[BILL 119.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 24 June 1863)

§ MR. COX
, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that a clause had been inserted in the Act of 1856, for the express purpose of depriving Sir Thomas Wilson of his power of leasing his settled property, a part of which comprised Hampstead Heath. The object of the present Bill was to restore to Sir Thomas Wilson the rights possessed by every other Englishman, by striking out the clause which hadbeen so oppressively introduced. But inasmuch as he (Mr. Cox), as a metropolitan Member, who had always maintained the right of the London public to use Hampstead Heath, would be one of the last persons in the world to permit the inclosure of that spot of ground, he had inserted in the Bill a clause exempting from its operation all open lands used purposes of public recreation and health within seven miles of London and two miles distant from other towns. The Bill would thus do two excellent things—it would do an act of justice to a gentleman who suffered severely from the present Settled Estates Act, and it would secure to the public the enjoyment of Hampstead Heath and other uninclosed grounds in its neighbourhood.

§ VISCOUNT ENFIELD
proposed, as an Amendment, that the Bill should be read a second time that day three months. He did so upon two grounds—first, because 1421 he thought Parliament should not be asked to reverse its previous decisions on the subject; and secondly, because it was highly inexpedient that a public Bill should be introduced and passed to serve a private object. He doubted, moreover, whether the Bill would have the effect that the hon. Member anticipated. If they were to repeal the clause whereby Sir Thomas Wilson was prohibited from leasing Hampstead Heath, of course Sir Thomas Wilson would exercise that power, and he feared the exception would prove inoperative.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, the House had been guilty of an act of injustice to an individual for the benefit of the public. Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson was possessed of property at Hampstead Heath and elsewhere. He had sought Parliamentary Powers to deal with the whole of his property, and Parliament had refused to give him those powers. He understood, however, that Sir Thomas Wilson had now resolved to treat the question of the leasing of Hampstead Heath as distinct from that of the rest of his property. Upon that understanding, and feeling the injustice that had been done, he was prepared to support the Bill. No doubt there was some inconsistency in the House dealing with a private matter by a public Bill; but that was owing to the peculiar circumstances of a public Act having been passed to meet the case of a private individual.

§ MR. DOULTON
thought the Bill open to the same objections as previous Bills which had been brought forward with a like object, and which the House had uniformly rejected. The practical result of the Bill would be the inclosure of Hampstead Heath. He denied that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) represented the opinion of the metropolis in his promotion of this Bill. He would remind the hon. Member that the Metropolitan Board of Works, which might be supposed to represent metropolitan opinion, had unanimously decided against any proposition like the present.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, he must remind the House that Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson had the property at Hampstead Heath devised to him, expressly debarred from the power of granting leases. There could 1422 be no possible injustice in not giving him a power to which he had no claim.

§ MR. ALCOCK
said the House had ten or eleven times refused to give the power now sought for. It was true that the Bill did not propose to give leasing powers over the Heath itself; but if houses were built around the Heath, the public would be deprived of the lovely views the equal of which, except from Richmond Hill, were not to be found in the vicinity of the metropolis.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
had voted against the previous Bills, because under them Hampstead Heath would have been inclosed. But he thought Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson was unfairly dealt with with regard to his other property, and this unfairness the Bill would remove. Sir Thomas Wilson was not a young man, and at his death the restriction on building on the property would be removed. But by this Bill the public would be protected in their enjoyment of Hampstead Heath, while justice would be done to the individual; and he hoped it would be passed.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
had never been able to see the injustice complained of. The father of Sir Thomas Wilson had great respect for Hampstead Heath, and, when dividing his property, he left his Charlton estates to the present Sir Thomas with power of leasing; but he left the Hampstead property without power of leasing. If property was left to a person upon restrictions, there was no injustice in continuing those restrictions during his life. He trusted the House would refuse to reverse its former decision.