were pressed tremendously. In the first place, it was an early Session ; we were pressed tremendously when your Committee of Selection were ready to put out their groups, because we were being pressed equally by the House of Lords, and we had no indication as to which Bills were coming up first before Com- mittee in your House or the House of Lords. The result is that you may have a Bill ready to come before Committee that has never be6n looked at, and perhaps a very heavy Bill. 1566. Then the Committee may take it that it is your opinion that the earlier these Bills could be grouped the greater would be the facility with which you could deal with them in your depart- ment ? — Yes, I think so, because we should know- better the order in which to take up the reports. 1567. And it would also be of assistance to the work of your department if at an earlier period than at present the course in respect of either House of any particular Bill was decided upon ? — Certainly. 1568. That is the House ot Origin ?— Yes, the earlier we know when a Bill will reach the Committee stage the easier of course it is for us. 1569. The grouping of the Bills is a matter which might be done by the permanent officials of the House, is it not, to some extent ? — It is prepared bv them, but the decision I think must rest with tlie Committee of Selection. 1570. You think there would be difficulties in the SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 103 ,22 July 1902.] Mr. BoYCE. [Continued, Mr. Renshaw — continued. the way of any other authority than the Com- mittee of Selection deciding as to the grouping of the Bills I — I do not think I am quite in a position to answer that, offh.and. 1571. But in your opinion if it was possible that Bills should bo grouped by some official authority prior to the meeting of Parliament, that would very much facilitate the work of your department and of getting the Com- mittees to work at an earlier date ? — Anything that would give us the order, so as to enable us, if you appoint Bill A, to get the report on Bill A out, instead of taking up the report say, on Bill K, would very much facilitate that. But there is our difficulty ; we have nothing to indicate the order in which the Bills will come up to such a stage as that the report will be required, either in this House or the other. 1572. The dates for the petitions for the Bills vary between the two Houses. In the House of Commons it is the 21st December and in the House of Lords the 17th December? — That is for the deposit of the Bill, yes. 1573. It would be desirable to make it one date, would it not ? — I should say so ; I do not know why it was ever different. 1574. And if the date could be made earlier than the I7th December it would facilitate the earlier reports from your department, would it not ? — I think so. We should have the Bills so much earlier before us. 1575. Let me put it in another way. Is it not a fact that the 21st December so closely approaches the period of the Christmas holidays that that to a certain extent delays the Bills being taken up by your department and dealt with ? — I should not think tnere is much delay in this particular department on that matter at that time, because tne work is so frightfully heavj- upon that department that my own beliei is that they reduce their Christmas holi- days to a minimum. 1576. Could you tell us at what date the department you refer to begins to deal with these Bills and to consider them ? — Directly they are deposited. 1577. Immediately upon deposit ?— Yes. 1578. And they sit de die in diem ? — I should like you to have had the evidence of the prin- cipal of the department, Vho would tell you exactly how the whole thing acts. But the order in which they are taken up is allocated by the principal of the department ; certain Bills go to certain clerks, and certain Bills to others, and every year, of course, they improve their machinery ; but the mass is so great that it is difficult to make any headway by the time the Committees meet. 1579. The department, in fact, is not strong enough for the work that is specially thrown upon it at that time of the year ?— I think that may be said ; that would be my own opinion. I should prefer you to get it from the board, but that is my opinion. The difficulty is to get the skilled labour to deal with this matter, because it is not a matter, this question of reporting upon private Bills, that can be put to anybody in any department. You want a certain amount of training. The preliminary reading of the Bill 0.23. Mr. Renshaw — continued. has to be done by a man with a good- deal of gumption, who can go through it and note the clauses from his previous knowledge, and tick them off or mark whether any report or not is required upon them, and if so, what sort of line it should take. 1580. — Does your department report upon every Bill ? — We have every Bill deposited and perused with a view to report, but there are many cases in which no report is necessary, and we make a return from time to time to each House upon these Bills we do not want to report upon, so that the Committee knows that no report will be sent in. 15gl. And is it necessary that every BiU shoidd be referred, as it is at present, to your Department. Do you deal, for instance, with Bills which are also referred to the Board of Trade ? — We have every Bill deposited with us for this reason : that the powers of the Board are so wide and range over such an enormous number of subjects that it is very difficult to say that the Board is not affected by any Bill until it has been read. The very point that you have raised arose either last year or the year before. Then we did not have everv Bill, but only those Bills containing matters which in the terms of the Standing Order were within our jurisdiction. The result was that some 55 Bills were not deposited with us, and we had letters from the Treasury calling our attention to some of those Bills. Some of them, I think, ought to have been deposited with us. I do nor, think it was done designedly, but it was accidental that they were not ; and the result of that was that we got the Standing Order altered so as to bring us into the same position as the Post Office and Treasury, so that we should have every Bill, and might be quite sure that nothing slipped through. 1582. All Bills, railway Bills as well as Bills promoted by corporations, etc., go to you ? — Yes. 1583. Do you group the Bills in your Depart- ment in any way as between railway Bills and corporation Bills ?— Yes, my impression is that railway Bills would bo dealt with by one in- dividual, because the points arising on a railway Bill are very few. 1584. So that it would be possible, I presume, for your department to deal at a much earlier date with railway Bills than it would be with Bills promoted by local authorities ? — I think so, because the points of criticism are very slight and do not require the same know- ledge that is required in the other. 1585. Of course, if all those Bills which are promoted by railway companies in successive Sessions were reported upon at the beginning of the Session, it would facilitate the early working of Committees, would it not ? — It may be so. I have so little to do with railway Bills that I do not like to answer with any certainty. 1586. But it is not the habit of the Depart- ment to put those Bills aside and delav them until the more important Bills have been dealt with, is it ? — I am not quite sure how they do that, but my impression is that they would get rid of small things like that, because they do not occupy the attention of say, a man who can deal P with 104 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 22 JvXy 1902.] Mr. BoYCE. [Continued. Mr. Itenshaw — continued. with a big Improvement Bill ; they would be disposed of more easily. 1587. Would it be possible for you to put in a paper showing the approximate date at which reports were made in two or three Sessions on the Bills submitted to you ? — We could give you the date of each report. 1588. But I rather mean, how many reports were in by the 1st of February, how many were in by the 1st of March, and how many by the 1st of April ? — I will ascertain whether that is possible. I should not have the information myself 1589. 1 think you .said that you do not know sometimes whether Bills are opposed until a peti- tion has been presented; does that delay the opera- tion of your department in any way ? — No, but it is more difficult to arrange the Committee stage on an opposed Bill than it is on an unopposed Bill, because every promoter of an opposed Bill is anxious to get to the Select Committee as soon as he can. The unopposed Select Com- mittee is not so important; it is the opposed Bills that you want tirst as a rule. 1590. So that there is a habit in your depart- ment of dealing with the opposed Bills before the unopposed Bills are taken up ? — That may so happen when we know them. 1591. Then it would be a distinct benefit, from that point of view, if the 10 days that you referred to under Standing Order 210 could be got rid of, would it not, so that the opposition to the Bill emerged at an earlier date than it does at present ? — I think so. That would tell us whether the Bill was opposed, and therefore whether it was likely to go to a Select Com- mittee ; but I am not quite sure that that would give us more time. 1592. I do not suggest that it would give you more time although I think that that even might result from it ; but supposing it were found possible (as I think you know is the case under the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act), to fix a certain period of time from the date of the deposit of the Bill as the date at which Petitions against the Bill must be lodged — I think in the case of the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act it is four weeks, — do not you think that that would enable your department to realise at an earlier date whether or not there was to be opposition to the Bills, and so facilitate the work of your department ? — That would be so, but the question of opposition is not always the determining factor, because you may have an opposed Bill which may not really get before a Select Committee for a long time ; and our difficulty is to know the order. Supposing for the sake of argument you take your definite date and say tne 10th of February, Ave may know that there are 100 Bills opposed, but that is no indication to us as to which report would be required first. There are 100 Bills to go on, say ; we know they are opposed, «nd we know that they will go to Select Com- mittees ; but it does not follow that they will want to get to the Select Committee before an unopposed Bill. 1593. You rather suggest that that rests with the agents ? — It may be governed by a great many different circumstances. Mr. W or sley -Taylor. 1594. Can you tell me, are all the Bills de- posited not only with you but with the other departments, the Board of Trade, the Treasury, the Post Office, the Board of Agriculture, and the Home Office ?— Not all. All' the Bills are de- posited with the Treasury and the General Post Office and the Board ; and I think the bulk are deposited with the Board of Trade ; but I am not quite sure about that ; I think the Board of Trade only come in under paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, of Standino^ Order 33, where they are mentioned; the Home Department come in under paragraph 7, and the Board of Agricul- ture, I thmk, only come in in the case of Commons or Inclosures or anything of that kind. 1575. Then with regard to every Private Bill three departments have to report ? — Have to look at them. 1595*. Have either to report or say that they do not care to I'eport ? — Yes. 1596. As I understand, in your department, you begin the Bills at once when they are depo- sited. Can you give me now any idea how many Bills you would either have reported on or said it was not necessary to report on by the end of January ? — No, I could not give you that information. 1597. But you will include that in your return which you have promised ? — I will endeavour to get you that information. Will last year be sufficient for your purpose ? 1598. Yes. Would it be any advantage to you if you knew, say by the end of January, what Bills were opposed ; is your present view that there would be many Bills left over for consider- ation by you after the end of January ? — I did not wish to convey that the question of oppo- sition is in every case the determining factor as to the order in which we take up a Bill. My point is that our difficuly is to know the order in which the Bills will pi'oceed, and as we do not know that, we do not know the order in which to take up the reports. 1599. That I follow ; but supposing that you had at a certain time a number of Bills waiting for your consideration, and you knew that cer- tain of them were opposed and certain of them unopposed, I take it the convenient thing would be, in order to exp'edite the Committee stage, that you should take up for consideration first those which you knew to be opposed ? — Yes, I think so certainly, and I think that is done. 1 600. Then what I put to you is this : Could you tell me now whether there would be remain- ing, as a rule, a considerable number of Bills waiting your consideration after the end of January ? — I should say so. 1601. So that if you knew by the end of January which Bills out of the whole number were opposed and which were unopposed it would to a certain extent facilitate your work, because you could take up those which you knew to be opposed earlier ? — Yes, to a certain extent ; but we get pressed as much for getting Bills on early, even though they are unopposed. 1602. But what we are concerned with chiefly is the getting on with the opposed work ? — Yes. 1603. That is, I suppose, the difficulty ? — Yes, and amongst the opposed Bills, of course. Sup- posing SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 105 22 July 1902.] Mr. BoYCE. [Continued. M)". Worsley- Taylor — continued. posmg there are 50 opposed Bills, there is even then no indication as to which of those 50 will be taken first. That is another difficulty we are under. And then there is also 'his, Take a case that is subject to the Borough Funds Act, where there is promotion by a local authority and they have to get the consent of the owners and ratepayers, we may find that a man has been told off to get ready the first proof of a report on a big improvement Bill, and the ratepayers have thrown it out. We have had that happen more than once. I am bound to pay that the agents are very good and always send round to us directly they Know that a Bill is dead : but that has happened more than once. 1604. Then as to the remark that you made with regard to the time, 10 days for petitioning, do I correctly understand your view to be that as a rule that is too long ? — I was only referring then to petitioning in the case of Confirmation Bills, not as regards the private Bills. As regards Confirmation Bills, technically it is only seven days after it has been appointed by the examiners; but if there is any delay between the first reading and the commencement of the seven days, prac- tically the opponent has a good deal more than even the 10 days. That is what I was suggesting was a little too long. 1C05. About an extension of the Provisional Order system, that clearly you agree is a matter of legislation; so I will oidy ask you this. I suppose if the Public Health Act were amended and brought up to date as suggested, there are a considerable number of powers which would be conferred on these Municipal authorities whom you have in view, either absolutely or by adop- tive clauses, which would save the time of Parliament very considerably, because now they have to go for Bills to get them ? — My difficulty in answering that question is, that they go for Bills to get these powers, but I am not at all prepared to say that if you revised all local Government Statutes up to date those powers would be found in the revised general law. There are so many clauses in my opinion that are put into Bills which are of very little practical use that I am not at all prepared to assent to the idea that further general legislation will make those clauses part of the general law. 1G06: But still I take it that you could men- tion a number of things which undoubtedly would form part of an amendment of the general law ? — Yes, I think so ; I think it is admitted that the general law is not brought up to date. 1607. Now if they want to get those powers at all they must go for them by Bill ? — Unless they have a local Act in the place. If they had a local Act and the Board could alter it by Pro- visional Order, they might get the powers that you refer to. 1608. So that if there was such an amendment of the general law it would lighten the work of Parliament to that extent ? — To that extent. 1609. And with regard to other powers you had in your mind which ought not to form part of an amendment of the general law, if they came ibr them they would come before Com- Mr. Woraley-Tayloi — continued. mittees with the knowledge on their part and on the part of the Committees that those provisions had been recently discussed by Parliament and deliberately discarded ? — Yes. 1610. There would be the less temptation, therefore, to come for them ? — Yes, I suppose there would be. 1611. And the less temptation to give them ? — Yes. I do not know whether I might mention two points. One is, that the suggestion as regards a shortening of the time for objections to locus affects Provisional Orders to some extent. Take a case which happened last year, of a rural district which had a i'rovisional Order for taki-ng lands for sewage purposes alongside a railway ; although no land belonging to the rail- way company was scheduled, they presented a petition against the Order. Obviously, I think„ the railway company had no locus standi, but it would have been difficult for that rural authority to object to their locus if the time had been much shorter than it is at present,^ because it was a local authority in Yorkshire, they had no agent up here engaged ; I had to inform them of the petition, they came up and consulted me what they wore to do, and I said, " You had better go to an agent and see if you cannot object to their locn^ standi." There is that point. And then as regards the Court of Referees, it is useful in a case like that, because no sooner was the objection to locxis lodged than the railway company withdrew and did not further oppose the Order. So that it is not only what Mr. Parker Smith said, that the Court of Referees throws out cases, but it also keeps a check upon petitioners whO' really ought not to be heard. CJiairman. 1612. Is there anything else that you wish to say ? — Might I say one thing which bears upon the reports ? One difficulty that we have as re- gards those big Improvement Bills is this : that although they are taken up at once they may have to go to several departments. For in- stance, in the case of a Bill comprising water, .sewerage, bye-laws, and all the parts of an omnibus Bill, that you know so well, if a local authority is going for a new water supply we always ascertain now, as far as possible, whether there- is any objection to that source of supply. For instance, we have the reports of the local Medical Officers of Health, which are filed every year, or one of our medical inspectors might have held an inquiry there about it. What the Board have thought about that is, that if we have any information which would assist the Committee^ in considering it, we should place it at the service of the Committee. And then with regard to bye-laws that have to go to a special department, and sanitary clauses, and finance clauses, I mention them only as showing that you may have only one Bill, but it has to go to several departments. Mr. Worsley -Taylor. 1613. Even in your own case of the Local Government Board ? — Yes. 0.23. P 2 lOt) MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Thursday, 24:th July, 1 002. MEMBERS present: Mr. Hobhouae Mr. Jeffreys. Mr. Worsley-Taylor. The Right Honourable A. F. JEFFREYS in the Chair. Mr Charles Walter Campion, called in ; and Examined ' Chairman. 1614. You are one of the Examiners of Private Bills ? — I am. 1615. And you are Taxing Master as well, I believe, are you not ? — Yes. 1616. Our Reference is really limited to seeing whether we can make any alterations in the Standing Orders so as to promote economy and efficiency in Private Bill Procedure. We have had some evidence to the effect that Bills might be deposited earlier than they are at the present time, wliich is on December the 21st. Do you wish to give any opinion on that point ? — I sup- pose the only difficulty in depositing the Bills earUer would be whether the Agents might not be ready to deposit them. I do not see from an Examiner's point of view any objection to advanc- ing the date of deposit a little, say from the 2l8t to the 17th, or from the 17th to a few days earher. The last deposit before that, as the Committee are aware, is the deposit of plans on the 30th of November. A considerable interval elapses be- tween that deposit and the deposit of the Bill. Whether any inconvenience would be caused by shortening that interval is really an Agent's question, it seems to me. 1617. Supposing under the old system the Bills have to be deposited on the 21st of December, when do they come into your hands to examine them ? — We sit on the 18th of January. 1618. Is that not rather a long interval ? — So far as the Examiners are concerned there is no reason that the interval should be so long. I apprehend that the object of the interval is to enable the parties concerned, both promoters and opponents, to prepare their case ; primarily for opponents to prepare their Memorials, if they intend to oppose, and for promoters, when they have those Memorials, to prepare their case to meet the allegations in the Memorials. 1619. But jou do not know whether the Bills are to be opposed or not, do you, until after the Second Reading ; Petitions need not be deposited until after they reach the Committee stage ?— I was speaking of opposition on Standing Orders. 1620. I beg your pardon. Does it take the parties all that time, between December the 21st and January the 18th to consider whether they Chairman — continuad. shall oppose them before you ? — There are other most important deposits. There is the deposit of the plans on the 30th of November ; then there is the deposit of the Bill (that we have dealt with) ; and then there are the deposits of the Estimates on the 31st of December and the List of owners and occupiers, I think on the same date, and the Labouring Classes Statement ozi the same date. 1621. All on the 31st of December ? — All on the 31st of December. That brings you pretty close to the day on which Memorials have to be de- posited, which is the 9th of January for the first hundred. Assuming, as would often be the case with the Labouring Class Statement, that there were allegations framed upon that, I do not think the time is too long for getting up the case. I had a case this year in which it must have taken a long time to enquire into the manner in wliich the Labouring Class Statement had been made out ; it had been made out in a very unsatisfactory manner, and very important allegations were sustained in consequence. 1622. But you do not examine all the Bills directly, do you? Do you not examine some first so as to get rid of them, and get them ready for the Committee stage ? — We go straight through the Bills. The Memorials, as the Committee are aware, are deposited in the case of the first hundred by the 9th of January, the second hundred by the 16th of January I think it is, and the third hundred and all the rest by the 23rd. 1623. Do the unopposed Bills come before you in any way ? — The Bills unopposed on Standing Orders do you mean ? 1624. Yes ? — They all come before us. They all have to comply with Standing Orders. 1625. I wanted to put this further question to you. If there were no Memorials against them then you could send a great many Bills straight away, I suppose ? — We go through the unopposed Bills at a greater rate, at the rate of twenty-five a day. 1626. Therefore, there are a considerable num- ber that you can get ready at once ?— Yes, we get through the whole bulk of the Bills, I think (I am not alluding of course to postponed Bills, of SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 107 24 July 1902.] Mr. Campion. [Continued. CAa«rmo»— continued. of which there are always a few), in about eight or nine days. 1627. The date you have given me when the plana have to be deposited is the 30th November, and the Bills on December the 21st. What did you say it was that had to be deposited on the 3 1st of December? — The Labouring Class State- ment, and the Estimate, and the Lists. 1628. And the Memorials against the first 100 Bills have to be deposited on January the 9th, and those against the second 100 on January the 16th ? — Against the first 100 Bills by January the 9th ; against the second 100 by January the 16th ; against the third 100 and all the rest, by January the 23rd. 1629. Having got those dates, supposing that the Standing Orders were altered so as to make the Bills to be deposited earlier than the 21st of December, would there be any difficulty in putting all those dates a little further back ; would it make any difference to you in your Examiner's work ? — I do not think, from an Examiner's point of view, there could be. I can only speak from an Examiner's point of view, but I do not «ee why they should not be put forward. There is one deposit I omitted, by the way, and that is the deposit of the money, which is now on the I5th of January. I may assume, of course, that any change of that kind would be founded upon concurrent action by both Houses of Par- liament. 1630. We know that the Bills in the House of Lords are deposited by December 17th. Are all these other dates put four days back ? — No, I think that is the only variation. The other dates are all the same in the House of Lords. 1631. Then there is no object in putting the date of depositing the Bills back earlier unless we could get all the other dates earlier too. That is the fii-st stage the Bills have to go through, and unless all the dates are put back we could not get them into the hands of Committees any earlier than we do at the present time ? — That is so. I do not know whether I expressed myself plainly enough. The dates of deposits in the two Houses are identical, except in the case of the deposit of the Bill which is four days earlier in the House of Lords than the other House, but otherwise they are just the same. 1632. That is what I understood. I then said that there is no object in having the Bills deposited earlier unless all your process was made earlier too ? — That would be so. 1633. The Bills cannot get into the hands of Committees until they have been through your hands, can they ? — They cannot ; they cannot be presented until the Examiner has endorsed the petitions. 1634. It has been suggested to the Committee that the Bills should all be deposited earlier, say for instance, on the 17th of December or even two or three days earlier, then all these various deposits and the Memorials would have to be put back four or five days, and your final examina- tion, instead of being on the 18th January, might be put back to the 12th or aomethiiifr of that kind. Chairman — continued. and then the Bills would get earlier into the hands of Committees. Would there be any difficulty in your doing that ? — No, I see no difficulty in it. 1635. You cannot speak as to any further stages of the Bills when they have left your hands. After you have examined them there is an end of it so far as you are concerned ? — There is an end of it until they come back after First Beading in the Second House. 1636. With regard to cost, we have to consider the economy of the matter ; can you suggest in any way how this process could be conducted in a more economical manner ? — I suppose that question relates to the whole procedure of Private Business, to the expense of taking Bills through Parliament ? 1637 Yes ; the House fees particularly. Do you consider that they are too high i — I daresay there may be individual cases in which the House fees bear a rather large proportion to the general cost of the Bill, to the general expenses ; but 1 should not have thought that altogether they were too high. But I do not know that I am really competent to form an opinion upon that, because the House fees are by the Taxing Act excluded entirely from my consideration. J. understood the Committee wished to have some information with regard to the proporton that the House fees bore in anything like typical Bills, and Mr. Fell has made out a return, which I have here, dealing with three classes of Bills : one the class of very heavy Bills over 10,000^., the second class between 1,000J. and 5,000Z., and the third c'ass between 500f. and l,000i. ; and he has taken three Bills more or less at random in the last two or three years from each of those classes. Shall I read the totals to the Committee ? 1638. Yes, if you please ? — I can hand in the return afterwards. Here is a Bill of 1901, the Derby Corporation Bill ; the total cost was 12,205i. Is. M., House fees in the House of Lords 186i., and in the House of Commons 433L Of course the difference would be simply because the fight was in one House more than in the other. Counsel's fees, we thought it might interest the Committee to know, were 2,615i. 1639. In the House of Lords ?— No, that is Counsel's fees in both Houses. Then the next Bill is a very heavy one, the heaviest, I think, I have ever had so far as the aggregate of cost is concerned ; it was 30,954L 1640. Call it 31,000i. ?— Yes ; there were no House fees in the Hotise of Lords, because in that case— it was one of the great Derwent Valley Water fights— the Bill was consolidated with other Bills -in the House of Commons. The House fees in the House of Commons were 402L ; that is in 1899. Counsel's fees were 3,764L 1641. You said the total cost of getting that Derwent Valley Water Bill through was 31,000L ? —Yes. 1642. Then you say the House of Commons fees were 402?."and the Counsel's fees 3,764/. ? — Yes. 1643. How do you account for the remaming 26.000?. which goes to make up the total of 3(,000i 108 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 24 JvXy 1902.] Mr. Campion. [Continued. Chairman — continued. 31,000i. ? — In that case there were an enormous number of specialists, water analysts, surveyors and engineers, whose charges were very large. 1644. They came up to this enormous sum of 26,000L ?— Yes, they did. It was much the heaviest Bill I have ever had. 1645. Do you put 26,000?. in that Paper for costs of specialists, witnesses, and Parliamentary agents ? — I do not think that the agents' bill was at all heavy. I think the expenses were made up almost entirely of disbursements to defray the charges of specialists of all kinds. There were a great many. 1646. Did you have to tax those Bills ? — I had to tax those Bills, and in that case I felt very much that it was very hard upon the Corporation — very hard upon the parties chargeable ; because what had happened had been this : that all these enormous costs had been all submitted to a Sub- committee, who were appointed by the Corpora- tion, and upon that Sub-committee were profes- sional men — I think a solicitor and an engineer — and they had the best professional advice on the Committee. They went into the costs very care- fully, and they did, of course, reduce them con- siderably, because they were all on it before, I believe, and there was really no work for the Taxing Officer left to do, because with their know- ledge they could examine the costs in a way that no Taxing Officer could examine them. Nevertheless, they had to come before me pro forma, and I had to charge the usual ad valorem fee. 1647. Do you remember in that instance whether you deducted much off the costs ? — I deducted hardly anything ; I had no power to deduct anything. ,^,^ 1648. Then what powers have you ? — That was a very exceptional case indeed ; I have never had another such case. 1649. Have you power to tax the agent's costs and counsel's fees ? — When I say that I had no power to deduct anything, I mean that all these costs had been examined by people who had much more information at their command and more know- ledge to go into the matter than I had. They had gone into them thoroughly, and therefore for me to have ticked off more would have been simply to have acted in an arbitrary and unjust manner. 1650. Can you say in a general way whether you have to deduct much off the costs or not in various cases ? — In some cases I have deducted very large sums indeed. The largest sum I have ever deducted was 2,161i., but that does not represent anything like the largest proportion that I have ever deducted. In one case some years ago, out of a total of 4,200L I deducted 1,705J. There was a case of a very small Bill — perhaps too small to be worth mentioning — in which I deducted something like 70 per cent. So that the cases vary very much. 1651. Would you care to tell us what sort of proportion of that 1,700Z. that you deducted came from the various fees ; did that 1,700Z. come off the Prtst of witnesses or agent's or counsel's fees, Chairman — con tinned. or what ? — That was rather a peculiar case ; it was a case in which all the work had been done by a gentleman who was one of the promoters, but he was also an engineer, and he charged every thmg as a time charge. 1652. He charged for his own services, you mean, when he was a promoter as well ? — Yes, quite so. 1653. Now fi'om the figures that you have given us with regard to these costs, it would seem that the fees of the House bear a very small proportion indeed ? — Yes, I have given the highest category. The lower you go, I think, the larger proportion do they bear. When you come to the small Bills the proportion is large. 1654. In one instance that you have given us, with a total cost of 12,000Z., the fees in the House of Commons were 4231., and in another instance where the total cost was 31,000i., the fees for the House of Commons were 402Z., which is a very small proportion ? — Yes. 1655. You could not alter those, I imagine ? — I will take the next category, between the 1,000L and 5,000i. I have here the case of the Eamsgate Corporation Bill 1900, in which the total cost was 3,2221., the House fees in the House of Lords, 169?., and in the House of Commons, 104{., and counsel's fees, 710J. 1656. There again, what makes up the re- maining 2,222? ? — I could not say that without looking at the Bill. 1657. Can you not say from your own general observation and knowledge ? Do they go in agents and witnesses ; they must I suppose ? — I should think witnesses probably ; probably not in the professional charges of the agent and solicitor ; probably the heaviest item would be the expenses of witnesses. 1658. Paying for their professional knowledge, — not their expenses up here, but professional knowledge, I suppose ? — Of course, if they are experts they charge a good deal more. 1659. It seems a large proportion, does it not, 2,222J. out of 3,222?.? Have you got another case ? — I can give you the Brighton Corporation Bill, where the total cost was 2,786?. ; the House fees in the House of Lords, 136?., and in the House of Commons, 161?., and counsel's fees, 557?. 1660. That again is almost the same proportion, is it not ? — Yes, it is. 1661. Leaving 2,000?. for various other things ? — Yes. The next one is an unopposed one, so that there would be no counsel's fees ; the Aston Manor Urban District Council Tramways 1901 ; the total cost was 1,170?. ; the House fees in the House of Lords, 123?., and in the House of Commons, 84?. 1662. If it was unopposed how could there be another 900?. or so for various expenses ; what would that go in ? — I am afraid I could not say that without looking at the Bill. There might have been in the case of a tramway, sometimes a great many notices to be given. Frontagers' notices, and others. It runs into hundreds sometimes. 1663. Yo'i do not mean notices connected with this SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 109 24 July 1902.] Mr. Campion. [Gcmtinued. Chairman — continued. this House, do you ? — Notices given in connection with the Standing Orders of this House. There may be a great many Frontagers ; in the case of Frontagers' Notices we allow, by our scale, 5s. a piece ; that makes a good deal sometimes. Then there are three Bills between 500L and l.OOOi. The first is the Rhondda Urban District Coiuicil Bill, 1899, where the total cost was 953Z. ; the House fees in the House of Lords 142?., and in the House of Commons 81Z. There the Committee will see that the House fees in a small Bill bear a larger proportion to the total. Then counsel's fees were 123L Finally, I have two unopposed Chairman — continued. Bills. The first is the Sutton-in-Ashfield Urban District Water Bill, 1901, with a total of 564L ; House fees in the House of Lords 120Z., and in the House of Commons 90Z. There again the pro- portion of House fees is larger. 1664. Were there any coimsel in that case ? — No ; these last two were vmopposed. Lastly, the Finedon Urban District Water Bill, with a total cost of 703Z. ; the House fees being in the House of Lords lOOZ., and in the House of Commons BIZ. {The Witness handed in the following State- ment.) Bill of Costs above £. 5,000. House Fees. Counsel's Lords. Commons. Fees. £. s. d. &. s. d. . £. s. d. £. i. d. Promotioa of Derby Corporation BUI, 1901 12,205 1 5 186 14 - 423 15 6 2,615 4 6 Costa of Leicester Corporation in promoting Leicester Corporation Waoer Bill, 1899 And opposing Derby Corporation Water Bill, 1899, and Sheffield Corporation Water Bill, 1899 - [ 30,954 17 6 * 402 4 - 3,764 15 6 Promotion •f Workington Railway and Docks Bill, 1900. 7,933 15 1 202 7 - 240 2 6 1,096 19 6 Betwee Promotions of — N £.1,000 AN] D £.5,000. Ramsgate Corporation Bill, 1900 .3,222 7 3 169 10 - 104 - - 710 16 - Brighton Corporation Bill, 1901 2,786 1 1 136 4 - 161 6 - 557 11 6 Aston Manor Urban District Council Tram- ways Bill, 1901 (unopposed). 1,170 7 3 123 12 - 84 - - — Betwe Promotions of — EN £.500 AND £. 1,000. Rhondda Urban District Council Bill, 1899 953 11 9 142 6 - 81 - - 123 7 - Sutton-in-Afhfield Urban District Council Water Bill, 1901 (unopposed). Finedon Urban District Council Water Bill, 1902 (unopposed). 564 12 4 708 7 8 120 4 6 100 12 - 90 - - 81 - - — * This Bill was consolidated in tlie Commons with the Derby Corporation Water Bill and the Sheffield Corporation Water Bill into the Derwent Valley Water Bill, aud did not therefore itself come before the House of Lords. ^1665. I gather from that that the House fees — the House of Commons fees, at any rate — as com- pared with the total expenditure, are a compara- tively small item of the costs taken all round ? — Yes, I should think so. 16G6. Li the larger Bills it is a very small item, and even in the smaller amounts it is not a very heavy charge, is it ? — ^The lower you go down the higher proportion it seems to bear ; I cannot say more than that. 1667. Have you any other remarks that you wish to make to the Committee ? — With regard to any subject, do you mean ? 1668. With regard to fees ?— No. 1669. There is nothing else that you would have an intimate knowledge of with regard to Bills, is there ; no other evidence that you would wish to give to the Committee ? — Not miless the Com- mittee propose to deal with Standing Order 22. I should have something to say about that. 1670. I understand that the Chairman in the House of Lords and the Chairman in the House of Commons have considered that very carefully, and I do not think that we need go into evidence with regard to that, that is, with regard to tram- ways running through local authorities ? — Yea, consents. 1671. You 1^0 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 24 July 1902.] Mr. Campion. {Continued. Mr. Worsley-Taylor. ^1671. You have separated the items of cost for some of these Bills ; I take it that it is only for the purpose of givmg information to the Com- mittee really bearing on the question of House fees ? — Yes, that is all. 1672. You have separated Counsel's fees and other costs ; it is merely to give information ? — Yes. 1673. It is not by way of criticism, I understand? — No, certainly not. We selected some Bills which appeared to be more or less typical Bills in order to give information to the Committee. 1674. That relieves me of any necessity of going into questions on that point. It is only just fair to the parties in these Bills to add that one item that you have not mentioned, and a considerable one, would be printing ? — Yes. 1675. That would be a very large item ? — Yes ; sometimes very large mdeed. 1676. Just to get the explanation clear on the Notes, in case anything turns on it, with regard to the Water Bill which you referred to, I think the particular Bill that you had in your mind was the Leicester Corporation Bill; was it not ? — That 30,000i. one? 1677. Yes ? — Yes ; the Leicester Corporation promoted a Water Bill. 1678. Just to get the explanation on the Notes in case anything turns on it, as a matter of fact, I think there were three Bills, the Leicester Corpora- tion Bill, the Sheffield Corporation Bill, and the Derby Corporation Bill, all proposing to get water from the same watershed in the Derwent Valley ? —Yes. -1679. All separately promoted ? — Yes. They were promoted in this House, and as a result of the hearing in this House were consolidated by the Committee into a Bill that was known as the Derwent Water Bill ?— Yes. 1680. And passed through this Hoiise in that form ?— Yes. 1681. And then that Bill as. the Derwent Water Bill was promoted jointly by the three Corporations in the House of Lords ? — Yes. 1682. So that the figiu-e you have given of the House fees would be the House fees of the Leicester Bill alone, which, as a matter of fact, did not pass as a Bill ? — Quite so. 1683. And as it did not pass as a Bill, clearly it did not appear in the case at all in the other House ? — No. 1684. So that there would be no House fees attaching in that case ? — Quite so. 1685. That is the explanation ? — I think I stated that that was the reason why there were no House fees in the House of Lords. I should like to add that I did not mention that Bill by way of criticising the charges ; on the contrary, I thought the charges were very fairly made out indeed ; and for that reason I felt that it was rather unfair on the Corporation that they should have to come and have the Bill taxed when they tfad really taxed it most effectually themselves, they being much more competent to tax the Bill and go into the reasonableness of the charges than any Taxing Officer could possibly be, because Mr. Worsley-Taylor — continued, they had at their command not only all the knowledge of the circxunstances but also they had the best professional advice in ever}- department. 1686. I think we all understand that ?— Of course, with regard to what the honourable Member said about the cost of printing, which I should have remembered, there would be not only the cost of printing, but also such matters as preparing plans and lithography and things of that kind, which are sometimes very oonsiderable indeed. 1687. One thing I did not quite follow. Sup- posing the date of the deposit of Bills were altered to December 17th, would that of necessity involve an alteration of the dates between that and the time when a particular Bill comes before you, say in the first himdred ? — I do not think that the mere alteration of the date of the deposit of ft Bill would involve any alteration of the dates of the subsequent deposits ; but any alteration of the time at which the Examiner met would involve an equal advancement of the dates between the 21st December and the 18th January, or rather the time when the Examiner meets. 1688. It M'ould follow that if your date was put on to the 11th or 12th of January then those intervening dates must be put on also ? — Yes. 1689. Could you tell me, out of the total nmnber of Bills which are introduced, about what per- centage would be opposed on Standing Orders ? — This Session (and I suppose it was a normal Session ; I have no reason to suppose that there was anything exceptional about it) I believe the total number of Bills was about 240, and I find that 22 Bills were opposed. Against those 22 Bills, 38 Memorials were presented, and there were 22 Eeports of non-compliance at that stage on preliminary Standing Orders. 1690. Do you mean Reports in the case of 22 Bills ? — Yes, I mean that 22 Bills were reported against as not having complied with Standing Orders. 1691. That is to say the opposition was successful in each case, if there were 22 Bills ? — No, that would not be the case, because there would be a good many Reports of non-compliance where there is no opposition. There always are a certain niunber of agents who say, " I have to point out to you. Sir, that such and such a mistake has been made." 1692. I follow you ? — I should wish to add that 11 of the above were Tramway Bills, and in most cases these had to be postponed. The agents say, " We have not got the consent of the- Council ; they are going to meet in a week's time, and in order to decide whether they will give it we ask for a postponement." 1693. Then it was not a defect in some of the Notices ; it was on that particular Standing Order ? — In the Tramway cases I should think, in every case it would be with regard to that. Standing Order ; I should imagine so. 1694. So that really on what I may call general grounds the real number would be 11 ? — Yes, I suppose it would. 1695. Out of a total number of 240 ?- Yes. 1696. When SELECT COMMITTEE OX PRIVATE ULTSIXESS. Ill 24 July 1902.] Mr. Campion. \Continued. Mr. Worslcy-Taylor — continued. 1G96. When you have reported non-compliance tlie matter then goes to the Standing Orders Committee ? — Yes. J()97. And they can dispense with the Standing Orders, as we know ? — Yes. 1(J98 Can you give me an idea, say that eleven go before them, how many of those would be allowed by the- Standing Orders Committee to ]3roceed ? — No, I could not tell you that. 1099. Have you any idea ? — I think in the majority of cases they allow them to proceed. 1700. So that the number of Bills which are stopped for a Standing Order objection would be a very small percentage indeed of the total numljer ? — That is to say, which are thrown out altogether on Standing Orders ; yes, very small. 1701. So that if Petitioners were required to deposit Petitions, if it were found convenient that they should deposit Petitions against Bills before those Bills reached the stage of examination on Standing Oi-ders, the risk of the Petitioners having deijosited a Petition against the Bill which subsequently failed on Standing Ordei-s would be not a very serious one ? — Certainly not. 1702. Could you throw any light on the date of deposit of Petitions as a matter of convenience and practice ? — No, I am afraid that is outside my Department altogether ; I should not hke to express any opinion upon it. Mr. Hobhouse. 