Sitting of 11 May 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c* [125].
Second Reading—Benefices [46]; County Coroners (Ireland) [64], negatived; Suburban Commons [41].
Committee—Report—Petty Customs (Scotland) Abolition (re-comm.)* [95].
Third Reading—Railways (Powers and Construction)* [76], and passed.

BENEFICES BILL— [BILL 46.]
(Mr. Cross, Viscount Sandon, Mr. Hibbert, Mr. Birley.)
BENEFICES BILL— [BILL 46.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said that he had purposely deferred this stage of the Bill in order that persons in the country might have the opportunity of becoming acquainted with it; and he had sincere pleasure in stating that out of the very large numbers of letters he had received from clergymen in every part of the country hardly one expressed the slightest objection, whereas the great majority warmly praised its provisions. That being so, it was not his intention now to make any lengthened statement, not having heard that any opposition was to be offered to the progress of the Bill. He might state at the outset that nothing was further from his wish than in any way to interfere with the right of patronage as vested in the hands of laymen. It was, he thought, of essential use to the Church. In the first place, it interested a large number of people in the welfare of the Church who were likely to make good appointments to their livings; while the fact of so much patronage being in the hands of the laity throughout the country tended to produce a variety of tone and thought among clergymen, and prevented them sinking into that monotonous character which would prevail if all patronage were in the hands of the Church or Crown. The origin of Church patronage in lay hands dated from early times. Many owners of estates offered to build and endow a church, on condition of having the patronage placed in their
  536
  hands; and the Bishops, jealous as they were with regard to ecclesiastical appointments, consented to place the patronage in the hands of laymen, in consideration of the advantages which the Church and people received from the endowment of churches. No one could doubt, that in consequence of the action thus taken, a vast number of livings were created both in this country and abroad, which would not otherwise have been founded at all. But it was obvious that one evil was likely to attend patronage in the hands of laymen—and he was sorry to say it showed itself also in the case of those who were not laymen. That was that in corrupt times a vast amount of it was sold and bought just like any other marketable commodity; and we read in the ecclesiastical historian Mosheim—
  "The kings, princes, and nobles either conferred the sacred offices on their friends and ministers for whom they had partiality, or sold them to the highest bidder. And hence frequently men the most unfit and flagitious—sometimes soldiers, civil magistrates, and counts—were invested with spiritual offices of the highest dignity and influence …. There seems to be nothing appertaining to the Church which is not put upon sale—namely, bishoprics, presbyteries, deaconries, and the other lower orders; archdeaconries also, deaneries, superintendencies, treasurers' offices, baptisteries. ‖. All ecclesiastical offices were at that time as much accounted things vendible as merchandize in a common market."
  In order to put an end to that state of things Gregory VII. took vigorous measures, and did for a time put an end to it. In England the early history of our advowsons was much the same. In early times persons who had manors, in consideration of assigning lands for the endowment of the parish church were allowed the patronage of the living, and the patronage always passed with the manor; but in later times they became separated, and the advowson became what was called in gross.
  "This practice, which was originally a mere indulgence, became in process of time a right, and all those who had either founded or endowed a church claimed and exercised the exclusive privilege of presenting a clerk to the Bishop whenever the church became vacant."—[Cripps, 552.]
  And again, although the law did not consider the exercise of the right of presentation as of any pecuniary value, or a thing for which a price or compensation ought to be accepted, yet the general right to present was considered valuable. As the right of presentation became pro-

  537
  perty that right was sold, and, practically, in the nature of things, must have been sold; because it was quite clear if an owner of a right of presentation left the country he could not carry it with him, as his whole interest in the place would have gone; and, therefore, the right of presentation as an existing right would, like other property, be the actual subject of sale. But a great distinction was drawn by the lawyers as to the right of patronage between the sale of that right and the sale of the exercise of that right. The right might no doubt be sold, like any other property; but at the same time it was a public trust, and the owner was bound to exercise it for the benefit of the public and not for his own. If he sold the exercise of his right he broke his trust, because the living was then filled up not for the benefit of the public, but for the benefit of the buyer, and in consideration of the money which he paid for it. This distinction was taken as early as the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and the general right of presentation only was then legally subject to sale. He was aware that the actual exercise of the right of presentation was now legally the subject of sale; but he hoped the House would agree with him that it was not morally, and ought not to be legally, the subject of sale. Chief Justice De Grey laid it down that an advowson was a temporal right, not, indeed, jus habendi, but jus disponendi. The right itself was a valuable right, and properly the object of sale; but the exercise of this right was a public trust, and therefore ought to be void of any pecuniary consideration either in the patron or the presentee. Chief Justice Best in one of his judgments said—
  "If the perpetual advowson be sold when the church is void the next presentation will not pass, and if the next avoidance only be sold after the death of the incumbent the sale is altogether void. It may be wise to carry restraint on the sale of this species of property still further, and to say that the next avoidance shall in no case be sold. Undoubtedly much simony is indirectly committed by the sale of next presentations. If it be proper to prevent the giving of money for a presentation, it seems equally proper to prevent the sale of that which gives the immediate right to present."
