[BILL 5.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 23 February 1865)

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the necessity of having some information on which to ground this very important measure. He did not mean to say that the House had not received some such information in the eloquent speeches of the Attorney General, but it appeared to him, with respect to the financial portion of the question, that some statement was required from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also that some documents ought to be laid on the table for the purpose of showing that the funds alluded to in the preamble of the Bill were forthcoming. The House should bear in mind that the expenditure would commence by Votes of money to be provided by Parliament, and some future House would have to vote very considerable sums on account of the proposed expenditure. In the year 1862 the Chancellor of the Exchequer made some observations which ought to have great weight with the House. The right hon. Gentleman made a distinction between this sort of application for money and the ordinary applications for money for the army, navy, and miscellaneous Estimates; and he said that the latter Estimates were produced on the responsibility of the Government, but that in questions of this kind the responsibility rested on the House of Commons. With that opinion he entirely agreed, and he therefore invited the House to consider whether they were justified in passing the preamble of this Bill, or in allowing it to go into Committee until there was sufficient evidence on the table to sustain the statements set forth in that preamble. As to 602 the question of concentration, his own opinion was in harmony with that of many gentlemen in the legal profession. The hon. and learned Member for Walling-ford (Mr. Malins) was one of the first who declared that the equity courts, except with regard to two of the Vice Chancellors' Courts, fully answered their purpose, and there was no necessity for a change. He was quite ready to admit that the law courts did require some better building, but contended that the more economical course would be to leave the equity courts as they were at present, merely supplying the deficiency to which he had alluded. He would not enter further into that matter, but would limit his observations to the financial part of the question, and submitted that there never was a case in which the House had been so blindly called upon to enter into such a very serious expenditure. It might be contended that the expenditure would be limited to £1,500,000, but he did not believe a word of that, and was of opinion that £2,000,000 would be below the requisite sum. Experience of the past justified this opinion. The money must be provided by the House of Commons, and a future House of Commons might have much to deplore if a false step were now taken. The credit or discredit would belong to the House and to nobody else. There were three sources of revenue mentioned in the preamble of the Bill from which the money required was to be produced. Take the first. Nothing was known of the value of the sites of the buildings to be given up. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) had moved for certain Returns calculated to throw light on the subject, but they had not yet been presented. Again, nothing was known of the saving to be effected in respect of the rents now paid for public offices and buildings. Therefore, he might say that as to £200,000 of the £1,500,000 proposed to be expended the House had not an item of information. Then, as to the second source; there was £1,000,000 of stock which was said to be available; but it appeared to him that that fund was entirely forestalled, and he called upon the House to look into the matter, and he asked the Government to answer the plain statement which he should make without any ambiguity, and which would be contained in a sentence. The income of the Court of Chancery arising from the Fee Fund, according to the last account which 603 Lad been published, was £162,054, and the expenditure £161,700, leaving the balance of £354. Now, was it true that the whole of the money was actually forestalled, and that the magnificent balance of £354 was the only disposable amount? But it was said that these charges were merely salaries and compensations; that was only partly true. A large portion of the lunacy expenses had been thrown on the fund, and there were other charges amounting to nearly £40,000 which must be supplied. Now, if they were to lay hold of the principal, the interest of which furnished the income received, he wished to know how there could beany available surplus. Not a single document had been produced relating to the accounts of the Chancery for the year 1864, nor any Return to show whether even that small sum of £354 could be obtained. But there was also this very grave question—whether they had any right to touch the Fee Fund at all. By the 5s, 6 Vict., c. 84, it was provided that all the monies that came from and formed the Fee Fund should be applied for the relief and better security of the suitor. Now, how could they turn round and say they would seize that money, and not apply it to the relief of the suitor, but build law courts for the whole kingdom? He did not see how that difficulty was to be got over. Then there was another important question. Fund "B" was guarantee for the stock "A," but some suspicion appeared to be entertained, for the Bill provided that the Consolidated Fund might be called upon to pay; and if the stock were to fall to-morrow to 80 there would be a deficiency in the stock "A" to the extent of £174,000, so that the guarantee of Fund "B" to the stock "A" was a solid guarantee. The real question was, whether the whole money was already expended, and no ingenious calculator could make out how these obligations could be satisfied, bearing in mind that a very large proportion of the expenditure was not such an expenditure as would vanish as lives dropped. At all events, these funds must come out of some source or other, and it appeared to him that the only real source was the Consolidated Fund, or, in other words, the purse of the country. On the first point the House was without any information. The second source was a very doubtful one, and it was doubtful if there was anything to apply except the £354, which he had before referred to. With respect to the third source of supply, the fees upon law proceedings, that appeared to be 604 a very serious matter, and quite contrary to the legislation of modern days, which had been rather to release suitors from fees than to increase them. He thought the House would agree with him in thinking that there were never three more uncertain sources of revenue than those indicated in the preamble of the Bill. He hoped the House would pause until it received more information, in order that every Member might judge for himself whether or no, as any deficiency of means must be supplied out of the Consolidated Fund, he was giving a wholesome financial vote, and he therefore begged to move an Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
hoped that the hon. Baronet would not persevere in offering opposition to the progress of this measure, which was the result of as much deliberation as had ever been given to any measure with which he was acquainted. It was discouraging to those who had charge of it that three times over they should be required to make the same explanation to the House. The hon. Baronet complained that sufficient information had not been given with regard to the principal fund mentioned in the preamble, and upon which they proposed to go for one million of the money. Now, if ever there was a subject completely exhausted by inquiry and by the information which had been afforded, it was the history, nature, liabilities, and amount of that fund. The Commission of 1860 investigated the subject, not for the first time, and examined all the dealings of Parliament respecting it; and the existence of that fund, with the maximum amount of the charges to which it was liable, was as certain as the existence of the National Debt. A clear explanation had been given as to the mode in which the fund would be made available. It was true that there was a large amount of annual charge upon the million of stock; but there was another fund of £500,000 more which stood in exactly the same position, and which the Government did not profess to touch for the purpose of this building, but which they did 605 rely upon to answer the charges upon the million. The income arising from the £1,500,000 was, of course, £45,000 a year. Now, the charges upon the fund comprised some £50,000 of terminable compensations—life annuities which were falling in from year to year, and would all, according to reliable calculations, expire in about eighteen years if not redeemed. The Government proposed to reserve this half million in order to meet these charges, either by redeeming them or by paying the amount which from time to time might be required. Mr. Pinlaison, the accountant of the Treasury, had made an exact valuation, by which it appeared that to buy up the whole of the £50,000 of compensation annuities would require £437,936.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
asked, whether this document had been laid on the table.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, it had not, but he had stated on a former occasion that he would be prepared to give the exact details of the calculation. Even without such an estimate, however, hon. Members could satisfy themselves, as he had, that the £500,000 would be enough to answer this charge of £50,000, because, reckoning the deficiency of income at £30,000 a year, and assuming the truth of the calculation that these annuities would run out in eighteen years, there would remain a surplus of not less than £150.000. As to the estimate of £200,000 for the value of public sites now occupied by courts of justice and offices, or for which the public paid rent, that estimate was within the mark. These sites were:—1. The courts and offices at Westminster. 2. Offices (rented) for the Common Law Courts. 3. Offices at Doctors' Commons attached to the Court of Probate and Divorce. 4. Offices in Doctors' Commons for Registry of Court of Admiralty. 5. Offices in Southampton Buildings (formerly the Masters' Offices, now used for Patent business and for Registrars). 6. Offices, &c, of the Rolls Court and Examiners, and Petty Bag Office in Rolls estate, &c. 7. Common Law Judges' Chambers. 8. Insolvent Debtors' Court (new Land Registry Office) in Portugal Street. 9. Registries of Deeds by Married Women and of Joint-stock Companies. The enumeration of these sites would satisfy hon. Members that the sum of £200,000 was a moderate one. It was proposed to charge the fees so as to affect the suitors as lightly as possible; and it was ascertained by the pub- 606 lished judicial statistics that an addition of 1s. 6d. upon each writ issued from the common law courts, and of 6s. 8d. upon every grant of probate or letter of administration, or a percentage of 3d, upon everything above £100, as it might be determined, would be sufficient to pay the whole contribution required from the common law courts and the Court of Probate. This would be an almost imperceptible charge upon the suitors. As far as the Government were aware, the members of every branch of the profession connected with the common law courts and the Probate and Divorce Court desired the passing of this measure, and were satisfied that it should pass upon these terms; and he hoped, therefore, that the House would not assent to the Motion.