1703. Can you give me any figures showing the smallest cost at which an unopposed Bill can be passed or has been passed ? — No, I am afraid I cannot. 1704. Would it be fair to say that you could not get a Bill, even if it was unopposed, passed into law for less than 500Z. ? — I should not tliink that it would amount to so much as that. I should say more like 400i. probably ; but I do not like to speak with any confidence on that subject. 170"). What v.'ould be the cost of passing a Provisional Order Bill unopposed ? — That depends upon the subject matter of the Provisional Order. 1706. The minimum cost I mean ? — There is no doubt that they do run down sometimes as low as 60Z. or 70L On the other hand, the last I think almost that I took up was something like 1,000?., and there did not seem to be anything excessive in the charges. I have not taxed it yet. Chairman. 1707. Wovdd that bo a Provisional Order that cost l,000i. ? — Yes, a Provisional Order. Mr. Hobhouse. 1708. It was opposed, was it not ?— Yes, I think so. 1709. In taxing the Bills that come before you for the charges do you always do that according to a scale ?— Yes, according to a scale prepared vmder the House of Commons Taxing Act, 1847. 1710. Approved by the Speaker ?— Approved 1)V the Speaker. ■ 0.23. Mr. Hobhouse — continued. 1711. Does that scale allow a certain number of counsel for each Bill ?— No, it does not deal at all with the question of counsel. 1712. How do you deal with the question of counsel, the numter of coimsel employed ? — Well, I used to consider that anything over three was an excessive number ; but on one occasion when I struck off the fees of a fourth counsel an appeal was made to the Speaker, and the Speaker decided against me ; so that I should now hesitate to strike off the fourth counsel. Although the Speaker did not decide the question in a way that took it out of my hands for the future, still after the views which he expressed I should not like, except in a very strong case, to strike off the fees of a fourth counsel provided always that the em- ployment of the fourth counsel has been duly authorised by the parties chargeable, by the local authority generally. 1713. Then you mean that however small the case was you would pass a charge for a fourth counsel ? — It would have to be a strong case for me not to pass it. I will not say in every case, but it would have to be a strong case for me to take that line now after the Speaker's decision . 1714. Have you ever done so ? — Yes, I have done so, but it was before the Speaker's decision. 1715. You have never done so since the Speaker's .decision ? — No, I have never taken off a fourth counsel since the Speaker's decision 1716. Even in cases of opponents ? — No, I do not think I have ever had occasion \^here it seemed to me that there was anything exhorbi- tant in employing a fourth counsel since then. But I have certainly never contemplated taking off a fourth counsel since the Speaker's decision. 1717. Would you limit the number of leading counsel's charges that you would allow ? — I do not think I can express an opinion upon that point. 1718. I am asking you as to your practice ? — No, I do not consider that I have any power to do that. 1719. So that it practically comes to this, that the parties can employ any number of counsel and leading counsel that they choose ? — I think that is putting it rather too strongly, that they can employ any number of counsel. Chairman. 1720. Any number up to four ? — Yea, where I should not consider I had power to interfere. Mr. Hobhouse. 1721. How do you tax the fees for expert witnesses ; have you a scale for that ? — That is a very difficult matter. I have sometimes reduced the fees of an engineer, acting upon a principle which I have laid down myself and wliich, I think, has received the acquiescence — I will not put it stronger than the acquiescence — of all the memters of the profession who have been l^efore me. That principle is that an engineer is not entitled to charge more than five guineas a day for his time at ordinary periods, and ten guineas during what Q J '-all 112 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKES BEFORE THE 24 ,hdy 1902.] Mr. Campion. [Continued. Mr. iifotAow/se— continued. I call the acute stages of the conflict, whether on Standing Orders or before the Committee ; that is to say, allowing something for preparation for that conflict. I think that has Ijeen more or less accepted, but I cannot expect that it would be accepted by the whole profession. 1722. You did not answer my question as to whether there was a scale laid down ? — No, mere is no scale. 1723. It is left to your discretion ? — Yes. 1724. With an appeal to the Sjjeaker ? — Yes. 1725. Would you consider that the position of the engineer in his profession would make a difference as to the fee allowed ? — Yes, I think it must make a difference. 1726. It does in your practice ? — Yes, certainly, it must do so. Sometimes the engineers are local engineers, whose time is not worth anything like the same sum of money that the time of an engineer at the head of his profession would be worth. 1727. Then is that sum that you mentioned just now, five guineas and ten guineas, the scale that you would a])ply to a firet-rate engineer, or to ix local engineer ? — That is the maximum. 1728. And with regard to the number of expert witnesses you do not exercise any discretion ; you leave that to the parties, I jjresume ? — Yes. 1729. You allow for all witnesses that are heard ? — Yes, I have never taken the line of saying that it was unnecessary to call this or that witness ; it is a matter for the parties to decide themselves. 1730. As a matter of fact, you satisfy youi-self as to whether they have been called or not ? — Yes. 1731. And do you allow charges for consulting experts when they have not been called as wit- nesses ? — I cannot call to mind any case now in which I have disallowed a charge of that kind ; I Tinow it is a point that has teen raised tefore me, but it occurred so long ago that I cannot remember what I did alxiut it. 1732. I supjOTse these Bills that you tax are chiefly Corporation Bills ? — Yes, almost entirely Municijjal Bills. I should like to add to what I ■said tefore about the charges of engineere, that I consider it is not right for a local authority, say, after retaining an engmeer whose charges are perfectly well known, then to come before the Taxing Officer and say. Now these charges are so high that you must reduce them. I do not think that is right. I think that if they were going to take that line they should have made their own bargain with the engineer beforehand. I have often told them so. 1733. In a case like that, you mean you would not a])ply your scale ? — No, I do not think I should. 1734. I do not quite understand one thing. Ton have used the expression that the charges 4\re ])erfectly well known. You do not mean by that merely that there has teen a special agreement in that case, but that the man is a well- known man in that profession and is known to ■charge a certain scale ? — Yes. 1735. In such a case as that would you apply ilie seal? '^"ou have mentioned or not ? — No, I have not applied it in all cases ; it is the only principle I can gc upon, but I find great difficulty in apply- Mr. Hohhouse — continued. ing it for that reason. I should not apply it inflexibly — I do not think I have any right to do so ; but I try in those cases to get the engineer to come and see me with the other parties, and I make som" sort of apjieal to him to reduces his charges m accordance with that principle. 1736. You would exercise some check, then, over wie charges even of well-known engineers ? — 1 do not think it is a ^'ery easy matter to deal with. 1737. I only wanted to know what your practice was ? — I do what I can to reduce the charges. I cannot go much teyond that. 1738. There was some evidence gi^en by Mr. Munro with regard to the practice of dividing the fees between Parliamentary Agents and Town Clerks ; has that practice ever come to your know- ledge ? — No, not officially ; merely by heai-say. 1739. And you have no discretion to deal with the matter ? — No. 1740. The charge as it appeai-s tefore }ou would always be the charge of the Parliamentary Agent, I presume ? — I do not understand. 1741. Would there be a charge both for the services of the Parliamentary Agent and for the services of the Town Clerk, in the Bill that was presented to you ? — That would dejDend upon whether the Parliamentaiy work was int;luded in the Town Clerk's salary or not. Sometimes, in cases of the larger Corporations, the Town Clerk gets a considerable salary, l,200i. to l,500i. a year, or even more, and Parliamentary work is included in his salary, and then he j^resents no bill for professional charges, only a bill for disbursements. 1742. I suppose the practice of division that was alluded to would jjrevail chiefly in the smaller Corporations ? — That I could not say ; I do not know that. Mr. Worsley-Taylor. 1743. In most of these cases, I suppose jtracti- cally in all these cases, this taxation of youi-s is solicitor and client taxation ? — Yes. 1744. Not party and party ? — No, solicitor and client. 1745. So that these costs, whatever they ai-e, have to be paid by 2)eople who have deliberately incun-ed them ? — Yes. 1746. Not to be charged against the opponents ? — Quite so ; it is all voluntary taxation. 1747. I sujjpose it is really for the purjjose either to show how much may be borrowed under the Bill, if it is a Corjwration Bill, or how much may be paid out of the rates ? — It is so, I think, ultimately. I think the original cause of Muni- cipal Bills coming before me lor taxation is the Borough Funds Act, which provides that no part of the Borough Funds shall te spent upon Par- liamentary promotion or opposition unless the Borough has complied with certain conditit)ns, . one of which is obtaining the assent of the I^ocal Government Board, which will never give its assent unless the Bill has teen taxed by the Parlia- mentar}- Taxing Officer. Ihit, as a mattei* of fact, the local authorities generally anticipate that direction from the Local Government Board by SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 113 24 Jidrj 1902.] Mr. Campion. [Continued. Mr. W or aley -Taylor — continued. by coming Ijefore the Taxing Officer under the general powers in the Taxing Act enabhng any- Ijody to come. 1748. There is only one other matter that I want to have cleared up. Do you find that the crowding of Committees at a certain period of the Session causes difficulty and expense, jjarticularly in the matter of counsel ? — It is a matter of hearsay reall}', but I have no doubt that it is necessary in consequence of the number of Committees that sit at the same time, very often t<) employ more counsel than would be necessary if it was ])()ssible to count upon having the services of any individual counsel. 1749. So that if the Committees could sit earlier, and the work were more evenly distributed throughout the Session, it would tend to a saving of expense in that direction ? — I should think so. Chairman. 1750. When a Committee awards cost against a party, what do you do then ; how do you tax them ? — That is taxed in the ordinary way. Mr. Hobhouse. 1751. Between party and party ? — No, between solicitor and client. The Committee never award costs except in that form, that all the costs of so-and-so l)e paid by the other side. Chairman. 1752. You did not tell us what the Counsels' fees were generally. You told us what the expert engineers' fees were. What are the Counsels' fees generally ? — The refresher fee ? 1753. The whole thing. Can you tell us, because you said you had to tax them. What does a leading Counsel charge ; what is his fee ? — The brief fee do you mean ? Gliait^man — continued. 1754. Yes ? — I cannot say that. 1755. You have nothing to say to that ? — I have nothing to do with that. 1756. 1 thought you said you taxed the Counsel's fees as well as the other fees ?— I did not miderstand that that question was asked me. I do not know that I should be justified in saying I do not tax them ; I act upon the same principle as was laid down by Sir Erekine May in the evidence he gave in 1863 before the Committee, I think, when he said that he felt lx)und to allow everything that was allowed by what is called the usage and allow- ance of the profession, that if a charge was made for attendance on the Committee on a day on which the Bill in respect to \\hich the Counsel was retained was not before the Committee, or some charge of that sort by inadvertence, it would be struck out ; but everything else was decided by the usage and allowance of the profession, which he could not interfere with. That is the principle upon which I think the Taxing Officers have always acted. 1757. Therefore, when you said you allowed the fees of four counsels, jou allow them on their own scale ? — Yes. 1758. You have nothing to do with fixuig the scale ? — No. 1759. There is one other matter I want to put to you. We have heard that the House of Lords fees vary in comparison with the House of Com- mons fees ; would it not be advisable to make the fees in the two Houses uniform ? — I should think it would ; but I have no special knowledge with regard to fees. 1760. Then you have no recommendation to make to the Committee with regard to the altera- tion of any Standing Order jjevond Standing Order 22 ?— That is so. Mr. Charles Edmund Baker, called in ; and Examined. Chairman. 1761. You are senior partner of the firm of Baker, Lees and Company, Parliamentary Agents, I Ijelieve ? — Yes. 1762. And you come here to represent the Urban District Councils' Association ?— That is so. 1763. And you give evidence on their behalf ? — Yes, I am authorised to give evidence on their Ijehalf. 1764. What does the Association consist of ? — The Association consists of 450 Urban District Councils in England and Wales, and includes all the more impoi-tant districts ; it includes really other districts too where the Clerk is perhaps Clerk to two or more districts, and only subscrilies ill the name of one. 1765. Has the Association met lately ? — Yes, there was a meeting held on the 10th of July last at which the following resolutions were passed : (1) That jH-ocedure by Private Bill should be made less expensive to Local Authorities. (2) That the House Fees charged upon Bills promoted by Local Authorities should be reduced Iw one-half. (3) That the scale of fees payable to Counsel should te 0.23. Cha irman — continued, revised (4) That the Reports of Government Departments should be sent to the Promoters of Bills before the meeting of Parliament. (5) That the Court of Referees should have power to award costs." 1766. Dealing with the fii-st resolution : " That procedure by Private Bill should be made less expensive to Local Authorities," in what way does your Association mean that that should be done ? — For this reason, that Local Authorities are bound to promote Bills in many cases, whereas companies on the other hand promote Bills more or less for their own commercial advantage. For instance we have had two cases this year where a Local Authority, an Urban District Council in each case, has been bound to promote a Bill and was imable to obtain the jrowers which it required by Provisional Oi-der. One case was that of Finedon, where in consequence of the restriction imposed by the Public Health Act, which prevents a Local Authority borrowing moz-e than twice the amount of its assessable value, the Finedon Council had not sufficient margin to enable them to carrj- Q 2 out 114 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN liEFORE THE 24 July 1902.] Mr. Baker. [Continued. Chairman — continued. out a water scheme which was essential for the welfare of the district, and consequently it was obliged to promote a Bill for that purpose for powei"s which it could otherwise have obtained by Provisional Order. 1767. Was that Finedon case the case in which they had promoted a Bill previously in a former Session ? — No. The other case was Builth in Wales. There they wished to obtain a water supply from a river, and they agreed with every riparian owner with the exception of one gentle- man, and in consequence of not being able to .agree with him they were obliged to promote a Bill for the purpose. They subsequently agreed with him, and the Bill was withdrawn, and I believe the water works undertaking is being now ■carried out. 1768. But I daresay you heard \^'hat the Taxmg Master has just told us, and the figures he has ■given us, from which it appears that the fees of this House and the House of Lords bear a very small proportion to the total costs ? — In some cases but not in all. Of course in opposed cases they do bear a very small proportion, but in cases of un- ■oppo.^ed Bills the House fees are about one-third -of the cost. r;~! " ^ 1769. I see your resolution says that they ■should Ije reduced by one-half? — Yes, to Local Authorities. 1770. But in those large cases that were given "to us just now where the total cost came up to, I will not take an extreme case of £30,000, but a total cost of £12,000, the House of Commons fees •only amounted to £423 out of that ? — That is so, but on unopposed Bills the proportion is of course very much greater. The Finedon Bill, for instance, was an unopposed Bill which the Local Authority were bound to promote. • -.^fchj*! 1771. What was the total cost of the Finedon Bill ? — The total cost of the Finedon Bill was 5271. 17s. 8d., and of that the House fees were 1811. 12s. In the case of Darley Dale, another Bill of this Session, the total cost was 653L 1.5s. 5d., .and the House fees 2071. 12s. 1772. Why were the House fees so much higher in the case of Darley Dale than in Finedon in proportion ? — I do not know. 1773. They are all fixed according to the scale, .are they not? — Probably the amount of the borrow- ing was larger in one case than in the other. It is governed by a scale of that kind. In the case of the Caterham Gas, another unopposed Bill of this Session, the total cost was 6801. 12s. 4d., and the House fees 2281. 2s. In the case cf the Cornwall Electric Power Bill, the total cost was ■7981. 12s. M., the House fees 3671. 12s., nearly half. 1774. That is a very high proportion ?— Yes. 1775. Why was that, do you know ?— Because the capital of that Company was large, and the fees were thereby increased. Mr. Hobhouse. 1776. That was a Company Bill ?— It was a 0)mpany Bill. Chairman. 1777. Is that a very large or exorbitant fee to pay for getting an Act of Parliament, enabling them to take compulsory power, and to borrow a very large amount of capital ? — In the case of Finedon, I say it was extremely so. 1778. In that last case I mean ? — No, not in the last case, not at all. 1779. In your opinion, are these House fees in any way prohibitory to parties coming here for Bills ? — Yes, I have had several cases in which local authorities will not incur the expense of promoting Bills in Parliament. Two jjarticularly are in my mind this Session — Aberdare and Moim- tain Ash, \^here contrary to the advice which I gave the authorities, they pi'eferred to take the risk of getting their powers, tram-way powers, by Provisional Order from the Board of Trade, rather than promote a Bill in Parliament. The result has been, that they incurred a very large expei;se, and both orders have been refused ; and if they go on with their ti-amway schemes, they will te obhged to promote a Bill in Parlia- ment next Session for the purpose. 1780. But when we hear that the costs of com- ing for a Bill in Pai-liament are so heavy, is it not a fact, as we have heard this morning, tlxat the House fees bear a very small proportion to these other costs of counsel, agents, and expert witnesses ? — That is so in the case of an opposed Bill, but not in the case of an unopposed Bill. 1781. After looking at these figures, it does not seem to me that the costs in this House would prohibit anybody from coming for a Bill ; they might be unwilling to pay such a cost, and would Ije glad to reduce it as your Association says by one half, but I do not see that it would prohibit anybody coming here and trying to get an Act of Parliament. Is that your experience ? — Yes, it is. 1782. That the House fees prevent them coming here ? — Yes, that the House fees prevent them coming here, or rather encourage them to take the risk of obtaining powers from a Government Department, which often results in their not getting those powere. 1783. We have heard from some witnesses tliat Provisional Orders are more satisfactory to Municipal Corjjorations ? — Yes, I have followed the evidence which has been given, and I do not agree with it. It has be.en suggested that Parlia- ment should not give any powers which could 1 e obtained by Provisional Order, and I have had many ca.-.^ Iiinov; 1936. That is exactly what I have in my mind? — No, I think some other sohition mvist be found for that, because certainly time would not allow of that. But what I had in my mind more was a sort of informal, dealing with the un- opposed parts of an opposed Bill by such a committee as has been suggested, in the same way very much as Lord Morley in the other House deals informally with all Bills before they arrive at the committee stage, even House of Commons Bills. He has the parties before him with our Report, and goes through them in his private room, where the points are all settled, Mr. Worsley-Tayloi- — continued. and if you have an Unopposed Bills Committee in the House of Lords, practically the decision on the Bill is the only part that is taken in public ; at the Unopposed Bills Committee the details are threshed out ; then they have a meeting of the Unopposed Bills Committee in public in the House of Lords, and the whole proof is giveiu then ; but I thought if you had such an Unopposed Bills Committee in the Commons it might be a more practical way of dealing with all matters which were unopposed,,, somewhat in a similar way to what they are dealt with in the House of Lords. 1937. I am sorry to say I do not follow you. I am talking strictly about this House. A Bill goes before an Opposed Bills Com- mittee, and they deal with the opposed parts of it. How do you suggest that the imopposed parts should be dealt with ? — I think if you had an Unopposed Bills Standing Committee like- that they would begin to deal with the Bills directly at the beginning of the Session, and meet all the parties informally before it went to- a Select Committee. 1938. Do you mean that they would have before dealt with what they uuderstood was going to be imopposed ? — Dealt with it informally. Then you would have, at any rate, an expression of opinion of a recognised Committee upon the proposals in the Bill. 1939. Then you mean that, after that it would be formally considered by the Opposed Bills Committee, as at present ? — Yes. The difficulty of the whole thing is what you have suggested ; and I do not suggest that you should have a reference of any Bill to two Committees, if you can possibly help it, — a formal reference I mean. Then I only wanted to mention one other thing, but that practically has been dealt with in my memorandum, and that is, that I think the date- in Standing Order 193a, which fixes the date for the first reading in your House of Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, should be altered to the date that was originally selected, and that is the last day before the Whitsuntide recess. I will give you the reasons in my memorandum, and so I need not give them no"w. Then as regards the pressure m the department in pre- paring the reports, I may say that: when the Bills come to us on the 21st December, we are already considering all those applications for Local Act Provisional Orders which may have^ come into us between the 15th of October and the 15th of November. Those, of course, have to follow somewhat the same lines as the legislation enacted by Parliament. And, therefore, it is-:, rather important that they should be dealt with by the same department as considers Private Bills. That department is not only engaged at- the moment that the Bills are deposited and afterwards with Bills, but it is also dealing with Provisional Orders applications for alteration of Local Acts, of which you will see by referring to- page 98 of the evidence, there were no less than 36 in 1902 ; so that practically there were some- thing like 40 applications before that same department at the time the Bills were deposited last year. 1940. Then SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 127 29 July 1902.] Mr. BoYCE. [Continued. Chairman. 1040. Then it comes to this, that if we require the Reports earlier, and the Reports must be got in ojirlier in order for the Committees to get on with their work, you must have an increased staff at the Local Government Board ? — Unless some means can be devised by which you shall have the order in which Bills are taken earlier and more easily defined. Then, of course, if we could once get the order in which the Bills are to be considered, we should take up the reports on those Bills, and there would be as little delay as possible. I think really, if some mode of fixing the order could be devised, a considerable part of our difficulty would be at an end. 1941. When vou say order, do you propose to take all the kailway Bills in one group farst, and then all the Water Bills, and then all the Gas Bills ? — I think that is somewhat immaterial so long as we have the order of the individual Bills fixed ; it is not material to us whether they are Gas Bills or Water Bills. 1942. Do you not now take a batch of Bills and look through them and make vour Reports and send them to Committees of this House ? — Yes, but then without any indication as to the order in which we should take them up we may be taking up just the very Bills that do not want advancing quickly. 1943. You think that could be arranged be- tween you and the oflflcials of the House ? — I think it is a matter which should be enquired into by the officials of your House. We will endeavour to fall in with anything that is arranged and shall be quite willing to co-operate with you. Then there is only one other point and that is this : It is suggested that Petitions against Bills should be addressed to Parliament. I have not the least objection to that. I think anything that saves duplications of Petition or anything else is of the greatest benefit; but I am not quite clear as to this : would that Petition be available for both Houses, or would it only be available for the first House ? Mr. Hohhouse. 1944. It was suggested that it should be avail- able for both Houses ? — Then it would not necessarily avoid a second Petition ; because, of course, I need not tell the honourable Member that a Petition against a Bill in the first House Mr. Hobhoibse — continued. may be on entirely different lines from a Petition against the Bill in the second House. I only raise that as a possible difficulty. I am not against anything that will save the duplication of Petitions, or anything else ; I would cordially endorse it so far as it rests with me, and would assist in it. 1945. You mean that alterations may be made in the first House which may require another Petition in the second House ? — Yes. 1945*. But if the Bill went through as an Unopposed Bill in the first House there would be no necessity for another Petition ? — That is so ? — I will give you a case in point. I have a Bill now which was opposed in your House for an extension ; ths parties were satisfied with the clauses ; when it got to the House of Lords they wanted something more ; the corporation which was promoting the Order agreed to give them that something more; and on that agreement being made the Petitioners said, " We will not petition." There was a case in which they got nearly all that they wanted in the House of Commons, but they wanted more in the House of Lords. It might have involved a second petition to the House of Lords. 1946. In a case like that would it be a hard- ship for them to have to ask at once for all they wanted ; why should they have two shots at the fromoters ? — There is that view of the case ; but simply raise that, if I may, as a matter for you to consider. And following that, if you have Petitions to Parliament so as to save a second Petition, is there not some means by which you can save the duplication of deposits at two Private Bill offices in the two Houses to start with on the 30th of November ? Everything is duplicated, whereas really the only matter which may require to be divided between the two Houses is the Committee stage. 1947. You suggest that considerable expense might be saved by having one deposit of a Bill ? — " In Parliament." I would adopt the same term as is adopted here as regards a Petition " to Parliament." I would have one deposit like they have one central office in the High Court now ; why should there not be one central office for alk these formal proceedings in the High Court of Parliament i Mr. Albert Gray, called in; and Examined. Chaii'man. 1948. You are the Counsel to the Lord Chair- man of the House of Lords ?— Yes. 1949. We have been discussing how we in the House of Commons can get on more quickly with our private Bills. I understand in the House ot Lords your Bills are all deposited on December the I7th ? — They are. 1950. Ours are deposited on December the 21st. Do you think it would be advisable to put ours on the same date as yours 1 — I do. I think there can be no objection to their being de- posited on the same day, because they must be ready by the I7th of December lor the House of 0.23 Chairman — continued. Lords. I understand that the reason why the date in the House of Commons is those four days later is, that they have to prepare what is called a Petition for the House of Commons. That procedure does not exist in the House of Lords. I believe it is a remnant of the very oldest procedure in Parliament, and it exists only in the House of Commons now. It has ceased to exist in the case of public Bills. I believe that the petition after being de- posited is never heard of again, and I really do not see why it should not be abolished. 1951. What Standing Order is it that alludes S to 128 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN KEFOKE THE 29 July 1902.] Mr. Gray. [Cdntinued. Chairman — continued. ■ to those petitions ? — I am afraid as it is a House of Commons Order I cannot readily put my hand upon it. ^'1952. That Order, you think, however, ought {y be aboUshed altogether ? — Yes, I think so. 1953. The petitions are useless? — It seems to me that they are useless so far as I can learn. 1954. You have no such procedure in the House of Lords ? — No such procedure. I know that a fee of 51. is charged for the petition among the House fees. 1955. It is Standing Order 32 that relates to those petitions, I see. Do you think that the Bills might be deposited earlier than the 17th of December ?— So far as I can learn I think not. I think that the time left for the agents to pre- pare their Bills, if you take into account the Autumn holidays and the municipal elections and the date of giving the notices for Bills, which is the end of November,- — the time left actually for drafting and preparing the Bills is very short. 195G. And, therefore, you think December the 1 7th is as early a date as we could properly fix for the Bills to be deposited ? — Yes, I thmk so. 1 957. Then there is another matter I should like to ask you about. You, as the Lord Chair- man's Counsel, and the Counsel to the Speaker, meet and divide the Bills between the two Houses, do you not ? — We do, provisionally, before the meeting of the two Chairmen. 1958. You and Sir Chandos Leigh ?— Yes ; we meet either a day or two before the meeting of Parliament or about that time; and we have, sometimes, informal communications with the Agfents as to their wishes and then there is the question of Bills that have been thrown out by one House in the previous Session and reintroduced, and the question arises which House they are to ijommence in. All these qiiestions we consider, and wo have a division ready for the two Chair- men to coneidei'. 1969. The House of Lords apparently has not quite so much work to do as the House of Commons; could the House of Lords advan- tageously take more Bills than they do at the present moment, and leave less to the House of Commons ? — Of course there are more iDpposi- tions in the first House always. I have never heard it objected that the House of Lords takes less than its proper share. 1960. You have heard what has been said about Joint Committees of the two Houses ; have you anything to say on that question ?— With regard to the proposal that there should be a Jomt Committee of Unopposed Bills, I Avould rather deprecate any recommendations by this Committee without the matter being con- sidered by a Joint Committee of both Houses. 1961. You think it ought to be considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses ? — Yes, I think so. I would like to say that I think it might disorganise the whole of the House of Lords system of dealing with Bills if there were such a Joint Committee for unopposed Bills. At present, as the last witness informed you, the greater part of the work on unopposed Bills is is done m Lord Morley's room before the meet- ing of the Committee. Consequently the Qn- Chainnan — continued, opposed Bills Committee in the House of Lords is a comparatively formal matter; nothing is done there except that the proofs are taken on. oath, and any remaining questions are adverted tO' and discussed ; but it is all a very short matter ; the Bill does not require at that stas^e to be gone through again, all the work having been done in Lord Morley's room. 1962. On that point, what is the advantage of examining the witnesses on oath ; you know- that we do not do it in Unopposed Bills Com- mittees in the Commons ? — I do not know whether it amounts to anything more than to lay witnesses open to prosecution for perjury. 1963. Do they give more voluminous evidence, or what happens? — No, it is not voluminous. It is merely proving either the estimates or that the recitals of the preamble are true. Sometimes they are taken seriatim and different recitals proved by different witnesses. ] 964. You do not see any advantage in it ?— I do not see that there is very much advantage in it. I may be speaking rather vnth a jealousy for my own department, but having regard to the position of the Lord Chairman with his experience and what I may call his permanency, I should say that those characteristics would be somewhat lost if he merely became one member of a Joint Committee of about four or five. At present also, with regard to facihty in_ getting through business, the unopposed business is taken at times which are suitable to the parties and to the Chairman in the House of Lords ; it may be quite sud- denly postponed and as suddenly reappointed. That elasticity would be lost if the convenience of Members of both Houses had to be consulted. 1965. Did you hear what the witness said just now about the Bills being taken in order in the various departments ; have you anything to say about that ?^No, I have not ; I did not quite catch what he said. 1966. The fact is, that it is found that our Committees arc sometimes hung up because the reports have not come from the various Govern- ment Departments, especially the Local Govern- ment Board ; and the witness said that they had so many Bills to look through that it was impossible . to get them already in time for Committees, but that if it could be arranged with the oflScials (with Sir Chandos Leigh and with you, I suppose) which Bills were going to be taken by the Committees on opposed business, the Local Government Board could get their Reports on those Bills ready in time so that the Committees could go on continuously at work ? — I may say that I have nothing to do with the arrangement of Committee business, with settling Committees and the times at which they are to sit ; but I know that we are almost entirely dependent upon the parties, — upon the promoters, as to when their Bills are ready for Committee, and I do not know that it would be possible for Sir Chandos Leigh and myself to make any such arrangement, which would be useless of course unless it was made quite at the beginning of the session. 1967. That is qiiite true, but that is rather the point I think. If a Government department like the Local Government Board could be told what SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 129 29 July 1902.] Mr. Gray. [Continued. C/uiirman — continued. what Bills to read through and prepare Reports upon, then they could be at once referred to Committees ? — I will say this : that if the Parliamentary Agents could meet us at the beginning of the session and tell us what Bills Are likely to be matiu-e for Committee by such and such dates, it would no doubt facilitate business very much. 1968. Are there any particular Standing Orders that vou wish to say anything about, Standing Orcfer 22 for instance ? — Yes, 1 have a good deal to say about Standing Order 22, if the Committee would pennit me. 1989. Would you just .say in a few words, as other Members perhaps of tlie House will read this evidence, what Standing Order No 22 refers to ? — Standing Order 22 is that which requires the consent ot the local authority before a Tram- way Bill can be introduced into the House. It is not exactly that, because a Tramway Bill is introduced and the consent comes afterwards, but the case is shortly this : The Tramways Act, 1870, requires the consent of the local authority before a Provisional Order is granted to a com- pany, but the Act makes no similar provision as to private Bills. Not long after 1870 the House of Commons by Standing Order 22 made a similar Srovision as to Bills requiring the consent of the lOcal Authority to be proved before the examiner. The Standing Order was not adopted by the House of Lords till some years later, and then I may say it was against the opinion of my predecessor. Sir Joseph Warner, who held that the grounds of a Local Authority's dissent were matters proper to be considered by the Committee on the Bill. It might be supposed that the placing of this veto as an obstacle to access to Parlia- . ment was not a very serious matter, inasmuch as the Standing Orders Committees exist in both Houses for the very purpose of dispensing ■with Standing Orders on good cause shown. The Standing Orders Committee in the House of Commons, at a very early date, refused to entertain applications to dispense with this particular Order, and it is now recognised Parlia- mentary law that the veto is absolute. The mischiefs resulting from this abdication of supremacy on the part of the House of Commons are manifold and grave. The Local Authorities soon found that their consent was a marketable commodity of no small value. The price, or part of the price, appeats in the protective clauses which are at the Committee stage introduced into the Bill. I say " part of the price " because it is freely said that in some cases the clauses do not show the whole consideration. For instance, it is said that municipalities have exacted as the price of their consent a large annual rent for the wayleave of the roads. Such payments do not necessarily see the light of "day, as the accounts of mvmicipalities are not subject to Government audit. 1970. Would not such payments for rights of way over roads come out in any Tramway Bill that was introduced ? — Yes, as "l will show, it does come out in some particular cases. ■ 1971. In Unopposed Bills it would not come out ? — No ; the Lord Chairman has struck out of Bills provisions for the payment of rent as such ; 0.2.3 Chairman — continued. but the local authorities have devised an expe- dient, which Parliament has sanctioned in some cases, that is to say, that the local authority consents to put off its date of purchase for a few years, and in consideration thereof, ths Company IS to pay a rent for the use of the roads in the meantime. This, I venture to think, is wrong, as the local authority of to-day should not have the power to put oft" the period at which their successors can purchase. The period of 21 years, fixed by the Tramways Act, is, in my opinion, a great deal too short for electric tramways ; and, if the period were extended to, say, 35 years, there would be no excuse for these rents during the Company's tenure. Then there are onerous provisions as to the widen- ing of roads, sometimes it is feared greatly in excess of Tramway requirements. The com- panies also bind themselves to pave and main- tain the whole width of streets and roads not merely the margin of the rails as required in the Tramways Act. The posts used for the wires are in some cases to be at the service of the Local Authority for lighting purposes; in others the Company is bound even to light the streets from its electric mains. The Local Authority reserves power of control over the structure of the cars, and the colours with which they are to be painted ; so that a blue car in district A. might have to be painted green when it enters district B. In more than one case have I .seen a provision that the members of the Local Authority's Council are to have free rides on the Tramway. In fact the conditions show a tendency to reach the maximum of exactions which the undertaking can bear. In ^one case where the exactions of several autho- rities resulted in the wrecking of a Bill, the Chairman of a Committee of the House of Com- mons said that the Local Authorities had tried to outdo each other in rapacity. Charges of blackmailing by local isuthorities are freely mad© by those connected with tramway companies; and these are met by hints of bribery on the other hand. It would be highly creditable to the members of municipal and district councils and their officers if this state of things did not lead to personal corruption. These clauses are submitted to the Committees as agreed clauses, and as such are not examined or very rarely so, by the Select Committee. Tbey would in nearly every case pass into law sub silentio unless the Chairman of Committees causei them to be struck out or drew the attention of the Com- mittee to their provisions. This he cannot do in all cases, as tlie clauses are frequently not before them until the day on which they are passed in committee, and sometimes ho does not see them until they are passed. Then the Committee separates, it is a Com- mittee of the House of Lords I am speaking of, and the greatest difficulty is found in obtaining their reconsideration. But even if this were otherwise, the task is not one which should be cast upon the Chairman of Committees. But after all, the remedy is not merely in getting objectionable provisions struck out ; it should lie in preventing the necessity for the companies to agree to those conditions ; for when they have made a bargain with the local authority S 2 they 130 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 29 July 1902.] Mr. Gray. [Continued. Chairmxin — continued. they probably feel themselves bound to carry it out, whether it is sanctioned by Parliament or not. I would now turn to the terras of the Standing Order. The first obvious remark is that it does not fix a date, on or before which the consent has to be obtained. It has, in fact, to be obtained before the Bill passes the Examiner, as this is one of the Orders called Examiners' Orders. In form the consent is a clean consent to the Bill, but as the Bill is seldom seen by the local authorities before its deposit in December, the consent given in January or February is neces- sarily given with mental reservations. They do not mean to assent unreservedly to a Bill in the settling of which they have had no voice. They may approve of some of the proposed tramways and disapprove of others ; yet, not wishing to wreck the Bill, they give a general consent, relying upon the company's undertaking to withdraw certain lines from the Bill at the Com- mittee stage. In cases where they have not this reasonable excuse they give a formal con- sent to a Bill, which by private arrangement is to be loaded with onerous conditions. After consenting formally to the Bill, the local autho- rities proceed to put in a Petition against the Bill, and are heard as any other opponent. The consent is thus palpably inaccurate and mislead- ing in nearly every case ; and Parliament, by its officer, accepts a formal document which (by per- mitting the local authorities to oppose the Bill) it acknowledges does not mean what it says. In some cases provisions in a protective clause that certain tramways are not to be constructed at all have been objected to, as being inconsistent with the consent, and have been struck out. During the Sessions of 1901 and 1902, another equally effective expedient has been inaugurated. The so-called protective clause provides that a par- ticular tramway is not to be begun for, say, three months after the passing of the Bill; during these three months the local authority may itself (on passing a resolution under the Tram- ways Act) determine to construct it ; and there- upon the local authority is to have all the com- pany's powers for construction, &c. The local authority thus obtain the powers either {a), without any intention oi using them or (.V), with the intention of constructing the tramwav and at once leasing it to the company. In the latter case (at least after construction), it will at once obtain part of the profits which in the ordinary conditions are withheld from it for twenty-one years. It may be observed that this form of clause enables the local authority to get powers of construction by a sidewind, on a resolution of their own body under the Tramways Act, and to evade the necessity of consulting the ratepayers under the Borough Funds Act. And the remark may here be added, that the ratepayers frequently differ from their council as to the propriety of la3dng particular lines of tramway. It has been sug- gested that the consent should be obtained before the Bill is deposited. Certain practical reasons are advanceu against this proposal. It is said that th«re is a very short working period between the autumn holidays and the 17th December, and that the municipal elections on Chairman — continued. November 9th prevent any arrangement between companies and corporations before that date. During the latter half of November and first half of December, the agents are busily engaged in the preparation of their own Bills. It IS said it would be impossible to superimpose at this period negotiations with local authorities. There seems, however, to be no reason why the consent should not be required to be obtained before the 18th January, the first day on which the Examiner sits. Much delay in Tramway Bills is said to be attributable to postponements of the hearing before the Examiner, obtained by consent of both parties. If the date were a fixture the consent would be obtained in good time. I have shown the meaning to be attrib- uted to the word " consent " in the first part of the Order. I would now refer to the provisions relating to the two-thirds consent in the latter part of the Order. The mental reservations attending the ordinary consent have this Session been extended to the two-thirds consent, and a Corporation has given its consent to a length of tramway, never, I believe, intended to be constructed, for the alleged purpose of swamping the dissent of another local authority. I do not think this practice, which was described as sharp practice in the House of Commons, is likely to be repeated, because tlie swamped local authority can always bring the matter to the notice of Parliament, as they did in the case referred to. And probably on a future occasion the Bill would not receive the .same tender treat- ment as was given to that one by the House of Commons. That case is here referred to only for the purpose of showing the laxity of con- science to which this unfortunate Order conduces. With regard to practical remedies it seems to me impossible, since the fate of Mr. Chaplin's motion, to expect that the House of Commons will transfer the proof of consent, as he proposed, from the Examiner to the Select Committee on the Bill. What can, and in my judgment ought to be done, is to ensure that there shall be an effective appeal against the veto to the Standing Orders Committee or any other Committee to be constituted. For this purpose the Stand- ing Order should be amended or a new Order made, expressly providing for the hearing of claims for dispensation. It should be a sufficient claim for dispensation that the local authority has refused consent, except upon conditions which the company cannot accept. The reason- ableness of the conditions would then be examined in committee on evidence, as is proper. But I should add, that in my opinion, the mode of procedure before the Standing Orders Committee of this House does not seem to me altogether satisfactory, and I think does not compare favourably with that of the cor- responding Committee in the House of Lords. In the ELouse of Commons Standing Orders Committee, only printed statements pro and am are put in ; the Committee deliberate in private and announce their decision. In the House of Lords on the other hand, printed statements are in the hands of the Committee, but these are merely the pleadings on which the case is argued by SELECT COMMIITEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 131 29 July 1902.] Mr. Gray. [Continued. Chairman — continued. by the agents on either side. From an experience 01 some years I feel confident that the argument before the Committee is of the highest value in clearing the ground and bringing about right and proper decisions. 