Lords Sitting of 15 June 1865

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS —First Reading— Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* (157); Colonial Laws Validity*(158); Colonial Marriages Validity* (159); Lunatic Asylum Act (1853) &c. Amendment* (160); Metalliferous Mines (No. 2)* (163.)
Second Reading — Dockyard Extensions* (143); Local Government Supplemental (No. 4) (144); Drainage and Improvement of Lands Acts (Ireland) Amendment* (117); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland)(Provisional Orders Confirmation) (No. 2) *(147); Land Debentures* (112).
Select Committee— On Locomotives on Roads, Earl Malmesbury added.
Committee — Partnership Amendment (123); Militia Ballots Suspension*; Militia Pay.*
Referred to Select Committee—Mortgage Debentures (107); Land Debentures (Ireland)* (113); Land Debentures nominated.*
Report— Militia Ballots Suspension *; Militia Pay.*
Third Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* (127).

COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING BILL.

  PETITION OF ETHELDREDA BROWNING.
  LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE presented a Petition of Etheldreda Browning for the Amendment of the Courts of Justice Building Bill, who owned seventeen houses in New Boswell Court, Lincoln's Inn, immediately contiguous to the site of the new Law Courts. This lady derived her only means of living from the rents of those houses, and she stated that in consequence of the frequent notices which had been served upon her in reference to the proposed scheme for building the new Courts of Justice she had lost the chief portion of her rents since the beginning of the year 1860. Although he (Lord Stratford de Redcliffe) was not exactly aware of what could be done for the lady's relief, he thought her case worthy of some consideration, when the question of compensating the owners of the property taken under the Bill arose.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he quite agreed that the case referred to by the noble Lord was a very hard one, and although he had great doubts whether there was any legal mode of compensating the lady, still he was glad the subject had been brought under the notice of their Lordships. In consequence of the various schemes which had been laid before Parliament in reference to the proposed new Courts of Justice, notices were served upon the Petitioner in each consecutive
  252
  year—in 1860, 1861, 1863, 1864, and 1865—that her property would be required. Those notices were not acted upon; but, as the fact of their having been served was well known, she had lost the chief part of her rents since the year 1860, persons being unwilling to take houses out of which they would be liable to be turned on short notice. He trusted that when the question of compensation arose under the Bill the claims of this lady would receive some consideration.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that while regretting the hardship Mrs. Browning had experienced, he could not see how her case differed from those of hundreds of persons who had been subjected to the same inconveniences from the notices that had been served on them by the metropolitan railways of their intention to take their property. Neither did he see from what source the compensation was to be derived.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the lady referred to had made frequent applications to him on the subject now before the House, and had had an interview with him to explain her case. He confessed he felt very much for her, but he did not see how she could be compensated under the present Bill for her five years' losses. However, the evil arising from notices of this description had attained such proportions that he thought the subject ought to be dealt with by some distinct legislative enactment.

PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 123.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (The Advance of Money on Contract to receive a Share of Profits not to constitute the Lender a Partner.)
  LORD ST. LEONARDSexpressed his disapprobation of the principle involved in the clause, which he feared would be calculated to embarrass the transactions of trade.
  After a few words from Lord CHELMSFORD and Lord WENSLEYDALE, which were inaudible,
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 2, 3, and 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 (In Case of Bankruptcy, &c, Lender not to rank with other Creditors.)
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he believed that that clause, which was the only one

