§ Bill read 3a (according to Order).
§ LORD REDESDALE moved an Amendment in Clause 14 to leave out the words "Bridges over or" The object proposed by the insertion of these words was to authorize the construction of a covered bridge over the Strand whereby the members of the Temple and others might have ready access to the new Courts. Now, a bridge over the Strand would at best be a most unsightly object; it would also be an impediment to the proper traffic of that crowded thoroughfare, and ought not on any account to be sanctioned.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not admit that such a structure must necessarily be either an ugly object or an obstruction; although it might be so treated as to become both. But the possibility of a bridge over a thoroughfare being made inconvenient would hardly warrant them in striking out the words. Such a covered way would, undoubtedly, be a great convenience, and if properly made would neither prove an impediment to the traffic nor a disfigurement to the site and building.
§ LORD REDESDALEheld it utterly impossible that any bridge could be carried across the Strand without being a disfigurement. No architect would venture to propose such a thing. He should certainly say Not Content.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ LORD REDESDALE moved a new clause after Clause 18, in order to enable the public to know what would be the cost of this great speculation, and how the ground was proposed to be occupied. At present they had not the slightest idea of either. The Government asked power to appropriate £1,500,000 to the erection of these Courts, of which £750,000 was to go towards the site; but what that site was actually to cost neither the Government nor anyone else knew. He proposed that no notice should be given of the intention to take any property till plans and estimates were prepared of the cost and construction of the buildings, and the sanction of Parliament thereto obtained. His own impression in regard to the site was that it would not be found very advantageous. There was a very 1585 considerable fall from Carey Street to the Strand, and this building would no doubt have more fronts than one. It would be utterly impossible that two of them could, from the nature of the ground, have an uniform elevation. He thought it desirable that both Houses of Parliament should be made acquainted with the extent of land required, how the plan was to be carried out, and the cost of the structure before anything was finally done.
§
Moved, after Clause 18, to insert the following clause:—
No Notice shall be given of the Intention to take any Property under this Act, nor shall any Contract be entered into for the Purchase of any Property, until after Plans for the proposed Courts shall have been prepared and Estimates made of the Cost thereof, and further Provisions made for securing such additional Lands as may be required for Approaches to or necessary Convenience of the said Courts, with an Estimate of the Cost attending the Purchase of such Lands and the Formation of such Approaches, and shall have been sanctioned by Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that it would require the spirit of prophecy to ascertain with certainty beforehand what would be the actual expense; but, so far as calculations and estimates of the cost were concerned, they had already been made. He had before stated that an estimate of the value of the buildings on the proposed site had been made several years ago. That estimate was afterwards carefully revised by a Commission, who reported in 1859. Every part of that estimate had again been gone over, and the conclusion arrived at was that the sum required would be £1,500,000. But they were not without fresh resources. In addition to the Suitors Fund, there was a tax to be imposed in the shape of fees, which might be augmented to double the amount. The Bill proposed that the plans should be prepared by the profession with the aid of the Government, and that there should be a body of men constituted with the aid of the Treasury to allot out the land. Instead of that, which would alone be satisfactory to the profession, the noble and learned Lord proposed that no notice should be given to take the land until plans should have been prepared. But how could that be done if the Amendment were agreed to; when it would be impossible to allot out the plan until the estate should have been laid bare? If the Amendment were carried everything would have to be postponed until the Government 1586 had arrived at a decision, and a plan had been agreed upon, and that could not be done until the land had been acquired and cleared of the present buildings, when the shape and state of the land could be seen. No Amendment ever contained within itself more impossible things than this one, and if it were carried the noble Lord would have the credit of defeating the Bill. They could not tell what approaches they would want until the plan had been made.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYmust confess, notwithstanding the statement of the noble and learned Lord, the course recommended by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees was suggested by the most ordinary consideration of prudence in regard to an undertaking of that magnitude. It was all very well to say that this matter had been deferred for a very long time; but although there might already have been great delay, that was no reason for imprudent haste now. One part of the Bill was intended to sanction the appointment of a Commission which should decide on the plan. The estimate for the purchase of the land was £750,000; but for the buildings to be erected on that land there was no estimate. The whole thing was an entire guess. Until they determined what the buildings were to be, it was nonsense to talk of an estimate. Before the Committee of the House of Commons the chief witnesses examined were the Surveyor of the Board of Works, another surveyor who spoke to the character of the houses on the site, and a doctor who spoke of the importance of the scheme in a sanitary point of view. But as to the space not a tittle of evidence was adduced before that Committee except that Mr. Pennethorne said that 7½acres would be enough, and not more than enough for the proposed buildings. The approaches were important, not only in reference to the space to be occupied, but even in reference to the money to be paid for it. The noble and learned Lord said that no architect could frame a satisfactory plan for the occupation of a particular site unless all the existing buildings upon it were removed.
THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained that he referred to the delay which would be caused in preparing the plans—because the Commission would first have to determine the number of courts and offices required, together with their dimensions before the building could be commenced.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the exact plans, with the length, breadth, and even the levels of the land, could be prepared without the land being first cleared; and he could not understand why the architect could not proceed with his plans while the land was covered as well as if it were cleared. If he himself were going to build a range of stabling upon the site of the old ones, he certainly should not pull down the old ones before he arranged the plan for the new building; and he should be very much astonished if any architect told him that the old stables must be pulled down before the plan of the new ones was prepared. His own opinion was that the carrying of this Amendment would not in the slightest degree interfere with the progress of the work, and that its adoption was required by the exercise of even the most ordinary prudence.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Earl overlooked the fact that the site of his old stables would be his own land, whereas in the present case the land belonged to other persons.
§ THE EARL, or DERBYBat by the Bill the Government made the land their own by taking compulsory powers to buy it, and the only question was as to giving notice to the parties.
§ EARL GRANVILLEBut the Amendment said that no notice to take land should be given until the plans had been prepared.
§ LORD REDESDALEThe time for giving the notices would not expire for three or five years; and therefore the delay in giving notice for a year would not interfere with their getting possession of the land in the end. As to laying out the plans, the Commission would not go over the land to do this, but would sit in a room and form their opinion upon plans laid before them; doing so with the assistance they might receive from professional men. The moment this Bill was passed the Commission could be appointed and instructions given to prepare the plans. With regard to the estimates for buildings of this character, he begged their Lordships to bear in mind what the Houses of Parliament had cost building compared with what they had been estimated to cost. He believed that they had cost more than three times the amount of the original estimate of the architect. To proceed with a work of the magnitude now proposed without any estimate appeared to him to be an act of imprudence that it 1588 would be discreditable to Parliament to allow.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that the allusion to the cost of the Houses of Parliament was not applicable in the present case; for, with respect to the Houses of the Legislature, Parliament took the management of the business on itself and would not allow the Government to interfere. Therefore, for the excess of expenditure over estimate Parliament was responsible and not the Government; and it was now proposed with the same view of economy that Parliament should have the management of the expenditure in the case of the Courts of Law.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the words of the new clause requiring the sanction of Parliament before anything was done must necessarily lead to a postponement of the work until an Act granting the required sanction should be passed in another Session of Parliament.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, it would be impossible to begin the building till next year or the year after. There was plenty of time.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, if the Amendment were agreed to there would be no less than four distinct Acts of Parliament required to carry out the Bill, and therefore the Amendment was nothing less than a covert way of defeating the Bill altogether.
§ On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 47; Not-Contents 44: Majority 3:—Amendment agreed to:—Clause added to the Bill:—Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
1589| CONTENTS. | |
| Marlborough, D. | Hawarden, V. |
| Richmond, D. | Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) |
| Rutland, D. | |
| Westmeath, M. | Oxford, Bp. |
| Amherst, E. | Blayney, L. |
| Bantry, E. | Bolton, L. |
| Belmore, E. | Castlemaine, L. |
| Cadogan, E. | Chelmsford, L. |
| Carnarvon,E. | Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.) |
| Derby. E. | |
| Graham, E. (D. Montrose.) | Colchester, L. |
| Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.] | |
| Hardwicke, E. | |
| Harewood, E. | Delamere, L. |
| Huntingdon, E. | Denman, L. |
| Orkney, E. | De Ros, L. |
| Romney, E. | De Saumarez, L. |
| Tankerville, E. | Egerton, L. |
| Heytesbury, L. | Saint Leonards, L. |
| Inchiquin, L. | Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.) |
| Kingsdown, L. | |
| Northwick, L. | Tenterden, L. |
| Raglan, L. | Tredegar, L. |
| Redesdale, L. [ Teller.] | Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.) |
| Saltoun, L. | |
| Sherborne, L. | Wynford, L. |
| Sondes, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Blantyre, L. |
| Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) | |
| Devonshire, D. | Catnoys, L. |
| Somerset, D. | Cranworth, L. |
| Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.) | |
| Camden, M. | |
| De Tabley, L. | |
| Abingdon, E. | Foley, L. [Teller.] |
| Albermarle, E. | Harris, L. |
| Clarendon, E. | Houghton, L. |
| Cowper, E. | Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.) |
| De Grey, E. | |
| Ducie, E. | Lyveden, L. |
| Effingham, E. | Monson, L. |
| Granville, E. | Mostyn, L. |
| Russell, E. | Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.] |
| Saint Germans, E. | |
| Rossie, L.(L.Kinnaird.) | |
| Eversley, V. | Skene, L. (E. Fife.) |
| Stratford de Redcliffe.V. | Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) |
| Sydney, V. | |
| Torrington, V. | Stanley of Alderley, L. |
| Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll) | |
| London, Bp. | |
| Ripon, Bp. | Taunton, L. |
| St. Asaph, Bp. | Vivian, L. |
| Wenlock, L. | |
| Abercromby, L. |