HL Deb 08 May 1865 vol 178 cc1578-83

Bill read 3a (according to Order).

LORD ST. LEONARDS moved the omission of Clause 16, allowing the Lord Chancellor to purchase or redeem Chancery Compensations with the Moneys forming Funds belonging to the Suitors of the Court of Chancery in addition to the One Million of Stock previously authorized to be taken from the same Funds.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend ought more properly to have been moved on the second reading of the Bill. His noble and learned Friend proposed to strike out a portion of the Bill, and if his Amendment was carried the effect would be that the rest of the Bill would fall to the ground. His noble and learned Friend had for the first time failed to understand the meaning of the measure. There was a large fund in Chancery charged with certain compensations and annuities to persons, the greater portion of whom were advanced in years. Now, it was proposed, first of all, to take from the principal fund a million of stock; and then the residue, together with another fund that was available, could be applied in redeeming the annuities he had referred to. In that way there would be ample means for providing the compensations either in the shape of Government annuities, or by selling off a portion of the stock from time to time. His noble and learned Friend had objected to certain fees that would be charged under the Bill. But it had been already explained that those fees were of the most trifling description, and would be a mere drop in the ocean compared with the benefits to be derived from the Bill. His noble and learned Friend had referred to objections made by the Master of the Rolls and Vice Chancellor Wood. But their objections were of a very different kind. What they objected to was that the money which had been accumulating in the Courts of Chancery should be applied to the building of courts for the benefit of the suitors at common law. But was it possible to distinguish between the two classes of suitors? Was it possible to draw a line between the use of those Courts by one set of suitors and their use by another? The Bill, however, met the very objection which he had noticed, because, while the contribution from the Suitors' Fund was to be £900,000, all the residue and all possible deficiency were to be made up by charges in the Courts of Common Law. He trusted their Lordships would refuse to strike out this clause, to do which would cause the whole scheme to fall to the ground; and thus would be lost a measure which he was convinced would prove one of the greatest benefits to the public generally, and especially to the suitors, both in law and equity.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, he feared he was about to be troublesome to both the noble and learned Lords, but the case was one upon which he did not feel quite clear, and he wished to have his doubts removed. He assumed, in the first instance, that his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards), whatever his own opinion on the subject, did not intend to revive a discussion upon a point already decided by the House—namely, that the money of the Suitors' Fund was fairly applicable to the purposes of the Bill. But the question now was, whether under the clause they were not taking more from the Suitors' Fund than the Bill professed to do. It was upon that point he should like to have some explanation.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, if the noble Earl would permit him he would repeat the figures. The Suitors' Fund consisted of £1,291,000 Consols. Besides that there was a Fund of more than £200,000—he believed it was £240,000—Consols which had arisen from the surplus fees invested under the direction of the Court. The operation which was proposed was this:—From the £1,291,000 stock £1,000,000 would be taken, which would leave a surplus of the Suitors' Fund of £291,000 Consols. To that surplus would be added the second Fund of which he had spoken—say £200,000—which would make £491,000 Consols. Now it was estimated that the money required for the redemption of the compensations and annuities would be £437,000; and therefore the £491,000 of which he had spoken would be ample for the purpose. That would discharge every kind of encumbrance affecting the Funds, and would leave a million of stock perfectly free.

LORD ST. LEONARDS

reiterated his arguments against the power proposed to be given to the Lord Chancellor to purchase or redeem Chancery compensations by the Suitors' Fund in addition to the one million of stock already authorized to be taken from the same Fund. It must be remembered that the whole of those Funds were a security for the compensations, and hence no part of the Funds could be taken until the compensations were redeemed.

THE EAEL OF DERBY

said, if he understood the noble and learned Lord correctly those two Funds—the Suitors' Fund and the Suitors' Fee Fund—were practically one, and out of the whole he proposed to take £1,500,000. The Suitors' Fund, as he understood, was now chargeable with a certain amount of annuities by way of compensation, and those annuities were chargeable on the whole of the Suitors' Fund. His noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) said that the Bill proposed to throw an additional charge upon the Suitors' Fund, because it was taking from it £430,000 more than it professed to do. But it appeared to him (the Earl of Derby) that this £400,000 was to be taken for the purpose of redeeming those annuities; and his noble and learned Friend's argument was that, by taking the capital of the Fund, they would be diminishing it more than if it continued to pay the incumbrances. Then, although he understood the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to say that the suitors would not be more injured, still there was a question whether it was advisable to pay off those incumbrances. But his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) said, that inasmuch as the security of those compensations was upon the whole of the Fund, they could not proceed to diminish the Suitors' Fund by taking this £1,000,000 of stock, representing £900,000, without previously clearing the way by paying off those compensations. He confessed he did not see, if their Lordships admitted the principle that it was legitimate to apply this £1,000,000 at all to the purposes proposed, that they were doing a greater injury by retaining the clause than by adopting the proposition of his noble and learned Friend. There was another question as to the contribution professed to be made by Government; but, as his noble and learned Friend said, in reality to be made by the Suitors' Fund itself. He (the Earl of Derby) confessed he thought that his noble and learned Friend had not made out a case for his Amendment as to Clause 16, and if he divided the House he should vote against him. He should, however, be prepared to listen to his arguments on the other question.

