Sitting of 9 April 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public. — 1°. Auction Duties Repeal.
2°. Field Gardens.
Reported. — Infeftment (Scotland); Heritable Securities (Scotland); Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.
3°. and passed:—Public Museums; Glass (Excise Duty).
Private.—1°. Brighton and Chichester Railway (Portsmouth Extension); Scottish Midland Junction Railway.
2°. Erewash Valley Railway; Keyingham Drainage; Battersea Poor.
Reported.—Forth and Clyde Navigation (re-committed); Birmingham and Staffordshire Gas (re-committed); Wallasley Improvement (re-committed); Amicable Assurance Society.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Viscount Bernard, and Mr. Hamilton, from several places, for Encouragement of Schools in connexion with Church Education Society (Ireland).—By Sir R. H. Inglis, from Peterstow, against, and by Mr. Muntz, from Birmingham, in favour, of the Jewish Disabilities Removal Bill—By Viscounts Bernard, Duncan, and Duncaunon, Lords J. Russell, and G. Somerset, Sirs T. Acland, W. Clay, H. Douglas, and T. Hepburn, Colonel Peel, Captain Gladstone, and Messrs. Aldam, Bagge, W. Baring, Bernal, Bramston, Broadley, Brotherton, Duck, Busfeild, Christie, Christopher, Clifton, Dawnay, O. Duncombe, Du Pre, Entwisle, Fitzroy, Fox, Fuller, M. Gibson, Granger, Greenall, Hamilton, Hindley, Hussey, Legh, Marjoribanks, Morgan, Patten, Plumptre, Ricardo, Rice, Round, Sotheron, Trelawney, Turner, Walker, Ward, and Wortley, from an immense number of places (234 Petitions), against the Grant to Maynooth.—By Col. Ferguson, Mr. Lockhart, and Mr. Mackenzie, from several places, for Ameliorating the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).—By Sir J. Y. Buller, and Mr. Mainwaring, from several places, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By Mr. Aldam, Mr. M. Gibson, and Sir G. Strickland, from several places, against the Importation of Hill Coolies into the Colonies.—By Mr. Du Pre, the Earl of March, and Sir W. Jolliffe, from several places, for Relief from Agricultural Taxation.—By Mr. M. Gibson, from Lancaster, for Repeal of Duty on Copper Ore.—By Mr. Bagge, from several places, for

375
Repeal of Malt Duty.—By Mr. Ferrand, from several places, for a Tax on Steam Sawing.—By Mr. Bannerman, from several places, against Alteration of Banking (Scotland).—By Mr. T. Duncombe, Mr. Ferrand, and Lord J. Russell, from several places, in favour of the Ten Hours System.—By Mr. Cowper, from Tottenham, in favour of Field Gardens Bill.—By Sir T. Hepburn, from East Lothian, for Alteration of Game Laws.—By Mr. M. Gibson, from Shrewsbury, for Repeal of Insolvent Debtors Act.—By Sir J. Y. Buller, Mr. Henley, Mr. Patten, and Lord C. Worsley, from several places, against Justices' Clerks and Clerks of the Peace Bill.—By Sir G. Strickland, from Preston, in favour of the Museums of Art Bill.—By Mr. Bagge, Mr. Bramston, Mr. Cripps, Mr. Du Pre, Mr. Ferrand, Mr. Greene, the Earl of March, and Mr. Round, from several places, against the Parochial Settlement Bill.—By Mr. O. Gore, from Sligo, against Physic and Surgery Bill.—By Colonel Ferguson, from Burntisland, for Alteration of Prisons (Scotland) Bill.—By Sir T. Acland, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Mainwaring, Sir G. Strickland, and Lord H. Vane, from several places, for Diminishing the Number of Public Houses.

