Page images

seems to infer that the transfer of Private Bill business from Committees to a “permanent tribunal of a judicial character" would also be attended with benefit. It is, however, quite conceivable that the transfer of such casescases in which members of the House were in fact trying members of the House—to a judicial tribunal might be beneficial, while any similar transfer of Private Bill legislation proper would be quite the reverse. But apart from the weight of the observation there is not much truth in it. If it was universally admitted to be beneficial, why did Parliament pass an Act, quite recently, making it necessary that two judges should hear such petitions ? As to the universal admission of the economy of the change, we should like some further evidence. The fees given to counsel upon Election Inquiries are, as a rule, five times greater than those which are given to Parliamentary counsel for much heavier cases, or than those which used to be given when the Petitions were heard before Committees of the House. Any case which requires the best legal talent, and which necessitates the absence from town of the counsel possessing it, must necessarily be expensive. The comparatively small fees given at the Parliamentary Bar are acceptable to counsel who can attend to a considerable number of cases in the same day, and consequently the fact that a large number of Committees are sitting at the same time has the effect of cheapening Parliamentary proceedings to the promoters and opponents of Private Bills.

Mr. Dodson's scheme involved, as we have seen, local inquiries, and he supported his opinion as to the expediency of these, by assuring the House that "the nearer home the inquiry took place the cheaper it would be.” This argument has long ago been refuted. Mr. Dodson himself seemed to be aware that his statement was not wholly accurate, for he informed the House that the cases in which the expense of the inquiry would be


greater in the provinces than in London, were exceptional. But had he taken the trouble to inquire into the matter, he would have found that the principal items of the cost of Private Bills must be incurred, before whatever tribunal the matter is ultimately heard. The heaviest expenses in connexion with Private Bills is incurred in connexion with the referencing, surveying, and engineering; and all that work must be done whether the Bill comes before a Parliamentary Committee or permanent tribunal of a judicial character.” A return showing what a small proportion of the costs were incurred in relation to the actual hearing of any important Bill would be exceedingly instructive. But assume that the Bill is important; is it possible to conceive that the fact that it is heard at Sligo, at Perth, or at Newcastle will make the costs less ? Anyone who has any acquaintance with such cases will tell you that the expensive witnesses are not the local ones, but the experts or skilled witnesses. Eminent engineers or chemists would still be employed in every important inquiry and their charges for attendance on a local inquiry will be much more exhorbitant than they have been in connexion with an inquiry in London. At the present time their charges are by no means modest, but their fees for going to Sligo, Perth, or Newcastle would be very large, and, whenever the matter was an important one, they would be paid. The view of Mr. St. George Burke, Q.C., after he retired from the Parliamentary Bar, when he had no longer any interest in the bolstering of a bad system, was that there would be an increase of the expenses if inquiries were held locally.* It is too, we believe, a motto of the Parliamentary Bar that Provisional Orders are better than Bills, if they are big enough, for in that case there are three briefs and three inquiries instead of two. But if the

* Letter to The Standard, 3rd April, 1872.

measure is unimportant, it would pass through Parliament cheaply enough were it not for the House fees which are doubtless heavy. But, strange to say, in his anxiety for economy, Mr. Dodson does not propose any diminution of these fees, indeed he takes credit for these fees, and proposes to pay the commissioners of his permanent tribunal out of them. It might have been worth while to inquire whether the whole amount of these fees was not already necessary in connexion with the permanent staff and expenses of the House.

