Sitting of 13 March 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—2o. Commons Inclosure. Private.—1o. Monkland Railways; Edinburgh, Leith, and Granton Railway; Harrowgate and Knaresborough Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Henniker, Mr. Bur-
964
roughes, and other hon. Members, from 168 places, against any Alteration in the Corn Laws.—From Merchants (2), respecting Carriage of Goods by Railways.—From Twncelyn, and 8 places, against Union of Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By the Solicitor General, from Exeter, against Poor Law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. Hawes, from Lambeth (6), for Reduction of Duty on Tobacco.

COURT OF ARCHES BILL.
Mr. Elphinstone: In moving the Second Reading of the Arches Court Bill said, I can assure the House, that I shall be as brief as I can in explaining the object I have in view. The House is aware, that there are a vast variety of Ecclesiastical Courts (amounting to upwards of 300) in different parts of the country, and that art appeal lies from one to the other of these Courts, and afterwards to the Court of Arches, which latter Court is the supreme Ecclesiastical tribunal. For instance a Dissenter may be dragged before some peculiar or Archdeacon's Court, for non-payment of Church Rates; having no means of escaping the jurisdiction, he has to go through the whole expense of a suit in this inferior Court; an appeal is then made to the Bishop's Court; here, again, the same process of paying fees is to be gone through. Ultimately, both parties being dissatisfied with decisions in Courts below, an appeal is made to the Court of Arches, and, then, it is probably discovered that the whole proceedings have been irregular and the suit is quashed. It may even be worse than this, for the appeals may be on some interlocutory matter, and then the unfortunate party has to go through the Courts several times. It must be obvious that this system causes great expense and inconvenience to the public. Now, I propose to give to any party who may be so unfortunate as to be entangled in these inferior Courts, whether plaintiff or defendant, the power of declining the jurisdiction of the inferior Courts, and having his cause heard in the Court of Arches, a Court which is invariably presided over by a Judge on whose learning and on whose judicial fitness the public can rely. At the same time, if parties prefer to carry on litigation in a Local Court, I leave them at perfect liberty to do so. The principle on which this Bill is founded has been approved of by every person who has attempted to amend Ecclesiastical Courts. It formed part of the principle of Lord Brougham's Bill, of Sir F. Pollock's Bill in 1835, of Lord Cottenham's Bill in 1836; and it

965
was included in the Bill introduced by my learned Friend the Judge Advocate last year. I introduced a similar measure in the course of last Session. My learned Friend (Dr. Nicholl) objected to my Bill last year (not on principle), because he said it was unnecessary, because Her Majesty's Government were determined to carry their Ecclesiastical Courts Bill. I ventured to tell my right hon. Friend that I was afraid he would not be a true prophet. If Dr. Nicholl had not interfered last year, this desirable improvement might have now been law. If my right hon. Friend makes the same objection this year, I venture again to say, that it is impossible to say what may be the fate of Lord Lyndhurst's Bill; and that it is worse than folly to reject a good measure because another measure may be passed. I cannot help thinking, that my right hon. Friend would adopt a wiser and a more practical course, if he really wishes to carry into effect those improvements in the Ecclesiastical law, of which both he and I have seen the necessity, if, instead of endeavouring in one Bill to make great and violent changes in the law, changes which excite the prejudices of some, and the interested opposition of others—if, instead of introducing Bills containing upwards of 100 clauses, of so complicated a nature that the best lawyer, either in or out of the House, cannot venture to predict what their operation would be on the general law of the land—if he were gradually and safely to introduce specific remedies for the different grievances which may be pointed out by the voice of the public, I will only add, Sir, that every person I have consulted on the subject, whether, in the profession to which I have the honour of belonging, or whether a suitor in these Courts, has cordially approved of the Bill. I beg, therefore, to move the second reading.
Sir James Grahamsuggested that the hon. Gentleman should postpone his Bill until the Government Bill came down from the other House, which he promised should take place before Easter.
Debate adjourned for a fortnight.

INCLOSURE OF COMMONS.
Lord Worsleymoved the Second Reading of the Inclosure of Commons Bill.
Mr. Sharman Crawforàopposed the Bill; but declared he had no desire to show disrespect to the promoters of it.
966
The rights of the poor should be scrupulously watched. Those rights were originally granted by the lords of the soil, who were called benefactors, and better entitled to that name he feared, than they were at present. He objected to the leading principle of the Bill, because he denied that those who were at present in occupation should be allowed to determine the rights of future generations. There was one clause by which it was enacted, that a public meeting should be convened to determine whether an Act of Inclosure should be applied for or not, which was to be determined in the affirmative on a requisition being signed by persons representing in the aggregate two-thirds of the value in the commons proposed to be inclosed. But there were no means to determine what the value was. This was to be determined afterwards, if necessary, by a scrutiny before the Commissioners. In the mean time, however, the Chairman might rule the question by his own arbitrary authority, against which those who dissented would have to appeal to the Commissioners. But, suppose the meeting were to disagree to the proposal for the inclosure, it was then provided that a paper might be handed about from house to house, and so the required number of signatures be obtained privately, after they had not been obtained at the public meeting. He asked what was the use of having a public meeting at all if the business could be accomplished afterwards, in spite, perhaps, of the views of the public meeting. There were several other clauses of the Bill, the effect of which would be that, whilst it was in appearance left to the commoners to decide whether the Enclosure should take place or not, the power was in fact ultimately vested entirely in the Commissioners. Then as to the class of persons who had a right to vote at these meetings. Here, again, a great injustice was done to the poor. On referring to the twelfth clause, he found that no person was to have a right to interfere in these proceedings when he paid more than two-thirds actual value rent, or where he had only a tenancy at will, or a lease of less than fourteen years; but if he had such an interest then he was to have a joint right of interference with the roan under whom he held. But he would ask why, because a man held at a rack-rent, should be not have a voice in these proceedings in which he certainly still was