Motion negatived.

LORD ST. LEONARDS moved to leave out Clause 22, which proposed to take from the Chancery suitors the value of the Masters' Offices (which were built at the expense of the Suitors' Fund, and were now vested in the Lord Chancellor upon trust to sell and pay the proceeds to the Suitors' Fund), and to pay the money to the Consolidated Fund, so as to form part of the £200,000 which the Government were to pay towards the expenses of the new Courts. The noble and learned Lord contended that the above would be the effect and operation of the clause—although it was not so framed as on the face of it to show the intention—and that the proposed transfer would be inequitable.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that the noble and learned Lord who now objected so strongly to any interference with this particular Fund was himself the first to give the example for so doing by introducing a Bill for devoting buildings properly connected with the Suitors' Fee Fund to the purposes of the Patent Office. He actually, to use his own expression, "with unhallowed hand" took those offices from the suitors to the Court of Chancery, and devoted them to a purpose totally foreign and utterly alien from that to which they were originally applied. He was not, however, about to set the Attorney General in motion to cause his noble and learned Friend to make restitution. The fact was simply that the Government were about to become the purchaser of these Masters' Offices and other offices, every claim being extinguished by the sum of £200,000 for which the Government proposed to make themselves responsible.

LORD ST. LEONARDS

explained that at the time the offices were made over, as stated by the noble and learned Lord, the Masters themselves ceased to exist. There had been no breach of trust, because, though the offices were not sold or the money paid over to the Suitors' Fee Fund, they were transferred with that liability still attaching to them.

LORD CHELMSFORD

said, the question was not whether his noble and learned Friend who had just sat down or the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had been guilty of a breach of trust, but what the practical effect of this clause would be. Whether the offices were treated as buildings or treated as money it was plain that they belonged equally to the Suitors' Fee Fund. But the Government proposed to help themselves to these buildings as part of their contribution, ignoring the liability that attached to them. The buildings did not belong to Government but were the subject of a trust. It would, therefore, be unjust to allow the clause to remain in the Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he had explained more than once the course which the Government proposed to take. It would be very much shorter to take the houses than to follow the roundabout process of selling them and paying over the proceeds to the Suitors' Fee Fund, from which a certain amount was then to be withdrawn.

On Question, "That the said Clause stand part of the Bill?" their Lordships divided:—Contents 46; Not Contents 47: Majority 1.

Amendment agreed to:—Clause struck out;—Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

CONTENTS.
Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor,) Blantyre, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)
Devonshire, D. Camoys, L.
Somerset, D. Cranworth, L.
Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)
Camden, M.
De Tabley, L.
Abingdon, E. Foley, L. [Teller.]
Albemarle, E. Harris, L.
Clarendon, E. Houghton, L.
Cowper, E. Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)
De Grey, E.
Ducie, E. Lyveden, L.
Effingham, E. Monson, L.
Granville, E. Mostyn, L.
Romney, E, Poltimore, L.
Russell, E. Tonsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]
Saint Germans, E.
Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)
Eversley, V.
Stratford deRedcliffe.V. Skene, L. (E. Fife.)
Sydney, V. Somerbill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Torrington, V.
Stanley of Alderley, L.
London, Bp. Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll)
Ripon, Bp.
St. Asaph, Bp. Taunton, L.
Vivian, L.
Abercromby, L. Wenlock, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Marlborough, D. Clements, L. (B. Leitrim.)
Richmond, D.
Rutland, D. Colchester, L.
Westmeath, M. Colville of Culross, L. [Teller]
Amherst, E. Delamere, L,
Bantry, E. Denman, L.
Belmore, E. De Ros, L.
Cadogan, E. De Saumarez, L.
Carnarvon, E. Digby, L.
Derby, E. Egerton, L.
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.) Heytesbury, L.
Inehiquin, L.
Hardwicke, E. Kingsdown, L.
Harewood, E, Northwick, L.
Huntingdon, E. Raglan, L.
Orkney, E. Redesdale, L.
Powis, E. Saltoun, L.
Tankerville, E. Sherborne, L.
Sondes, L.
Hawarden. V. [Teller.] Saint Leonards, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)
Tenterden, L.
Blayney, L. Tredegar, L.
Bolton, L. Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)
Castlemaine, L.
Chelmsford, L. Wynford, L.