  He hoped he had now established the proposition that anciently there was no light to sell a presentation, and that at the present day a distinction was made between the sale of a right to present and
  538
  the sale of the exercise of that right. He would put the case thus—A man had a right to vote, but he was forbidden to sell that right. He might buy the property which gave the right of voting if he chose, and he might part with that property; but so long as he retained the property, and the right to vote in connection with it, the law said if he sold the exercise of that right—in other words, if he parted with his vote for any personal consideration—he was guilty of bribery, and would be punished. So, in the case of an advowson, the owner, if he wished, might sell the right of presentation; but when he sold the exercise of that right he did that which the law ought not to allow. If that was allowed in the case of a presentation to a benefice, why not to a bishopric, or any other office in the Church? Why not a presentation to a mastership or a fellowship or a scholarship? If lay patrons were allowed to sell the exercise of the right of presentation, why not allow the Crown or Bishops to sell the patronage in their hands? It was perfectly impossible to distinguish between one of these cases and another. This abuse in fact had only grown up in modern times, and he hoped the House would now step in and check it. He did not ask the House to take any step which would invade the rights of property. This property was held as a trust, and by passing this measure they would, take away all abuse connected with that property, and by taking away the abuse they would perpetuate the use. That was the policy of those who occupied the Benches around him. Where they loved an institution as they all loved the Church they ought to scrutinize every abuse, and the moment they found one they should sweep it away. This Bill had been prepared by a gentleman of great experience, and drawn with a considerable amount of care. He only asked the House to take another step in the same course with reference to this property which had been followed by legislation at different periods of our history. At the time of Elizabeth a presentation might not be sold while the living was void; at the time of the Union it could not be sold to a clergyman; and he now only asked them to take the further step pointed out by Chief Justice Best—namely, that the actual sale of the next presentation ought not to be allowed,

  539
  whether that was done by a grant, or any contrivance of selling the advowson and buying it back, or by any covenant to buy it back, or by any contrivance of buying an actual living when the incumbent was in extreme danger of death. Everybody admitted that there was a real practical evil to be remedied, and they ought not, therefore, to quarrel over the mode of doing it, provided no hardship were inflicted upon individuals. There were provisions in the Bill which would prevent that from being the case. It would not come into operation for some time, in order that arrangements already made might be carried out without hardship. There was a proviso which saved livings which had been put in existing settlements, as it would not be fair to disturb family arrangements which had been made certainly without expecting the passing of a measure of this kind; but for the future no such settlements could be allowed. There was also a saving provision in the case of persons who had already purchased next presentations. In cases where they had bought them for their sons, who might have died, or changed their minds, or gone into other professions, it would be hard not to allow them to sell what they had bought. He sincerely hoped the Bill would be read a second time, and that by putting an end to a great scandal to the Church, and an absolute insult to parishioners, it would not only promote the welfare of the Church, but the feeling of religion throughout the country. He moved that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEwas sure the House had heard the lucid statement of his hon. and learned Friend with great pleasure and interest, and must have sympathized with the Christian spirit which had dictated his action in the matter. He regretted, as much as the hon. and learned Member himself, the existence of the facts which rendered some legislative action necessary, and having made these observations his hon. Friend must not think him inconsistent in advising him to rest satisfied with having brought forward the subject for the present, without pressing the second reading. Of course, if the measure were
  540
  pressed he would not vote against it, though he would be unable to vote for it. Certain vehement Church reformers regarded the whole system of private patronage, as it is found in the Church of England, as being an abuse, and they would give the nomination to livings either to some central authority or to the parishioners. They had an armoury of plausible arguments founded on the ostensible inconsistency of treating a sacred trust as a private right. To them he would answer experientia docet. Lay patronage had created that Church a very desirable class of clergymen, unique, as far as he was able to ascertain, among the Christian communities of the world, who were at once men of the world and men of the Church. No doubt, abuses had occurred in the sale of family livings, and they should be prevented; but if the remedy consisted in nakedly abolishing one element of the system of patronage, the property in patronage was affected, and the risk was incurred of its being totally swept away. The evils that did exist in this exercise of lay patronage—the sale of next presentations—were not found among the earnest and religious patrons, but among the less worthy, who either cared for the money from avarice or were tempted by impecuniosity; and he asked whether the Bill would prevent these less worthy patrons from committing the wrong. Besides, if all sales of next presentations were effectively prevented, what was the kind of clergymen who would be probably thrust into the livings. The patrons, it was conceded, would be of the less worthy kind—the careless, the unscrupulous, or the embarrassed. If they were driven to present, in all probability they would put in clergymen of a similar description—unfit relations of their own, careless livers, or broken invalids, whose health and years promised a speedy vacancy. Besides, he feared that, if the sale of the next presentations were; forbidden, secret sales, a more deployable state of things than the present, would be the result. Men, for instance, might be put in who would not pay a lump price for the living, but who would forego gathering the tithes for a time. There was, however, another element of this patronage system which, in his mind, called for legislation far more than the sale of next livings, and, if his hon. and learned Friend had taken that up

  541
