Commons Sitting of 21 April 1852

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Monmouth, Crawshay Bailey, Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Vestries.
2° Pariah Constables; Industrial and Provident Partnerships; Proclamation for Assembling Parliament.
3° Burghs (Scotland).

IRISH FISHERIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. CONOLLYsaid, that in moving that this Bill be read a Second Time, he

951
did not appear there as the advocate of any particular interest connected with the fisheries of Ireland, but solely and entirely on public grounds, and he should say that legislation on the subject, to be useful, should be impartial. They were told that in the case of these fisheries there were three antagonistic interests—namely, the deep-sea fisheries, the fisheries situate in estuaries, and those fisheries known in Scotland as the "Upper Heritage Fisheries." Now, it appeared to him (Mr. Conolly) that these fisheries, if properly understood, possessed the same interest, although in different degrees. The interests of all were identical on one point—namely, the preservation and keeping up the supply of fish in the best possible manner; and there could be no doubt that the public had a great interest in the matter. By the law regulating fisheries passed in 1842, very great injury was done; and he was in a position to prove that on that occasion, at least as regarded the Irish fisheries, the public rights were altogether disregarded, and disregarded in a most shameful and unconstitutional manner. Previous to 1842 the Earl of Carlisle, then Lord Morpeth, obtained the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry to collect evidence on the fishery laws and the condition of the various fisheries, with a view to furnishing a Report on the subject. The Report furnished by that Commission was anything but satisfactory. With regard to the Bill of 1842, he was sorry to see that it proceeded as if there was no such thing as public rights existing with regard to fisheries in Ireland. It regulated the maximum amount of fish to be taken, and authorised the erection of stake nets and weirs upon the lands adjoining the fishery. The public, however, were not satisfied with this invasion of their rights, and it was found necessary to make some modifications in the provisions of the Act. The disturbances were so great at some of the fisheries, that the strength of the whole police force of Ireland was called into requisition to enforce the provisions of the Act. Some of the persons who were engaged in this defence of the rights of the public were tried at the Waterford assizes; and Mr. Justice Perrin said the parties who had framed the Act had repealed the old Statute Law, and in all probability had even repealed Magna Charta. It was evident, from the working of the Act of 1842, that it was founded upon a wrong basis—that it did not pro-
952
tect the fish in the upper waters, and although it had been to some extent improved by the five subsequent Acts that were passed for that purpose, it was found still more injurious than its opponents originally supposed. It appeared from the Reports of the Commissioners of Fisheries for several years subsequently, that there was an annual decrease in the supply of fish; and the Commissioners stated in their last Report that the seasons of 1850 and 1851 were the worst for salmon that had yet occurred. A series of queries amounting to thirty-three, were addressed to the managers of the various fisheries in Ireland by the Commissioners, and, with one exception, all the answers were unsatisfactory: the supply of fish had considerably decreased since 1842 but there was one fishery in which they had increased, and there was this significant explanation added, that there were no stake nets or bag nets allowed in the river. He had in his hand a return of the prices of salmon in the London market since 1842, and he found that in the months of May, June, and July, when the salmon was generally most plentiful, the price had increased threefold, and the result was the same in the Dublin wholesale fish market. The Bill which he had the honour to submit to the House, proposed to consolidate all the existing Acts—it contained 169 clauses, of which 100 were verbatim consolidations. The sections which interfered with the fixed nets legalised by the Act of 1842, were the twelve numbered from 64 to 76. These clauses asserted the rights of the public in respect to these fisheries; and public rights demanded especially the respect of that House. But existing legislation also deserved its respect, and as he had drawn those clauses chiefly with the view of affirming the principle, he did not intend to adhere strictly to the details, if the House wished to modify them; and that principle throughout was that of making the supply of fish commensurate with the maximum amount of protection. Out of deference, however, to the opinion of the four conservators, and of the interests of those authorised by the Act of 1842 to erect stake-weirs, he did not propose to unsettle that arrangement; but he had reasons for believing that the stake-weir proprietors would come to such a compromise with the public as would enable him to abandon those clauses. Under any circumstances, however, he would retain the clauses which proposed to keep clear

