Lords Sitting of 2 May 1865

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report— On Resignation of Mr. Edmunds.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Inclosure* (64) Pilotage Order Confirmation* (67); Herring Fisheries (Scotland)* (48).
Referred to Select Committee—Public Schools (32) [H.L.]
Committee—Courts of Justice Building (23); Courts of Justice Concentration (Site)* (59); Metropolitan Main Drainage Extension* (40).
Report—Courts of Justice Building (23); Courts of Justice Concentration (Site)* (59); Metropolitan Main Drainage Extension* (40).

PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL—(No. 33.)

  REFERRED TO A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON THE EARL OF CLARENDON moved that the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee on this Bill should be discharged with the view of submitting the measure to the consideration of a Select Committee. In the event of the Motion being agreed to, he would next move that it be an instruction to the Committee to hear counsel on behalf of certain petitioners against the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order of the Day discharged, and Bill referred to a Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONsuggested that the Select Committee should consist of the following Peers:—
  The Archbishop of Canterbury, The Bishop of London, The Earls Granville, Derby, Devon, Stanhope, Powis, Ellenborough, Harrowby, Carnarvon, and Clarendon, and Viscounts Eversley and Stratford de Redcliffe.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHdesired to be excused from serving on it.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he did not rise to object to any of the proposed names, but he thought the system of nominating Committees without any previous knowledge on the part of the House of the list of the Members was most unsatisfactory. He suggested that the mode followed in the House of Commons should be adopted by their Lordships, and that Committees should not be nominated until after the names of the Members had appeared in print in the Business Paper of the House. He would on a future day bring this matter under the consideration of the House.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought it was desirable that some change should take place in the nomination of Select Committees of their Lordships' House, and

  1305
  that at least one days' notice should be given.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that if it was intended to make the proposed alteration, the sooner it was done the better. He proposed that the appointment of this Committee should be deferred until after the alteration had been made.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, he would not ask their Lordships to name the Select Committee until Thursday next, and in the meantime he would give notice fo the names.
  And, on Thursday, May 4, the Lords following were nominated of the Committee:—

  His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.

  E. Carnarvon.

  E. Powis.

  Ld. President.

  E. Harrowby.

  D. Marlborough.

  V. Stratford de Redcliffe.

  E. Derby.

  V. Eversley.

  E. Devon.

  L. Bp. London.

  E. Stanhope.

  L. Lyttelton.

  E. Clarendon.

  L. Houghton.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 65.]

  COMMONS' AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED.
  Commons' Reasons for disagreeing to a certain Amendment made by this House considered (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANS THE EARL OF ST. GERMANS moved that their Lordships should re-consider their determination with regard to their Amendment in the second clause. This Bill had passed the House of Commons without a dissentient voice. Here it had been referred to a Select Committee, on whose recommendation a most important part of the second clause was struck out by a small majority. He hoped their Lordships would now allow the Bill to pass in the shape in which it came up to this House, and he would therefore move that they should not insist on their Amendment.
  Moved, not to insist on the Amendment to which the Commons disagree.—(The Lord Steward.)
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he wished I to enter his protest against the course proposed by his noble Friend. The facts of the case were these—It appeared that in Ireland railway companies could be made bankrupts, whereas in England the law was otherwise. Upon the faith of the law being as he had stated, a certain party entered into a contract with a railway company, under the impression that if the
  1306
  company failed to pay him he could make it bankrupt. Now, the Bill had been introduced to assimilate the law of Ireland, so far as railway companies were concerned, to England. That he (Lord Cranworth) did not object to. The measure, when it left that House, proposed to alter the law as regarded prospective contracts only. The other House had, however, so amended their Lordships' Amendments as to make it have a retrospective action. Now it might be quite right to enact prospectively that railway shareholders should never be liable in this way; but by the recital of the Bill it was stated, and the Bill enacted, that they never had been liable. If their Lordships assented to the Bill as it now stood, he thought they would be acting discreditably as a House of Legislature. They would, in fact, be declaring that though they knew what the law actually was, it should be held to be quite the reverse. He thought that their Lordships would lower themselves in the estimation of the country if they assented to any such proposition. He would therefore move that their Lordships insist on their Amendment.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSentirely agreed that it would be contrary to all principle that a retrospective Act should take away the rights of an individual to a certain remedy, and he should support the Motion of his noble and learned Friend.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that the existing law left the whole of the railway companies of Ireland completely at the mercy of any of their creditors. That was a monstrous injustice as far as the sister country was concerned The fact was that the Legislature, he believed, never intended to give any such power to creditors over railway companies, and that it was a mere oversight in drawing the Act. He believed that the party to whom his noble and learned Friend had referred had not been deceived. He believed that he had entered into the contract not knowing that he had the power of making the company bankrupt; but afterwards found his mistake and discovered that he could proceed against the company in bankruptcy. He did not admit that there was any mis-statement in the recital. He hoped their Lordships would accept the Bill as it had been returned to them by the Commons.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he had heard no satisfactory answer given to the Reasons assigned by the Commons for ob-