967
interested? He thought this provision, like the rest of the bill, most unjust to the poorer classes. With respect to the working of the bill, should it ever be carried into effect, it was proposed to appoint the Tithe Commissioners to perform this duty, but it gave at the same time the power of appointing Assistant Commissioners, who might have a retinue of clerks. Of course these persons would expect to be paid, and the House might look to having an application made to it for remuneration; or if not, they would pay themselves in some other way less desirable for the public. It seemed to him very much as if it was the object to perpetuate the offices of these Commissioners, after their present duties were terminated; and it would be the object of the Commissioners in all cases to force on Enclosure Acts in order to perpetuate their duties. There was another point to which he objected. He did not see anything in the bill to prevent a person from acting as Commissioner in one of these cases who was himself directly interested in the result; and this was what he thought should never be allowed. The next point upon which he had to observe was, that it was proposed to advance the money for the expense of carrying this act into operation out of the Consolidated Fund. He objected strongly to this proposition, because he thought that those who were to be benefited by the contemplated proceedings should pay the necessary expenses, and not the nation at large. It seemed indeed to be the object of the bill to avoid the expense which was at present incurred in applying for Enclosure Bills in Parliament, But this very expensiveness of the present process was what he for one was not disposed to object to, because he considered that it acted as a wholesome check upon such proceedings—which were proceedings in their nature infringing on the interests of the poor. He would have no objection to the Enclosure of Commons, if it were done upon proper principles, by which the interests of the poor should be permanently benefited, Those Enclosures should be made, not for the individual advantage of wealthy landowners, but should be carried on under some authority appointed by the State, who should act as trustee for the interests of the poor. It appeared to him that one of the most important objects which the House should hold in view at the present time towards the alleviation
968
of the distresses of the working classes and their elevation in the social scale, would be to supply them with small portions of land, to assist in their sustenance. As an instance of the advantages which would result from such a system, he would refer to a passage in the report of the Allotment Commissioners, where it was stated that a crop, value 5l, might be raised by spade labour upon an allotment of one-eighth of an acre of land. So important did he consider this fact, that he was firmly of opinion, that whatever means might be taken to give employment to the working classes, whether the Corn-laws were repealed or not, it would still be found necessary to give small allotments of land to the poor in various districts. Mr. Childers, in the report he referred to, gave instances of the quantity of marsh land which had been reclaimed in some places by the labour of the poor. He believed that if these Commons were given to the rich landlords they would be converted into grass lands; and what advantage, he would ask, would this be to the poor? There were already complaints abroad of the class legislation which was carried on all in favour of the interests of the rich, to the detriment of those of the poor; he hoped the House would not give additional occasion for such complaints by passing this bill. If this House did an act by which they would be enclosing for their own advantage all the common lands of this country, the people would have a strong and just ground for offence; but if, on the contrary, they shewed a respect for the rights and interests of the poor, it would have a great effect in producing a kinder feeling between the aristocracy and their humbler fellow-contrymen. With these opinions he should move, as an amendment, that this bill be read a second time this day six months.
Colonel Sibthorpin seconding and supporting the amendment of the hon. Member for Rochdale, begged to disclaim anything discourteous to the noble Lord who had introduced this bill. He had, however, told the noble Lord in private, when he mentioned his intention of bringing in such a measure, that he should give it his firm but humble opposition. With respect to the hon. Member who had moved the amendment, he believed he could say of him that there was not in the United Kingdom a landlord who was more generous to his tenants, more beloved by them

969
in return, and who had a greater regard for the interests of the poor than that hon. Gentleman. Now, with respect to this bill; it was laid on the table on Saturday, when it contained 140 clauses; it had now, however swollen to 149 clauses, why or wherefore he did not pretend to know. He denounced the bill as most arbitrary in its principle, and likely to be most expensive in its carrying into effect. The expense was such that no one, not even the noble Lord himself could pretend to say how it would end. The noble Lord had thought to throw in a little sugar to sweeten the bitterness of the rest of the enactment, by proposing that the Tithe Commissioners should undertake the duties under this measure. But surely the noble Lord must be aware that the Tithe Commission would expire in four years; and, if he was not misinformed—he had been told it, indeed, to-day—that a greal deal which the Commission should have done by this time was not done. But it should be borne in mind, also, that there was the power of appointing numerous assistants and secretaries, which would all incur expense. He saw that money was to be borrowed from the Consolidated Fund. He did not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say to this. He should be happy to hear that the Consolidated Fund was in a sufficiently prosperous state to make those advances. But he was afraid they would have to be repaid out of the taxes to be levied on the country. They were to be repaid out of the Poor Rates. He thought the property of the landowners was already sufficiently burthened without having an undefined amount of money drawn from their pockets under the provisions of this Enclosure Bill. He objected to the powers proposed to be given to the lords of the manor. He, as a lord of the manor, might profit by them, but he would scorn to accept a bonus upon such terms. The noble Lord had stated that there were 1,358,419 acres of land in England, and 501,815 acres in Wales, of unenclosed land; but he had not stated how many of those acres could be properly cultivated. He had looked at the records of the House, and he found, that from 1801 to 1835, no less than 1,919 Enclosure Bills had passed the House, and when he looked at the number of Enclosure Bills which had been passed during the last eight years, he found that no less than 2,015
970
Enclosure Bills had passed the House since the commencement of the century. Then, why should they now call upon them to make further enclosures at the public expense? Another objection which he entertained to the Bill was, that it encroached on the right of the poor, who had no power of defending themselves. The Bill gave the aristocracy an unfair power, and he was surprised that Gentlemen opposite sanctioned the 140 clauses which composed the Bill. There was another point which he wished to advert to. He had always understood that the noble Lord, the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests had shown a great desire to widen the streets of the metropolis for the benefit of the poor. He would put it to the noble Lord, therefore, how, with any consistency, he could give his consent to a measure which would deprive the people of a great deal of the air, exercise, and recreation which they at present enjoyed. He did not like to see obstructions of this kind thrown in the way of the rational enjoyments of the poor. The noble Lord said, that the Bill would give employment to the poor, as it would cause lands which were now uncultivated to be brought under cultivation, but it at the same time interfered with the rights of the poor. He objected to the Bill in toto. He objected to the manner in which it was hurried through the House—to the expenses which it would entail—and to the oppression of the poor, which would be the consequence of it. On these grounds he opposed the Bill, and would support the amendment of the hon. Member for Rochdale. If it passed the second reading, he should feel bound to divide the House on each of the 149 clauses of the Bill.
Mr. Curteiswould support the second reading of the Bill; but he thought the noble Lord showed too much tenderness for the rights of lords of manors. He wished the noble Lord had taken the opportunity, in preparing his Bill, of abolishing manorial rights, which were in general beneficial only to attornies and agents—giving compensation to the lords of manors. He was anxious, while on his legs, to correct a misapprehension as to what had fallen from him on a previous evening in regard to the wages of labour in Sussex. He had been understood to say, that the wages of the agricultural labourer in that county were not less than 12 s. a week.

