§ 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.
1313| 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. |
| 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.
§ 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.