Lords Sitting of 28 February 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—2a Gardens in Towns Protection.

UNITED STATES—BLOCKADE OF THE SOUTHERN PORTS—THE CORRESPONDENCE. —QUESTION.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that within the last twenty-four hours various papers had been laid upon the table in reference to the blockade of the Southern Ports. Those papers, no doubt, contained a great deal of valuable information; but they were also remarkable for the absence of information upon certain points of too great importance to be passed by. They contained Reports from the various consuls as to the adequacy or inadequacy of the existing blockade; they specified cases in which British vessels had broken it, together with a statement of ships that had been allowed to pass without let or hindrance from the cruisers of the Government of the Northern States; but they did not contain any information with respect to any communications which had passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of foreign States in regard to the blockade. He wished to ask the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, Whether any such communications had passed; and, if so, whether there was any objection on the part of the Government to lay those papers, or extracts from those papers, before the House? He did not complain of the course which the Government had adopted in issuing the papers now before their Lordships, but there was great inconvenience in discussing a subject of this character upon papers presented in a fragmentary form. There was some excuse at the close of a Session for papers being so presented; but when neither the public offices nor the Parliamentary printers were overtaxed, it would be desirable to have the papers laid on the table as a whole, in order that a satisfactory judgment might be pronounced upon them.
EARL RUSSELLsaid, that Her Majesty's Government had not had any formal communications with foreign Governments on the subject of the blockade. From time to time the French Ambassador and some other representatives of maritime States had asked him what course the British Government intended to pursue. His reply to

847
those questions were to the same effect as the despatch which he had addressed to Lord Lyons. No formal communications, however, had passed, and therefore there were none to lay upon the table. With regard to the mode in which the papers were presented, it seemed to him that they were much clearer and more intelligible when they were presented divided into the several subjects. He begged to lay on the table a despatch which he had just received from Lord Lyons, with regard to the blocking-up of Charleston Harbour, in which Mr. Seward is said to have stated that no more stone-ships would be sunk.
EARL STANHOPEwished to know whether the despatch did not confirm the Reports which he had alluded to on a former occasion as to the sinking of a second stone fleet?
EARL RUSSELL: —There is a statement in these despatches, and it has appeared elsewhere, that there had been a complete filling-up of Charleston Harbour; but Mr. Seward says this is not so—that all has been done that ever was intended to be done, and that there will be no further attempts to block up the harbour.

ITALY—THE PROCLAMATION OF COLONEL FANTONI.—EXPLANATION.
EARL RUSSELL: —I have to state to your Lordships that I have received information since the meeting of the House yesterday, with reference to the Neapolitan proclamation which was brought under your Lordships' notice by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby). It appears that when my despatch reached Turin, Sir James Hudson was at Milan, and that explains the delay which arose in the return of an answer to it. I have received an intimation last night that an explanation on the subject would be sent to the representative of the Italian Kingdom in London, who accordingly called on me this morning, and brought me the answer of Baron Ricasoli. The answer is to the effect that the proclamation of the commandant at Lucera was published without the sanction of the superior military authorities, and was immediately suppressed. The despatch went on to say that it was necessary to take very active and stringent measures for the suppression of brigandage, which is extremely injurious not only to the general peace of the country, but to the pursuits of industry and agriculture in the various districts where it prevails. The measures for putting it down are stated
848
to have been always concerted with the municipalities; so that if they contained anything injurious either to the prosperity of the districts or to innocent persons, the municipalities would not have agreed to them. As, however, the proclamation in question did not meet with the approbation of the superior military authorities, it was, as I have stated, immediately suppressed. The diplomatic representatives of Her Majesty are, therefore, not to blame for omitting to report it to the Foreign Office.
THE EARL OF DERBY: —I am very glad to hear the explanation which the noble Earl has given us. I am only sorry that he did not receive it in time for the answer to the question which I put last night, because it would have saved a good deal of conversation which turns out to be useless, inasmuch as the genuineness of the document is now admitted, and the very valuable information brought by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) from Turin, that the proclamation was a copy of a document published in 1810, turns out to be no information at all. It appears that the Armonia was right in publishing it as a document which emanated from an officer in the Neapolitan dominions, that it is entirely genuine, and that it is precisely of the character which I stated. I am extremely glad to hear that the Italian Government have felt it their duty to renounce and repudiate it in the strongest terms, and I hope your Lordships will now consider that I was fully justified in bringing the matter under your Lordships' notice.