971
What he had said was, that in his own neighbourhood the wages usually paid was 12 s., and in no case less than 10 s. a week. In West Sussex he had heard that wages were lower, but he himself had no knowledge whether it were so or not.
Mr. Darbysaid, the main objection to the Bill appeared to be, that it would operate injuriously to the poor; but he doubted whether at the present day common rights were, generally speaking, advantageous to the poor. He believed, that the most wretched portion of the rural population were those who lived on the edges of commons. In many cases the employment for labourers on the enclosed commons would tend to relieve the parishes of the surplus poor. He should support the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. Cowperthought the Bill good, as far as it went—but it stopped short at the most important point, viz.: the interests of the poor. He should vote for the principle of the measure, which he understood to be to refer to the discretion of a body of Commissioners, who had no personal interest in the matter, the apportioning of the rights of all parties in cases where commons were to be enclosed under Enclosure Bills. This was far better than leaving those matters to private legislation, where the rights of the poor were too frequently neglected—so far the Bill was important. The means of providing for the surplus population of the country was a question which had engaged some attention; but, in his opinion, if all the lands capable of remunerating labour were brought into cultivation, and if all the sources of manufacturing and commercial industry were unshackled, there would be no surplus population whatever. The common and waste lands in this country amounted, according to Mr. Porter, to 8,000,000 acres, of which more than 4,000,000 were capable of being brought into cultivation, and made a source of profitable employment. Many persons looked to emigration as the only means of removing the distresses of the country, and of providing for the surplus population. His opinion was, that the labouring population should not be driven from their own country until every source of employment at home had been exhausted. He thought, therefore, that the enclosure and cultivation of waste lands was a question of more importance
972
than many which occupied the attention of that House. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill, in the hope that it would be materially improved in Committee. He concurred in very much that had fallen from the hon. Member for Rochdale as to the disadvantage that too often resulted to the poor from private Enclosure Bills. In former times every cottage almost had some common rights, from which the poor occupants derived much benefit—the privilege of feeding a cow, a pig, or a goose on the common was a great benefit to them,—and it was unfortunate, when the system of enclosing commons first commenced, that a portion of the land was not set apart for the benefit of every cottager who enjoyed common rights, and his successors; but the course adopted had been to compensate the owner of the cottage to which the common rights belonged, forgetting the claims of the occupier by whom they were enjoyed. He believed that if a portion of the enclosed lands had been allotted to every cottager enjoying common rights when the enclosure took place, the agricultural labourer would have been in a far better condition than he was at this time. He should be glad to see some arrangement such as he had suggested provided for in the present Bill; and if no other hon. Member should make a Motion to that effect, he would himself move the insertion of a Clause in regard to the allotment of land. It must be recollected that this was not a question affecting the welfare of the agriculturul labourer only—the manufacturing labourer was equally interested. The greatest amount of waste lands, in the counties of Yorkshire and Lancashire especially, was to be found in the neighbourhood of the large manufacturing towns; and it would be conferring a great boon on the manufacturing labourer and to the whole country, if, in enclosing those lands, allotments were made for the benefit of that class of the community. He thought the Bill went too far in proposing to enclose all common lands. He should wish that in Committee, all common lands now unenclosed in the vicinity of great towns should be excluded from the operation of the Bill. It was true that the noble Lord (Lord Worsley) had provided that a discretion should be exercised by the Commissioners, and that in such cases as he alluded to they might consult the wishes of the inhabitants; but he did not think that was

