HC Deb 20 April 1842 vol 62 cc870-84
Sir W. Heathcote

moved the third reading of the Kingsclere Inclosure Bill.

Mr. Wakley

felt it necessary to address some few observations to the House in opposition to this bill, which he considered to be unjust in every respect. It would be well if measures of this nature were not allowed, as they mostly were, to pass silently through the House, but were always treated as public bills, because it certainly did happen that by passing them slightly over very important matter was often lost sight of. In his opinion the opponents of this bill would have the strongest grounds for complaint against the committee if they passed it without allowing further time for those who felt themselves aggrieved to make good their allegations. If the House of Commons agreed to the bill, after the representations that had been made on the subject, they would be guilty of the grossest unfairness and injustice to the complainants. So glaring was the case, however, that he could scarcely suppose that they would do so. It was often asked, who were the supporters of the poor? Who were the protectors of the poor? Who were the friends of the poor? Who were the assistants of the poor? And the question was bandied about from party to party. Sometimes it was said, the Whigs were not the friends of the poor: sometimes the same assertion was applied to the Tories —and the Radicals applied it to both. Now, looking to the course that had been adopted with reference to this bill, he thought that the Radicals had a right to accuse both parties. How stood the case in this instance? There was no Radical on the committee. It was composed of nine Tories and two Whigs, one of the Whigs filling the office of chairman. A similar measure, it should not be forgotten, was introduced in 1834 and 1835, and it was most properly thrown out. This fact of itself proved that no persons ever made out a stronger case than the individuals who were opposed to this bill had made out. That case was not now weakened; and he would say, that it was scarcely possible to imagine a case more strong or more complete in all its parts than that which was put forward against the bill by those who opposed it. He sincerely wished that the late Member for Berkshire was now in the House—he meant Mr. Walter, who had effectually opposed the former bill. In 1834 that gentleman, by his exertions, had caused the measure which was at that time proposed to be rejected. How did he effect that object? He sent down a surveyor to Kingsclere to inquire into all the circumstances connected with the proposed inclosure. He sent that individual down at his own expense. The surveyor made his report—it was unfavourable to the plan of those who supported the Inclosure Bill, and the bill was thrown out. In 1835 the friends of the inclosure again brought a bill before the House and it was abandoned. Now, if this measure, thus twice defeated, were carried, what would be the consequence? Why, persons now possessing 200 cottages on the waste would be cast on the high road subjected to penury and want. Such would be the effect of this bill if it into a law. And what, he would ask, were they assuming in this case? That the person calling himself lord of the manor was indeed lord of the manor, and by this measure they would give him power, through commissioners, to dispossess those poor people who justly complained that their rights were invaded. They had, it appeared, the lord of the manor, a rich party, on the one hand, and the owners of some few very humble tenements, a number of poor cottagers, on the other hand. They were assuming that the rich man, on the one side, had a good and undoubted title, and assuming, on the other, that the poor man had no title at all. Having arrived at this conclusion, they were about to give power to commissioners to dispossess those cottagers, to raze their residences to the earth, and to deprive them of that which they justly considered to be their property. If such an act were done, then he would say that the House of Commons was a disgrace to the country, and that no set of men were entitled to suffer more degradation un-pitied than that Assembly, which could ordain such injustice to be perpetrated. The commissioners had not merely power, if they thought fit, to proceed under this bill—it went much further. By its enactments the commissioners were actually compelled to dispossess those poor persons. The committee, he believed, only sat for a few days, and when the opponents of the measure required them to receive a copy of the report which was made on the subject, and which was dated in February, 1834, the committee said, "We cannot receive the report unless Mr. Maughan is present to verify it." Again, those who opposed the bill called for further time; they did so yesterday, and were refused; and such was the breathless haste with which the promoters of the bill were anxious to proceed, that on the following day (this day) they called for the bill to be read a third time. He implored, he earnestly requested, the House to resist this application. If the lord of the manor, as had been asserted, really possessed a right to send away these people from their cottages, why did he not dispossess them by ordinary course of law? But he would say, that without any such right being shown on the part of the lord of the manor, they empowered the commissioners to proceed to the removal of these people at once. He knew not how to represent or to describe to the House the feeling which operated on his mind when he contemplated such a proceeding. Nothing, he conceived, could be more unjust, nothing could be more indefensible. When they were told that the opponents of the measure were not in time (the delay being caused by their necessitous circumstances), when it was known that their extreme poverty deprived them of the power of coming to that House, should not that operate on the House as a cause for extending a kind and lenient feeling towards them? They implored the Houses to postpone the report. And how was their prayer met? Out of 152 Members only 15 were found to vote against the bill, and for the postponement of the report. When a question of this kind came before them, they ought to consider themselves as if deciding judicially and on evidence. Now, he would ask of hon. Gentlemen, had they seen, had they read, had they considered the evidence? Had they fully examined the case before them? And if they had not—and such he believed was the truth,—would they, in ignorance of the situation of these poor people, dispossess them of their cottages, and cast them for shelter and sustenance on the highways and byways? The fact was, they knew little or nothing of the case—they had heard nothing of the allegations of the complainants—they had heard nothing of their evidence. In a case where 5l. was at stake, they would say, "Let us hear both sides of the question;" but here it appeared that they were influenced solely by the decision of the committee. If such were to be the practice, why then they ought to do away with receiving reports of committees at all in that House. Let them in future give up all decisions to their committees. Let the House abrogate its functions, and let them, in future, merely affirm what their committees proposed. For the chairman of the committee (Mr. Labouchere) he felt the greatest respect. He admired the manner in which he had generally conducted the public business and his ordinary course of proceeding in that House. But, he must say, that he disapproved of his conduct in this particular case. Too much had been left in the power of the committee in this case. The interests of the complainants were left wholly to them. He, as we understood, had been intrusted with a petition, signed by a considerable number of persons, to be heard against this bill—but he was too late. The poor people had not the necessary funds to make their defence before the committee, as they ought to have done; but that, in his opinion, formed an additional claim for granting them further time, in order that they might take proper steps for the protection of their interests, and with that object in view he should move as an amendment,— That the minutes of evidence taken before the Kingsclere Enclosure Committee be laid on the Table of the House.