1972. Then at the present time you do not suggest that the Standing Order 22 should be altered by the insertion of any particular words ? — I did suggest that the date snould be the 18th of January, that they should obtain the consent on or before the 18th of January. That would only have the effect of preventing postponement before the examiner, nothing else. 1973. With regard to the Petitions being lodged against Bills, we are told that in the House of Commons these Petitions need not be lodged until the Committee stage. Would you suggest that these Petitions should be lodged by any particular fixed date ? — I do not know very much about it from my own experience. 1974. What happens in the House of Lords ? — There is a date fixed, I understand, seven days after second reading, in the House of Lords. 1975. You do not wish to express an opinion as to whether these petitions should be lodged by a certain date ? — I think that would lead to very great confusion. If all the petitions were deposited on a particular day, I do not know how it would be possible to cope with them. 1 should think probably in neither House would it be possible to cope with such a vast number of petitions. 1976. If the Bills were split up into groups, as was suggested just now by a witness, the Petitions against them might then be lodged by a fixed date ? — Yes, I think it would be possible. 1977. It seems that that idea would accelerate matters in the House ? — Yes, possibly. 1978. With regard to the Bills before the Examiner, you referred to that just now ; have you anything else to say about the BiUs being examined in this House ? — No, there is nothing that occurs to me. 1979. What answers to our Court of Referees in the House of Lords ?— I do not think it has been brought out in evidence, but probably it is in the knowledge of almost everyone here present that there is no Court of locus standi in the House ofLords, that all questions of locus standi are considered by the Committee. I should think that rather a matter on which the Com- mittee should take the views of Sir Ralph Littler, or any member of the Parliamentary Bar, who would be able to state what his opinion is on that matter with the experience of both Houses. 1980. You do not wish to offer any opinion about it ?— None, excepting that the questions of locus standi seem to be quite easily disposed ot in the House of Lords without any court tor the purpose. 1981. The Committee before whom the Bill is heard decide on those points ? — Yes. Occasion- allv, I do not think very often, in the course of a Session the Chairman of a Committee comes and consults Lord Morley on the subject of a locus standi, but it is not very often. 1982. And are these Committees governed by the same strict rules that govern our Court of Referees ?— I could not say, but I should think are gomg on Cluxirman — continued. Sir Ralph Littler would tell you that the practice of the House of Lords is probably a little governed by the rules of the Court of Referees in the House of Commons : I should think it is in- fluenced by them. 1983. Is there anything you would wish to say about the procedure before the Committee on unopposed Bills ? — I know nothing about the practice before the Unopposed Bills Com- mittees in this House, and I hiave already said something as to the practice in the House of Lords. 1984. In the House of Lords the Bills arc very carefully considered, are they not, by the Lord Chairman and yourself? — Yes. I might tell the Committee that in the House of Lords the Unopposed Bills Committee consists of Lord Morley alone. That is a difference. 1985. Do you not sit with Lord Morley ? — I sit with him, but I am not part of the Com- mittee. I do not form part of any Committee. The Committee is Lord Morley alone. 1986. And I suppose Lord Morley, having more time than the Chairman of Committees of this House, goes more fully into the Bills? — Yes, but as I have explained that is done before the Committee stage ; that is done at the inter- views which occupy I suppose four or five months of the Session. Probably from the beginning oi the Session tiU the middle or the end of June those interviews almost every day. 1987. Is there anything else you wish to say ? — I thought it might be worth saying also that I believe a great deal of the pressure that the private Bill legislation entails upon Members of this House is due to the backward state of public legislation. I do not know that it is quite within the reference to you, but it might be put on the notes that if public legislation were brought up to date in two departments, I believe the pres- sure on Members would be vastly diminished ; I refer to the department of Public Health and the department of Tramways. At present we have some 30 to 40 Improvement Bills every session (and they tend to increase) of enormous length that are nearly altogether composed of amendments of the Public Health Acts. The amendments of course show a tendency to accretion year by year. Large municipalities get amendments of the Public Health Act in their tavour. Then every local authority, no- matter of what size, if it has occasion to come to Parliament at all for any one purpose presents a Bill with sometimes 150 clauses largely con- sisting of amendments of the Public Health Act. Then as regards tramways the Com- mittee is very well aware, I have no doubt, of the utter confusion in which the whole subject is, owing to the operation of the Light Railway Act and the double procedure for Tramways by Provisional Order and by Bill. And then a third matter of course on which Public Legislation is required and will be im- perative soon, is that dealing with electrical power ; the Electric Lighting Act is totally insuf- ficient for the wants of electrical power. Then if I might be allowed to add an observation with regard to executive matters, much of the delay in getting Bills forward is due, as has been already 132 MINUTES OF KVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 29 July 1902.] Mr. Gray. [Continued. Chairman — continued. already' referred to, to the late period at which the Local Government Boards Keports are obtained. I do not profess to know the interior working of the Local Government Board, but the general reputation is that it is altogether undermanned, that the officers of the Local Government Board are very severely overworked, more so than those of any other department — at least one hears so. 1988. In the House of Lords do you find the same difficulty in getting their reports in time for Committees ? — oTes, great difficulty. 1989. Have you anything to say with regard to the former Police and Sanitary Com- mittee which used to take Bills before them in this House. You know that Committee has been abolished, and that two Committees take their duties now ? — Yes. A little inconvenience arises from the fact of there being two Com- mittees, because when there was one Police and Sanitary Committee it had a certain continuity, at least for a year or two, while the same Members were wholly or partly sitting upon it ; but we have had cases wnere conflicting deci- sions have been arrived at, and clauses refused by one Committee have been allowed by the other. I may say that not infrequently, when new clauses on matters of public health come before Lord Morlev, he is content to have the matter argued out "before the Police and Sanitary Committee in the House of Commons. The agents or town clerks, or Avhoever it may be, say that thej' have evidence to produce on the subject, and before rejecting it he would allow it to be argued there. 1990. Would you recommend that the Police and Sanitary Committee should be re-appointed in this House, so as to get continuity in their decisions ? — With the present pressure of Muni- cipal Bills, I do not think it would be possible for a single Committee to do it. 1991. The great trouble of the Police and Sanitary Committee was, that the Chairman always had to sit, and it was found that the work was too hard ; but it has been suggested that the Police and Sanitary Committee, which was a large Committee, should be re-appointed, with a chairman and vice-chairman, that the vice-chairman could sit when the chairman could not sit, and that that would ensure the same continuity, as if the chairman sat all the time, in the decisions. Do you think that would work ? — I think it would be better if it could be got into the hands of a single Committee. I feel sure of that. 1992. What happens with regard to that in the House of Lords ? — There is no such Com- mit! ee in the House of Lords. 1993. Does Lord Morley take upon himself all -the duties of the Police and Sanitary Committee ? — Yes, that is to say, he discusses all the clauses but he does not hear evidence, of course, jjro and con — not formal evidence. 1994 As you say, he rather depends, or did depend, upon our Police and Sanitary Committee taking evidence ? — Yes, very frequently. Mr. Hobhouse. 1995. On that same subject, do the Improve- ment Bills usually originate in the House of Mr. Hobhouse — continued. Commons? — Nearly always in the House of Commons. 1996. So that when the Lord Chairman comes to deal with them, he has the advantage of the evidence which has been heard in our House ? — Not exactly so ; the Lord Chairman has his interview with the parties before they go into Committee in the House of Commons." 1997. Then he cannot take advantage of the evidence that has been given before the Police and Sanitary Committee ? — No ; the rule is that they should apply for an interview with the Lord Chairman before they go into Committee in either House. 1998. I did not quite understand what you said with regard to the Lord Chairman being fuided by the evidence given in our House ? — 'hat is to say, after he hears of a decision by the Police and Sanitary Committee, he would say, " That clause has been rejected by the Police and Sanitary Committee in another Bill, therefore, it must go out of yours." Therefore, to that extent he is guided by it. 1999 That would be an advantage in his dealing with other Bills ? — Yes ; but what I did say was that he frequently postpones clauses, that is to say, he says " I will not reject this ; I think it doubtful, but I will leave it to be dis- cussed before the Police and Sanitary Committee in the House of Commons." 2000. Then the uniformity of decision in re- spect to those Bills ir the House of Lords entirely depends upon v. > Lord Chairman ? — Entirely. 2001. They niay go before various Committees but the Lord Chairman sees that uniformity of decision is preserved ? — Yes. You, of course, are aware that these clauses are seldom opposed ; a great number of them deal with sanitary matters ; sometimes they are opposed and sometimes not, but generally they are not. 2002. Certain portions of them are unopposed ? — Yes, certain portions of them are unopposed. 2003. Do you consider that the portions which are unopposed receive sufficient attention at present in our House ? — If I may be allowed to say so, I think they hardly do in this House. 2004. It has been suggested that such portions should go before a stronger unopposed Bills Committee. Do I rightly understand you to object to such a committee being constituted from both Houses ? — I deprecate the suggestion that there should be a Joint Committee ; but I do think that it would be very advisable that there should be a committee for unopposed clauses in this House. 2005. Did you deprecate the idea altogether or did you deprecate our making any recom- mendations on the subject because you thought those recommendations would better come from a Joint Committee of the two Houses ? — That is what I thought. 2006. That was the extent of your depreca- tion ? — Yes, that was the extent of it. 2007. I do not know w^hether that remark would apply to another suggestion which has been made to us which seems of importance. That the foremost stages of Bills, the deposit of Bills, the deposit of Petitions, and so on, should take place in one private Bill office for the two Houses, SELECT COMMirrEE ON PRIVATE I'fsIVFSS. 133 29 July 1902.] Mr. Gray. [Continued. Mr. Hohhouse — continued. Houses. That would be coupled with the notion that petitions should be to Parliament and not to the individual Houses ? — Yes, I do not see any objection to that ; I think it would be a good tning. 2008. You think at any rate it would be well worth the consideration of a Joint Com- mittee ? — Yes, I think verv much so. 2009. Do you consider tlaat there are sufficient reports from Governnient Departments to guide your House at present, on all subjects ? — We are very loth to ask for further reports but there are certain departments that I think ought to make more formal reports, and one of those is the Board of Trade. 1 think it has been mentioned before this Committee, or questioned, whether there were any reports with regard to Electric Bills. I always get a Report from the Board of Trade when I ask for it, and I nearly always do ask for it when any question arises in electrical matters ; but they do not send in a printed report in the same manner as the Local Government Board and the Home Office do. 2010. You think it should be made their duty by Standing Order to send in reports on Electrical Buls ? — Yes, I. think that would be useful. 2011. Is not that a subject on which Com- mittees do require some guidance ? — Yes, I think it is. 2012. And a subject of increasing importance ? — Yes, a subject of increasing importance. 2012*. Now a few questions with regard to the cost of Private Bill legislation. Do you think that the scales of cost m the two Houses might with advantage be reconsidered with a view of making them more uniform ? — I think it would be an advantage that they should be made uniform, but I really have no experience as to the incidence of the costs in the two cases. 2013. I would put it to you as a question of policy, if you wish to give an opinion whether it is desirable that the fees on second reading should be very much heavier in the House of Lords than in the House of Commons ; would vou consider it desirable that the fees should be very heavy for second reading' as compared with other stages ? — I believe it has been suggested that tlie heavy fees should be cast upon the third reading m both Houses. I disagree with that suggestion; I think it would lead to a greater influx of speculative Bills. 2014. But without going so far as that, might not the fees in your House be made more uni- form on second reading with those at later stages ? — Yes, I think they might. 2015 I see that in your House there is a fee of 81 i. charged for second reading, where it would be only 15^. in our House ? — Yes. 2016. That is a very serious difference? — A very serious difference. 2017. On the other hand upon the hearing of Committees your fees are lighter than ours ? — Yes. 2018. You have no special reason to give in favour of the practice of your House in that respect ?— None at all. 2019. Generally speaking, taking the fees as a Mr. Hohhorijie — continued. whole, I think they are heavier in the House of Lords than in the House Commons ?— I believe they are, but the taxing officer, Mr. Monro, has informed me that he thinks they work out tolerably evenly in both Houses. I do not know exactly how it is. Perhaps in a particular class of Bills it does. 2020. We have had some figures from other sources showing that in the case of unopposed Bills, generally Bills of small local authorities, the fees are nigher in the House of Lords than in the House of Commons, considerably. Do you think that the fees in that class of legislation might be lowered with advantage ? — I think probably they might; but probably that refers to Bills that were very little opposed. 2021. I am speaking now of unopposed Bills ? — Yes. What I understand is that if a Bill is seriously opposed and there is a long hearing before the Committee, the fees work out tolerably evenly in the two Houses ; that is to say, the hearing fees in the House of Commons are higher, and therefore it neutralises the bigger second reading fee in the House of Lords. 2022. Of course in case of heavy opposition the House fees bear a much smaller proportion to the total cost, and therefore the hardship is not so apparent ? — -No. 2023. But in the case of many unopposed Bills the hardship is apparently consideraoly felt in respect to fees, especially the fees of the House of Lords. Do you wish to give your opinion, as a matter of policy, whether the fees might be lightened in those cases ? — I think 1 should gO' so far as to say that they should be adjusted. Probably a small Committee of the officers of the two Houses could make some suggestions, for equality ; there might be a give and take. I do not know quite how it should be managed. 2024. Has it been brought to your notice that- in many of these small cases that might be dealt with either by Provisional Order or by Private Bill, the municipal authorities prefer to proceed by way of Private Bill ? — Yes, very often. 2025. Can you give us the reason for that ? — One reason has been, I believe, that they get longer periods for their loans by Bill. If iixe recommendations of the Committee of the House of Commons which has recently reported, Mr; Grant LawsOn's Committee, are adopted, I think that reason will not hold good for the future, and I should think it would have the effect of turning the direction more to Provisional Orders again. But undoubtedly the period for repay- ment of loans granted by Bills nas been a good deal longer than the periods they would nave obtained from the departments. 2026. You think that is their principal reason for preferring Private Bill procedure ? — Yes,, a good deal. 2027. Is it also that they think generally they may be able to obtain more favourable terms from a Select Committee than from a Govern- ment department ? — Yes. it is more of a lottery ; it is more speculative ; there are better chances. 2028. Owing to the want of uniformity in the decisions of Select Committees ? — Yes. 2029. Can you suggest any means by which more uniformity can be obtained in the decisions of 134 MINUTES OF EVIDEXCE TAKEN liEEORE "HE 29 July 1902.] Mr. Gray. [Continued. Mr. Hobhoufie — continued. of Select Committees generally ? — A good deal more might be done if the clerical establish- ments of both Houses were increased so that we -should, have better records of what clauses are asked for and what are refused. I find the greatest possible want of records of that descrip- tion. 2030. Better records of precedents 1 — Of pre- cedents. 2031. At present a Select Committee has to deal with the precedents quoted by the counsel on the two sides ? — Yes. 2032. Without having any materials to check them by ? — Yes. 2033. You would suggest that a register of important decisions on clauses as well as on preamble should be kept in the two Houses ?-- That would tend towards uniformity. 2034. And would you also endorse a sugges- tion which has been made to us, that a copy ol the print of the shorthand writer's notes should always be deposited in the House ? — Yes. Of course it would be absolutely impossible for us with our present staff to look over a hundredth part of the printed matter, or a thousandth part, which constitutes the evidence given before Committees, but it would be very useful to us if we could have some references to what is done in Committee. 2035. And it does not appear unreasonable, does it, that considering the very large profits that are made by the Houses of Parliament on Private Bill Legislation, some portion of those should be devoted to strengthening the staft" to deal with those matters ? — I think not. ' 2036. Do you think that the system of Pro- visional Orders can be extended with advantage ? — I think so. One of the principal obstacles to its extension at present is, that the depart- ment have in hardly any case the authority to give compulsory powers for the purchase of land. 2037. Except under the Public Health Act ? — Except under the Public Health Act. 2038. You think that might be extended to other branches of legislation ? — Yes, that is always the argument which is used. When Lord Morley asks whv a Provisional Order was not the procedure talsen, it is always, " Oh, we want compulsory powers " — in tramways, gas, and so on. 2039. It has been suggested to us, I think by the Chairman of Ways and Means, that a Standing Order might be passed forbidding matters to be dealt with by Private Bill which could be dealt with by Provisional Order. What is your opinion upon that ? — My opinion upon that is that it would be very desirable if there were not very great practical objections to it ; that is to say, I see there is an objection to it when a Bill would comprise all that the local authority desires, but where, if that procedure were to be compulsorily by Provisional Order, it might be necessary to go for two or three Provi- sional Orders, and perhaps a Bill besides, because there might be one subject-matter that required a Bill and three subject matters that could go by Provisional Order. T think possibly the expense in the long run would be greater. 2040. And must those classes of matters be Mr. Hobhouse — continued. deak with ir separate Orders? — Possibly one would have to be a Board of Trade Order and another a Local Government Board Order. 2041. And they could not be consolidated be- cause they would have to be introduced by the different departments? — Yes, by the different departments. We have, as the Committee are probably aware, kept the department of electric lighting entirely to Provisional Orders. 2042. Is that under the Act? — No, the Act f)rovides for a special Act ; but as a matter of act we never allow a special Act to be brought in. A year or two ago I think was the last case. A local authority having a considerable omnibus Bill on hand, introduced the whole of the Elec- tric Lighting provisions. Notwithstanding that Lord Morley compelled them to be struck out and compelled them to go to the Board of Trade for a Provisional Order. 2043. Could you extend that principle to other departments ? — Yes, I think it could be extended, especially if the power of giving compulsory furchase powers were given to the department, think there would be very little reason for Bills for those matters if that were so. 2044. Is it not often the case that the municipal corporations introduce a provision into their Bill which cannot be dealt with by Provisional Order, in order to be able to con- solidate all their other requirements in a Bill ? — I have a feeling that that is so, but I do not like to say it very positively. 2045. Now, with regard to the Standing Order relating to locus, you are aware that in our House there are several Standing Orders which give a mandatory locus ? — Yes. 2046. Which do not exist in your House ? — No. 2047. Have you any recommendation to make upon that subject? — They have been introduced mto the House of Lords in one or two cases ; I think with regard to water, in the last year or two, an amendment of the Standing Order has been made in the House of Commons and adopted in the House of Lords at the same time ; but as a rule there is no mention ot locus in the House of Lords Standing Orders. 2048. Do you think that the Standing Orders should be modified in one direction or the other so as to become more uniform ?-— Yes. I beg leave to hold the opinion that the House of Lords practice is the better, that the less said about locus the better. 2049. That there should be as little mandatory Standing Order of that kind as possible ? — Yes ; but a mandatory Standing Order is necessary when .Committees have denied a locus which the House afterwards considers ought to have been granted. I think there was a case which arose a year or two ago in a House of Lords Committee. There was a considerable feeling expressed in the House afterwards about the locv^ having been refused, and subsequently the matter was gut right by an amendment of the Standing 'rder. 2050. Have you any Standing Order in the House of Lords like our No. 135 in the case of Petitions against Tramway Bills, giving " the owner of any house, shop, or warehouse in any street through which it is proposed to construct a tramway, SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 135 29 Jvly 1902. Mr. Gray. [Continued. Mr. Hohhouse — continued, a tramway, and who alleges that the construction or use of the tramway proposed to be authorised thereby will injuriously affect him," an absolute right to be heard " on such allegations " ? — I think not; I think I am right in saying that there is no such Standing Order in the House of Lords. 2051. Do you think such a Standing Order is desirable ? — I do not, speaking from a House of Lords experience ; because there has been so little difficulty there. 2052. I put it to you, is not one way of getting uniformity of decisions, or practice, at all events, before the Select Committees, having Standing Orders of this description. May not not one Select Committee refuse a frontager a locus, and another Select Committee, in an ex- actly similar case, admit it ? — It is a choice of difficulties. You have more elasticity if there is no such Standing Order. 2053. One more question. With regard to Tramway Standing (Jrder, No. 22, would it be possible to forbid, by Standing Order, such trans- actions as yoti have mentioned, the charging rent, for example ? — It would bo very unusual to have any such matter provided for by Standing Order. 2054. In such cases are the agreements usually scheduled to the Bill or not ? — They are generally put in as clauses, and verj' long clauses they generally are. 2055. Then they appear on the face of the Bill ? — They appear on the face of the Bill but not in the original Bill ; they are put in in the committee stage. 2056. And at what stage does the Lord Chair- man strike them out ? — If he sees them before- hand, or if they are put in in the first House, he will have them struck out in the second. 2057. Is it not highly desirable to have one rule for both Houses in that respect ? — I do not quite understand the question. 2058. Is it not undesirable to have such pro- visions inserted in one House and struck out as a matter of covirse in the other ? — You cannot lay down any rule about what will be struck out. Although they are struck out in one Bill one year, they are not unlikely to crop up again next year in some other Bill. 2059. I thought you told us that that it was part of the policy of the Lord Chairman to strike out provisions, such as charging rent for high- ways ? — Yes. 2060. Of course, that policy at present does not bind Committees of the House of Commons ? —No. 2061. Would it not be desirable for Parha- ment to recognise a uniform rule ? — Yes, it would be very much so. 2062. But you do not think it could be done by a Standing Order of both Houses ?— No, I do not think it is a matter to be dealt with by Standing Order ; I think that if the period for the purchase of tramways was extended we should not hear so much of rent in the mean- time. I think it Avould be more possible to refuse the application to charge rent altogether. 0.23 Mr. Worsley-Taylor. 2063. About Standing Order 22. I under- stand that you would certainly fix a. date for the consent. Did I correctly imderstand also that you would go on to provide that the consent might be dispensed Avith, if unreasonably with- held by someone ? — Yes. 2664. Then about the extension of a Provi- sional Order system, you are referring, I under- stand then, always to local authorities ( — Yes. 2065. With regard to police and sanitary matters, I understand your view to be that if the Public Health Act were amended and brought up to date there would be a considerable amount of Parliamentary time saved ? — Yes, a very con- siderable amount. In my view the Public Health Act ought, as a matter of practice, to be amended, certainly not less than once in 10 years. It is quite impossible that Public Heahh legislation can be kept abreast of the require- ments of Public Health unless the Act is amended at least once in 10 years. 2066. We have certainly arrived at the time now ? — Yes. 2067. With regard to the desirability of secur- ing continuity in the Committee, I suppose you would regard it as very desirable that you should have continuity in the Committee which con- siders the particular Bill ? — Yes, or class of Bills. 2068. I put it at the lowest illustration, cer- tainly the particular Bill ? — Yes. 2069. You know that the old foria was nine, was it not, for the Police and Sanitary Com- mittee ? — I am not sure. ■ 2070. And that it very often took them, I suppose I might say, 40 days' sitting to get through their work ? — Yes. 2071. You know practically that it was im- possible to secure the attendance of the same nine, or even the same four or five on, say, two consecutive days ? — ^Yes. 2072. So that you had a breach of continuity in the hearing of the same Bill ? — Yes. 2073. You might bo arguing a. particular point of the Bill one day before four Members and the Chairman, and possibly before four different Members the next day ?— Yes. 2074. Which is not desirable ? — Certainly not. 2075. Having regard to that and the depen- dence on time of such a Committee, even with such a saving as there might be by amending the Public Health Act, would you still consider that form of Committee of nine Members was desirable, or that the work might not be done better by having two experienced Chairmen of two Committees who would sit the whole of the time on a given Bill ? — I think it could be quite well done by two Committees if there were more of a register of their decisions. 2076. Truly ; and it would be desirable if we could have such a register and if we could ha-ve consultation between the tv,-D Cliainneu ? — Yes, I agree. 2077. Would it meet your point if you had those conditions ? — I should thmk so. 2078. Rather better I should say than if you had a larger Committee with fluctuating Mem- bers ? — Yes. T 2079. You 186 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 29 July 1902.] Mr. Gray. {Continued. Mr. Renshaw. 2079. You have told the Committee that you think there would be no difficulty in altering the date for the deposit of Bills from the 21st to the 17th of December in our Hou.se, but you do see objections to making the date the I7th of December any earlier in the House of Lords ?— Yes, 1 do. 2080. You think it would be difficult to ante- date the notices ? — Yes, I think the pressure would be too great on "the Parliamentary agents and the engineers and all others connected with Bills. 2081. Having regard to the fact that in the House of Commons we rarely get Committees to work within 35 to 40 days of the Sitting of Parliament ; in your opinion is it desirable under the new rules of procedure in the House that we should take steps to get those Committees established at an earlier period of the Session ? —-Yes, it seems to me that 3-5 days is too long. 2082. And you think that we might do that to some extent by getting rid of the 10 days which are now allowed for a petition against the Bill after the first reading in the House of Commons ? — I should think that that period is a little too long. 2083. Let me put the question in this way. ]])o you see any useful purpose that is served by the petition dating at all from the date of first readmg ? — I think it would perhaps be better if the Bills could be divided into classes, and as the Right Honourable Chairman suggested, having a different date for each class, so as not to throw the pressure too much upon a single date. 2084. You mean groups of Bills ? — Yes. 2085. If Bills were grouped according to classes ? — Yes ; and then there might be different dates for Bills that were in the House of Lords and different dates for Bills that were in the House of Commons, varying two or three days apart, anything to spread the pressure over more days. 2086. The date for lodging the petition at f resent in our House for the Bdl is the 21st of )ecember ; the date upon which the Examiners sit is the 18th of January ; then from the date on which the Bill is read a first time, 10 days are allowed for petitions against the Bill. That obviously occupies say a fortnight of Parlia- mentary time at the beginning of the Session ? —Yes. 2087. You think it would be desirable in order that Conunittees might begin their work at an earlier period of the Session, to get rid of that 10 days for petitions against a Bill ? — Yes, if that were possible, certainly. It must be re- membered that this year was not a usual year ; the House of Commons met in the middle of January, and the Examiner did not begin to sit till three days later ; but when the House meets in the first or second week of February the Examiner has already been at work 13 or 14 days in January, so that his work is more matured before Parliament sits when it meets in February. 2088. Do you see any practical objection to fixing a date within which Petitions against a Bill should be lodged, either so many weeks from the 2 1 St of December or within a certain num- Mr. Renshatv — continued. ber of days from the day on which the Examiner has reported compliance with Standing Orders ? — It is not quite within my province, but I should say that dating the period fi-om the Ex- aminer's certificate might be a good suggestion. I do not know quite how it would work. 2019. And you think 10 or 14 days from the date of the Examiner's certificate would be sufficient ? — Yes, I should think so. 2090. Taking into account the fact that the Examiner sits on the 18th of January, and that the examination of Bills does not really occupy more than eight or nine days, that would obviously get rid of that wasted 10 days at the beginning of the Session ? — Yes, and also it would get rid of the great pressure on a par- ticular dav as compared with your fixing the 10th of February or the 15th. 2091. And also it would make it more easy to group the Bills in the way tlxat has been sug- gested, because the opposition emerging at an earlier date would make it easier to deal with the Bills in groups ? — Yes, I think it would. 2092. And that in your opinion would be a benefit ? — I think it would be a benefit. 2093. With regard to your own House, is there any fixed date after which a second read- ing cannot take place in the Session ?— There is a Sessional Order which deals with Bills coming from the House of Commons that no Bill coming from the House of Commons shall be read a second time in the House of Lords after such and such a date, some date in June, I believe ; and after that the Standing Order has to be suspended in any particular case if it is desirable. 2094. It would be desirable to make it clear, would it not, in order that agents should realise the importance of bringing on these Bills more rapidly, that in both Houses dates were fixed beyond whieh second reading should not be allowed except by suspension of the Standing Orders ? — I should imagine it would be desir- able. 2095. That would expedite the consideration of Bills in the House ? — Yes. 2096. You told us, with regard to the powers Lord Morley exercised on unopposed Bills, that all these Bills came before him and were dealt with by him, and that he was really in his o^vn person what was represented by the Unopposed Bills Committee in our own Hou.se ? — Ye.s. 2097. It would be obviously impos.sible for the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons to discharge those duties in the way Lord Morley does ? — I believe so. 2098. But with the new office which has been created in the House of Commons of Deputy Chairman, if that duty was laid upon him it would probably be possible for him to discharge it ? — I should think so. 2699. The power of the Chairman of the House of Lords in regard to unopposed Bills is very great, is it not ? — It is great. 2100. He has absolute power to take out or to insert provisions, subject of course to the House ? — Yes, it must be imderstood of course that his decision is in anticipation of the decision of the House. 2101. But SELECT COMMITTEE ON JT.IVATE lU'SlXESi^. i:i7 29 July 1902.] Mr. Gray. [Cmihnued Mr. Renshaw — continued. 2101. But he has absohite power subject to that ? — Yes, subject to that. 2102. Have there been any instances of his Eower having been checked in recent vears ? — I elieve some considerable time ago in tte time of Lord Redesdale there was one case when Lord Redesdale was over-ruled by the House; but there has never been a case smce then. 2103. Can you tell the Committee how many years ago that is ? — I do not know ; it must be at least 30 years. 2104. It is a matter of ancient history ? — Yes. 2105. You .said that you thought there would be a confusion if petitions against Bills were all lodged on one day. I ought to have asked you this question just now ; where do you think that confusion would arise ? — I do not know how the Bills themselves could be placed. 2106. It is not a question of lodging a petition against a Bill. If you had a fixed date, and all petitions had to be in by that date, they would not necessarily have to be dealt with by that date ? — But I do not know how our clerical staff could manage the reception of them and the sorting of them. I do not know how many petitjons there are against a Bill, sometimes 500 or 600 petitions against a single Bill. The petitions against these Tube Bills in the present session were enormous in nvimber. 2107. So that it would have to be between certain dates that these things would have to be lodged ? — Yes, I think so ; the more it is spread over a certain number of days the better. 2108. There is only one other question that I wish to ask you. You spoke of the necessity of legislation on public health and other matters being brought up to date. I suppose you mean that if legislation were brought up to date and adoptive clauses formed the subject of such legislation, it would then be possible for local Mr. Renshaw — continued. authorities by resolution to adopt those clauses and avoid coming to Parliament ? — Yes. 2109. And that would enormously reduce tlic number of applications that are made to Parlia- ment ? — I think so. I may say with regard to that, that of course for the first years aftcsr a new Public Health Act is passed it is mu(!)i easier for Parliament to reject applications for amendments. Then as years go on, of course new questions arise, and then there must be Private Bills ; but, certainly, there would be a relief of pressiu'c for some years to come ; and then, as 1 ventured to suggest, the time would draw on to the time when the Public Health Act should be again amtsnded. Mr. Hobhouse. 2110. Meanwhile there should be a register of decisions of the cases in which powers have been granted ? — I think so. Mr. Renshaw. 2111. Is there not some difference between the systems in which Bills are grouped for Com- mittee in the House of Lords and m the House of Commons ? — 1 am not aware of any dift'eren(;e. That does not fall in my department. 2112. You cannot tell us what the system is in the House of Lords with regard to grouping Bills of a particular character ? — No ; they are grouped of course very much according to sub- ject matter at the begmning of the Session when you have a gi*eat many Bills to deal ^vith, but when you come to this period of the Session when Bills come up from the House of Com- mons it is impossible to preserve a classified group. A group of Bills in tlie House of Lords now before a Committee, would be of a miscellancoii.s character. Mr. James Samuel Beale, called in ; and Examined. Chairman. 2113. You are a solicitor, and have been in practice before these Parliamentary Committees for a number of years ? — Yes, I have. 2114. And you come here also to represent the the Railway Companies Association, I believe ?: — 2115. I think we had better begin at the beginning, with regard to when Bills are de- posited. Have you anything to say with regard to their being deposited at the same time as the House of Lords Bills, namely, December 17th, instead of the 21.st ? — I think it is quite practi- cable to deposit the Bills on the 17 th of Decem- ber. If that can be done for the House of Lords it can be done for the House of Commons. There are sometimes little blanks left in the Bills, which are filled up in the four days ; but it could be done. 2116. Would you .suggest that it could be done any earlier ? — It would involve very great difficulties to put it nuich earlier. The time which is occupied between what I may call the resumption of business in October and 0.23 Chairman — continued. the deposit of Bills on the 17th of Decem- ber, is very fully occupied by those upon whom the preparation and the necessary work depends. The preparation of the plans, sec- tions and estimates, the giving of the Par- liamentary notices, the service of landowners' notices, and the preparation of the estimates, is very full occupation now during the months of October and November for all those who represent important corporations, railway, or municipal, or whatever they may be. To com- press the work in that time I do not think would lead to any real progress in Parliament. That is not really where the pressure comes. 2117. Therefore you think December 17th is a good date and the earliest date at which Bills could be deposited ?^I think so. 2118. With regard to those formal petitions which have to be presented under Standing Order 32, you heard Mr. Gray say that those ought to be abolished. What do you say to that ? — It is a purely formal proceeding ; it ■ T 2 is 138 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 2::» July 1902.] Mr. Beale. [Continued. Chairman — continued. is really, in fact, giving the locus standi to the promoter of a private Bill that he is a petitioner to Parliament, and it is in his capacity of a British subject petitioning Parliament that he has the promotion of the Bill at all. That is the reason for the introduction of the Bill. 2119. It appears to be purely formal ? — Yes. 2120. And does not take place in the House of Lords ? — No, it does not. 2121. Therefore is there any reason why it should take place here ? — -When you have got your Bill settled the agent can give you the petition in a very short time. I do not think that there is any advantage in that. 2122. What nave you to say with regard to the acceleration of getting Bills ready to come before Committees at an earlier time ? — I entirely approve of the suggestion that a date should be fixed for petitions against Bills, and I do not see why the petition should not be made a petition to Parliament applicable to the first House in which a Bill goes so that it is capable of being framed quite irrespective of the House in whicn the Bill is appointed to commence in. I assume that you would give us time to do the necessary work. This volume {holding up a hoolc) represents an epitome of the Bills I had to deal Avitn for this Session, and it does take some little time to master those and prepare them ; because in the case of all railway Bills the Bill is nothing without the plan and section and the details. You must examine the plan. You cannot get the line of railway from the descrip- tion in the Bill. There is a very great deal of work necessary to be done before petitions can be presented ; "but I do not see why that should not be done by the 12th ot February, or some .such date. 2123. You heard what Mr. Gray said just now, that it might cause a block of business, getting all these Bills deposited at the same time ? — 1 think it is altering the date of the block of business ; but such a large proportion of the Bills are read a first time on the same day that now the time for petitioning expires on th3 same day for the great majority of Bills. An 1 it has this advantage : that you can meet the block better when you know beforehand exactly at. what date it is coming. 2124. Then you see no reason why the petitions should not be deposited by, say, the 12th of February ? — I should think not earlier than that. Then if the object is to have the Bills ready for Committee as soon as Com- mittees are ready to sit, I think there are important minor improvements which might be made in the practice which would facilitate that object. 2125. Before we get to the Committees, would you say what is your opinion with regard to the Court of Referees in deciding questions of loe o^ 2139. If yon are to have only one stage before-""' the House, you would have the second reading '' instead of the third ? — Yes, the third reading objections are exceedingly rare ; it is not a material time. 2140. Under the new Standing Orders, have • you noticed whether there is more or less oppo- sition to second reading of Bills ?— I believe ' that the short experience there has been is that there is less opposition, and that is a matter of course ; the hour at which it is taken tends to ' ' discourage opposition. 