MIDLAND RAILWAY BRANCHES BILL.
Mr. Speakerwished to call the attention of the House, before the conclusion of Private Business, to the Bill to empower the Midland Railway Company to make certain Branch Railways from the main line of their Railway, and for other purposes, in which the following Clause was inserted:—
"And be it Enacted, That in case the proprietors of any manor or estate containing any mines of coal, ironstone, limestone, or other minerals, lying within a distance of five miles from the main line of the said Midland Railways, or any branches thereof, or the renters, lessees, or occupiers of the same, shall find it expedient or necessary to make any Railways or Roads to convey their coals, ironstone, limestone, marble, or other stones or minerals to the said Railway, over the lands or grounds of any person or persons, then and in every such case it shall be lawful for him, her, or them, to make any such Railways or Roads, he, she, or they first paying or tendering satisfaction for the damage to be thereby occasioned to such lands or grounds in manner herein directed with respect to land to be taken for the purposes of this Act; and it shall also be lawful for the owner or owners of and person or persons interested in such lands or grounds to treat and agree with such proprietors, renters, lessees, or occupiers, for the damage the owner or owners of such lands or grounds shall or may sustain by making any such Railway or Road; and in case they cannot agree concerning the amount or value of such damage, or in case the owner or owners of or person or persons interested in such lands or grounds shall refuse or neglect to treat, or by reason of absence or otherwise, shall be prevented from treating, then the same shall be settled and ascertained by the verdict of a jury, in such and in like manner as the value of the lands to be taken for making the several Branch Railways hereby authorized, is by the said
376
recited Acts or this Act directed to be settled and ascertained."
The right hon. Gentleman said, that the said Clause was not within the title of the Bill; that it gave compulsory power to take lands, without any intimation thereof having been given in the Notices; and without the proper Plans and Sections and Estimates having been deposited according to the Standing Orders of the House. Perhaps the House would find it the most convenient course to discharge the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill, and refer it back to the Select Committee on Petitions for Private Bills, by which this Clause might be examined, and referred, if necessary, to the Standing Orders' Committee, in order to see whether it was conformable with the Standing Orders.
Mr. Greenesaid, the House was greatly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair for directing their attention to that which was undoubtedly a great violation of the Standing Orders. He begged to move that the order for the Second Reading be discharged.
Mr. T. Duncombethought the principle contained in the Bill atrocious; and he wished to know whether it had been adopted by the Board of Trade; or whether it had been introduced at the recommendation of the Board of Trade.
Mr. J. W. Pattendid not believe that the Board ever had the subject under their consideration.
Mr. T. Duncombe: The Bill must have been before them, at all events; and I have no doubt they repotted favourably on it.
Mr. Struttsaid, it would be impossible for the Committee to read through the whole Bill, but in the marginal notes and in the index through which the Committee had looked, there was nothing to induce the supposition that such a power was conferred in any part of the Bill. It was only a few days ago that his attention had been called to the subject. He found, on inquiry, that he was not only the Chairman of the Committee, but also a landowner affected by the Bill, and he therefore thought the proper course for him to pursue would be to lay the matter before the Speaker, and leave it in his hands.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, the great object of referring Bills of this nature to sub-committees was to prevent the intro-

377
duction of anything extraordinary and unusual. He was willing to leave it to the Committee on Petitions to consider what course they would take, but he hoped they would do something in reference to this Clause, which he must say had been surreptitiously introduced.
Order for the Second Reading discharged, and Bill referred to the Committee on Petitions for Private Bills.