Lord Worsley

opposed the motion. When the hon. Member who had just spoken alluded to the question who were the supporters of the poor? he would say that he did not think the person who misled the poor by inflated statements was the friend of the poor. He saw nothing unjust in this bill. Parties who had held cottages for upwards of twenty years would still retain them, but those who had encroached upon the waste within that time, would not, of course, be entitled to retain the land. Now, the bill only went to this—that the law as it existed should be carried out. Those, however, who opposed the bill acted on a different principle. They wished to interfere with the present state of the law, and to give a title where it did not before exist. In his opinion, the House ought not to interfere on the subject.

Mr. O'Connell

said, he happened to be on the committee in 1834, and he opposed the bill because it appeared to him not to be introduced for the purpose of carrying out the existing law, but of creating a new law. Let the freeholders or the lord of the manor assert their rights under the present law, but do not give them an additional power by the means of commissioners.

Sir W. Heathcote

had already entered at some length into the merits of this bill, and he did not, therefore, think it necessary to detain the House with many observations on this occasion. What the sense of the House was might be collected from the division of the House on the preceding evening, when there were 137 for receiving the report, and only 15 against it. After that manifestation of opinion he could see no ground upon which the House was now called on to delay its decision. The hon. Member for Finsbury, so far as he could perceive, had introduced no new matter that should induce the House to grant any further delay. The bill of 1834 was not, as some Gentlemen seemed to suppose, thrown out by the committee. It failed in the House itself, after evidence had been heard. Further examination had, however, proved that the bill was likely to be productive, not of injurious, but of beneficial effects; and therefore he should support it. If Gentlemen were of opinion that inclosure bills, generally speaking, were an evil, they would of course vote against this measure. He, however, was of a different opinion. He considered this to be a good bill; he thought that the House ought to agree to it, and with these few words, in their hands he would leave it.

