'■''■'.<■ 
 
 ■• -/ 
 
 
 :%■- 
 
 
 
 
 "L I E> RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 U N IVLR5ITY 
 Of ILLl NOIS
 
 mmm'^:':- 
 
 *'•■■:, (^
 
 ♦
 
 oX^A^/'^i^ 
 
 PEIVATE BILL LEGISLATION. 
 
 SPEECH OF MR. DODSON, 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
 
 MARCH 15, 1872.
 
 PEIVATE BILL LEGISLATION 
 
 MARCH 15, 1872. 
 
 The adjourned Debate on this subject will be resumed on 
 Friday, March 22nd, at the time of Private Business, viz.. Four 
 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. DoDSON rose to propose resolutions on this subject. 
 The hon. gentleman said the defects of the system of private 
 legislation were so well known, and the dissatisfaction which 
 was felt with it was so wide spread, that he need not enlarge 
 upon them. These evils and inconveniences wer^ partly in- 
 herent in the subject matter Private business often neces- 
 sitated a judicial investigation into intricate facts, and the 
 Committees had sometimes to decide questions involving a 
 nice adjustment of private interests and a balance of public 
 advantages and disadvantages. Frequently the question 
 was one of discretion, and not to be decided by any uniform 
 law. All these evils and inconveniences, however, were 
 aggravated by the fluctuating nature of our Committees. 
 The members of them showed great industry, sometimes 
 great ability, and always high honour ; and they rendered a 
 service for which they received very inadequate credit from 
 this House or the public. They were men, too, accustomed 
 to watch and allow for public opinion. The number of mem- 
 bers, however, having the leisure to devote themselves to 
 the work, who from legal antecedents or special knowledge 
 were peculiarly fitted for a judicial investigation, and for 
 presiding, in fact, over a lawsuit, was limited. Members in
 
 general had not the habits and training which fitted tlicm 
 to control an active and energetic Bar, and to decide wliat 
 evidence should be excluded or admitted. The result was 
 that there was a Bench much weaker than the Bar before 
 it. Moreover, all these inquiries were crowded into a few 
 weeks ; the comparatively few qualified members were wanted 
 in half a-dozen or a dozen committee-rooms at once ; members 
 were pressed into the service regardless of their qualifications, 
 and the Committees sat all at once, with no knowledge of 
 each other's proceedings, and consequently with conflicting 
 decisions. Members, too, had public duties in this House, 
 and, their physical powers being limited, Committees could 
 only sit for a few hours in the day. Hence, there were frequent 
 adjournments, and long detention of witnesses and legal prac- 
 titioners, — every element, indeed, insuring a lengthy, costly, 
 uncertain, and unsatisfying inquiry. All this ordeal might 
 have to be undergone a second time in the other House, for 
 there was no appeal in a judicial sense on special grounds, 
 such as an allegation that the first tribunal had fallen into 
 some error, or that new facts had come to light, but an 
 opponent with enough money in his pocket could insist as a 
 matter of right on taking his chance with a second jury. Nor 
 was it an appeal from an inferior to a superior tribunal, for the 
 Committees of the two Houses were of co-ordinate authority, 
 and it was a matter of chance or official arrangement whether 
 a Bill first came before this or the other House. If both juries 
 were to hear the same counsel and the same witnesses, why, 
 it had been asked, should they not sit on the same day and in 
 the same room ? This was the recommendation of the Joint 
 Committee of both Houses in 1869. The members of the 
 Commons all concurred in recommending its adoption as con- 
 ducing to greater simplicity, rapidity, and economy ; while of 
 the members of the Lords, only one. Lord Redesdale, opposed 
 it. The members of the Commons were Sir George Grey, 
 Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Walpole, Colonel Wilson 