GARDENS IN TOWNS PROTECTION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD ST. LEONARDS presented a petition of John Augustus Tulk, of Dunston Lodge, Spring Grove, Hounslow, Esquire, for amendment of the Bill, and praying to be heard by counsel against it.
  LORD REDESDALE, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said it did not affect Leicester-square any more than Grosvenor-square, Bedford-square, or any other square; the object being to protect the health and enjoyment of the public. Where lands had been left as open spaces for the health and enjoyment of the inhabitants it was important to preserve them in that condition. It was not proposed to take possession of private property, unless

  849
  it was in such a state as imperatively required some interference. If this had been a new principle, he might have hesitated to suggest it. But the Bill was strictly in conformity with those provisions of the Metropolis Local Management Act which, in the case of gardens in front of houses, prohibited the owners building on those gardens within thirty feet of the roadway, and authorized the vestry board to demolish any such buildings at the expense of the owner. The case with respect to property in gardens was much stronger than with respect to property in squares, because the gardens had never been used by any one except the persons occupying or owning the houses to which the belonged; whereas the squares were used in common by all the residents in the houses which surrounded them. Many years ago a public statue, of no great merit as a work of art, stood in the centre of Leicester-square, and he doubted very much whether there was any right to remove it, or to convey the ground upon which it had been erected. He did not object to the case of the petitions being brought before their Lordships, but he hoped they would not send the Bill to a Select Committee. It was entirely a question of principle, and if the object was wrong the Bill should be rejected.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSthought that an opportunity should be given to the freeholder of Leicester-square to explain his objections to this Bill before a Select Committee.
  After a few words from Lord REDESDALE,
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought, that though the general objects of the Bill were extremely desirable, yet considerable injustice might be done unless some amendments were introduced in Committee. He did not see how it would meet the particular case of Leicester-square.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT BILL.—COMMITTEE.
House in Committee according to Order.
Clause 1. (Restriction on the doctrine of Implied and Constructive Notice, as affecting purchasers for value or mortgages.)
LORD CRANWORTHobjected to the clause. It had already been three times before Parliament and had always been
850
rejected. Nor did he disapprove of constructive notice in all cases.
LORD CHELMSFORDconcurred with his noble and learned Friend. The clause proposed to do away altogether with the law as to constructive notice; to this provision he objected.
THE LORD CHANCELLORwas also understood to object to the clause.
LORD ST. LEONARDSexpressed his surprise that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack did not approve the clause, seeing that his noble and learned Friend had assisted him in the preparation of it. He (Lord St. Leonards) on the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend had inserted some words in it of which he did not himself altogether approve. It had been the object of his life to secure bonâ fide purchasers for valuable consideration; and he believed that general regret was felt at the extent to which the doctrine of constructive notice had been carried. With actual notice he did not propose to interfere; the Bill only abolished constructive notice in eases where the Court was of opinion that the conduct of such purchaser or mortgagee amounted to fraud, or to such wilful neglect as amounted to fraud. He was willing to frame the clause in any way that would secure the object he bad in view, and to secure that before a man was made liable he should have real notice, such as a honest man would not desire to evade.
LORD CHELMSFORDexplained his objection to the clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLORacknowledged the existence of the evil, and concurred in the desirability of correcting it; but thought it would not be corrected by introducing words so difficult of construction that they would generate additional confusion, instead of furnishing a convenient and practical rule for the guidance of the Courts. He was sure that his noble and learned Friend could frame such a rule. He therefore earnestly begged him to withdraw the clause, and bring forward another expressed a little more fully and definitely.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that on the appeal made to him he would not refuse to postpone the clause, with the view of recasting it, if possible, in language better calculated to effect its object.
Clause negatived.
Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock