§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th August], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" (for Committee on the Inclosure Provisional Orders Bill).
§ Question again proposed.
§ Debate resumed.
§ MR. E. JENKINSmoved that the Order be postponed till after the other Orders of the Day. He wished to protest against the unusual course taken by the Government in putting the second reading of the Appropriation Bill in the place it occupied among the last of the Orders of the Day. The consequence was that it would be impossible for hon. Members who had Motions down before it to enter into discussions upon them. He wished also to protest against the Government trying to carry the Bishoprics Bill through on the back of the Consolidated Fund Bill. The Bishoprics Bill was a very important Bill, and one to which many hon. Members had the strongest objection. It was extremely unusual for the Appropriation Bill not to be placed on the Paper as the first Order of the Day.
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONseconded the Amendment. He said, that he had had a Motion on the Paper for some time; but, unfortunately, he had been prevented by other important debates taking precedence of it from bringing it before the House. If he did not bring it forward that evening, he did not see what chance he should have of doing so that Session, and he was particularly desirous that the subject should be brought forward. Those who naturally took a great interest in having his Motion in reference to the death of Mr. C. C. Ogle, The Times Correspondent, properly and fairly discussed, had intrusted him with the duty of bringing it before the House, and he had pledged 1829 himself to bring it forward that Session. Unless the Government could promise him another day, he must bring it forward that night.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Order for resuming the Adjourned Debate be postponed till after the other Orders of the Day." — (Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. FAWCETTinquired, whether he was precluded from moving his Amendment?
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the House had now before it a Motion. If it were passed, the Bill would go down to the bottom of the Orders of the Day, and when it was called on the hon. Member would be entitled to move his Amendment.
§ MR. FAWCETTasked, whether, if the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. E. Jenkins) was not carried, he should be at liberty to move the Resolution he had put down?
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that no doubt, in that case, the hon. Member would be precluded from moving it.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERhoped that under the circumstances the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) would consent to withdraw his Motion for postponing the Bill, because it would certainly be very unfair and very inconvenient to the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) who had had this subject under his consideration for a very long time, and who had got a Notice on the Paper, if he should be precluded from moving it. He was ready to say, in answer to the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson), that he fully recognized the importance of the question the hon. Member wished to bring forward, and he would undertake to place one of the stages of the Appropriation Bill in such a position as would enable the hon. Member to bring it forward when there would be a fair opportunity of having it discussed.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked, that the hon. Member (Mr. E. Jenkins), in making his Motion, which he hoped would be withdrawn, had not stated that 1830 it had been almost invariably the custom of the House to take all the stages of the Appropriation Bill at a very early hour of the evening. He hoped that they were not now making a precedent for the future. He had not wished to interrupt the proceedings of the House at an early hour that evening; but he might now state that he had found that for a good many years the Order for the Appropriation Bill had never been delayed by more than a quarter of an hour or half an hour's debate. Neither in its second reading or Committee stage had it been taken at a later hour than 8 o'clock, and he hoped they were not about to establish a precedent for a different course.
§ MR. E. JENKINSconsented to withdraw his Motion.