  1307
  jecting to this Amendment. Some hardship was probably to be apprehended on both sides; but it never could have been the intention of the Legislature in 1857 to do that which now seemed to be contemplated by the words of the Act.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that the contractor in question alleged that he had obtained various opinions, and thus became aware of the liability of railway companies in Ireland to bankruptcy. That being so, it would not be right to take away from this man the remedy which the law gave him and on the faith of which he had acted.
  On Question, Whether to insist? Their Lordships divided;—Contents 33; Not-Contents 43: Majority 10:—Resolved in the Negative.
  The rest of the Commons Amendments agreed to.

  CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Aveland, L.

  Belper, L.

  Berners, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim,)

  Airlie, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Cranworth, L. [Teller.]

  Belmore, E. [Teller.]

  Denman, L.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Derby, E.

  Northwick, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Panmure, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Romney, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Saint Leonards, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Walsingham, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  York, Archp.

  Sydney, V.

  Dublin, Archp.

  Torrington, V.

  Devonshire, D.

  Abercromby, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Westmeath, M.

  Carew, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Dacre, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Devon, E.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  De Tabley, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Granville, E.

  Harris, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Saint Germans, E. [Teller.]

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Llanover, L.

  Vane, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Monson, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  1308

  Mostyn, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Seymour, L, (E. St. Maur.)

  Taunton, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  PROTEST
  Against not insisting on the Amendments made by this House to which the Commons disagree.
  DISSENTIENT:—
  Because the effect of the Bill, without the Amendments introduced in this House, is to deprive persons who have instituted legal proceedings for the purpose of asserting their rights, of the benefits of the remedies to which they were entitled.
  CRANWORTH,
  BELMORE,
  HUTCHINSON,
  CHELMSFORD.

COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING BILL.

  (No. 23.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, there were several serious omissions in the Bill as it stood at present—for instance, there were no powers for making adequate approaches to the Courts of Justice proposed to be built. The proposal at present was simply to take a large plot of ground without any better approach from any quarter than the Strand in its narrowest part, which, as their Lordships knew, was crowded to excess at certain times of the day. This was a matter in which £700,000 was to be expended on the site, and the question was whether another £700,000 would not be required for making the approaches. And then with regard to the buildings themselves their Lordships had no estimate whatever before them. He believed there never was a proposal for the expenditure of a large sum of public money on which so little explanation had been given. If the money that should be voted by Parliament proved insufficient, an extra grant would have to be made from the public funds. He did not think the Bill should receive the sanction of that House without further inquiry, and therefore he should move that it be referred to a Select Committee, who should be empowered to report upon the question of approaches and other points which needed elucidation.
  Amendment moved
  To leave out all the Words after the Word ("That") and insert ("the Courts of Justice Building Bill and the Courts of Justice Concentration (Site) Bill he referred to a Select Committee, such Committee to inquire and report as to the probable Cost of the now Courts and the Buildings connected therewith, and what new Approaches to the proposed Site will be required, and the probable Cost thereof.")—(The Lord Redesdale.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion."
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsupported the Amendment. One of the Bills relating to the subject of the Courts of Justice provided money, the other dealt with the buildings; but each had a portion which belonged to the other. There were so many points which required investigation, and upon which so little information had been supplied, that it would be quite impossible to discuss the two Bills properly in a Committee of the Whole House. His only object was that the entire subject should be thoroughly investigated.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that one great objection to sending this Bill to a Select Committee was that the Lord Chancellor, who took so much interest in the subject, could not find time to attend the Committee. He trusted that their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEwished to know how the Government arrived at the conclusion that seven acres of land in the heart of London could be purchased for £700,000. The site of the General Post Office, which occupied only a single acre, cost a million. There ought to be a Committee to inquire into this subject.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that not only any private gentleman, but any Prince—Crcasus himself—would be very imprudent to begin to build a great palace without an estimate of the cost. The House, however, was asked to build not one palace, but half-a-dozen, each as large as the Vatican, for the purpose of making comfortable accommodation for 3,000 barristers, 2,300 attorneys, and 50,000 gentlemen whom they called their staff. Why, there was no one who did not feel satisfied that the design of these various works—to combine these various Courts—would be one of the greatest undertakings submitted to any architect since the time of Michael Angelo. But he saw no Michael Angelo now—he saw no architect of the
  1310
  most ordinary capacity who was to perform this work. One of the wisest statesmen of former days was reported to have said, "Stay a little, that you may make an end the sooner." But the passing of the present Bill would be not the end, but the beginning. They could not tell how long the work would last or how many millions it would require. Louis XIV. when he set about building Versailles, burnt all the estimates, and he was quite light. The Government did the same, or rather they said they would have no estimates at all. The matter did not much concern their Lordships, but would be for those who came after them. Their Lordships would never see this great Palace of Justice, although they might have to pay a portion of the cost. They would never expatiate in those Courts—they would never see the common law and equity lawyers flying into each other's arms and effecting a fusion of Jaw and equity, not by Act of Parliament, but by casual intercourse as they walked through its ample passages. Those who came after them would say how carelessly and recklessly their Lordships began that great expenditure, and they would censure them for not having made due inquiry before entering upon such a work. He confessed that when he first looked at this Bill he was strongly opposed to it. He felt most unwilling to remove the Courts of Common Law from the position at Westminster which they had held from the time when they were first made stationary. He was sorry ever to see that the Queen's Bench had been removed from its former position at the end of Westminster Hall, in which Court the battle of the Constitution had been fought quite as much as in that or the other House of Parliament. At the same time the evidence led him to the conclusion that there was a grievance in a want of comfort in some of the Law Courts which practically impaired the administration of justice. That was the consequence of the continued neglect of successive Governments, which had made no provision for the new Courts they had called into existence, and the additional requirements of the old Courts. He was not, therefore, hostile to the measure; but he cautioned their Lordships against beginning blindly a course of expenditure of which they would never see the end, and for which they would be deeply censured by those who came after them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid,