 
 Patten, and tlie Chairman of Ways and Means ; the members 
 of the Lords were Lord Granville, Lord Halifax, Lord Eversley, 
 Lord Salisbury, Lord Redcsdale, and the late Lord Derby. 
 It had been objected that this would allow no opportunity of 
 appeal, but that Committee contemplated some provision of 
 this kind ; on this subject, however, he would comment 
 presently. It had also been objected that the plan would 
 not lighten the labours of Members. This, however, was not 
 the first consideration, but that which was best for the public 
 interest. If tiie joint Committees, as had been suggested, 
 were composed of three Members of each House, the labours 
 of the Commons would be slightly diminished, and if of two 
 Members of each House they would be materially diminished. 
 The question arose — Could not the reform be carried further ? 
 The House had, with great advantage to the parties con- 
 cerned and great credit to itself, remitted to the judges of the 
 land the trial of divorces, election petitions, and various ques- 
 tions relating to settled estates formerly decided* by Parlia- 
 mentary Committees, and in many other matters it had 
 confided to an external body original jurisdiction, the deci- 
 sion being subject to confirmation by Parliament. For the 
 conduct of a judicial investigation a permanent tribunal of 
 experienced men was better qualified than a jury of gentle- 
 men inexperienced in such business, such as composed the 
 ordinary Private Bill Committees. It was, of course, ob- 
 jected that though the investigation might be judicial, the 
 result was legislative, the Committee's functions being, not 
 to ascertain or declare, but to make the law. In tlie majority 
 of cases, however, and in an increasing number, their func- 
 tions were not so much those of legislators as of arbitra- 
 tors. Public feeling with regard to public works and joint- 
 stock companies had greatly changed within the last quarter 
 of a century. At one time Railways coming into a dis- 
 trict were regarded as enemies to be resisted, and Parliament 
 had to decide whether private interests should be over-
 
 ridden for tlie sake of the public advantage ; whereas, now, 
 in 9 cases out of 10, he might almost say in 99 cases 
 out of 100, they were looked upon as allies to be nego- 
 ciated with, landowners and other opponents being generally 
 anxious that they should be made, but on more favour- 
 able terms. So, too, with gas and water works. Of 170 
 Railway Bills introduced this Session, 150 probably were 
 for the construction of " spurs," or branch line?, six or eight 
 miles long, and for the settlement of the terms on which they 
 should be worked by the main-line Company. These were 
 obviously matters of arbitration. There were, of course, cases 
 involving serious questions of policy, and whether the public 
 benefit justified an exception to the general law. In view of 
 tliese, such as the amalgamation Bills of this Session, Parlia- 
 ment could not and ought not to part with its ^jurisdiction. 
 His suggestion was that it should simply part with pro- 
 visional jurisdiction, reserving, as in many other cases, the 
 ultimate control. Assuming that this was a rational basis, 
 what external tribunal would command such general con- 
 fidence that appeals from it would be the exception, not 
 the rule? Provisional Orders were at present made by 
 Government departments, and were confined to matters 
 in w^hich the capital at stake was small, the parties generally 
 consented, or the opniion of the locality affected could be 
 ascertained ; but if extended to matters where great interests 
 were at stake, and where feeling ran higli, people would not be 
 satisfied with an Order made upon the decision of an official 
 sitting in a Government office, and on grounds or evidence 
 which nobody knew, nor with an Order made on the decision of 
 a Government inspector, sent down to hold a public meeting, 
 or make some general inquiry, and liable to hear only ex parte 
 statements. Provisional Orders, to be generally acquiesced in, 
 must be made by a tribunal possessing public confidence, after 
 a public hearing, where all concerned had an opportunity of 
 appearing by witnesses and counsel. An hon. and learned
 
 Member had introduced a Bill for one part of the United 
 Kingdom remitting the investigation to the Judges of the 
 land, but he doubted whether they would be disposed to 
 undertake the work, and their habits and training would 
 lead them to adhere to precedents, whereas this tribunal 
 ought to allow amply for the variations of public opinion. It 
 should be composed of men, not inferior in weight and calibre 
 to the Judges, appointed for this special purpose. We looked 
 for Judges among the most eminent practitioners at the Bar, 
 and in the same quarter might be found men qualified for this 
 duty. He saw no danger of men thus specially appointed 
 adhering too strictly to precedents, and obstructing public 
 improvements, and the necessity of consulting public feeling 
 would be kept alive in them by the power of appeal to Par- 
 liament. This tribunal ought to sit in London, Edinburgh, 
 and Dublin, and it might, perhaps, go on circuit, and sit in 
 other places; for in important local cases, say at Glasgow or 
 Liverpool, it might be cheaper and more convenient for the 
 tribunal to go thither than for the parties to go to the tribunal. 
 In matters of minor importance, such as the settlement of 
 disputes between Companies, the internal or financial arrange- 
 ments of a Company, or the extension of time for the completion 
 of works, one Judge or Commissioner might make the Order. 
 Where taking the property of unwilling persons to a great 
 extent was at issue, the invasion of a town by a railway neces- 
 sitating much demolition of dwellings, or amalgamations of 
 public importance, two or more Judges might decide. There 
 was a third class of exceptional cases, involving a new prin- 
 ciple or matters of magnitude, such as to constitute a great 
 question of public policy, in which it would be apparent that 
 neither the parties nor the public would rest satisfied without 
 a decision of the Legislature. He thought it worthy of con- 
 sideration whether, with a view to- such cases, a discretion 
 should not be given to the Court to remit them at once to 
 Parliament. All the Provisional Orders that came before the
 
