SECOND READING. (Hansard, 19 July 1882)

§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD
said, he had had no idea that the opinion he had expressed in regard to the Bill of Lord Cairns would receive such an immediate confirmation in the House of Lords by the introduction of the present Bill. It was a direct repudiation of the Settled Lands Bill. It was a measure in favour of a Member of the House of Lords, which, from its very character, ought to have been dealt with by the Bill which was passed by the House on Friday last, and would become law in the course of a few days. He understood that, with reference to these Private Acts, Lord Cairns had stated that the Settled Lands Bill would deal with every case that could arise. This measure was a palpable contradiction to that assertion, and it showed how utterly inadequate the Settled Lands Bill was. The question now arose—what the House of Commons should do when Bills of this character came before it, knowing, as they did, how prejudicial it was to the interests of the country, and especially to the owners of land, that 974 Parliament should agree to the perpetuation of settlements. He had received many communications from various quarters asking him to oppose this Bill. There was not, however, in the Bill any proposal to extend, prolong, or in any degree to perpetuate any settlement of this important estate. He, therefore, did not intend in this case to oppose the measure; but he did say that whenever an Estate Bill came before the House to prolong the settlement of land he should feel it his duty to offer opposition to it. If the House refused to pass the Bill, the consequence would be that Lord Aylesford's interest in these important estates would pass into the care of Trustees, who would be supposed to have a fair regard for the proper care of the property, and there might be disadvantages in rejecting the measure. He would only say that if measures of this sort were brought before the House which did propose to extend the practice of settling estates, having a strong conviction that the practice was opposed to the best interests of agriculture as well as to the interests of the landlords, he should certainly oppose them.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he had no wish to continue the discussion upon the Bill; but he could not allow the remarks of the hon. Member to pass unnoticed, without one word of remonstrance as to the attack which had been made on Lord Cairns' Bill. This was a Private Bill which was passing through the House of Lords before Lord Cairns' Bill was introduced into the House of Commons. It was a Bill which dealt with special circumstances and with a special settlement, and it was impossible that Lord Cairns' Bill would deal with every imaginable case that might arise. If the hon. Member wished to raise any objection to the Settled Lands Bill he should have done so while it was before the House, and not have waited to fire a parting shot at it when it had left the House. He was aware that the Bill had been passed without much notice by the public; but he believed that when its effect was understood it would be found to be one of the greatest reforms that had ever been made in relation to land affecting the social position of a considerable number of people for the benefit of the public. Under these circumstances, he had felt it impossible to 975 allow the remarks of the hon. Member to pass without a word of protest.

§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD
remarked, that he had not attacked the Settled Lands Bill.