MR. AGLIONBY AND "THE TIMES."
Mr. Aglionbysaid, that having on Tuesday the 1st of this month, seen an article in one of the leading journals, reflecting upon his conduct as a Member of a Committee of this House, he lost no time, but gave notice the same afternoon that he would call attention to it; and now, by the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, he would state the circumstances which had given rise to the charge. At the time he gave his Notice, he had not seen the letter of Mr. Carrington to Lord Howick, the Chairman of the New Zealand Committee, on which the remarks in The Times were founded. He held it now in his hand, and found it to be so unimportant, such mere trash, that were it not for the inferences in The Times, he should not have felt himself justified in occupying one moment on the subject. The allegations in The Times are—first, "That it was improper that a shareholder in the New Zealand Company should be an arbiter of its claims." On this he begged to exculpate himself from any blame. He had himself strong objections to be named on the Committee, on account of having the bias of pecuniary interests, and he desired that he might not be put upon it. On the same account he offered not a single name of any Member having the slighest personal interest in the Company; but it was stated that it was necessary that he should be on the Committee, for the purpose of full inquiry; that he then suggested that he might attend to assist the Committee, but without a vote. This was refused, as contrary to practice, and he yielded. Second, it is stated as "wrong that he should see a witness under examination." Now all Members used to Committees know that it is the constant custom to see witnesses about to be examined; but in his position he felt scruples on that point, and declined to inquire of the witnesses what they would say before they
378
appeared in the room. This was felt to be inconvenient, and at the urgent desire of the Committee he did at length consent to beg the witnesses to give on paper the questions they wished to be put, and from such papers he did examine them. The third allegation is, "That it was most improper to be in private communication with a witness between the times of his examination, if, as is alleged, for the purpose of inducing him to vary his testimony." In the spirit of this remark he (Mr. Aglionby) most fully concurred. It would, indeed, be most improper, if any Member of a Committee, dissatisfied with the evidence of a witness, were to induce him, by persuasion, promise, or threat, to alter his evidence. He begged to state that of this he was wholly innocent. Though he often met Mr. Carrington between May and July, it was on the subject of Mr. Carrington's own affairs. Mr. Carrington over and over again sought interviews with him (Mr. Aglionby) on a demand which he had made upon the Company. He took much trouble in this matter, and was most anxious that Mr. Carrington should meet with full justice. Mr. Carrington himself certainly did frequently introduce the subject of his giving evidence, and hinted—with what purpose he knew best—that he could say what would prejudice the Company. He always answered that he had nothing to do but to tell the truth. The facts were, that he was originally engaged as surveyor by the New Plymouth Company, formed of many influential gentlemen in the west of England, with the Earl of Devon at their head, and was sent to New Zealand to lay out their settlement, since called New Plymouth. That Company afterwards merged in the New Zealand Company, which, finding it necessary to reduce its establishments, was obliged to dispense with the services of Mr. Carrington and of many others. Mr. Carrington, on receiving notice of this in the Colony, applied to Mr. Barratt, who had been employed by Colonel Wakefield, the present agent of the Company, and as interpreter and assistant in effecting purchases from the natives, and obtained from him a letter addressed to him by Colonel Wakefield, in which Mr. Carrington fancied there were statements tending to show that the Company had not completed its purchases at the time or in the manner stated. This letter, he says, he obtained and brought to

379
England, with a view to secure himself. Finding that the Company considered his demands to be exorbitant and untenable under his agreement, he went to the Colonial Office and to the Land Emigration Commissioners. He was then called as a witness before the Committee by the hon. the Under Secretary for the Colonies. He certainly had—with reference to the statement that the goods supplied by the Company for the purchase of land from the natives had been sold for a large sum at Wellington—told him to look at the Appendix to the 12th Report of the Directors, and to the Report of Mr. Pennington, the Government accountant, from which he would see that the goods were sent out, not for the purchase of land alone, but for barter, and for the use of the settlers collectively; and, being more than sufficient, the surplus was sold. He referred to this as all he knew on the subject. He did not consider Mr. Carrington's evidence of any importance; but if hon. Members felt the least curiosity on the subject, he begged them to refer to it, and they would see, if Mr. Carrington's evidence should not do him credit, whether it was not to be attributed to his answers to questions put by Mr. Roebuck and Mr. Cardwell, rather than to any impressions received from him. This, he trusted, would be deemed by the House a sufficient explanation; but he begged to add, that if hon. Members should wish to put any questions, he was perfectly ready and willing to answer them.
Captain Rousremarked, that any attack upon a Member of that House was always regarded as a matter deserving of its notice, and the reply to it received equal attention. But it was desirable at all times, in compliance with the good old rule, to hear both sides. It appeared that Mr. Carrington had served for fifteen years under the Board of Ordnance, and that his certificates, signed by the official heads of that department, Colonel Mudge and Lord Vivian, bore high testimony to his character and conduct. He had, however, accepted the office of land surveyor to the New Zealand Company; and when a person was induced or seduced by that Company to enter into its service, his labours ought to be treated with proper consideration. It appeared that Mr. Carrington did go out to New Zealand, and performed his duty to the satisfaction of the Company; but after a certain time, without any fault
380
being found with him, the New Zealand Company thought fit to dismiss him from their service, on the plea that their expenses were increasing, and their funds diminishing. That might be a very wise and discreet course under such circumstances; but the fact was, that at this very moment the New Zealand Company had 100,000 l. in their pockets; their capital was 500,000 l., and they had called upon the shareholders for only 200,000 l. Therefore if they had no other reason for dismissing Mr. Carrington, he had been very ill treated. With respect to the letter from which the hon. Member had quoted, all he could say was, that if half of the substance of that letter was correct, the New Zealand Company had forfeited their charter. With respect to the charge against the hon. Member, his notoriously honourable conduct he was satisfied that Mr. Carrington had not impugned; for he never could imagine that he would apply to Mr. Carrington to induce him to give evidence contrary to truth. He did not stand there to defend Mr. Carrington, whom he had never seen but once in his life; but he thought that when any person was attacked in that House, it was the duty of every Member to get up and defend him.
Mr. Aglionby, in explanation, said that Mr. Carrington was sent out by a separate company, which was afterwards merged in the New Zealand Company.
Subject at an end.