  253
  in the Bill that proposed to give any protection to the general creditor, would require careful consideration before it was sanctioned by the House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsuggested that his noble and learned Friend should submit to their Lordships any Amendment of the clause he might think advisable on the bringing up of the Report.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that on the bringing up of the Report he should propose a clause to the effect—
  "That if the lender of any such loan shall withdraw the same or any part of it from the trade or business in question, and if within a year afterwards the trader shall be adjudged a bankrupt or insolvent, or make any agreement with his creditors to pay less than 20s. in the pound, or should die in insolvent circumstances, the amount so withdrawn shall be liable to be applied to the payment of the creditors."
  LORD CRANWORTHthought the Bill was already strong enough to prevent fraud.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  LORD BROUGHAM,on the Report, said, he highly approved of this amendment of the law. It was a natural and useful consequence of those great improvements in our commercial law, the limited liability and the abolition of the Usury Laws; and beside its other merits, it had that of relieving the courts from the most subtle distinctions which had been introduced rather perhaps by the process and decisions of courts, and some of which by their refinements and subtleties reflected no very great credit upon these tribunals.
  An Amendment made; The Report thereof to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 162.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (No. 4) BILL—(No. 144.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD CHELMSFORD presented a Petition of Charles Hay Frewen, Esq., a landowner in the neighbourhood of Hastings, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill. He (Lord Chelmsford) regarded the Provisional Order to which the Bill referred as so objectionable that be should have opposed the second reading had not the proper course been pointed out by
  254
  Parliament. The 77th section of the Local Government Act provided that in case of any petition being presented to either House of Parliament against any Provisional Order, the Bill must be referred to a Select Committee, and the petitioner be allowed to appear by counsel and oppose it, as in the case of a Private Bill. This Provisional Order proposed to take compulsorily the land of Mr. Frewen, the petitioner, for the purpose of widening and improving a certain lane at Hastings. There were two formidable objections to this—one in point of policy, the other in point of law. Local Boards had large powers entrusted to them, which were peculiarly liable to abuse; and it was because he believed these powers had not been properly applied in the present instance that be wished to explain the circumstances before the Bill went to a Committee. The Provisional Order had been made at the instigation of a Mr. Pope, who had no property within the district, but who was the owner of a tract of building land outside it. Mr. Pope applied to the Local Board, and told them that if they would make an order to widen and improve this land, he would pay the whole of the purchase money of the land required and legal costs, and contribute £100 towards the improvement. Without doubt these powers were not entrusted to Local Boards for the benefit of individuals, although individuals might incidentally be benefited, but for the advantage of the inhabitants generally; and it was therefore against public policy that an Act like this for the benefit of a private individual should be passed. Then as to the legal objection. He contended that all the Local Government Act incorporated the Public Health (1848) Act, which required that land to be taken for improvements should be taken by agreement, and by agreement only, and not compulsorily, as in this case. It might be said that several Provisional Orders before this had been sanctioned; but if so he could only say he was sorry for it, as they were perfectly illegal, though if the parties were agreed no great harm might be done. It had been stated that the Court of Queen's Bench had decided against Mr. Frewen, but that was altogether a mistake. An application was made for a writ of certiorari to remove the order into the Court of Queen's Bench for the purpose of its being quashed. When the rule came to be argued, it was held that

  255
  the Provisional Order was of no value till it had been confirmed by an Act of Parliament; and as it might never receive that confirmation, the Court, therefore, had no power then to consider the matter.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYcould only say, in answer, that it was a mistake to suppose that the object of this Provisional Order was to benefit a particular individual. This Provisional Order proceeded from the body entrusted with the local management of the town, and if they recommended the improvement the inference was that it was for the accommodation of the public. In fact, the action in this matter had been taken at the instance of the ratepayers of the district, and the widening of the lane in question was regarded as a great public improvement. With regard to the legal point raised, he did not feel competent to dispute the position laid down by the noble and learned Lord. He could only say this, that during the last five Sessions of Parliament not fewer than twenty-five Acts had passed on the supposition of powers being possessed by local improvement bodies to take lands compulsorily for widening and improving streets. It was quite true that in the original Act for the improvement of towns no compulsory powers were given; but it was contended, whether rightly or wrongly he did not know, that these compulsory powers were incidentally transferred to them by the Act of 1858, which incorporated the Lands Clauses Act. He quite agreed that the noble and learned Lord had done right in calling attention to this case.
  LORD CRANWORTHmade an observation on the question of law which was inaudible.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, there was a great desire at Hastings that this useful project should be carried out. The lane or road which it was sought to widen led from the town to the country, and was at present much too narrow for the traffic.
  LORD REDESDALEthought that the question of law involved in the Bill should not be left to the decision of a Select Committee. If this were a case in which one person was seeking to obtain rights over the property of another for his own advantage the House should refuse its sanction to the projected improvement.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  MORTGAGE DEBENTURES BILL.
  Referred to a Select Committee: The Lords following were named of the Committee; the Committee to meet on Monday next, at One o'Clock, and to appoint their own Chairman:—

  Ld. Chancellor.