 8 
 
 tribunal, whether they were granted or refused, should be 
 laid before Parliament, lest it should be possible that this 
 tribunal, whether through error or some unfortunate bias of 
 some of its members, should have it in his power altogether 
 to suppress some new invention, or to prevent a scheme of 
 a novel character being submitted to the Legislature. The 
 tribunal would, of course, decide on all questions as to com- 
 pliance with the Standing Orders and on those which were 
 now decided by the Referees as to the rights of locus standi of 
 parties. Then came the question how many Judges would be 
 required to transact this business. According to the best 
 calculation he had been able to make, three Judges sitting for 
 nine months in the year would be sufficient to discharge all 
 the work now discharged by the Committees of the two 
 Houses, by the Referees, and by the Examiners on Private 
 Bills. What he proposed was that there should be one set of 
 Commissioners whose commission would run over the whole 
 of the United Kingdom, and who should visit different parts 
 as required. There was not business enough in Scotland or in 
 Ireland to justify the creation of a separate tribunal, and 
 moreover the establishment of one Commission for the United 
 Kingdom would tend to secure harmony and consistency of 
 proceeding. He thought the men who composed this tribunal 
 should be not a whit inferior in calibre or in authority to the 
 Judges of the land, and, therefore, that provision should be 
 made for their salaries on a proper scale. The parties to 
 Private Bills now paid in fees a sum varying from a minimum 
 of £45,000 or £50,000 to a maximum of between £130,000 
 and £140,000 a year. That fund was mainly, if not entirely, 
 under the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Here, 
 then, was a fund amply sufficient to provide for the expenses 
 of an efficient tribunal, and he thought the parties who were 
 called upon to pay such heavy fees were at least entitled to 
 claim from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the country 
 that in return for those heavy fees they should be provided
 
 with the most efficient tribunal the country could furnish. As 
 a general rule, it would be admitted, that the nearer home a 
 trial took place the less expensive it would be to the litigants. 
 In exceptional cases, where many eminent counsel would be 
 engaged, and many eminent scientific witnesses would be 
 called, of course the expenses of a trial would in those par- 
 ticular respects be greater if it were held in the provinces than 
 if it were held in London. We must, however, legislate for 
 general, not for exceptional, cases. Still, to meet exceptional 
 cases, he proposed that the parties should have the option of 
 claiming that their cases should be tried in the metropolis 
 instead of any other place. He had approved of the adoption 
 of Joint Committees for the trial of Private Bills as in itself an 
 improvement. If we were to establish an external tribunal of 
 first instance, he thought there could be no question that a 
 consolidated Committee of the two Houses would be the best 
 tribunal for dealing with such appeal. How many cases of 
 appeal there might be in a year it was of course impossible to 
 determine. Some idea might be derived from the number 
 of Private Bills that were now contested in both Houses. At 
 present the number was, perhaps, from 40 to 50 or 60, and if 
 the number of appeals were similar, that would furnish work 
 for eight or ten Joint Committees. At this rate about twenty 
 members of each House, selected for their especial qualifica- 
 tions, would suffice to discharge all the duties of this kind. 
 He hoped, however, the number of appeals would prove less 
 than of doubly contested cases. The House was now disposed 
 to place great confidence in its Private Bill Committees and in 
 its Referees. It seldom recommitted a Bill or reversed their 
 decision, and he thought the decision of such a tribunal as he 
 contemplated would carry still greater weight and command 
 still greater respect. Then came the question whether the 
 appeal to Parliament should be a matter of right or be 
 subject to certain conditions. Considering the liability of 
 a frivolous appellant to costs, he thought there would be
 