FIELD GARDENDS BILL.
On the Motion that the Field Gardens Bill be now read a second time,
Mr. B. Escottadmitted that this Bill professed to have in view a most laudable and excellent object; but he wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman intended to persevere in carrying it forward in its present shape; because he could not help recollecting that when it was introduced, the hon. Gentleman stated that it was not designed to be a compulsory measure. However excellent the object might be, the Bill ought not to be a compulsory one. In the course of that morning he had taken the trouble to go through the Bill, and certainly, if he felt astonished when he recollected that the hon. Gentleman stated that it was not a compulsory measure, he should be much more astonished to hear that statement persevered in. The Bill contained several clauses of a very novel and strange character, all of which were strongly

381
compulsory, In the first place, the machinery of the Bill was to be set to work by a vote of the majority of the owners and occupiers of land in any parish, and that majority was to bind the minority, and in a manner of all others most stringent. He could hardly think the hon. Member would say that a voluntary quiescence only was asked by this Bill to its provisions. The majority of owners and occupiers were to elect field-wardens, who were to exercise their power for three years certain; so that whatever power the Bill gave to the field-wardens was to be exercised either to the benefit or the detriment of the parish for three years certain, during the whole of which time the parishioners would be compelled to submit to their rule. That was the second compulsory part of the Bill. But in a case in which they were most likely to have the opportunity of taking land, namely, under inclosure acts, what was the power of the field-wardens? A power to demand from the Commissioners under the Inclosure Bill a perpetual lease of the land they were to occupy as field-wardens. Perhaps hon. Members had not looked into the provisions of this Bill, and were inclined to support it as a benevolent measure. He recommended them to examine it well before they gave it their support. But, suppose the scheme should turn out a ruinous one; suppose the benevolent object should not be carried into effect, and the field-wardens in occupation of the land of which they had taken possession should find the concern altogether a failure, the Bill would allow them to draw on the parish funds, to call upon the parish officers to pay their rents, tithes, taxes, and rates, which they might be unable to pay for those lands. Hon. Members could hardly think that not a compulsory provision. But it was not to the field-wardens only that a compulsory power was given, but also to the Commissioner, who was invested with most extraordinary power, he having to fix the amount of rent to be paid for the land, and the owner would be compelled to agree to that rent. But the Commissioner had still more extraordinary power, and he was really at a loss to account for the introduction of such a clause into the Bill; he was not only to fix the amount of the rent, but in case the field-wardens should find it a bad concern and should give up possession of the land, he was to say who were to be their successors, and to trans-
382
fer the property from its legal owner to whom he pleased. He hoped the Secretary of State for the Home Department would look to this. It seemed to him a most monstrous proposition. But there was another body endowed with extraordinary power under this Bill—the Court of Quarter Sessions, which was to revise and fix at the end of every seven years the amount of rent. The allotment system had produced a great deal of good conducted upon the voluntary principle—the owners of the land letting it to whom they pleased, and at what rent they pleased, which was the only proper way of proceeding. Another objectionable part of the Bill was the limitation to half an acre. Supposing the concern should not be a losing but a lucrative one to the field-wardens, then the surplus profits were to be paid over to the poor rates. Now, he thought that any scheme of this kind, in order to be beneficial, must steer clear of any interference with the Poor Laws. In case of deficiency, too, the accounts were to be laid before the vestry, and to be paid by the parish; so that thus the field-wardens would be empowered to come to the parish to be reimbursed for their own neglect. However excellent in intent the measure might be, still, as it contained these objectionable provisions, he thought it was one which the House ought not to allow to go to a second reading. It was his firm belief that such compulsory and obnoxious provisions were calculated to do away with almost all the good which might otherwise result from the establishment of a system of field-gardens, and to bring the proceedings of that House into contempt. He therefore moved, by way of Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. Cowperwished that, as the hon. Member had informed the House that he had only read the Bill that morning, the hon. Member had taken time to read it more carefully. When the Bill reached the Committee, then would be the proper time for the objections of the hon. Member, which related to matters of detail; and he thought that he should be able in Committee to show the hon. Member that his objections were not tenable. The horn Member described the Bill as a compulsory measure; but he did not think it compulsory, first of all, because it depended on the parish whether or not the Bill should come into operation in that par-