2141. What have you to say with regard to settlements taking place between the promoters and opponents of a Bill ? — When you have the petitions in you begin to settle all those that are capable of settlement as fast as possible ; but if you have, as we frequently have against our large omnibus Bills of railway companies, from 25 to 36 petitions, if you get through them at the rate of two a day it takes (allowing five working days a week) a long time ; you cannot get those Bills ready for Committee so as to save ' the time of the Committee without a consider- able interval. Bui the idea I .saw Sir Chandos Leigh had, that no settlement took place until the last moment, he is misinformed about altogether. Settlements take place as hard as we can get to them ; we are all busy, but when we can get meetings we settle whatever is capable of being settled. And then there is that other point, that one effective means of settle- ment which Mr Baker mentioned, I see, is the reservation of the opposition to the second House. We settle a great deal of business in that way. Therefore that would necessitate having a petition stage in the second House. Whenever it is a clause, to get it out of the early pressure,we agree to save the right to petition in the second House, and then as soon as time , admits 140 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 29 July 1902.] Mr. Be ALE. [Continued. Chairman — continued. admits we meet and agree. If we could not do that we should be bound to petition in the first House in order to protect our client's position, and that would leacf to an mmecessary amount of work. 2142. Do you think that the number of Bills might be somewhat reduced by extending the powers of the Board of Trade to grant certificates for increased capital ? — It is so. I do not know why the Board of Trade should have power to grant a company power to raise capital and not give them power to abandon their Bill. But those are not the contentious Bills or those that come before a Committee here. It would be an improvement, but then it would not save the time of opposed Bill Com- mittees much ; extension of time Bills and abandonment Bills very rarely go to opposed Bills Committees. 2143. Did you notice what the Chairman of Ways and Means said with regard to the objec- tions to the second reading of a Bill being referred to some Committee to give their decision ? — I noticed that, and I think it is a very desirable thing indeed. If you take the objections to Private Bills on second reading, there is not one in ten which desires the Bill to be absolutely rejected; they are to get something in or something out ; and if you could put that to the Standing Orders Committee or a Grand Committee, when the parties would be there with the means of communicating with the members, which they do not have in the House on the second reading debate, or only to a very small extent, you would get rid of most of the objec- tions. I assume that the House would not part ■with its right ot control over any Bill ; but even if they found that no adjustment could be made, you would focus the discussion very much of the subjects of objection, and shorten the debate. But there is one thing that I want to suggest, and that is, that we should have a definite state- ment of the grounds of objection on second reading; that when a Member gives notice of objection to a Private Bill on second reading, it is not much to ask that he should state the grounds of his objection. 2144. That would give more time possibly to settle with him ? — A second reading objection always leads to a long postponement of the Bill, largely occupied with trying to get to know what the grounds of objection are. We had a case this year when notice of objection was given, and we found it was the wrong Bill. 2145. Do you mean that the honourable Member had put his notice of opposition down by mistake ?— He put his notice of opposition down to two Bills, whereas he was only objecting to one of them. 2146. Then you think that an honourable Member on giving notice of opposition to a Bill should state the reason on the paper following the notice ? — Yes, and if that went into the Chairman's office it would be communicated to the promoters. We should then be able to get together and, when things are capable of settle- ment so settle them. 2147. By that means a good deal of the time of the House might be saved ? — Yes I think it would, at all events the delays in getting the BiU would be saved. Chairman — continued. 2148. Have you anything to say about Cor- poration Bills ? — I do not know very much about them. There is an immense volume which gives all those who have to study them a great deal of trouble, but except on the lines that Mr. Gray suggested of further codification,' it is difficult to see how it can be avoided. AVlion ii power is given to one corporation a great many other corporations immediately find that it is necessary, apparently. 2149. As regards the expenses of private Bills, what is your opinion about that ? Are the fees of the House too high, do you think '. — - I do not think there has ever been any sub- stantial complaint against them. If you com- pare the aggregate fees in the House with what promoters, say a railway company taking a million of new capital, have to pay in taxation now, 5s. per cent., 21. a thou.sand pounds, an ex- pense of that kind makes the House fees look comparatively insignificant. I have never heard of the expense of the House fees ever stopping promoters. 2150. And in opposed Bills, as you say, large Bills, the fees are a very small percentage ? — Yes, and even in the case of an unopposecl Bill, if we have to pay 2,000?. within a month after getting the Act for duty, it is not a very large- addition to pay, 500L, or whatever it comes to, in House fees. 2151. With regard to the smaller Bills, do you think the fees deter local bodies from coming to the House ? — It is not according to my experience. 2152. Do you think that they prefer the Provisional Orders on account of their cheap- ness ? — The Committee have had very clearly explained to them the objections to Provisional Orders. If those could be removed so as to allow of greater latitude, including different subjects in one Order, I think you would find the more economical method adopted. 2153. Is there anything else you wish ta state which could improve our procedure ? — No, I think not ; I do not think I have anything else to suggest. Mr. Renshaw 2154. I have only one question I think that I have to ask you, and that is : do you see any objection to a date being fixed both in respect to the House of Lords and the House of Commons, after which second reading should not be per- mitted, subject, of course to the suspension of the Standing Orders ?— I think, if you want to expedite Private Business in the House of Commons, you must make some arrangement for fixing the second reading within a limited time after the first reading. That would involve doing away with the obstruction to second reading and the Examiner's report. But if you are to keep the Committee dependent on the second reading, as I am afraid it must be, you ought, if you want to expedite Bills, to limit the date after the first reading within which Bills should be read a second time. 2155. You are taking it for granted that the first reading is a stage that must be continued. Do not you think that that is a purely formal stage, and could be got rid of altogether ?— If that SELECT COMMLTTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 141 29 Jidy 1902.] Mr. Bealb. [Continued. Mr. Rensliaw — continued. that is so my answer would be general : then you must fix a date for second reading. 215(). And have you any view that you could express to the Committee as to what date that might bo ; a certain number of weeks from the commencement of the Session ?— You have only to find the date (if you have to do away with the first reading) to which you are to work. 2157. The first reading at present takes place, in the case of most Bills, txiree days after the meeting of Parliament, does it not, when the great bulk of the Bills originating in the House of Commons are read a first time ?— About 10 to 14 days after the meeting of Parliament. 2158. And a good many before that, are they not ? — No; they are just grouped, then the two Chairmen meet, and it is not until the author- ities have settled in which House a Bill is to begin, that the promoters can give notice for the first reading. 2159. All those stages could be got rid of if petitions for the Bills were made to Parliament and not to one particular House ? — No, the process of division would equally have to be gone through, the dividing of the list between the two Houses. 2160. But the process of division would not Mr. Renshaw — continued. need to take place before the first reading ? — It is a new state of ideas. I have not assumed that you could do without the introduction of the Bill on first reading. 2161. You cannot imagine that a more formal stage than it is at present, can you; it is ab- solutely formal at present ? — It is absolutely formal now, but it is the date on which the pro- cedure depends ; and it is convenient in that respect. 2162. And if it was held that every Bill was read a first time on the first day that Parlia- ment assembled, it would be no more formal than it is at present, would it, no more or no less formal than it is at present ? — There are minor difficulties. But it would be a little hard on the Bills which the promoters might determine not to proceed with, if there were fees exacted on first reading, to compel them to be read a first time whether they wished or not. But the general principle is the same, you will say so many weeks after the meeting of Parliament for second reading. 2163. Yes. How many weeks do you think that might be ? — About five or six for a First House Bill. Mr. Sydney Morse, called in ; and examined. Chairman. 2164. You are, I believe, a Solicitor and have had considerable parliamentary experience ? — Yes. 2165. Chiefiy in Electric and Tramway Bills ? I have had some Railway BiUs, but chiefly Electric and Tramway Bills. 2166. And you represent a good many Pro- moters of those Electric Bills ? — Yes. 2167. You perhaps will not care to express any opinion about the various dates than that you have heard us discussing? — If I might just make one or two general remarks, I fully agree with the suggestion that a fixed date should be named for Petitions. 2168. To begin at the beginning how about the deposit of Bills on the 17th of December ? — With regard to the deposit of Bills so far as we are concerned, inasmuch as we have to deposit them on the 17th in the House of Lords we may as well deposit them on the 17th in both Houses, — it makes no difference. I do not think wc could commence our procedure earlier because if, as knowing perhaps some more details about it than the agents, I might mention the referen- cing work (I daresay you know what that is), we have to get the plans from the engineer first ; then we have to send people on to the ground to do a great deal of work which practically takes up September and October ; so that if you commenced your procedure of advertising or depositing earlier tlian at present, that would drive us into August, if not mto July. I think there are practical matters which make it im- possible to bring those dates earlier. 2169. Then as to that formal process of petitioning for the introduction of Bdls in the House of Commons, is that a useful procedure to Chaiiinan — continued. keep up ? — -It is quite useless. May I say as regards the earlier procedure that you mentioned, that there is one other matter, it is not a matter of the time of the House, it is a very important question with promoters, and that is, the ex- cessive number of notices that we have to serve. In my proof I have referred to the Light Rail- way procedure. Of course Light Railways are not so important as heavy railways, but they are very important and they mvolve tramways. Now it has been found perfectly sufficient to follow the Light Railways practice with regard to notices, and that has saved promoters an enor- mous amount in the cost of promotion. 2170. Do you refer to notices to owners ? — Notices to frontagers particularly. 2171. How would you reduce those ? — Under the Light Railway Act we have to give no notice to frontagers at all ; we have to advertise in a local paper ; in the case of tramways you have to give a street notice and you have to deposit plans ; but nowadays with the newspapers spreading as they do, every one hears of the scheme by those means, if not by the fact that the men have been on the ground and have levelled every inch of the ground, and the referencers have been over every inch of the ground to find out who the owners are, so that it becomes common knowledge, and I do not think these notices to frontage! s in reality are of any use to anybody except to my own pro- fessional class. 2172. And they add very much to the cost? — Very much, and I do not think they are necessary. Then with regard to advertisements ; at the present moment the notice for a Bill by advertisement 142 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 29 July 1902.] Mr. MoBSE. [Continued. Chairman — continued. advertisement is like the memorandum of asso- ciation of a company, you have to include everything, and you must not omit anything. Under the Light Railways procedure you have to give a general notice of what you are pro- posmg to do ; then the Order shows what the scheme really is. I think that might be very easily made applicable to Parliamentary pro- cedure without any hurt to any one. 2173. Then you would have the Light Railways procedure applied to Electric Bills ? — I think with regard to all measures that come before Parliament there is no reason why the Standing Orders should not be modified in the way of reduction of expense, in the public interest. 2174. With regard to the introduction of these Electrical Bills, would you have them come before any less expensive Committees than Com- mittees of this House ? — I do not think yon can diiierentiate between Electric Bills and other Bills as regards the procedure of the House, but I would suggest that the Committee stage should really be made the important matter. At the present time, a great many schemes are defeated on second reading, or are limited on second reading, against the public interest, because of the difficulties. 2175. Not a great many are defeated in the House of Commons on second reading ? — I ought not to say a great many, perhaps, but some Bills are. 2176. Some few ? — Some few. All our Electric Power Bills (perhaps I had those in my mind) were seriously limited on the opposition of the local authorities on second reading, the opposition being that the local authorities had all electric light stations in their towns, and they did not want competition. That is a matter which between two companies, if the public interest reqiiires competition, is for consideration by the Committee, but hardly a matter of principle, I submit with respect, with which the House need deal with on second reading. I was going to suggest that second reading opposition should not be allowed unless some Committee, such as Mr. Beale suggested just now, or I was going to suggest, the Chairman of Ways and Means certified that it was a proper matter to debate as raising new principles. 2177. The Chairman of Ways and Means said that he could not undertake that duty ; that it would be rather an onerous and disagreeable one, and he suggested that it should be referred to a Committee ? — I have not seen his evidence, but that is only as to the means of carrying out my object. 2178. But before a second reading debate should take place you would have the matter go before some tribunal ? — Yes, and then the ver- dict or decision of that tribunal or their remarks should go before the House. At the present time we have no opportunity of informing mem- bers of the House of the views of our opponents on second reading except by a printed statement, which I do not think Members very often have time to read and which it is very often difficult for them to read, I do not mean to say intelli- gently, but I mean without further knowledge of Chaimuin — continued. the matter. I might mention that there was a second reading Opposition against a Bill of mine this session when one reading of the opposing circular suggested that we had been acting im- properly, and Sir John Brunner who mentioned it to the House allowed me to see him afterwards, when he said that if he had understood the position he would not have made the remarks which he did make in the House which were not justified by the circumstances. It is very difficult for any parties drawing a circular to avoid that sort of thing. I mentioned that because Mr. Gray has referred to it. 2179. Did you notice what the last witness said with regard to oppositions to second reading, namely, that the reasons ought to be stated ? — 1 think that is a very valuable suggestion. 2180. You find, do you, that you get a general opposition without details ? — You simply get a Member raising his hat and saying, " I object." 2181. And it is a difficult thing to find out sometimes what the detail of the opposition is ? — Yes, whom he represents or why he does it. 2182. And you think that it would simplify things very much if you knew what his reasons were ? — Undoubtedly. 2183. Have you anything to say with regard to Committees ? — I should like to say that I think Committees might very well begin earlier in the Session. 2184. They cannot begin earlier in the Session unless they get the Bills. The Committees of this Hovise are always ready to sit, but, as you know, certain processes have to be gone through first of all before the Bills can come into your hands ? — That is true. 2185. With regard to notice of petitions against the Bills being given by a certain date, say February the 12th, do you approve of that ? ■ — I think that a fixed date is the proper method of dealing with them. At the present moment nobody knows when a petition is due. 2186. Have you any difficulty in getting reports from the Government departments ? — 1 do not quite know why the Local Government Board deal with Tramway or Electrical Bills. 2187. It is for the direction of the Com- mittees ; you must remember that the Com- mittees are not experts like you and other people dealing with the Bills, and they get the reports from the Government departments to direct their attention to certain facts ? — But I venture to think still that the Local Govern- ment Board have no matters afi'ecting them in tramway Bills. They have to do with municipal matters; but I really do not see why they should go through all Bills. I think if the department whicli each Bill aft'ett3d went through the class of Bills in which they were interested, that would spread the work over several departments and reduce it. 2188. You would have the Board of Trade dealing with you I — Certainly. 2189. And you think that that would be sufficient ? — Yes, I think they know all about these matters, and could give the House exactly what was wanted. Then I would venture respectfully to submit that Committees should sit SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 143 29/(1^^ 1902.] Mr. Morse [Contiuued. Chairman — continued. sit for longer hours. Since the new Rules of Procedure came in we have had Committees rising at half-past two, and with great respect, I do not think it, is at all fair to promoters ; the expense is the same whether the Committees sit, as they used to do, from 11 to 4, or if they sit from Imlf-past 11 to 2. 2190. The fees to the House, do you mean ? — No, the expenses of counsel and witnesses. WTiy should Bills take weeks which ought not to take more than three or four days ? Mr. Wm-sley -Taylor. 2191. Committees of this House did not sit from eleven to four ? — Did they not ? I was talking to Mr. Balfour Browne this morning and he confirmed what I said. At any rate it is at half-past two that some Committees rise now, and you have to have yom- witnesses from the country, and your counsel's fees going on all the same whether you have a short day or a long day, and your solicitors and Parliamentary agents too. Chairman. 2192. That depends you see upon the Com- mittee. If the Committee are cood enough to sit for those long hours they can do it. But take an instance like last night, when the House did not rise till 3 o'clock this morning ; you can hardly expect Committees to be down here very early in the morning ; you see the members have their duties in the House to attend to as well as these Committees ? — I am only putting it, with respect, if you will alloAV me, from our point of view. I do not wish to say more than that it adds very much to our expense, and we get very little done in a day of two and a-half or three hours. And a Committee of the House is not a cheap method of determining a question : there is no strict rule as to evidence, for example. 2193. What have you to say with regard to the Provisional Order system for your electric schemes ? — I think that for all matters there is no reason why the Scottish Private Bill Proce- dure Act or the Light Railwavs Procedure should not be largely extended ; it simplifies the matter very much. 2194. You mean by local enquiries ? — Yes, I think a local inquiry is much better than the procedure before a Committee. 2195. You have heard what some witnesses have said : that very often matters require two or three Provisional Orders, which if they were applied for by Private Bill would only take one Bill ? — That is only as to municipalities. If municipalities choose to go in for trading, well that is another matter altogether. I am dealing with industrial enterprises. 219(). But municipalities do go in for trading to a very large extent, do thev not, now ? — -I have ray strong opinion upon tliat, but I had better not go into it here. 2197. At any rate, you think that if Pro- visional Orders could be carried out satisfactorily, a gi'eat many Pnvate Bills might be avoided ? — A good many. The Light Railway Act was passed to simplify matters and was most useful, but unfortunately the Board of Trade have held in effect that any Light Railway which is near a 0.23. Chairman — continued. big railway must come to Parliament. There is no procedure for sending a Light Railway Order as a Provisional Order to Parliament, and there- fore all that usefulness of the Light Railways Act has been done away with until we can get a now Light Railways Act amending the old one. 2198. Then you would delegate a certain amount of work to certain Commissioners like the Light Railway Commissioners ? — I would ; I think it would be most useful. 2199. And do you think it would be satis- factory ? — Undoubtedly, especially if you had, as you have under the Scottish Bill Procedure Act, power to bring the matter before Parliament. You see the Chairmen of the two Houses can certify whether a Bill is a proper one to go before those Commissioners under the Scottish Private Bill Procedure Act; and something of that sort can always be put in as a safeguard. You get these great advantages. You get a day fixed for your local inquiry. You have all your witnesses in the district, and the business is taken and disposed of in a day or a day and a-half, with a long day's sitting; it does enormously reduce our expenses and simplify matters. 2200. Would it not greatly increase the ex- pense if you had to bring counsel down from London ? — It is not necessary to bring counsel down from London ; in a great many of these cases counsel are not employed, and even if thej^ are it very much reduces the expense of counsel because you have one counsel who will give his whole time to it ; whereas you have four or five here, and you never can get hold of any one of them when you want him. Mr. W or dey -Taylor. 2201. Do you say " never "?— Well, hardly ever. Chairman. 2202. With regard to the expense of getting a Bill through Parliament, do you complain of the fees of this House ? — I do not see why the House should make a profit out of promoters. There is no question about it, the fees are very heavy. Mr. Beale was talking of big Railway Bills; but in all other matters they are very heavy, especially if you want a small amending Bill got through. You may simply want to get an extension of time for the completion of your works, but you cannot do it without coming to Parliament, and spending several hundreds of pounds uselessly. 2203. But the Taxing Officer has proved to us, by certain figures which he gave the Committee, that the fees of the House of Commons bear a very small proportion to the total amount ex- pended in getting a Bill through ? — Quite so. I was,' perhaps, not answering your question quite accurately, I was dealing partly wiih the fees of the House and partly with consequential expenses. I agree that it is not only the fees of the House. 2204. But you see the only things that we can deal with is the Standing Order regulating the fees ; would you suggest that we should try and alter the fees of the House in any wav ? — I U think 144 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 29 July 1902.] Mr. Morse. [Coidinwed. I have not gone into Chairman — continued, think they could very well be reduced without any harm to the House, and with great advantage to promoters. 2205. Have you considered the difference between the fees in this House and the fees in the House of Lords ? that ; we have to pay both. 2206. But the scale in one House varies from the scale in th^ other House. You do not care to express an opinion upon that ? — No. Then, as regards the arrangement of Couunittees, which you were dealing with just now. 2207. The grouping of the Bills?— Yes; I think there might be a great improvement in that with a little further consideration. As an instance, I was promoting four or five Bills this year, and they all came before different Com- mittees on the same day. I think that_ might have been seen by the authorities. It is very difficult, of course, to say when a particular Bill is coming on ; but one way of meeting such a difficulty would be for Bills by the same pro- moters to go into the same group. 2208. Then of course the difficulty arises that all the Bills are not ready at the same time, be- cause the Chairmen, as you know, meet and arrange their groups of Bills, trying to take those which are ready ; we have to look through the Bills and see those which have passed second reading ? — Yes ; I think it the second reading were made, as I think it ought to be, a much "more formal matter, that would simplify things. I think the Committee is the great thing. If a Bill is opposed it ought to be got before Committee at the earliest possible time without waiting for second reading opposition. 2209. But the object of our Committee of Chairmen is to get the Bills to Committee as soon as possible. We always meet early before Easter, and at once ask what Bills are ready, and we can only take those Bills, and refer them to Committees, which have passed second reading or are likely soon to pass second reading ? — Yes ; but I do not see why a Bill should be kept back for anything beyond the necessary formal proof of Standing Orders being complied with which begins in January. Then if the suggestion is adopted that such matters as fiiU under Standing Order 22 should go to Committee, you really have nothing to stop most of the Bills except the Wharncliffe meeting, the proof of which might also go before the Committee. 2210. You think the proof of the Wharncliffe meeting also might go before the Committee ?— I do. It is a formal matter, as Mr. Beale said. 2211. What have you to say as regards the Court of Referees and the question of locus standi ? — I think the Court of Referees is a very valuable court, because if you have a Bill opposed by people who really have no locus you get rid of their opposition without bringing your witnesses to town. I do not at all like the House of Lords procedure, where you have to bring your witnesses to town, even perhaps where the only opponents have no real locus, I am sure the Court of Referees tends to simplifica- tion and cheapness. 2212. Is there anything else you would like to bring to our notice ? — I think I have generally gone through all the matters. I should just Chairman — continued, like to say how full}^ we agree with Mr. Gray's remarks on Standing Order 22. Our view is really that it is rather extraordinary that Parlia- ment by that Standing Order prevents itself from considering a measure which may be in the public interest, until the local authority, possibly a very small one, has given its consent. I think that it should always be considered by the Committee whether a scheme is a proper scheme to go forward ; but to make it a condi- tion precedent is simply depriving Parliament of the right to consider matters which may be of great public importance. I could give you many instances of the way that has affected very important matters, if you think it neces- sary. 2213. Will you give us some of your experi- ence with regard to the result of objections under Standing Order 22 ? — I should like to give you two or three. I had a case in which we proposed to promote a Bill to spend a million of money on electrically equipping tramways and extending them in the potteries ; we had got the consent of every local authority but one, and that particular local authority in committee when we were present said that they would only give us their consent if we would pay a prohibi- tive price for our electrical energy. 2214. That is to say, you were to buy your electrical energy in the locality ? — We were to buy our electrical energy from them: Many of these local authorities have obtained Provisional Orders for the supply of electrical energy, and many of them find that it is hardly good enough for them to commence the business. A unit of energy draws a car about a mile, and your total expenses per car mile ought not to exceed 4k^. to 5c/. for electrical running. This authorit}^ asked us 3t7. per car mile, and we had to drop the whole of our scheme. 2215. That was the condition of getting their consent ? — That was the condition of getting their consent. Then we had another case where, as the condition of their consent, we were asked to spend some 40,000/. or 50,000/. upon widenings for a tramway of about ^\ miles. My clients have always expressed themselves willing to make a commercial arrangement. Tf they .got a proper term having regard to what they had to spend on the undertaking it might be possible to do it ; but when you have only 21 years for your tramways, and at the end of j'our term you get nothing for the widenings, it is an important matter. And on that qiiestion of the supply of electrical energy, may I say that there is never a case when you are promoting a tramway through a district where the authority has got an electric light station or power for an electric light station, but they make it a condition that you .shall take energy from them. But there is only one case in the Kingdom where a corporation has taken energy from a company under similar circumstances ; and yet it is in the public interest that every tramway authority, whether company or corporaton, should take its energy from the existing supply ; because it at once enables the undertakers to reduce their pi-ice for lighting all round. You see what wo call the day load very considerably takes off the expenses of working. That is simply because of the consent being required. I do not know whether SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE HUSINESS. 145 29 July 1902.] Mr. Morse. {Continued. Chairman — continued. whether you were present in the House when Mr. Chaplin's motion came on. 2216. Yes? — Perhajjs I might refer you to the debate. Mr. John Burns said that in 39 instances this session the borough councils of London had acted most unreasonably in refusing their consent to the London County Council. 2217. That is only an instance ? — That is only an instance ; but you were asking for instances. It comes really to this, putting it shortly : that the necessity for obtaining consent now means that we have to bargain with the local authority ; since they have obtained power to work their own tramways as a usual thing it has become much more didicult still. You see they are competitors now ; the local authorities in tramway matters are competitors, and yet you give them the power of vetoing anybody else coming into the district. I submit generally on that point that the Committee stage is the im- portant stage, and that all Bills should go on merits before the Committee. 2218. Notwithstanding any objection of the local authority? — They will have their locus. They have their full power of being heard. Mr. Wm^sley -Taylor. 2219. I did not quite follow you about an extension of the Provisional Order system. You were referring, I gather, only to tramways ? — No, I think not. I think it might be very largely ,5296. When you spoke of objectionable con- cessions, were you speaking of the widenings of roads that were required, or of what kind?— In the instance before my mind, last, where there was a revolution in the course of a year, there was no difference at all of circumstances outwardly; there were no different questions about widenings. Mr; HobkHn^^-^-^eoritmued. And with regard to those things, it seems to me that if there are conditions of that kind, surely that exactly what a Committee should have an opportunity of deciding upon— not the local' authority. What is fair enough in one case might be quite wrong in another; and it gives them what outside of Parliament, I think, ought not to be ; there ought not to be an autocratic power outside Parliament, it should be subject to some protection. 2297. Would you go so far as to say that they should say " yes " or "no" without laying down terms ? — No, I think it is very desirable that they should set forth their terms ; then if the promoters say, " that is not reasonable," I think they ought to b& allowed to go on to Parliament and let Parliament say between them whether the conditions imposed by the local authority ' are reasonable or not. Mr. Renshaw. , j,, 2298. You are generally in favour, 1 under^^i stand from the evidence you have given, of- simplifying the progress of Bills at an earlier period of the Session ? — I think as much as possible. I am sure it woiild conduce to efficii- ^ ency and economy of the work as much as any- ( thing would. • i' 2299. That at present is prevented to som^'t extent by the dates which regulate the proce*>'' dure in this and the other House, is it not ? — It- is. 2300. The date for the petitition for a Bill in this House is the 21st of December and in the House of Lords the I7th ?— Yes. • 3001. Do you See any objection to making that the same date in both Houses ? — I think it is very desirable. .2302. Do you see any great objection that there would be to making the date in both Houses, say, a week earlier ?— -I think that is a ' question more for the agents and the engineers. ' I should have thought myself a week would pro- bably not make much difference to them, l^ut that is stdl more a question for their judgment. ■■ J 2303. You think it would not make much dif- ference, but you would be of opinion that it' might make a great deal of difference to the ^ acceleration of business ?— I think every day of-^ ante dating, so to spfak, would be a great ad-''- vantage (o the House, every day that can reason- ably be. : . ; 'J 2304. It has been rather urged as an objectiofi-^ to any antedating by some of the witnesses - before us, that the municipal elections take place on the 9th of November, and that the interval between that and the date for Petitions for Bills is so short that it cannot be abbrefil viated. Is it your opinion that these Bills are generally brought into shape before the elections on the 9th of November, or that they are brought into shape after that date ?— - Every Bill of course must have had some con-;i sideration before the 9th of November, and'- sometimes, I have no doubt, that its shape is affected by the elections which take place, be- cause very frequently, as you know, a local Bill i is the subject of a contest in the various wards. ■-■ I know when I used to draft Bills in Parliament,' when I was a' junior, very frequently it seemed- to SELECI- COMMITTEE ON PI'. IV ATE BUSINESS. 155 5 August 1902.] Sir Ral^h D. M. Littler, k.c, c.b. [Continued. Mr. ReTishaw — continued. to me that the agents had their hands very full right up to the end of the present period ; but whether that could be antedated by a week Or two or three days, I do not know ; all I say is, that it would be very desirable if it could. 2305. Is it not human nature, always, to put off' to the last moment ?— No, I do not think so ; but very often in drafting an important Bill (I know the agents much more largely draft them than they used) it used to occur to one in the middle of a Bill that there was some provision inconsistent ; then you had to send off and get your instructions, and perhaps partly redraft the Bill ; so that their hands, I know, are very full. 2306. But I think the Committee may take it from you that the general features of the Bill which the municipal authority were promoting in Parliament would bo settled long before the 9th of November, although the result of the elections might effect tho introduction of some particular point or the rejection of some par- ticular point ? — If it was an important Bill they must have given their instructions long before that. You have to prepare all sorts of things for them. I should be very sorry, if I had anything to do with a Bill, not to have given my instructions by this time for the preliminary stages to be prepared. 2307. Under the existing rules which govern the procedure in this House, petitioners against a Bill are allowed 10 days from the date of second reading ? — Yee. 2308. Do you think that serves any good purpose ? — I do not think it does serve any good purpose, especialty if the Bills were divided into compartments and, say, from number one to 50, petitions must be within such and such a date, aijd tor the next 50, petitions within such and such a date, so as not to have the agents preparing the petitions all in a hurry ; but I do not see any object in having to wait for second reading or even first reading, because first reading is a matter of course. 2309. So that the first reading stage of a Bill in this House is really of no importance what- ever?— I do not think it is.- In Bills where there is a deposit of money, the deposit of • money is on the 15th of January, and therefore up to that time you do not quite know whether the Bill is going to proceed ; but I do not see why for the first 50 or 100 Bills they should not put in Petitions within 10 days or by tne end of the month after that so as to have something ready tor Com- mittees in due time. It is all a question of accelerating all the machinery. I must not, of course, be understood to say that with regard to Bills which have not passed Standing Orders, it : depends upon that very much. 2310. Quite so. I was going to ask you a q^uestion upon that. The Court of Examiners sits now on the 18th of January ? — Yes. 2311. You would see on the lines of your grevious answer no objection, I presume, to that ^urt sitting earlier than the 18th of January, say a week earlier ? — There may be some reason inside of the office, but so far as I know, I do not see why the Examiners should not start very much sooner. 2312. Then in your opinion might it be taken Mt. Renshaw — continued, that the date for petitioning against a Bill should: be either a fixed date in the year, having regard to the date at which the Examiners begin to sit, ' or a date so many weeks or so many days after the date at which the Bill had passed the Ex- aminer ? — I think the latter cour.se would be the more convenient, because it would be more con- venient to the agents, it would not overwhelm them with the work so much. That must be con- ' sidered, because they have so very many things to look after at that time of year, that I will not sav their convenience, but their' capacity for the work should be considered ; but I do not see why some arrangement of that kind should not be made. 2313. That is to say that Petitions against « Bill ought to be brought in within 10 or 15 or 20 days, after the date at which compliance with Standing Orders has been certified? — That seems to me a very reasonable arrangement, and one that nobody could well qiiarrel with. It would certainly facilitate what I am so anxious to see, ' namely. Committees in as full swing before Easter as they are after. > 2314. Have you considered what the effect of that would be upon the Wharncliffe meeting? — The Wharncliffe meeting is now you see very much a matter of form. I should think some arrangement might be made to get over that diflSculty, because it is purely formal. 2315. The Wharncliffe meeting must take i place before second reading ? — Yes, at present it must. I see no reason why there should not be some other less movable dace fixed for it. I do not see why the Wharncliffe meeting should not. take place at some fixed period after the deposit of the Bill. The second reading has always been on the theory that something dreadful was going to happen to the Bill on second reading, but you - know in 19 cases out of 20 nothing does happen ; therefore it might be held at some more con- venient date. 2316. You do not see any real inconvenience! and objection on that score ? — No. ■ ; ■< 2317. I think in one answer that you gave to the Chairman you spoke of the desirability of avoiding the second reading stage in the House if possible ? — Yes. 2318. And placing larger powers in the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means with regard-,. to that ? — Yes. ., .. 2319. Do you think it would be preferable to place those powers in the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means in this House, or in the hands of a small Committee, of which he or the ■ Deputy Chairman • was a member ? — The only advantage in that, that I can see is, that perhaps, as I said, the House of Commons being the more popular body, they might prefer to have a some- what larger body in which some non-olficial Members of the House might have a voice ; but otherwise, I should have thought the greater convenience would have been to nave simply the Chairman of Ways and Means or some similar high placed officer of the House, because then he will be in an easier position for conferring with Lord Morley. Practically, I think that would be better. 2320. Is there not this great difference beeween the position of the Lord Chairman in the House of 15C MINCTK^S OF EVIDENCE. lAKEX BEFOllE THE 5 August 1902.] Sir Ralph D. M. Littler, k.c, c.b. [Continued. Mr. Renshaw — continued. of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in this House : that the one man has upon him an enormous amount of business compared with what devolves upon the other ? — Yes. 2321. The time of the Chairman of Ways and Means in this House would never be free to that extent ? — That is why I added the words, or some other equally highly placed officer in the House on whom the House would have reliance. One can imagine the enormous amount of work that the Chairman of Ways and Means has to do ; but still, even in his case, he is not so hardly pressed before as after Easter, because there are not so many times when the House is in Com- mittee. But I should think, probably, it might be better if somebody else, in whom the House would have equal confidence, could undertake the duty. 2322. Would you rather suggest an individual than a small Committee ? — I think so, because of the ease of communication, the non-necessity for calling the Committee together, and so on, simply as a matter of machinery. I think, otherwise, it does not matter very much whether you have a strong Committee of three, or a gentleman in whom the House has confidence. 2323. That is solely with regard to second reading questions ? — Yes. 2324. With regard to the powers of the Chair- man in respect to Unopposed Bills, we have been told that they are very great — that he can insert almost anything into a Bill, subject to report to the House. Do not you think that a strongly constituted Committee of the House dealing with Unopposed Bills might be a protection ? — It might lead probably to considerable continuity, because the personality of the Chairman of Ways and Means varies, and if you had a Com- mittee with a record that might give continuity and probably strengthen the position. But I think at present everybody has great confidence in the decision of the Chairman of Ways and Means. 2325. You spoke of putting Bills into blocks, or rather into compartments ? — Yes. 2326. Do you suggest that being done as soon as they pass the Examiners ? — Yes, because everybody would know then in what order they would come, subject of course to special appli- cations, say from the necessity for some further information. But if a man wanted not to take his Bill in that order, he would do what is now done in the Courts, make application to the proper officer and say, " please may I defer my Bill for such and such a time." That seems to me the most certain way of getting a certain amount of business ready for the House. 2327. Would you group these Bills before the date for petitions against Bills have been reached ? — With regard to that, you would run the risk under those circumstances of there being no petitions at all, and then the Bills would go unopposed ; but I do not suppose that would much matter, because you would either do what is done now, transfer a Bill from some other group to fill up that, or have a shorter group, and then that Chairman and his members would be released. 2328. Should you suggest that those Bills Mr. Menshaw — continued, ought to be grouped with regard to locality or with regard to subject matter ? — I do not think one or the other very much matters. In the House of Lords you have, especially at the latter end of the Session, a great mixture, and there is no particular virtue m having a group of all railway Bills that I can see; in fact, I think probably so far as honourable Members are con- cerned, it would be rather more interesting for them if there were greater variety. I know there is one Member of the present Cabinet who told me that he owed his present position to what he studied in Private Bill Committees, and probably he got a miscellaneous amount of information. 2329. You criticised the course taken by local authorities in going for Provisional Orders as being liable to objection, because they did not need to get the consent of their constituents ? — Yes. 2330. Is it not the fact, however, that they can only go for Provisional Orders for matters which have been already dealt with by Parlia- ment, and that it is under the provisions of the public law that they get those powers ? — No. Take for instance Electric Orders; all Electric Bills and Provisional Orders are subject to the general recommendations of that Joint Committee that sat and gave so much assistance to everybody afterwards. But in those cases they can either go by Bill or Provisional Orders. I am thinking of an electric scheme in which some people Avent for a Private Bill; when two out of the three authorities were totally defeated at the poll, and they then all went in for separate Pro- visional Orders. 