973
a sufficient security. He was sure the Bill would meet with considerable opposition in Committee if the rights of the poor were neglected in reference to the points he had adverted to.
Mr. Aglionbywas favourable to the Bill, as tending to effect a saving both in time and money, over the old system of procuring Enclosure Bills. The rights of the poor would receive every consideration under the Bill. He had taken the greatest pains in going over the Bill, and there was not a Clause in it which did not give more protection to the poor than was generally given in the old Enclosure Bills.
Mr. Milesthanked the noble Lord for the trouble which he had taken in introducing his Bill. He was decidedly in favour of the principle of the measure, which would have his most ardent support. He only hoped that the noble Lord did not intend to refer it to a Select Committee up stairs, as in that case much time would be lost in its progress.
Colonel Woodobserved, that there was not quite so large a quantity of waste lands in the country as had been imagined by the hon. Gentleman. From a return which had been laid upon the Table last year it appeared that there were only 1,000,000 acres. [Mr. Cowper.—That is only the return for some part of the country.] At all events, it extends to all the parishes in which the Tithe Commutation Act had been carried into operation. And, certainly, there could hardly be such a vast disparity between that estimate and the truth as between 1,000,000 and 8,000,000, as had been estimated by the hon. Gentleman. It had been estimated by the hon. Member for Somersetshire 15,000,000; so great was the variation of opinion on this subject. Now, the return enumerated upwards of 700 parishes, in which there were not 100 acres of common or waste lands. He deprecated the passing of a measure that should facilitate the enclosure of such small quantities of land as were not worth the expense of enclosure, but would yet be of great benefit to the poor as at present enjoyed. For he thought many much underrated the importance to the poor man of opportunity for feeding some small animals. He regretted that the Committee up stairs were not to have referred to them the subject of the several Enclosure Acts, instead of the particular measure before the House. The expense of procuring particular Acts
974
might perhaps be beneficially reduced as to common or waste lands. As to common field lands, the particular Acts were not required. For under Lord Ellenborough's Act (6th and 7th William IV.), three-fourths of the occupiers of the common field lands might appoint Commissioners for enclosure; and he knew of parishes in his own county in which the measure had been carried into operation. He might advert to the Moor at Staines as one of a class of commons which afforded many valuable advantages to the poor man, which he should regret deeply to see diminished or deteriorated. With respect to other than common field land, if Private Acts were facilitated, particular cases could be thus provided for with that attentive consideration which was secured by the proposition of a Private Act. As to common field lands, what would be the effect of the present measure? Would it abolish Lord Ellenborough's Act? This point was worthy of consideration. He doubted the utility of the Bill, and he should vote against the second reading.
Mr. Humesaid, the principle of enclosure had been carried much too far already. Instead of affording "facilities" for enclosing lands, they ought to throw every impediment in the way of those grasping proprietors who wished to take every plot of ground away from the poor for the purpose of applying them to private purposes. It should be considered, that open spaces were required for the health of the population. At present the poor were driven into dusty roads whenever they wanted a mouthful of fresh air. Grasping landlords stopped up all the walks through the fields and meadows, and not an acre of playground was left for the children of a country village. The consequence was, that they were reducing their population from a bold and hardy peasantry to a stunted, weak, and effeminate race of men. The effect of this sort of measures had never been to increase the labour of the poor—enclosures had never afforded any compensating advantages for the many disadvantages they involved, and for these reasons he should most undoubtedly give his negative to this attempt to extend their principle.
Sir R. Peelagreed with some of the observations of the hon. Member who had just sat down, but came to a different conclusion. He thought it but due to the pains which the noble Lord had taken

975
with this Bill, that the House should give him the opportunity of submitting the details to further consideration, and therefore he should give his vote for the Second Reading. In the first place, he thought there were many descriptions of land, the inclosure of which was facilitated by this bill, which it would be for the general interest of the community should be inclosed. There was a good deal of land held by landed proprietors, in respect of which there was a common right of pasture, and he believed it would be of great public advantage to permit the inclosure of that land, and to give to each proprietor his own separate allotment. But when they came to the question of enclosing commons in the neighbourhood of towns, with respect to which the poor inhabitants of those towns were interested, he, for one, should look with very great jealousy at a bill which gave too summary a power as to these inclosures. In the first place, he thought it was a great public object to have near towns (he was not speaking of great towns like Glasgow or Manchester, but towns of 3,000 or 4,000 inhabitants) an open space accessible to all. He thought it would be very unwise to apply the rigid principles of political economy, and to say that by inclosing these spaces, a greater quantity of vegetable produce could be procured. He thought you had a perfect right to set considerations of health, of innocent recreation, of moral improvement, against the mere considerations of pecuniary gain; and if you were to prove that by the inclosure of the land for a certain period of time, there would be a demand for labour, and ultimately and apparently an increase of produce, these facts would not be considered by him as conclusive; he would consider the other question, whether or no you were interfering with the healthful amusements and recreations of the people. He could conceive many cases in which, unless there were precautions taken—unless you gave the poor the means of protecting their interests, you ran the risk of doing great injury, and of having all these spaces, not merely near towns, but near villages, totally lost to the public. Take the case of a public common accessible to all the inhabitants, and where the right of soil is in the corporation. It may be a great public object that it should continue uninclosed, not only for the sake of those who have a right of common, but for the
976
sake of the poorer classes of the community, who have an open space which, because it is uninclosed, they can go upon without committing a trespass. The very circumstance of its being uninclosed, although it destroys the right of property, gives a right of enjoyment of the free air, which you diminish if you give the right of inclosure. The land belongs to the corporation, but every person who rents a house has a right to turn something or other on the land. Suppose it be thought proper in the corporation to inclose it; they exercise a considerable power over each householder; they persuade them not to be pertinacious in their opposition; an appeal is made to the Commissioners; the corporation is benefited; but he should like to know what were the poor to do? He was speaking of men who had no right but that of the privilege of access. As to the actual right, the House must be cautious how they dealt lightly with these rights. It might be a question of feeling. Hon. Members had their feelings, and the poorer class of the community had feelings on this subject. The right of common connected them with the soil; the right of turning a goose on a common made a man feel interested in the tenure of the land. It might be more beneficial to a tenant that he should accept 2l. or 3l.; but recollect that you were not dealing with the rights of the individual, but with that of his successors. Therefore, the more you could multiply this feeling on the part of the poor, the more you strengthened the foundations of landed property. Recollect that what was done was irrevocable. These towns might increase; and that was an additional reason why they should not permit too hasty an interference with those uninclosed lands. There was only one other part of the Bill on which he wished to make a remark—viz., that which gave a power of exchange. That was very beneficial in certain cases, but it appeared to be perfectly unlimited, [Lord Worsley: Equitable exchange.] To the present possessor it might be equitable, but there ought to be most minute inquiries whether or no it was for the benefit of his posterity that the exchange should take place. A power to convey 2,000 or 3,000 acres by the mere act of the owner was a very high power indeed, and he hoped the noble Lord would apply some restriction to the power of exchange.
Lord Worsleywould wish shortly to ex-