953
for two miles the months of every river and estuary in Ireland for the passage of fish. All the new portions of the Bill, he might add, were founded upon the principle that the public had rights in respect to these fisheries, and with a view to the supply and maintenance of a permanent stock of fish. The Government would do well to weigh this question, for if they summarily rejected this Bill, without giving the country a distinct and sufficient reason, they would engender the most general and the most unmistakeable dissatisfaction. This was a period particularly favourable to a measure like this, which arrayed against it no party hostilities, and was simply one of those measures which would tend greatly to the improvement of the social condition of the people, which it seemed the special mission of the present Government to effect. If he were allowed to go into Committee, he would be prepared to justify every provision which he sought to enact as new, the consolidation of the present Acts, and the terms on which he thought a compromise might be effected with the proprietors of stake-weirs situated injuriously at the mouths of rivers. The whole scope of the Bill was to assist nature rather than to thwart her, which had been the effect of past legislation; and he, therefore, might reasonably hope for the best results. It had often been said, looking at Ireland, and all the advantages given her by Providence—her fertile soils and noble rivers—that never was there a country—
"So blest by God—so cursed by man!"
Be it his to remove, by the consent of the House, some part of the curse, and he confidently hoped she would inherit the blessing.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
LORD NAASsaid, no one could be more ready than himself to bear testimony to the diligence exhibited by his hon. Friend in getting up this subject, and the intimate knowledge he had exhibited of it in all its details; neither did any Member of the House feel more deeply than he did the great importance of the question. It was a question of immense difficulty, involving complicated interests, which had from time to time, more than any similar question, occupied the attention of Parliament, and had been in Ireland a most fruitful source of litigation. But he must confess that the remarks of his hon.
954
Friend had not altered the opinion he had formed regarding it. The impression on his mind was that it was perfectly impossible that any independent Member of that House could deal satisfactorily with the question. He would briefly refer to the course of past legislation on the subject. In 1842 an Act was passed which repealed or consolidated twenty-six former Acts of Parliament, extending over the whole period of our Parliamentary history, the first dating as far back as the reign of Edward IV. This Act created an entirely new fishery code. Since that Act passed it had been found necessary, within the short space of ten years, to amend it, and in that time no less than six Acts of Parliament, bearing on the subject, had received the sanction of that House. He would not affirm that the state of the law regarding the salmon fisheries of Ireland was satisfactory. No doubt there had been of late years an unprecedented decrease in the supply of fish yielded by them. This had been attributed by many to the operation of the Act of 1842, and also to various causes which that Act of 1842 did not affect. Amongst these might be specified the increase in the number of stake-nets, and also the greatly increased amount of drainage, rendering all parts of the country near the beds of rivers more liable to floods. But whatever might be the real cause of the increased supply, it was undoubtedly the result of over-fishing. There was no doubt whatever that there was at present a far greater amount of salmon caught in Ireland in the course of a year than could be obtained from the fair product of the fisheries. The fact was, that the salmon were not now allowed to ascend the rivers to feed, and he believed that to be the main source of the falling-off in the supply. That being the case, it seemed to him that legislative interference was undoubtedly necessary. But his hon. Friend proposed to deal with this question in rather a peculiar manner. In every fishing river of Ireland there were three or four great interests concerned in the fisheries. There were the proprietors of the coast fisheries, and those on the lower parts and mouths of the rivers; then there were the owners of fixed engines, made of wood or other material, salmon weirs; and, thirdly, there were the proprietors in the upper part of the rivers. The way in which his hon. Friend proposed to deal with this question, and increase the supply of fish, was by sweeping