2331. So that statement of yours is only applicable to electrical schemes, not ordinary gas and water schemes ? — No ; I give that as an illustration. There are various things that they might go for Provisional Orders for, and I know they do go for Provisional Orders for on the ground that they would rather not face their constituents for a Bill. 2332. Then with regard to the answer that you gave to the Chairman on the subject of Standing Order No. 22, can you suggest any way by which the local interests and the interests of the road authority can be properly safeguarded if this power is taken away from the local authority ? — I think that generally speaking the local authorities have very considerable influ- ence in determining what will happen. Under the Light Railways Orders for example, they have no veto, but we find that their interests are very carefully considered, and very well pro- tected. Generally speaking, if people were promoting a tramway they would not wilfully run their heads against the wall by getting the determined opposition of any considerable sec- tion of the local authorities, or, in fact, of any of them. I must say, as I said before, that if it were de novo I should see no reason whatever for their having any veto at all, but, as they have, if it continues it should certainly be limited in every way, so that they should be compelled to give their reasons, and, if the reasons were not satisfactory to the people promoting their scheme, they should still be allowed to proceed and take the opinion of the Committee. 2333. Even SELECT COMMITfEE 0\ PRIVATE BUSINESS. 157 5 Aug^ist 1902.] Sir Ralph D. M. LirrLER, k.c, c.b. [Contimied. Mr. Renshatv— continued. 2333. Even although it might be to the detri- ment of their own locality, as it might be in the ease of a proposal to connect two towns by a tramway passmg through an intervening district which would be really injured and not benefited by it ? — It is now, with the electric tramways, difficult to imagine a district that would not be Mr. Renshaw — continued, benefited by the passing of a tramway. But the great misfortune is the going to the other ex- treme, that people can put a stop to a useful enterprise without giving any reason, simply saying, " No, we will not " ; and it has been a very serious evil in some cases. Mr. Charles Edward Troup, c.b., called in ; and Examined. Chairman. 2334. You are Principal Clerk to the Home Office ?— Yes. 2335. And you have had a good deal to do, of course, with Private Bills ? — Yes, the Depart- ment that I have charge of takes, amongst other questions, all the Home Office action witn regard to Private Bills. We see most of the Private Bills ; some of them come to us under the Standing Orders, such as the Police and Sanitary Bills; others are referred to us by the Treasury, and others we obtain from the agents. We see on the whole more than three-fourths of the whole number of Bills. 2336. Is it your duty, and that of those who assist you, to go through all these Bills ? — Yes, it is our duty to look out the points on which the Home Office is concerned, and we deal with a good many of them by writing to the agents and settling the points with them. On all of the more important points we prepare reports which come before the Committees. 2337. Have you any trouble in getting your reports drawn in time to present to Committees, do you ever keep Committees waiting ? — I do not think we ever keep Committees waiting. Sometimes when a Committee has been put out before we were ready we have to rush the report through, and perhaps once or twice we have had to send it in in manuscript to the promoters and the Committee; but I do not think we have ever kept a Committee waiting. 2838. In a general way have you time, although the Bills are not deposited till the 21st of De- cember, to make your report ? — Yes. 2339. Ample time ? — No, it puts very great pressure upon us to get ready ; a very great deal of overtime has to be worked.. 2340. Your department is not interested in the same number of Bills as the Local Govern- ment Board ?— No, we are not interested in nearly so many as the Local Government Board. I find this Session, for instance, we have only reported on 38 Bills, as agjainst 122 which were reported on by the Local Government Board ; and om- reports are generally speaking much shorter than the Local Government Board's reports. But, on the other hand, I think we deal with even a wider range of subjects than the Local Government Board do. 2341. But still, if the pressure on your time is Eeat to make 38 reports, the pressure on the )cal Government Board must be very much greater ? — It is very much greater. 2342. But so far as your department is con- cerned you have time ? — We can just manage to do it, but it would be a very great advantage to Chairman — continued. us if the date for the deposit of Bills could bo advanced. 2343. As you know, the Bills are deposited in the House of Lords four days earlier than in the House of Commons, on the 17th of December ? —Yes. 2344. Is there any reason why our Bills should not be deposited at the same time ? — I do not think there is. 2345. It is said that if they were deposited earlier it would interfere with the action of the various municipalities ? — What I should suggest is this. There does not seem to be any reason for advancing the Railway Bills and that class of Bills very much, but it certainly would be a great advantage if Municipal Bills, or at any rate the Police and Sanitary Bills, could be de- posited a great deal earlier. 2346. la it not a fact that the municipal elec- tions take place in the earlier part of November, and until tnose elections have taken place the municipalities cannot very well introduce these Bills ? — I think their Bills ought to be ready before the date of the municipal election, and I may mention that we are now in correspondence with the Corporation of Birmingham about a Bill which I understand from \vhat they tell us, is almost complete and ready for next Session. According to the report sent to us the Bill is practically settled except a few clauses, one or two- of which they are writing to us about. I do not see why in other cases the Bills should not be^ ready sooner. It seems to me that if you advanced the date by a month, that would be rather giving them 11 months more than shorten- ing the time by one month. 2347. And you do not think that the reasons given, of the Municipal Elections stopping a Bill, IS a good reason ? — No, I do not lliink so. I think the Bill ought to be ready and before the electors before the Municipal Elections. Then if there is anything they object to, it can be dropped out afterwards. 2348. What have you to say about the Police and Sanitary Regulations which come before these Committees ? — That is the point in the Private Bills with which we have most to do, and on which most of our reports turn. We were first asked to make reports for the Police and Sanitary Committee in 1884, and ever since then we have made reports upon a great number of Bills. 2349. When was the Police tuid Sanitary Committee established ?— It was set up in 1882, it did not sit in 1883, and then it sat continuously from 1884 to 1900 ; and, at any rate in the earHer days 158 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOBE THE 5 AugvM 1902.] Mr. Troup, c.b. [Continvied. Chairman — continued. days of the Committee, the same Members served on that Committee from year to year, and they became a Committee almost of experts upon the subject. 2350. But did you not find, or was it not found, that the Coumiittee felt it a gi-eat burden to constantly sit on these cases all through the session ? — In late years the number of Bills in- creased enormously, and it was very difficult to get the attendance of Members. 2351. And especially of the Chairman, who had to sit on every Committee ? — Yes, and that led, of course, to the Committee being discon- tinued last session, when an arrangement was made by which there should be two of the ordinary Committees who should take the Police and Sanitary Bills, and the Chairmen of those two Committees should be old members of the Police and Sanitary Committee. 2352. And do you find that occasionally there is want of continuity in the action of the Com- mittees ? — The first Session it worked pretty well. This Session I do not think it has worked so well. I think one can see quite clearly that the Com- mittees are beginning to lose the tradition of the old Police and Sanitary Committee. 2353. Occasionally there is a divergence of ruling, is there not, in some cases ? — Yes, and in most cases hardly any members except the two Chairmen were old members of the Police and Sanitary Committee ; and a good many Bills went to a committee which had not even a chairman taken from the old Police and Sanitary Committee. If there were now a •change of Chairmen all connection with the •old Committee would be lost, and its practice and tradition would be forgotten. 2354. In your opinion, would it be better to have one Committee, if possible ? — It would be very miich better if there were one Committee : special Iv for the Police and Sanitary Class of Bills. P 2355. Would it lighten the labours of the Chairman of that Committee if there were a Chairman and a Vioe-Chairman ? — Yes, I should have thought that might have been arranged. 2356. To keep up the continuity more, you think ? — Yes. It would be better of course, if one Chairman could take the whole thing. 2357. But with the number of Bills introduced now, that is a very heavy burden, is it not ? — Yes. 2358. Much more so than it used to be ? — Yes, but 1 think in some ways the amount of the work :as compared with last year of the old Police and Sanif ary Committee might be reduced a great deal 2359. You would not refer the whole Bill to the Committee, only certain clauses ? — I think there are cases where the opposed part of the Bill, if it is not specially a Police and Sanitary matter, might be taken by an ordinary Com- mittee, and then the Police and Sanitary clauses come to the Police and Sanitary Committee. That was done in this Session in regard to at least one Bill, the Salford Bill. 2360. That would lighten the labours of the Committee ? — It would lighten the labours of the Committee very much indeed. And I think more Bills originating in the House of Lords Avould lighten their labours. Up to a year or Chairmayi — continued. two ago, all the Police and Sanitary Bills ori- ginated in the House of Commons. 2361. In the House of Lords is there a Police and Sanitary Committee ? — No, there is nothing corresponding to it there ; but I think one finds that those Bills which come down from the House of Lords involve much less work to the Committee than those which originate in the House of Commons. 2362. But if they get through the work pro- perly in the House of Lords without a PoHce and Sanitary Committee, why should not a similar procedure take place here ? — It is partly the disposing of the opposition in the House of Lords that lightens the labours of the Police and Sanitary Committee when the Bills come down to the House of Commons. And then a good many points are disposed of altogether by Lord Morley. 2363. Before it goes to Committee ? — In the case of Bills that come down from the House of Lords. 2364. How does Lord Morley affect the Bills after they have been to a Select Committee ? — Lord Morley deals with all the Bills in the House of Lords as regards the unopposed clauses. 2365. But not after a Bill has been passed by a Select Committee ; then the Bill comes down here just as it left the Select Committee ? — Yes, but it undergoes Lord Morley 's revision before it comes down to the House of Commons. 2366. After it has left the Committee ?— Yes. 2367. At any rate you are strongly of opinion that the Police and Sanitary Committee ought to be set up here again ?— Yes, with those variations, and with the suggestion that there should be some arrangement by which some Members should take one Bill and some another. 2368. Do you think that the Home Office ought to be represented before that Committee ? —The Home Office always is represented before the Police and Sanitary Committee. 2369. There is an officer of the department always ready to give advice ? — Yes, either my- self or another officer from the department attends when we have a report on the Bill. 2370. Is there any other subject that you would like to mention in regard to this matter ? — I think it would be verv desirable if in some way the length of those Police and Sanitary Bills could be reduced. A great many of the Bills that come before the Police and Sanitary Com- mittee are filled up with mere padding, things that the local people do not really ask for and do not really want. 2371. Would you have certain model clauses then put in, or how do you mean you would get rid of padding ? — What has been passed in one Bill is taken and put into another Bill very often without much consideration. For instance, I might mention the case of what they call the Thrift Fund or Superannuation Fund clauses. These clauses were settled in a Manchester Bill about 10 years ago, and they were followed in one or two other cases where the authority really wanted to arrange for the superannuation of their officers. That was in 1891 or 1892. Then I find in no less than 10 Acts between the years 1894 and 1900 this whole block of clauses was put in. We did not SELECT COMMITTEE OX PRIVATE BUSINESS. 159 5 August 1902.] Mr. Troup, c.b. [Continv^. Chairman — continued. not object and nobody objected ; but in no single case of those 10 has any action been taken. The matter would have come before the Home Office if any action had been taken. 2372. You think they are superfluous ? — I think tliey were merely put in to fill iip the Bill. 2378. Why did not trie Home Office report upon them ? — I presume we reported that the Committee should find out what the reasons for wanting the clauses were ; but there was nothing injurious in the clauses, and they were passed. 2374. But they were unnecessary ? — Yes ; they were put in simply to fill up the Bills. 2375. But unless it were brought to the notice of the Committee by your department, that these clauses were unnecessary, naturally the Police and Sanitary Committee would not take any notice of them ? — I have no doubt we raised the qiiestion in the earlier cases, but, of course, the Promoters said, " We want those clauses," and we could not say that there was a very strong objection to them. 2376. Then who do you say ought to take objection to them. How would you get rid of what you call the padding, unless your depart- ment takes action ? — That seems to me to come under the point that has been raised before this Committee already, of the way the agent's charges for the Bill are distributed. 2377. Are there any other points that your er handed in by Mr. Boyce .--..--- 183 APPENDIX, No. 11. Paper handed in by the Chairman -..--.. 18<) APPENDIX, No. 1-2. Paper handed in by the Chairman - - - - 190 APPENDIX, No. 13. Paper handed in by the Chair-man ,-.-.. - 191 APPENDIX, No. 14. Pa^r handed in by the Chairman 1^- APPENDIX, No. 15. Paper handed in by Mr. Monro , - - - 195 [ 167 ] APPENDIX. APPENDIX, N(. 1. PAPER handed in by Sir E. Chandog Leigh, K.c, K.C.B., 10th July 1902. PRIVATE LEGISLATION (SCOTLAND) PROCEDURE. Pkckjeess of Pkovisional Orders. Same of Order. Inquiry by Commis- sioners. Applicatwns in Dteember 1901. 1. Aberdeen Accountants [Unopposed.] 2 Aberdeen Suburban Tram- i Edinburgh, X Buckie Biu-gh Extension Edinburgh, and Buckie (Craigenroan) April 22, 48, HarlJour. #4. Caledonian Railway 5. Caledonian Railway Act, 1S97 (Amendment). 6. Coatbridge Gas - 7. Dundee Corporation Li- braries. 8. Glasgow Corporation (Gas, Ac). 9. Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways Extension. 10. Irvine Corporation #11. Xobel's Explosives Com- pany, Limited (Ardeer Works Water Supply). #12. North British Railway (General Powers). #13. North British Railway (Steam Vessels). #14. Renfrew Harbour 24, 26, 26, 28, and 29. [Opposition withdrawn.] [Unspposed.] [Opposition withdrawn.] Edinburgh, Hay 2. Edinburgh, April 30. May 1 and 2. 16. Rothesay Tramways (Exten- Edinburgh, - - May 2. Order Refused. sion). #16. Scottish Equitable Life Assurance Society. 17. Stonehaven Town Hall Applications in April 1902. [Unopposed.) 1. Dumt)arton Corporation (Further Ptwers). 2. Edinburgh and Leith Corpo- j [Unopposed.] rations Gas. I 6. Edinburgh Corporation - j [Unopposed.] 4. Glasgow and South Western Railway. 5. Glasgow Corporation (Water, City Improvements, and General). B, Oovan Corporation i #7. Highland and Invergarry and Fort Augustus Rail- way Companies. 8. Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water, 9. Leith Burgh . ' - • [Unopposed. [Unopposed.] 10. Portpatrick and Wigtown- | [Opposition shfre Joint Railway. withdrawn.] 11. Post Office Site (Oban) 12. Wick Burgh Extension Applications. 7 of which proceed xs Private Bills. Applica- tion Withdrawn. April 12 June 3 Preamble Proved. June 11 April 29 April 26 I I I Modified I Pro- Draft , visional Order | Order Issued. made. Contirming Bill Introduced. In House : In House of i of Lords. Commons. June 12 May 10 May» April 17 Mar. 12 May 29 May 2 May 2 May 2 May 19 April 22 Mar. 13 June 18 May 13 May 9 May 14 May 29 June 18 June 6 May 15 April 9 June 13 June 18 Confirming Bill Passed Third Reading. In House of Lords. June 20 ' June 6 June 19 June 17 May 16 June 9 June 6 April 24 April 14 June 17 Bill withdrawn.§ May 12 Jane 19 In House of Commons. June 13 AprU22 ROTAL ASSES 0.23. - In terms of the Chairmen's decision these draft Orders were required to proceed as Private Bills, t These entries refer to the substituted Bills. z 168 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM THE APPENDIX, No. 2. PAPEK handed in by the Right Hon. J. W. Lowther, m.p. Table showing time occupied by Debates on Second Eeadings, Instructions, and other Motions relating to Private Business, between 1893 and 1902. 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 Second Reading. Instructions. Other Matters. Total. Hrs. M. Hrs. M. Hrs. M. Hrs. M. 5 35 20 16 30 22 25 7 35 3 15 12 50 23 40 9 40 4 5 10 35 24 20 17 45 7 50 15 25 41 15 15 3 20 7 50 26 25 16 30 1 20 •> ^^ 23 35 13 40 1 25 9 25 24 30 21 55 5 35 18 20 45 50 28 45 6 19 5 53 50 13 55 3 15 17 10 ! N.B. — In some cases it is impossible to allot the time under the different headings wth jjerfcct accuracy as the ;records have not been strictly kept in that regard. SELECT COMMI'lTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 169 APPENDIX, No. 3. PAPER handed in by the Chairman. Kesolution of the Association of Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, 9 July 1902, " That this association, in the interest of commercial and other beneficial legislation records, its appreciation of the efforts now being made for the amendment of the present system of transacting both public and private business by Parliament and in riuliamentanr Committees, and in addition recommends the desirability of : — 1. Bills which have passed their second reading in one Session being taken up in the next Session of the same Parliament at the stage which they had reached in the preceding one. •Z. Inquiries into Private Bills being conducted locally before Commissioners appointed by Parliament in a manner similar to that prescribed by the Act of 1899 with regard to Scotch Bills, instead of before Committees of the Houses of Parliament.' 0.23. z 2 170 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM THE APPENDIX, No. 4. PAPER handed in by the Chairman. RETURN of Number of Opposed Private Bill Committees Sitting each Week IN Sessions 1896-1901. Session 1896. First Committee sat in Lords 13th March. Last Committee sat in Lords 5th August. Parliament met 11th February. First Committee sat in Commons 17th March. Last Committee sat in Commons 4th August. Commons. Number|of Committees sitting in week ending — 13th March 21st March ----- 28th March - - - . - Easter Day, 5th April. 18th April ----- 25th April 2nd May - _ - - . 9th May 16th May - - - - - 23rd May ------ Whitsunday, 25th May. 6th June ------ 13th June 20th June 27th June ------ 4th July 11th July 18th July - - , - 25th July 1st August ...-•■ 8th August 3 1 4 7 7 9 4 5 5 7 5 5 6 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 4 4 1 2 2 4 3 1 1 2 1 SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 171 Appendix, No. 4 — continued. Beturn of Number of Opposed Private Bill Committees sitting each Week in Session 1897. Session 1897. Parliament met 19tli January. First Committee sat in Lords 11th March. Last Conmiittee sat in Lords 4th August. First Committee sat in Commons 4th March. Last Committee sat in Commons 29th .July. Commons. Lords. Number of Committees sitting in week ending — 6th March --.-.---- 13th March 20th March --------- 27th March - - ■ - 3rd April 10th April 17th April - - . - - . 24th April - - ..---. Easter Day, 18th April. 1st May .-.-..--- 8th May loth May - - - - - - - 22nd May - - - 29th May --------- 5th June In this Year no Committees sat from 4th to 28th June. 3rd July • - ' - 10th .July - - - . 17th July - - - . 24th July ... - - - 31st July - - 7th August - - - » 6 7 7 5 1 2 4 9 8 C C 2 4 3 I 1 3 4 4 I 1 6 1 5 3 7 3 6 2 I 1 1 172 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM THE Appendix, No. 4 — contimied. Return of Number of Opposed Private Bill Committees Sitting each Week in Session 1898. Session 1898. First Committee sat in Lords 15th March. Last Committee sat in Lords 3rd August. Pariiameiit met Hth Felsruary. First Committee sat in Commons 15th March. Last Committee sat in Commons: 28th July. Commons. Lords. Number of Committees sitting in week ending 19th March . - - . - 26th March ----- 2nd April Easter Day, 10th April. 23rd April ------ 30th April 7th May ------ 14ih May ------ 21st May 28th May ------ Whitsunday, 29th May. 11th June ----- 18th June - - - 25th June ------ 3ndJuly ------ 9t.hJu]y ------ lethJuly 23rd July ------ 30th July Btli August ----- 3 7 2 7 2 9 4 9 3 7 1 5 0' 5 0- 7 3: 6 4 6 4 3 3 1 4 3 3. B SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE HUSINESS. 173 Appendix, No. 4 — continued. Return of Number of Opjwsed Private Bill Committees sitting each Week in Session 1899. Session 1899. First Committee sat in Lords 14th March. Last Committee sat in Lords 27th July. Parliament met 7tli February. First Committee sat in Commons 14th March. Last Committee sat in Commons 25th July. Number of Committees sitting in week ending- 18th March 25th March 1st April Easter Day, 2nd April. 15th April - 22nd April - 29th April - 6th May - 13th May - 20th May - Whitsunday, 21st May : 3rd June - - - 10th June 17th June 24th June 1st July 8th July 15th July 22nd July 29th July Commons. 1 5 6 7 6 6 7 5 1 Lords. 3 8 2 11 4 9 6 i 5 6 2 ■i 3 4 4 A 3 3 2 174 APPENDIX rO REPORT FROM THE Appendix, No. 4 — continued. JvKTUKN of Numt)er of Opposed Private Bill Committees Sitting each Week in Session 1900. Sessiok 1900. First Committee sat in Lords 13th March. Last Committee sat in Lords ^nd August. Parliament rhet 30th January. First Committee sat in Commons 13th March. Last Committee sat in Commons 31st July. Commons. Lords Number of Committees sitting in week ending — 17th March - - - - - i4th March ----- Slat March . . . - - 7th March Easter Sunday, 15th April. .5th May ------ 12th May 19th May aeth May 2nd June Whitsunday, 3rd June. 16th June - - - - - 23rd June ------ 30th June ------ 7th July ------ 14th July 21st July ------ 28th July 4th August ----- 9 2 8 5 U 5 12 4 5 1 8 5 9 5 9 5 6 ."J 4 6 3 4 1 1 SELECT COMMITTEE OX PRIVATE BUSINESS. its- Appendix, N(i. 4 — continued. Kfturn of Number of Opposed Private Bill (Joiniii tcees Sittin ,' each Week in St ssion 1901. Session 1901. First Connuitteu sat 21st March. in Lords Last Committee sat 7th August in Lords Parliament met 23rd January. First Committee .sat in 21st March. Commons Last Committee sat in 8th August. Commons — Commons. Lords. Number of Committees sitting for week ending — 23rd March - - ... _ 3 2 30th March ------- - 6 2 6th April - - - - - - 3 Easter Day, 7th April. 20th April - - - . . _ - ■ 1 27th .A.pril - - - - - - -^ - 9 2 3 4th May - - - . . - " 12 11th May - - - - - - - 12 4 18th May - - - - 9 4 25th May - - - . - - 6 1 Whitsunday, 26th May - 15th June - - - - - " 5 5 1 22nd June ----- - - - 2 29th June - 6th July - - - 7 7 2 - - 4 13th July -------- - 7 4 20th July -------- • 3 a 27th July - - - - ' - . - - 3 4 3rd August .----- - ■ - 3 3 10th August - - 2 1 023. A A 176 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM THE APPENDIX, No. 5. PAPER handed in by the Chairman. MEMORIAL OF THE COUNTY C0UNCIL8 ASSOCIATION. The County Councils Association desire to call the attention of the Select Committee on Private Bill Legislation to the followng Resolution, which was passed at the Annual Meeting of the Association :— " That it is desirable that, subject to proper inquiries being made, the cost of Private Bill Legislation should be ■diminished — (a) By a reduction of fees payable to the two Houses of Parliament ; (b) By an extension of the system of .Provisional Orders ; (c) By the substitution of one inquiry by a strong Joint Committee of both Houses for the present independent inquiry by each House." The Association desire to make the following observations upon the several heads of this Resolution : — A. It will be seen from the following figures, supplied by a Parliamentary agent, how large a proportion the House fees bear to the total cost of Private Bill Legislation, especially in unopiX)sed cases : I. — Unopposed Bill. Agent's total charges - - - - Expenses, including printing II.— Unopposed Bill (Private Company). Agent Expenses £ .t. d. 97 2 10 House fees — Lords - 34 5 - Commons £131 7 10 £ s. d. 143 - 4 House fees— Lords - (50 19 6 Commons £203 19 10 III. — LTnopposed Bill (Local Authority, Gas). £ s. d. Agents - - 137 54 House fees — Lords - Expenses, including printing - - - 140 - - Commons £277 5 4 IV.— Opposed Bill. Ten days in Committee, House fees— Lords Commons £ s. d. 127 2 - 87 - - £412 2 - £ s. d. 139 2 - 84 - - £221 2 - £ ». d. 100 2 - 81 ~ - £181 2 - £ s. d. 142 - - 379 - - £521 - It apj)ears from the Report of the Joint Committee in 1888 that at that time the House fees amounted to ■60,000/., while the estimated cost of Private Bill legislation did not exceed 20,000/. ; and more recent returns show & similar excess of House fees over and above the cost. Thus, in the Parliamentary Paper, Cd. 771 of 1901, relating to the House of Lords only, the fees received on Private Bills are returned at 44,854/., and the extra receijits paid over to'His Maje.sty's Exchequer at 44,664/. As it is evident from these retui'us that the high fees now charged are not necessary for the purpose of defraying the expenses of Private Bill legislation, the Association would submit that it is unfair to jiarties promoting and opposing Private Bills that such a large extra expenditure should lie throvsTi upon them. B. Although the system of Provisional Orders would not always lie applicable to the measures promoted by County Councils, the Association are of ojiinion that it would bo of great advantage to local authorities generally, and especially to those of the small towns, if this system could be extended. At present the purchase of a water or gas undertaking by an Urban Council under a Private Bill, even if unopposed, costs the Council 450/. or 500/., often a large proportion of the value of the undertaking. The cost to a local authority of an unopposed Provisional Order is only about 80/. A return of the year 1900 shows the expen.ses incurred by local authorities in each year from 1892 to 1898 in promoting and opposing Private Bills and Provisional Orders. Taking these figures, it would appear that the average expense incurred by the local authorities of England and Walas (including London), in promoting Provisional Orders during those years, was 233/. 13«. 5'/. for each Order ; the average for each Private Bill promoted was 2,178/. 13s. lie/. Of Provisional Orders promoted, 96i per cent, cost under 1,000/. each ; while of Private Bills, under 42 per cent, cost less than 1,000/. The Association therefore suggest that the Provisional Order system l)e extended, possibly on the lines of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, instead of being limited, as at present, mainly to the repeal, alteration or amendment of Local Acts. C. The Association would submit that in cases which are of too great magnitude, or which for some other reason are considered unfit to be dealt with otherwise than by Private Bills, a great saving both in cost and time might be effected if such Bills were referred to a single strong Committee of both Houses, consisting of six or seven Meml5ers, instead of being heard by a Committee of each House in succession. SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. 17 7" The Association would point out that in recent years there have been Joint Committees on London w underground railways, railway charges, and other sui^jects, and they would suggest that these are precedents \\ might be followed with advantage. The Association are of opinion that the alterations in Procedure above indicated, if carried into eflFect, would lead to a great reduction in the cost of obtaining Parliamentary powers in regard to matters affecting local interests, while leaving full scope for a sufficient inijuiry in every ease. The Association also desire to call the attention of the Select Committee to the present anomalous position "of County Councils in respect of the promotion of Private Bills. Owing to the absence of the statutory powers to promote Bills, which are granted to every Borough and Urban District Council, no County Council, except that of London, can charge the cost of promoting a Private Bill on the rate-; without a special provision in the Private Act when obtained. Various Bills have been passed by certain County Councils, but in each case they have had to be i)ronioted at the risk of individual memliers of the Council, who would have been liable for the costs if tho.se Bills liad teen rejected by Parliament. The Association submit that it is only just and right that County Councils should be put on the same footing; with other local authorities in this respect. John T. nibhm-t. Chairman. G. Montagu Harris, Secretary.. 4 July 1902 0.23. A A 2 1^8 APPENDIX TO KEI'ORT FROM THE APPENDIX, No. 6. PAPER handed in by Mr. GMons. Appeoximate Estimate of the Charges Incurred in connection with Private Business in the House of Commons, during the Year ended 31st March iy02. £. 1 Chairman of Ways and Means - ------- 2,500 1 Secretary to Chairman of Ways and Means - - . - iqq 1 Attendant on Chairman of Ways and Means ------- 147 1 Counsel to Speaker ■ . - . - - i,800 1 Referee - - - - - - - - • - i,000 Assistance in Office of Referee - _ . . 240 1 Clerk to Referees ---.-------. 35 1 Examiner of Petitions and Taxing Officer ------- 1,200 1 Clerk to Examiner of Petitions and Taxing Officer ----- 50 Assistance in Examiner's Office _ - - - 68 1 Collector of Fees ------------ 500 4 Committee Clerks ------------ 647 Private Bill Office : r> Clerks .--■---.- 3^225 2 Messengers -.- 2CO Copying - - . - . - - 20 Total • - - £. 11,792 £. Fees received from Private Business, year ended 31st March 1902 - - 40,683 .._ ._,: ^ £. Fees received in year ended 31st March 1899 - - _ . . 36,382 1900 - - - - - 41,923 1901 - - - : ■t5,7r.9 1!X)2 - - - - 40,683 W. (iihbons. SELECT aiMMTlTEE f)\ PRIVATE mSlNKSS. 179 APPENDIX, No. 7. PAPER handed in by Mr. Horatio Jivevitt. ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION. (Local Improvement Bills.) Report of the Law Committee. At the Autumn meeting of the Association, the following resolution was passed : — That in the opinion of the Associntion the cost and inconvenience incurred in the promotion of Local Improvement Bills in Parliament should be lessened, and that it be referred to the Law Committee to consider the best methods of giving ettect to this resolution, with instructions to leport to the Council, who are authorised to take such steps thereon as they may deem advisable. As the resolution simply relates to the promotion of Local Improvement Bills, the question for the consideration of your Committee is mucli narrower than if it dealt with the whole subject of Private Bill Legislation. The expenses in connection with the promotion of Local Improvement Bills may be embodied under six heads : 1. Local Expenses ; 2. Printing and advertising ; 3. Parliamentary Agents' charge.s ; 4. House Fees ; ."i. Counsels' Fees ; and 'G. Skilled Witnesses. Local Expenses. The items under this head relate to obtaining additional assistance for taking a poll, itc, under the Borough Funds Act, preparation of plans, sections and Book of Reference, valuation fees, and travelling and other expenses of members and officers of the Corporation. Peinting and Advertising. This is a difficult matter to deal with. So long as the present system continues of promoting Private Bills there is little chance of any reduction being made in this item so far as the Bills themselves are concerned. It does appear, however, that many of the clauses now obtainable in Private Improvement Bills may be regarded as model clauses, which could form the subject of enactment by reference and incorporation instead of the re-printing from time to time of the particular provision required in the various Improvement Bills. Parliamentary Agents' Charges. Dealing with this matter, your Committee feel that so long as there is a necessity for the employment of a Parliamentary Agent, no reduction can 3ie asked in their fees considering the highly technical nature of their business, the responsibilities of their duties, and the ability with which they i)erform them. House Fees, No scheme of reform will be comjJete which does not involve the assimilation of and reduction of fees in both Houses to an amount not exceeding what may be necessary to meet the actual cost of the staff needed for Private Bill Legislation. Counsels' Fees. It is evident that if the services of the ablest members of the Bar are necessary to be retained either in London or the provinces, their usual fees must be paid. Skilled Witne.sses. The saane remark applies bo this subject as to Counsel. Your Committee are further of opinion that if local inquiries should be substituted for the present procedure, that it is very questionable whether the counter exjjense of securing the attendance of skilled witnesses in the provinces will not outweigh any expense of bringing local witnesses up to London. Above are the principal heads of expen.se, and the question for your Committee's consideration is how they can be lessened and inconvenience saved. Observations. Your Committee are of opinion that most of the matters dealt with in Improvement Bills which are not of serious character or magnitude, or which do not deal with questions of policy or principle, might conveniently be dealt with by the extension of the Provisional Order system. At the present time Provisional Orders are limited under the Public Health Act, 1875, so far as local Acts are concerned, to their repal, alteration, or amendment, so that no fresh powers can be granted unless they can be ba.sed upon some existing provision or provisions of a local Act. That the Provisional Order system may be regarded as a useful mode of legislation is evidenced by the fact that the Secretary of State has power to is.sue Orders of this description in six in.stances ; the Board of Trade in nine 180 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM THE instances ; the Local Government Board in seven instances ; the Board of Agriculture in two instances ; the- Education Department in two instances ; the Railway and Canal Commissioners in one instance, and the County- Council in one instance ; there are also the powers of the Commissioners and the Board of Trade under the Light liailways Act. The mode of obtaining a Provisional Order, even resulting as it frequently does in a local inquiry, is generally both convenient and inexpensive. In the House of Commons no fees are charged to the promoters, but the opponents are subject to the same fees as the opponents of private Bills, whilst in the House of Lords fees are only charged to either side at the Committee stage in the case of opposed Bills, aud then they are the same for both promoters and opponents as in the case of local Bills. Your Committee have had their attention called to several of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure Scotland Act, 1899, and are of opinion that some of them might with advantage be embodied, with modifications, in any scheme of remedial legislation. Your Committee therefore offer the following suggestions : — 1. That with a view of lessening the cost and inconvenience in the promotion of Local Improvement Bills in both Houses, the time has arrived for the inclusion in a public Bill of an adoptive charactsr of many of the clauses which are so frequently introduced into private Bills, and which are almost invariably accepted by Parliament. 2. That failing the passing of such a measure, or apart therefroili, your Committee think that the {x>wers in the Public Health Act, 187") (sec. 30.3), in regard to Provisional Orders should be extended, not only to the amendment of local Acts but to the obtaining of any Parliamentary powers in regard to any of the matters (not of great magnitude or involving important (piestions of policy or principle) usually dealt with in Private Improvement Bills, but excluding powers relating to tramways or the supply of electricity for lighting and other purpo.ses over which the Board of Trade have control. 3. That the procedure relating to Provisional Orders, as provided in Section 297 of the same Act, should extend, subject to the modifications hereinafter appearing, to the additional powers sought under the Provisional Order system. 4. That following the principles of the Private Legislation Procedure Scotland Act, 1899, the Order when unopposed should be submitted to Parliament by the Local Government Board in a Bill, and such Bill, after introduction, to be deemed to have passed through all its stages up to and including Committee and to be ordered to be considered in either House as if reported from a Committee. Where such Bill has been read a third time and passed in the first House of Parliament, the like proceedings, subject to Standing Orders, to be taken in the second House of Parliament. Any Act passed to confirm such Order to be deemed to be a private Act of Parliament. 5. That (following the procedure of Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure Scotland Act, 1899) if before the expiration of seven days after the introduction of a Confirmation Bill in the House in which it originates, a Petition be presented against any Order comprised in the Bill, it shall be lawful for any member to give notice that he intends to move that the Bill shall be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and in that case such motion may be moved immediately after the Bill is read a second time, and, if carried, then the Bill shall stand referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and the opponents shall, subject to the practice of Parliament, be allowed to appear and oppose by himself, his counsel, agents and witnesses, and counsel, agents and witnesses may be heard in support lof the Order. The Joint Committee shall hear and determine any questions of locus standi. The report of the Joint Committee shall, subject to Standing Orders, be laid before both Houses of Parliament. The Joint Committee may by a majority award costs, and such costs may be taxed and recovered and shall be secured in the manner provided in the Parliamentary Costs Act, 1865, subject to any necessary modifications. If no sucli motion as aforesaid is carried, the Bill .shall be deemed to have passed the Committee stage; and shall be ordered to be considered as if reported by a Committee. When such Bill has been read a third time and passed in the first House of Parliament, the like proceedings shall, subject to Standing Orders, be taken in the second House of Parliament. 6. That the procedure by Private Bill, subject to the modifications suggested in this report, should be followed if the Local Government Board refuse to issue a Provisional Order for the objects sought to be included therein, subject to the notices published and served and the reports made for the proposed Provisional Order as provided by Section 297 of the Public Health Act, 1875, or by Standing Orders being deemed to have been published and served and made for a Private Bill applying for similar purposes. 7. They further think that if Private Bills were referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, instead of to a Committee of each House, the shortening of the procedure would be attended by a great saving of cost and time. 8. That if the foregoing recommendations be approved and carried into effect, and the procedure of Private Bill Legislation modified in respect of the matters previously referred to,, your Committee are of opinion that the cost and inconvenience of obtaining the powers usually included in Private Improvement Bills will be materially le.ssened. 22 November 1900. SELF.CT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE HUSIN'ESS. 181 APPENDIX, No. 8. PAPER handed in by Mr. Alfred Bonhaiii-Carter, c.b. Rkturn of Private Bills dealt with on .Second Hearing in Committees of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, respectively. 1899. 1900. 1901. Total number of Bills introduced Numlier of Bills originating in the House of Commons Number of Commons Bills opposed in Lords' Committees Number of Commons Bills passed by Lords' Committees - . . . _ . INumber of Commons Bills rejected by Lords' Committees - - - - - Number of Bills originating in the Hoase of Lords Number of oppo.sed Lords' Bills in Commons' Committees - ----- - Number of opposed Lords' Bills passed by Commons' Committees Number of ojiposed Lords' .Rills rejected by Commons' Committees ----- 216 124 23 23 19 19 202 144 22 21 92 118 20 18 290 169 27 22 121 \n lo 317 180 24 21 15 321 308 200 39 36 132 121 10 198 36 36 110 le 182 APPEXDIX TO REPORT i'ROM THE APPENDIX, No. 9. PAPEK handed in by Mr. Alfred Bonhavi-CaHer, c.b. COURT OF LOCUS STANDI. The Court of Locus Standi is constituted under Standing Order 87, as follows .- — 87. 87. The Chairman of Ways and Means, with not leas than three other persoiiH, who shall be appointed Referees on by Mr. Speaker for such period as he .shall think fit, shall be Referees of the House on Private Bills ; such Private Bills Referees to form one or more courts ; three at least to be required to constitute each Court : provided that to be consti- the Chairman of any second Court shall be a Member of this House ; and provided that no such Referee, if tntetl. he be a Member of this House, shall receive any .salary. This Standing Order was passed in 1864, and in 1865 the Chairman of Ways and Means, five other members of the House, the Speaker's Counsel and four others not members, were appointed Referees ; three courts were formed, viz., the Locus Standi Court and two other courts. See Mays The Locus Standi Court consisted of the Chairman of Ways and Means (Chairman), one member of the House, Parliaiiiea- an official Referee, and the Speaker's Counsel, who always attended the court. The remaining Parliamentary and tary Practise, official Referees sat on the two other courts, the Chairmen as required by the Standing Order being members of 10th Edition, the House. To these courts Bills were referred for inquiring into engineering estimates and other matters of fact, p. 726 ct. seq. on which they reported to the House, and no further evidence was taken by the Committee on the Bill, on matters p. 732. ^Q reported ; these courts were discontinued in 1868, and the Court of Locus Standi only remained : it now consists'. of eight Parliamentary Referees (including the Chairman of Ways and Means who seldom can attend, and the acting Chairman), the Speaker's Counsel, and the official Referee. It is submitted that, by the establishment of these courts and by the terms of the Standing Order, Parliament vested the official Referees with full powers (except in the office of Chairman) to take part in the proceedings and to vote. It should here, however, be mentioned that in 1876 a distinction was made between the po.sition of the Referee when appointed to sit on a Committee, as was done in 1868, and his position on the Court of Locus Standi, a Select Committee having reported that on constitutional grounds " he might take part in the proceedings without the power of voting," the functions of a committee being legislative ; but his duties on the Court of Locus Standi remained untouched, the functions of which were of a judicial nature. It may be assumed also that it was the intention of the House not only to relieve committees, but by the introduction of the official element to give a more permanent character to the court than could be obtained from a shifting body consisting only of Members of Parliament, and by so doing to secure greater uniformity of decision. The decisions of the court for the first seventeen years of its existence, when Sir George Pickards was Speaker's Counsel, established a code based on the principles governing the action of committees before that time, which has. served its purpose well, and which should be preserved. Many Standing Orders dealing ^^dth Locus Standi have since been passed, and Standing Onlers 134a and 134c- may specially be mentioned ; these being mandatory deprive the court of all jurisdiction upon .some questions on , which discretion should be reserved to them. It is desirable that the Court of Locus Standi should be enabled to award costs, and this by a majority of the court present, with the limitation that in the event of the court consisting only of the quormn of three, the decision should be unanimous ; the writer desires to withdraw the proposal on this subject mentioned in his replies to questions 1139 to 1143. There are precedents for the award of costs by a majority of a committee in the Allotments Act, 1887, the Dwellings of the Working Classes Act, 1890, the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1892, and the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899. If the rules governing the decisions of the court are relaxed, the more important it becomes that it should have the power to award costs as a deterrent to unreasonable and vexatious petitions. The primary object of the court is to adjudicate between the promoters of a Bill and the petitioners against it, * but it has a duty to perform to the committee before whom these parties are heard in taking care that the labours of that connnittee are not unnecessarily increased by requiring them to hear petitioners whose interests are not really and substantially affected. SELECT COMMnTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. i8;j AFI'ENDIX, No. 10. PAPER handed in by Mr. Boyce. Mk>ii>randum as regards Provisional Orders issued by the Local Government Board. 