  he would have found him (Mr. Beresford Hope) heartily working by his side. The most crying evil connected with lay patronage was the gift of a living to a clergyman, with the understanding he was to resign as soon as a son or a nephew of the presenter had come of age to be presented. This was akin to the violation of a Divine law, because it called on a man to give up a cure of souls upon a certain contingency; and it was akin to the violation of human law, because it was pretending to invest a man with a freehold when it was giving him a mere leasehold. The cure for both these evils—that with which this Bill endeavoured to deal, and that of bonds of resignation—he suggested might be found in allowing open and regulated sales of next presentations through the office of the Bishop of the diocese, a certain amount of the purchase money being retained for the benefit of the Church of England, and the Bishop having powers of examination and rejection beyond what he at present possessed. This would be better than leaving it open to a bankrupt patron to make a presentation on the assurance that shortly afterwards some spiritual "man in the moon" would make him a present of a sum of money. To meet the case of a patron who desires to present his relative, at the time not in Holy Orders, he would make the bond of resignation absolutory illegal; but he would allow the patron to request permission of the Bishop to refrain from presenting until his intended nominee was eligible. The Bishop in this case would appoint a curate for the appointed time to receive the entire income of the cure; and so the Church would not only be well served, and the Bishop would have a fresh opportunity of rewarding hard work among his clergy, but the parish would be saved the scandal of a pretended presentation to a decrepid, toothless old man, whose infirmities and chances of speedy death were his only recommendations in the eyes of the patron. He would limit the selection by the Bishop of the curate in charge to some clergyman already in the diocese. He, however, mainly trusted to the growth of morality and the higher sense of religious duty manifested by this age, for the correction of these evils; the moral responsibility attaching to the office of patron was being felt more and more every day; but while he felt con-
  542
  vinced the evils would notably diminish before the growth of this feeling, he could not but thank his hon. and learned Friend for his action in the matter.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, in the absence of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he desired to say a few words on the subject; and, in the first place, he regretted that his professional experience did not permit him altogether to endorse the statement of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) with regard to the increased sense of moral responsibility existing among lay patrons. He was unable to say that the sale of benefices, and the general immorality of those concerned in disposing of them, were diminishing, or their morality was increasing. Day by day cases came before him, which he should have believed were fictitious, had he not been obliged, upon the evidence, to believe them true; and he was sorry he could not concur in the view that this Bill was undesirable. Though anxious not to say anything in any way disrespectful of great dignitaries, he was obliged to remark that he was not desirous of increasing the patronage exercised by the Bishops. The amount of patronage in the hands of lay members of the Church was a feature which distinguished it favourably from almost every other Church Establishment with which he was acquainted, and for this reason, that it knit round the Church a great variety of persons of different ranks of life and of diverse education, all or most of them being animated by a desire to sustain the institution, to prevent it from degenerating into a sect, and anxious to extend its influence and usefulness. He was, therefore, not disposed to do anything to diminish the amount of patronage in lay hands; and it was because he believed the immediate effect of the Bill before them would be to strengthen this element of lay patronage, and confirm the possession of that patronage in the hands which at present usefully exercised it, that he humbly recommended the House to give the Bill a second reading. Though some Amendment would be necessary in the second subsection of Clause 3, to prevent the intention of the hon. Member being thwarted, he would recommend the House to read the Bill a second time, because it was

  543
  no revolutionary measure, but really a return to the old system, although it might not meet the views of canonists and Church lawyers, who might reasonably be supposed to be a little prejudiced in respect to these matters. He regarded the right of presentation entirely as a matter of trust. That was the old and sound view; and so far as any change had taken place, it had taken place in comparatively late times, and by no means for the better. To pass the measure would be to do away with a great public and private scandal; and inasmuch as all existing rights and interests were saved by the Bill, no individual injury could be alleged. There was a sensible and practical evil to be dealt with, and he warned the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge that it was rather a dangerous thing to raise the whole question of Church patronage, because it led to the inevitable conclusion that some time or other it must be dealt with.
  DR. BALLsaid, that, practising in the ecclesiastical branch of the law, he had been consulted from time to time about the sale of presentations, and his experience in these matters had taught him several things bearing on the subject of the Bill, particularly that the ingenuity of lawyers had been largely employed to discover means to evade the few existing prohibitions of illegal traffic in livings. It was true the law forbade the sale of a living to a clergyman, and accordingly the law was complied with in the letter; but the purchase was made in the name of the clergyman's brother, friend, or solicitor. Other prohibitions had been overcome in a similar manner, and they would be overcome as long as a loophole was left. He was at a loss to know on what principle the practice of selling the next presentation was to be defended. What was it but making merchandize of the most sacred offices? If an advowson were attached to an estate, it seemed a natural consequence of that connection to give the right of selling it along with the estate, and if that were admitted it would be refining too much to prohibit the right to sell an advowson out-and-out. Such reasoning justified the sale of advowsons; but it did not apply to the sale of next presentations. This generally had regard, to immediate possession. The transaction was based fre-
  544
  quently on calculations as to the state of the incumbent's health, and was not seldom accompanied by considerations to induce resignation and make a vacancy before death. The measure had his cordial support.