977
plain some of the points which had been referred to by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. Some observations had been made with respect to the rights of the poor to commons in the neighbourhood of towns. Now, the measure before the House provided that all care should be taken that the people should not be unnecessarily deprived of any of their rights of recreation. If hon. Members would look to the twentieth clause of the Bill, they would see that it provided that the Commissioners, upon the application of two-thirds of the interested parties, "shall proceed to inquire into the expediency of such inclosure, having regard as well to the health, comfort, and convenience of the inhabitants of any neighbouring cities, towns, villages, and populous places;" and then in the following clause it was provided that in case persons interested in the land, to the amount of one-fourth of its value, or persons to the number of one-tenth part of the male population of the parish, should give notice to the Commissioners of their intention to apply to Parliament to put a stop to the proposed inclosure, then the Commissioners should not proceed further with the inclosure, until six weeks after such notice, if Parliament be sitting; or until six weeks after it has met, if it be not assembled at the time. He would submit to the House that the question might be raised when the Bill went into Committee. Now with regard to the 48th clause, it would be seen on reference to it that the charge which had been made did not apply to it, for it gave a power of reserving portions of land for public purposes. The clause said,
"Be it enacted, that when the Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners acting in the matter of any inclosure, shall have determined such claims as hereinbefore directed, and in case any doubt or difficulties shall have arisen respecting the boundaries of the laud proposed to be enclosed shall have determined and set out such boundaries, they or he shall determine what part of the land proposed to be enclosed shall be set out and appropriated for such public purposes as hereinafter mentioned, or any of them; that is to say, for the formation of public roads and ways for supplying stone, gravel, or other materials for the repair of the several roads or ways to be made over such land, and of the other roads and ways within the parish in which such land shall be situate for the formation of such public drains, water-courses, or embankments, as may conduce to the health or advantage of such
978
parish or the neighbourhood; for a place of exercise and recreation for the inhabitants of the neighbourhood; for the formation or improvement of public ponds, wells, and watering places; and for a supply of fuel for the poor or other inhabitants of the parish; for land for any burying-ground, or enlarging any burying-ground."
He knew that it was stated, that they ought not to interfere with open places in the neighbourhood of large towns; but he should say, in reference to that statement, that it would be a great service if a proper system of drainage were adopted in many places of that description. He had seen some of these spaces in the neighbourhood of large towns, where it would have been of the greatest importance to establish a good system of drainage, and beneficial to the health and comfort of the inhabitants of the towns situated near those open places and if a sufficient number of persons in a town opposed the inclosure of such a place—if one-tenth of the inhabitants refused to agree to it, they might find in many such cases that it would have been better for the health and comfort of the inhabitants if a better drainage were established. The 70th clause made further provision for public uses—it provided
"That the valuer acting in the matter of any inclosure shall and may, in pursuance of the directions of, or in any manner inconsistent with the directions of the draft, award, set out, and allot such part of the lands to be inclosed as by such draft or award shall have been directed to be appropriated as a place of exercise and recreation for the inhabitants of the said parish and neighbourhood."
He agreed perfectly with the right hon. Baronet, in the opinion he expressed with respect to the importance of taking care that the inhabitants of large towns were provided with proper places of recreation; for he thought that such means of amusement were calculated to keep persons out of the beer-shops and such places, he thought it would consequently be of great advantage to have public walks in the neighbourhood of populous places. He thought the Bill was one calculated to produce great benefit to the public, and he could assure the House that it had been framed with a due regard to the rights of the poor as well as of the more wealthy classes. He brought it forward on public grounds solely, and he looked on it as a measure which would give con-

979
siderable employment to the poor, and would be of great public advantage.
The House divided on the question, that the word 'now' stand part of the question:—Ayes 70; Noes 23: Majority 47.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

James, W.

Aldam, W.

Jermyn, Earl

Bentinck, Lord G.

Johnstone Sir J.

Blackstone, W. S.

Langston, J. H.

Borthwick, P.

Lincoln, Earl of

Bowes, J.

M'Neil, D.

Busfield, W.

Manners, Lord J.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Marsham, Visct.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Miles, P. W. S.

Cripps, W.

Miles, W.

Curteis, H. B.

Morrison, J.

Darby, G.

Neville, R.

Denison, J. E.

Newdigate, C. N.

Denison, E. B.

Palmerston, Visct.

Divett, E.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Ebrington, Visct.

Plumridge, Capt.

Eliot, Lord

Protheroe, E.

Evans, W.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Farnham, E. B.

Sandon, Visct.

Flower, Sir J.

Scott, hon. F.

Fuller, A. E.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Stanley, Lord

Gisborne, T.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Thornely, T.

Goring, C.

Tollemache, J.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Vivian, J. E.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Wakley, T.

Greenaway, C.

Warburton, H.

Greene, T.

Wawn, J. T.

Harcourt, G. G.

Whitmore, T. C.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Henniker, Lord

Wrightson, W. B.

Hinde, J. H.

Hope, G. W.

TELLERS.

Howard, P. H.

Worsley, Lord

Humphery, Ald.

Aglionby, H. A.

List of the NOES.

Antrobus, E.

Mitchell, T. A.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Morgan, O.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Morris, D.

Bright, J.

Pechell, Capt.

Broadley, H.

Richards, R.

Brotherton, J.

Scholefield, J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Scott, R.

Butler, hon. C.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Butler, P. S.

Stanton, W. H.

Duncan, G.

Wood, Col.

Ewart, W.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Crawford, S.

Hussey, A.

Sibthorp, Col.

Bill read a second time.