Mr. Fielden

said, that they ought, in common justice, to hear what these poor men had to say, which hitherto they had resisted. This was the third time that an attempt had been made to carry the same measure, and he hoped that it would fail now, as it had failed before. So far from this measure protecting the interests of any of those who opposed it, even those who could show possession for sixty years might be annoyed and interfered with. Fortunately, however, if the measure were carried here it must go to another House, where more mercy he hoped would be shown to the complainants than was manifested towards them by the House of Commons. If they did not, in the other House, receive more commiseration—if their claims were not more earnestly attended to, then he would say, that the aristocracy was in a fair way of being destroyed—aye, and he would add, that it ought to be destroyed, if it would not listen to the prayers of these justly-complaining people. He was quite convinced that if they had an opportunity of coming fairly forward, they would be able to prove a fair title to that which they claimed.

Mr. Labouchere

felt it necessary, after the charges that had been brought against him by the hon. Member for Finsbury, to say a very few words. As Chairman of the committee, his only duty was to hear the evidence that was brought under his notice. He knew nothing whatever of the subject, except what he was thus put in possession of. He should be as sorry as any Gentleman in that House, if he did not consider most scrupulously, the rights and interest of the humblest individual that might happen to be connected with that or with any other measure that happened to be brought before Parliament; but still he must remain of opinion, that the interest which the community in general had in this common, and more especially the interest of the labouring population, would be more effectually served by the inclosure than otherwise. Persons possessing common rights of this kind, they not being in the vicinity of great towns, and situated in thinly inhabited parts of the country, derived more benefit, he was convinced, front the employment that was afforded by additional cultiva- tion, than they could possibly hope to gain from the ordinary exercise of those rights when the land lay uninclosed and uncultivated. Such was his view of the general principle. He denied the statement of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fielden,), that persons who could prove possession for sixty years could be interfered with. It seemed to be supposed, that individuals would be summarily turned out from their cottages on the common without any compensation whatever. The committee had authorised no such thing. There was a special clause in the bill to preserve the existing rights of persons who had held land for twenty years; but any person whose encroachment did not extend to the term of twenty years, though he would be removed, would still be allowed a certain compensation for his loss. Looking to these encroachments of a recent date, what, he asked, was the law? He must say, contrary to the opinion of the right hon. the Lord Mayor of Dublin (at least as he understood him) those persons who so encroached on the common might be immediately dispossessed under the law as it now stood. If the present measure had never been introduced, any lord of the manor would hare a right to resort to that remedy. It was said, that those persons, though deeply aggrieved, had not the power to bring their grievances fairly before the committee. There was, in fact, no fair ground for the assertion. Sufficient notice, long notice, was given of the proceedings. Those who opposed the measure, and the parties who were immediately concerned with it, had the most ample opportunity for exerting themselves. When the committee met, it appeared that three Gentlemen had been engaged on the part of the opponents of the bill; but their attendance was required elsewhere. However, a most respectable gentleman attended on behalf of these parties for two days, and cross-examined the witnesses with as much ability and acuteness as any professional gentleman could possibly do. He repeated, that in the course he took, he had done nothing more than his duty; and, in his opinion, that House would not be doing justice to the promoters of this bill, if they put them to further expense, by additional and unnecessary delay.

Mr. O'Connell

begged the right hon. Gentleman not to suppose, that he had stated the law other than it really was. What he stated was, that the bill provided for the lord of the manor an additional remedy. He knew, that these people, if holding their cottages for less than twenty years, might be ejected in the ordinary way—and he asked, why, in addition, appoint commissioners to drive them out?

