§ Lords' Amendment considered.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved that the House do not agree with their Lordships' Amendment, by which Clause 22 was struck out. In the Bill provision was made for the appropriation of a million and a half of money from the accumulations of the Suitors' Fee Fund for the purchase of the site, &c., and a portion of the money—£200,000—was to be advanced by the Treasury, which 1184 was to be repaid by the sale of certain buildings and certain fees. One of those properties was the office of the late Masters in Chancery in Southampton Buildings. When the Masters in Chancery were abolished the Act for that purpose provided that if these buildings were sold the produce should be repaid to the Suitors' Fee Fund—the very fund from which the £1,000,000 was to be taken for the new courts of justice. Their Lordships struck out Clause 22, which provided for the money to be paid into the Treasury, as inconsistent with that Act; but as it was in fact all one transaction the objection appeared useless, and as it rendered nugatory the 7th clause he could not consent to the Amendment.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment disagreed to.
§ Committee appointed," to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the Amendment to which this House hath disagreed:"—Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. COWPER, and Mr. BRAND:—To withdraw immediately; Three to be the quorum.