MASTERS AND SERVANTS' BILL.
On the Motion that the Masters and Servants Bill be committed,
Sir James Grahamsaid, that he agreed in the object of the Bill, but he thought the means that were taken for attaining that object were inexpedient. It recited five or six Acts of Parliament, and proposed to amend certain parts in each of those Acts. Now he would suggest as a better plan that the Act should repeal those former Acts, and then it might contain all the portion that was really valuable in those Acts, whilst it would be infinitely more clear and precise.
Mr. Mileswould act upon the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet. Those Acts were recited in order that hon. Members might more clearly see the Acts which it was desirable to amend. He believed, however, that the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet would be found preferable to the mode adopted in the Bill, and he should move that the Bill be committed pro forma, with a view of acting on that suggestion.
Bill committed pro forma.

CLERKS TO JUSTICES.
Lord Worsleyrose for the purpose of moving for a Select Committee to enquire into the mode of appointment, the duties, and the present system of remunerating the Clerks to Justices at Petty Sessions in England and Wales, and to report the evidence and their opinion thereon to the House. The noble Lord said that the reasons which principally induced him to desire an enquiry into the operation of the present system of remunerating Clerks to the Magistrates at Petty Sessions were, that he had seen it frequently stated in the public papers, and he had frequently found in his experience as a Magistrate, that there was a great apparent injustice in the disproportion between the fines levied on persons convicted before the Magistrates at Petty Sessions and the costs that accompanied those fines. It often happened that persons were brought before Magistrates for small offences—such for instance, as stealing part of a fence, or committing a trifling assault—and in those cases the Magistrates would be anxious to inflict a small punishment, such as would be effected by a trifling fine; but they saw that a fine of 2s. 6d. or 5s. would often inflict a much heavier punishment than the Magistrates would desire to inflict, by the addition of fees and costs to an extent that in many cases obliged those persons to go

981
to prison in default of payment. He moved last year for a return of the fees to clerks at petty sessions, with an account of the number of tines inflicted, and persons sent to prison in default of payment of costs or fines. But the return which had been made was not, by any means, as full and conclusive as he felt to be required. However, from the manuscript returns he had been enabled to collect many instances of very large costs having attended the infliction of small fines, and consequently, that a great deal of suffering had been inflicted on poor persons by the amount of those costs and fees. In Cardiff county gaol a man was imprisoned for non-payment of costs amounting to 1l. 7s. 6d., when the fine was only 1s. In another case, the costs on as small a fine were 2l.; and in another case the costs on a very small sum were 3l. 10 s. In a hundred in the county of Hertford, a man was fined 2d., was charged with fees amounting to 14 s. 6d., and was sent to prison for non-payment of that sum, The cost to the county of sending him to gaol was 1l. 4s. 6d., and the expense of keeping him in gaol was 2s. 4½d. a day, so that the whole expense to the county from the infliction of a fine of 2d., with costs of 14 s. 6d., was no less than 3l. 14 s. 4½d. Thus in one case, there were costs of 14 s. 6d. added to a fine of 2d.; in another the fine was 3d., and costs 14 s.; in another, fine 1d., and costs 11 s. 6d.; in another case, fine 2d., and costs 11 s. 6d. Again, a case of a fine of 1s. 2d., costs 18 s. 6d.; and costs no less than 14 s. 6d. were added in another case to a fine of 1d. He saw also a case where the fine was 2d. and costs 16 s. 6d. In another instance, a party suffered imprisonment for three weeks in default of payment of the fine and costs. He could multiply such cases if necessary, but those he had referred to were sufficient to show the disproportion in many cases between the fines and the costs, and the great suffering such a system must inflict. Parties were sent to prison, not because a fine was inflicted of a serious nature, or one that indicated a desire on the part of the Magistrates to visit the person convicted with severe punishment, but they were sent to prison for the non-payment of fees and costs, superadded to those small fines. That was a great evil, and one that might be avoided by adopting a different system of
982
paying the Clerks. If they were paid regular salaries out of the county-rates, the system would work better than the present one. He believed many of those Clerks were very honourable men; however, the tendency of a system under which they were paid from fees must naturally be to increase the number of summonses. It was high time that an alteration should be made in the system, and this mode of paying the Clerks would effect that alteration. If there was a fixed salary allowed them, they would have no interest in the increase of business at their courts. He hoped the attention of Government would be directed to the subject, and if he had an assurance that they would take up the subject during the present Session, he had no desire to press his Motion. He hoped Government would give an assurance that they would, during the present Session, introduce a Bill to remedy the defects he had stated. The Clerks, he thought, might be usefully employed as public prosecutors. He should conclude by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee.
Mr. M. Suttonthought, that what had fallen from the noble Lord was deserving of great consideration. He understood the noble Lord's objections to be directed against the system, and not the personal conduct of the Clerks of the Peace. It was not necessary for him to go through all the noble Lord's observations. He could give the noble Lord the assurance he was led to expect, that the attention of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of his department had been called to the subject, and that a Bill was in preparation which would, he believed, be in a short time introduced. Under these circumstances, the noble Lord would not, probably, press for a Committee.
Motion withdrawn.