Mr. Godson

said, there was already a sufficiently strict law on one side, and he certainly saw no necessity for a new law in addition, except it was to harass the other party. They had heard mention made of compensation, but where was it to be found? Suppose a man had expended 500l. on an acre of land, from which he was forcibly driven; where did this bill contain a provision for proper compensation? The bill authorised the removal of cottages which had been built on the land within twenty years; and what compensation, in that case, was to be given? Why, compensation would be given to the amount of the bricks, and mortar, and timber, which was a mere mockery after you had pulled a man's house down; but he looked in vain for any compensation to be granted for improvements made on the land. The following was the only clause which touched on that point:— Provided always, that it shall be lawful for the several persons who shall be in possession of such encroachment or inclosure, or in the receipt of the rent thereof, at the time of the passing of this act, to take down and remove all such buildings, fences, or other erections, as shall then be thereon, and to convert the materials thereof to their own use, provided such removal take place within a certain time, to be limited by the commissioner for that purpose, by a notice delivered to the persons respectively in possession of such encroachments, or affixed upon some conspicuous part of such encroachment or enclosure. That could not be called compensation; for a man might be seriously injured in his business or his trade in consequence of his house being thus summarily pulled down. Such a proceeding he considered to be most unjust, and he meant to propose a clause to counteract it. He should propose a clause, at the proper time, to enable individuals to purchase land of which they had not held possession for twenty years. As the bill stood, individuals were to be turned out without allowing them the option of becoming purchasers. But, it was said, that no opposition was offered to the 51st clause—that most obnoxious clause. That was true; but the fact was, that the means for carrying on an effectual opposition were scanty. The poor people could not afford it. He denied that holders of cottages for more than twenty years were secure under this bill. By the 40th clause, they also might be interfered with, if any one disputed their legal title. He hoped, if the House were determined to pass the bill, that these people would have justice so far done them as to be allowed to purchase the land of which they had been in possession for a less period than twenty years.

Sir V. Blake

supported the amendment, and considered it a great hardship to dispossess those poor people by a bill of this nature.

Mr. Grimsditch,

as a Member of the committee, wished to say a few words. Several of the cottagers themselves had been examined before the committee, and expressed themselves in favour of the in closure. It did not affect any persons but those whose encroachments came within twenty years, and they were not to go uncompensated. It was a bill which, in his opinion, would benefit a great number, and would not injure any one. Of the kind, he never knew of a more useful measure, and thought that it ought to be passed.

Mr. Stansfield,

also as a Member of the committee, could declare that the most conscientious feeling pervaded the committee to attend strictly to the interests of all parties, and their conviction was, that all those interests would be best consulted by the inclosure.

Mr. C. Powell

said, that justice ought not to be refused to these poor people. It was, in his view of it, a most monstrous case. Great inhumanity and great injustice were manifested towards those unfortunate people. There was one point in considering the question which hon. Gentlemen seemed to have overlooked—namely, that when these people were driven from their cottages they must be thrown for support on the poor-rates.

Mr. Fielden

defended the opinion he had previously given as to the power which the bill contained for interfering with cottagers who had held them for more than twenty years.

Mr. East,

as a Member of the committee, expressed his approval of the bill, which had already received the unequivocal sanction of the House.

The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes III; Noes 30:—Majority 81.

