HC Deb 01 June 1865 vol 179 cc1184-5

Lords' Amendment considered.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the House of Lords had prepared an Amendment to this Bill, to the effect that no land should be purchased for the erection of the new Courts of Justice until a determination had been come to relative to securing land to make proper approaches to that building. That was a subject for a new Act of Parliament, and it ought not to be permitted to put a stop to the present Bill. After consulting with those best acquainted with the subject he proposed that the Amendment of the Lords should be modified, so that no proceedings should be taken until a certificate in writing shall have been received by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, signed by the major part in number of the persons appointed by Her Majesty, under the Courts of Justice Building Act, 1865, to. advise and concur with the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, with reference to the plan and arrangements of the buildings to be erected upon the lands hereby autho- rized to be taken, stating that they are satisfied that the lands to be acquired under this Act, of which a plan has been laid before Parliament, are sufficient for all the purposes of the intended new courts and buildings connected therewith, and that the probable cost of the said lands and buildings will not exceed the amount of the funds provided under "the Courts of Justice Building Act, 1865," for those purposes.

MR. SELWY

said, he had served upon a Committee appointed to inquire into this matter, and they found that the Government Estimate for the purchase of the land and erection of the new Courts was fallacious. He thought the Amendment of the House of Lords had introduced into the Bill a wise precaution against the looseness of the Estimate. The Treasury appeared to have abandoned their duty of guarding the public purse in this matter, and he hoped, therefore, either that the Attorney General would not press the point at this late hour, or that the matter would be left as the House of Lords had put it.

MR. AYRTON

said, the course proposed was conciliatory and satisfactory. He thought that the safeguard proposed by the Attorney General was quite sufficient. To adopt the Lords' Amendment would be a stultification of the Legislature.

MR. MALINS

said, he would have been more satisfied if the Attorney General had wholly dissented from the Lords' Amendment; but as he proposed a conciliatory course he would not object to it.

Lords' Amendment agreed to, with an Amendment.

House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.