NEW SOUTH WALES.
Mr. Scottsaid, he rose to move for the production of certain papers, relative to the condition of licensed occupiers of Crown Lands in New South Wales, with a view to establish their claim to pre-emption of the lands they held and had improved. He said they were a class of men, of whom, perhaps, little might be known in this country, but who were, nevertheless, a most important and influential body, both in the colony and in the commerce which is carried on with Great Britain. The rapid increase of co-

983
lonial imports, their value, and the consumption of exports from this country, is in a great measure owing to these men. At present that colony, with a population of about 150,000 persons, consumed annually the almost incredible proportion of from 10 l. to 12 l. per head of British exports. It was a wonderful example of an infant state, at the distance of 16,000 miles, in which 150,000 persons take two-fifths of the amount of exports taken by the thirty millions inhabiting the states included in the Zollverein of Germany, and send two-thirds of the whole quantity of wool that is sent by the same states to this country. This result, within the last ten years has been mainly produced by the licensed occupiers beyond the boundaries. It was now about ten years since the ground within the limits of the colony of New South Wales became so fully stocked that it was necessary to seek for land without. To find space for their herds, enterprising parties went in quest of favourable localities on which to form sheep establishments. Exposed to every privation, their men frequently killed, their huts plundered, their flocks carried off to the amount of thousands in a single night, such were the hardships endured by the squatters of New South Wales. The Aborigines gradually retired, crops sprung up in what was formerly a desert, roads or tracts were formed, the progress of location continued beyond them, and the country assumed the appearance of civilization. It is to these men, the real surveyors of the country, that the Government and this country are indebted for the discovery of the land, the acquaintance with its mountains and its rivers, the knowledge of its resources, the acquisition of its territory, and more especially for the addition of its wealth, for the colony must have remained comparatively insignificant had its resources been confined to the limits of the nineteen counties. Originally only colonists, their numbers received large additions subsequently from other quarters. Want of employment both for capital and individuals at home, and expectation of advancement abroad, carried out vast numbers to New South Wales. Amongst these were many men of character and education; but he could best describe the class by referring to the words of Sir G. Gipps, in a despatch dated December, 1840. He said—
"Among the squatters of New South Wales
984
are the wealthiest of the land, occupying with permission of Government, thousands and ten thousands of acres; young men of good family and connections in England, officers of the Army and Navy, graduates of Oxford and Cambridge, are also in no small number amongst them." (He further states, that) "The system they have pursued has been fostered and encouraged by successive governors of the colony, and by successive acts of the Legislature; and this had been done in the conviction that such easy occupation of Crown land is essential to the prosperity of the colony, and because it is wise to sanction and regulate that which the Government has no power to prevent, even were it disposed to do so. "As well might it be attempted (he continues in another place) to confine the Arabs of the Desert within a circle traced upon their sands, as to confine the graziers or wool-growers of New South Wales within any bounds that can possibly be assigned to them; and as certainly as the Arabs would be starved, so also would the flocks and herds of New South Wales, if they were so confined, and the prosperity of the country be at an end."
Such is the testimony of the Governor of the colony respecting the enterprising class of men occupying the Crown Lands, and such are the sentiments entertained respecting the benefits they confer upon the colony. In these opinions he fully concurrred, but not in the statement that they had either been fostered or encouraged. Had they been either fostered or encouraged, they would neither be in the position in which they now are nor would they he seeking for redress of the grievances of which they complain. The House would recollect, that when these men go into the pastures, they go into a wilderness. Residences must be raised for themselves, and their shepherds; sheep-pens, barns, and wool-sheds erected, all the arrangements of a large establishment. These are absolutely necessary, in order to make their flocks a source of profit. And yet all these buildings are done in the most unstable manner; for the existing law, which he asked the House to reconsider, denies them a tenure which would enable them to give comfort to their dwellings, or stability to their farm buildings; the necessary expenses, however, cannot be estimated (says the Lieutenant Governor of Port Phillip) at less than 1,000 l. on a station of a first class, and at 300 l. or 400 l. on one of the second order. Yet after this expenditure has been made, the Government reserves to itself the power of turning these men adrift at a moment's warning. The consequence is that no

985
prudent man would lay out one farthing more upon the buildings on his station than he was obliged: hence we see men whose property is worth thousands, and who have been brought up in the lap of luxury, living in a wretched cabin of rough slabs of wood. He would not detain the House with an account of the settler's abode, of the bark hut, the damp clay floor, the bed of sheets of bark, with perhaps a saddle for a pillow, no single article of furniture around him, his food of simplest and of rudest kind—the flesh of his flocks, the milk of his herds, cakes baked in the ashes on his hearth, being all his sustenance; yet these hovels and this sustenance are the dwellings and the food of nine-tenths of those located beyond the boundaries. It is not the inability of these persons to supply themselves with the necessaries and many of the comforts of life—it is the existence of the law of the Government, which by rendering it liable that that may be another's to-morrow, which is theirs to-day, renders it imprudent in them to raise buildings for another's benefit. They will not sow in order that another may reap; they will not plant in order that another may cut down. They dare not build a house which, meeting the eye of envy or of covetousness, they may lose in consequence of having built it, they dare not build, because the Governor may of his own free will, deprive them thereof. And if these discomforts apply with force to their domestic life, they apply still more prejudicially to the public by affecting the management of the large establishments. The wool of New South Wales is equal in quality to German wool, but the greater part of it is got up in a very inferior manner—the reason is obvious. The great flock-masters—for those without the boundaries already send more wool than all the stockholders within the nineteen counties designated New South Wales—dare not erect proper shearing sheds, wool sheds, or washing pens for the purpose required. These would call for a very great outlay, and in their present state of insecurity no one will erect to-day what may be taken from him to-morrow. Nor does this apply less to the protection of his crops, or to the mills required to grind his corn. No mills are erected, consequently the whole grain beyond the boundaries is ground by hand, at an expense four times that at which it could be done by mills. It applies to all permanent improvements. This system
986
of insecurity of tenure exists universally, and is universally ruinous. Nothing arrests energy so much as uncertainty. Has uncertainty of tenure contributed to the prosperity of Ireland? Do you seek to perpetuate such a system there? If uncertainty of tenure be unjust and inexpedient in Ireland, you will hardly recommend its adoption or continuance in New South Wales; nor do the evils of the system apply merely to the pecuniary circumstances of the parties. It affects them in every relation of life; it affects their morality. These settlers lead a pastoral life, in all but the social comforts and domestic virtues. Nineteen out of twenty of the stockholders beyond the boundaries are unmarried, not that the married state there is a more expensive one, it is the reverse; but in the dwellings they occupy, they cannot enjoy the comforts of social or domestic life, and they dare not, under the existing law, afford the risk of improvement; and that which applies to the masters applies also to those whom they employ. With so uncertain a tenure, they cannot be at the expense of sending into the interior families of whose services they may be deprived tomorrow, by an act of the Government. The want of certainty retards civilization. The principle applies with no less force to our intercourse with, and our hopes of civilization of the aboriginal natives. Introduce what law, make what regulations you please, the civilization of the natives depends mainly on the amount and influence of morality of the settlers; and nothing will contribute to this in a greater degree than the domestic virtues consequent on the introduction of wives into their families. Matthew Moreham, protector of the Aborigines, states that now the females are a frequent subject of quarrel between the blacks and settlers. The redress of these grievances, the remedy of these evils, the reform of these abuses, is the right of preemption. The right of the settlers to purchase, at the minimum government price, the lands which they have discovered almost as much as Columbus discovered America, and to which they, and they alone, have given the value they now have. This right has been given by America to those occupying lands in the interior. And he trusted that the Government may be disposed to take up the question, and to reconsider the law as it exists at present,

