WILSON'S (HAMPSTEAD) ESTATE BILL. (Hansard, 7 July 1853)

§ LORD COLCHESTER
moved the Second Reading of this Bill. It was really nothing more than a private Bill, but it had been made to assume the character of a public Bill in consequence of the importance attached to it by the interest which a portion of the public took in the property to which the Bill applied—namely, the manor of Hampstead, including Hampstead-heath. It had been said that this was a Bill to empower Sir Thomas Wilson to enclose Hampstead-heath, and to grant it out on building leases. A strong feeling in opposition to the Bill had been consequently raised. He could, however, assure their Lordships that the Bill was not intended to have any such effect. It was not for enclosing Hampstead-heath, or any other land whatsoever. Its only object was to give to Sir Thomas Wilson power to grant leases for a longer term than he possessed the power to do under his father's will. There was no person who would be more opposed to the enclosing of Hamp- 1358 stead-heath than himself; but there was no provision whatever in this Bill that would give the slightest facility for such a step. When the Bill was before their Lordships on a previous occasion, the opinion of the Judges was taken upon it, and was given in its favour. The noble Lord then pointed out the nature of the several provisions of the Bill, and concluded by moving that it be read a second time.

§ The EARL of SHAFTESBURY
said, that he should say "Not content" to the second reading of this Bill; but he begged at once to observe, that those who opposed the second reading of the Bill were not anxious to interfere with the rights of Sir Thomas Wilson in disposing of his property in whatever way he might think proper, under and in accordance with his father's will by which he had obtained it. He had the full benefit of the property devised to him by his father's will, and no one wished to disturb him in it; but it was quite another thing when he came to Parliament, and asked for powers which the will of his father did not confer upon him. Their Lordships, before complying with such a request, were bound to inquire whether the powers asked for would, if granted, be beneficial or injurious to the public. His belief was, that the granting of such powers would be most detrimental to the public interests. This Bill had been before their Lordships four several times already, and had been as often rejected; and he hoped that on this the fifth time, the rejection would be final to this persevering and tiresome application. It was a Bill to enable Sir Thomas Wilson to grant building leases of his land at Hampstead. He understood the noble Lord to say that no such power was demanded; but it was clear from the contents of the Bill that a power was demanded to grant building leases for ninety-nine years—a power that would very much intrench upon open spaces and impede the free circulation of the air which they at present enjoyed. He understood at the time the will was made, the property was not available for building purposes; but, since then, a road had been made called the Finchley-road. Now, the inhabitants of Hampstead and the neighbourhood would have no objection to Sir Thomas Wilson building on either side of that road, which presented a very great frontage; but Sir Thomas demanded a power to build elsewhere. If the powers now sought to be obtained had been unintentionally omitted from the will of the late 1359 Sir Thomas Wilson, there might have been a strong ground for the present claim; but it really did appear that it was the decided determination of the testator that the land in question should not be built upon. Sir Thomas Wilson, therefore, asked their Lordships to give him powers which he did not possess under his father's will, and powers which it was not intended he should possess; and his opinion was that the giving of such powers would be greatly to the disservice of the community.

The EARL of WICKLOW
supported the Bill. The argument of the noble Earl was inconsistent with itself. He first said that the powers asked for ought not to be granted, because they would be in violation of the provisions of the will of the late Sir Thomas Wilson; and then he immediately added that the people of Hampstead would not object to the present Sir Thomas Wilson building on the sides of Finchley-road, which would be equally a violation of his father's will. Their Lordships were appealed to by the opponents of this Bill, not upon the justice of the case, but merely on the ground that Hampstead-heath happened to be very convenient for the public. But, in his opinion, it would be most unjust in their Lordships to consider the convenience or even the health of the people in 'that locality when debating this question, He agreed that any alterations in the 'neighbourhood of Hampstead-heath would be a great inconvenience to the public; that, no doubt, was an argument in favour of the public buying the land, hut it was no argument for refusing to the owner of that land those powers which were necessary to his full enjoyment of it.

LORD CAMPBELL
still adhered to the unfavourable opinion which had been expressed with respect to this Bill when it was before their Lordships in 1845. Each of the four previous Bills which had been introduced with respect to this property had been rejected on deliberate consideration by that House, and with the sanction of his distinguished predecessor, Lord Denman, who was not in the habit of giving his opinion without grave deliberation, and who had the most perfect respect for the rights of property. The only opinion which the Judges had given on this matter was, that no person having a vested interest in this land would be injured by this Bill; but they had given no opinion as to whether it would prejudice the copyholders of the 1360 manor of Hampstead or the public at large; or as to whether it was a proper Bill for that House to pass. Indeed, those Judges who were Members of their Lordships' House—of whom Lord Denman was one—had voted against it in 1845. The clear rule was, that the will of the donor of any property should be upheld, unless something had occurred since his death which there was reason to believe would have caused him to make a different disposition of his property had he been alive. Now not only was this not the case here, but there was strong evidence that the late Sir Thomas Wilson had, from good feeling towards the public and his friends at Hampstead, intentionally withheld from his son the power of granting building leases for 99 years on the portion of his property to which this Bill referred.

§ LORD REDESDALE
was bound to say that he considered this to be a very hard case. It was that of ground which, from the extension of the neighbouring suburban districts had become very valuable, and its owner came to Parliament and prayed for those powers which in an ordinary case would be granted as matter of course, without objection being made. The real question was, whether the late Sir Thomas Wilson, if he were now alive, would have granted such powers with regard to building leases as those proposed to be given under this Bill? His belief was, that the late proprietor would have done so; his will was dated in 1796, and he afterwards made codicils by which he granted building powers over a portion of his estate nearest to his family residence at Charlton. It was to be supposed that he would still more readily have granted such powers with respect to a locality at a considerable distance. The ground in question had been lately opened up by a new road, and was being built up to every day. It was quite false to say that this was a proposal for the enclosure of Hampstead-heath; it related to land which was the private property of Sir Thomas Wilson, and over which no one else had any right.

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE
said, it was perfectly true that if the late proprietor were alive he would need no Act of Parliament whatever to enable him to do what was proposed in this Bill. If the gentleman who now advanced the claim should chance to die within six months, his successor could, without any authority from that or the other House of Parliament, grant building leases over every part of the es- 1361 tate. The embarrassment in this case arose wholly and solely from the casualty of this gentleman being at an advanced period of life without an heir, and the estate being entailed collaterally. He thought it necessary to say this, because for many years he had heard of this measure as one in which the lord of the manor asked powers not rightly belonging to him, for the enclosure of Hampstead-heath.

§ LORD COLCHESTER,
in reply, stated that this Bill did not give Sir Thomas Wilson the power of building upon Hampstead-heath; or any part of Hampstead-heath; and if their Lordships would agree to the Bill, Sir Thomas Wilson was quite willing that any clauses should be struck out which might appear to give such power.