  MR. STAPLETONsaid, he thought thought this was a measure of very doubtful policy. While it forbade the sale of the next presentation, it allowed the sale of advowsons, which depended for their value on the next presentation. But he was of opinion that the sale of the presentation led in many instances to the appointment of good men to the living. If the right to sell were taken from the patron, he would be extremely anxious to force his son, or near relative, into the living, perhaps to the injury of the Church. He wished to call attention to the fact that as Roman Catholics were prohibited from presenting to these livings, this Bill, by taking away their right to sell, would confiscate their property without giving compensation.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he desired, as a member of the Established Church, to thank the hon. Member for South West Lancashire (Mr. Cross) for introducing the Bill. He was glad to find that the Bill as it now came before the House made provision for preventing colourable sales of advowsons merely for the purpose of obtaining the next presentation. He had known of a case where the purchase of an advowson took place at half-past 3 o'clock, and where the incumbent died at half-past 11 on the night of the same day, yet the Court held that the transaction was valid. He was glad to see that an attempt was made in one of the subsections of the Bill to meet the case; but he feared the words used would lead to much controversy and consequent litigation. He would, therefore, propose in Committee that such sales should be illegal if the incumbent was at the time in an extreme state of illness and died within a given period. There was much force in the observation that lay patronage was of advantage to the Church; but it must be admitted that such patronage was not always exercised in a manner most beneficial to the parishioners, and he doubted, on the whole, whether, without restriction, it was really beneficial to the Church. A strong opinion prevailed in the Church that there should be some

  545
  restriction even upon the sale of advowsons. He would suggest that no presentation should be made under a newly purchased advowson until after a certain period had elapsed from the sale. The Duke of St. Albans had afforded a very happy instance of the proper exercise of lay patronage, by consulting the wishes of the parishioners, and others had folfowed his admirable example. In another case the Grocers' Company, as lay patrons of a sinecure City living of £1,600 a year, had come to Parliament to enable them to divide the living in order to endow three churches in different populous parts of the metropolis. Still the system required extensive review by Convocation or some other ecclesiastical body, aided by lay members.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he desired to congratulate his hon. Friend the Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross) upon the manner in which his Bill had been received on all sides. He cordially welcomed the Bill as an attempt to remedy abuses, which had long been winked at but which nobody, justified, connected with patronage in the Church. The defenders and warmest supporters of the Established Church could do nothing more conducive to the promotion of her best interests than to endeavour to remove any real abuses that had sprung up in her system; for, if that were done, an institution which had its roots so deep in the affections of the people as the Church had would long flourish in this country. He hoped that in Committee on the Bill the point would be considered whether a larger limit of time ought not to be allowed for vested interests.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that, no doubt, the question might arise whether such a description of property ought to be sold at all—a very large and important subject; but he confessed that he found it very difficult to understand on what principle a man should not sell a presentation, but might sell the advowson, which carried that presentation with it 10 or 20 years afterwards, and for all time beyond. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cross) did not mean by his Bill to strike at the root of private patronage altogether, but it was impossible not to see that such must be its necessary result. Many persons had always thought that private patronage was some security to the Church—that
  546
  was to say, that if private patronage were wholly done away with, public patronage would have a very indifferent chance of being continued. A great number of persons also thought that patronage, whether public or private, was not altogether free from evil. Those were all questions that grew up from that Bill. Again, he did not see the justice of treating differently persons who possessed that species of property under settlement and those who did not. A man now holding an advowson not under settlement, if that Bill became law, could at once sell it, though it was often worth little more than the presentation; but the man whose property was under settlement was utterly deprived of that power. What he felt was that the Bill, though professing to do very little, was a first step in a very much larger change. A great deal, no doubt, might be said about the evils of private patronage, but so also was it with public patronage. Patrons, whether public or private, were but human beings, and did not always do what they ought to do. Again, if A had got something to sell, and B wanted to buy it, the thing would, somehow or other, be passed from the one man to the other, in spite of any Act of Parliament of that kind. The late Mr. O'Connell said it was always easy to drive a coach and six through an Act of Parliament, and here all that would have to be done would be to drive a poor incumbent through the Bill. No doubt, his hon. Friend had seen many instances of abuse, and wished to prevent their recurrence; but it was to be feared that he would only add to the complication which very often now arose in dealing with that kind of thing; for the impediments they put in the way, generally speaking, did not stop the transaction, but only induced clever people to try in various ways to get round those impediments by which, perhaps, they now and then came to grief.
  MR. MONKsaid, he was very much of the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) that where A. wanted to sell and B. to buy a presentation they would probably find some means of evading that Bill if it became law. Perhaps the Bill did not go quite far enough, but as a move in the right direction it would give great satisfaction in the country generally. He begged to

  547
  call the hon. Member's (Mr. Cross's attention to the last clause for saving Archbishop's options, to which he took exception in toto.
  MR. DICKINSONsaid, he would beg to give Notice of his intention in Committee on the Bill to move a clause to repeal the unrepealed portions of the Acts 3 James I, c. 5; 1 Will, and Mary c. 26; 12 Anne, st. 2, c. 14—whereby Roman Catholics and their trustees are disabled from presenting to benefices, and the right of presentation is transferred to the Universities; and 11 Geo. II., c 17, s. 5, whereby Roman Catholics are disabled from granting advowsons except on sale to Protestants, and from devising the same to their own family.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, there was much force in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) but there were options in the nature o personal rights belonging to persons now living which must be preserved. With respect to what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), he must say that he should think it injudicious and objectionable in the interest of the Church to do away with lay patronage. But he considered the sale of an advowson and the sale o the next presentation to be totally different things. A man took with an advowson continued responsibility; but the purchaser of a presentation merely obtained it for some particular person or temporary object. And when they were told—as, perhaps, they knew too well—that there were cases of subterfuge under the law as it now stood, and that they would be unable by this Bill to protect the Church against fraud and evasion of the law, he did not think the objection of the right hon. Gentleman was one to which the House should listen. It might be that they could not altogether prevent these things; but that was no reason why they should not do as much as possible towards that result. An eminent counsel who appeared before the Corrupt Practices Committee, was asked whether he could suggest any method of stopping bribery at elections, and in reply he said exactly the same as the right hon. Gentleman with regard to one person purchasing from another that which he desired to obtain in defiance of the law, yet Parliament had taken measure to prevent bribery and corruption The Church of England did not consist
  548
  of patrons and clergy alone, but of the flock also, and by this Bill the position of the flock was properly recognized.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next.

COUNTY CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
(Mr. Vance, Mr. Callan.)