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONbegged to say that he should certainly accept with pleasure the courtesy offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who always treated Gentlemen on that side in the most courteous manner; but he should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would inform him when he should be able to bring his Motion on? There was sometimes a slip twixt the cup and the lip, and he should like to be sure of his opportunity.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERsaid, the difficulty in which they were placed was that some little time ago he gave Notice that they would take the Indian Budget as the first Order on Tuesday. If he were to place the Committee on the Appropriation Bill before that Order, he was afraid it would be a breach of faith towards those hon. Gentlemen who wished to deal with that question. "What he proposed to do, therefore, was to place the third reading of the Appropriation Bill as the first Order for Wednesday.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
§ MR. FAWCETTmoved—
That it is inexpedient to proceed with this Bill until evidence has been obtained from disinterested witnesses as to the desirability of sanctioning the proposed inclosures, and until the obstacles which impede the application of the Clauses for the regulation of Commons, contained in the Commons Act of 1876, have been removed by the Commons Regulation Expenses Bill now passing through Parliament.1831 The hon. Member said, he was extremely sorry, at that late hour of the night, to trespass on the attention of the House, and, as he felt it was absolutely impossible to deal with the subject fully, he should reserve the greater part of the observations he had intended to make until the third reading. He could not be in a worse position than he was at that moment, and he would briefly explain to the House what that position was. The Bill proposed to inclose close upon 6,000 acres of land. Out of that 6,000 acres, he had no objection whatever, and he could not conceive that any hon. Member would have any objection whatever, to the inclosure of the greater portion of it—namely, about 4,900 acres. The Bill dealt with land of three classes— first of all, with common field land; secondly, with large open wide fields; and, thirdly, with two large pastures. Now, 4,900 acres of that were common field land, and to the inclosure of that he made no objection whatever. But the difficulty in which both he and the House were placed was that it was impossible to amend those Inclosure Bills. He had carefully considered every course of procedure, and he saw no way of proposing that the common land should be inclosed, and that the rest of the land should not be inclosed; and therefore he was under the necessity, much against his will, of proposing the rejection of the entire Bill. There were two points which he particularly wished to bring before the House. In the first place, he wished to say that no inclosure ought to be sanctioned by the House unless the local inquiry had obtained evidence, not only from those pecuniarily interested in the inquiry, but also from those who could look upon the question from a public point of view. Now, that position of his was clearly marked out by the Commons Act of 1876, which was passed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department; for if anyone would turn to that Act and look at Subsection 6, Clause 11, they would see that the Home Secretary distinctly contemplated that the Assistant Commissioner should not be satisfied with simply obtaining evidence from those who were pecuniarily interested, but that he also thought it desirable to obtain it from those who could take a public view of the question apart from a private and interested view. Now, in this particular 1832 case, he wished to bring no charge whatever against the Inclosure Commissioners. It was the first to be dealt with under the Act of 1876, and any omissions which were made in the inquiry, he was quite willing to admit, were not made through intention, but from accident; but still it was most important that the House should show that they were anxious that the Act of 1876 should be carried out strictly in its spirit, and he said that a fundamental principle of that Act would be absolutely disregarded unless the Commissioners took most scrupulous care to secure those public interests. Now, he believed that in that particular inquiry that care was not taken; because, when the Bill was referred to a Select Committee in the preceding year, this—the following —was unanimously their Report. That Committee was presided over by the President of the Local Government Board. The Committee distinctly reported this— "That in future cases, care should be taken to procure disinterested evidence." They could not have a more clear and distinct intimation that in this particular inquiry disinterested evidence was not taken. He would prove that by a second fact. With regard to one group of commons — namely, those of Rutlandshire, there was an inquiry held on the spot, and meetings were held. Who were present at those meetings? At the morning meeting, 18 people were present, and of those, 11 were solicitors and land agents of the large landowners, seven were freeholders, and there was not one single independent person present. At the evening meeting, the only persons present were five solicitors, some of whom were London solicitors who had come down to represent the large landowners. Now, could they possibly conceive a case in which it was more distinctly shown that the Assistant Commissioner should not be satisfied with the evidence taken, but should have given instructions that the evidence of the people of the neighbourhood should be taken? He also wished to call attention to the case of Riccall. At Riccall, 45 people were present, and out of those persons, everyone except five was pecuniarily interested in the inclosure. Of the five persons, three were tenants-at-will holding cottages under the chief person who was interested in that particular inclosure, 1833 Therefore, it seemed to him that it was clearly shown that evidence from disinterested persons was not obtained. He did not, of course, mean to throw any suspicion upon anyone; but he did say that it was evidence given by persons who were pecuniarily interested in recommending those inclosures; and he said, therefore, that the House was not in a position to judge properly from the evidence given before the Committee. There was a second point upon which, on the third reading of the Bill, he hoped to speak at greater length, but to which he would now ask the attention of the House. He would put this to the Home Secretary. When the right hon. Gentleman was passing the Commons Act, he again and again stated—and he (Mr. Fawcett) accepted the assertion—that the object of the Bill was to promote the regulation of commons as distinguished from the inclosure of commons. When the Bill was passing through the House, although he admitted that intention, he thought that, as the Bill was drawn, there was very little chance that those regulation clauses would come into operation. The Act had now been working for a couple of years, and what some of them predicted as to the working of the regulation clauses had been abundantly verified. He made this as no charge against the Home Secretary, because, as soon as it was pointed out to him, the right hon. Gentleman lost not a moment's