§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ *MR. KEARLEY: (Devonport)This Bill is introduced by the Corporation of Huntingdon, and its object is to enclose the whole of the common land surrounding the town, amounting to 356 acres. They also seek to take powers to utilise the land for building purposes, either by sale or by lease, and to dispose of it in any way they may think proper. Now, the population of Huntingdon is a very small one, something under 4,500, and, although the promoters of the Bill claim that the town, being completely surrounded by these lands, is practically strangled, I think that it is a very large order on their part to ask for powers to enclose the whole of these common lands. But the object of my motion is, in the first place, to raise a very important question of principle which this Bill violates. I shall also have a word or two to say upon the merits of the Bill itself. The principles laid down by the Enclosure Acts are being violated by this Bill, which proposes to enclose without enquiry commons, to extinguish all common rights, and to vest the soil of the common lands in the corporation. They claim that they own the soil, but other people deny their title. The persons entitled to the right to use the commons are freemen of the borough and widows of freemen. They number at present thirty-three, and it is proposed by this Bill that their interest shall be extinguished, and that, in compensation, they shall receive an annuity amounting to £748 a year, to be equally divided among them. The principle of that proposal is a bad one. The corporation also propose to appropriate a sum which is at present invested in Consols, amounting to £9,000, representing the proceeds of the sales of certain portions of the lands, made from time to time to railway companies and other public bodies, and to utilise it in paying the annuities. On the merits of the Bill, my objection in the first place is that this small corporation seeks to embark 704 on what is really nothing more or less than a land-jobbing scheme, and in order to do this they propose to extinguish the freemen's rights by a most pernicious system of doles. I fancy that this House holds rather strong opinions upon doles generally, and I do not think it is likely to approve a proposal to establish permanently an annuity fund to be distributed in all future years to a class which will certainly increase in numbers when it is discovered that there is some pecuniary advantage attaching to the freedom of the borough. No doubt at the present moment many people who are entitled to claim their freemanship have not done so because they have not thought it worth while, but the moment it is discovered that this annuity is to be distributed they will certainly take up their right of freedom, with the result that their numbers will be largely increased, the doles will be sub-divided again and again, and a system pauperising in character will be set up. The corporation urge that it will be to the benefit of the neighbourhood to pass this scheme, because they will then be able to provide public recreation grounds and parks for the benefit of the people. They also allege that, at the present moment, the public have no right over these commons for recreation. I should like to see them test that point. If I went down there to play a game of cricket on these lands, I should like to see the corporation test their allegation by bringing an action against me. I think they would find that they had a very bad case. What is the quid pro quo they offer for the 356 acres they propose to enclose? They are only going to give the public 10½acres of land, and I say that is a very serious defect in this Bill. Only within the last two or three days, the promoters have revealed another weakness in their scheme. I read in yesterday's Times a letter, signed by the mayor and two councillors of the borough, in which they stated there was an erroneous impression that it was intended to build on the whole of this land, and they added that it was impossible to do that, as such an undertaking would occupy two centuries. Why then have they asked permission to enclose these 356 acres for building purposes, when they know and admit that they have not the slightest intention of covering the whole of the land for two centuries? Surely there must 705 be some more moderate course open to them. Now, the rights of freemen differ in many respects from the ordinary rights enjoyed by commoners. Generally speaking, common rights are attached to freehold or copyhold property, and people who have a property in those rights can sell them, and so they may be gradually extinguished. But the freemen's rights are vested in the whole body of freemen, and it is therefore impossible to extinguish them in the same way as ordinary common rights. The result is that these freemen will go on increasing in number, and this annuity will be split up into many sub-divisions. But the main objection I have to this Bill is that it expressly violates the provisions of the Enclosure Acts, which have been passed by this House, and which represent some of the very best work Parliament has ever done. What are the principles of those Acts? They are to be found in the Act of 1845, supplemented by the more important Act of 1876, and the whole of these Acts recognise most emphatically that the public have an interest in these common lands, apart from the interest of the owner of the soil and from the interest of the freeman. It is this public interest which the Enclosure Acts are intended to protect, and it is surely as important as, if not more important, than the interests of the owners of the soil and of the commoners. If this Bill is allowed to proceed the protection afforded by the Enclosure Acts will disappear, Parliament will be stultifying itself, and it will establish a dangerous precedent, of which other