COUNTY CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 64.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. VANCE, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its principal object was to alter the mode of paying county coroners in Ireland, by placing them upon salaries, instead of remunerating them by fees. The payment of judicial officers by fees was very liable to abuse, and calculated to expose those officers to suspicion in regard, to the discharge of their duties; and the system had been deemed so objectionable that in almost all cases except that to which this Bill referred it had been abolished and fixed salaries substituted. Coroners of counties in England had been paid by salary since 1860. He did not implicitly follow the recommendation made on this subject by the Select Committee on Grand Jury Presentments, for he proposed that salaries and duties should be equalized. There were 86 county coroners in Ireland, and the Bill provided for the reduction of that number by 18 on death or resignation, the Lord. Lieutenant being empowered to hold special sessions for redistributing the districts in which reductions were made. In placing the salary at £100, he had adopted the amount fixed by a Bill passed some years ago for regulating the office of coroners, in which the maximum salary was laid down at that sum. That was to say, if their fees had amounted to that sum, they should be entitled to that sum and no more. In an ordinary way it amounted to about that sum, and under his Bill no further burden would be imposed on the county than at present. It might be said that if coroners had salaries they would neglect their duties; but then the Attorney General had power by the Bill to proceed by attachment against any coroner who should refuse to hold an inquest. Another matter was as to the cost of electing coroners. Previously he had proposed that the election should rest with the grand jury; but strong

  549
  objection had been taken to a departure from the old constitutional mode of election, and, on the whole, he thought it would be better to continue the election in the hands of the constituencies, but to confine the poll to one day instead of two, which would lessen the expense by about one-half. He thought, however, that the election should not rest with the freeholders, but should be given to the general constituency. The Bill would also give a limited superannuation to coroners in Ireland, as in England, but beginning at the age of 70, and to be defrayed partly out of the Consolidated Fund and partly out of the local rates, after the analogy of the case of the medical officers in Ireland. Another provision of the Bill was, that there should be power given to coroners to appoint deputies in their unavoidable absence; there was already such a power in the boroughs in Ireland, though not in the counties. The last provision was, that there should be power to obtain from coroners copies of informations, which at present were reserved entirely for the use of the Superior Courts. It was thought by some few persons that it would be well to abolish the office of coroners and transfer the duties to an inspector of police or a stipendiary magistrate; but there were grave objections to such a course, and it was obviously most important that such functions should be entrusted, as at present, to a class of officers who were independent of the Government of the day, and free from political influence. As bearing on that point, he begged to read the following extract from a legal journal:—
  "There is one important distinction between a coroner's inquest and a police-court examination. The first involves no suspicion, and the other a direct charge against some person or persons. The result of an investigation may be highly important, although it carries blame to no individual as its sequence. The removal of unfounded suspicion or prejudice is one of the most beneficial consequences of such inquiries; at the same time it can hardly be doubted that the coroner's court leads to the detection of many criminals."
  The murder of Cook by Palmer was mainly discovered by the coroner's inquest, for although Palmer was taken before the magistrates, they came to the conclusion that he was innocent; but a relative of Cook's had the body disinterred, when poison was traced and the criminal was brought to justice as the
  550
  result of the inquest. The office of coroner was a very ancient one, for in England it was as old as the time of Alfred, and it was in full force in Ireland in the reigns of Elizabeth and James. It was a particularly useful office in Ireland, where there was so much difficulty in the detection of crime, because it enabled an investigation to be followed up in a way in which it could not be done in any other Court unless a direct charge was made. In addition to the holding of inquests the coroner might have writs directed to him in the event of the death or absence of the Sheriff, or where the Sheriff was himself a party in the case—matters in respect to which the coroner's duties were both important and responsible. He trusted that his Bill would raise the status and dignity of county coroners in Ireland, whose organ he was in bringing the measure before the House, and who had been grievously disappointed, ever since the passing of the Act relating to their English brethren, that nothing had been done to place them on a similar footing. He was fully prepared in Committee to entertain any Amendments that would improve the measure, and he begged to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Vance.)
  MR. SYNANsaid, he thought that the withdrawal of the proposal that coroners should be appointed by grand juries removed one objection to the Bill. He had every confidence in the coroners themselves as a body; but he doubted whether the public would place equal confidence in the deputies whom they might appoint. The power of appointing their deputies was, moreover, unnecessary, inasmuch as the coroner of a neighbouring district or a magistrate could easily act for them in their unavoidable absence. As to equalizing the duties of the coroners he did not see how that could be done, unless the deaths in the different districts were first equalized. He had, however, no objection to coroners having fixed salaries instead of being paid according to the number of inquests. He would give the grand jury the power to give the salary and fix the amount. He had also no objection to there being a superannuation allowance,

  551
  if the amount, or half of it, at least, was to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. He believed all that was wanted by the coroners was that there should be fixed salaries and a superannuation allowance, and that the rest of the Bill was superfluous.
