Lords Sitting of 29 June 1858

Preamble
Took the Oaths.—The Earl Sommers,

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Confirmation of Executors, &c; Art Unions Act Amendment.
2a Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act Amendment; County Management; Independence of Parliament.

RIGHTS OF THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS.

  THE VICTORIA STATION AND PIMLICO RAILWAY BILL.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved That the First Commissioner of Public Works have leave to appear by Counsel against the same before the Select Committee on the said Bill; and that certain

  587
  Documents be referred to the said Committee. The noble Earl said the objection to the scheme was the mode in which the promoters proposed to cross the river near the new bridge at Chelsea; and as the First Commissioner of Public Works was deeply interested in that bridge it was only right that he should have leave to appear by counsel before the Committee; and the Committee would then report whether his objections were well founded or not. It was quite true that his noble Friend the First Commissioner had the power of refusing his assent to the Bill, but he did not wish to exercise his power arbitrarily.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the First Commissioner on the present occasion stood in the position of a private proprietor or company, and the Motion now made being quite exceptional, be thought it ought not to be agreed to. The plans of the company had been approved of by the late First Commissioner. The effect of adopting the Motion of the noble Lord would be to postpone the Bill for the present Session. The object of the Bill was the construction of a terminus for all the railways on this side of the Thames. The assent of a great variety of persons bad to be obtained to the project, and if the Bill were postponed there might be some difficulty in getting the assent of the various parties interested again, and the public might thus be deprived of the advantage of an excellent scheme.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEthought it was a case in which the Government were clearly bound to interfere, and in which the First Commissioner ought to be heard before the Committee. If their Lordships refused to allow the First Commissioner an opportunity of being heard on the subject, the result would probably be that the First Commissioner would probably advise the Crown not to assent to the Bill.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, it was desirable that the House should guard against acting under false pretences; it ought, he thought, to be distinctly understood whether the property alleged to be affected stood in the position of having the protection of the Crown thrown over it. On the whole, he thought it would be better that the Motion should be agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that the Bill had passed the other House without any interference from the Board of Works; now a different course was to be taken, for no other reason than that there had been a change of Govern-
  588
  ment. Three important railway companies were interested in the success of the Bill, and yet the Government threatened them with the veto of the Crown if they were not heard in Committee against the Bill. That was a most unconstitutional course. The late First Commissioner (Sir B. Hall) had given his consent to the measure in the early part of the year; now a new First Commissioner having been appointed, and being influenced by some one connected with Battersea Park, He had come down to ask their Lordships to deviate from their usual course.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that if the First Commissioner was refused a hearing on the Bill, the Government would be disposed to recommend that the Royal Assent should be withheld. The word "veto" was not the proper term to apply to the case. The late First Commissioner had not seen the plans, the present First Commissioner had, and he was of opinion that the expenditure on Chelsea Bridge would be thrown away if that plan was not modified. His noble Friend did not refuse his assent, but he asked that be might be beard.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that no sufficient reasons had been shown to induce their Lordships to depart from their usual rule. All the circumstances were known to the late First Commissioner (Sir B. Hall), than whom no man in the office of First Commissioner had conferred greater benefit on the public. The companies promoting this Bill had incurred enormous expense; and if the Bill were now defeated, it was probable the public would be permanently deprived of the advantage which it would afford.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, if the Government was determined to refuse the consent of the Crown, which must be given to the Bill at some stage, there was an end of the question.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he was only anxious to ascertain What was the relation of the Crown to the property in question.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the late Chief Commissioner had been informed that he might petition, if be thought proper; but he had not thought it necessary to do so. The case now made against the Bill was the most frivolous that could be imagined.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the land of Battersea Park had been bought by a grant of public money, and was vested in some form or other in the Board of Works.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwas understood to deny this, and to say that the assent of the Crown was not necessary to the progress of the Bill.
  After some further conversation on the question whether the property was Crown property or not,
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his attention had not been called to this question, which he thought was a very important one, and one on which it was very necessary that their Lordships should have some opinion. He would suggest, therefore, the propriety of adjourning the further consideration of the subject to give time for ascertaining what were the rights of the Crown in the matter; as they could have no other wish but to proceed in the regular order.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he had no objection to the adjournment of the debate, and he wished to take that opportunity of saying that the Board of Works had never given their assent to this scheme. The facts of the case were that the project was mentioned to the late First Commissioner of Works, who gave a general assent to the scheme, but desired to see the plans. He never did see them, however, for he went out of office before they were sent in; and they accordingly fell into the hands of his noble Friend the present Commissioner, who, as soon as he saw the plans, made that objection which was now under their Lordships' consideration.
  Further debate adjourned to Thursday next.

  INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    THE EARL OF MALMESBURYappealed to Lord Brougham, in consideration of the continued indisposition of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, to further postpone the second reading of this Bill.
    LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the Bill had been postponed so often that his apprehension was lest he should be too late to pass it this Session. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would allow it to be read a second time pro forma now, and reserve the discussion until the next stage.
    LORD CAMPBELLdid not object to the principle of the Bill, but protested against reading pro forma a measure which dealt somewhat mercilessly with the other House of Parliament.
    THE EARL OF MALMESBURYadmitted it was entirely the fault of the Government that this Bill was not proceeded with, but he hoped his noble and learned Friend would postpone the discussion on the principle of the Bill to the Committee.
    LORD BROUGHAMassented.
    Bill to be read 2a on Monday next.

  CHURCH DISCIPLINE—THE LAW OF SEQUESTRATION.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSrose to ask the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) whether he intended to introduce a Bill for improving Church Discipline and the law of Sequestration, with a view to deter incumbents from getting into debt, and persons from advancing money to them on loan on the credit of their livings, or giving them unreasonable credit, and to compel and enable them to reside and perform their duties although their livings were under sequestration.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYthanked the noble and learned Lord for having called the attention of the House to this subject, and for having given him an opportunity of making a statement relative to the subject to which the noble and learned Lord referred. The Bench of Bishops had long been aware of the imperfections of the present law regulating the discipline of the Church; and a few months ago they took great pains and devoted much time to the preparation of what they believed to be a considerable improvement of the law as it now exists, with the full hope that they would be able to lay it upon their Lordships' table, and send it, after it had received such consideration and amendment as their Lordships might deem proper to bestow upon it, to the other House of Parliament during the present Session. Having consulted, however, with those who were most competent to advise them, they were informed that, in the then state of the public business, there was very little chance of such a measure passing through both Houses in the course of this Session; consequently the Bishops were obliged to be content to postpone the Bill until next Session, when they hoped to be in a position to submit it to Her Majesty's Government for their approval, with the further hope that it might then receive the sanction of Parliament, and prove to be a considerable amendment of the law. Among the alterations contemplated by that Bill, there was one which he thought would

  591
  prove to be a valuable improvement on the existing law. It was a provision that in cases of sequestration, where the clergyman was necessarily absent from his cure, a much larger and more adequate stipend should be given to the curate than was now allowed, and that the curate should have possession of the parsonage house. Further than that he thought they could not venture, and it was hardly within their power to go. When, in the next Session of Parliament, however, the question came before their Lordships in the shape of a Bill, the Bench of Bishops would be greatly obliged to the noble and learned Lord for any assistance he might favour them with in making the measure as perfect as possible. He was in hopes himself that the particular case of sequestration to which the noble and learned Lord had recently called their Lordships' attention was an exceptional one. For his own part he believed there were very few such; but any alterations which the noble and learned Lord might propose would not, he was sure, be more stringent than his right rev. Brethren would themselves desire to see effected, provided they put an end to the evil of which there was such reason to complain.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNdefended the right rev. Bench from any blame in reference to the cases of sequestration. If a clegyman would but reside in his parish, his living might be sequestrated, but in the case supposed the living was already under sequestration.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, his object was to compel residence by monition or by some other means.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN: Suppose he will not answer to the monition?
  LORD ST. LEONARDS: Then power should be given to take the living away from him.
  LORD REDESDALEdid not mean to say that in every instance of a clergyman getting into difficulties the living should be taken away; but when those difficulties were of such a character that they could not be met by any reasonable arrangement, he thought the living ought to be declared vacant, and some other person instituted who could command the respect of the parishioners.
  THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTERsaid, he had proceeded against two clergymen for gross immorality, and had only been able to obtain sentences of two and three years' suspension. Such instances were
  592
  rare, but he desired that when they did occur the scandal should be removed by a power of deprivation, which the Bishop did not at present possess.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To morrow, half past Ten o'clock.