corporations will in future years seek to take advantage. What are the safeguards provided by the Enclosure Acts? In the first place there must be a local inquiry at which all individuals and all local bodies concerned have a right to be heard. The corporation tell us that they have the unanimous consent of the borough to their Bill, but that is not sufficient. They ought to have the assent of the whole neighbourhood as represented by the rural district councils, parish councils, and other local bodies. If this Bill is passed, the protection afforded by the local inquiry will be swept on one side. Then again, under the Enclosure Acts, the Board of Agriculture has to satisfy itself that the public interests are duly protected, and that the enclosure will not prejudicially affect the inhabitants of populous places near. The Board has to 706 make a report to Parliament on the subject, and that report has to be considered by the Standing Committee of Commons, which has been appointed for the very purpose of protecting the public interest. That safeguard will also disappear under this Bill. I hope that the House will stand by its own legislation, and will not allow again to crop up that dangerous system which prevailed prior to the passing of the Enclosure Acts, a system which led to grave scandals in the loss of public rights. I think it is fair to say that the corporation assert that had they proceeded by way of Provisional Order they could not have got all they want. They certainly would not, for I do not believe the Enclosure Commissioners would have agreed to give them power to utilise the whole of the 356acres for building purposes. Had they applied for a Provisional Order there would have been a local inquiry, and the House would not have been legislating as it were in the dark as to the wishes of the local community. Why do the promoters fear the test of a local inquiry? I think it is pretty evident they know that their proposals would not survive such an inquiry. I have endeavoured to make it clear that the House is being asked to set a dangerous precedent in allowing the principle of the Enclosure Acts to be violated, and I hope we may be able to have a disinterested vote upon this matter, and to decide the question on its merits.
§ SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)I think everybody will sympathise with the inhabitants of a landlocked town. It matters not whether the land around the town belongs to a large proprietor who wants to preserve the amenities of his estate, or whether it is common land; the effect is the same in each case—it cannot be built upon. As our sympathies, therefore, naturally go with the town of Huntingdon, the question resolves itself into one of degree. We of the Commons Preservation Society have approached the corporation in a very friendly way, and have asked them, not unreasonably, as I think, to limit their demand, and not to take the whole of these 356 acres, with the idea that their population will so increase as to necessitate the use of the land for the extension of the borough. Of course, I know how boroughs do increase 707 when the opportunity arises, and I remember watching with great interest, some years ago, the amazing growth and expansion of a town in the north of Spain when its walls and fortifications were removed. The change was immensely for the benefit of the people there, and undoubtedly, if a certain limited amount of freedom were granted to Huntingdon, equally beneficial results would follow. The letter in The Times which my hon. friend has quoted is a repetition of what members of the corporation told the Commons Preservation Society a fortnight or three weeks ago. They then said that the whole of the land could not be utilised for 200 years. In view of that, I do not think the House will listen to a demand from the representatives of 4,000 people to extinguish the public rights of recreation over this enormous area simply to provide for a possible expansion of the town 200 years hence. If the corporation can show to a Committee of the House to what extent they can, by any guess or by the wildest estimate, grow in fifty years, then the House ought to allow them to acquire so much to that extent. To my mind this Bill is very little short of flouting the decisions of this House, and I trust that if the House does give the Bill a Second Reading to-day, it will insist upon its being carefully studied in a Committee of the House, which is the recognised machinery for the protection of public rights. I beg to second the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'This House is not prepared to consider a proposal for the inclosure of common lands except when recommended by the Board of Agriculture, in accordance with the procedure and on the principles laid down by the Enclosure Acts.' "—(Mr. Kearley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ *MR. SMITH-BARRY (Huntingdonshire, Huntingdon)One of the chief objections raised by the opponents of the Bill is that the Corporation of Huntingdon have not proceeded in what they say is the usual and regular manner. They say that the corporation should have proceeded by Provisional Order, which would have been preceded by a local inquiry, instead of coming here to-day with a 708 Private Bill to carry out their object When the corporation decided that they would make this proposal, and that they would get rid, if possible, of those rights—for I may say here at once that there has been constant and perpetual litigation as regards the respective rights—the corporation felt it was important once for all that the question should be set at rest. The corporation doubted whether they should proceed by Bill or Provisional Order. They took counsel's opinion, and were advised that it would be impossible for them to proceed by Provisional Order, and that the only course was to proceed by Private Bill. They