Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

to lead to litigation in this instance ? There were one or two safeguards against undue litigation already in existence. First of all, the House would remember that a statutory power was given to every Committee of that House in any case where they considered the opposition to have been frivolous and vexatious, to inflict the costs upon the opposing parties. That power had already been exercised in not a few cases, and must have had the best possible influence upon local authorities in inducing them to abstain from opposing a Bill where their opposition would not be justified. In the second place, the operation of the Borough Funds Act of 1867 had also operated as a salutary check. That Act would be perfectly familiar to the House. Under its provisions it was absolutely necessary before any local authority could oppose a Gas or Water Bill, that it should obtain the sanction of a majority of the ratepayers at a meeting specially called for that purpose. He did not think that at this moment it was necessary to add anything to what he had now stated; but he would simply submit his proposal for the discussion of the House. He felt that the best mode, after all, of protecting the interests of the ratepayers, was to strengthen the hands of the local authorities. He believed, also, that this popular House of Parliament would not refuse to the local authorities the power which day after day, without jealousy and without inconvenience, was given by the

arisen, and how it was regulated. He thought that his hon. Friend had not described the course of the practice of the Court of Referees quite accurately, and he hoped that he should be able to set him right in one or two points. The Standing Order under which the Court at present acted was the one numbered 134, which said

"It shall be competent for the Referees o Private Bills to admit the petitioner, being the municipal or other authority having the local management of the Metropolis, or of any town, to be injuriously affected by a Bill, to be heard or the inhabitants of any town or district alleged against such Bill if they shall think fit."

Under that Order the House would see that the power given to the Referees was optional. They might, as they thought fit or not, allow the local authority of any town or district alleged to be injuriously affected to be heard against the Bill. And he might say this-that in every case that had been before the Court, wherever any alteration was sought to be made, either in the quantity or the quality of the gas or water supply, or in the extension or diminution of the limits of the district, or in the price of the gas or water supplied, the Petitioners in every case had been admitted. They had gone further than that. They even admitted them in a case where the place of testing the gas was simply altered-where it was shifted from one place to another. They had considered that even so trifling an alteration formed a sufficient ground for their admission. The only cases in which they had ever been refused a locus standi were cases Motion made, and Question proposed, tional capital, and upon that point he where it was simply sought to raise addiThat the municipal or other local authority must entirely differ from his hon. Friend of any town or district alleging in their Petition that such town or district may be inju-who had moved this new Standing Order. riously affected by the provisions of any Bill relating to the lighting or water supply thereof, or the raising of capital for any such purpose, shall be entitled to be heard against such Bill." -(Mr. E. Stanhope.)

House of Lords.

66

MR. PEMBERTON moved, as Amendment, in line 4, after the word "against," to insert the words "any matter contained in, or proposed to be enacted by." The hon. Member said, that in rising to propose the Amendment which stood in his name, he hoped the House would allow him very shortly to state, in order to explain the nature of the Amendment, what the practice in the Court of Referees was, how it had

Mr. E. Stanhope

Where new capital was sought to be raised it did not in any way increase or extend the monopoly, but it simply gave additional facilities to the Companies for the purpose of carrying out purposes which the Legislature had previously sanctioned and authorized. Of course, the Court of Referees were only anxious to carry out the Orders of the House, and it would relieve them, to a great extent, from very laborious duties if this Standing Order was carried. The House would observe that his Amendment did not in any way oppose the principle-as he understood the principle-of his hon. Friend's Motion. His

"No Petition against a Private Bill, or Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, shall be taken into consideration by

hon. Friend wished, in cases where addi- | Petition and by the Bill. There was altional capital was to be raised, that, as ready a Standing Order, No. 128, which a matter of course, the Local Government he was convinced had that object in view. Boards should be admitted. His (Mr. It was in these termsPemberton's) Amendment did not deal with that in any way. He thought that a great deal might be said against that proposition. It might give rise to a great deal of increased expense and of unnecessary litigation; and in reference to the statement of his hon. Friend that the Local Government Boards were