1. The subject of and Acts for authorising Provisional Orders are shown in the following Table :— Acts. Subject of Provisional Orders. [. The Poor Law Amendment Act, 1867 (30 ife 31 Vict. c. 106, s. 2), as amended by the Poor Law Amendment Act, 18(i8 (31 A 32 Vict. c. 122, s. 3), and the Poor Law Act, 1879 (42 it 43 Vict. e. 54, s. 9). Orders for wholly or i)artially repealing or for altering any local Act relating to the relief of the poor, or the making and levying of the poor rate. II. ]^il)li<- Health Act, 187r) (38 & 39 Vict. r. .V,). ■ .Section 3()3 .-..-- ;Section 297 (">) ------ :Section 176 Section 270 (3); - .•Section 279 ■Section 208 Section 211 (1) (c) Section 304 Section 323 III. Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870 (33 urpo-*es of the Act any counties or boroughs. (d) Dividing any county. (e) Constituting a borough with a population of not le.-s ■ than 50,000 into a county borough. (7.) Section 65 (2). For the purchase by county councils of lands ■ under the compulsory powers of the Lands Clause.s Acts. (8.) Section 69 (2). For extending the borrowing jiowers of county councils. (9.) Section 87 (2). For altering Provisional Orders maile under the Act. (1.) Section 2 (3). Order for extending the borrowing j>owers of" Poor Law Guardians and Managers. (2.) Section 5. Order for enabling the managers of the Metro- politan Asylum District to jmrchase land adjacent to an asyhuu jirovided by them for the purpose of that Asylum, and making ai)plicable the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, relating to the purchase of land compulsorily under the Lands Clauses Acts. Orders («) for confirming schemes for improvement of unhealthy areas, (b) for modifying schemes after confiriuation where the ■ modifications proposed would involve either a larger expenditure than that sanctioned by the original scheme, or the compulsory purchase of lands, or would injuriously aii'ect property diflerently to that originally proposed, without the consent of the owner and occupier, and (c) for the compulsory purchase of land for- lodging houses for the working classes. (1.) Section 6. Orders for forming a compensation district and! establishing a compensation board for providing a fund for com pensation for damage done bj' subsidence, as specified in Section 22. (2.) Section 7. Orders for rei>ealing, altering, or amending any Provisional C)rder under Section 6. (3.) Section 8. Orders for altering boundaries of any con)pensa- tion district. SKLPXT ((IMMITTEE f)N PlilVATE BUSINESS. 185 Acts. Subject of Provisional Orders. X. Diseases 7, s. 33). XI. The London Government Act, 18.')9 (02 it 03 Vict. c. 14). Section ."> (-2) ----- - Orders for eiialjling local uuthoritics within the meaning of tha Act to i)Ut in force the comiiulsory clauses of the Lands Clavtses Acts for the purposes of the Act. (1.) Orders under Section Oo (0) of the Local Government Act, 1888, j authorising Metropolitan Borough Councils to purchase land conipulsorily for the purpose of any of the powers or duties of I the borough council. Section ,j (3) - - ■ " " I i'^-) Orders for transferring to all Metropolitan Borough Councils j any power exerciseable by the London County Council or for transferring to that County Council any powers exercisealile by I Borough Councils. Section ."> (2) - - I (3.) Orders for transferring any power from the Loudon County ! Council to the Common Council of the City of London, or from I the Common Council to the County Council. Section 28 (1) (4.) Orders for wholly or partially repealing, altering, or amending Provisional Orders made under the Act. XI L In addition to these : {a) the Public Health (Ships, ibc.) Act, 188.'i (48 & 49 Vict. c. 35) enables the Local Government Board to ))ermanently constitute port sanitary authorities by Order to operate from a stated date unless objected to. If objected to and the objection is not withdrawn by that date, the Order becomes provisional and requires confirmation by Parliament. This iwwer has rendered Section 287 of the Public Health Act, 1875, obsolete ; (6) an Order under Section 39 (5) of the Housing of Working Classes Act, 1890, may become provisional if objected to by the landowner, and may re; Order liJSa). The following are the stages : — (1) Xotice of Motion for folknving day. (2) Read one and refer to E.xaininers, and to be printed (Standing Order li). (3) Two clear days' notice to be given by the Promoters of the Bill — that is the Department— of the date- when the Bill will be examined as soon as the Bill is printed and circulated (Standing Order 73). (4) Time for Petitioning expires at 6 p.m. seven clear days after notice was given of the dav on which the Bill will be examined (Standing Order 129), see (3) «iyjm. (5) Examiner rejiorts as to compliance with Standing Orders (Standing Order 72), and notice of Set-oiid Beading is given the same day ftjr the next day. (6) Second Reading. — The Bill then stands refeired to the Committee of Selection (Standing Order J(isa). Note. — There must be six clear days' interval between the Second Reading and the sitting of the Com- mittee on the Bill (Standing Ordei- i^ 1). (7) («) If any Order is opposed the whole Bill goes to an ordinary Select Committee to deal with both the opposed and unopposed Orders (Standing Order 208a). The promoters of each t)p))ose(l Order have to suijjxjrt their Order before a Select Committee, but I give whatever ijrfK>fs are requii'ed by the Connnittee as regards the unopposed Orders. (Ji) If the Bill is unoi)])osed it goes to the L^nopposed Committee, and I give whatever proofs art' required Ijy the Connnittee. (8) AVheu the Report from the Committee is received the Bill — (a) If amended, is put down for consideration of the amendments on the next dax . (b) If unaltered, is put down for Third Reading on the next day. (9) The Bill, if altered, is considered as amended and the Third Reading fixed for the next day. (10) Bill is read three and sent to the Lords. Hoitse. of Lordf. (11) Bill read one (without notice) and referred to Examiners (Standing Order 70a). (12) Examiner gives two clear days' notice of date of examination of the Bill iifter it is printed by oider of the House (Standing Order 72). (13) Time for petitioning expires at three o'clock on 7th day after Vlate of First Reading (Standini; Order 92). (14) {y handing over the affidavits as to deposit of labouring class statement and plans which are, by the Provisional Order instructions, required to be furnished to the Local Government Board by the iiromoters of each Order, and by my certificate in writing that the Standing Orders have been complied with. Where no Standing Orders are apiilicable I give the Examiner my certificate in writing to that effect, accompanied by any affidavit whi(-h may l>av" been furnished. 10. In the case of an opposed Provisional Order the iiromoters u.sually wish that the Boards inspector who held the local inquiry should attend and give evidence in favour of the Order. It was formerly the practice for the promoters to obtain an Order of the House for the attendance of the nspector, who was then called as a wtness by the promoters. SELECT COMMIITEE ON I'RIVATE BUSINESS. 1,S7 This was cpen to the objection that it tended to make the Board's officer a party witness, and consequently it was arranged many years as^o that that practice should be discontinued, on the understanding that the insijector should always be available in case the Committee desired information or to hear his views. This is now done ; the inspector attends and, in case the Committee desire to hear him, he is usually examined by the Committee at the close of the evidence of both sides or after the speeches of counsel ; the Committee can, aiid sometimes do, call him at another time : he can only be interrogated by the parties, either through, or by the permission of, the Committee. 11. In some cases, chiefly Borough Extension Orders, the parties agree terms with opjwnents which the Board eithei- have not the ))Ower to insert in a Provisional Order, or con-sider it improper or inadvisable to insert in an Act of Parliament. Tn these cases it has occasionally been arranged that the promoters and opponents shall go before the Select Committee and state their case shortly. I then state the Board's views and reasons for not acceding to the terms agreed upon, and the matter is left to the Committee to decide ; in the event of the Committee accepting the proiwsals, such of the latter as were within the powers of the Board are inserted in the Order, and those which would have been nltra vires the Board are inserted in the Confirming Bill. 12. Si)ecial clauses in Confirming Bills were, many years ago, very common, and were not always confined to matters relating either to an Order in the Bill or to the promoters of any such Order. The practice was open to abuse and was objected to, and it has therefore been abandoned. At the same time in exceptional cases, and where both the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and .Means agree, such <;lauses are occasionally inserted, but they must be absolutely cognate to the promoters and the subject of the jiarticular Orders. C da proposed as a Standing Order, but unfortunately tlie date was altered to 1st .Tune. I think it should be altered Itack to the date in the Sessional Order of 1891, as it is impossible to get a Bill that is only read the first time in the House of Commons on 1st . I une uji to the Lords in time for Second Heading by the date prescribi^d by the I.,(>rils' Sessional Order. This last date is governed, I believe, by Whitsuntide, and it is possible, with a Bill nno|)posed in the Commons, to read it the first time on the last day before the Whitsuntide Recess and reach the ]jords in time for Second Reading by the specified date. The practice f)f introducing some Bills in the Cohiinons and some in the Lords has no advantage in iwint of time, and there are many disadvantages. There is no advantage, because the date fi.xed for First Reading of Bills originating in the Lords gives less time for the issue of Ordere and introduction of Bills ; e.r/., the date of First Reading in the Lords this year was the (ttli of ilay, whereas out of 2-") Confirmation Bills this Session, of which T had the conduct, ten were introduced in the Commons on dates varying from 7th May to 16th May. Only two of those 2.5 Bills were late for Second Reading in the Lords (one introduced on 7th May and the other on 12th May), and that was due entirely to delay caused by 'opposition in the Commons, as three othei Bills reached the Lords in time although introduced in the Commons after th6 two Bills which were late. 14. It would, I think, be well if a date for either First or Second Reading in the Commons of Lords Bills could be fixed, and to avoid the suspension of Commons Standing Order 193a, and of the Lords Sessional Orders in all caxes, exce]it where it is shown to be tpiite inevitable. These Standing and Sessional Orders have been very useful, as providing leverage to compel prompt application to the Local Government Board for Provisional Orders. To avoid their suspension, it i^ my v)ractice to advise the Local Government Board each Session as to the last day for introduction of Confirmation Bills, having regard to the date fixed for Second Reading in the Lords, and every efibrt is made to adhere to that date, although it involves very heavy pressure during some two or three week> previously. The date I selected this Session as the last for the introduction of Confirmation Bills was 9th May, and 1 recommended that, if it was known that any cases would be opi)osed in Parliament, they should be introduced if possible a week earlier. 1.'). Objections taken to Provisional Orders. These seem to be chiefly as follows : — (1) Provisional Orders are only suitable for unopposed schemes. (2) Pi'ovisional Orders are only suitable to small matters or schemes of minor importance. (3) The risk of three fights instead of two. (4) That by Provisional Order jiromoters cannot get all that they ask for, either f rtjm some rule of the department or from some insufficiency in the powers conferred upon the department by the Statute authorising the Order. As against (1)1 would remark : — {(x) Between 1S90 and 1901 the Local Government Board have i.ssued and Parliament has confirmed at least 76 Provisional Orders for extending municipal boroughs, including Birmingham, Manchester, Morley, Plymouth, Devonport, Stockport, Halifax, Richmond (Surrey), Southampton, Bradford, Coventry, Gloucester, Torquay, Leamington ; all these were more or less o)>])osed at the local inquiry, but only in the cases of Plymouth, Devonport, and Tor(iuay was any serious opposition carried to both Houses of Parliament ; and I believe that the preamble was not in question in the second House except in the case of Plymouth, Devonport, and Torquay ; any oppo.sition in the second House in other cases being confined to clauses. {b) In 1896 and 1901 two improvement schemes (really one scheme in two parts) under Part I. of the Housing Act were confirmed by Parliament, involving the clearance of an area of 389,733 square yards in the centre of Leeds and the displacement of many thousands of people ; the applications were opposed at the local inquiry, and the Orders subsecpiently carried were opposed in Parliament, but in both cases the chief opposition was from the licensed victuallers' trade, in consequence of the interference with many licensed houses. As regards (2) I am not clear what comes within the definition of small schemes and schemes of minor imiwrtance ; with the exception of such matters as the ^Manchester Ship Canal, the Channel Tunnel, the big railway schemes, I doubt whether any scheme is of much greater importance to local administration than one dealing with the extension of the larger municipal boroughs in England. Separate county government was given in 1889 to the Isle of Wight, and in 1890 to the Isles of Scilly, by Provisional Order, both Orders being uncontested in Parliament. As regards (3) the risk of three fights is very slight according to my experience ; even on clauses a third fight is rare. As regards (4) promoters frequently ask for more than they require in applications for Provisional Orders, but they generally get all that is found, after local inquiry, to be necessary ; the department, as a rule, does not set precedents of new legislation, but is guided by the course taken by Parliament in cognate cases. It is frequsntly alleged as a reason for inserting street improvement schemes in Private Bills, that the Local Government Board cannot by Provisional Order relax the effect of Section 92 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 184,') ; the last statement is true, no doubt, but, notwithstanding that inability, very large street improvement schemes are carried out by means of Provisional Orders in such towns as ^Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford, Birmingham, Hull, Sheffield, and almost every town in the Kingdom. 188 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM THE K). I may, perhaps, refer to certain subjects which now require a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament, but which might be left, either to the discretion of the Local Government Board, or might only re Private sometimes as Public Bills, but which generally refer to private matters. B. If. F. 17 July 1902. SKLECT COMMITTEE. ON I'RIVATE KUSIXE.SS. 191 APPENDIX, No. 13. Prepared in the Committee Office, and handed in by the ClMirmnn. COURT OF ]{EFEREES. Veak. Number of ,., . ^. Petitions presented Objections against Hills Lodged against (iTicluding Provisional Petitions. Order Hills). j Cases set down for Hearing in the Court of Referees. Petitions wholly or partially disa lowed by Court of Referees. 1898 ----- 1899 - - - - UHX) 1901 764 1,(M>3 l,(Xil !>40 102 84 102 129 90 60 87 118 36 33 26 47 0.23. Cc 192 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM THE APPENDIX, No. 14. Prepared in the Committee Office, and handed in by the Chairmar A. — Table showing the Number of Days on whicli .Members .served on Committees on opposed Private Bills (including P.O. Confirmation Bills), and Hybrid Bills, on the Court of lleferees or the Standing Orders Committee for each Year from 1898 to 1901 inclusive, with the Number of Members who served, the Number of Committees Appointed, and the Number of Bills Opposed. Note.— The Sittmgs of the Committee of Selection are not included, for thougli it is a Committee dealing cliieHy with Private Business, it also selects Members for Standing and other Public Committees. Number of Days Number of ilembers in , 1898. Number of Members in 1900. Number of Members in 1901. 1 day 2 day.s 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 \i 13 14 15 10 17 18 19 20 i\ ■12 iiS '24 25 20 27 28 6 11 12 1 10 12 12 8 8 .-. i ."> 4 5 — 2 2 5 16 7 Z 7 . 3 1 1 — — 1 1 1 1 5 •; :>, ^ 'j^ ~ 4 s 8 ■2 6 9 5 9 :j 10 3 3 8 8 10 4 8 10 3 26 10 3 10 6 SELECT COMMITTEE ON .PRIVATE BUSINESS. Table A. — continued. Number of Days •29 days 3(1 „ 31 3l> „ 33 34 „ 35 „ 36 „ 37 „ 38 „ 3!) „ 40 „ 41 „ 42 , 43 „ 44 „ 45 „ 4C „ 47 _ 48 _ Number of Members who served on these Committees in each year - Aggregate Number of Days on which these Members served Average Number of Days on which each of these Members attended - Number of Committees appointed* Number of Days tlie Committees sat --.--. Number of Bills Opposed (including Hybrid and Provisional Orders Confirmation Bills reported on by Committees) . . - . Number of Members in 1898. 131 1,413 301 Number of Members in 1899. 137 Number of Members in 1900. 121 1,837 1,605 13-4 26 368 396 Number o Members in 1901. 130 1,269 30 309 105 104 145 102 *Jfofe.—Ot these Committees the number of Railway and Canal groups in each year were 1-2 0.23. c c 2 1!)4 APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM THE B. — Table showing the Number of Days ou whicli Members served on Comuiittoes on Unopposed Bills for the same Tears, and the Nuniljer of Bills referred to those Committees. Number of Days. Number of Memliers Number of Members Number of .Members Number of -Members in 1898. in 1899. in 1900. m 1901. ] day . . . - . 4 H 4 10 a days - - - - — ■2 — 1 1 1 1 1 .) „ - - • - - 11 „ - — — 20 „ - — — 1 21 „ ------ — ;J — — 24 „ ------ 25 „ ,31 „ ------ 1 1 2 — — — — — ~ Number of Members who served on Unopposed Committees in each year ------ 9 13 .') 1:5 Number of Unopposed Bills (in- cluding Provisional Orders C-on- firmation Bills) - - - - 176 198 i(;9 17.-> ' Jl II. F. 17 July 190i SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BUSINE.S.S. 195 APPENDIX No. 15. PAI'KI! hamU-.l in l.y .Mr. .l/oftj-o. IIEMOKANDUM on Staxuini; Ordkks of Lords and Commons relating to Private Bills. Private Bills are divided into two classes, which aie iiractically the same in the Orders of both Kouses. The Lords add to the first class, Bills relating to "Arbitration in respect of the afi'airs of any company, corporation, or per.sons '' — but such lists cannot be exhaustive, and it would be better to give :a list of Bills to be called First Class Bills, and say that •' all other local Bills'' shall be called Secoiifl Class Bills. Ordere 1 — 13, as to notices are pra('tically the same, Notices under Orders 13, 14, l.") and 16 are liy the (^'ominous reiiuired to be given not only to owners and lessees but also to occuiiiers. Occupiers are omitted by the Lords. 17 to 23 are practically the same, as is the first jjart of 24 : but by the latter part of 24 the Commons, in the ca.se of the alteration of municipal boundaries, re(|uire the de])Osit of a majj showing the oxi.sting and jiroposed boundaries. Orders 25 — 31 are jn-actically the same. Bills are introduced on petition in the House of Commons ; a copy of the Bill is annexed and als > a declaration of the agent as to the class of the Bill and the jwwers sought for. The Commons require these documents to be deposited on December 21st. The Lords require a copy of the Bill to be deposited on December 17th. Both these sets of deposits might be made on l.'ith Decemoer. Orders 33 — 3.5 are the same. 33-34 (Deposits of Bill at public dei)artments. 3.'). Deposit of Estimates). By their Order ^i'xi, the Commons require statements as to capital, shares, subscriptions, shareholders, etc. to be deposited in the case of Bills for incorporating joint stock companies or comiianies for carrying on any trade, &c. Orders 36 — 40 are the same. (E.stimates. Declaration. Statement relating to labouring class houses. 39. Deposit of plans, itc. 40. Description of plans.) The Lords have an Order, 40'(, which requires that the limits of lateral deviation of the eml)ankment •of a reservoir shall be defined, and all lands included within such limits shall be marked thereon. An important Order which the Commons have not yet adoj)ted. Orders U — G8 differ only in wording. 41-45. Desorijrtion of |)lans in case of railways, tramways, &c. 46. Book of reference. 47--").j. Sections. .")6. Estimate. 57-r)9. Money deposit on declaration. (!0. Deposit of Commons or Lords Bills, as the case may be. 61. Alterations. 62-67. AVIiarncliffe meetings, ifec. 68. Consent of directors. H.C. I'art IL Proceedings of and in relation to the examiners are nearly the same in both Houses. The Commons generally require longer notice of any stej), where notice is lecpiired, than the Lords. By House of Commons Order 80, the Chairman of \Vays and .Means, with the assistance of Mr. Speakers Counsel, is directed to examine all Private Bills and to call the attention of the House, and of the Chairman of a Committee on an uno])posed Bill, to all points which may appear to him to reqiiire it. There is no Lords' corresponding Order, but the Chairman of Committees and his Counsel have from the earliest days of Private Bills examined them most carefully ; far more carefully, indeed, than it is possible for the Chairman of Ways and Means to find time for. By House of Commons' Order 81, the Chairman of Ways and Means is required to re])ort on Bills relating to any Government contract by which a puljlic charge is created. The Commons have many Orders as to the time of deposit of ccjpies of Bills as amended on their several stages. So far as necessary the same object is obtained under the unwritten rules of practice in the Hou.se of Lords, but it would be well if some were more defined — except that in the press of business and hurry of the Session it is very difficult to maintain rigidly rules which prescribe stated intervals in proceedings ; and constant suspending of Orders adds considerably to the expenses of promoters. There are no officers in the Lords corres))onding to the Referees (House of Comnions, 87 — 89). The Standing Orders (committee in the Lords consists of the Chairman of Connnittees and 40 Lords. 'Quorum, three (House of Lords, 80 — 81). In the Commons it consists c>t' n Members. Quorum, five (House of Commons, 91). In the Lords the i)roiiioters and opponents or their agents are heard on a printed statement, but <-i)unsel are not allowed to be heard. It is believed that the practice in the Comnions is different in several respects. There is a Committee of Selection in each House ; in the Commons there is also a (ieneral Committee on Railway and Canal Bills. These Committees group the opposed Bills, select the Lords and Mei)ibers to serve, and fix the days for the Committees to meet and the Bills to he taken. These duties devolve in the Lords in great measure upon the Chairman of Committees alone. The Commons Orders are more precise than the Lords as to the notice to be given to the Members •of Committees, the order in which the Bills .shall be taken by the Committee, tkc. Committees on opiwsed Bills in the Lords consist of five Lords. In the Commons, of a Chainnan and three Members, and a referee or a Chairman and three Members not locally or otherwise interestetl — or in the case of a Railway or Canal Bill of " four .Members and a referee or four Members not locally or otherwise interested. H.C. Part II. S.O. 1. The two cla.s.ses. Xotices, Xotii'cs. Deposits (in or before 30tli Not l)e|)Osit of Hills H.C. 32. House of bonis, 97. House of Commons, its- 11.-). CoMiiuitteeof Selection au'l ( Ieneral Coniniittee, ou Hailway and Canal Hills. House of bonis, 9."), \c. House of Comnions, 116, &o 110, !17, 116. 19() APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM THE 12;). C'omiiions. Standing ( tider l-_'!l. Standing ( )nlers !t2 and m. ' Imh E. Selboine's ( 'lauses. rnclosuie. House of Commons 17H-1S1. House of ('omniii:!- 193-226. Question.s l)efore Coniiuons Committees are to be decided by majority — Chairman to have a vote- and, if the voten are eiiual, a casting vote. Ill the Lords the Committee consists of five, but if a Lord is unavoidably absent the Committee may continue to sit (with consent of "parties") with four Lords only (101). Then if the votes are eciual tlie ijuestion is decided in the negative. With regard to petitioning against private BiUs tliere is an important ditference in the Orders of the two Houses. 'J'he Commons require that petitions against all local Bills (whether originating in the Lords or Commons) shall lie deposited not later than 10 clear days after the first reading The Lords, that in the case of Bills originating in the House of Lords, petitions shall be presented not later than the seventh day after the second reading, and in the case of Bills originating in tlie House of Commons, the seventh day after the first reading. [n the Lords the heaviest fee is on the second reading. The heavy' fee is some test of the fjomi fides of the application. It is hard on ojiponents that they should be put to the expense of preparing i>etitions when the Bill' may never survive the second reading, especially now when it is so much the jiractice for Members to- ojipose Bills on second reading when their constituents think that they are likely to be adversely affected. With regard to lorux st/tndi, the (juestion is decided in the Commons by the Referees, in the Lords by the Select Committee on the Bills. The Commons give a " mandafoi-i/ locus " more readily than the Lords — /. - 100,000/. and under .500,000/. 500,000/. and under 1,000,00(J/. 1,000,IX)0/. and over - In the House of Commons the fees are the same on each stage, varying according to capital. £. 15 30 45 60 House of Lords. House of Commons. For first day on which Counsel api)ears in support of a petition against a Bill ------ Subsecjuent days For first day on which Counsel ajjpear in support of a Bill --------- - For every 3ubse-. Sir R. Littler 2283-2287. Approximate estimate of the charges incurred in connection with Private Business in the House of Conmions in the year ended 31st March, 1902 ; total of £11,792 (exclusive of fees), App. 178. Costs. See also Counsel. Fees. Local Inquiries. Parliamentary Notices. Instances of very large deductions by witness (as Taxing Master) from the amount of costs. Campion 1650-1652 Expediency of the Committees having increased powers as to costs, Lowther 137. 138. 187-189. See also Court of Referees. Town Clerks. Withdrawal of Petitions. 0.23. F F Counsel 206 COU COU Report, 1902 — continued. Counsel. Grounds for suggesting some curtailment of the fees of junior counsel on Private Bills, there toeing much complaint on the subject, Monro 1020-1029. 1048-1057 Probable saving as regards counsels' fees if the Committees could sit earlier. Campion 1748, 1749 Grounds for complaint respecting the fees of counsel, though this matter cannot well \ye dealt with under the Standing Orders, Baker 1788-1798 Disapproval of counsel Ijeing dispensed with when clauses are being settled. Baker 1867-1872 Improvement if in cases where the petitioners call no evidence the counsel for the pro- moters were allowed the right to sum up his evidence tefore the counsel for the jietitionei-s is heard. Rep. ix. Eecommendation that when two or more Bills are heard together the counsel for the promoters should always be allowed (by special leave of the Com- mittee) to make a short explanatory statement, and to address the Committee again at a later stage in support of his whole case, and against that of the other Bill or Bills, ih. x. County Councils. Memorial of the County Councils Association, dated July 4th, 1902, submitting suggestions on various points, App. 176, 177. COUET OF REFEREES : 1. Constitution and Powers of the Court : question of power to award costs. 2. Working of the Court : question of its abolition. 1. Constitution and Powers of the Court : question of power to award costs : Approval of increased facilities of action on the part of the Court of Referees in deciding questions of locus standi, Lowther 125-134 Opinion favourable to the Court being empowered to award costs, ib. 135-149 Suggestion with reference to the constitution of the Court and their powers as regards costs, Leigh 207-211 Expediency of some restriction if the Court be empowered to award costs ; suggestion hereon, Pritt 491, 492. 571-582. As a Referee on Private Bills in the House of Commons, witness explains the constitution of the Locus Standi Court as comprising the Chairman of Ways and Means with three other Members appointed by the Speaker (under Standing Order 87) ; part taken by witness in the decisions of the Court, Bonham-Carter 1098. 1191-1202 Grounds for objecting to any abbreviation of the time allowed for objecting to locus standi ; exception taken to the practice of the Court as to Bills not being put down on locus standi until after second reading, Pritt 485-489 Importance of the Court sitting as early as possible ; suggestions hereon, Baker 1896-1899. Explanation of the process as regards questions of locus standi and the action of the Court of Referees in the matter, the Court working very smoothly ; otetacles to any material saving of time in this direction, Bonham-Carter 1231-1125 Proposal that power to award costs should be given to the Locus Standi Court on the vote of the Chair- man and of the majority of the other Memljei-s, ib. 1139-1143 Advantage if the Court sat earlier and had jjower to award costs, Brevitt 1336, 1337. Explanation that under Standing Order 87, the Chairman of Ways and Means is the onlymember of the Court not appointed by the Speaker, none of the others being necessarily selected by him from the memters of the House, Smith 1342-1344 Opinion that the great majority of the Court should necessarily be members of the House (this being the present practice); advantage of the Speaker's Counsel being on the Court, i?*. 1345, 1346 Equal voting power of the two members of the Court who are not in the House as of the other memljers, ib. 1347-1349. Object of the Court to deal with all petitions relating to Private Bills, so as to relieve Oonnnittees of the House of the burden of this duty ; calculation that about half the petitions are thrown out by the Court, locus not being allowed. Smith 1350-1355 Instances of hardshijj through the Court not having power to allow a locus in certain cases ; increased discretion under a new Standing Order of last Session, witness suggesting other alterations in this direction by amending Standing Orders 133-135, ib. 1336-1365. 1414-1434. 1489 et seq. Readiness of the Court to sit earlier, any obstacles thereto being on the part of agents and promoters, ib. 1366-1368. Explanations in further elucidation of witness's views as to the constitution and powei-s of the Referees Court, the numloer of memljere, &c. ; improvement if the quorum were five instead of three. Smith 1439 et seq.-^ — Slight importance attached to a power in the Court to give costs, ib. 1445, 1446. Advantage of the Court of Referees as keeping a check upon petitioners who ought not to be heard, Boyce 1611 -Reason for objecting to power in the Referees to award costs, Pember 2446, 2447. Explanatory statement submitted by Mr. Bonham-Carter respecting the constitution and working of the Court of Locus Standi, App. 182. Provisions C O U DEB 207 Report, 1902 — contimwd. COURT OF REFEREES— continue. 1. Constitution and Powers of the Court: question of power to award Costs — continued. Provisions under different Standing Orders, as regards the constitution and functions of the Court of Referees, Rep. iv. Summary of suggestions by several witnesses for an amended constitution of the Court ; conflict of opinion on several points, ib. v. Recommendation by the Committee for the re-constitution of the Court, for empowerin >? the Court to award costs, and for increased discretionary powera with regard to locu^ standi in certain cases, Rep. vii. Expediency of as long an interval as possible between the hearing by the Court of the objections to Petitions against a Bill, and the sitting of the Committee on the Bill, ib. 2. Working of the Court ; question of its abolition : Approval of the continuance of the Court of Referees as at present constituted, Lowther 51. 171 Question considered, whether under certain conditions the locus standi Court might not be dispensed with, ib. 171-175 Conclusion as to the action of the Court tending towards economy ; advantage if the Court could sit earlier, Leigh 271-276. 303- 311. Contemplated transfer to a joint Committee of the duties of the Court of Referees, the latter being, however, a very good Court, Mellor 850, 851 Opinion as to the satis- factory working of the Court in greatly reducing opposition to Private Bills, Bonham- Carte'r 1143-1146. Satisfactory dealing with questions of locus standi in the House of Lords by the Com- mittees on the Bills, there Ijeing no Court of Referees in that House, Gray 1979-1982. 2047, 2048 Opinion that the Court of Referees might be abolished with advantage, and that questions of locus standi might be efficiently dealt with, without any special Court for the purpose, Beale 2125-2127 Advantages attached to the Court of Referees, Morse 2211. Grounds for the conclusion that the Court of Referees are an unnecessary tody, and that suitors have a great grievance by reason of the expense and delay entailed by disputed questions of locus: several instances cited, Sir R. Littler 2243-2250. 2278-2282 Objections to the alwlition of the Court without careful consideration beforehand, witness submitting that the cost incurred in order to obtain the refusals of a locus saves much expense otherwise in counsels fees, Pember 2415-2428 Though witness is not alwa3^s satisfied with the Court, it has been in operation since 1865, and he considers it • would be a strong measure to abolish it, ib. 2416 Explanations in connection with the satisfactory action of Committees in the House of Lords, without any special Court for dealing with locus standi question, ib. 2420-2428. Summary of the working of the Court in the years 1898-1901 ; App. 191. D. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE {PRIVATE BILLS) : Grounds for the opinion that unless a Bill contains some new and definite principle, it should not be discussed on the second reading, but that the House should have all the questions and the minutes of evidence before it on the third reading in giving their decision ; saving of time thereby, Lowther 11-19. 28-32. 49, 50. 161-165 Reference to the discussions upon second readings, as conducted mainly upon ex parte statements, ib. 11-19 Suggestion that the Standing Orders Committee might decide as to the Bills not to be discussed on second reading, ib. 11, 12. Very little discussion on second readings in the House of Lords, Lowther 55 Explana- tion as to the action of witness and the time at his disposal in connection with discussions on second reading, ib. 56-62 Objection to the question whether there should be dis- cussion on second readings being referred to a Standing Committee to be appointed by the Grand Committee on Trade or on Law, ib. 184-186. Grounds for dissenting from certain views of Mr. Lowther upon the question of dis- pensing with discussion upon the third reading of Bills ; suggested tribunal for deciding whether there should be further discussion after the second reading, Leigh 221-226 Approval of some restrictions upon discussion on the second and third readings of Bills, though any restriction should require to be sanctioned by some proper authority ; sug- gestions on this question, Pritt 433-440. 521-530. 556, 557 Conclusion as regards discussion on Private Bills, that many Bills are needlessly discussed on second reading, as when no question of principle is involved ; suggestions in favour of full discussion in important cases, both on second and third readings, subject to some official sanction or supervision, Halsey 651-661 Difficulty as to the Conunittee of Selection or the Standing 0.23. F F 2 Orders 208 DEB I) E P Report, 1902 — continued. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE {PRIVATE BILLSy-continned. Ordei-s Committee midertaking the duty of deciding us to the question of discussion, Halsey 655-659. 669-677. Question whether the Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means might not decide upon the foregoing question, Halsey 660, 661 Approval of a small independent Com- mittee for dealing with the question of discussion on second or third reading, Halsey 673*. 678, 679. 696, 697 Grounds for the view that discussion on Bills should be limited to the third reading in each House ; admitted hardship in exceptional cases, Mellor 720-729. 751-754 Approval of its resting with a specially-appointed body to decide whether a Private Bill shovild Ije discussed in the House, Brevitt 1338. Grounds for the conclusion that the Court of Referees might be empowered to decide whether a debate should be allowed on the second or on the third reading ; suggestions for strengthening the Court if intrusted with this duty, Smith 1370-1376 Strong deprecation of any debates in the House on the second reading of Private Bills, except when questions of princi|)le are involved, Sir R. Littler 2234-2239 Entire approval of the question of a second reading delate resting with the Chairman of Ways and Means, or some other highlv-jjlaced Minister of the House ; satisfactory procedure of the House of Lords in this respect, ib. 2235-2239. 2317-2323. Table showing the time occupied by debates on second readings, instructions, and other matters in the years 1893 to 1902, App. 168. Provisions on Standing Orders as to the stages of the Bills on which debates may Ije raised in the House, Rep. iv. Summary of suggestions for an amended practice in con- nection with discussion on second reading, ib. v. Delay (Private Bills). Instances of great delay before the date for second reading, so that there is in such cases no chance of the Bill getting through during the session, Lowther 15-17- Information as to the dates in the yeai-s 1898-1902, in which Committees met to consider the Bills and the dates at which ])etitions were due, I^eigh 197— — Considerable delay, due to several causes before the Examiners can go into Standing Order questions reference hereon to the question of holding the Whanicliffe meeting at an earlier date, ib. 265-270 Great advantage if Committees could sit much earlier after the meeting of Parliament than they now do, Mellor, 792-795. Loss of much valuable time Ijetween the assembling of Parliament and the sitting of the First Committee ©n a Private Bill. Rep. iv. See also Committees on Bills. Debates in the House. Deposit of Bills. Grouping of Bills. Petitions. Second Reading. Wharncliffe Meeting. DEPOSIT OF BILLS : Necessity for an earlier deposit of Bills than on the 21st Decemljer, if they are to loe ready earlier in the session for discussion by Committees, Lointher 4 Conclusion that if Bills . were deposited in the Middle of November or by the 21st the work upon them could lie accomphshed by Christmas, and they could go forward in the usual course when Parlia- ment met; great convenience to membera thereby, ib. 4. 10. 111-115. 161-168 Summary of difficulties in the way of deposit by 21st Novemljer ; reference especially to the requirements as to the deposit of every Bill in the Local Government office, to lie reported upon if necessarj-, ib. 5-9. 116-120. Convenience in approval of deposit in the House of Commons on 17th Decmmljer, instead of the 21st, the former teing the date in the House of Lords. Leigh 194-203 ; Bonliam-Carter 1119, 1120. 1180, 1181; Brevitt, 1211, 1212; 7ioi/ce ] 572-1575 ; Gray 1948-1950 ; Morse, 2167, 2168. 2185 ; Sir R. Littler 2298-3001 ; Troup 2341-2344 Statement as to the otetacles to Bills teing in the hands of the Parliamentary officials before the 17th December, this question being one chiefly for the Parliamentary agents toconsider,Leify/i 197-201. 253-261. 290-292. Grounds for the conclusion that there would he great difficulty in the way of Private Bills Ix'ing lodged earlier by a month, or even by a fortnight ; full demand at present iipon the time of promotei-s and of agents, Pritt 420-425. 496. 548-555 Opinion that Bills might be deposited earlier with ad\antage, Mellor 718, 719 Doubt as to theve teing much room for an earlier dejwsit of Bills ; objections thereto on the part of the Parliamentary agents, 5o/i/ittm-Crtrter 1100-1106. 1180, 1181; Boyce 1528, 1529. Several reasons why Octoljer and November are excejitionaliy busy months for town clerks ; great difficulty consequently in expediting tlie dejwsit of Bills, Brerett 1208-1213 Examination as to the exjiediency of Bills Ijeing dejjosited earlier by a month than the 2l8t December, so as to bring the Coanmittee stage on earlier ; advantages if there were more time in which to prepare the Departmental Reports, Boyce, 1520-1529. Questions really for the agents, whether Bills in the House of Commons might not be deposited earlier by some days than the 21st December, the dejMsit of ])lans being on the 30th Novemter, Campion 1616 Approval of the deposit of Bills in the House of Com- mons D E P E X A 209 Report, 1902 — continued. DEPOSIT OF ^/i/Z<5— continued, mons on 17th Deceniter, this date being found quite practicable in the case of the Hoiise of Lords ; otetacles to an earlier deposit, Baker 1800-1806. 1856-1859 ; Beale 2115- 2117 Grounds for the conclusion that the 17th December is as early a date as can te fixed for deposit, Gray 1955, 1956. 2079, 2080. Consensus of opinion in favoiu- of the date Ijeing the 17th December in both Houses, Rep. iv. Recommendation 1)\- the Committee to the foregoing efifect, ih. vi. Difference of opinion before the Committee whether the date of deposit could be fixed earlier than the 17th December, Rep. iv. See also Examiners' Petitions. Private Bill Offices. Deposit of Petitions. See Petitions. Derwent Valley Water Bill. Exceptionally heavy expenses (about 31,000L), in the case of the Derwent Valley Water Bill, chiefiv for expert witness ; total of 4021. for house fees, ajid of 3,764L for Counsel's fees. Campion 1639-1649. 1664. 1676-1686. Vivision of Bills between the tico Houses. Advantage if the Chainnen of Committees in both Houses could meet together Ijefore the meeting of Parliament, in order to deal with the miiss of Private Bills, so as to expedite the subsequent work in the two Houses, Lowther 166-168 Arrangement at a meeting between witness and Mr. Altert Grey as to the division of the Bills between the two Houses ; satisfaction given by the division not only to Lord Morley and Mr. Lowther, but to the agents for the Bills. Leigh 193 ■pinal division of the Bills a few days after the meeting of Parliament, ib. 197. Necessary delay in the sitting of Committees until after the Bills have been divided between the two Houses, facility if the two Chairmen could meet iDefore the actual sitting •of Parhament in order to divide the Bills, Leigh 281-288 Great care necessary in •deciding what Bills are to go to the House of Lords ; practice as to Estate Bills and Insur- ance Bills Ix-ing sent to the Upper House, ib. 328-337. Suggestions as to the division of Bills between the two Houses being accelerated, Pritt 508. 520 Suggestion that Bills might be divided tetween the two Houses by the Counsel of the Lord Chairman and the Counsel of the Chairmen of Ways and Means, Pritt 508. ■640 Facility in settling the division of Bills iDetween the two Houses, Bonham-Carter 1100. Information as to the number of Bills originating in the House of Lords, and the pro- ■oortion of second hearings and of rejections in the House of Commons, Bonham-Carter 1126-1135. 1172-1179 Explanation of the practice as to the division of Bills between the two Houses, witness not admitting that the House of Lords takes less than its proper share. Gray 1956-1959. : Provision under Standing Order for determining in which House of Parliament the respective Bills should be first considered, Rep. iii. j)raft Report. Draft Rejjort as proposed by the Chairman, Rep. xiii.-xvii. Adoption thereof subject to several amendments, ib. xvii.-xxi. Electric Bills. Refei-ence to the Electric Lighting Act as totally insufficient for the wants of electric power. Gray 1987 Suggestion that the Board of Trade should report in the case of all Electric Bills, ib. 2009-2012 Practice as to electric lighting being dealt with entirely by Provisional Orders, ib. 2041. Recommendation by the Committee that a new Standing Order Ije drawn up requirin g a Board of Trade Repprt on all proposals for supplying electrical energy. Rep. vii. Examiners (Private Bills). — Advantage of an earlier deposit of Bills and of petitions, in so far as the Examinei-s might commence their work earlier than the 18th January, Bonham- Carter 1155-1160. 1184-1190 Summary of conditions to l)e observed between the deposit of the Bills and their coming before the Examinei-s on the 18th January ; deposit of the labouring classes' statement on 31st December, and of the memorials on the 9th, 16th, and 23rd Januaiy, Campion 1617-1622. 1627, 1628. Short time occupied by the Examiners in getting through the unopposed Bills, whilst all the Bills are dealt with in alx)ut eight days. Campion 1622-1626 Conclusion that all the dates might be put back four or five days earlier, so that the Examiners might have them about the 12th January, and that the Committees might sit earlier, ib. 1629-1635. 1687, 1688. Provisions under Standing Orders as to the functions of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, Rep. iii , iv. Reference to suggestion that the Examinei-s should take up the Bills at an earlier date than the 18th January, ib. v. Recommendation that the ■date for the sitting of the Examiner should be altered to 12th Januarv, ib. \ i. FEUS 210 FEES Report, 1902 — continued. F. FEES {PRIVATE BILLS) : Different sj'stem in the two Houses as regards the appUcation of the fees, Lowther 41 — — Evidence adverse to any reduction of fees, Leigh 207. 211 Consideration of the- scale of fees in the two Houses with suggestions as to the class of cases in which some modification might take place ; expediency of assimilation between the two Houses an certain points, Pritt 459-466. 500, 501. 559. 630-632 Probability of some imdue- impetus to Private Bills if the costs or fees were much reduced ; reduction desirable in the case of poor opponents, Millar 755, 756. "Witness submits sundry details as to the relative amount of fees on Private Bills at different stages in the House of Lords and House of Commons ; smaller fees on iinopposed Bills in the latter House exce]ot when the capital is over £500,000L, Gibbons 882 et seq. Large fee charged in the House of Lords on second reading, whilst those in the House- of Commons are more equally charged at the different stages with an ad valorem fee, lb. 887-897. 