955
away one of those interests altogether [Mr. CONOLLY: No, no!] That was the effect of the Bill as it at present stood.
MR. CONOLLYsaid, the 66th Clause laid the foundation of a fairc ompromise, by prohibiting stake-nets at the points where they were calculated to be most prejudicial, and allowing the upper proprietors a fair share of the fishery. He did not propose to interfere further.
LORD NAAScould only deal with the Bill as he found it, and must contend that the effect of the clause would be what he had stated. The opinion of the stake-net owners was, that their rights were in all cases guaranteed by the Act of 1842, and that they had as good a right to take the fish in their stake nets as his hon. Friend who held a fishery granted by charter. They said that they possessed a Parliamentary right to their fishery; and he could not conceive that the proprietors of stake-nets were prepared to sacrifice their rights for any compromise with the upper proprietors; and it would be inflicting a great injury upon them if in any measure brought forward, those rights were infringed. The hon. Gentleman proposed, then, to increase the supply of fish by sweeping away one interest altogether from the rivers of Ireland. He (Lord Naas) must express his belief that it would be necessary for the Government to deal with this question, and to propose a measure which would have the effect of increasing the supply of fish; but he believed that Government would inflict a great injustice were they to propose any measure which would have the effect of destroying rights that existed by Act of Parliament. Since the passing of the Act establishing those rights, they had been in many cases sold and resold, and a proposal to touch them involved grave questions of property. The titles of proprietors were dear to them as establishing those rights, and he could conceive no greater infringement of the rights of property than an Act of Parliament to sweep them away altogether. He believed, however, that a measure was required affecting the interests concerned, and that it would be necessary for any gentleman holding the situation which he had now the honour to fill, should the diminution of supply continue and be aggravoted, to propose a measure considerably reducing the period of the fishing season, with the view of limiting the power of capture. His hon. Friend proposed to create a new fishery board in Dublin, and
956
to take away the jurisdiction at present exercised by the Board of Works in Ireland. He was not prepared to deny that this might be a salutary measure, but it was evidently a matter for the consideration of the Government. It involved the creation of a new Government board, and many important details which it was impossible that a private Member could efficiently deal with. He assured his hon. Friend, however, that if the Government should be enabled to take the matter up, they would give this part of the subject the fullest attention. He believed that the Bill, as it at present stood, would inflict great injustice upon some most valuable and important interests in the south of Ireland; and under these circumstances, in the present state of public business in this almost expiring Parliament, he hoped his hon. Friend would not further press the measure. He would only add, that he had the greatest objection to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He had served on many such Committees, and he had never known any good come out of them, and, except in very peculiar cases, he should always oppose the reference of any Bill connected with Ireland to a Select Committee. If his hon. Friend would withdraw the Bill, he promised that the subject should receive the most careful consideration of the Government.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he was glad to hear that it was the intention of Government to oppose this Bill. He could corroborate the statements which had been made by the hon. Member (Mr. Conolly) with respect to the decrease of fish, which, in the part of the country where he (Mr. Monsell) resided, had taken place chiefly since the House had begun to legislate upon the subject. In order to show the impossibility of this question being dealt with by a private Member, he might mention that one of the provisions of this Bill went to prevent the erection of stake weirs within a certain distance of the mouth of a navigable river; the mouth of a river being defined to be, when it began to be two miles wide. Great injury would be inflicted upon the proprietors of the river Shannon by this clause, as the weirs for a very considerable distance up the river must then be destroyed. He mentioned this to show the necessity of the subject being taken up by Government, who would consider the interests of the whole country.
MR. F. SCULLYsaid, he willingly expressed his satisfaction that the Govern-