checked by the operation of the Borough Funds Act, he might point out to his hon. Friend that that was not so in practice, because, although the Local Government Board could not charge the rates without the previous consent of the inhabitants, yet they constantly in practice did it, and took their chance of getting it confirmed afterwards. On these occasions opposition was raised in many instances unnecessarily, and he thought with very great disadvantage and discouragement to people who had invested their money in undertakings which had already been sanctioned by the House. His hon. Friend had referred to the practice of the House of Lords and of the Board of Trade; but in neither of those cases could he draw a single argument in favour of his Resolution. The practice was entirely different, and could not be compared in any way to that of the House of Commons. In the House of Lords the same Committee decided on the merits of a Bill, and also the question whether the Petitioners should have a right to be heard or not. It was therefore as a matter of course that they were permitted to be heard in every case, because the Committee which decided the question of merits also settled the question of locus standi. With regard to the practice of the Board of Trade, the rule is this-Whenever a measure is proposed, an officer of the Board was sent down to the country, and he admitted everybody to state their objections as a matter of course. He did not think that his hon. Friend proposed that everybody, as a matter of course, should be allowed to petition against a Bill in that House. All he (Mr. Pemberton) proposed to do was to carry out what he believed to be already the Standing Order, and certainly the intention of the House. The object of his Amendment was simply to restrict the Petitioners to those points which were raised by the

VOL. CCLXI. [THIRD SERIES.]

[ocr errors]

the Committee on such Bill which shall not distinctly specify the ground on which the Petitioner objects to any of the provisions thereof; and the Petitioner shall be only heard on such grounds so stated; and if it shall appear to the said Committee that such grounds are not specified with sufficient accuracy, the Committee may direct that there be given in that Committee a more specific statement in writing, but limited to such grounds of objection so inaccurately specified."

He thought that on reading that through for the first time the impression on the House would most certainly be that it was intended that in no case of any Private Bill should the Petitioners be entitled to be heard, except on grounds of objection to the Bill stated in their Petition. But in practice it had been held that these words did not go far enough; that although, as far as any objection taken to a provision of the Bill there must be a distinct ground of such objection stated in the Petition, yet it did not in terms say that in a case where something was raised in the Petition which was not raised by the Bill, the Petitioner should not be heard on any such statement. He thought nobody could read that Standing Order without being convinced that that was the intention of the framers of the Order and of the House in passing it. All that his Amendment did was in the way of general application; but, of course, as the proposed new Standing Order applied only to Gas and Water Bills, it would at present apply only to Gas and Water Bills, although he thought it was one which should be of general application, and which, he believed, only carried out the existing Order No. 128. In this case, he thought it would not in any way interfere with his hon. Friend's proposal. It would in no way prevent a Petitioner from stating any objection to a Bill, and it would not prevent them from being heard as to their objection. It would only prevent, in the first case, a Petitioner raising something for the first time of objection which was in no way contemplated by the Bill, and which was really not one of the issues between the parties. He thought he might give an illustration of a practice which he

G

The

thought very objectionable, and which | liament for fresh capital, because since he thought the Amendment would re- the adoption of the auction clauses and medy. During the present Session the the sliding scale initiated by Mr. Forster's South Eastern Railway Company - a Committee some years ago, it was absoCompany with which he had no con- lutely of no advantage whatever to a nection whatever — brought in a Bill Company to increase their capital. simply to enable them to purchase an If this Standing Order passed in the existing railway of a few miles in length, words proposed by his hon. Friend, a made by a private Company. In the direct encouragement would be given to way of objections, there were allegations the local authorities to interpose with raised by the Petitioners against the roving Petitions in every case where a Bill that the fares charged by the Rail- Company asked for new capital, and way Company, not on the particular they would be induced to go behind the line they were about to purchase, but Bill and raise questions that long ago on an entirely different part of their sys- had been settled on general principles tem, were too high, and they asked the by Committees of that House. Committee appointed simply to inquire adoption of the Standing Order would into a question whether one Railway also have another effect that would be very Company might sell to another Railway unfair to a Company and very undesirCompany their existing undertaking, to abie, for it would enable a Corporation go into the whole question of rates and who had an intention of acquiring the tolls charged by the purchasing Com- business of a Company first to attack pany in an entirely different district. them in Parliament when they applied for There was a Committee now sitting on power to raise new capital, and then, the general question of railway rates having reduced the value of the underwhich might be a fitting tribunal to taking by attacking it in Parliament, enter into such matters; but he did not they might be able to purchase it think that on a Bill which in no way more cheaply. The Company was raised issues of that sort, the Petitioners bound to supply gas or water, and was should be allowed to spring a mine upon bound to come to Parliament, as their a Railway Company and propose to undo district extended, for further powers; that which the Legislature only a few and it was certainly not in accordance years before had carefully inquired into with his ideas of fairness that in enand sanctioned. With these few obser- deavouring to fulfil a responsibility vations he would move the Amendment forced upon them by Parliament they of which he had given Notice. should be subjected to the cost and injury which the adoption of this new Standing Order would throw upon them. As he knew there were other Members of the House who wished to speak upon the subject, he would content himself with having stated the views of the Companies and with having seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed,