But apart from that, it is a curious economy to substitute a highly paid tribunal for one which does its work gratuitously. But there is, as we have seen, another expense in connexion with the hearing before the Committee, and that is, the expense of counsel and agents. These, at the Parliamentary Bar, are by no means excessive. Measured by comparison with the fees given on Election Petitions or Arbitrations they are very small. Is there any reason to suppose that these would be diminished if the inquiry was held locally before a Court of Commissioners ? Suppose the Hull and Barnsley Railway and Dock Bill, which passed through Parliament in the last Session, had been transferred to such a tribunal and heard locallyalthough where “locally” is, in the case of a railway about sixty miles long with a dock at one end, it would be difficult to say ; but suppose it had been heard at Hull or Barnsley, is it possible to believe that the expenses in relation to counsel and agents would have been less than they in fact were ? They must, it is evident, have been immensely increased. But we are not left to surmises for an estimate of the expenses of such a case. We know that under the cheap Provisional Order system there was an inquiry held this spring as to the expediency of sanctioning a scheme for the disposal of the sewage of the Lower Thames Valley. The inquiry was held by one of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board, at Richmond. It lasted for forty-five

days, and is stated to have cost £45,000.* But passing to Mr. Dodson's last argument, we find that he thinks his plan would relieve Parliament of an immense amount of work which its members are not well qualified to perform, and would enable them to devote more time to the public business which, year by year, makes more demands upon them. One of these demands is doubtless the attendance upon Select Committees which, according to Col. Wilson Patten (now Lord Winmarleigh), have unduly increased in dimensions. While formerly these were constituted by fifteen members they now frequently consist of twenty or twenty-one. But apart from such duties it seems certain that the time of Parliament is more fully occupied, although possibly not more profitably employed than in former years. Now we have Mr. Dodson's scheme and arguments before

The cheme is that there is to be a tribunal composed of lawyers of ability and experience, who are to investigate into the expediency of passing Private Bills into Law. Their inquiry is to be held locally, and there is, with the consent of Parliament, to be an appeal to a Joint Committee of both Houses. The reasons for the change, put shortly, are, that the time of Parliament is much occupied, that members are not qualified to undertake the investigation into the truth of the preambles of Private Bills, which involve quasi-judicial inquiries. That the proceedings are long, the costs enormous, and the results unsatisfactory.

This subject was of course discussed at the time when the proposals were first made, and many very able criticisms were made


the scheme. Those who are most familiar with the practice of Parliament as to Private Bills are of


The experience of all is that it is no cheaper to go for a Provisional Order than for a Bill in a matter of any importance. It is in such a case likely to necessitate three inquiries instead of two. In unimportant matters no doubt it is cheaper, but that is only because the charges made by the House are smaller.

course entitled to be heard, although Mr. Dodson seemed to deprecate any advice being sought from such sources. Sir Edmund Beckett, however, forcibly protested against this exclusion. Though he [Mr. Dodson],” said Sir Edmund, "assured the House, probably with truth, that the worst thing they could do towards furthering his scheme would be to inquire of those who do the work at present, I did not observe that he gave any reason why this should be the only business in the world which is better understood by those who do not conduct it than by those who do. The public have no idea of the fact that 'the authorities of the House,' who are assumed to have special knowledge of the business, have nothing at all to do with it in a litigious form, except on mere technicalities which have no relation to the merits and are as often fatal to good Bills as to bad ones.” (Letter in Times, 21st May, 1872.) But although Mr. Dodson wished to exclude from the consideration of the House the opinion of such counsel as Sir Edmund Beckett, Mr. Calvert, Q.C., Mr. Burke, Q.C., and such an experienced agent as Sir Theodore Martin, the public, we believe, would desire to have some information as to their views. We conclude that Mr. Dodson himself would like to have the public informed of what was said by Sir William Harcourt, because he for the most part was favourable to the scheme, and would doubtless like it to be stated that Sir William had at one time a large practice at the Parliamentary Bar. But while the present Home Secretary on the whole approved of Mr. Dodson's proposals he was of opinion that the appeal from the “Permanent Tribunal” should be one of right, and not an appeal conditioned by the consent of Parliament, or left to the discretion of any intermediate tribunal. He also seemed to think that the proposal of a Joint Committee of both Houses instead of separate Committees of each House was not, if carried out, likely to be an improvement. He said : “Objections had

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »