Lords Sitting of 5 February 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Trial of Offences. 2a Leases and Sales of Settled Estates.

LEASES AND SALES OF SETTLED ESTATES BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it would not be necessary to detain their Lordships with more than a very few observations, for the measure was nearly identical with one that had obtained their sanction in the year previous. When, however, that Bill went down to the other House some alterations were made in it, and the consequence was that the Bill did not pass into a law. Now, as he (the Lord Chancellor) thought the measure was better without those alterations than with them, he had simply re-introduced the Bill in the shape in which it had left their Lordships' hands. The first and principal of the alterations made by the other House was the insertion of a provision by which the Court of Chancery was precluded from the power to grant leases wherever application had already been made to either House of Parliament, and had been refused. The objection to that alteration lay in the difficulty of defining in what an application to either House of Parliament should consist. It was well known that the clause was intended to apply to a particular case, namely, to certain lands in the neighbourhood of Hampstead; but he would remind their Lordships that by the Bill, the Court of Chancery would be restrained from acting in opposition to the presumed intention of the parties; and the same reasons which had induced Parliament to reject the private Bill referred to, would
216
prevent also the Court of Chancery from interfering, He had consequently brought forward the Bill in its original shape, leaving the Parliament to deal with it as they pleased.
LORD CAMPBELLthought the House should take care not to give the Court of Chancery power to do that which they had refused to do themselves. By the Bill they would, in point of fact, entrust the Lord Chancellor with legislative powers; but they ought surely not to permit the noble and learned Lord to reverse the decisions of Parliament itself. With respect to Sir Thomas Marion Wilson's will, the Judges, to whom it had two or three times been referred, had decided that the enclosure of Hampstead Heath would be contrary to the provisions of that document.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he approved of the Bill, and also of the motives which had dictated the clause in question; but he thought that the clause itself was most inartificially drawn.
LORD COLCHESTERsaid, that the Gentlemen who had applied for the private Bill which had been referred to had never had the least wish to enclose any part of Hampstead Heath whatever. The Bill referred to entirely different property, and would not deprive the public of any enjoyment they derived from that favourite place of resort.
THE EARL OF DERBYregretted that any mention of a private Bill should have been introduced into a discussion upon a general question like the present; but he must confess that he did not think it unreasonable to say that, when questions of this kind relating to settled estates had been adjudicated upon by Parliament, the Court of Chancery should not have the power of reversing that decision. If this were the object of the clause introduced by the House of Commons, he did not think it an unreasonable one, and he looked upon it as one to which their Lordships might fairly and properly assent. He thought it would be entirely unreasonable, however, if, when a question of this sort had been simply under the consideration of Parliament, and had not been adjudicated upon by them, it was hold that the Court of Chancery could exercise no power with respect to it.
THE LORD CHANCELLORagain urged the difficulty of defining what should constitute an application to Parliament. A party might apply for a Bill with regard to certain fields, and that might be

217
refused. But if he afterwards applied to the Court of Chancery with respect to other fields adjoining, would that be considered a matter which had been adjudicated upon? He would, however, yield to the wish of their Lordships, whether they desired a clause to be inserted in the Bill in compliance with the decision of the other House, or whether they would send the Bill down as it was, and afterwards agree to any clause that might be inserted by the Commons themselves. He considered the measure to be of far too great importance to be risked upon a point like that which had been raised.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

SETTLEMENT AND REMOVAL OF PAUPERS.
LORD BERNERSinquired if it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any measure for the abolition of law of settlement and removal of the poor in England, Scotland, and Ireland, or to make any alteration in the system of local taxation? The law of settlement had been frequently under consideration, and had been universally admitted to be oppressive to the poor. The subject was referred to in the Speech from the Throne in 1854; and in 1852 the President of the Poor Law Board stated, that the result of his experience was, that the law was detrimental to the poor, however it might be advantageous to the rich. The subject had since been referred to a Select Committee, which Committee had reported upon it. He believed that it was the intention of Government to introduce some alteration in the law of removal; hut it would be a simpler plan to found a Bill upon the report of the Committee. With regard to local taxation, it was admitted on all hands that the system could not be defended upon any principle. The Select Committee had endeavoured to amend it by reducing the period of residence from five to three years. If each board maintained its legitimate poor, the evils would be mitigated; but the efforts made to obtain a particular distribution of the poor made the taxation still more unequal. He begged, at the same time, to inquire why, contrary to all precedent, the Treasury had refused to repay the counties their expenses in criminal prosecutions?
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that it was not the intention of Government to introduce any general measure either on the subject of the law of settlement
218
or the removal of paupers, but it was intended to bring in a Bill, founded on the recommendation of the Committee, to regulate the removal of Irish and Scotch paupers. With regard to the refusal of the Treasury to pay the county expenses in cases of prosecution, the refusal was simply to repay the expenses of the apprehension of the prisoner, and not of the prosecution. Such refusal was justified by the constant practice of the Treasury.
LORD BERNERSsaid, that these expenses had been invariably allowed up to 1842.
After a few words from the Marquess of SALISBURY,
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the difficulty arose from the establishment of a rural police in some counties and not in others. In the first case, the expenses of apprehension involved little addition to the ordinary expenses.

TRIAL OF OFFENCES BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had to present a Bill of an important character, which it was desirable should be sanctioned with as little delay as possible, to enable the Court of Queen's Bench to order certain offences to be tried at the Central Criminal Court. When a person was charged in the country with any serious offence which was likely to prejudice him in the eyes of the neighbourhood, it was competent for the Court of Queen's Bench to remove the proceedings into that Court. The case would then be tried in ordinary course in the Court of Queen's Bench by a trial at bar—a process which was not only attended with considerable expense, but occupied a great amount of time, and was not a convenient mode of trial for felony. It was therefore desirable that, at the discretion of the Court, such cases should be sent for trial to a more convenient tribunal, the Central Criminal Court. It was doubtful, under the existing state of the law, whether the Court of Queen's Bench had the power to send such a case to the Central Criminal Court, which was certainly the most competent tribunal for the trial of criminal offences. There were old authorities which seemed to imply that the Queen's Bench had that power, but many distinguished modern authorities entertained no doubt that it had not. Under these circumstances, and as it would be highly impolitic in a question of this nature, which might involve life or death, to leave any doubt upon the subject,

219
he proposed the present Bill, and he would only add that it had the entire sanction of the Lord Chief Justice and the other Judges of the Court.
THE EARL OF DERBYinquired whether the Bill was proposed as an enacting or as a declaratory measure?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, said, that it had been prepared simply as an enacting Bill.
Bill read 1a
House adjourned to Thursday next.