List of the AYES.
Adare, Visct. Hawkes, T.
Aglionby, H. A. Heathcote, G. J.
Ainsworth, P. Hill, Lord M.
Allix, J, P. Hodgson, R.
Antrobus, E. Holmes, hon. W. A'C.
Arkwright, G. Howard, hn. C. W. G.
Bagge, W. Howard, hon. H.
Baillie, Col. Irton, S.
Baillie, H. J. Jackson, J. D.
Bankes, G. Johnson, W. G.
Baring, hon. W. B. Joliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Baring, H. B. Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Barrington, Visct. Law, hon. C. E.
Bentinck, Lord G. Lindsay, H. H.
Bernard, Visct. Lowther, hon. Col.
Bowes, J. Mackenzie, W. F.
Broadwood, H. Manners, Lord C. S.
Buckley E. Marton, G.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Master, T. W. C.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Maunsell, T. P.
Busfeild, W. Miles, W.
Campbell, A. Mitchell, T. A.
Chelsea, Visct. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Christopher, R. A. Mundy, E. M.
Chute, W. L. W. Murray, A.
Clive, E. B. Norreys, Lord
Clive, hon. R. H. Northland, Visct.
Cochrane, H. O'Brien, A. S.
Colvile, C. E. Ord, W.
Courtenay, Visct. Packe, C. W.
Cripps, W. Pakington, J. S.
Denison, E. B. Palmerston, Visct.
Dickinson, F. H. Parker, J.
Dodd, G. Philips, G. R.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Plumridge, Capt.
Douro, Marquess of Polhill, F.
Drummond, H. H. Round, J.
East, J. B. Rous, hon. Capt.
Easthope, Sir J. Rushbrooke, Col.
Eaton, R. J. Scott, hon. F.
Egerton, W. T. Shirley, E. P.
Ellice, E. Somerset, Lord G.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Ferrand, W. B. Stuart, H.
Filmer, Sir E. Tollemache, J.
Filzroy, hon. H. Towneley, J.
Fleming, J. W. Trotter, J.
Forbes, W. Tufnell, H.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Vere, Sir C. B.
Gore, M. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Greene, T. Wood, C.
Grey, rt. hn. Sir G. Wrightson, W. B.
Grimsditch, T. Wyndham, Col. C.
Grimston, Visct. Yorke, hon. E.
Hamilton, W. J. TELLERS.
Hanmer, Sir J. Heathcote, Sir W.
Hardy, J. Worsley, Lord
List of the NOES.
Ackers, J. Baskerville, T. B. M.
Archbold, R. Blake, Sir V.
Blewitt, R. J. O'Brien, W. S.
Bowring, Dr. O'Connell, D.
Brotherton, J. O'Connell, M. J.
Butler, hon. Col. O'Connell, J.
Crawford, W. S. Pechell, Capt.
Duncan, G. Powell, C.
Duncombe, T. Power, J.
Elphinstone, H. Rennie, G.
Ewart, W. Roche, E. B.
Fielden, J. Thorneley, T.
Granger, T. C. Wason, R.
Hay, Sir A. L.
Mitcalfe, H. TELLERS.
Muntz, G. F. Godson, R.
Murphy, F. S. Wakley, P.

On the question that the bill be now read a third time,

Mr. Wakley

said, he should meet this question with a direct negative. What had the House of Commons, the gentry of England, the friends of the poor, done by their late decision? They had decided on dispossessing 500 persons of their habitations, without hearing the evidence on which that decision was to take place? They had absolutely decided that they would not hear that evidence before them. Could anything be more unjust than such a course of proceeding? Could hon. Members be astonished that so much violence was manifested by the people out of doors with respect to the proceedings of that House, when such acts as this were perpetrated? And, until the people were fully represented in that House, he believed that these atrocities against their rights would constantly be committed. A more unjust proceeding he had never witnessed in any assembly, be that assembly what it might. If a jury dared and presumed to decide without hearing the evidence upon which their verdict was to be given, that House would denounce them as a set of unworthy scoundrels—as men who ought not to be admitted into civilised society. This was one of the most painful proceedings he had ever witnessed. From the statements that had been made to him with reference to these poor cottagers, it was heartrending and painful in the extreme. The House were assuming that the lord of the manor had a right to eject them from their cottages, but by their decision, they had actually given him that right. If the lord of the manor had any right at all, why had he not ejected them? He was told, indeed, that by the lord of the manor's own neglect, his manorial right was forfeited, and that therefore, he had no right to eject them, But they were now creating a law to favour the rich man at the expense of the poor, and he should, therefore, meet this question with a direct negative.

