HC Deb 15 July 1856 vol 143 cc945-6

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read a Third Time."


said, he wished to give notice that he should move in Committee to insert in this Bill the clause which was inserted in that House in a similar Billon a former occasion, the effect of which would be to prevent the owner of Hampstead Heath from building on that property.


said, he objected to the Bill in toto, considering it highly improper that the Court of Chancery should have the power of authorising a person to act in direct contravention of the wills of settlers. He wished to call attention to the fact that the Bill, although it had been on the books for some weeks, was only attempted to be got through just at the fag-end of the Session, when hon. Members were not in their places. He should, therefore, move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.


said, he was not prepared to oppose the second reading of the Bill, which he thought was a good one in its general principles. Should, however, the clause referred to by the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) be not agreed to, he should oppose the further progress of the Bill.


said, he hoped that the general benefit which the Bill would accomplish, would not be lost on account of the special objection to the possible enclosure of Hampstead Heath. A clause, to which he had assented, had been introduced into a similar Bill last Session, which had been intended as a protection against an invasion of public rights. At the same time he was not a person to consent to the introduction of a clause directed entirely against an individual, concerning whose particular intentions he believed a great mistake existed. The Bill was intended to relieve persons interested in settled estates from the necessity of coming to Parliament for powers which, however consistent with the interests of all parties concerned, had been omitted from the settlement. If the House would consent to the second reading of the Bill he would make it an early order on Friday, when there would be ample opportunity of discussing the details.


said, he should give the Bill his entire support, but he would not consent to a public Bill restricting private rights. If, therefore, the clause in question was inserted he should give the measure his most strenuous opposition.


said, that from a mere love of legal right, he should certainly oppose the introduction of the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Westminster, because it was against every principle of justice that they should interfere with the rights of a private individual on the mere assumption that he intended to interfere with Hampstead Heath.


said, his hon. and learned Friends behind him had denounced with much virtuous indignation a general clause which they said would affect a particular individual. Now, he should like those hon. and learned Gentlemen to tell him whether this general Bill would not also affect that individual, and if so, why did they support it? For himself, he must confess that he did not like this Bill at all. It was nothing more than making wills for men, and giving to persons rights regarding property which those who made the wills never contemplated conferring. If his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) divided the House he should certainly vote with him.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 2°.

The House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock till Thursday.