957
ment were about to take up the subject, which would at once put an end to all the uncertainties that prevailed, and which acted most injuriously on the supply of fish. Parliament voted annually 14,000 l. to improve the deep-sea fisheries in Scotland—a similar sum voted for the use of Ireland might be employed most advantageously to increase the supply of fish. He hoped that such legislation would take place as would finally settle the question, for the effect of continual alteration in the law relating to fisheries was to weaken confidence and to prevent the improvement of the country. This Bill omitted many provisions which might be usefully introduced, while it contained others which would be highly injurious. It related only to estuaries, and omitted all attempt to deal with the upper waters, where the chief difficulties occurred. It was the duty of the Government to deal fairly between the conflicting interests in the upper and lower waters. The millowners had in many cases been the means of destroying great numbers of fish, and he thought that there should be some mode adopted by which they should be compelled to provide a passage for the fish over the mill weir. He thought also that no weirs should be allowed to remain in estuaries, rivers, or tide-ways, if it could be proved that they had been illegally established. The Government should also see that the duties which had been neglected by the Board of Works should be performed by a board of fisheries. He hoped the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) would withdraw this Bill, which had not received, and was not likely to receive, the support of any of the Irish Members.
MR. H. HERBERTwished to impress upon the Government the importance of dealing with the subject, because it was an undoubted fact that since the last legislation, and in consequence of that legislation, there had been a great decrease in the produce of the Irish fisheries. He hoped, therefore, that some sound measure would be passed upon this subject, for he believed that no step could be taken which would be attended with greater advantage to the country. He believed that the arbitrary and ill-judged interference with private rights which had been exercised by the present Board of Works had led to no public advantages, but had, on the contrary, been one of the causes of the decline in the number of fish. He trusted that the pretest Bill would be withdrawn.
CAPTAIN JONESsaid, that he believed that every fish that came into the rivers might be taken during the open season, but he believed that that season was at present too long. He did not think that the proper remedy for the present state of things was to allow some to fish and to prevent others, but to lengthen the close season, and to protect the fish in the upper waters during the spawning season. He approved of the attempt to consolidate the law and to establish a fishery board; but he thought that the subject should be left in the hands of the Government. He had hoped that the hon. Member for Donegal would, after the general expression of opinion, have consented to withdraw his Bill; but as he had not done so, he would move that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEhoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. Conolly) would not press the Motion to a division, as he did not think that he would benefit the Irish fisheries by forcing this measure on a reluctant House of Commons at the present moment. He was glad to hear that the Government were about to enter upon the consideration of this subject, for the annual decrease in the produce of the Irish salmon fisheries was a most serious thing for that country, and was a point which called for the most anxious attention of every one interested in that country. He believed that the noble Lord (Lord Naas) was mistaken in the belief that great benefit would be derived from an extension of the close season. In his inquiry he hoped that the noble Lord would not lose sight of the vested interests created by the Bill of 1842. If the noble Lord determined upon doing anything on this subject, he would suggest that he should begin to do it with as little delay as possible. It was difficult to resist the impression that the falling-off in the produce of the fisheries was in some degree owing to the recent legislation on that subject. The noble Lord had properly remarked, that the difficulty of dealing with the subject was increased by the opposite interests which existed. It was difficult to persuade the owner of a stake net not to avail himself of it to the greatest possible extent for his own private advan-

959
tage; but what was desirable was, that the owners of the fixed weirs, the owners of the stake nets at the mouths of rivers, and the other interests connected with the subject, should be induced to look at it as if they were all concerned in the same matter. He believed that there were not in Ireland two more excellent officers than the two Commissioners who had the control of the fisheries.
MR. WHITESIDEthought the legislation which had taken place upon the subject of Irish fisheries furnished a very instructive lesson to the House. A considerable number of Acts of Parliament had already been passed, and the present Bill, which was proposed to consolidate former statutes, contained no less than 169 clauses. He admitted that previous legislation had not been very successful, but he doubted whether any legislation could be devised which could assist the operations of nature in producing more salmon. It was impossible that a measure of such great magnitude could be perfectly discussed and passed in the present Session. His hon. Friend proposed that there should be two boards of Commissioners. That, in his opinion, was a matter for the consideration of the Government. His hon. Friend proposed to protect the navigation of the Irish rivers; but the existing Acts gave sufficient power to prevent obstructions to the navigation. There were clauses in the Bill which would interfere with existing rights, and he thought the House ought to pause before they consented to sweep away rights which were created by Act of Parliament. No doubt it was expedient that an inquiry should be instituted to ascertain the causes of the diminution of salmon in Ireland; and the hon. Member (Mr. Conolly) must admit, from the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, that there was a disposition on the part of the Government to do everything that was necessary for that purpose. His surprise was, not that there had been a diminution of salmon, but that a single salmon was to be found in Ireland. It was impossible for salmon to grow large when they were killed young, or to multiply before they were married. If any legislative measure could be devised to remedy the evil, he was certain the Government would consider it their duty to propose it to the House.
MR. FREWENsaid, that great injury had been done in consequence of the Act of 1842 fixing one close season for the whole of Ireland, whereas previously each
960
river had had its own close season suited to the habits of the fish in that particular locality.
MR. CONOLLYsaid, that in withdrawing the Bill, he did so, relying on the assurance that the noble Lord (Lord Naas) would take up the subject as soon as possible, with the bonâ fide intention of dealing with it as it required.
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Bill withdrawn.

BUILDING OF CHURCHES, &c. BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. FREWENsaid, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, he had been induced to bring forward the measure because it appeared from a Return made on the subject that there were several parishes in the kingdom where at present there were no churches. Even that Return was an imperfect one, for he knew of a great number of parishes without churches that were not included in it. Towards the close of the last Session he proposed to insert, in a measure which then occupied the attention of the House, a clause to remedy the present want of accommodation in many parts of the country. The majority of the House voted in favour of its insertion; but, in consequence of a misunderstanding on the part of the late Government, the clause was afterwards withdrawn. By returns to which he had previously alluded, it appeared that there were about 150 districts in England, in which, owing to the want of churches, no divine service was performed, although these districts were endowed with church livings. He was acquainted with a parish in Kent, the clergyman of which regularly received his income of 150 l. a year, but, after appearing in the parish, and performing the service of reading himself in on the ruins of the old church, he never went near the parish afterwards. He begged also to call the attention of the House to another parish, where the population, according to the last census, amounted to about 450 persons. The necessity for a school in the village had become very pressing, and after full consideration it was considered the most desirable and equitable plan to build a large and substantial school house, in which the Church service could be read every Sunday. The plan, however, had not been carried into effect, in consequence of some disappointment about obtaining the site. The first clause of the Bill provided in certain cases, therein specified,

961
for the building of churches and chapels where divine service should be performed. It seemed to him a monstrous thing that while a clergyman was paid, there should be no service performed in a parish, in consequence of the church, through neglect, having been allowed to go into ruins. There was a case in Northumberland, where, in a parish containing 1,921 persons, there was no church; and another in Carnarvonshire, where, with an income of 170 l. a year, and a population of 1,400 persons, there was no church. One of the grossest cases in connexion with this subject was that in which the Dean and Chapter of Christ Church at Oxford had received, for at least 100 years, about 150 l., the income of a parish in which no divine service was performed: this was at Market Harborough. The church was in a substantial state of repair, but the windows, he believed, were effectually stopped up. He was informed that no incumbent had been appointed to that living for several years. The population of the district had increased, and he desired to know if the Government had not the power to fill up that living, instead of permitting the income to go where it had gone for a number of years, to Christ Church, Oxford. There was also an endowment for keeping the church in repair, but it was only used as a cemetery chapel, and a great many of the people who had been living in Market Harborough were interred in the burial ground about it. The second clause provided for the erection of private chapels, and it seemed to him to be a monstrous thing that, if an individual resident in the country wished to suit his own convenience by having a private chapel attached to his house, he should be prevented from having it. However, if there was any objection on the part of a majority of the Members of the House to such a provision, he would not wish to insist upon it, but should be content to take the part of the Bill to which the House would accede. The third clause was introduced to correct a clause which had been introduced into the Act of 1850 in another place. The Act of 1st and 2nd Victoria, c. 106, authorised the union or consolidation of livings or benefices which did not in the aggregate amount exceed 500 l a year; but by the Act of 1850, the union or consolidation of parishes was permitted without reference to the amount of the income. He thought that arrangement should be altered, because he could not understand how it could
962
be of advantage to religion to unite two livings of considerable value, though it might be of advantage to some person's pocket. The fourth clause related to the alteration of the existing law in reference to the cases of masters of endowed public schools, who do not reside on the benefices held by them. One of those individuals possessed a living in Sussex of the value of 1,200 l a year, with a large population in the parish; and he submitted that the clergyman hereafter appointed to that living should be compelled to reside upon it, because the object of the law should be to make clergymen reside as much as possible on their livings. He hoped the House would consent to the second reading, and on a future occasion the details of the measure could be fully considered in Committee.
MR. SPEAKER: I beg to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the second clause of this Bill, relating to private chapels, is not within the title of the Bill.
MR. FREWEN: It appears to me that a clause of a similar nature has been introduced into the 1st and 2nd Victoria.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman may, on the report, or on the third reading, bring up such a clause, and it may then be inserted; but the hon. Member cannot introduce a Bill containing such a clause as that to which I have called his attention.
MR. GLADSTONE: I shall take the liberty, Sir, of calling your attention to another clause of the Bill. If you direct your eye to the fourth clause, you will see that it is also beyond the title of the Bill. It is a clause with respect to non-residence. With regard to the second clause, the hon. Member (Mr. Frewen) should have moved for a preliminary Committee. It is a clause relating to religion, altering the Act of Uniformity, and requires a preliminary Committee by the rules of this House.
MR. SPEAKER: Certainly this other clause of the Bill is equally beyond its title.
Order for Second Reading discharged; Bill withdrawn.

