SECOND READING. (Hansard, 4 August 1857)

§ MR. WHITESIDE
, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that a very sensible and useful Act was passed last year, into which the Attorney General was induced by the Metropolitan Members to insert a clause of which Parliament ought to be ashamed. The Bill enacted that in order to avoid the delay and expense of private Acts, persons who wished to obtain the power to grant leases on settled estates should submit their case to the Court of Chancery, which would accede to or refuse the prayer of the petition as it thought proper. One person alone in the British Empire, Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson, was excluded from the benefit of this measure by the clause to which he had referred, which provided that the Court should not be at liberty to grant any application under this Act in any case where either House of Parliament had rejected on its merits a private Bill to effect the same or a similar object. It was convenient to assert that Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson, if this clause were not in force, would apply to the Lord Chancellor to build on Hampstead Heath, but this was just as true as that Sir Thomas would seek to build on the top of St. Paul's. To build on the heath would be contrary to his interest; it never was his intention to do so; and, even if it were, a private Act of Parliament would be necessary, inasmuch as this was a common, and must be dealt with as such. A proposal 1079 had been made to purchase the heath and convert it into a park, and to this there could be no objection. The sum required, however, was £160,000; but the fact was that Sir Thomas Wilson was not anxious to sell it, and for this reason—because the copyholders claimed one half of the money. What Sir Thomas Wilson wanted was the power to apply to the Court of Chancery for the liberty to build on the Finchley Road estate, which, though adjoining the heath did not form part of it. It was most unconscientious on the part of the Legislature to pass a clause aimed at one man, and he hoped, therefore, the House would consent to the second reading of this Bill, which repealed the objectionable clause, and thus perform an act of simple justice.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he rose to second the Motion. From the land with regard to which Sir Thomas Wilson made this application Hampstead Heath could not be seen, and it had no more to do with the heath than the Seven Dials had, except that it was rather nearer. It would no doubt be very agreeable to the people of the Metropolis to have a large space kept open at Hampstead, but were the interests of Sir Thomas Wilson to be sacrificed to keep it open? Why should Sir Thomas Wilson be excluded from a benefit which had been conferred on all other persons in similar circumstances? That exclusion was not only absurd, but unjust. He last year warned the hon. and learned Attorney General that this Bill might be seriously imperilled by the insertion of the clause excluding Sir Thomas Wilson from its operation, and the event was such as he had anticipated. That very useful Bill, which enabled applications to be made to the Court of Chancery for powers to grant mining and building leases where there were no such powers, and of which several persons had availed themselves, was very nearly rejected by the House of Lords on account of the insertion of that clause. It was founded on injustice, and therefore his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) came forward with this Bill to put Sir Thomas Wilson in the same position as the rest of Her Majesty's subjects. The hon. Member for Finsbury, who had been returned to that House by very large masses of the metropolitan population, was impatient to rise for the purpose of moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. [Mr. Cox: No, no!] He understood that the hon. Gentleman had a notice on the paper 1080 to that effect. If he (Mr. Cox) knew anything about the situation of the property he challenged him to say whether he had not rightly described it. He asked him, as a representative of the people, on what ground Sir Thomas Wilson, above all other persons, was not to have the ordinary incidents of property, and why his interests were to be sacrificed because his property was in an agreeable situation? He hoped that the House would consent to the Bill being now read a second time.

§ MR. COX
said, there had been frequent instances during this Session of public Bills having been brought forward as private Bills, but this was an instance of a private Bill being brought forward as a public Bill. At that time in the morning (five minutes past one o'clock) he should not take up the time of the House by stating the reasons which he could offer against the second reading of the Bill. To do so would occupy half an hour, and he should not feel justified in taking up so much time at that hour. He would merely say, by way of justifying his Motion, that the debate be adjourned; that he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who, in reference to another Bill which had been discussed that evening, had said that there were limits beyond which human endurance could not go.

SIR HENRYWILLOUGHBY
observed, that he understood that the successor of Sir Thomas Wilson would be fully authorized, without the assistance of any Act of Parliament, to build on Hampstead Heath. If that were so, he suggested that now was the time for the people of the Metropolis to make some arrangements with Sir Thomas Wilson to secure Hampstead Heath as a place of public resort for healthy recreation.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, the general understanding was, that any Bill which might create a prolonged discussion would be postponed, and he therefore hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not attempt to press his Bill forward at that hour. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, who had been very much wearied by the debate which had taken place upon the Divorce Bill, had retired, and that was another reason for the postponement of this Bill.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, he thought he had been rather hardly dealt with. The 1081 hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) had not offered a single reason against the Bill, and if he could not make out a better case against the Bill than he had that night he saw no reason for postponement. However, if the noble Lord intended to vote against the Bill, of course there was no chance for him. Sir Thomas Wilson was entitled to a more favourable consideration from the, popular side of the House than it appeared he was likely to receive from that quarter. He had no objection to the adjournment of the debate till the next day (Wednesday), when probably the Attorney General would have recovered from his weariness. He would consent to any course which the noble Lord might suggest, provided he gave him a little encouragement. Would the noble Lord withdraw his Divorce Bill to expedite the passing of this Bill?

§ LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR
hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw the Bill. Many hon. Gentlemen had been waiting for the last three weeks to oppose the Bill whenever it should come on. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself had partly occasioned the delay which had occurred with respect to the Bill, for he was not in the House when called upon to proceed with it.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
I shall most positively proceed with it to-morrow.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he thought the proposition of the noble Lord at the head of the Government was a very reasonable one, seeing that the Government had already consented to the postponement of the Insurance Bill solely on account of the lateness of the hour at which it was brought on. He suggested to his hon. and learned Friend that he should proceed with the Bill the next day (Wednesday) because, as it was a private Bill, it would then have precedence.

MR. WILSON
I hope we shall have no misunderstanding about the matter. Private Bills do not take precedence of Government Bills, nor do Government Bills take precedence of private Bills on Wednesdays. All the Bills are taken on those days in the order in which they have been put down.

§ MR. SPOONER
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly wrong. Wednesday has always been fixed for private business. There is a Resolution upon the subject.