time in introducing a Bill to amend his Commons Act of 1876; and he believed the result of the Bill, which had now passed the House of Lords, would be to give the regulating clauses of the Commons Act of 1876 a chance of being brought into practical operation, such as they would never have had under the Bill as it stood, and that he could explain by a single sentence. If a proposal was made to regulate a common, the whole expense of it, by the Act of 1876, would be thrown upon the lords of the manor and the commoners, and so no wonder they declined to undertake the duty of imposing regulations. But now the regulations would be practically presented to them, for, by the new Bill brought in by the Home Secretary, a certain small portion of every common which was proposed to be regulated could be sold, in order to pay the expenses of the 1834 regulation. Consequently, the regulation could be carried out without throwing any cost upon those who were interested in the common, and in that way a great obstacle which stood in the way of the regulation of commons would be removed. Now, he would again put the question to the Home Secretary. He said not a word about the commons to be inclosed, but he asked him to consider the position of the 114 acres of pasture; and, if that were not regulated, he asked, him whether he could possibly imagine the case of any common that would be regulated under that Act. What was the position of that 114 acres of pasture? It was right in the heart of the village. It was largely used by the villagers for the purposes of recreation. He could not conceive of a case in a rural district where they could possibly have a stronger argument in favour of a recreation ground than they had in the case of the 114 acres of pasture in the heart of a village which was largely used by the villagers for the purposes of recreation. It was never represented to them when the inquiry was held that it was possible to inclose the commons and regulate this piece of ground, for very likely if it had been so, there would have been some evidence on the other side. If the Home Secretary would consent to postpone this Bill, and see what the effect of the regulating Bill would be, and if the Assistant Commissioner would go down and say that there was no objection to inclose the common field, but that there was an objection to inclose the pasture and the open heath, he believed that under those circumstances there probably would be no opposition offered to the regulation of the pastures. He therefore desired, by the Resolution he now intended to move, to assert two principles. In the first place, that it was of the utmost importance that in those local inquiries that were held in regard to proposed inclosures, that the Act of 1876 should be faithfully carried out, and that the Assistant Commissioner should not be satisfied with simply taking the evidence of those pecuniarily interested; and, secondly, he felt that if the scheme for regulation had been presented in the way in which it could be presented now that the amending Act of 1877 had been passed, much of the opposition which was now heard against regulation would be removed, and the regulation 1835 clauses of the Act of 1876 would have a much better chance of being brought into operation than they had at the present time.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient to proceed with this Bill until evidence has been obtained from disinterested witnesses as to the desirability of sanctioning the proposed inclosures, and until the obstacles which impede the application of the Clauses for the regulation of Commons, contained in the Commons Act of 1876, have been removed by the Commons Regulation Expenses Bill now passing through Parliament,"—(Mr. Fawcett,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. STEPHEN CAVE, as Chairman of the Commons Committee which had recommended those inclosures, thought it right to say a few words. The hon. Member had made a similar proposition in Committee; but, finding himself in a minority, he had given Notice to oppose in Parliament the Bill which confirmed the Provisional Orders. He was not complaining in the slightest degree that the hon. Member had not acted with perfect fairness from his own point of view. He did not wish to go into the merits of the particular case, because they had been carefully considered last Session by the Committee to which the hon. Member referred. That Committee recommended the inclosures upon certain conditions which had been complied with by the promoters. They also appended to their Report an opinion that in cases of future Provisional Orders evidence of disinterested witnesses should be taken. Now, he confessed that to his mind the old plan of hearing only promoters and opponents was more satisfactory, and more likely to bring about the requisite effects. It was difficult to say what really disinterested evidence was. There might be persons who had no interest whatever in the inclosures, and, therefore, were not technically interested witnesses; but those persons might be actuated by prejudices or by animosity against promoters which might bias their judgment. He recollected that there was a very great feeling about rabbits in the case of one witness who 1836 came before the Committee. However that might be, the inclosures had been recommended by the Committee of last year, and it was quite clear that the Resolution was not intended to apply to those particular inclosures. It was, no doubt, the intention of the Committee to pass those inclosures, and to limit the Resolution to future cases. In fact, those particular Provisional Orders would have been passed last year; but, unfortunately, the Bill for carrying them into effect was withdrawn at the end of the Session on account of a technical informality. He thought this need not have been done. As it was, the case came again before their Committee. The informality was corrected, and the conditions were all fulfilled. When the cases were selected, as had been stated by Mr. Caird before the Committee last year, they were selected as being the most deserving, and against which no allegations whatever had been made; and they were, therefore, chosen for the purpose of being submitted to the Committee, as if to see whether any inclosures should be permitted or not. It certainly appeared to him that, if such cases were to be met by conditions more onerous and stringent than the Act itself, they would be doing a very great injustice to the promoters and owners whom they asked to come before them and make applications for inclosures. He sometimes regretted to see inclosures of land anywhere near centres of population; but as long as the law was unrepealed, it was hardly just to meet applications for inclosures in a way that almost amounted to a refusal before hearing. He thought that the proposal the hon. Member for Hackney was making to postpone the Inclosure Bill, which had already been too long delayed, was still harder—namely, in order to wait for the passing of a Bill which was not yet passed, and which, if passed, might not apply to the particular inclosures in question. He did not in the least complain that the hon. Member should have expressed what he felt so keenly; but, at the same time, he thought it would be very unfortunate if the House were to delay any longer the passing of that Bill.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: — Ayes 66; Noes 22: Majority 44. — (Div. List, No. 275.)
