HL Deb 20 February 1865 vol 177 c416
THE EARL OF LONGFORD

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to a Return which had just been laid upon the table of the number of houses to be removed and the persons who would be displaced in consequence of the proposed erection of the new Courts of Justice near Temple Bar. The Return professed to give the number of inhabited houses to be removed at 151, and of the number of persons who would be displaced at 302, being two persons to each house. It occurred to him that there must be some inaccuracy in the Return, and he had, consequently, referred to the Parliamentary agents, whose names appeared upon the back of the Bill, and they had stated that the Return was correct, it being a list of the owners and of the leaseholders of the property to be taken; and that the Return omitted all notice of the lodgers, who were very many. It was clearly the object of the House that a full Return should be made of all the persons who would be displaced, and he felt sure there had been some misapprehension in regard to it. He should like to know how many of the working classes would be removed out of their houses. He therefore suggested that a supplementary Return should be ordered, in order to afford the required information, which would certainly be required when the Bill came before the House.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that the objection of the noble Earl appeared to be well founded. The question was not as to the accuracy of the Return, but merely whether it included all the information required, which, in his opinion, it did not do, as it was a farce to say that only two persons resided in each house. He would see that a further Return was made, which would give the number of all persons who would be displaced by the projected plan.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

said, that the Return was not in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, which directed that before the second reading of any Bill involving the removal of houses in the metropolis a Return should be made stating the number of such houses required, with their character and the positive and actual number in detail of the persons who would be dispossessed, and, further, whether there was any provision made for their accommodation. The Return put the number of houses required at 151, each of which might be assumed to contain from two to twenty rooms; and yet it put the number of inhabitants at only 302. This on the face of it was a perfect mockery of a Return, and did not in the slightest degree pretend to meet the requirements of their Lordships' Standing Orders. He trusted that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would insist upon a proper Return being made of the actual number of poor persons who would be deprived of their homes through their houses being required for the purposes of the Courts of Justice Site Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he had been much struck with the form of the Return, and he would take care that a Return was made in accordance with the Standing Orders.