were advised, and so far as I have been able to make out they were well advised, that the only course open to them to take was that they have taken; but even if they had proceeded by Provisional Order they would, for the purpose of obtaining building powers over those lands, have been compelled to proceed by Bill afterwards, so that if the Second Reading of this Bill is passed now, it goes to a Committee upstairs, and the report of the Board of Agriculture will have to be laid before that Committee. So far as we can understand, this is only the proper and legal way in which we could have proceeded, and it is the simplest and best way in the public interest. If it had been possible to proceed by Provisional Order it would have been a very much cheaper and simpler form, and the Huntingdon Corporation would have been only too glad to adopt that form of procedure; but as it was there was nothing left open for them, as they were advised by competent legal advisers, except to proceed in the manner they are proceeding now. The opposition to this Bill is that of the Commons Preservation Society. I wish to speak with every respect of the Commons Preservation Society. They are an excellent body, and they have done a great deal of valuable work in the public interest. They are the watchful guardians of the public interest in regard to public enclosures, but they are apt, like a great many other good people, to go a little further than they are entitled to do, and they are inclined to think that instead of the commons being made for the public, the public are made for the commons. The public in this case are the people of Huntingdon, and I think they are practically unanimous in wishing 709 that the object of this Bill should be carried out. Conservatives and Radicals alike are of one mind, and only last week the Radical local paper had the strongest possible article hoping that this House would consider carefully the merits of this Bill and give it a Second Reading when it came before it. The people who are interested in it are thirty-three. They have in their handwriting agreed to the proposals made in the Bill. The incomes derived out of the rights over those commons are calculated at £17 each. Under the provisions of the Bill they will get something like £22 each, and I really cannot see that that is too much compensation to give them for the rights which are being taken away. The corporation represents the public at large, and the corporation twice unanimously approved of the principle of the Bill. A public meeting of the inhabitants was held, and they also unanimously agreed to it. Hon. Members opposite say that the neighbourhood ought to give the sum. I scarcely know how the neighbourhood is to give the sum. What are the objects of the Bill? The objects of the Bill are that these common lands shall become the absolute property of the corporation, and that they should be empowered to let out small grants not exceeding three acres at a time for building purposes. The ground, as the hon. Member opposite has said, is small, and in a town of 4,316 inhabitants. It is surrounded by open country, with pleasant roads and footpaths going in every direction, and there is a large tract of 250 acres in extent which can never be built over. Therefore there is no question of the light or air of the people. On the contrary, the medical officer of the town itself says that the town is so congested that some of the houses are getting absolutely unhealthy, and that the town cannot increase on account of those commons, but must decrease because of the in sanitary condition of houses which must be pulled down. Other houses holding a smaller number of people will have to be erected in their stead, so that unless some power is given to the corporation to build upon these open spaces it is absolutely impossible that the town can extend, and on the contrary, it will contract. Something has been said about the common lands being places of re creation. Now as regards certain portions of the lands no one has a right to go on 710 them at all. Under the Bill which is before the House the corporation will make a recreation ground of ten and a half acres of the land, but the size of it is a matter of detail. If the corporation acquire the rights they seek, the grounds will really become recreation grounds for the public, and it cannot be said they are that at present. I have been authorised by the corporation to say that whereas, of course, they must purchase the rights of the freemen over the whole of the land, as regards the commons, which extend to 146 acres, they are willing to have it provided in the Bill that no buildings should be put upon 82 of those acres. Of the remaining 64 acres they will make a recreation ground of 10½ acres, leaving only 53½ acres for building purposes. Any details as to allotments and so on could be considered by the Committee. After this large concession it would be a monstrous shame that the town should remain cribbed, cabined, and confined, and be strangled for want of building room. I earnestly hope that the House will allow the Bill to be read a second time, in order that it may be considered by a Committee upstairs.