  1311
  that unquestionably their Lordships would never see an end of this work if they never made a beginning. The noble Earl said it would be better to wait a little. Why, they had been waiting for forty years—forty years of inquiry, of talk, and of obstruction—and at last they had come to the threshold of the undertaking. Now, again, there was the same cry of a lion in the path, and their Lordships were told not to do anything and to wait a little longer. For himself, he was not disposed to fold his hands any longer. Inquiry was a prudent thing, and so was calculation; but there had been all the inquiry possible, and all the calculation that could be obtained from the most experienced persons had been laid before Parliament. The Government had been much indebted to the Commission issued by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby). That Commission made the most diligent inquiry, and they reported not only the results of their own investigation, but also the inquiries that had preceded their own. He had, on a previous occasion, stated to their Lordships that a Committee of the House of Commons in 1841 had diligently examined the subject. An estimate of the value of the land and buildings made at that time gave an outlay of not quite £700,000. Under the Commission issued by the noble Earl, Sir Charles Barry, and a local surveyor examined the whole of the site and went from house to house. They estimated the value of the land and buildings at about £670,000. Subsequently to that Report the Government commissioned two architects and surveyors—Mr. Hunt and Mr. Pennethorne—to make another estimate, and they stated that the cost would not exceed £700,000. The noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke) was thinking of the value of land upon a different site; but this site was covered with houses, many of which were of the lowest character, inhabited by persons who would not dare to present themselves to receive compensation for honest trades and a livelihood obtained by honest means. Thus, all that could be done had been accomplished to obtain a satisfactory and reliable estimate. He could see no advantage whatever in referring this Bill to a Select Committee. It would be impossible to add to or to alter the Bill without disturbing the whole plan of the measure. It was impossible to lay down what portion of the seven acres of land would be required or could be dispensed with. When the expense of the
  1312
  buildings and land was ascertained he had no doubt a considerable portion of land would remain, part of which might he dedicated to the improvement of the approaches from the Strand. It must also be remembered that uncertainty with regard to a great measure of this kind actually debarred a number of minor measures of improvement from being brought forward. When the Bill now under consideration was proposed, in 1861, its introduction was immediately followed by that of another measure, originated by a private company, for the removal of Holywell Street and the widening and improvement of the Strand. This was but a specimen of the proposals which might be expected to follow since this great public undertaking had been actually entered upon. To postpone the Bill again would be to lose the Bill, and the hopes of the public and the profession had been foiled so often that he was unwilling to do anything which might imperil its success, now that the opponents of the measure, even those most reluctant to believe in the merits of the scheme, had been compelled to do so by the force of evidence with which they were confronted. It was the greatest measure of legal improvement that he had known during his life, and after it had passed through so many perils and overcome so many difficulties the country would have reason to feel annoyed if, by the indefinite postponement of the third reading, the hopes excited were once more doomed to disappointment.
  On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand Part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 55; Not-Contents 32: Majority 23:—Resolved in the Affirmative.

  CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. C cellor.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Dublin, Archp.

  Eversley, V.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Devonshire, D.

  Sydney, V.

  Somerset, D.

  Torrington, V.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Kilmore, &c, Bp.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Airlie, E.

  London, Bp.

  Albemarle, E.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Clarendon, E.

  Rochester, Bp.

  Cottenham, E.

  St. David's, Bp.