  MR. STACPOOLEsaid, the present mode of electing coroners was often attended with very great abuse. He considered the payment of coroners by salaries preferable to their payment by fees, and was therefore in favour of the second reading.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, he would support the Bill, the essential principle of which was the substitution of payment by salary instead of by fees. In illustration of the present unsatisfactory mode of remunerating coroners in Ireland he might cite a ease within his own knowledge. A woman being suspected of having murdered her infant child, the coroner was summoned from a distance, and, after travelling some 40 miles, he conducted the inquest with the greatest care, when the woman was found guilty of wilful murder. For his services he received 30 s., and could claim, in addition, 6d. per mile for the distance he had traversed; but not one farthing for his journey back; while he had to pay £5 or £6 out of pocket in fees to medical men, which could not be recouped to him until the matter had been brought before the grand jury. He thought that the provision as to appointing a deputy was a salutary one; and as to the suggestion that improper persons might be appointed, he would remind the House that the Court of Queen's Bench had a control over such appointments. The principle of having a superannuation allowance had already been sanctioned in England. He thought that it would be salutary to do away with the property qualification for coroners, especially as there was now no property qualification for Members of Parliament. The present mode of electing coroners was very objectionable, because it was so expensive. Dr. Hayes, in his evidence, stated that the expenses average from £200 to £1,000, and all to secure the magnificent sum of 30 s. for each inquest. It was also objectionable because it opened the way to incompetent persons who might have money; but that could not happen if the power of appointment were in the hands of the grand jury or
  552
  the county magistrates, subject to confirmation by the Lord Lieutenant.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that the principle of the Bill was to substitute salaries for fees. He always looked with suspicion on such proposals. About 40 years ago a similar arrangement was made in reference to the clerks of the Crown and clerks of the peace; but afterwards they received salaries as well as fees. Something of that kind might, perhaps, happen in reference to coroners. When it was determined that county officers should be paid by salaries instead of fees, it was understood that they would regularly present accounts of their receipts to the grand juries; but that was seldom done. In no instance had the counties been credited with their amount. He did not know whether, at that moment, the amount of fees received by the coroner, averaged £100 a year; but, formerly, the entire expense of the office of coroner was only £80 a year. The stipendary magistrates might very fairly be expected to discharge all the duties of coroners. The appointment of deputies was a serious question, and a most objectionable provision; the responsibility of the person elected would be at an end, and no confidence would be entertained by the public in their nominees. He would much prefer leaving the law as it now stood—that in the absence of the coroner inquests should be held by two magistrates of the district where the death occurred; under this provision he had held various inquests. He objected strongly to the very expensive mode in which these elections were carried on; the expenses of Mr. Wakley for Middlesex were upwards of £5,000. If the office was to be maintained it should be properly paid for, which was not the case now; the qualifications of the person holding it more strictly defined—more power to check abuses vested in the Grand Juries. Generally speaking he was not favourable to those points in which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Vance) had departed from the recommendations of the Select Committee on Grand Jury Presentments. As this was a subject that must form an element in the Grand Jury Bill which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland proposed to introduce in the next Session, he saw no reason why the present measure should now be pressed forward.
  VISCOUNT CRICHTONsaid, he approved the principle of payment by fixed salaries; but did not think it necessary that two coroners should be appointed for every county, as that would throw needless expense on the grand jury cess. The duties in such a county as Fermanagh could be very well discharged at a cost of £100, instead of £200 a year. He would give his support to the second reading.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the Bill consisted of a small number of very important clauses, and a great many of less importance, which might be called "padding." Originally there were three important clauses, but they had now been reduced to two. The 4th clause, which made a great change in the mode of appointment, putting an end to election by popular suffrage and transferring it to grand juries, had now been given up by the hon. Gentleman; and, in doing so, whether wisely or not, he had given up one of his most important proposals. Clause 5 altered the mode of payment, and Clause 7 provided for a system of superannuation. These were the really important points. As to the minor provisions, assisted by his right hon. Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Dowse), he had examined them very carefully, and they did not appear of such a nature as to make it incumbent on Parliament to legislate as far as they were concerned. The proposal to appoint deputies was doubtful. He had not heard any good reason for it, and the exceptional case mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Charley) would be hardly considered as furnishing sufficient foundation for the change. He was about to speak of Clause 8 with very great want of respect, but he had been informed by his hon. and learned Friend that it existed already in the English law. That clause proposed that if a coroner refused to hold an inquest, application might be made to the Court of Queen's Bench, or the vacation Judge, for a rule calling upon the coroner to show cause why he should not hold the inquest. But that could not be done in a few days; and, when the rule had been granted, he would leave it to the House to imagine in what condition the unfortunate subject must be. He admitted, however, that the hon. Gentleman had copied that provision from the English
  554
  law. Clause 10 gave power to the coroner to commit persons charged on information with "being feloniously implicated in the death" of anybody. But he had great doubt as to the expediency of giving such a power, as the law amply provided already for the committal of such persons, either by the local or stipendiary magistrates. Coming now to the two important provisions retained in the Bill, he wished to compare them with the recommendations of the Grand Jury Presentments Committee. Allusion had been made to the dictum of the Postmaster General the other night as to the authority of Committees of that House. Far be it from him to say that Committees of that House were infallible. Their recommendations must be judged upon their merits, and also in part upon the character of the members, their knowledge of the subject, their unanimity, and all the circumstances of the case. Judging this question by these tests, he could not imagine a Committee of higher authority than the Committee which sat under the presidency of the right hon. Member for Roscommon (The O'Conor Don), and of which the Earl of Mayo, Lord John Browne, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory), and other hon. Gentlemen of weight were members; and their recommendations on the subject of county coroners were very different from those of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Vance). The Chairman of the Committee upon Grand Jury Presentments—than whom no one in the House understood the subject more thoroughly, proposed to do away with the office of coroner altogether; and there might be some ground for the proposal, though he was far from saying he had come to that opinion. That part of the paragraph dealing with the subject of coroners—and that part only—was omitted by a decided majority; and all the other paragraphs were, if he mistook not, unanimously adopted. Well, that Committee recommended that some professional qualification for coroners should be necessary in every case. The Bill required no such qualification. The Committee recommended that the appointment of coroners should rest in future with the grand jury or the magistracy, subject to confirmation by the Lord Lieutenant, as the present mode of election was, in

  555
  many respects, objectionable. The Bill as it now stood, omitting Clause 4, made no change whatever in the mode of appointment. Then, with respect to the desire to assimilate the law of Ireland to the law of England, the Bill failed to accomplish that object. There was no "fixed" salary attached to the office of coroner in this country; but the salary was on the average of the number of inquests for five years. The Committee said that they saw no objection to a system of salaries, instead of fees, adding the important words—
  "Provided that the salaries be fixed in proportion to the number of inquests held during a certain number of preceding years."