§ MR. ROLT
said, he wished to draw attention to the necessity of providing some access from the Temple to the new courts', without persons being obliged to cross the crowded thoroughfares of Fleet Street and the Strand. He had no doubt it was the intention of the Government to give such access, and if so he hoped that words would be introduced into the clause for that purpose.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that important object would be kept in view, and he thought that the words of the clause were sufficient to enable what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested to be done.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
moved the following New Clause:— The plan upon which the said buildings shall be erected, and the necessary arrangements for the proper and convenient accommodation of all the courts and offices to be provided for therein, shall be determined upon by the Treasury, with the advice and concurrence of such persons as Her Majesty shall think fit to authorize in that behalf; and after the completion of the said buildings Her Majesty may*by Order in Council, from time to time nominate and appoint such persons as She shall think fit, with such powers to superintend and regulate the said buildings, and to provide for the proper care and maintenance thereof, 607 and also (if it shall be found necessary) to vary from time to time the internal arrangements of the said buildings, and the purposes to or for which any part thereof may be used or appropriated, as to Her Majesty shall seem proper and expedient. Provided always that no orders or regulations requiring any expenditure of public money shall be made by such persons without the consent of the Treasury.

§ MR. ROLT
said, that although this measure had not been much discussed in the House, its provisions had been very carefully considered by those who were interested in the question out of doors. A proof of that was to be found in the part of the present clause which provided for the establishment of a Commission to superintend and regulate the new buildings. The Society of the Temple, of which he was a member, suggested, in a petition which they presented to the House, the necessity for such a provision, and although this clause had not been framed exactly in the form which they recommended, he admitted they could not ask for more.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
asked, whether the Treasury was to have power to spend money upon these courts without coming to Parliament?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
explained that the clause did not authorize the Treasury to spend money, but provided that the persons who should have the care of the building should not have power to make any order without the consent of the Treasury. If the Treasury consented to any order involving an expenditure of money, they would have to apply to Parliament for the funds in the usual manner.