383
ticular parish; and in the second place, because it took no man's land from him without his consent. The hon. Member said that this Bill took certain money from the poor rates without the consent of the ratepayers; but he maintained that, according to the provisions of the Bill, in ordinary cases, and in all cases with a few extreme exceptions, the money advanced from the poor rates would be paid out of the rents of the garden themselves. The hon. Member did not seem to be aware that the clauses which related to land affected by inclosure acts were confined to that particular class of cases, with the exception of which no power was given to the quarter sessions of deciding on the rents to be paid. Seeing that the labouring population were anxious to obtain small pieces of land for cultivation, he trusted that the hon. Member would not object to the second reading.
Mr. M. Milnesbelieved that the Bill would effect some good, though perhaps not all the good which the hon. Member anticipated from it. One good effect of it would be the best possible application of wasteland adjacent to great towns; but he believed the Bill would not affect, in any great degree, the general mass of the agricultural population. He conceived that it would be advantageous for mechanics living in large towns to have the opportunity of cultivating, during their spare moments, a portion of land in their neighbourhood, which would afford them some relief from their otherwise monotonous occupation.
Mr. Bouverieobjected to the Bill; it was a measure that ought not to pass, and he was surprised the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had not thought it necessary to negative it. The Legislature ought to leave private parties uninterfered with to settle the value of land; and he did not believe it was just to make parties accept less for their land than it was worth. He should support the Amendment.
Sir J. Grahamhoped the hon. Member for Winchester would not persevere in his opposition to this measure. Should he do so, he should feel it his duty to vote against him. The principle of the Bill was in favour of making allotments for the use of the poor. He believed it was admitted on all hands that the appropriation of portions of land in aid of the comforts of the labouring population of this country
384
was an object most praiseworthy and desirable. The sole intention of the Bill was to facilitate such an arrangement. The hon. Member who had introduced this measure might not altogether succeed in obtaining his object, but a more desirable one could not exist. He was bound to state publicly, what he had told the hon. Member in private, that he should feel it his duty to propose alterations in some of the provisions of the Bill in Committee. He had an insuperable objection to the provision making the poor rate a security for the rent; nor did he approve of the clause constituting the local trust. But these were points that might be better discussed in another stage of the Bill. The hon. Member for Hertford had paid much attention to this subject, and bestowed much trouble on it; he thought, therefore, it would appear somewhat harsh if the Bill should not be allowed to proceed to a second reading.
Lord J. Mannerscongratulated the hon. Member on the success, so far, of his measure; and he congratulated him also on the remarkable opposition that existed between the reasons assigned against the Bill by the hon. Member for Winchester, and those assigned by the hon. Member who spoke last in opposition. The hon. Member for Winchester objected to the Bill because it contained a clause which would prevent land being let above a certain rental; while the hon. Member who last spoke against the Bill objected to the whole system because it was not possible to prevent people taking as high a rent for their land as they could procure. The hon. Member had also said that if it was a good plan, why not leave it to the care of those who were interested in it. Now, his answer to that was short and simple—that the people who were most interested in it were those who were least able to help themselves. It was a cruel assertion to make to the labouring classes that they could and ought to help themselves in the way of procuring the means of comfort, when it was notorious to all that the position in which they were placed prevented them from doing so. The hon. Member for Winchester said, also, that this measure might have been brought forward with more show of reason a few years ago, when the wages of the people were in a depressed state; but now there was no such necessity. If the hon. Member would look at the Report, which was laid on the