 10 
 
 no undue number of such appeals without a definite cause ; 
 but he was aware there was a very strong feeling against 
 leaving it simply to the discretion of one party whether, with- 
 out any cause shown, the expenses of a second, trial should be 
 incurred. He, therefore, suggested that if notice of an appeal 
 against the decision of the tribunal were given, the tribunal 
 should furnish a short summary of the reasons for which that 
 decision was given. It would, in this respect, do what the 
 Board of Trade was now required to do in certain cases, as in 
 granting a warrant for the abandonment of a Eailway. The 
 appellant would then present a petition to Parliament setting 
 forth his reasons, and asking for liberty to appeal. The state- 
 ment of the tribunal, with the petition of the appellant, would 
 go as a matter of course before the Standing Orders Com- 
 mittee, who would report to the House whether in their 
 opinion a prima facie case for an appeal was made out. It 
 had always appeared to him that the passing of Provisional 
 Orders was very cumbrous and inconvenient, and he suggested 
 that each Provisional Order, whether made by a department 
 or by the tribunal, should be laid before Parliament, and if 
 within a certain number of days it were not objected to then 
 it should become law. He did not propose to interfere with 
 the duties or jurisdiction of the Inclosure Commissioners. He 
 thought it expedient that, for the present at all events, Go- 
 vernment departments should retain the power tliey now pos- 
 sessed of making Provisional Orders in minor matters. With 
 regard to Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant in Council or the 
 Chief Secretary was the department which granted Provisional 
 Orders for Irish Tramways or for the local government of the 
 towns. It would, in his opinion, be convenient to persons 
 interested in Irish undertakings if the powers of the Board of 
 Trade for granting Provisional Orders with regard to Eail" 
 ways, Gas and Water works were also carried over St. George's 
 Channel, and intrusted eitlier to the Lord Lieutenant or to 
 the Chief Secretary. He could not make a similar suggestion
 
 11 
 
 for the benefit of Scotland, because there was in that country, 
 so far as he was aware, no Government department to which 
 the power of granting Provisional Orders could be transferred. 
 For the present, therefore, Scotland would have to rest 
 satisfied with the opportunity of applying for Provisional 
 Orders either to the Government department, as at present, 
 or to the new tribunal sitting in Edinburgh or elsewhere. 
 There were other Private Bills which might be called Private 
 Bills proper, such as estate, divorce, and naturalization Bills ; 
 they were few in number, perhaps only from ten to twenty in 
 the course of a Session, and were very seldom opposed. With 
 these Private Bills proper he did not propose under this 
 scheme to interfere. If they were to be dealt with, it might 
 be done by extending the powers of the Judges in reference to 
 settled estates, of the Divorce Court, and so on. If this 
 scheme were adopted, every undertaking would be carried on 
 by means of Provisional Orders, to be obtained in minor 
 cases on application to a Government department ; in great 
 cases, and also in minor cases if the Promoters chose, on 
 application to a strong external tribunal, constituted of men 
 of the same calibre as the Judges of the land, before whom the 
 Promoters and the witnesses would be heard in open court. 
 Following upon that, if the case required it, would be 
 an appeal to the strongest Parliamentary tribunal which 
 could be furnished — namely, a tribunal drawn from a 
 limited number of men selected by the two Houses for their 
 special qualifications for the work. He ventured to hope that 
 under such a system the public would be more cheaply, more 
 efficiently, and more satisfactorily served than it was at pre- 
 sent ; and, further, there would be this secondary advantage, 
 that Parliament would relieve itself from a great amount of 
 work, much of which was too minute to be worthy to occupy 
 the time and attention of Members of the Legislature, and much 
 of which, with all due respect for the Members of the two 
 Houses, they were but ill-qualified to perform. This relief to the
 