PARISH CONSTABLES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. DEEDES MR. DEEDES moved the Second Reading of this Bill, the object of which, he said, was to amend the laws relating to the

963
appointment and payment of parish constables. The Bill contained no new principle; it merely consolidated and enlarged existing Acts.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that the Bill contained so far a new principle that it proposed to make it imperative upon every county to appoint a superintending constable for every petty sessional division. At present it was optional. To the other objects of the Bill he was decidedly favourable, inasmuch as he believed that, for a rural population, parochial constables were far preferable to a rural police; and he sincerely hoped that the clause respecting the superintending constables was not intended to be made a stepping-stone to the imperative imposition upon the counties of a rural police, or of anything similar under a different name. He would suggest to the hon. Mover of the Bill to consider whether he had sufficiently encouraged the system of parochial constables by offering more inducements to get persons to serve permanently in the force—that is, for four or five years. His great object was to have the Parochial Constables Bill made as perfect as possible, which might render unnecessary the formation of a general rural police.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, he observed that the Bill proposed that the salary and allowance of the chief superintending constable for each county should be paid out of the county rate, which, as the House was aware, was collected along with the poor-rate. By a subsequent clause, it was proposed that the salary of the paid constables should be "paid by the overseers out of the moneys in their hands collected for the relief of the poor." Now, he begged to say that he could not agree to those proposals. It had been the custom of late years to throw charges upon the poor-rate which were quite foreign to the original object of that impost, and he must say it was a custom which was exceedingly objectionable. If it was necessary to have a rate in this case, let it be a separate rate—a constable or police rate, or whatever they might choose to call it, but let it not be mixed up with a rate for the relief of the poor. He made these observations, not with the view of opposing the Bill, but trusting that some mode would he found of remedying his objection to those portions of the measure when the Bill was in Committee.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking it
964
objectionable to throw the expense of this measure upon the poor-rate, but he thought that this was a matter of detail which might be remedied in Committee. No man was more anxious than he was to see an improvement in the present inefficient system of parish constabulary; but he wished to see it on a larger scale than this Bill proposed. An hon. Friend of his had a measure in contemplation relating to highways, the machinery of which it was hoped would also be applicable to police. He hoped that on another occasion that measure would be introduced, and that it would provide a more efficient system than the one now proposed.
MR. PACKEsaid, he could bear testimony to the great advantages which the county with which he was connected (Leicestershire) had derived from the institution of a rural police.
MR. DEEDES,in reply, said, that his only object was to introduce the measure into such counties as were willing to receive it. With respect to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, he begged to say that when the Bill was in Committee he should be perfectly ready to listen to any suggestion that might be made with respect to the best mode of raising the salaries and allowances to be paid under the Bill; but, in the meantime, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Acts which he now sought by this Bill to consolidate and amend, gave power, at the present moment, to throw the expenses upon the county rates and poor-rates.
Bill read 2°.

ENFRANCHISEMENT OF COPYHOLDS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he would take that occasion to say that the Amendments proposed to be moved by the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings) would receive his acquiescence.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he was glad to find that the principle of compulsory enfranchisement was not to be persevered in at present. He had felt that if they had compulsory enfranchisement, after the year 1855, of every copyhold in the Kingdom, it would press hardly on poor people if they were required to pay down a sum of money for their enfranchisement—they not desiring any enfranchisement to take place