  But that important proviso was entirely omitted in the Bill. In reference to the provision for superannuation, he (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) confessed he saw no sufficient grounds for providing superannuation pensions at all. According to the general rule—which was very rarely departed from—no superannuation could be provided for officers, unless it could be shown that those officers had devoted their whole time to the public service. The proposal was to throw those superannuated persons upon the Consolidated Fund. That was one which was wholly inadmissible. Under all these circumstances, it would not be in his power to give his support to the second reading. He admitted, however, that the position of coroners in Ireland was not satisfactory. It was impossible for him to introduce a Grand Jury Bill this year, as he had intended, founded more or less on the recommendations of the Committee; but, if he could have done so, that Bill would certainly have dealt with the case of coroners, and nothing but a want of time had prevented such a measure from being introduced. It would, in his opinion, be the duty of whoever had the charge of such a Bill to deal with the question of coroners; and, if the House would allow him, he would leave the matter on that footing, fully admitting that the question was one which deserved the attention of the Government and the House.
  DR. BALLsaid, he thought that as a general rule, the Government, and not a private Member, was the proper quarter from which proposals for changes and amendments connected with
  556
  the law and the administration of justice ought to proceed; because whatever related to the administration of justice in a country was of so much importance as to demand the attention of the Executive. But he had observed that when Bills were introduced by private Members on matters which ought to command the consideration of the Executive, whether those matters were the Ballot, the office of county coroners, or any other subject, the reading of them a second time had the effect of stimulating the activity of the Government. Therefore, solely on that ground, and without at all entering into the minute criticism passed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the present Bill, he should vote for its second reading. He also thought it desirable to affirm the principle that the mode in which coroners were now paid in Ireland was not satisfactory. It had been suggested that coroners should be got rid of, and their office handed over to stipendiary magistrates; but in that proposal he saw a vista of the creation of another office in connection with the jury system, and he thought it better, in the administration of justice, to build on the old foundations instead of inventing new, and to leave coroners to discharge duties which they had always discharged according to our law, making any such modifications in the system as were necessary to meet present exigencies.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, there was great unanimity among the representatives of Ireland in favour of that measure, and all the objections that had been raised to it by the Chief Secretary for Ireland might be dealt with in Committee. It was admitted upon all hands that the position of coroners in Ireland was not satisfactory. The desire of the coroners themselves was that they should be placed in such a position as not to be any longer dependent upon fees for their remuneration. Chairmen of quarter sessions and petty sessions clerks were now paid by salary instead of by fees, and why should not coroners be placed on a similar footing if their office was to be continued? He objected to transferring to grand juries, whose present powers were quite large enough, the election of coroners; and he could not see why coroners, whose duties were often of a very pressing character, should not be allowed to appoint

  557
  deputies to act in their unavoidable absence. He concurred in thinking that much good resulted from private Members bringing in Bills on Irish subjects and urging them on the attention of the Government. The question of Union rating and other important matters connected with Ireland were pressing for consideration, and yet they had not been taken up by the Government.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he should support the second reading of the Bill There was conclusive evidence in favour of paying coroners by salary and not by fees. Coroners were the only public prosecutors we had, and they ought not to be paid by fluctuating fees, which were grossly inadequate. The system of payment by fees tempted a coroner to hold unnecessary inquests to swell his income. But in making the change regard must be had to the amount realized by fees. The quinquennial average was adopted in England. He thought the sum fixed in the Bill was not unreasonable. He approved of the principle of superannuation; it was the best possible economy, and the most graceful way of getting rid of an officer appointed for life, who was unable from age or infirmities to efficiently discharge his duties.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he thought the paucity of his right hon. and learned Friend (Dr. Ball's) arguments in favour of the Motion told strongly against it. His right hon. Friend supported the second reading of the Bill because it would have a stimulating effect on the Government; in other words, they were asked to read the second time a Bill full of defects in order to get the Government to bring in a better one. That was not a principle on which the House should avowedly proceed; they ought not, unless they approved its principle, to read a bad Bill the second time merely to stimulate somebody else to introduce a good Bill. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) complained that they had not sufficient Irish business before them this Session; but there would be no use in the Government undertaking a measure of that kind this year, because it would be impossible for them to deal with the question in the comprehensive manner that was desirable. The subject could not be satisfactorily treated piecemeal; but must be regarded as part of a general
  558
  system of grand jury laws in Ireland with a view to their amendment. The Government would be prepared to introduce a measure conceived in that spirit as early as possible next Session; and, therefore, there could be no good reason for hurrying forward the present Bill, which was so faulty in all its details that it could not be passed through Committee without being turned into an entirely new measure.