905 Payment of the fees for several years past into the Exchequer as- Appropriations-in-Aid, the average annual amount for the House of Commons having been 32,000L ; increase during the last ten years, ib. 899-904. 965-967. Eacihty in the collection of the fees, the amounts being all settled by Standing Order, (ribbons 906-912. 948-953 Consideration of the question of an assimilation of the fees in the two Houses, witness approving of the principle adopted in the House of Commons, ib. 911 et seq. Absence of House fees in the case of promoters of unopposed Pro- visional Orders, ib. 980-983. As Taxing Officer of Private Bill costs in the House of Tx)rds, witness explains that the difference in the aggregate amounts of Private Bill fees is very small as between the two Houses of Parliament; average of about £35,000 a year in the House of Lords for the last ten years, Monro 1001-1004. 1013-1016. 1056-1062 Approval generally of an assimilation of fees Ijetween the two Houses, though witness objects to the House of Commons fees being taken as the basis of a uniform scale, ib. 1005. 1009 Inexpediency of the fees being much cheapened as tending to the iindue promotion of Private Bill legislation, ib. 1010. 1063 Views of witness as to the high fees on second readings in the House of Lords being a useful check upon speculation, though hardly so in the- case of Bills promoted by local authorities, ib. 1063-1072. Views of the Municipal Association and of witness as to the expediency of a reduction of the House fees and of an assimilation of the fees in the two Houses, Brevitt 1244-1247. 1257-1260. 1267. Opinion that the fees on the two Houses are not too high in proportion to the general cost of Private Bills ; examination in detail hereon, Campion 1636 et seq. Settlement of the House of Commons fees by the Taxing Act of 1847, the Examiners having no pwoer to alter them, ib. 1637. 1709. 1710 Explanations in connection with the costs under the heads of House fees and counsel's fees m the case of Bills of three different classes ; limited check exercised by witness as regards the number of counse^ employed or the amount of their fees, ib. 1637 et seq. 1711-1720. 1752-1758 Veiy small proportion borne by the Hovise fees to the total expenses, the proportion, however, being larger in the case of small Bills ; illustrations to this effect, ib. 1653-1666. Approval of the uniformity of fees in the two Houses, Campion 1759 ; Baker 1819,- 1820. Explanations in support of resolution of the Urban District Councils Association that the House fees charged upon Bills promoted by local authorities should be reduced by one half; unduly large proportion in the case of unopposed Bills, Baker 1766-1782. 1817-1820. 1844-1851 Instances of local authorities having been deterred from proceeding by Bill in view of the heavy House fees, ib. 1779-1782- — Great hardship of the fee of 8X1. in the House of Lords on the second reading of an unopposed Bill, the fee in the other House being only 15?. ; ib. 1820. Consideration of the question of fees in each House, these varying greatly and uniformity being desirable ; approval of revision and readjustment in the direction of uniformity, Gray 2012*-2024 Expediency of a reduction of the House fees, which now pres? very heavily on promoters, Morse 2202-2206. Suggestion that the fees should be modified so as to bear some relation to the cost in- curred in the earlier stages of the procedure. Sir R. Littler 2242. 2253 Opinion that the lower amounts in each House should be adopted for both, there being one uniform scale ; veiy heavy fees at present, ib. 2251-2253. 2260, 2261 Examination as to the- ver}' large amount of the fees of the two Houses, witness protesting against the defray- ment of the annual expenses of St. Stephen's from this source, Pember 2429-2445. 2457-2460 Heavy incidence of the House fees in small cases more especially, ib. 2457-2466 Total" FEE GRA 211 Report, 1902 — continued. FEi:S {1 EIVATE HILLS)— continmd. Total of House of Commons fees in each of the last four years, App. Memorandum by Mr. Moni-o explanatory of the relative amount of fees in the two Houses, App. Scale of fees laid down by Standing Order in 1864, since which year there has been no revision, Rep. iv. Recommendation of Joint Committee of the two Houses be appointed with a view to a general revision of the scale of fees, and their being made identical in the two Houses, ib. vi. Conflict of opinion before the Committee upon the question of a reduction of the fees ; general feeling in favour of assimilation in the two Houses, ib. J'irst Reading. Suggestion as to Bills being read a fii"st time on presentation of the petitions, Pritt 484 Opinion in favour of dispensing with first readings of Private Bills, Halsey 683, 684. Recommendation by the Committee that the first reading stage of Private Bills in the House of Commons should be dispensed with, and that Bills should be deemed to have been read a first time on passing the Examinei-s on Standing Orders, Rep. vi. G. 'Gibbons, William. (Digest of his Evidence.) — As Principal Clerk of the Public Bill Ofiiee, and as Clerk of the Fees and Paymaster, witness submits sundry details as to the relative amount of fees on Private Bills at different stages in the House of Lords and House of Commons ; smaller fees on imopposed Bills in the latter House exce'pt when the capital is over oOO.OoOi. 882 et seq. Large fee charged in the House of Lords on second reading, whilst those in the House of Commons are more equally charged at the different stages with an ad valorem fee, 788-897. 905 Payment of the fees for several yeara past into the Exchequer as Appropriations in Aid, the average annual amomit for the House of Commons having been 32,000L ; increase during the last ten years, 899-904. 965-967. Facility in the collection of the fees, the amounts being all settled by Standing Order, 906-912. 948-953 Consideration of the question of an assimilation of the fees in the two Houses, witness approving of the principle adopted in the House of Commons, 911 cf seq. Explanation that witness has nothing to do with counsel's fees or their taxation, 968- 972 Absence of House fees in the case of promotions of unopposed Provisional Orders, 980-983. •Government Departments. Evidence as to undue delay in the issue of the Reports of Govern' ment Departments, this causing real inconvenience to local authorities ; advocacy of resolu- tion that the reports should l)e sent to the promoters of Bills before the meeting of Parlia- ment, Baker 1799. Reference by the Committee to the considerable delay from the difiiculty in securing early reports from the Government Departments, Rep. v. See also Board of Trade. Home Office. Local Government Board. ■Gray, Albert. (Digest of his Evidence). — Opinion favourable to the deposit of Private Bills in the House of Commons being on the 17th instead of 21st December, so as to assimilate the date to that in the House of Lords, 1948-1950 Suggested abolition of the " Petition for the House of Commons," under Standing Order 32, in order to substitute the 17th for the 21st December ; uselessness of this petition, 1950-1954 Grounds for the conclusion that the 17th December is as early a date as can be fixed for deposit, 1955, 1956. 2079, 2080. Explanation of the practice as to the division of Bills between the two Houses, witness not admitting that the House of Lords takes less than its proper share, 1956-1959 Exceptions taken to proposals for the establishment of a Joint Committee on imopposed Bills till the matter has first been considered by a Joint Committee of the two Houses specially appointed to consider the question, 1957-1964. 2002-2008 Explanation as regards unopposed Bills in the House of Lords that Lord Morley, assisted by witness, deals with all such Bills, 1961. 1983-1986. 2096-2104 Doubt as to the advantage of examining witnesses on oath, 1962-1964 Diflficulty as regards a selection of opposed Bills for earlier report upon by the Local Government Board ; facility in this connection if the Parliamentary Agents could discuss the matter with the House ofiicials at the teginning of the Session, 1965-1967. Evidence in considerable detail respecting Standing Order 22, which requires the consent of the local authority tefore a Tramway Bill can be introduced into the House ; verj- un- satisfactory working of the discretionary powers exercised by local authorities in this matter, 1968-1971. 2053-2063 Amendments required in connection with the consent of the local authority ; avoidance of much delay of Tramway Bills if the consent were •obtained on or before the 18th, when the Examiner begins his sittings, 1971, 1972. 2063. Great 212 (I K A HAL Report, 1902 — continued. Gray, Albert. (Digest of his Evidence) — continued. Great confusion ap|)rehended if all petitions against Bills were required to be lodged on a fixed day ; probable f.icility in this connection if the Bills were split up mto groups, and if the petitions were lodged between specified dates, 1973-1977. 2088-2092. 2105-2107. 2111, 2112 Satisfactory dealing with questions of locvs standi in the House of Lords bv the Committees on the Bills, there l^eing no Court of Eeferees in that House, 1979-1982. 2047, 2048. Conclusion as to the pressure of work upon Memters of the House of Commons being largely due to the great and increasing number of Amendment Bills promoted by local authorities in order to bring public legislation up to date ; illustrations in the case of the Public Health Act, and of tramways, electric lighting, &c., 1987. 2065. 2108-2110. Pressure upon Private Bill Committees owing to the delay in the issue of the Reports of the Local Government Board, witness believing that this Department is very under- manned, and that the staff are severely overworked, 1987, 1988 Degree of inconveni- ence in connection with the working of the Police and Sanitary Committee ; action of the Lord Chairman in the House of Lords in order to secure uniformity of decisions, 1989-2001, Opinion as to the expediency of unopposed clauses in opposed Bills being referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses with a view to their making recommendations on the subject, 2002-2006 Approval of the deposit of Bills and of petitions being in one Private Bill Office for the two Houses, 2007, 2008 Suggestion that the Board of Trade should report in the case of all Electric Bills, 2009-2012. Consideration of the qixestion of fees in each House, these varying greatly and uniformity being desirable ; approval of revision and readjustment in the direction of uniformity,. 2012*-2025 Grounds upon which promotei-s frequently prefer to proceed by Private Bill instead of by Provisional Order, witness approving of an extension of the latter system,. 2024-2027. 2036-2044. 2064. Great want of fuller registers of decisions in the two Houses with a view to greater uni forinity in the decisions of Committees ; further reference hereon to the action of the Lord Chairman in this direction, 2028-2035. 2045-2062. 2075-2078. 2110 Difficulty in connection with Provisional Orders through the Departments not having compulsary powers ; suggestions hereon, 2036-2044. Question considered as to certain mandator}- powers in regard lo locus, &c., being given by Standing Orders of the House of Commons ; pi-eference for the procedure in the House of Lords as regards locus, 2045-2052 Suggestions on the subject of the constitution of Committees with a view to securing continuity in the hearing of the same Bills, 2067-2078. Advantage of an earlier sitting of Committees on Private Bills, as by lessening the time now allowed for jjetitions after the first reading and by prescribing that any petitions must be lodged in ten or fourteen days from the date of the Examiner's certificate, 2081-2092 Probable advantage in fixing a date after which Bills should not be read a second time in the House of Commons, 2093-2095 Question whether unopposed Bills in the House of Commons might not be dealt with by the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, as in the Lords by the Lord Chairman, 2096-2104. Grouping of Bills. Facilities for earlier preparation of the Reports of Witness' Departmen if Private Bills could be grouped at an earlier period, and if it were sooner known in which House the Bills would originate, Boyce 1561-1571 Proposals for an amended system in the grouping of Bills as a means of facilitating the procedure, so that the Bills might be ready as soon as the Committees are able to sit, Beale, 2128-2132 Facility by mixing uj) railway Bills with water and gas Bills, as in the House of Lords, ib. 2130, 2131 Im- provement feasible as regards the grouping of Bills ; suggestions hereon, Morse 2206, 2207. Great advantage if Bills came. earlier tefore Committees, witness suggesting that the Bills should be put in blocks or groups, and that certain Bills should be taken before Easter, so that the work should be spread more equally through the Session, Sir R. Littler 2227— 2230. 22m etscq. 2325-2328. Reference by the Committee to suggestion that the Counsel to the Speaker and the Counsel to the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords might te empowered to decide, before the commencement of the Session, the respective Bills to be first considered, Rep. V. Reference alsoto suggestions for the grouping of Bills, ih. Recommendations- by the Committee to the foregoing effect, ih. vi. H. Halsey, The Rt. Hon. Thomas F. (Member of the House). (Digest of his Evidence.) — Explana- tory statement as to the functions exercised by the Committee of Selection, and the Stand- ing Orders Committee (witness being Chairman of both Committees), with respect to the appointment HAL JOI 213 Report, 1902 — contimml. Halsey, The Rt. Hon. Thomas F. (Member of the House). (Digest of his Evidence) — continued). appointment of the Chairman and otlier meml)ei-s of Private Bill Committees, 641-650. 701, 702 Selection of the Chairman of Raihvay and Canal Bills from the General Committee on such Bills, a]opointed at the Ijeginning of each Session : reference hereon to the question of efficiency and of uniformity of decision, 643-650. 698-702. Conclusion as regards discussion on Private Bills, that many Bills are needlessly discussed on Second Reading, as when no question of princijile is involved ; suggestions in favour of full discussion in important cases, lx)th on Second and Third Readings, sul^ject to some official sanction or supervision, 651-661 Difficulty as to the Committee of Selection or the Standing Orders Committee undertaking the duty of deciding as to the question of discussion, 655-659. 669-677 — —Question whether the Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means might not decide upon the foregoing question, 660, 661. Great waste of time and great cxjiense under the system of separate Committees of the two Houses for dealing with the same Bill, a strong Joint Committee offering great advant- ages ill many cases, 662. 691-697 Increasing difficiilty for many years in obtaining memters for service on Conunittees ; special obstacles in the case of barristers, 663-668 Approval of a small indejjendent Committee for dealing with the question of discussion on Second or Third Readings, 673*. 678, 679. 696, 697. Degree of convenience to memljera if their work on Committees could te accelerated ', slack time at present before Easter, 680-682 Opinion in favour of dispensing with First Readings of Private Bills, 683, 684 Preference for Committees comprising five or six members, instead of only four ; difficulty as regards regular attendance, 685-687. 689, 690 Arduous work in connection with Police and Sanitarj- Bills ; suggestion as to the attendance on the Committees, 685. Approval of the Chairman having a vote and a casting vote, the Committee still con" sisting of four memtei-s, 688 Opinion in favour of six members under a system of Joint Committees, witness further a]j])roving generally of this system as a means of saving time and expense, without any serious injustice resulting, 689-697. 703-716. Home Office. Report by the Home Office on thirty -eight Bills in the present Session, whilst the Local Government Board have reported on 122 ; much greater pressure on the latter Department, Trowp 2340-2342 Re])resentation of the Home Office at the inquiries before the Police and Sanitary Committee ; advantage if the Department had facilities for attending tefore other Committees, ib. 2368, 2369. 2378, 2379. 2401-2414. /S'ee also Police and Sanitary Bills. I. Improvement Bills. Difficulty as regards large Imi^rovement Bills, in their having to go to several Government Departments to te re])orted on, Boyce 1612, 1613. See also Provisional Orders. Instructions to Committees. Grounds foi- the conclusion that some limit- shoidd ]je applied to the moving of instructions upon Private Bills as l)y ap])lying the same rules which apply in the case of Public Bills ; suggested control in the Speaker. Loicther 42-46 Strong objection to the practice as regards instructions to Committees, Bonham-Carter 1137- 1139. Introduction of Bills. Provisions in the Standing Orders as to the conditions to Ije complied with in connection with the introduction of Private Bills into the House of Commons, Rep. iii. See also Deposit of Bills, Petitions. Irish Local Government Board. Passing of twenty -six Bills, comprising sixty-eight Provisional Orders issued by the Irish Local Government Board in the last three years, Boyce 1502. J. . Johnson, Sir Samuel. Opinion of Sir Samuel Johnson of Nottingham, that there should always be an option to proceed either by Private Bill or bv Provisional Order, Brevitt 1222. 1253, 1254. JOI.¥T COMMITTEES: ^ Opinion that on the whole it would te an imjirovement if Bills were referred to a Joint Comnnttee of both Houses, a double hearing Ijeing seldom necessarj^ Lowther 39, 40. 150-158 Gromids for approving of four rather than five members on a Joint Committ«e of both Houses for dealing with opposed Bills, ib. 99-101. ^•23- G G , Reasons 214 J f) I L E I Report, 1902 — amtinueA. — — ■ ~- —, ' — • c JOINT COMMITTBES-coatinwd. Reasons for strongly objecting to the S3'stem of a Joint Committee for dealing with Private Bills in lieu of their Wm^ referred to a separate Committee in each House. Leigh 230-234. 323-327. 388-390 : Pri^ 441-449. 531-538 Approval of a. loint Committee for dealing with Bills for the confirmation of Provisional Orders, Pritt 448, 449 Power of Parliament to refer any specially important Bill to a Joint Committee, ib. 449. Opinion that in the case of unopposed Bills one inquiry by a Joint Committee would, as a general rule, Ije quite sufficient. Pritt 512-517 — — A])provaI as regards Pi-ovisional Orders of a system of a Joint Committee for dealing with questions Mhich have already been the subject of local inquir\' ; a])proval also of jjower of the Committee as to costs, ib. 633-639. Great waste of time and great exjiense under tlie system of separate Committees of the two Houses for dealing with the same Bill, a strong Joint Committee ofi'ering great advant- ages in many cases, Halseij 662. ()91-697 Opinion in favour of six memljere \inder a system of Joint Committee, witness furtiier approving generallv of the s\-stem. as a means of saving time and expense, without any serious injustice resulting, ib. 689-697. 7l>3-7]6. Advocacy of inquiry by a Joint Committee of both Houses, in lieu of inquiry by two separate Committees ; important saving of expense and of the time of Membera by this change, Mellor 724, 725. 752-754 Conditions under which a re-hearing might be allowed under the system of a Joint Committee, ib. 786, 787 Approval of a strong Joint Committee foi' dealing with all imop])Osed Bills, irrespective of the question of o]3])osed Bills ; suggestions as to the constitution and action of the Committee with reference to the large amount of work to Ije got through, ib. 862-879. I Difficulty apprehended as regards attendance under the system of a Joint Committee of both Houses ; saving of expense in respect of fees, Monro 1011, 1012. 1017-1019 Explanations as to the circumstances under which the Municipal Association is favour- able to the system of a Joint Committee of lx)th Houses ; approval by witness when there has been a local inquiry ])reviously, Brevitt 1261-1264. 1314-1335 (Grounds for strongly objecting to the proposal that opposed and unopi)osed Bills be dealt with by a Joint Committee of the two Houses ; very few Bills now opposed in toth Houses, Baker 1811-1817. 1860-1866- — Suggestions for simplifying the procedure as regards the appointment of a Joint Conmiittee whether for unopjjosed or opposed Bills ; question of voting, ib. 1915, 1916. Exceptions taken to projiosals for the establishment of a Joint (Committee on the un- opposed Bills till the matter has firat lieen considered by a Joint Committee of the two Houses S])ecially api)ointed to considei' the question, (rray 1957-1 9(i4. 2002-2008 Conclusion that in the case of manj' Bills besides Provisional Order Bills there is no neces- sity for their going Ijefore Committees in both Houses, Morse 2221-2223. Conteiftion that the system of a Joint Committee of the two Houses for dealing with Pri\ate Bills would Ije unworkable in many ways, would not reduce the time of ilemljei-s,. and would l)e less efficient than the present system, Eir R. Littler 2254-2256. 2268-2273 Opinion that each Joint Committee should comprise at least six memljers ; jireference for seven, ib. 2255. 2268. 226)9 — ^Estimate that less than 20 per cent, of the Bills are opposed in both Houses, (7). 2255, 2256 Illustration of the importance to suitors of the right to go Ijefore two separate Committees, ib. 2270-2273. Testimony to the efficiency of Joint Committees, witness advocating their extension, Pember 2455, 2456. Conclusion of the Committee that the question should form the subject of consideratioa by a Joint Committee of the two Houses, Rep. \'iii. See also Appeal. Unopposed Bills. L. Land (Compulsory Poicers). Power of dealing by Provisional Order with the compulsory acquisition of land in England, under the Public Health Act and the Allotments Act, Boyce 1503, 1504. Legislation. Grounds for the suggestion that a Standing Order should Ije passed prohibi- ting any alteration of a public Statute by a Private Bill ; reference hereon to the very insufficient index to Private Acts, Mellor 985-1000. Leigh, The Honourable Sir Vhandos, K.C.B., K.C. (Digest of his Evidence.)— Considerable experience of witness as regards Private Bills in his capacity of Speaker's counsel since 1884, 190-197. Total LEIGH 215 Report, 1902 — continued. Leigh, The Hunoumble Sir Chandos, k.c.b., k.c. (Digest of his Evidence"! — continued. Total of about 23(i Bills read by witness in the interval between their receipt on 21st December last and the meeting of Parliament on Ibth January, 192-196 Arrange- ment at a meeting between witness and Mr. Alljert (iray as to the division of the Bills between the t\\o Houses ; satisfaction given by this di\ision not only to Ij(jrd Morley and Mr. Lowther l)ut to the agents for the Bills, 193 Grounds for reconnnendation that the Bills should Ije with witness on the 17th Decemljer, this being the date when they come l)efore Mr. Altert Grey in the House of Lords, 19-l-2()3 Fhuil division of the Bills a few days after the meeting of Parliament, 197. Information as to the dates in the yeai-s 1898-1902 in which ('onmiittees met to consider the Bills and the dates at which petitions were due, lit7^ J'rocedure as to the dates at which Bills nuist Ije deposited and petitions lodged ; difhculties in the way of earlier deposit, 197-201 Explanation why the Water Purchase Bill of the London County Council was not put down for Second Reading till the 24th July, 203 Good reason for the ajjpointment of Mr. Parker Smith as a memter on TJnOi)posed Bills Committees, 203- 207. Evidence acherse to any reduction of fees on Pri\ate Bills ; concuri-ence with Mr. Lowther hereon, 207. 211 Suggestions with i-eference to the constitution of the Court of Referees and their ])OAAers as regards costs, 207-211 Projjosal as regards the Court of Referees for sliorteiiing tlie period of eight days for notices of objection, 211-214. Statement as to the action of I^ord Morley in sto])ping Second Readings in the House of Lords, this coui-se not Ijeing feasible in the other House, 214-217 — -Explanations in connection with paper showing for the yeara 1886-1901 the numljer of Bills opposed on Second Reading in the House of Commons, and the numljer as to which notices of instruc- tion were given ; very small proportion of successful oppositions, 218-220. Grounds for dissenting from Miv Lowther's views upon the question of dispensing with discussion u|)on the Third Reading of Bills ; suggested tribunal for deciding whether there should Ije further discussion after the Second Reading, 221-226 Statement as to the views of Loi-d Morley and Mr. Albert Gray as regards the j^eriod for the repayment of local loans not Ijeing always adopted by the officials in the House of Conmions, 22{)-230 Objections to Joint Committees instead of separate Conunittees in each House, 230- 234. [Second Examination.] — Inability of obtaining Provisional Ordei-s in res))ect of com pulsory water rights ; cases in which compulsorj' ])owei' to take land may l)e ol)tained by Provisional (^rder. 23()-238 Saving of ex])ense, as a rule, by means of Provisional Grders in lieu of Bills ; statement hereon as to the pro])ortion of opposed Orders, the expense Ijeing very great in some instances, 239-246. 262-264. 352-367- Instances of parties proceeding by Bill instead of by Pro\isional Order in the exjiectation of getting more from Parliament than from a (Jovernment I)e])ai'tment, 247. Very full criticism to which Private Bills are subjected by officials in both Houses, 248, 249 ^^ Furl her statement as to the olistacles to Bills being in the hands of the Parlia- mentary officials l)efoi-e the 17th Decem))ei', this ([uestion l)eing one chiefly for the Parlia- mentary agents to consider, 253-261. 290-292 CoJisiderable delay, due to several cavises, Ijefore the Examinei's can go into Standing Order questions ; reference hereon to the question of holding the Wharnclifi'e meeting at an earlier date, 2()5-270. Conclusion as to the action of the Court of Referees tending towards economy ; advan- tage if the Court could sit earlier, 271-276. 303-311 Concurrence in suggestion that all petitions should Ije deposited at a fixed date, which should \ye independent of First Reading, an early intimation being given also what Bills are ojjposed, 277-280. 290-292. Necessary delay in the sitting of Conunittees until after the Bills have Ijeen divided between the two Houses ; facility if the two Chairmen coidd meet tefore the actual sitting of Parliament in oider to divide the Bills, 281-288 Suggestion whether compulsory water rights and compulsory land purchase might not be dealt with by I'rovisional Order instead of by Private Bill, 293-302 Difficulties in witness's mind as to an extension of the Pro\isional Order system ; relative expense as comjMred with Private Bills, the costs in the case of local inquiries Ijeing very great in some cases, 318-322. 352-367. Explanation with further reference to witness's objection to a system of Joint Com- mittees, 323-327. 388-390 Great care necessary in deciding what Bills are to goto the House of Lords ; practice as to Estate Bills and Insurance Bills being sent to the Upper House, 328-337 Increased difficulties in connection with the provisions in Private Bills, though the number may not have increased ; reference especially to (.'or- poration Bills, there being now two Committees for dealing with police and sanitary clauses, 338-351. Consideration of the constitution of Committees on unopposed Bills and of the procedure of the Committees, witness approving of four Membei-s with a casting vote in the Chair- 0.23. G G 2 man 216 LEI LIT Report, 1902 — conhnued. Leigh, The Honourable Sir Chaiuios, k.c.b., k.c. (Digest of his Evidence) — continiied. man, 368-387 Explanation of witness's jiractice in making representations to the Chairman of Opposed Bill Committees, but without attempting to secure uniformity of decision, 391-396 Question whether delay might not Ije ])revented by fixing a date after which second readings shoidd not take place ; reference to Mr. Pritt hereon, 397-400. Absence of delay through the Chairman of Committees not being ready to take un opposed Bills, though the agents are sometimes not ready, 401, 402 Powers exercised by the Chairman of Ways and means in dealing with objectionable clauses in unopposed Bills, 403-408^ — Careful reading of unopposed Bills by witness, the Chairman of Ways and Means sometimes reading them himself, 409-414. Light Railways. Want of a new Light Railway Act and of an extension of the local inquiry system, Morse 2197-2201— — Illustrations of the want of further facilities in the matter of light railways ; comment upon the action of some of the Middlesex local authorities hereon. Sir R. Littler 2262. Littler, Sir Ralph D. M., k.c,. c.b. (Digest of his E\idence.) — Very long etxperience of witness as regards Private Bill procedure, 2224-2226. Great advantage if Bills came earlier before Committees, witness suggesting that the Bills should be put in blocks or groups and that certain Bills should be taken before Easter, so that the work should he spread more equally through the Session, 2227-2230. 2298 et seq. 2325-2328 Opinion that the Committees are the best tribunal in the world ; entire absence of any political influence or bias, 2230. 2232, 2233. 2240 Grounds for the conclusion that a Committee of three would Ije quite as efficient as a Committee of four, though five is the ideal numter, 2231-2233. 2264-2268. Strong deprecation of any debates in the House on the second reading of Private Bills, except when questions of principle are involved, 2234-2239 Entire approval of the question of a second reading debate resting with the Chairman of Ways and Means, or some other highly-placed Member of the House ; satisfactory procedure of the House of Lords in this respect, 2235-2230. 2317-2323 Testimony to the entire efficiency of the Chairman of the Committees. Satisfaction expressed with the hours of sitting of the Committees as being quite long enough in view of the working being at high pressure all the time, 2241 Suggestion as regards the House fees that they should Ije modified so as to bear some relation to the cost incurred in the earher stages of the procedure, 2242. 2253. Objections to any great extension of the system of Provisional Orders ; great blot on the system in the ratepayers having no control over the local authorities in their pro- motion of such Orders, 2242. 2257-2261. 2290-2292. 2329-2331 Approval of Pro- visional Orders in small matters, chiefly on the score of the expense of Bills in such cases, . 2258-2261. Grounds 'or the conclusion that the Court of Referees are an unnecessary body, and that suitors have a great grievance by reason of the expense and delay entailed bj" dis- puted questions of locus ; several instances cited, 2243-2250. 2278-2282 Suggestion as regards fees that the lower amounts in each House should be adopted for both, there being one uniform scale ; very heavy fees at present, 2251-2253. 2260, 2261. Contention that the system of a Joint Committee of the two Houses for dealing with Private Bills would be unworkable in many ways, would not reduce the time of Members, and would be less efficient than the present system, 2254-2256. 2268-2273 Opinion that each Joint Committee should comprise at least six Members ; preference for seven,. 2255. 2268, 2269 ^Estimate that less than 20 per cent, of the Bills are opposed in both Houses, 2255, 2256. Grounds for strongly objecting to the right of veto in local authorities, as under Standing Order 22, in respect of tramways ; modification suggested, 2262 Illustrations of the want of further facilities in the matter of light railways ; comment upon the action of some of the Middlesex local authorities hereon, 2262. Costly and unsatisfactory character of many of the local inquiries in Provisional Order cases, 2262. 2286, 2287 Statement as to the Local Government Board frequently disregarding the Reports of their own inspectors, witness submitting that these reports and those of other Departments should always be before the Committees as soon as possible, 2262, 2263. ,■■ Illustration of the importance to suitors of the right to go before two separate Com- mittees, 2270-2273 Consideration of suggestions for an amended system of dealing with unopposed Bills, witness approving of the procedure in the Upper House in these cases, 2274-2277. 2324 Considerable reduction contemplated in the costs of Private Bill LIT L O C 217 Report, 1902 — continued. Littler, Sir Jtcdph D. M., K.c, c.B. (Digest ot his Evidence) — continued. Bill ])rocedure relatively to Provisional Ordei"s ; suggestion that in the latter case the [jromotei-s should i)ay a fair share of the expenses now borne Ijy the CTOvernment Depart- ment in holding the local inquiry, 2283-2287. * Satisfactory local inquiry, ujj to a certain extent, in the ease of light railways, though very costly in some instances, 2288, 2289 Conclusion as regards tramways that if the local authorities are still to have the right of veto they should exercise it as soon as possible, and should state their reasons fully, 2293-2297. 2332, 2.333. Entire approval of the date for the dejjosit of jjetitions in the House of Commons being the 17th December, as in the House of Lords, 2298-3001 Suggestions with , a view to accelerating the sitting of Committees, as by an earlier de])osit of Bills by a re-arrange- ment as regards petitions, and by the Court of Examinei's sitting earJier than the IBth January, 2302-2313 Contemplated postponement of the Wharndifi'e Meeting till some date after the second reading, 2314-2316. Local Authorities. Conclusion as to the pressure of work u])on Membere of the House of Commons being largely due to the great and increasing numbei-s of Amendment Bills promoted by local authorities in order to bring jjublic legislation uj) to date ; illus- trations in the case of the Public Health Act, and of tramways, electric lighting, &c., aray 1987. 2065. 2108. 2110. See also Provisional Orders LOCAL GO VERNMENT BOA RD : Total of 2,')'20 Provisional Orders issued by the Board since 1872, in resjiect of which 498 Confirmation Bills have Ijeen ])assed, whilst only twenty-three such Orders have been absolutely rejected, Boyce 1497-1502 Immense amount of work in connection with Provisional Orders and Confirmation Bills, so that even if the former were exjiedited by a month it would be very difficult to get the Bills in much earlier, ih. 1518, 1519 Several different branch departmenis of the Local (xo^ernment Board responsible for the examination of the application for Provisional Orders, ih. 1531, 1532. Immense mass Of work devolving upon the Department of \\itness's Board which deals with Private Bills and Provisional Orders ; trained officials required for the work, Boyce 1575-1580 Explanation that every Bill is now dejjosited with the Board is perused, though in many cases no rejjort is necessary ; deposit also with other (iovernment Depart- ments, ih. 1580-1582. 1594, 1595 Consideration of siiggestion for an early ascertain- ment of the number of ojjposed and unojjposed Bills, resJ)ecti^•ely, ^^ith a view to earlier Reports in the latter case so that Committees might get sooiier to ^^•ork, ih. 1589-1602. Explanation that the earliest possible dates are fixed by the Local Government Board for applications for Provisional Orders, Boyce 1915 Statement as to the much wider range of matters dealt with in the Reports of witness's Board tlian in those of the Home Office and as to the much larger trained staff required in the former case, so that it is impossible to issue the Rej^orts earlier than at present, ih. 1915-1922. Memorandum in regard to the work of the Local Government Board in the examina- tion of and reporting upon Private Bills in the Sessions 1900-1902, inclusive ; proportion reported upon by the end of each month till 31st May, Boyce 1922-1927 Uncertainty and delay through the Board not having any indication as to the order in which the Bills will te taken by the Committees, as those no^\" reported ujjon at an early date may not go before the Committees till later on ; consideration of difficulties hereon, ih. 1928-1933. 1940-1943 Illustrations of the pressure upon the Department in preparing the numerous Reports requii-ed ; question hereon of an increased staff, ih. 1939, 1940. Suggestion that the powers of the Local Government Board should be extended so as to include in any Order all the powei-s which they might give under the Public Health Act, Baker 1783-1827 Comment on tlie practice of the Local Government Board frequently disregarding the reports of their own inspectors ; these reports and those of the Departments should always Ix* tefore the Committees as soon as possible, Sir R. Littler 2262, 2263. Difficulty as regards a selection of opposed Bills for earlier i-eport upon bj' the Local Government Board ; facility in this connection if the Pai'lianientary Agents could discuss the matter with the House officials at the teginning of the Session, Gray 1965-1967 Pressure upon Private Bill Committees owing to the delay in the issue of the Reports of the Local Government Board, witness Ijelieving that this Department is very under- manned and that the staff are severely overworked, ih. 1987, 1988. Memorandum submitted by Mr. Boyce containing information in detail respecting the several Acts and the subjects dealt with in the case of Provisional Orders issued by the Local Government Board, App. 183-189. See also Provisional Orders. Loca 218 L O C LOW Report, 1902 — continued. Local Inquiries (Provisional Orders). Objection to Members of the House teing required to sit on local inquiries, witness suggesting that these inquiries should be conducted by the local county councils with an appeal to Parliament, Millar 763-767. 798-832 — — Costly and unsatisfactory character of many of the local inciuii-ies in rro\-isioiial (")rder cases, Sir R. Littler 2262. 2286, 2287 Considerable ex]ieiise hi connection with local inquiries, Pember 2465, 2466. See also Provisional Orders. Local Loons. Statement as to the views of Tx)rd Morlej- and Mr. Alljert Cray as regards the ]jeriod for the rejiayment of local loajis not Ijeing ah\ays adopted by the officials in the House of Commons, Leigh 22()-230. Lociis Standi. Question considered as to certain mandatory |)0\\ei-s in regard to locua. &.C., l)eing given by Standing Orders of the House of Conniions ; ]:ireference for the ])roce(lure in the House of Lords as regards locus, (iray 2045-2052. See also Court of Referees. Lowther, The Right Honourable .laines William. (Meml^er of the House). (Digest of his Evidence.) — Result of exjjerience, so far, that the new rules under the resolution of 1st May, 1902, as regards Pri\'ate Bills being set down for nine o'clock have diminished dis- cussion and been conducive to economy of the public time, 3 Necessity for an earlier deposit of Bills than on the 21st Deceniter if they are to be read earlier in the vSession for discussion by Committees, 4 Great mass of wprk devolving u])on the officers of the two Houses in examining the Bills and in dividing them l)etween the two Houses, whilst they cannot well tegin uix)n them tjefore the 1st January, 4. Conclusion that if the Bills were deposited in the middle of November or by the 21st the work upon them could be accomplished by Christmas, and they could go forward in the usual course when Parliament met ; great convenience to Membei-s thereby, 4. 10 111-115. 161. 168 Summary of difficulties in the wa.y of deposit by 21st Novemjjer ; ]-eference especially to the requirement as to the deposit of every Bill in the Local (JJovern- ment office, to Ije. rejiorted upon if necessary, 5-9. 116-120 (grounds for the opinion that unless a Bill contains some new and definite jjrincijjle it should not lje discussed on the second reading, but that the House should have all the questions and the minutes of evidence tefore it on the third reading in giving their decision ; saving of time thereby, 11-19. 28-32. 49, 50. 161-165 Reference to the discussions upon second readings as conducted mainly u])on ex parte statements, 11. 19 Suggestion that the Standing Orders Connnittee might decide as to the Bills not to be discussed on second i-eading. 11, 12. Instances of great delay Ijefore the date foi- second i-eading, so that there is in such cases no chance of the Bill getting through dvu-ing the Session, 15-17 Details as to the increasing amount of time devoted by the House to private business during the last ten years, 17, 18 Satisfaction given on the whole by the decisions of the Committee, 20. Circumstances under which Bills Ijecome unopposed and are referretl to the Unoi)posed Bill Committee, which consists of witness. Mi-, ('handos Ijcigh, and one other Memljer ; how the latter is selected, 21-24 Statement of the ])rocedure when a Bill comes Ijefore the Unopposed Bill Committee ; careful consideration given l)y itr. ("handos T.ieigh to the reports of the Government Departments on each Bill, witness also devoting to the work as nmch time as he can si)are, 25-28. Reasons against making Private Bill legislation chea]) and easy ; encouragement thereby to speculati\e ]3romotei-s, 33, 34 Advantage if there were a Standing Order to the efi'ect that jjowers should not l)e sought by Private Bill which can Ije obtained by Provisional Order or by api)lication to a Ciovernment DejDartment, 34, 35 Sug- gestion as regards English Pi-ivate Bills that it might Ije well to adopt the same ])rocedure as under the Scotch Pi-ivate Bill Act of 1901), whereby the House has been relieved of much work ; difficulty, however, as regards counsel if the inquiries were local, 35-38. Opinion that on the whole it would Ije an improvement if Bills were referi-ed to a Joint Committee of both Houses, a double hearing being seldom necessary, 39, 40. 150-158 Different system in the two Houses as regards the application of the fees, 41 Grounds for the conclusion that some limit should te applied to the moving of instruc- tions upon Private Bills, as by applying the same rules which ajjply in the case of Public Bills ; suggested control in the Speaker, 42-46. Explanations in connection with proposal that a time limit should Ije fixed by the Standing Orders Committee, after which Private Bills should not be read a second time, 47-50 Approval of the continuance of the Court of Referees as at jDresent constituted, 51. 171 Non-objection to only four- days instead of eight l:)eing allowed to promotei-s for giving notice of objection to anj^ jietition against a Bill, 51-54 Very little dis cussion LOW MEL 219 Report, 1902 — continued. Lmvther, The Right Hmumnihle James WiUiam. (Member of the House) (Digest of his Evidence) — continusd. eussion on second readiiiga in the House of Lords, 55 Explanation as to the action of witness and the time at his disj)osal in connection with discussions on second reading, 5(5-62. Suggestions as regards i-e-conunittai and the amendment or striking out of clauses' if not discussed on Second Reading, (5.S-()7 Non-ohjection in the case of unop])Osed Bills which originate in the House of T/)rds to certain jn'oposals respecting the constitu- tion of the C'ommittee, ()H-71 Further explanations respecting the jjrocedure in connection with unopjjosed Bills in both Houses, and the action, respectively, of Ijord Morley and witness, 72-84. Occasional rush of Prix'ate Bill business, the strain ui)on the Chairman of Ways and Means being sometimes very gi-eat ; valuable assistance a^'ailable through the Deputy Chairman. 85-89 Apjjroval of an extension of Provisional Ordei-s as a means of dealing with the smaller questions, now dealt with by Private Bill, 90-95 Advantage of some code or record of decisions for the guidance of the Chairman of Committees so as to secure uniformity, 9()-98. (irounds foi- a])jn'Oving of four rather than fi\'e meml)ers on a Joint Committee of Ixjth Houses for dealing with opposed Bills, 99-101 UiflSculty and delay apprehended as to the day to be ]iut down by witness for the second reading of an opposed Bill ; Stand- ing Order against Priday. 102-105. 181-183 (,'oncurrence in the view that un- imijortant matters should Ix" dealt with locally by Provisional Order instead of by Private Bill ; check desirable as regards the jjowera sought foi' in Corporation Improvement Bills, 106-108. ] loubt as to the expediency of a right of ap|)eal from the decision of a Joint Committee ; reference hereon to the question of a re-hearing, 109, 110. 176-180 Advantage if in connection with an earlier deposijt of Bills there were an earlier deposit of petitions,. 116-120. 169, 170. Appi-oval of increased facilities of action on the part of the ('ourt of Referees, in deciding (piestions, 125-134 Opinion favourable to the CJourt of Referees teing empowered to award costs, 135-139 Expediency also of the Committees having increased powers. as to costs, 137, 138. 187-189. Further evidence in elucidation of the views of witness in fa\'our of an extension of the Provisional Order system, 140-149 Advantage if the (Chairmen of Committees in Ixjth Houses could meet together Ijefore the meeting of Parliament in order to deal with the mass of Private Bills, so as to expedite the subsequent work in the two Houses, 166-168.. Question considered whether, under certain conditions, the locus standi Court in the House of Connnons might not l)e dis])ensed with. 171-175 Objection to the question whether there should be discussion on Second Readings being referred to a Standing- Conunittee to te ai3])ointed by the Grand Committee on Trade or on Law, 184-186. Statement handed in showing for the years 1891-1901 the numljer of Bills unopjjosed and referred to the Chairman of Wavs and Means ; also, the numljer of Provisional Orders in each year, 189. M. Mellor. The Right Honourable John W. (Memljer of the House). (Digest of his Evidence.) — Considerable experience of witness in connection with Private Bills, he having been Chair- man of the Committee of Ways and Means, 717. Oijinion that Bills might Ije dejiosited earlier with advantage, 718, 719 Grounds^ for the view that discussion on Bills should be limited to the Third Reading in each House ;. admitted hardship in exceptional cases, 720-729. 751-754 — —Advocacy of inquiry by a Joint Committee of }x)th Houses, in lieu of inquiry by two separate Committees ; im- portant saving of expense and of the time of members by this change, 724, 725. 752-754. Suggestion as to opponents Ijeing allowed in some cases to appear in jjeraon before Com- mittees, there being some relaxation of the rules of locus standi for this purpose, 729-732 Statement as to the exjiediency of some further check than at present upon the passing^ (jf unopposed Bills ; suggested supervision through an official of the Home Office or of the Local Government Board, witness advocating an amended tribunal in lieu of the present Unopijosed Bill Committee, 732-741. 