965
until their occupation of the copyhold should cease.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, his original Bill did not give any compulsory process as against persons in that position; but the Committee after receiving evidence determined that after a given period the plan of the tithe commutation should be followed, and the enfranchisement should then he compulsory, so as to assimilate all the tenures in the Kingdom.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 2 to 9.
Clause 10, which provides that questions arising as to any matter of law or fact on any enfranchisement might be referred to the Commissioners.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought cases might arise in which an appeal ought to lie from the decision of the Commissioners to a Court of Common Law, similar to that which lay from the decisions of the revising barristers to the Court of Common Pleas.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he never would consent to have any appeal from the first decision. He would rather, for his part, submit to an unjust decision than be driven about from pillar to post in the manner in which people were treated in the Court of Chancery and the Courts of Common Law, in appealing from one tribunal to another.
MR. WALPOLEwas not aware that that House had ever yet dispensed with an appeal with reference to matters in which nice questions of law might be involved. He certainly thought the decisions of the Commissioners should not in all cases be final; and it occurred to him that the best way perhaps of remedying the difficulties that might occur, would be, that in certain cases the Commissioners should have the power of certifying that there was cause for an appeal, and that the matter should then be referred to a Court of Common Law. In that case the question of law would be decided by a competent tribunal.
MR. AGLIONBYbegged to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would not be disposed to limit the power of deciding when there ought to be an appeal to the Court above, without reference to the wishes of any of the parties interested that there should be such appeal? To the parties having any such power of demanding an appeal on any frivolous objection, he most decidedly objected. He thought, in the matter of an enfranchisement under the Bill, it was necessary that
966
there should be the least possible delay, and next to that the least possible expense. Nevertheless, if the Commissioners of their own free will, doubting their own judgment, should think it necessary to ask the opinion of the Judges, he thought they should have the power of doing so.
MR. MULLINGSthought it very desirable to have some appeal, as serious questions of law might arise to render it in the highest degree necessary. But this was the hon. Member for Cockermouth's Bill, and he (Mr. Mullings) only meant to coincide in the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole).
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, it was only his Bill because he had taken a more lively interest in it than any other person; but it was really the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings). Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) might think it worth his while to prepare some Amendment that would be likely to carry out his wishes between that and the bringing up of the Report, and he (Mr. Aglionby) would then give it his consideration.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the suggestion he wished to make was, that either party might apply to the Commissioners, and if the Commissioners certified that it was a proper case for an appeal, that a case should then be drawn and submitted to the Court of Common Pleas.
Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 11 to 19 inclusive.
Clause 20, which empowers the valuers, in making valuations under the Bill, to take into account, among other things, "the facilities for improvement," incident to the land about to be subject to enfranchisement.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the wording of the Clause, by which the valuers were directed to take particular cases into consideration, in valuing the land about to be enfranchised, and, among others, "the facilities for improvement." He did not know what the term facilities for improvement might mean, and the Commissioners might be called on to go into an unlimited inquiry as to its interpretation. He would suggest that the point he taken into consideration by the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, the clause in question was not his, but was one which had been introduced by some other person.

967
So far from its being his clause, he foresaw the same difficulties and confusion would arise out of it as did the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. JACOB BELLthought the omission of the words "facilities for improvement" would be a great improvement to the clause.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, there might be cases in which land had got a capacity for improvement, particularly when situate in the vicinity of large towns, and his proposition was not to leave out the clause altogether, but to put it in some other shape.
MR. AGLIONBYsuggested that the word "capabilities" should be substituted for "facilities."
MR. H. HOPEsaid, that every thing might in a sense be said to be capable of improvement; and he would rather see the word "probability" substituted.
Clause agreed to; as were the remaining clauses.
House resumed.
Bill reported.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. SLANEY, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, it came before the House on the recommendation of two successive Committees, and he might describe its purpose almost in a word, which was to enable poor people with small sums invested in partnership transactions to have recourse when necessary to a cheap tribunal, and to bring those small partnerships within the meaning of the Friendly Societies' Act. He would not further detain the House, as he had found the principle of the Bill had met with general assent.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was extremely glad that this subject had been brought under the consideration of the House, because a very great number of people were interested in it. He hoped sincerely that the object which the hon. Member had in view in bringing forward the Bill might be realised. He (Mr. Henley) thought it desirable that the Bill should go before a Select Committee, in order that it might be the better adapted to carry out that object.
Bill read 2°.
The House adjourned at half after Five o'clock.