987
and to grant to reason and to equity the indulgence which the inhabitants of New South Wales claim, and which they so fully merit, by the benefits they have conferred on the colony, and on the mother country. But if the condition of these settlers does not induce you—if the enumerated evils of uncertain tenure be insufficient—if the calls of morality and the claims of civilization do not appear to have sufficient weight—if you are unwilling to grant it for these reasons—do it on your own account. Consider the question in a commercial point of view. Is the House aware of the immense amount of increase in value imported from Great Britain into the colony, namely, from 409,344 l. in 1832, to 1,837,000 l. in 1841? and the whole of this amount is paid for in wool, of which the quantity imported in 1832 was 1,500,000 lbs., and last year was 10,500,000. Nor let it be forgotten that by far the greater quantity of the wool, of which the increase has been so surprising, and which goes to pay for the exports above enumerated, has been raised by the very men who live beyond the boundaries, and in whose behalf the question is thus brought before you, and is the only article in which they can pay you. You may object that their case has not heretofore been brought before you. But, then, dispersed as they must be whose occupation is grazing, in a country where from three to five acres are required to support a single sheep, they cannot so easily combine, and the hardships must both be pressing and of long duration before those who are reduced to so much suffering will raise a complaint. The House is aware of the wealth, of the importance, of the enterprise and intelligence of these men, and all these are so many and grave reasons for taking these complaints into consideration; but there is yet another and more grave:—There are no less than 1,000 stockholders who have licences beyond the boundaries, and about double that number besides, who hold stock running on the stations of licensed occupiers. Thus there are about 3,000 persons in and around the counties of the colony, comprising almost all that is distinguished from property, education, character, or energy, these men are powerful, but they are not contented. He had stated the number of flock masters. In 1839 Sir G. Gipps stated that they had 7,000 or 8,000 tenders, or shepherds, and
988
he also gave the numbers of their stock, which he believed to be very much underrated at 1,334,000 sheep, and taking the average rate of increase since 1832, we are warranted in assuming that the present number of sheep amounts to nearly 3,000,000. They occupy a tract of country extending along 1,200 miles of coast, stretching around and beyond the colony, along the whole line of frontier and of sea-coast, from Portland Bay to the 25th parallel of latitude, and dipping about 300 miles into the interior, and making an average advance latterly of from fifty to seventy miles a year. He asked whether it would not be a stroke of wisdom and sound policy, as well as of justice, to conciliate these men by the concession of their reasonable demands, or by a recommendation to the Colonial Government to adopt measures for that purpose? England boasts of dominions upon which the sun never sets; her colonies are found in every quarter of the globe, so her commerce enters into every port, and her flag is respected in every sea. It is the establishment of colonies, and their encouragement in every clime, that has thus contributed to her naval strength and commercial prosperity, and upon their extension and continuance he considered that her greatness mainly depends. They are the roots which the tree has thrown into distant and newer soil, which at once strengthen and sustain the poorest stem and add fresh vigour to the branches. In the event, however remote, of some foreign power seeking to establish a rival dominion in the Pacific or the Southern seas, would it not be most desirable to endeavour to cement the affections of the offspring to the parent? Would it not be better that considerable men in the Colonies should be favourably disposed towards, and warmly attached to the Government? And would it not be next to madness to alienate the affections of so powerful a body—of a Colony which at once supplies our markets so largely, and takes so largely of our exports? He rested his application for papers, with a view to obtain the right of preemption of lands, and to bring the matter under the immediate consideration of Her Majesty's Government, on the basis of reason and of justice—he appealed on the ground of equity and of fairness, and on the interests of the Colony and the mother country—he ap-

989
plied on behalf of the civilization of the natives and the morals of the colonists—he relied on the benefits which commerce would derive, on the principles of sound policy. He regarded the prospective security and safety to the Empire, but insisted more than all on the circumstance that the indulgence or act of justice which is asked would inflict no harm or injury on any one. If he did not believe that this measure would not hurt the wool-growers of this country, connected as he was with a county which supplies large quantities of wool to the manufacturers, he should be the last person in this House to bring forward such a measure; but, believing, as he did, that the competition is not between the home-growers and the colonial, but between the colonial and the foreign, he brought forward the question with the confidence that it would meet with the support of Her Majesty's Government.
Mr. G. W. Hopehad, on the part of the Government, no objection to the returns moved for by the hon. Member, but it must be distinctly understood that he did not admit the statement of the hon. Member to be a correct representation of the case. The Government did not agree in those views of which the hon. Member was the advocate.
Motion agreed to. House adjourned at nine o'clock.