HC Deb 05 August 1834 vol 25 cc961-3

Mr. Childers moved the Order of the Day, that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Common Fields' Enclosure Bill.

Mr. Tooke

moved, that the Bill be committed that day three months.

Sir John Hobhouse

admitted it to be somewhat ungracious to oppose the committal of a Bill in limine; but at the same time he could not but think it would have been much better if a measure of so much importance to the people had originated in that House, as it was only reasonable to suppose, that the Representatives of the people were better acquainted with the wishes of their constituents than any member of the other House of Parliament could possibly be. His own constituents at Nottingham were very hostile to the Bill, and had expressed a hope that their town might be exempted from its operation. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill into the other House of Parliament had been misinformed with regard to the sentiments of a majority of the inhabitants of Nottingham. The Bill was very generally objected to there, and he should feel it to be his duty to vote against it.

Mr. Childers

said, he had no intention to propose the exemption of any one particular town; but a general clause would be introduced, by which the neighbourhood of all large towns would be exempted from the operation of the Bill.

Mr. Tooke

expressed his determination to persevere in the Amendment he had proposed. He strongly objected to the House being called upon, at so late a period of the Session, to legislate on a subject of such grave importance. He would, however, be willing to lend his assistance in the next Session of Parliament to any well-digested measure on this subject.

Mr. Blamire

supported the Bill, and trusted no impediment would be thrown in the way of passing it into a law during the present Session: if the Bill was imperfect, it was a reason for going into Committee.

Mr. Hawes

was desirous to know whether the Clause he had proposed on a former occasion, excluding the neighbourhoods of large towns from the operation of the Bill, would be objected to?

Mr. Childers

was willing to adopt the first part of it, to prevent the Bill from taking effect within ten miles of the metropolis; but he thought there were many objections to the other part of the Clause, excluding towns with a population of 3,000 from the operation, within three miles of such towns. That was a question for consideration in Committee.

Major Beauclerk

was glad to see the House entertain a different view of the question to-day from that which formerly induced it to vote against his Amendment. He was induced to withdraw his opposition to it on that occasion, at the suggestion of several Members of the House, on the understanding, that large towns would not be included in the Bill. Finding, however, that such a proposition had been abandoned, he should give the Bill all the opposition in his power.

Mr. Finch

supported the Bill, contending that it would tend much to the improvement of agriculture and the benefit of the lower classes.

Mr. Aglionby

was convinced, that nothing contained in the Bill would have the effect of depriving the poor of any of the rights or enjoyments they now possessed. He earnestly hoped the Bill would be suffered to pass during the present Session.

Mr. Rigby Wason

said, the period at which it was introduced formed alone a fatal objection to the measure.

Mr. Hodges

opposed the Bill. Among the defects of the measure there was one to which he would call the attention of the House—he alluded to tithes, which were not taken notice of in the Bill. He also reminded the House of the objection taken by the hon. member for Reading on a former occasion to the entire omission of any clause for the drainage of land. These objections formed only a part of the ground on which he opposed the Bill; there were many other very serious difficulties.

Sir Henry Willoughby

said, the Bill was evidently not understood by the House. There was not one word in the whole of it that could lead to the possible inference, that any waste or common land could be enclosed. He gave it his cordial support.

The House divided on the original Motion: Ayes 14; Noes 34—Majority 20.

The Bill to be committed in six months.

List of the AYES.
Ashley, Lord Shepherd, Thomas
Barnard, George Sinclair, George
Blamire, William Steuart, Robert
Finch, George Talbot, James
Houldsworth, Thos. Willoughby, Sir H.
Howard, Philip TELLERS.
M'Leod, R.
Poyntz, W. S. Aglionby, H. A.
Sandon, Lord Childers, J. W.
List of the NOES.
Baines, Ed. Perceval, Col.
Brotherton, J. Potter, R.
Buckingham, J. S. Ruthven, E. S.
Chichester, J. P. B. Sullivan, R.
Codrington, Sir Ed. Tower, C.
Colborne, Ridley Trowbridge, Sir Thos.
Crawford, Wm. Waddy, C.
Duncombe, Hon. W. Wall, Baring
Ewart, W. Walter, John
Harvey, D. W. Warre, J. A.
Hawes, Benjamin Wason, Rigby
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. Whalley, Sir Samuel
Wilks, John
Hodges, T. Williams, Colonel
Hotham, Lord Wood, Ald.
Irton, S. Young, G. F.
Marjoribanks, S. Beauclerk, Major
Pelham, Hon. C. A. Tooke, Wm.
Back to