In line 4, after the word "against," to insert

the words "any matter contained in or proposed to be enacted by.”—(Mr. Pemberton.)

COLONEL MAKINS seconded the Amendment. He thought that a new Standing Order was hardly necessary at all; and it appeared to him that, to some extent, it cast reflections upon the Court of Referees and their action in the past. But even if the House considered that a new Standing Order was to some entent necessary, he was quite sure it was only fair that it should be qualified in the manner proposed by the Amendment. His hon. Friend below (Mr. E. Stanhope) had stated with regard to Gas and Water Companies that they had a monopoly; but he forgot to state that that monopoly was a restricted one, and that it was accompanied by compulsory MR. MAPPIN expressed a hope that provisions requiring them to carry out the House would agree to the Motion of the business they undertook, and to the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. supply the public with the article water E. Stanhope). He could assure the or gas they were empowered to produce House that under the present Standing or distribute. Therefore, under these cir- Orders considerable difficulties were cumstances, there was no inducement on placed in the way of Municipal Corthe part of a Company to come to Par-porations and other local authorities in Mr. Pemberton

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

opposing Bills of this nature. In a town with which he was connected-Sheffield -these difficulties had been felt only this very year. A Bill had been introduced into Parliament to increase the capital of the Water Company there; but the Corporation had been unable to have their objections to the Bill explained to a Committee, although very considerable differences existed between the inhabitants and the Water Company, and a very large sum of money had been expended in obtaining a legal decision in reference to those difficulties, and the Water Company were requested to have the matter definitely settled by a clause being introduced into their Bill before the present Session of Parliament, but which they declined to comply with, and the Corporation had no locus standi, the Bill being promoted only for the raising of additional capital.

would be to adopt it with the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Kent.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The question which has been raised by the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln is one which, on the one hand, is largely interesting to the directors and shareholders of Gas and Water Companies, but which, on the other hand, interests most directly the various local authorities throughout the country who think they are prejudiced by the present practice, which prevents them from appearing to oppose these Companies when they come to ask Parliament for power to raise additional capital. As representing the Board of Trade, I have given the most careful consideration to the matter, and I have come to the conclusion that the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln is one that the House would do well to adopt. In saying that I beg to observe MR. STAVELEY HILL hoped he that I do not conceive that I am in the might be allowed to say a word in favour slightest degree casting any imputation of the Amendment of his hon. Friend upon the action of the Referees. This the Member for East Kent (Mr. Pember- action, however, appears to have beton). The original proposition for a come much more stringent in the last new Standing Order might very well, few years than it formerly was. I rehe thought, be negatived. It was pro-ceived a letter this morning from Mr. posed that there should be an alteration of the existing Standing Orders, and that the local authorities should have power to oppose all applications by Gas and Water Companies for obtaining additional capital. The question then arose as to the extent to which this power of petitioning should be limited, and he fully endorsed all that had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for East Kent. The new Order proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln was not drawn, in his opinion, with sufficient care. It would allow the local authorities on presenting a Petition to go into a great variety of extraneous questions. He was quite sure he should have the assent of the Chairman of Ways and Means when he said that it would be much better to keep the parties, when they went before a Committee, to the absolute issue that wa raised by the Bill. Let them come in and have full opportunity of being heard on the matters proposed by the Bill; but do not allow them to enter widely into questions which had nothing whatever to do with the Bill. The least the House could do, if they adopted the proposed Standing Order at all,

William Livesey, the Secretary of the Gas and Water Companies' Association, and in that letter he says

"I have been engaged in Parliamentary matters more than 30 years, and as Secretary to this Association more than 12 years; and, so far as my knowledge extends, the rule has always been that when a Company applies for authority is entitled to inquire into all its power to raise additional capital the local

powers.'