1837§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
§ Bill considered, in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 (Confirmation of Provisional Orders).
§ MR. FAWCETTmoved to omit Riccall from the operation of the Bill.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the proper place for the hon. Member to move his Amendment was on the Schedule of the Bill.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 2 agreed to.
§ On Schedule.
§ MR. FAWCETTmoved that Riccall he omitted there from. He did so in order to get from the Secretary of State some reason why the portion of the land proposed to be inclosed should not be regulated instead. In Riccall there were 114 acres of pasture land in the heart of the village, which were largely used by the villagers for the purpose of feeding cattle and for recreation. If that land was not to be regulated in the case of Riccall, he would ask the Home Secretary, whether he could suggest any single case in which regulation was the proper course to be taken? He had never yet heard any explanation why the particular portion of land he had mentioned should be inclosed, and not regulated.
§ MR. LEEMANtrusted that the Committee would refuse to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Hackney. It had already been, explained to the House by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cave) that this was a Bill for the in-closure of certain spaces, and that it had been practically before Parliament for two years. It would have been supposed from what fell from the hon. Member for Hackney, that there had been some opposition to the Bill outside himself. He (Mr. Leeman) ventured to say, and he thought he could make it clear to the House before he finished his observations, that every possible inquiry had been made into the merits and demerits of this application. There had been a Committee upon the Bill, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman, which sat last year for no less than seven days. Before that the Commis- 1838 sioners had had the matter advertised, and had called upon persons in the locality, and not a single person had any objection to make to the Bill, so far as Riccall was concerned. The Commissioners not only advertised the proposal, but they called upon all parties in any way interested in the locality to state any objections that could be raised to the Bill. Moreover, meetings were held, first of all in the morning, and afterwards in the evening. Upon that occasion the hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that nobody came to the meetings but those interested in the in-closure; but the whole world was invited by the advertisement to attend, and the advertisement was inserted in the various newspapers in the neighbourhood. It was provided by the Act of 1876 that great care must be taken that everyone should have the fullest opportunity of stating his objections. It was very odd that the hon. Member for Hackney exhibited so great a knowledge of Riccall; he wished the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to favour the House with all the information he possessed with regard to that place.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, that he had never mentioned a single fact connected with Riccall, although he had heard many facts connected with it privately; but he never mentioned a single fact that he had not obtained from Blue Books that were before the House, or from evidence that was considered by the Select Committee.