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)reminded the House that the Commons Act of 1876 provided that whenever an enclosure was proposed to be made the matter should be referred to a body now represented by the Board of Agriculture; that that body should hold a local inquiry; that the report of that inquiry should be embodied in the Provisional Order, and that that Provisional Order should go before the Standing Committee of the House. The inquiries of the Committee were always conducted with the greatest possible care; witnesses representing the neighbourhood were summoned, and every opportunity was given for local opinion to be expressed; and the decisions of that Committee were always acquiesced in with satisfaction. His great objection to the present Bill was that it proposed to set aside that procedure. The Bill was prima facie an Enclosure Bill, and as such should have gone before the Board of Agriculture, and followed the procedure laid down in the Act of 1876. The questions raised could not be properly dealt with by the House as a body; they should be dealt with by a selected body, and the House had provided that selected 711 body in its Standing Committee. It was now asked that that body should be thrown aside, and the Bill referred to an ordinary Private Bill Committee, which had not the wide power possessed by the Standing Committee, and was not nearly as competent to deal with the matter. The only excuse urged was that the Corporation of Huntingdon desired to get by this Bill something they could not have effected by Provisional Order. That might be a reason for taking some further steps, but it was not a reason for asking the House to do something which the Act of 1876 expressly declared should be done in another way. The hon. Member for Devonport was therefore justified in asking the House to sanction the resolution he had moved as an Amendment, and to adhere to the procedure laid down in the Act of 1876. The men who happened to be members of the corporation or freemen at any particular date were not necessarily the best judges of what would be for the permanent interest of the community. The House had to guard the interests of those yet unborn, and a special procedure had been laid down with the view of protecting the interests of those who were not necessarily properly represented by the corporation or any local authority. He hoped the House would not strike a great blow at a system which had worked well for twenty-four years, but would accede to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devonport.
§ SIR W. HART DYKE (Kent, Dartford)asked how far the House was to proceed with the new system of opposing Private Bills on Second Reading. The practice, which was largely increasing, was a very dangerous one. It was perfectly true that some other procedure might have been adopted by the promoters of this Bill, but the best legal advice was taken and followed as to the course to be adopted. So far as the difficulties which had been raised with regard to commons, enclosures, and so on were concerned, it was enough for the House to understand that a report from the Board of Agriculture dealing with the whole of those technicalities and difficulties must be laid before the Committee upstairs. Surely that was sufficient guarantee that all legal obligations would be observed. There were no private interests concerned; and there was a unanimous population, supported by its local authority, making the 712 demand that the Bill should be considered by a Private Bill Committee. Considering the liberal manner in which the promoters had met the objectors to the Bill, it would be a cruel injustice to refuse to allow the Bill to be considered by a Committee, and he therefore hoped the Second Reading would be carried.
§ MR. HALDANE (Haddington)The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that the habit had been growing in this House of imposing difficulties in the way of Private Bill legislation, and he went on to say that the Corporation of Huntington had a very great grievance in this matter which required our sympathy and attention. It may be that the case we have before us is one which the House ought to hear; but there is Private Bill legislation and Private Bill legislation. We are dealing here with a case not of an Imperial character, but one coming into a category with which the House is well accustomed to deal under a particular code. It is now nearly a century since the House laid down the principle that it would not sanction an Enclosure Act without good reason, and it laid down a code to which every Bill of this character should conform; and for the last twenty years no promoter has had the audacity to present a Bill to this House without making it conform to the code laid down in 1876. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon said there were legal difficulties in the way of adopting the usual code in this case. He did not say what they were, and I for one should like to know how far they prevented the usual course being taken. I can conceive that there might be some difficulty with respect to Lammas lands, but there can be none at all with regard to common lands, and I can conceive that it was possible in this case to have proceeded by way of Provisional Order. We feel that when these Bills come up we are not perfectly informed of the circumstances, and we are not in a position to judge the merits. Our only safety lies in conforming to procedure under which we know the Government Department is looking after the House and seeing that no injustice is being done. I desire to draw attention to the peculiar way in which this matter stands. The promoters have not approached the Minister of Agriculture and asked him either to allow their Bill to be 713 dealt with under the code of procedure laid down and send it to his Department, or, if they are to proceed by Private Bill procedure, to rise in his place and state the reason for that departure from our established rules. We have had no explanation as to why it is that the promoters of this Bill are allowed to proceed in this altogether exceptional form. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, who I see is in his place, is going to give any explanation, but it would be very satisfactory if he would tell us why it is that this Bill is not going through the usual steps and stages, and I think it would be convenient if I now move the adjournment of this debate in order that we may hear the views of the Government upon the matter. I therefore beg to move that the debate on this Bill be now adjourned.