 12 
 
 labours of this House was a matter of great and growing import- 
 ance. The public business of the House of Commons was 
 growing, and was likely to continue to grow. There was, 
 moreover, a growing disposition to appoint Select Committees 
 to consider public Bills and public subjects, and that also took 
 up the time of Members. An idea had been mooted that, with 
 a view to the despatch of business, a system of Grand Com- 
 mittees should be adopted, to which important public business 
 should be referred. If such a scheme was to be carried into 
 effect, it would become doubly and trebly important to release 
 from their labours 'Some 180 to 250 Members who were now 
 engaged in considering Private Bills. He had trespassed so 
 long on the time of the House that he would not attempt to 
 anticipate the objections which might be raised to the scheme 
 he had suggested. He was perfectly aware that a great 
 number of objections might be urged, but every scheme that 
 might be proposed would be open to some objections, and the 
 question was whether the objections which applied to the exist- 
 ing state of things were not greater. In what he had said he 
 could lay no claim to originality. Almost every idea which he 
 had thrown out had been suggested by others, such as Lord Grey, 
 Lord Salisbury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir T. Erskine 
 May, Mr. Rickards the Speaker's Counsel, and other gentle- 
 men of great experience and well qualijQed to give an opinion. 
 He laid no claim, as he had said, to originality in the sugges- 
 tions he had put before the House, with one single exception. 
 But, though these schemes had at different times been sub- 
 mitted to Select Committees, and had met with a large share 
 of approval, the transfer of any portion of the jurisdiction of 
 Parliament to an external tribunal had not been discussed in 
 this House for a great number of years. Every year that 
 passed over our heads brought further testimony to the un- 
 satisfactory character of our private legislation, to the possi- 
 bility of remitting more and more of these matters, in the firs* 
 instance at all events, to an external tribunal, and to the
 
 13 
 
 desirability of relieving Parliament from unnecessary labour. 
 He had not the presumption to suppose that he could submit 
 to the House a scheme which it would be fair to accept on 
 his own recommendation. Ihis matter, if dealt with, must 
 receive the grave consideration of many minds. But he would 
 ask the House not to fall into the error of appointing another 
 Select Committee to consider this question. Of Select Com- 
 mittees we had had an infinity, and any gentleman who was 
 curious on the subject might find the shelves of the library 
 groaning under their reports of Private Bill legislation, and 
 very little had come of it. If another Select Committee were 
 appointed it would take the evidence of a limited number of 
 the oflicials of this House ; but these had been examined over 
 and over again, and of gentlemen of great learning, ability, and 
 high honour who were well versed in the practice of Private Bill 
 legislation. Well, all men very naturally had an affection for 
 the labyrinth of which they held the clue, and from them it 
 could not be expected that much evidence against the present 
 system would be received. But if this matter was to be 
 dealt with effectively, it must be submitted to the consider- 
 ation of several independent minds. He would suggest to 
 the House that they should appoint a Committee, not to 
 take evidence, but a Committee which, if it had the will, 
 would also have the power to give effect to its will. He 
 proposed that the House should call upon the Government 
 to act as a Committee, and to take up this subject. The 
 hon. gentlemen concluded by moving the following Reso- 
 lutions : — 
 
 1. That, in the opinion of this House, the system of private 
 legislation calls for the attention of Her Majesty's Government, 
 and requires reform. 
 
 2. That it is expedient to substitute, as far as possible, an 
 extended and improved system of Provisional Orders for Local 
 and Personal Bills. 
 
 3. That Provisional Orders should be obtainable in Eng-
 
 14 
 
 land, Scotland, and Ireland on application to a permanent 
 tribunal of a judicial character, before which Promoters and 
 Opponents should be heard in open Court, and the decisions 
 of which should be subject to confirmation by Parliament. 
 
 4. That, in case of either House of Parliament admitting an 
 appeal against a decision of the tribunal in the matter of any 
 Provisional Order, such Provisional Order should be referred 
 to a Parliamentary tribunal, composed, in the manner recom- 
 mended in 1869 by the Joint Committee of the House of 
 Lords and the House of Commons on the despatch of business 
 in Parliament, of Members of both Houses. 
 
 Westminster : Printed by Nichols and Sons, 25, Parliament Street.
 
 ii^?:^:^^'l-'-^'?^:^'';*'- 
 
 ^ ■•'*/':,: 'si- "y)'D 

 

 
 ■ '../;•■■ »*««•■*»♦ 
 
 »> 
 
 5*.:%iii 
 
 €^p^-.' 
 
 
 ^. <: 
 
 . e^ 
 
 4 -.♦!!•* 
 
 
 
 U OlHI 
 
 
 w^A'-^i^-.-'x:- , 
 
 Wi -iP^ 
 
 ,.f,^ff 
 
 V^'~'-vJffll^ '"'*"' ' 
 
 '^i«/j'»«»-' ..' -;''*'^ 
 
 
 
 
 n^^^H^9C^^^^BU|^H| 
 
 'i^ ■ 
 
 «™m'-' 
 
 f J^ ,v'i6 .. ^- • ;. - 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 
 
 ■^^m 
 
 S- A^^ 
 
 
 m ^ 
 
 ^^^1