It is only recently that the Standing Orders Committee have refused this privilege universally to the local authorities. Mr. Livesey goes on to say

"Although this latter part has not always been adhered to, I believe that, notwithstanding the recent decisions on the question of locus standi, this is the general understanding of the Provincial Companies at the present time, and that there is no desire on their part to alter it. If, however, the decisions are upheld, the Companies will, of course, take every opportunity of turning them to account."

I agree with the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln that there are no grounds why this House should not agree to the practice already adopted by the House of Lords and by the Board of Trade in the case of applications for Provisional Orders. The hon. Member for East

mit to the House that if this litigation is expensive, that is a reason for altering the process of litigation and for endeavouring to substitute another and less expensive mode, but is no reason for shutting the door against those who desire to be heard against the proposals of a Private Bill. Under these circum

Kent (Mr. Pemberton) says the two cases are not analogous. To that I assent; but, at the same time, I must be allowed to say that the result of the practice in the House of Lords is that the local authorities have there this power of opposing which is denied to them under the interpretation of the Standing Orders of the House of Com-stances, I hope the House will reject the mons. I regret that I cannot see my way to the acceptance of the Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. Member for East Kent. That Amendment would have the effect of limiting the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln, and would make it practically of no effect at all. Mr. Livesey, in his letter, points this out very clearly. He says

"If a Company exhausts its capital or uses all its land it is obliged to come to Parliament for further powers; but it is hardly possible to conceive a case in which a Company would be obliged to come to Parliament for an alteration of the price they are charging or the illuminating power of the gas they are supplying; and under the proposed Amendment, so long as these points were carefully excluded from the Bill, the public would not be entitled to inquire

into them."

MR. PEMBERTON begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. The effect of his Amendment would be to allow the local authorities to be heard on every thing relating to the proposed additional capital.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Precisely; but they would not be entitled, on the proposal of a Company to double its capital, to raise any question as to the quality of the water or gas supplied or the price charged. That is, I think, a most important matter. At the present time the great majority of the Gas Companies are not under the sliding scale system. The first thing to be done in connection with the sliding scale system is to fix the initial price, and in that question the local authorities have the greatest possible interest as representing the communities. And yet, under the Standing Orders, with this Amendment of the hon. Member for East Kent, the local authorities would not be entitled to appear. The only objection of any force which has been taken to the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln is that it would have the effect of seriously increasing the cost of Private Bill legislation. I do not deny that there is some force in that objection; but I would sub

Mr. Chamberlain

Amendment of the hon. Member for East
Kent and accept the proposal of the hon.
Member for Mid Lincoln.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR (who was very indistinctly heard): I am sorry to disagree with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the Amendment which has been submitted by the hon. Member for East Kent, and I shall certainly feel it my duty on this occasion to vote for that Amendment. I entirely agree with the proposition that the local authorities should have a locus standi to be heard against every Bill which affects the interests of the locality they represent. The only difference between the Motion and the Amendment is that the latter limits this right to the subject-matter of the Bill, and does not open up past issues settled formerly by often protracted and expensive contests. Recent legislation in regard to Private Bills has kept in view the necessity of diminishing, as far as possible, the expense of promoting Private Bills, whether it be incurred by a Municipality or by a private Company. I think that the effect of the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln would be to bring every Private Bill affecting a Municipality before a Committee upstairs, and would enable the local authorities to rake up every question that may have been decided by previous legislation, and might consequently increase enormously the cost of promoting a Private Bill. Let me give an instance in order to show how seriously the adoption of the proposal now submitted to the House may affect the public interests in a particular locality. Suppose that a Company desires to obtain facilities for the supply of water or gas to the suburbs of a town, and for that purpose asks for power to raise additional capital. If the local authorities have the right of opposing them in regard to the powers they already possess, the Company will naturally be afraid of coming to Parliament on account of the excessive expense they

« ForrigeFortsett »