  De Grey, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Abercromby, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Belper, L.

  Granville, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Romney, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Camoys, L.

  1313

  Carew, L.

  Panraure, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Duferin and Claneboye.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.,]

  Cranworth, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Dacre, L.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Dartrey, L. (A. Cremorne.)

  Seaton, L.

  Do Tabley, L.

  Seymour, L. (E. St. Maur.)

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Harris, L,

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Houghton, L.

  Hunsdon, L, (Fakllad)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Lyttelton, L.

  Monson, L.

  Taunton, L.

  Mostyn, L,

  Wenlock, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Exeter, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Salisbury, M.

  Westmeath, M.

  Berners, L.

  Belmore, E. [Teller.]

  Bolton, L.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Carnarvon, E.

  Cathcart, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Derby, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Denman, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Heytesbury, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Northwick, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Lonsdale, E.

  Saltersford, (E. Courtown.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Vane, E.

  Saint Leonards, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Wynford, L.

  Then the said Motion, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill," was agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Plan of Building, and Arrangements for Care and Maintenance of Building.)
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, the Bill provided for the establishment of a Board of twenty or thirty persons, who were to decide upon the accommodation to be provided for the several Courts. With such a Board he thought there would be endless confusion. It would be much better to have a Commission of some two or three persons with some architectural knowledge, who would hear the persons representing the different Courts, and apportion the accommodation amongst them.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he thought it was requisite to have such a Board to allot the space and determine on the accommodation to be provided. It would be better for the Board of twenty or thirty
  1314
  to call before them two or three architects than for the two or three architects to call before them the twenty persons representing the different Courts.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7 (£200,000 to be contributed out of money to be provided by Parliament as the value of Courts and Offices transferred, and of Relief of Rent to the Public).
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that the clause seemed to contemplate that property worth about £200,000 would come into possession of the Crown, and would be disposable for other purposes. This, however, would not turn out to be the fact. For instance, the Law Courts and other buildings adjoining Westminster Hall were worth perhaps £80,000; but instead of the public coming into possession of that sum, it would turn out, most probably, that the architecture of the building would be altered, and an expenditure incurred of £1,000,000.
  After a few words in answer from The LOED CHANCELLOR,
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 8 to 15 agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Chancery Compensations may be redeemed, or paid out of the Capital of Court Funds.)
  LORD ST. LEONARDScomplained of the proposed diversion of the Suitors' Fund for the purposes of the Bill, and said that the Lord Chancellor ought not to have the power, and ought not to wish for the power, of sanctioning any such application.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLcontended that the Fund was clearly at the disposal of Parliament.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 17 to 22 agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Discontinuance of existing Courts and Offices.)
  LORD ST. LEONARDSgave notice that he would move its rejection on the bringing up of the Report.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.

  PROTEST
  Against going into Committee on the Courts of Justice Building Bill.
  "DISSENTIENT:—
  "1st. Because, although the provision made for the cost of the site and of the buildings is limited to £1,500,000, there is no information given which affords any assurance that this calculation has been made on any reliable estimate.

  1315
  "2nd. Because the proposed site is unsuited for the architectural effect of a building which, on account of the purposes to which it is to be applied, and the expenditure to be lavished upon it, on account of the fall of ground from north to south being so considerable that on two sides uniformity of elevation cannot be preserved, while the frontage, as at present proposed, will be on the east, opposite to mean houses in Bell Yard, and on the north to wretched buildings in Yeates and Horseshoe Courts, and on the back of Lincoln's Inn in Carey Street.
  "3rd. Because the above statement as to the boundaries of the site now to be acquired at the enormous cost of from £700,000 to £750,000, and the want of all decent approaches to it from any quarter but the Strand, which is already one of the most overcrowded thoroughfares in the metropolis, must satisfy all who give attention to the subject that much more property must be purchased and a far larger expenditure incurred than that already provided for.
  "4th. Because these facts prove that the site is in many respects an unsuitable one, while it is notorious that others can be procured affording excellent general accommodation at less than half the cost, and free from all the above-mentioned objections.
  "5th. Because it is proposed to tax the suitors in certain Courts, in order to raise part of the money required, whereas, if any is to be obtained from those using the new Courts, it would be far more properly supplied by a percentage levied on solicitors' bills, counsels' fees, and Judges' salaries, these being the persons for whose supposed convenience this extravagant outlay is more particulary demanded, while the necessity of any such change would be avoided by a reduction in the expense of the work consequent upon the selection of a cheaper site.
  "6th. Because, it appears to me, it is the duty of the House to inquire into these matters, and to be satisfied as to the probable cost of the proposed Courts, and of any approaches to the same which may he necessary in connection therewith, before it sanctions a scheme which calls for so large and so uncertain an expenditure.
  "REDESDALE."
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.