385
Table a few days ago, regarding the condition of the framework knitters of the midland counties, he would find that, however much wages might have risen in other places, the wages of these people were still greatly depressed; and he knew it was the feeling of all classes in the midland counties that such a measure as that brought forward by his hon. Friend would be of great advantage to the condition of that class of the community. He cordially supported the measure; and he trusted, when passed, that it would carry his benevolent wishes into full effect, and convert his hopes into certainty.
Mr. E. B. Denisonthought the principle of the Bill so objectionable, that if the hon. Member for Winchester pressed his Amendment to a division, he should vote in favour of it.
Mr. J. S. Wortleythought the objections to the measure were not well founded. The hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Escott) had made an objection to the Bill, which, if well founded, would justify them in rejecting it. If he (Mr. Wortley) really thought it a compulsory measure, he certainly should not support it. It was true, the opinion of a majority was to be taken against a minority; but in what other way could they ascertain the opinions of parties? These points might be discussed in Committee; but they were not fair reasons for opposing the second reading, which he trusted the House would not object to. This was not the first time the hon. Member for Hertford had brought the question before them, and a proposal of this kind deserved all the attention they could give it. There was no subject on which their legislation could do so much good as in connexion with the Field Garden Allotment system; wherever it had been tried it had been invariably attended with success. It was said it would be much better to leave it to be worked out voluntarily and spontaneously; that was perfectly true, in places where the means and materials for doing so were to be found; but in many cases this could not be done; it was this means which the Bill of the hon. Member for Hertford provided. It was desirable to make a beginning, even should all the good proposed not be effected.
The House divided on the Question that the word "now" stand pan of the Question;—Ayes 92; Noes 18: Majority 74.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hill, Lord M.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hodgson, F.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Hope, hon. C.

Ashley, Lord

Howard, P. H.

Bagge, W.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Baird, W.

Langstone, J. H.

Baldwin, B.

Lennox, Lord A.

Bateson, T.

Lincoln, Earl of

Blackstone, W. S.

McGeachy, F. A.

Boldero, H. G.

McNeill, D.

Borthwick, P.

Mahon, Visct.

Botfield, B.

Manners, Lord J.

Bowes, J.

Mitcalfe, H.

Brotherton, J.

Morris, D.

Bruce, Lord E.

Mundy, E. M.

Buck, L. W.

Muntz, G. F.

Busfeild, W.

Neeld, J.

Byng, rt. hn. G. S.

Newdegate, C. N.

Cardwell, E.

O'Brien, A. S.

Carew, W. H. P.

Oswald, J.

Childers, J. W.

Palmer, R.

Clerk, rt. hn. Sir G.

Palmerston, Visct.

Corry, rt. hn. H.

Pechell, Capt.

Courtenay, Lord

Peel, J.

Craig, W. G.

Polhill, F.

Damer, hon. Col.

Rice, E. R.

Darby, G.

Round, J.

Deedes, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Denison, E. B.