The House divided, on the third reading:—Ayes 118; Noes 26:—Majority 92.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. Hay, Sir A. L.
Allix, J. P. Heathcote, G. J.
Antrobus, E. Hill, Lord M.
Arkwright, G. Hillsborough, Earl of
Bagge, W. Hodgson, R.
Baillie, Col. Howard, hn. C. W. G.
Baillie, H. J. Howard, hon. H.
Bankes, G. Irton, S.
Baring, hon. W. B. Jackson, J. D.
Baring, H. B. Jocelyn, Visct.
Barrington, Visct. Johnson, W. G.
Bellew, R. M: Johnstone, H.
Bentinck, Lord G. Joliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Bernard, Visct. Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Bowes, J. Law, hon. C. E.
Broadwood, H. Lindsay, H, H.
Brodie, W. B. Lygon, hon. General
Buckley, E. Mackenzie, W. F.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Manners, Lord C. S.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Majoribanks, S.
Busfeild, W. Martyn, C. C.
Campbell, A. Master, T. W C.
Christopher, R. A. Maunsell, T. P.
Chute, W. L. W. Miles, P. W. S.
Clive, E. B. Miles, W.
Clive, hon. R. H. Mitchell, T. A.
Cochrane, A. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Colvile, C. R. Mundy, E. M.
Courtenay, Visct. Norreys, Lord
Cripps, W. orthland, Visct.
Darby, G. Ord, W.
Denison. E. B. Packe, C. W.
Dickinson, F. H. Pakington, J. S.
Dodd, G. Palmerston, Visct.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Parker, J.
Douro, Marquess of Philips, G. R.
Drummond, H. H. Plumridge, Capt.
East, J. B. Polhill, F.
Easthope, Sir J. Ponsonby, hn. C.A.C.
Egerton, W. T. Ramsay, W. R.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Round, C. G.
Ferrand, W. B. Rushbrooke, Col.
Filmer, Sir E. Scott, hon. F.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Shirley, E. P.
Fleming, J. W. Smith, A.
Forbes, W. Somerset, Lord G.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Stansfield, W. R. C.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Stuart, H.
Gore, M. Tollemache, J.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Townely, J.
Grimsditch, T. Trotter, J.
Grimston, Visct. Turner, E.
Hamilton, W. J. Vere, Sir C. B.
Hamilton, Lord C. Wall, C. B.
Hanmer, Sir J. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Hardy, J. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Hatton, Capt. V. Wood, C.
Hawkes, T. Wrightson, W. B.
Wyndham, Col. C. TELLERS.
Yorke, hon. E. T. Heathcote, Sir W.
Worsley, Lord
List of the NOES.
Ackers, J. Murphy, F. S.
Archbold, R. O'Connell, D.
Baskerville, T. B. M. O'Connell, M. J.
Blewitt, R. J. O'Connell, J.
Bowring, Dr. Pechell, Capt.
Brotherton, J. Powell, C.
Butler, hon. Col. Rennie, G.
Crawford, W. S. Roche, E. B.
Duncan, G. Thorneley, T.
Elphinstone, H. Wason, R.
Ewart, W. Yorke, H. R.
Godson, R.
Granger, T. C. TELLERS.
Mitcalf, H. Duncombe, T.
Muntz, G. F. Wakley, P.*

Bill read a third time.

Mr. Godson

then said, that he should move the addition of three clauses to the bill; but if the House were against the first, he should not divide upon the other two. The substance of the first clause was, that persons who had held the land for less than twenty years, but had erected cottages thereon, should be entitled to purchase such land at the price per acre of the surrounding land. The second clause had reference to certain charity lands in the parish; and the third clause was one which was introduced into the bill of 1834, but had been omitted from the present bill. It was founded on the report of the committee of that day, and the sub stance of it was, that those commoners who had been in possession of their land for more than twenty years should have two acres of common attached to them as of right. The noble Lord concluded by moving the following clause,— Such parts of the commons as shall have been inclosed within twenty years last past, to be sold to the persons in receipt of the rents and profits, at the price the land was worth at the time of the inclosure, and lands inclosed more than twenty years to be entitled to an allotment. Clause brought up and read a first time.

On the question that the clause be read a second time,

Mr. Labouchere

was opposed to the ad- * Although the numbers are nearly similar on both divisions, the change of Members who voted is found to be so considerable when the lists are compared, that to ensure accuracy, it was thought advisable to insert the lists of both divisions entire. dition of these clauses. He, as chairman of the committee, had asked counsel if they had any more clauses to propose, and he was answered that they had not. The proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, to treat those who had not acquired a freehold right by lapse of time precisely as if they were freeholders. It would be acting on most dangerous ground to do so, and he, for one, could not consent to it.

Mr. Godson

said, his object was, not to treat those persons as freeholders, but to give them the power to purchase their holdings at the price they were worth at the time of the inclosure.

Sir W. Heathcote

expressed his intention of opposing all the clauses.

