The Sun.
London, England, 1865-02-22 00:00:00

PRIVATE COSTS BILL.

Mr. SCOURFIELD moved the second reading of this
bill. lie brought in the bill merely as chairman of a com-
mittee which satlast session, and which recommended the
introduction of this measure. Mr. Massey had also been in
favour of such a bill, and it certainly appeared to him
(Mr. Scourfield) that its provisions were consonant with
justice, and the views of the committee which had
sat on different occasions. The committee of 1853
recommended the adoption of a bill similar to the
present bill in cases of vexatious, unfounded,
and unwarranted opposition. The object of
the bill was to discourage people getting in
the way of other people, in order to be paid to
get out of their way, by bringing forward private bills
that were unwarranted, or offering unnecessary opposi-
tion, by making the parties who were unsuccessful liable.
to costs, according to the determination of committees,
The bill did not embody any new 'idea, but proposed
merely to give effect to that which had already been sug-
gested by committees at different times when the subject
was under consideration.
Mr. DENMAN thought the bill was too large in throw-
ing the costs on an unsuccessful suitor, according to the
terms "unfounded and vexatious," and he suggested that
certain modifications should be introduced.
After a few general remarks from Mr. PUGH,

Mr. TORRENS expressed himself in favour of the bill.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the present measure was a curious
specimen of English legislation. Why was not power
given to all committees which sat upon private bills as
well as on railways. He moved, therefore, the introduc-
tion of words extending the power proposed in this bill to
committees on all bills without distinction.

Mr. HODGSON also considered that the bill was not
sufficiently comprehensive.

Mr. M. GIBSON said he did not think this subject of
costs had been properly inquired into. The hon. chairman
of the committee (Mr. Scourfield) did not seem to be quite
satisfied as to the merits of this measure. He thought,
there was no analogy between law and private bills, for in
the former tho assumption was that every one was
acquainted with the law, and were held to be
guilty because they had been unsuccessful suitors.
The same could not be said with regard to pri-
vate bills before Parliament. The term "unwarranted"
was very wide, and he thought the charge of being
"vexatious" should be proved before parties were called
on to pay costs. When bills were brought forward in the
first instance they were often regarded as illusory, but the
extension of commercial information proved after a time
the very reverse. He referred to the Liverpool and Man-
chester, the junction between Liverpool and Manchester,
and the Great Northern Railways, as a proof of
what he asserted. He thought it would be very impoli-
tic to adopt any measure calculated to restrict railway
enterprise. He would not object to the second reading of
the bill, on the understanding that it should be referred to
a select committee.

Mr. A. MILLS was of opinion that the object of Parlia-
ment should be to expand and not to limit the principle of
this bill. •

Mr. LOWE regretted that his right hon. friend (Mr.
Gibson) had thrown the weight of his official position into
the scale against this bill. In many cases parties were
prevented from bringing forward useful undertakings, be-
ing deterred by the expense to which they might be sub-
jected by failure, which would be remedied by a measure
like the present being passed into law.

Lord HOTHAM, as a member of the committee 'who had
sat on this bill last year, supported the second reading. He
was astonished at the assertion of the right hon. member
(Mr. M. Gibson) as to the subject not having received
sufficient inquiry. The case of the railways referred to by
the right hon. gentleman took years, when committees
were differently constituted, and when railways were only
in their infancy.

Mr. HADFIELD approved of the bill, but thought it
should be referred to a select committee.
Sir GEORGE GREY considered that the bill should be
read a second time.

This bill was then read a second time, and after a few
words from Mr. Scourfield, it was referred to a select com-
mittee.

This bill was read a second time.
AFFIRMATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Mr. E. CRAUFURD moved for leave to bring in a bill
to allow affirmations or declarations to be made instead of
oaths in all civil and criminal proceedings in Scotland.

Agreed to.
The house then adjourned.

Naval and Military Intelligence.

The two 121 ton guns, made experimentally from
plans submitted by Mr. R. S. Fraser, C.E., Assist.-
Inspector of Machinery in Woolwich Arsenal, were
proved at the Woolwich butt on Monday with per-
fect success. Two proof rounds were fired, under
the directionof Major Freeth, Inspector of Ordnance
to the Department of War. The charges used con-
tained 551 b of powder and 2201 b. shots. The guns
were yesterday returned to the royal gun factory,
where they are to be sighted, in preparation for fur-
ther trials at Shoeburyness, after which the select
committee will enter upon a course of 1,000 rounds
to test their endurance. If the result should prove
favourable, as is generally anticipated, Mr. Fraser's
success will be most important, as the cost, both as
regards material and manufacture, is less than half
of the ordinary guns. The guns are built up of three
coils, instead of ten, as employed in the similar species
of Armstrong guns, which it is stated considerably
reduces the amount of waste in material and la-
bour. The guns have been manufactured by the ordi-
nary process, which it is admitted has involved but
half the usual time and labour.