773-785, 839-841. Representation as to the Chairman of Ways and Means having a gi-eat deal too much to do, it Ijeing exi)edient to ajj])oint a Deputy Chairman with i-eference to Private Bilf business, who should be a salaried officer, 738-745, 768-772 Concurrence in sugges- tion as to consents in the case of Tramwav Bills being obtained before the Bills are deposited, 746-750 Probabilitv 220 MEL. M N Report, 1902 — continued. Mellor, The Right Honourable John W. (Member of the House). (Digest of his Evidence) — cont in ued. Probability of some undue impetus to Private Bills if the costs or fees were much reduced ; reduction desirable in the case of poor opponents, 755, 756 Entire approval of an extension of the system of Provisional Ordei-s and of local inquiries ; economy thereby, some provision jjeing desirable as regards Counsel's fees, local counsel being generaUy available, 757-763. 845-849. 852-861 Objection to Members of the House being i-equired to sit on local inquiries, witness suggesting that these inquiries should be con- ducted by the local County Councils, with an appeal to Parliament, 763-767. 798-832. Advantage of a strong Committee under the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, this tody toing entrusted with the duties now discharged by the Standing Orders Com- mittee and with questions of locus standi, 770-785 Very useful duties discharged by the Counsel to the Speaker, 775-779 Conditions under which a re-hearing might be allowed under the system of a Joint Committee, 786, 787. Approval of a CTU-tailment of the period within which jietitions in opposition to Bills may to presented, 788-791 Great advantage if Committees could sit much earlier after the meeting of Parliament than they now do, 792-795 Concurrence in proposal that a date should be fixed after which Second Readings should not to taken, save under -special conditions, 796, 797 Evidence in re])ly to exceptions taken as regards the constitution of the local tribunal suggested by witness for holding the inquiry in Pro- visional Order cases, a right of appeal to the House toing given, 800-832. Dissatisfaction with regard to the Second Reading procedure, witness further advocating a strong Joint (^ommittee as obviating much litigation and expense, 833-838 Ex- pediency of the public generally having increased facilities of appearing in opposition when Private Bills are under consideration, 839-844 Contemplated transfer to a Joint Committee of the duties of the Court of Referees, the latter being, however, a very good Court, 850, 851. Approval of a strong Joint Committee for dealing with all unopposed Bills, irrespective of the question of o]3]josed Bills ; suggestions as to the constitution and action of the Com- mittee with reference to the large amount of work to l)e got through, 862-879 Opinion adverse to the examination of witnesses on oath before Committees of the House of Com- mons, 880, 881. [Second Examination.] — Explanation as to the extent to which the present Speaker and the late Speaker have consulted the Sjieaker's Counsel ujiou Private Bill business, 984 Grounds for the suggestion that a Standing Order should be passed prohibiting any alteration of a jjublic Statute by a Private Bill ; reference hereon to the very insufficient index to Private Acts, 985-1000. Minutes of Proceedings. Great convenience to jjarties if a cojiy of the Minutes of Proceedings tofore each Committee were, when ])rinted, dej)osited in each House, Baker 1907-1909 Miscellaneous Bills. Examination l^y witness (as Referee) of " Miscellaneous " Bills, more especially, Bonham-Carter 1107, 1108. Money Deposit. Recommendation that the date for the deposit of money under Standing Order 57 be altered to 9th January, Rep. vi. Monro, R. W. (Digest of his Evidence.) — As Taxing Officer of Private Bill costs in the House of Lords, witness ex])lains that the difference in the aggregate amount of Private Bill fees is very small as bet\yeen the two Houses of Parliament ; average of atout 35,000/. a year in the House of Lords for the last ten years, 1001-1004. 1013-1016. 1058-1062 Approval generally of an assimilation of fees between the two Houses, though witness objects to the House of Commons fees being taken as the basis of a uniform scale, 1005- 1009 Inexpediency of the fees being much cheapened as tending to the undue pro- motion of Private Bill legislation, 1010. 1063. ^ Difficulty apprehended as regards attendance under the system of a Joint Committee of both Houses ; saving of ex])ense in respect of fees, 1011, 1012. 1017-1019 Grounds for suggesting some curtailment of the fees of junior counsel on Private Bills, there being much complaint on the subject, 1020-1029. 1048-1057 Fair and reasonable charges by the more experienced agents ; question as to room for reduction, 1030-1036. 1073-1083 Considerable increase in the charges for printing, witness having occasionally reduced them, 1034-1036. 1079-1081. Statement on the question of division of fees between the Parliamentary agents and the local town clerks in the case of the Bills of munici]ial corporations, 1037-1047 Views of witness as to the high fees on Second Readings in the House of Lords being a useful check upon speculation, though hardly so in the case of Bills promoted by local authorities, 1063-1072 Suggestions in favour of some extension of the Provisional Order uystem, in the case of piers and hartours ; saving of expense thereby, 1073-1075. 1084-1097. Morse M O R O 1* 1* 221 Report, 1902 — continued. Morse, Sydnc}/. Witness, who is a solicitor, has had considerable experience in connection with Electric and Tramways Bills, 2164-2166. Approval of 17th December as the date for the deposit of Bills, a fixed date Ijeing also named for petitions, 2167, 2168. 2185 Excessive number of notices which have to Ije served by the promoters of many Private Bills, witness strongly recommending the practicein the Cixse of Light Railways, there teing no notice to frontager and advertisement expenses beuig limited, 2169-2173. 2193 Suggestion that before any opposition on second reading, Bills should be considered by some Committee or tribunal, who should decide whether there was gromid for opposition, 2176-2178 Advantage of the reasons for opposition being fully stated beforehand, 2179-2182. Opinion that Committees might sit earlier in the Session and for longer houi-s each day \ undue expense at present, 2183-2185. 2189-2192 Expediency of Tramway Bills teing dealt with by the Board of Trade, and not by the Local Government Board, 2186- 2189 Simplification and economy under a system of Provisional Ordera and local inquiries, as compared with the Committee S3-8tem, 2192-2201. 2219, 2220 Want of a new Light Railway Act, and of an extension of the local inquiry system, 2197-2201. Expediency of a reduction of the House fees, which now jjress very heavily on ])romotei-8, 2202-2206 Great improvement feasible as regards the grouping of Bills ; suggestions hereon, 2206, 2207 Proposed simplification of procedure in connection with second reading ; sufficiency if the proof of the Wharncliffe meeting went befoi'e the Committee, 2208-2210 Advantages attached to the Court of Referees, 2211. Concurrence in certain evidence of Mr. Grey on the subject of municipal consent in connection with tramway undertakings under Standing Order 22 ; opinion that all Bills in this class should go on tiieir merits before the Committee, 2212-2218 -Con- clusion that in the case of many Bills, besides Provisional Order Bills, there is no necessity for their going laefore Committees in lx)th Houses, 2221-2223. Mnnicipal Corporations Association. E.xplanations and suggestions in detail on behalf of the Association in respect of Private Bill procedure and legislation, App. 179, 180. N. Notices. Non-objection to onh' four days instead of eight being allowed to promoters for giving notice of objection to any petition against a Bill, Lowther 51-54- -Proposal as regards the Court of Referees for shortening the period of eight daj^s for notices of objec- tion, Leigh 211-214. Excessive numljer of notices which have to Ije served by the promotei-s of many Pri^'ate Bills, witness strongly recommending the practice in tfie case of Light Railways, there Ijeing no notice to frontagers and advertisement expenses being lunited, Morse 2169- 2173. 2193. Provisions in the Standing Orders as to the publication of notices in the " Gazette " and in local newspajiers not later than 27th November, Rep. iii. See also Parliamentary Notices. 0. Officials (Houses of Parliament). Great mass of work devolving upon the officers of the two Houses in examining the Bills, and in dividing them between the two Houses, whilst they cannot well begin upon them before the 1st January, Lowther 4 Ver\- full criticism to which Private Bills are subjected by officials in lx)th Houses, Leigh 248, 249. Opposition to Bills. Suggestion as to opponents being allowed in some cases to appear in person before Committees, there being some relaxation of the rules of locus standi for this • purpose, Millar 729-732 Exjiediencj^ of the public generally, having increased facilities of appearing in opposition when Private Bills are under consideration, ib. 839-844. Present ])ractice as fjetween promoters and opponents in the settlement of questions, so as to remove opposition, Beale 2141 Suggestion that when notice is given of oppo- sition to the second reading of a Private Bill the grounds of objection should Ije stated, ib. 2143-2147. vSuggestion that before any opposition on second reading, Bills should be considered by some committee or tribunal, who should decide whether there was ground for opposition, Morse 2176-2178 -Advantage of the reasons for opposition Ijeing fully stated befoi-e- hand, i&. 2179-2182. , See also Court of Referees. Petitions. 0.2.3. H H Farllamentai'y 222 P A E PET Report, 1902 — continued. P. Parliamentary Agents. Explanatory statement as to the constitution and the rules of the Parliamentary Agents' Society, Pritt G00-G07 Fair and reasonable charges by the more experienced agents ; question as to the room for reduction, Monro 1030-1036. 1073-1083. Parliamentary Notices. Considerable expense entailed by the Parliamentary notices in the " Gazette " ; room for some reduction, Pritt 612-618 Views of agents as to the difficulties in the way of earlier publication of the notices in the " Gazette," Bonham- Cnrter 1100-1106. 1147-1154 -Considerable expense in respect of Parliamentary notices for Bills as involving large expenditure for printing and advertising ; suggested curtailment, Brevitt 1215-1217. 1273-1277. Conclusion of the Committee in favour of a shorter form of notice, Rep. vii. Pemher, Edward Henry, c.b. (Digest of his Evidence.)— Grounds for objecting to the abolition of the Court of Referees without careful consideration beforehand, witness sub- mitting that the cost incurred in order to obtain the refusal of a locus saves much expense otherwise in counsel's fees, 2415-2428 Explanations in connection with the satis- factory action of Committees in the House of T.iOrds without any special Court for dealing with locus standi questions, 2420-2428. Examination as to the very large amount of the fees of the two Houses, witness protesting against the defrayment of the annual expenses of St. Stephen's from this source, 2429- 2445. 2457-2460 Reason for objecting to power in the Referees to award costs, 2446 2447. Evidence respecting sudden withdrawals of Bills and Petitions, showing the heavy expenses sometimes incurred by suitoi-s in this connection ; suggested amendment of Standing Order on this point so that costs might be given in special cases of undue delay before withdrawal, 2447-2451. I Decided objection as regards Provisional Ordere to the non-production before the Com- mittee of the I'eport of the inspector who holds the local inquiry ; expediency of a right to cross-examine the inspector, 2451-2454 Testimony to the efficiency of Joint Com- mittees, witness advocating their extension, 2455, 2456 Heavy incidence of the House fees in small cases more especially, 2457-2466 Considerable expense in connection with local inqiiiries, 2465, 2466. PETITIONS {DEPOSIT, &c.) : Advantage if in connection with an earlier disposal of Bills there were an -earlier deposit of petitions, Lowther 116-128. 169, 170 Concurrence in suggestion that all petitions should be deposited at a fixed date which should be independent of first reading, on early intimation being given as to what Bills are opposed, fjeigh 277-280. 290-292. Views of witness as to it being quite feasible to arrange for Committees getting to work on the Bills at an earlier period than at present ; suggestion hereon for the lodging of petitions by a fixed date (such as the 12tli February) wholly irrespective of the sitting of Parliament, Pritt 424-428. 494-499. 561-570 Approach of a petition against a Private Bill taking the form of a petition to Parliament, ib. 508-511— ^Examination with further reference to the obstacles to any ante-dating of the notices and other pre- liminary proceedings, in order that petitions may be deposited a month or a fortnight ■earlier than at present, ib. 619-629. Approach of a curtailment of the period within which petitions in opposition to Bills may be presented, Mellor 788-791 Grounds for the recommendation that there should be an earlier deposit of petitions, and that the date should be fixed, the time proposed for deposit being the ten days ending 10th February, Bonham-Carter 1100-1110. 1119. 1125. 1161-1168. 1203. Examination as to the reasons for witness' conclusion that it would be very inconvenient to town clerks to shorten the period between the 27th November, when the notices must be given, and the 21st of December, when petitions must be lodged ; approval of the latter date being altered to the 17th of December, Brevitt 1278-1293 Approach of a fixed period between the date of lodging petitions in favour of Bills and the date of petitions in opposition, ib. 1294, 1295. Concurrence in certain suggestions for securing an earlier sitting of Private Bill Com- mittees, as by an earlier deposit of petitions, Smith 1488-1495 Approach on the whole of the date of deposit of petitions against Bills being on a fixed day, such as the 10th or 12th February, Baker 1807-1809. 1880-1899 Saving of time of opposed Bills Com- mittees if the promoters were required to lodge answers to the petitions deposited against the Bills, ib. 1810 Approach of some further discretion in Committees as regards amendment of allegations in petitions, ib. 1904-1906. Great PET P R I 223 Report, 1902 — continued. PETITIONS {DEPOSIT, . 521-530. 556, 557. Grounds for strongly objecting to the system of a Joint Committee for dealing with Private Bills in lieu of their being referred to a separate Committee in each House, 441-449. 531-538 Approval of a Joint Committee for dealing with Bills for the confirmatif)ii •of Provisional Ordei*s, 448, 449 Power of Parliament to refer any specially important Bill to a Joint Committee, 449. Exception taken to some statements as to the very small cost of Provisional Ordei"s as •<-ompared with Private Bills; admitted advantages of the Provisional Order system in ^!^■veral cases, 450-458. 539-547 558-560 Consideration of the scale of fees in the two Houses, with suggestions as to the class of cases in which some modification might take place ; expedience of assimilation between the two Houses on certain points, 459- 4(56. 500, 501. 559. G30-632 Statement on the question of assimilation as regards the swearing of mtnesses on unoj^posed Bills, this practice not Ijeing adopted by Com- mittees of the House of Commons, 467-482. Suggestion as to Bills teing read a first time on presentation of the petitions, 484 (irounds for objecting to anj^ abbreviation of the time allowed for objecting to lomx standi; exception taken to the practice of the Court of Referees as to Bills not being put down on locus standi until after second reading, 485-489 Expediency of some restriction if the Court of Referees be empowered to award costs ; suggestions hereon, 491, 492. 571-582 Circumstances under whieli it is necessary for lofal promotei-s to proceed by Private Bill instead of b}- Provisional Order ; objection to any restriction by Standing Order as to procedure by Bill, 502-507— Suggestions as t') the division of Bills between the two Houses being accelerated, 508. 520, Approval of a petition against a Private Bill taking the form of a petition to Parlia- ment, 508-511 Suggestion that Bills might be divided between the two Houses by the counsel of the Lord Chairman and the counsel of the Chairmen of Ways and Means, 508. 040 Ojjinion that in the case of unopposed Bills one inquiry, by a Joint committee, would, as a general rule, be quite sufficient, 512-517— — Satisfaction given by tlie present •constitution of House of Commons' Committees, comprising four Members, 518, 519. Hardship at times in proniotei"s not having a right of reply when counsel for a petitioner does not call witnesses ; amendment required on this point, 583-590 Approval of Unopposed ^ill Committees acting as a Board of Conciliation in certain cases if both parties agree tliereto, 591-599. Explanatory statement as to the constitution and the rules of the Parliamentary Agents Society, 600-607 Arrangement in some instances as to division of costs between local town clerks and Parliamentary agents in London, 608-611 Considerable expense entailed by the Parliamentary notices in the " Gazette " ; room for some reduction, ■612-618. Examination -with further reference to the obstacles to any ante-dating of the notices and other preliminary j^roceedings in order that petitions may be deposited a month oi- a fortnight earlier than at present, 619-629^ — —Approval, as regards Provisional Orders, of a system of a Joint Committee for dealing with questions which have already been the subject of local inquiry ; approval also of power in the Committee as to costs, 633-639. . Private Bill Offices. Approval of the deposit of Bills and of petitions being in one Private Bill Office for the two Houses, Gray 2007, 2008, ( Views of the Committee as to the expediency and economy of an amalgamation of the Private Bill Offices of the two Houses, Rep. vii Proposed appointment of a Joint Com- mittee on the foregoing question, ib. .Private Petitioners. Hard ]3ressure of the House fees upon private petitioners as well as upon local authorities, Baker 1900-1903. Proceedings •\ PltO \ PKO 225 Report, 1 {)02\-i'iiidinu€d. I'roceedings of tlie Committee. Rep. xi et scq. PROVISIONAL ORDERS AND CONFIRMATION BILLS: Advantage if there w.^re a, Standing Order to the effect that poAvers should not lie sought by Private Bill whic^h can be oljtained liy Pro\isional Order or by application to a Oovernnient Department ; suggestions hereon, Lowther 34, 35. 140-149. Concurrence in the \iew that unimportant matters should be dealt with locally by Pro- •N'isional Order, instead of Ijy Private Bill ; check desirable as regards the powers sought for iin Corporation Improvement Bills, ib. 90-9."). lOG-108. Inability of obtaining Provisional Ordei-s in respect of compulsory water rights ; ■cases in which comjjulsory ])ower to take land may be obtained by Provisional Order, Leigh 236-238 Instances of jiarties jDroceeding by Bill instead of by I'rox-isional Order, in the expectation of getting more from Parliament than from a Goxermnent Depart- ment, ib, 247. Circumstances under wliich it is necessary f(jr loctil promoters to proceed by PH^^ate Bill, instead of by Provisional Order ; oljjection to any restriction by Standing Ordei- as to procedure by I3ill, Pi-itt 5()2-.")(J7 Evidence in reply to exceptions taken as regards ■tlie constitution of the local tribunal, suggested i)y witness for holding the inquiry in i'rovisional Order cases, a right of a])peal to the House being given, Millar 800-832 ^Statement upon the question of an extension of the svstem of Provisional Orders, Bonham- •Carter 1136. Oonsidei-ation of suggestions in lleport of the Municipal Corporations Association, for an amendment of the }jresent system and i)rocedure in the case of Private Bills and I'rovisional Oixlei's, res])ectively, Brecett 1214 et seq. Conclusion that the system of Provisional Orders would be much more used if the Statutory provisions relating to them wei-e extended; suggestions hereon, ih. 1219-1224. 1228-1234 Considerations with further reference to the advantages of tiie Provisional Order system, and the procedure to be adopted in connection therewith, there Ixung Init one inquiry by Parliament in addition tto the local inquir}', ib. 1.303-133.3. Tery slight opposition to Pro\isional ()rders as a rule, Boi/ce 1498-1500. 1505 'Summary of causes which militate against a much larger use of Provisional Oi-ders, they being much less ex])ensive than Private Bills, ib. 1.")05-1507 Ver}'' large number of Ordei-s applied for by local authorities in 'the last three Sessions; statistics hereon, ib. 1509 Consideration of (he question of an earlier dejjosit of applications for Provisional Orders, witness suggesting means l)y A\-hich the time might lie one month earlier than the 21st December, ib. 1510-1518. \J Explanation of the ])rocedure in connection with Confirmation Bills ; opinion that the time (ten days) for petitioning after first reading might Ije curtailed, and that the inter- val of six days tetween the second i-eading and the Committee stage might also te lessened, /ioyce 1533-1538, 1604 Cirounds for the conclusion that many Provisional Orders, entailing Confirmation Bills need not be brought before Parliament at all, and that the Local (Government Board could deal perfectly well M'ith the ojjjects to be attained ; illustration in the case of Orders for uniting districts, ib. 1539-1540 Statement as regards petitions being presented against particular orders in a Confirmation Bill, but not against the whole Bill ; difficulty in the case of the House of T/)rds, the Standing Ordere of the House of •CJommons Ijeing all right, i&. 1549-1553. \J Suggestion that Confirmation Bills might all l)egin in the Lower House ; practice of witness always to begin his Bills in the House of Commons, Boyce 1553, 1554 Opinion that most things that now require a Private Bill might Ije done Ijy Provisional Order ; legislation required in order to effect this change, ib. 1555, 1556 — — Suggested alteration •of Standing Order 193a. as to the date for the fii-st reading of Confirmation Bills, in the House of Commons, ib. 1939. Approach of Provisional Orders going Ijefore a Joint Committee, suljject to certain modifications in the procedure ; reference hereon to the question of fees and their excess in some cases where the Orders are opposed, Bakei- 1817, 1818 Objections to extended jjowers being given by Provisional Orders for the purchase of gas undertakings and for other matters ; waj-s in which increased expense would result except in unopposed cases ib. 1827-1855. 1874-1879. Groimds upon which promoters frequently prefer to proceed by Private Bill instead of by Provisional Order, witness approving of an extension of the latter system, Grai/ 2024-2027. 2036-2044. 2064 Difiiculty in connection with Provisional Ordei^ through the Department not having comjiulsory jjowers ; suggestions hereon, ib. 2036- 2044— —Advantage of more latitude as to the su))jects dealt with by Provisional Order, Beale 2152 Simphfication and economy under a system of Provisional Orders and local inquiries, as compared with the Committee system, Morse 2192-2201. 2219, 2220. Objections 226 P R O SEC Report, 1902 — continued. PROVISIONAL ORDERS AND CONFIRMATION BILLS-contmued. Objections to any great extension of the system of Provisional Orders ; great blot on the system in the ratepayere having no control over the local authorities in their pro- motion of such Orders, Sir R. Littler 2242. 2257-2261. 2290-2292. 2329-2331 Approval of Provisional Orders in small matters, chiefly on the score of the expense of Bills in such cases, ih. 2258-2261 Decided objection as regards Provisional Orders to the non-production before the Committee of the report of the inspector who holds the local inquiry ; expediencv of a right to cross-examine the inspector, Pemher 2451- 2454 Eeturn respecting the Confirmation Bills in each of the years 1898 to 1901 ; total number of Orders confirmed, opposed, and unopposed, App. Conflict of opinion before the Committee on the question of an extension of the Pro- visional Order system, Rep. vi. See also Joint Committee. Local Government Board. Local htquiries. Pvblic Health Act. Views of the Municipal Corporations Association as to the piocedure in connection with Provisional Orders and as to the facility of proceeding under the Public Health Act as compared with the Scotch Act, Brevitt 1222-1224. 1247-1256 Explanation in connection with proposal for an amended Public Health Act embodying many provisions already adopted by municipalities as a means of obviating the necessit}' of much local legislation in the form of Private Bills or Provisional Orders, ib. 1300- 1302 1310-1312. Grounds for the suggestion that there should be an enabhng power under the Public Health Act for a local authority to get a Provisional Order from the Local Government Board or from the Board of Trade, Boyce 1506-1508 Considerable proportion of Orders dealing with compulsoiy purchase under the PubHc Health Act, ib. 1509 Expediency of the Public Health Act being amended and brought up to date, enlarged powers being given to local authorities, so that the work of Parliament might be cur- tailed, ift. 1605-1611— — Lighter work of Committees of the Public Health Acts and other Acts were brought up to date, Troup 2380-2384. Conclusion of the Committee that if the general public health legislation of England and Wales were brought up to date the necessity for many of the Bills now promoted by local authorities would be removed. Rep. vii. Railwai/ Bills. Doubt as to the extent to which Eailway Bills might be earlier reported upon by witness' Board, Boyce 1582-1586 Opinion as to the moderate amount of the House fees in the case of Railway Bills, Beale 2149-2151. Resolution of 1st May, 1902. Results of experience, so far, that the new rules under the Resolution of 1st May, 1902, as regards Private Bills being set down for nine o'clock have diminished discussion and teen conducive to economy of the public time, Lowther 3 Limited extent to which the conduct of Private Bills in the House of Commons is affected bv the Resolution of Mav 1st last as regards evening sittings at nine o'clock, Pritt 418, 419. Road Bills. Recommendation that Standing Order 110 should be omitted as obsolete, and that Standing Order 208a te amended so as to admit of the unopposed Orders in a Pro- visional Order Bill proceeding although others are opposed, Rep. ix. S. Scotch Bills. Suggestion as i-egards English Private Bills, that it might be well to adopt the same procedure as under the Scotch Private Bill Act of 1900, whereby the House has been relieved of much work ; difficulty, however, as regards counsel if the inquiries were local, Lowther 35-38 Suggestion as regards Departmental Reports upon Scotch Bills, Smith 1408, 1409. Tabular statement submitted by Sir E. Chandos Leigh containing sundiy details in connection with the Scotch procedure in Provisional Order cases, App. 167. SECOND READING: Explanations in connection with proposal that a time limit should by fixed by the Stand- ing Orders Committee, after which private Bills should not be read a second time, Lowther 47-50 Suggestions as regards re-committal and the amendment or strikiuo- out of clauses SEC SMI 227 Report, 1902 — continued. SECOND READING -contimxeA. clauses, if not discussed on second reading, Lowther (i'3-67 Difficulty and delay appre- hended iis to the day to be put down by witness for the second reading of an opposed Bill ; Standing Order against Friday, ib. 102-105. 181-183. Statement as to the action of Lord Morley in stopping second readings in the House of Lords, this course not being feasible in the other House, Leigh 214-217 Explanations in connection with paper showing for the years 1886-1901 the number of Bills opposed on second reading in the House of Commons, and the numter as to which notices of instruc- tion were given ; very small proportion of successful opjjositions, ib. 218-220 Question whether delay might not be prevented by fixing a date after which second reading should not "take place ; reference to Mr. Pritt hereon, ih. 397-400. Expected avoidance of some delay if it were obligatory that the second reading in the House of Commons should take place within a certain date after the first reading, Pritt 429-432 Concurrence in proposal that a date should be fixed after which second readings should not te taken, save under special conditions, Mellor 796, 797 Dis- satisfaction with regard to the second reading procedure, witness further advocating a strong Joint Committee as obviating much litigation and expense, ib. 833-838. Recommended adoption b}" the House of Commons of Sfainding Order 91 of the House of Lords, which provides that the second reading of certain Bills must take place within fourteen days after the report of the Examiner or of the Standing Orders Conunittee ; avoidance of delay thereby, Bonhain Carter, 1120-1122. 1125 'Suggestions on the subject of an appeal if a date be fixed after which no Bill that has been introduced can te read a second time, Brevitt 1296-1299 Probability of the time of the House being wasted if the Court of Referees sat before the second reading of each Bill, unless the Court were empowered to disallow discussion at this stage, ib. 1368, 1369. 1435-1438. Probable advantage in fixing a date after which Bills should not Ise read a second tme in the House of Commons, Gray 2093-2095 Question considered whether a Bill should not go to the Committee irrespective of second reading, Beals 2136-2140 Improvement if the objections to second reading were referred to the decision of a Committee, such as the Standing Ordere Committee, ib. 2143 Suggestions as to a limit of the date after first reading before second reading, ib. 2154-2163 Proposed simplication of procedure in connection with second reading ; sufficiency of the jDroof of the Wharnclifife meeting went before the Committee, Morse 2208-2210. Return of the number of Bills dealt with on second hearing in Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, respectively, in each of the years 1896-1901 ; App. 168. 181. Provisions in different Standing Orders as regards second readings and the dates or intervals to be observed. Rep. iv. Reluctance of the Committee to recommend that the discussion of Private Bills in the House should be limited to one stage only, and that instructions should not be permitted ; limited time now occupied by such discussion. Rep. vii. viii. See also Debates in the House. Smith, James Parker (Member of the House). (Digest of his Evidence.) — Experience of witness for about ten years as a Member of the Court of Referees ; for some years he has taken the chair in the absence of the Chairman, 1339-1341. Explanation that under Standing Order 87 the Chairman of Ways and Means is the only member of the Court not appointed by the Speaker, none of the others being neces- sarily selected by him from the Members of the House, 1342-1344 Opinion that the great majority of the Court should necessai-ily be Members of the House (this being the present practice) ; advantage of the Speakers Coimsel being on the Court, 1345, 1346 Equal voting power of the two memtei-s of the Covu-t who are not in the House as of the other members, 1347-1349. Object of the Court to deal with all petitions relating to Private Bills, so as to relieve Committees of the House of the burden of this duty ; calculation that about half the petitions are thrown out by the Court, locus not being allowed, 1350-1355 Instances of hardship through the Court not having power to allow a locus in certain cases ; in- creased discretion under a new Standing Order of last Session, witness suggesting other alterations in this direction by amending Standing Orders 133 to 135 ; 1356-1365. 1414-1434. 1439 et seq. ., Readiness of the Coiirt of Referees to sit earlier, any obstacles thereto being on the part of agents and promotera, 1366-1368 Probability of the time of the House being wasted if the Court sat befoi-e the second reading of each Bill, unless the Court were empowered , to disallow discussion at this stage, 1368, 1369. 1435-1438 Grounds for the con- clusion 228 S M T T 11 A Report, 1002 — contiii aed. Smith, James Pm-ker (Member of the House). (Digest of his P^vidcnce) — continued. elusion that the Court miglit lie empowered to decide whether a debate should jje allowed! on the second or on the third reading ; suggestions for strengthening the Court if en- trusted with tills duty, 1370-1376. Proposal that the Chainnan of Ways and Means should te reliexed of some of his duties in connection with Private Bills, and that the Deputy Chairman should be a paid official and should be Chairman of the Court of Eeferees, 1373. 1377-1379 Suggested I'e- constitution and strengthening of the ( 'ommittee on unopposed Bills, witness proposing that either the Chairman or the Deput}- Chairman of Ways and Means should be Chaii- man of the Committee and that the Speaker's Counsel, instead of Ijeing a memljer of the Committee, should act as "devil's advocate," 1377-1396. 1405-1413. 1440-1444 Value attached to the re])orts of Government Departments on unopposed Bills ; expe- diency of the Bills being also gone through by the Speaker's Counsel. 1393. 1405-141 >7. Entire concurrence in the view that unopposed Bills might l)e dealt with by a Joint Committee of both Houses ; suggestions as to the constitution of such a Committee,. 1401-1404 Suggestion as regards Departmental Reports upon Scotch Bills, 140H.. 1409 Proposals in connection \^itli the class of cases to be treated as opposed Bills, 1410-1413. Exjilanations in further elucidation of witness' \iews as to the constitution and powei-s: of the Referees Court, the number of memljers, «S:c. ; improvement if the quorimi were five instead of three, 1439 et seq. ; 1439 ct se(f. Slight importance attached to a po'n-er- in the Court to give costs, 1445, 1446— — Grounds for objecting to only one Committee,, comprising the Committee on Unopposed Bills, the Court of Referees, and the Standing Orders Committee ; doubt as to any Siiving of delay thereby, 1482-1487 Concurrence- in certain suggestions for securing an earlier sitting of Private Bills Committees, as by an earlier deposit of petitions, 1488-1495. Speaker's Counsel. Very tiseful duties discharged by the Counsel to the Speaker, Mellor 775-779 Explanation as to the extent to which the present Speaker and the late Speaker have consulted the Speaker's Covmsel upon Private Bill business, Mellor 984. Total of aliout 236 Bills read by witness in the interval between their reception on 21st December last and the meeting of Parliament on 16th Januarv, Sir Chandos Leigh 192-196. Standing Orders. Statement as to the exceedingly small proportion of Bills Mhich aiv opposed and stopped on Standing Ordei-s, Campion 1689-1701 Opinion that Standing Order 143a should be repeated as regards opposition to clauses in one House in connection with the right to oppose on Preamble in the other House, Baker 1873. Memorandum submitted by Mr. Munro respecting the Standing Orders of the t>\o Houses relating to Private Bills, App. 195-197. Summary of the chief jjrovisions of the several Standing Orders which regulate the- course of Private Bill legislation in the House of Commons, Rep. iii, i\-. See also Fees. T. Taxation of Costs. Taxation by witness in all cases as between solicitor and client ; reference- hereon to the reason for Municipal Bills coming before witness. Campion 1743-1747. 1750, 1751. Town Clerks. Arrangement in some instances as to division of costs Ijetween local town clerks and Parliamentary agents in I^oiidon, Pritt 608-611 Statement on the question of division of fees between the Parliamentary agents and the local town clerks in the case- of the Bills of municipal corporations, Monro 1037-1047. Opinion that on the whole the charges of Parliamentary agents are reasonable ; ex- planations hereon a.s to the apportionment of costs between the agents and the to^\■n clerks, this question teing all a matter of arrangement under the terms of apportionment of the latter, Brevitt 1236-1243 Reference to the occasional practice in the case of small munic pal Bills of division of fees between town clerks and Parliamentary agents,, witness having no discretion in the matter. Campion 1738-1742. Tramway Bills, ('oncmrence in suggestion as to consents in the case of Tramway Bill-? loeing GDta-ned before the Bills are deposited, Mellor 746-750 Grounds for suggesting k discretionary power in the Court of Referees as regards locvs in the case of Tramway Bills and the opposition of frontagers, Smith 1414-1434. 1453 et seq. Evidenco TEA UNI 229 Report, 1902 — continued. Tramway Bills — continued. Evidence in considerable detail respecting Standing Order 22 which requires tlu- con- , sent of the local authority before a Tramway Bill can be introduced into the House; very unsatisfactory working of the disci'etionary powers exei-cised by local authorities in this matter, Gray 1968-1971. 2053-2003 Amendments required in connection with the consent of the local authority ; avoidance of mucli delay of Tramwaj' Bills if the consent were obtained on or before the 18th, when the Examiner begiiis his sittings, ih. 1971, 1972. 2063. Expediency of Tramway Bills teing dealt with by the Board of Trade and not by the Local Government Board, Morse :il8G-2189 Concurrence in certain evidence of Mr. Gray on the subject of munici])al consent in connection with tramway undertakings under Standing Order 22 ; opinitm that all Bills in this class should go on their merits before the Committee, i/j. 2212-2218. Grounds for strongly objecting lo the right of veto in local authorities, as under Standing •Order 22 in respect of tramways ; modification suggested. Sir R. Littler 2262 Conclu- sion as regards tramways that if the local authorities are still to have the right of veto, they should exercise it as soon as possible, and should state their reasons fully, ih. 2293- 1'297. 2332, 2333. (Joncliisions of the Committee as to the amendments desirable in connection with Stand- ing Orders 133a and 135 in respect of tramways, liej). vii. Troup, Charles Edward, C.B. {Digest of his Evidence.) — Witness, who is Principal Clerk in the Home OflSice, has had an extensive experience in connection with Private Bills which affect his Department, 2334-2336. Large number of Police and Sanitary Bills and other Bills examined in witness" bi'anch, the reports upon them being pressed through at considerable pressure so that the Com- mittees are never kept waiting for them, 2335-2342 Eeport by the Home Office on thirty-eight Bills in the present Session, whilst the Local Government Board have i-e- ported on 122 : much greater pressure on the latter Department, 2340-2342. Approval of Bills being deposited in the House of Commons on 17th December, or the ■same date as in the House of Lords, 2341-2344 Great advantage if Municipal Bills, more especially Police and Sanitary Bills, were deposited at a much earlier date than at present, witness submitting that the Bills should Ije got ready before the Munici])al -elections in November, 2345-2347. Want of continuity and occasional divergence of ruling through Police and Sanitary- Bills not going befoi"e the same Committee ; suggestions hereon for an amended constitu- tion of this Committee, or for the formation of two Committees, as well as for a limitation of the clauses in the Bills, 2348-23G0. 2367. 2385-2400 Improvement if a certain ])roportion of these Bills were first dealt with in the House of Lords, 2360-2366 Repre- sentation of the Home Office at the inquiries Ijefore the Police and Sanitary Cominittee ; advantage if the Department had facilities foi' attending before other Committees, ^.368, 2369. 2378, 2379. 2401-2414. Undue length of many Police and Sanitary Bills (there being much padding), witness suggesting proposals for their abbreviation, 2370-2376 Lighter work of (committees if the Public Health Acts and other Acts were brought up to date, 2380-2384 Records now kept of the decisions of Committees, 2396-2400. TJ. ijj nifdrmity of Decision. Advantage of some code or record of decisions for the guidance of Chaii-men of Committees so as to secure \niiformity, Lowther 96-98 Explanation of witness' practice in making repi-esentations to the Chairman of Opposed Bill (^ommittees, ■ but without attemptmg to secure uniformity of decision, Leii/Zi- 391-396. Great want of fuller registers of decisions in the two Houses with a view to greater uni fdrmity in the decisions of Committees ; further reference hereon to the action of th? Lord Chainnan in this direction, Gray 2028-2035. 2045-2062. 2075-2078. 21 10. Conchisions of the Committee as U) the exjjediency of measures Ijeing taken to secure morp uniformity in the decision of the Conunittees on opposed Bills ; suggestions as to the nifeans lo be ado])ted for this purpose. Rep. viii. 0.23. . II UNOPPOSED 2:}0 UNO WAT Report, 1902 — ccmtimted. UiYOPPOSED BILLS : Circumstances under which Bills become unopposed and are referred to the Unopposed Bill Committee, which consists of witness, Mr. Chandos Leigh, and some other Member; how the latter is selected, Lowther 21-24 Statement of the procedure when a Bill comes before the Unopposed Bill Committee : careful consideration given b}' Mr. Chandos- Leigh to the reports of the Government Departments on each Bill, witness also devoting to the work as much time as he can spare, ib. 25-28 Non-objection in the case of un- opposed Bills which originate in the House of Lords to certain proposals respecting the constitution of the Connnittee, ib. 68-71. Further explanations respecting the precediire iji connection with unopposed Bills in both Houses and the action, respectively, of Ix)rd Moiley and witness, Lmotlier 72-84 Statement handed in showing for the years 1891-1901 the number of Bills unopposed and referred to the Chairman of Ways and Means ; also, the num her of Provisional Orders in each year, ib. 189. Good reason for the appointment of Mr. Parker Smith as a memter on Unopposed Bilf Committees, Leigh 203-207 Consideration of the constitution of Committees on Unopposed Bills, and of the procedure of the Conmiittee, witness approving of four members with a casting vote in the Chairman, ih. 368-387 Advance of delay through the Chainnan of Committees not being ready to take unopposed Bills, though the agents are- sometimes not ready, ib. 401, 402 Careful reading of unopposed Bills by witness,. the Chairman of Ways and Means sometimes reading them himself, ib. 409-414. Approval of the Unopposed Bill Committees acting as a Board of Conciliation in certain cases if both parties agree thereto, Pritt 591-599— — Suggested re-constitution and strengthening of the Committee on Unopposed Bills, witness proposing that either the- Chairman or the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means should be Chairman of the Com- mittee, and that the Speaker's counsel, instead of being a member of the Committee, should act as " devil's advocate," Hmith 1377-1396. 1405-1413. 1440-1444. Value attached to the Reports of Goveniment Departments on unopjjosed Bills ; expediency of the Bills being also gone through by the Speaker's counsel, Smith 1393, 1405-1407 Entire concurrence in the view that unopposed Bills might Ije dealt with by a Joint Committee of both Houses ; suggestions as to the constitution of such a Com- mittee, ib. 1401-1404 Projjosals in connection with the class of cases to be treated as- opposed Bills, ib. 1410-1413. Entire concurrence in the proposal of Mr. Parker Smith, for the constitutionof a Special Joint Committee for dealing with unopposed Bills, Boyce 1914, 1915. Explanation as regards unopposed Bills in the House of Lords, that Lord Morley, assisted by witness, deals with all such Bills, Gray 1961. 1983-1986. 2096-2104 Opinion as to the expediency of unopposed clauses in opposed Bills being referred to a Joint Com- mittee of the two Houses, with a view to their making recommendations on the subject, ib. 2002-2006 Question whether unopposed Bills in the House of Commons might not be dealt with by the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, as in the Lords by the Lord Chairman, ib. 2096-2104. Consideration of suggestions for an amended system of dealing with Unopposed Bills^ witness approving of the procedure in the Upper House in these cases. Sir R. Littler 2274- 2277. 2324. Constitution of the Committee on Unopposed Bills, as provided for by Standing Order 137, Rep. iv Conclusions as to the expediency of strengthening the Committees on Unopposed Bills ; special recommendations for this purpose, ib. viii, ix. See also Examiners. Joint Committee. Urban District Councils Association. Total of 450 Urban District Councils comprised in the Association, all the more important districts teing included. Baker 1764. 1821-1824 Submission to the Committee of five resolutions adopted by the Association on 10th July, as to the amendments desired in connection with Private Bill legislation and proce- dure ; examination in detail in support of each resolution, ib. 1765 et seq. Water Purchase Bill (London County Council). Explanation why the Water Pui-chase Bill of the London County Council was not pxit down for second reading till the 24th July. Leigh 203. Water Rights. Right of the Irish Local Government Board to issue Orders for taking water rights compulsorily, this not applying in England, Boyce 1502. Wharncliffe W H A WIT 231 Report, 1902 — roiitimied. Wharndiffe Meeting. Suggestion that proof of the Wharncliffe Meeting might Ije taken in Committee so as not to delay the second reading, Beale 2132-2136 Contemplated postponement of the Wharncliffe Meeting till some date after the second reading, Sir R. Littler 2314-2316. Concurrence of evidence Ijefore the Committee as to amendment in connection with the Wharncliffe Meetings as now being a cause of delay, Rep. v. Withdrawals of Bills and Petitions. Evidence respecting sudden withdrawals of Billa and Petitions showing the heavy expenses sometimes incurred by suitors in this con- nection ; suggested amendment of Standing Order on this point so that costs might be given in special cases of undue delay tefore withdrawal, Pember 2447-2451. Amended practice desirable in connection with the withdrawal of Bills or Petitions; cont^emplated amendment of the Costs Act in this connection, Rip. ix. Witnesses. Statement on the question of assimilation as regards the swearing of witnesses on unopposed Bills, this practice not being adopted by Committees of the House of Commons, Pritt 467-482 Hardship at times in promoters not having a right of reply when counsel for a petitioner does not call witnesses ; amendment required on this point, ih. 583-590 Opinion adverse to the examination of witnesses on oath tefoi-e Com- mittees of the House of Commons, Mellm 880, 881 Doubt as to the advantage of examining witnesses on oath. Gray 1962-1964. Action of witness in the direction of limiting the fees of expert witnesses, more espe- cially of engineers. Campion 1721-1737. \7 \