Rutherfurd, A.

Duncan, G.

Scrope, G. P.

Dundas, Adm.

Sheppard, T.

Ebrington, Visct.

Sheridan, R. B.

Ellice, rt. hn. E.

Smythe, hon. G.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Ewart, W.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Stewart, P. M.

Ferrand, W. B.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Forman, T. S.

Tufnell, H.

Fuller, A. E.

Williams, W.

Gladstone, Capt.

Wilshere, W.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Worsley, Lord

Goring, C.

Wyse, T.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Yorke, H. R.

Greene, T.

Young, J.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Harris, hon. Capt.

TELLERS.

Hastie, A.

Cowper, W. F.

Herbert, rt. hn. S.

Wortley, J. S.

List of the NOES.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Hawes, B.

Collet, J.

Henley, J. W.

Cripps, W.

Marsland, H.

Curteis, H. B.

Round, C. G.

Dennistoun, J.

Thornely, T.

Divett, E.

Trelawny, J. S.

Estcourt, T. G.

Wawn, J. T.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

TELLERS.

Forbes, W.

Escott, B.

Hamilton, W. J.

Bouverie, G.

INFEFTMENT (SCOTLAND).
The Lord Advocatemoved that the House go into

387
Committee on the Infeftment (Scotland) Bill. He wished the House to go into Committe pro formâ, in order to make one or two alterations in the measure.
Mr. Rutherfurddid not rise to oppose the Bill; on the contrary, he wished to render his learned Friend all the assistance in his power. The only objection he had to the measure was, that it did not go far enough; but, as far as it did go, he thought it would produce important benefits. The amendments which his learned Friend was about to propose, and which he had had an opportunity of seeing, would, he was satisfied, render the Bill still more valuable.
Mr. M. Stewartalso supported the Bill, and hoped its progress would not be unnecessarily delayed, as it was waited for in Scotland with considerable anxiety.
Bill went through Committee, and was reported.

MUSEUMS OF ART.
Mr. Ewartmoved that the House go into Committee on the Museums of Art Bill.
Mr. Buckecomplained of the absolute power that this Bill gave to town councils to assess the inhabitants for the purposes of the Bill, without any control whatever on the part of the ratepayers. He had no objection to the establishment of museums in large towns, where the inhabitants wished for them; but this Bill extended to small towns as well; and, therefore, he should move that the House go into Committee on that subject this day six months.
Sir J. Grahamhoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion, because that would amount to an absolute rejection of the Bill. He was sorry to say that he had not given that attention to the subject which he should desire to do; but his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had assented to the principle. At the same time he must say that he thought the Bill, as it now stood, exceeded the understanding which his right hon. Friend entertained of it. If he recollected rightly, his right hon. Friend was favourable to a Bill allowing existing museums in large towns to be assisted out of the borough rate. But he was not aware that his right hon. Friend had adverted to the powers contained in the Bill, namely, to enable the town council to purchase a site, to build, to found, to
388
institute a museum—in fact, to bear the whole costs of an original institution. There was no limitation to this principle, except one contained in the end of the first Clause, specifying that the rate should not exceed one halfpenny in the pound. But, with this exception, towns with a population only of five thousand, and containing a large rural district, might be assessed for many years for this purpose, and that by the vote of a bare majority of the town council. He was, for himself, very friendly to the institution of museums of art and science in manufacturing towns. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it would be conducive to the better taste of the manufacturing population, and also that it was a legitimate amusement for the inhabitants and ratepayers. But he thought that in a measure of this kind great caution was necessary; and therefore he hoped the hon. Gentleman would consent to postpone his Bill to Wednesday next; and in the interval he should have an opportunity of conferring with his right hon. Friend, and he would then be ready to inform the hon. Gentleman exactly what were the intentions of Government on the subject.
Mr. Ewartsaid, as the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his willingness to co-operate with him in the main principle of the Bill, it would be unfair to press it now. He should, therefore, be happy to agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and postpone the Bill for a week.
Amendment withdrawn. Committee deferred.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.