§ Commons' Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendment considered.1813
§ Amendments to original Bill agreed to.
§ EARL GRANVILLE
moved that their Lordships should not insist upon the Amendments in this Bill to which the House of Commons had objected.
THE EARL OF DESART
protested against the manner in which it was attempted to hurry this Bill through Parliament, and expressed a hope that their Lordships would not agree with the Reasons which had been assigned by the House of Commons for disagreeing from the Amendments which the House of Lords had thought fit to introduce into this Bill. The Bill had teen carefully considered and amended when nineteen Irish Peers were present in the House, and their Amendments ought not to be abandoned when so few were there to support them.
§ LORD MONTEAGLE
also complained of the Commons having rejected their Lordships' Amendments, which had been unanimously agreed to, and which he trusted would be insisted on.
§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he could not conceive anything more unfortunate, after the labour which had been bestowed upon this Bill, and the expectations which had been created thereby, that it should now be thrown out, and room left for further agitation. The object of the Bill, in part, was to give power which did not exist under settlement. The whole of the powers under the Bill were given by the Act of 1856, subject to the sanction of the Court of Chancery. The only objection to leaving the matter to the Court of Chancery was, that the expense would render the Act, which the Legislature then thought desirable, almost inoperative.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY
thought that their Lordships had some reason to complain of the manner in which they had been treated with respect to several points upon which, almost unanimously, the Irish Members of the House of Lords voted against the noble Earl (Earl Granville).
§ LORD REDESDALE
admitted that it was important the Bill should be passed during the present Session, but urged that the Amendments which their Lordships had introduced into the Bill were many of them of an important character, and should be retained.
§ Amendments to which the Commons disagree not insisted on.
§ Then it was moved, not to agree to Commons Amendments' to Lords' Amendment.
§ Then it was moved to insist on Amendment made by the Lords in Page 8, Line 13, to which the Commons disagree.
§ On Question "Whether to insist upon the said Amendment?" their Lordships' divided:—Contents 6; Not Contents 7: Majority 1.
§ Resolved in the Negative.
§ Remaining Amendments to which the Commons disagree, not insisted on; and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
1. Because the Amendments to this Bill are proposed for Adoption at the very Close of the Session, setting aside the ordinary Forms of Parliament which direct the printing of such Amendments before they are taken into consideration, and this without adequate Notice being given of their Import and legal Effect, and in the Absence of many of those Peers whose local Knowledge and Experience would entitle them to assist the Judgment of the House.
2. Because some of the proposed Alterations are absolute Reversals of previous Decisions pronounced by a full House, after duo Notice and careful Deliberation, and such last inconsistent Resolutions are pressed forward at a Time when the proposed Enactments cannot possibly be made known in that Part of the Empire to which this Bill exclusively applies, before obtaining the Authority of Law.
3. Because Legislation so hasty and unconsidered, forced upon the Attention of the House at the closing Days of the Session, renders all Freedom of Discussion impracticable, and withholds the Means of passing a safe and deliberate Judgment,
4. Because the Force of these Objections is made still more manifest if some of the Changes made in the Bill are considered in detail:—
In the Bill as it left this House the ordinary Leasing Powers commonly entrusted to Tenants for Life and other Parties, under the Restraints of Settlements, Wills, and other legal Instruments, were extended to a Power of granting Building Terms for 99 Years, whilst by the Bill returned to this House this already extended Leasing Power has been indefinitely prolonged, and now included an Authority to grant Leases for ever.
In the Bill as it left this House Enactments were contained prescribing that Houses to be hereafter built agreeably to its Provisions should be of a Description to promote the Health, Comfort, and Accommodation of their Inhabitants, and at the same Time to guard against au unjust Sacrifice of the Rights of the Reversioner: From the Bill returned these Provisions have been rejected:
In the Bill as it left this House, while it was framed so as to promote the Interest and secure the Rights of the Tenant, Security was taken against the Breach of Covenants into which both Parties had voluntarily entered: These Securities have been expunged from the Bill as returned to this House:
5. Because it is to be apprehended if the
Course of Proceeding which this House is now unfortunately called on to sanction and adopt be drawn into Precedent, it will be found no less inconsistent with the ancient Practice of Parliament than with the Possibility of enacting wise and salutary Laws.
MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON.
§ House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock, to Tuesday next, half-past One o'clock.