  L. Boyle.

  D. Marlborough.

  L. Stanley of Alderley.

  M. Salisbury.

  L. Cranworth.

  M. Bath.

  L. Saint Leonards.

  E. Malmesbury.

  L. Chelmsford.

  V. Hutchinson.

LAND DEBENTURES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 113.)
  REFERRED TO SELECT COMMITTEE.
  On Motion of The Earl of CORK the said Bill was referred to the same Select Committee.
  LAND DEBENTURES BILL.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the same Select Committee.
LOCOMOTIVES ON ROADS BILL.

  (No. 108.) SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEmoved, that the Earl of Malmesbury be added to the Select Committee on this Bill.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he would take this opportunity to call attention to the inconvenience of the new Standing Order, which required a day's notice for the nomination of any noble Lord to serve on a Select Committee. Formerly the Committee was formed, and Peers could be added as the exigency demanded. He felt great interest in the Locomotives on Roads Bill, and on Tuesday he mentioned to his noble Friend who had charge of the measure (the Earl of Hardwicke) that he should wish to serve on the Select Committee. A day's notice being necessary, his noble Friend had been unable to move the addition of his name till this evening; but the Committee had been sitting all day, and, perhaps, had got through their business. Again, in the case of the Mortgage Debentures Bill, he himself was anxious to substitute two names for those of the Postmaster General, who had told him he would be unable to attend, and his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury), who would be prevented from serving owing to domestic affliction; but, as notice was necessary, he should not be able to make the change until Monday, so that at this late period of the Session two valuable

  257
  days would be lost in consequence of the operation of the new Order.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, the new system retarded public business.
  EARL STANHOPEdefended the Standing Order. The old system was indefensible, as under it the House had no control over the nomination of its Committees. Formerly the list was settled by a leading Member on each side of the House, and the only notice the House had of the Committee was when the Lord Chancellor read the names from the woolsack. The change of system had first been tried in the House of Commons, and gave general satisfaction, and the objections which had been urged arose rather from the inconveniences incident to the introduction of a new system. If any improvements in detail could be suggested he would be glad to adopt them; but he had settled the Resolution on which the new system was founded after consultation with the Clerk of the Parliament, and he believed it would be of service.
  EARL GREYsaid, he thought the new system was calculated to insure regularity in the proceedings, and that the Standing Order should be adhered to.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, the old system worked more smoothly.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYconcurred with his noble Friend (Earl Stanhope) in thinking that the new Order had a beneficial operation.
  THE EARL OF CORKthought the Resolution was likely to lead to great inconvenience, and if he met with any support he would move its repeal.
  LORD REDESDALEthought that it would be very objectionable to move alterations in their Orders upon the spur of the moment. They had certainly found the greatest advantage in referring Bills to Select Committees, who put them into a satisfactory shape before they came to their Lordships for consideration; and, therefore, it was a course which, instead of delaying, frequently expedited the progress of Bills. Upon the present occasion a delay of two or three days was of no consequence, because they certainly were not so near the end of the Session as to render this short period of importance. With regard to the Standing Order, no doubt it might occasionally cause inconvenience; but, speaking generally, notice on the change of names was just as necessary as on the original nomination.
  After a few words from the Earl of HARROWBY and Earl STANHOPE, Motion agreed to; the Earl of Malmesbury added to the Select Committee on the Bill.

  METALLIFEROUS MINES (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill relating to Metalliferous Mines Was presented by The Lord ROSSE; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 109.)
  House adjourned at a quarter-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.