§ MR. LEEMANsaid, that the hon. Member himself sat as one of the Committee listening to the evidence which was brought forward. If the hon. Gentleman referred to a Blue Book for the proceeding he was now taking, let him show the Committee that every Member of the Select Committee voted against him, when the subject was before them; and that, by this overwhelming majority, the Committee voted in favour of the particular inclosure now before the House. The Committee made certain stipulations that additional quantities of land should be inserted in the Provisional Orders to what had been originally inserted; but when that was done, every Member of this Committee, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman, voted for the Bill being passed. And why were they not passed last Session? It was simply because technicalities were 1839 found to exist, and the Inclosure Commissioners had to withdraw the Bill. But, said the hon. Gentleman, the Committee had passed a Resolution that on all future occasions, the Commissioners should call before them what had been termed disinterested witnesses. But, nevertheless, the Committee had voted that these Bills should be passed through the House. What took place afterwards? After the different owners of property affected to the extent of some 6,000 acres had made the alterations required by the Committee and the Commissioners had made the Provisional Orders required by Act of Parliament, it was necessary that the matter should come for confirmation before the House. There was not a living soul had any idea of opposing the application. No one knew that better than the hon. Member for Hackney, and yet he now sought to exclude Riccall. Months went over, after the Committee came to the resolution mentioned, and the labouring classes in the village of Riccall, which contained some 800 persons, were in expectation of the passing of the Bill. It was proved before the Committee that those were the persons most interested in the inclosure, and those men had been waiting for months in expectation that they would speedily have this Provisional Order as regarded Riccall put in force. But suddenly there turned up in the village of Riccall a man whom no one knew anything at all about. When he arrived, people said—"What are you doing here?" He asked—"Are any of you opposed to this inclosure?" No one was aware of any opposition. Then he said—" I am a gentleman from the 'Anti-Inclosure Suburban Commons Association.' If you listen to me and follow the advice I am about to give you, I shall be able to do you some good." That person—who it turned out afterwards came from London—laid birdlime, into which some persons walked, and he would tell the Committee who they were. They were the men who, in former years, had been owners of cottages in which they lived, and to which commonable rights were attached, which they had sold and got the value of. The agent of the "Anti-Inclosure Suburban Commons Association" induced those persons to believe that he could bring about the regulation of a part of the 1840 common, instead of inclosure. He therefore induced those persons to walk into the birdlime he set, and 18 of those persons were dishonest enough to sign a document called a Petition to the House of Commons. The rest of the persons interested thought it was scarcely fair that they should have been paid for their commonable rights, and yet keep the land uninclosed. But, oddly enough, there was a Petition, of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney had some knowledge, for he moved before the Committee this year that the resolution to which it had come should not be confirmed until the Assistant Commissioners had been examined as to whether the recommendation of the Committee as to obtaining evidence from disinterested parties had been carried out, and until a certain Petition from Riccall against the inclosure of commons had been considered. The hon. Member was thus aware of that Petition. He (Mr. Leeman) had searched the records of that period, but could not discover the Petition. If that Petition were not produced, upon whose authority was it that the hon. Gentleman was making the statements he now did with regard to Riccall? The hon. Gentleman himself was never in Riccall in his life, so far as he (Mr. Leeman) knew. There were several reasons why the people of Riccall should have wished for this inclosure to take place, and their wish was evident, not withstanding the efforts of the "Anti-Inclosure Suburban Commons Association." The land at Riccall was, to a very great extent, swampy, and the particular 114 acres of pasture to which the hon. Member had alluded was called the "Riccall Dam." The Committee took far greater care of these people's rights than would be done by the Anti-Inclosure Association. When they came to ask for Petitions, they found one presented by about 120 of the labouring population of Riccall, who were conscious that if the inclosure did not take place, the land in question would continue in its present bad state; whereas the inclosure would involve an expense of £15,000 in the reclamation of the land, which would go into the pockets of the labouring population. Did the hon. Member consider what he was doing in preventing that money from being spent for the benefit of the people of Riccall? He (Mr. Leeman) was describing a locality 1841 which he knew well, for it was within half-an-hour of his own place, and he stated his deliberate opinion that the inclosure ought to take place. The hon. Member said he did not object to the arable land and common field land being inclosed; but he proposed to stop the Bill for another year, because, upon his own showing only, there happened to be 114 acres of land in Riccall which he did not think should be inclosed. Why was this inclosure asked for with respect to the other land? There were between 600 and 700 acres of land in Riccall held in common between something like 45 owners, each man holding from six perches to about six acres; the land was close to the River Ouse, and required extensive draining. The inclosure was one of which everyone had had notice, and which, but for the hon. Member, would have taken place years ago. The 144 acres was part of the common land, and like the other portion, was low-lying, having a porous surface and a clay sub-soil. It was proved before the Committee by independent witnesses, consisting of the most eminent agriculturists in Yorkshire, that the drainage operations on that common would take three to five years to carry out. Did the hon. Member think that the labouring classes of Riccall considered that he was doing them any good in objecting to this expenditure of £15,000? Rather, he should have thought, that after having done all in his power to oppose the inclosure the hon. Member for Hackney would have been satisfied to have let the Bill pass without keeping hon. Members in town for the purpose of supporting the Bill. The discussion of this subject was a pure waste of time, and he called upon the hon. Member to show the Petition which he had mentioned, and the Committee would then be able to see the value of the objection. The people of Riccall had petitioned the House in favour of the Bill; and he, therefore, with some confidence, opposed the Amendment of the hon. Member.