Mr. Cripps

thought, that the pulling of houses about the ears of the holders was rather a harsh proceeding, and he should therefore be inclined to support the second clause proposed by the hon. Member for Kidderminster; but the first clause attempted to establish a most outrageous principle— namely, that the man who had had the courage to build a house upon the waste, in the hope that he should not be disturbed, should be rewarded with two acres of land to the injury of the freeholder. This clause he must oppose.

Mr. Aglionby

said, that, contrary to his usual practice of never voting on any private bill with the provisions of which he was unacquainted, he had voted on this bill under a misconception of the extraordinary powers given by it. He should support the proposed clause; for it went to mitigate, and would in some degree alleviate, the evils of the bill, especially those which would spring out of the working of the 53d clause of the bill, which enacted that insulated old enclosures should be deemed part of the lands to be enclosed.

Sir John Walsh

said, that although he had hitherto voted with the majority, he was very much impressed with the justice of the clauses proposed by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, and should support them.

Mr. Wakley

was almost afraid to contend for the justice of the clause, because in the ratio of its justice he thought its success was questionable. It was a question whether the person calling himself lord of the manor had any right at all there. The effect of this bill would be to give that individual a right by law which he never had before. He should support the clause.

The House divided on the question that the clause be read a second time:—-Ayes 45; Noes 72:—Majority 27.

List of the AYES.
Ackers, J. Henley, J. W.
Barrington, Visct. Hutt, W.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Mitcalfe, H.
Blake, Sir V. Muntz, G. F.
Blewitt, R. J. Murphy, F. S.
Bowring, Dr. O'Connell, D.
Brodie, W. B. O'Connell, M. J.
Brotherton, J. O'Connell, J.
Bruce, Lord E. Paget, Col.
Christie, W.D. Pechell, Capt.
Cripps, W. Powell, C.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Rennie, G.
Duncan, G. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Duncombe, T. Thornely, T.
Elphinstone, H. Turner, E.
Esmonde, Sir T. Wakley, T.
Fielden, J. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Forster, M. Wason, R.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Yorke, H. R.
Granger, T. C. Young, J.
Grimston, Visct. TELLERS.
Hawkes, T. Godson, R.
Hay, Sir A. L. Aglionby, H. A.
List of the NOES.
A'Court, Capt. Hodgson, R.
Affix, J. P. Howard, hn. C. W. G.
Antrobus, E. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Bagge, W. Law, hon. C. E.
Baillie, Col. Lowther, J. H.
Beresford, Major Mackenzie, W. F.
Boldero, H. G. Mackinnon, W.
Bradshaw, J. Mahon, Visct.
Bramston, T. W. Manners, Lord C. S.
Broadwood, H. Manners, Lord J.
Buckley, E. Marjoribanks, S.
Buller, E. Martin, C. W.
Campbell, A. Master, T. W. C.
Christopher, R. A. Maunsell, T. P.
Chute, W. L. W. Mitchell, T. A.
Clive, E. B. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Colville, C. R. Morgan, O.
Courtenay, Visct. Neeld, J.
Denison, E. B. Northland, Visct.
Dickinson, F. H. O'Brien, A. S.
Douro, Marquess of Packe, C. W.
Drummond, H. H. Palmerston, Visct.
East, J. B. Parker, J.
Easthope, Sir J. Plumptre, J. P.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Polhill, F.
Fleming, J. W. Ramsay, W. R.
Forbes, W. Rushbrooke, Col.
Fremantle, Sir T. Shirley, E. P.
Fuller, A. E. Smith, A.
Greene, T. Somerset, Lord G.
Grimsditch, T. Towneley, J.
Hamilton, Lord C. Trotter, J.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. Tufnell, H.
Heathcote, G. J. Vere, Sir C. B.
Wall, C. B.
Worsley, Lord TELLERS.
Wrightson, W. B. Heathcote, Sir W.
Wyndham, Col. C. Labouchere, H.

Other clauses brought up and read a first time. They were negatived on the motion that they be read a second time.

Bill passed.

On the motion "That the Order of the Day be now read,"