§ MR. WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)I beg to second the motion of my hon. and learned friend. I think this matter requires a little more investigation. The case is a very peculiar one. The Bill takes a very unusual course, and I think the House ought to postpone the question, and on future consideration it may throw out the Bill, as it makes a very large encroachment on the common rights of England.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Haldane.)
§ *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,) Liverpool, West DerbyMy hon. and learned friend opposite asks me to say what is the opinion of the Government upon this Bill, and I can state that in a very few words. I am asked why this Bill is to proceed in this manner instead of following the statute. That question can only be answered by the division now shortly to take place. Whether the promoters of the Bill have been right or wrong in the course of procedure which they have adopted is a matter with which my Department has nothing to do. My Department has the power to proceed on certain lines laid down by Parliament, and they are prepared to exercise those powers when applied to by a local authority. But there may be cases, and I am not prepared to say this is not one, where it may be desirable to proceed in the manner adopted by 714 the Corporation of Huntingdon, and it appears to me that it is for Parliament alone to say whether the circumstances are such as to justify a departure from the procedure which Parliament has laid down.
§ *MR. LONGIt is not for me to say whether I approve of it or not. The right hon. Gentleman opposite did not quite accurately describe the procedure. It is clear that the local authority would have to obtain a Provisional Order for the purposes of an enclosure first of all, and to follow that by a Private Bill for acquiring powers. But the Private Bill might be proceeded with pari passu with the Provisional Order. I am very reluctant, from the examination I have been able to make, to throw any opposition in the way of this Bill. I have investigated the facts, and I have reason to believe that there is great necessity for the extension of the borough of Huntingdon. The land in the south is not suitable because it is water-logged, and in the west there is land which ought not to be used for this purpose. The only other land which is suitable is this common land, which runs in the shape of a wedge from the north. On the other hand, I am bound to say that my hon. friend who supports this Bill and the Corporation of Huntingdon would have done better in their own interests if they had adopted the usual procedure, because, assuming that their case is so strong, the result would have been that the Board of Agriculture would have held a local inquiry, heard all the parties, and ascertained the facts of the case, and would have presented their report and shown their approval of the scheme by the issue of a Provisional Order giving the necessary powers, a course which would have strengthened the hands of the promoters of the Bill. The promoters having thought fit to take the course they have, it is entirely a matter for Parliament to say whether this is a case which has justified them in departing from the established rule.
§ SIR JOHN BRUNNERI should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon if there is a petitioner against the Bill. If so, there will, of course, be an inquiry; if not there cannot by any possibility be one.
§ MR. SMITH-BARRYI understand that there is a petitioner.
§ SIR JOHN BRUNNERBut if the petitioner for any reason whatever withdraws, the House will be absolutely helpless. There will be no machinery whatever for amending the Bill. Under these circumstances I am very sorry not to have obtained some pledge from the Government. I sincerely hope that if not to-day, at any rate in the future, they will be prepared to maintain the procedure laid down by the House and the Government in such cases.
§ MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)Would it not be possible for the promoters of the Bill to adopt this session the procedure of applying to the Board of Agriculture, and thus obtain a Provisional Order?
§ SIR W. HART DYKE (Kent, Dartford)Is it not the fact that under the
§ Provisional Order the Corporation of Huntingdon could not get building powers, and they must proceed by Bill for that?
§ *MR. LONGUnder the Enclosure Acts the Corporation of Huntingdon would apply to the Board of Agriculture for powers to enclose lands. The Provisional Orders giving such power could not apply to building powers, which would have to be obtained by Private Bills.
§ M. HALDANEAs the right hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear that he does not approve of this departure from the usual course, and that it has not his sanction, I beg leave to withdraw my motion for the adjournment of the debate.
§ Motion, by Leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 143; Noes, 149. (Division List No. 64.)
717| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt Sir. Alex F. | Denny, Colonel | Johnston, William (Belfast) |
| Aird, John | Dorington, Sir John Edward | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Fardell, Sir T. George | Kimber, Henry |
| Arnold, Alfred | Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Lafone, Alfred |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r | Laurie, Lieut.-General |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Finch, George H. | Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Fisher, William Hayes | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) | Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'nsea |
| Barnes, Frederic Gorell | Garfit, William | Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. |
| Bethell, Commander | Giles, Charles Tyrrell | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham |
| Biddulph, Michael | Godson, Sir Augustus F. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Goldsworthy, Major-General | Lowther, Rt. Hn. J. (Kent) |
| Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme | Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Bowles, T. Gibson(King'sLynn) | Goschen, George J. (Sussex) | Lucas-Shadwell, William |
| Brassey, Albert | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Macartney, W. G. Ellison |
| Brown, Alexander H. | Graham, Henry Robert | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Carlile, William Walter | Gull, Sir Cameron | Maclean, James Mackenzie |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Maclure, Sir John William |
| Cavendish, V.C.W(Derbyshire | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Monk, Charles James |
| Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r | Hardy, Laurence | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh. |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Heath, James | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd) | Heaton, John Henniker | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'd |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow | Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter | Mount, William George |
| Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D. | Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H. | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Myers, William Henry |
| Cox, Irwin E. Bainbridge | Howard, Joseph | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Howell, William Tudor | O'Neill, Hon. Robt. Torrens |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton) | Hozier, Hon. James Henry C. | Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Penn, John |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon |
| Pollock, Harry Frederick | Savory, Sir Joseph | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n |
| Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Seely, Charles Hilton | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Purvis, Robert | Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew) | Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.) |
| Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybrdg.) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Richards, Henry Charles | Simeon, Sir Barrington | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) | Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset) | Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd |
| Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye | Stone, Sir Benjamin | Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy |
| Rothschild, Hon. L. Walter | Thornton, Percy M. | Younger, William |
| Round, James | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray | |
| Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham) | Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Rutherford, John | Warr, Augustus Frederick | Mr. Smith-Barry and Sir |
| Ryder, John Herbert Dudley | Webster, Sir Richard E. | William Hart Dyke. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.) | Gold, Charles | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay |
| Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington) |
| Allison, Robert Andrew | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Philipps, John Wynford |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) | Pilkington, R. (Lancs. Newton |
| Arrol, Sir William | Haldane, Richard Burdon | Pilkington. Sir G. A. (Lancs SW |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Hanson, Sir Reginald | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. | Price, Robert John |
| Baker, Sir John | Harwood, George | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Balcarres, Lord | Hayne, Rt. Hn. C. Seale- | Reckitt, Harold James |
| Billson, Alfred | Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Blake, Edward | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Reid, Sir Robert Threshie |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Horniman, Frederick John | Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.) |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Jacoby, James Alfred | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Burt, Thomas | Jenkins, Sir John Jones | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Caldwell, James | Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow) | Joicey, Sir James | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Cameron, Robert (Durham) | Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) | Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh. |
| Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson- | Kay-Shuttle worth, Rt Hn. Sir U | Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Kilbride, Denis | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Cawley, Frederick | Knowles, Lees | Souttar, Robinson |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) | Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Leng, Sir John | Stanley, Sir Henry M. (Lambeth |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Lloyd-George, David | Strachey, Edward |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Lough, Thomas | Stuart, James (Shoreditch) |
| Colville, John | Lowe, Francis William | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Crilly, Daniel | Lowther, Rt Hn JW(Cumb'land | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Ox. Un.)) |
| Crombie, John William | Lyell, Sir Leonard | Tennant, Harold John |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Macaleese, Daniel | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E. |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon | M'Crae, George | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Donelan, Captain A. | M'Ewan, William | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Doogan, P. C. | M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W. | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | M'Laren, Charles Benjamin | Ure, Alexander |
| Doxford, Sir Wm, Theodore | Maddison, Fred. | Wallace, Robert |
| Drage, Geoffrey | Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W.(Yorks.) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Duckworth, James | Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton | Wason, Eugene |
| Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Milner, Sir Fred. George | Weir, James Galloway |
| Ellis, John Edward | Milward, Colonel Victor | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Emmott, Alfred | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Moore, Arthur (Londonderry) | Williams, John Carvell (Notts. |
| Faber, George Denison | Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) | Wilson, John (Govan) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Woods, Samuel |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | |
| Flower, Ernest | O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.) | Mr. Kearley and Mr. |
| Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis | O'Malley, William | Hobhouse. |
Resolutions agreed to.
§ Words added.
718§ Resolved, That this House is not prepared to consider a proposal for the enclosure of common lands except when recommended by the Board of Agriculture, 719 in accordance with the procedure and on the principles laid down by the Enclosure Acts.