§ MR. FAWCETTobserved, that it was quite impossible for him, at that time of night, to answer the hon. Gentleman's arguments at length. He had no motive for his criticism, except that derived from the impression produced on him when this question came before the Committee. His hon. Friend waxed extremely indignant with him, though 1842 he had only spoken from the sincerest motives; but he must remember, when he spoke with such unwonted enthusiasm, that he spoke as a professional advocate. He spoke for the lord of the manor, and he (Mr. Fawcett) spoke from a public point of view. The Petition to which his hon. Friend referred was not drawn up for presentation to the House, but to the Committee. He knew nothing about the Petition; but certain strong allegations were made with regard to it, and he was anxious that they should be sifted. It was proposed that the Petition should be considered by the Committee. He had known the hon. Member too long to object to-night to the strong language he had used; and as he thought he would speak in a different way after further consideration, he (Mr. Fawcett) would postpone further remarks till the third reading.
§ MR. SCLATER - BOOTH, speaking with reference to the hon. Member for Hackney's statement that the case of Riccall was one in which it appeared that it would be most convenient that the regulating clause should be applied, assured the Committee that the question of regulation was put to the witnesses over and over again. He was Chairman of the Committee, and all the witnesses agreed that there was no desire to enter into that question; but that inclosure was desired was proved by the promoters, and no objection on the part of any of the inhabitants was urged. These questions came before the Committee not so much promoted by the parties, as by the Inclosure Commissioners, who were responsible for bringing before the Committee the cases which they considered ought to be so brought. He, as Chairman of the Committee, however, was anxious that there should be no question as to the bona fides of the Commissioners, and he caused notice to be given to the inhabitants that a Committee of the House of Commons was to adjudicate in these inclosures, and that any person who had anything to say was invited to give evidence. In his opinion, a most grievous injustice would be done to those interested in the inclosures, if they were not carried out this Session.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1843§ Schedule agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment.
§ On Question "That the Bill be read the third time To-morrow?"
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked, what would be the order of Business? An unusual number of Bills still remained on the Orders, and nothing had been said as to the probable day of Prorogation. The House would lose a most important opportunity of having grievances brought forward at the close of the Session, if the Appropriation Bill were taken so late, as he feared it was likely to be, at the next Sitting. If, in fixing the Bill now before the House for that day, the Government meant the House to understand that there would be several Bills set down before the Appropriation Bill, a most unusual course would be taken. On Wednesday, when the Appropriation Bill might be the first Order, time was limited, and probably the first Motion would take up the whole day, so that the House would only have the opportunity of bringing forward one grievance. On former occasions there had always been three ample opportunities, at least, of bringing forward grievances on the Appropriation Bill. On one important subject—the attitude of the Porte towards Greece—it was most important that there should be some opportunity for debate. Information had reached him as to the Porte's reception of the directions of the Congress in regard to the Greek frontiers, which convinced him that the subject ought to be considered by the House; but he feared lest there should be no opportunity given for its consideration.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI must remind the hon. Baronet that there have been a great many opportunities this Session of bringing forward this question of the treatment of Greece. As to the Order of Business for to-day, we propose to take—first, the Committee on the Indian Budget; then, the Committee on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; then, the third reading of the Bishoprics Bill; then, the Inclosure Bill; and then, the third reading of the Telegraphs Bill. On Wednesday, we put the Appropriation Bill down for third reading; and I should hope that the Prorogation may take 1844 place on Friday; but, at all events, not later than Saturday.
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONexplained that the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had not referred to Greek questions that had already occupied the attention of the House, but to questions raised by the receipt of recent intelligence.
§ Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.