  COLONEL STUART KN0Xsaid, that it the faultiness of its details was a good ground for throwing out a measure, the Irish Land Bill, almost every line of which had to be amended, would certainly have very little claim, to their favour. He did not himself approve all the provisions of this Bill. He objected to the appointment of deputies, who were almost invariably made to do the work of the coroners themselves. He was also of the opinion that the ratepayers should have the power of saying whether pensions were to by granted. But he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Vance) would go to a Division, and he should support the second reading of the Bill.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid he thought the Government were adopting a wise course in declining to deal with the grand jury system of Ireland piecemeal, or otherwise than in a comprehensive and complete manner. This subject should be dealt with in a Bill embracing the whole of the grand jury system, and brought in by the Government. It must be satisfactory to the Irish people that, as a consequence of the small number of inquests in Ireland, the coroners there could not live on their fees, but had to ask for a salary.
  MR. DELAHUNTYsaid, he would support the second reading of the Bill on the ground that the hon. Gentleman (The O'Conor Don) opposed it. The Bill was a step in the right direction. If the whole of Ireland were polled there would be as large a majority for the principle of this Bill as there had been the other day for Napoleon in France. In Ireland coroners could not accept land; in England they could. In Ireland coroners could not appoint deputies; in England they could. He was for assimilating the law of both countries. The Irish Government was a thing which ought not to exist at all, because it was nothing but a sham.
  SIR JOHN ESMONDEsaid, he agreed with those who thought that this question should be dealt with in connection with the Irish grand jury system as a whole.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, on behalf of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he would beg to move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  MR. VANCE, in reply, said, that as the question of the coroners of England had been dealt with by itself, he did not see why the same course should not be adopted in the case of the Irish coroners.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 172: Majority 74.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Second Reading put off for six months.

SUBURBAN COMMONS BILL— [BILL 41.]
(Mr. Cowper-Temple, Mr. Buxton.)
SUBURBAN COMMONS BILL— [BILL 41.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Cowper-Temple.)
  MR. J. LOWTHER, in rising to move, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, presented a Petition from 1,400 persons interested in Cannock Chase against the second reading of the Bill. He said this Bill was a reproduction of a measure introduced on a former occasion by the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of this one (Mr. Cowper-Temple), and it prohibited the enclosure of a common situated within a certain distance of a town, the distance varying, according to the size of the town, from one mile for towns with 5,000 inhabitants to six miles for towns of 100,000 inhabitants. If this Bill passed, no portion of Cannock Chase could be enclosed, although it was notorious that there were minerals in that common which it might be very desirable to have brought
  560
  to the surface. There were other commons in respect of which the same objection might be urged against the Bill. What, therefore, would be the effect on the industry of the country if this Bill were passed? Why, many mines must remain undeveloped, and the working classes—especially in the neighbourhood of commons in which minerals were found—would be the principal sufferers. At present there were many thousands and hundreds of thousands of acres kept out of cultivation which ought to be cultivated, and he trusted that the House would consider this matter before by legislation they increased the difficulty of such cultivation. There were a million acres which came within the scope of the Bill, the more thorough cultivation of which would be a matter not merely of local, but of national advantage. Under this Bill, persons who had no connection with the particular locality would have a locus standi for interference to prevent enclosure. The Bill did not extend to the commons in the neighbourhood of the metropolis; but Gentlemen who had managed with discretion estates on which commons were situated objected to provisions in the Bill which applied to commons in other parts of the country. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill that this question of legislation for commons ought to be left with the Government. The Under Secretary of State asked the other night for leave to introduce a Bill to deal with the general question of enclosure, and it was by the Government a Commons Bill ought to be introduced. He submitted that the measure now before the House would not only injure the property of individuals, but would injure the localities in behalf of which it was ostensibly brought forward. The hon. Member concluded by moving as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, he thought that if the House went into Committee upon this Bill, it would be shown that the objections of the hon. Member (Mr. J. Lowther) either did not apply or else that they might be met by slight alterations in the various clauses.

  561
  The real question now before the House was, whether they would affirm the principle of the Bill, which was intended to prevent the inhabitants of towns being deprived of the enjoyment of waste grounds which they had possessed from time immemorial. The Bill proposed to provide a sort of local government for neglected commons, under which they would be properly drained and preserved, for the enjoyment of the public and preventing disorderly conduct. The Act of 1845 had not operated for the public advantage, but had merely contributed to the success of the attempts that had been made to deprive the public of the enjoyment of the open places in the neighbourhood of towns. When a barren sand or accumulation of gravel became, from its growing proximity to an increasing town, like a mine of gold, the persons interested in the land, as lord of the manor and as commoners, were interested in getting the space enclosed; though one object of the Inclosure Acts was to preserve such places for public recreation. It had become absolutely necessary that the crowded centres of civilization should have open places in their vicinity, to which the poor might go for exercise and recreation, without the fear of being warned off as trespassers.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the principles stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper-Temple) were doubtless gratifying to the entire House, but the difficulty in this case was that the Bill which he supported did not carry those principles into effect. The Bill, in the first place, defined what commons were, but the scheme and the purport of the Bill were not defined in any way. The Bill merely said that a scheme might be prepared by the inhabitants of a district with respect to the common; but it did not say anything as to what the character of the scheme should be. The Bill offered no security for the permanence of the proposed local government of the commons affected by it. In the case of the ratepayers refusing to pay for the management of the land, it would be left totally without management, and its condition would be far worse than it was under the present law. If the House assented to the second reading of the Bill, he would move that it should be referred to a Select Committee, with a view to its being altered and improved
  562
  in such a manner as to carry out the views they all had at heart, although it would be preferable if the Government were to bring in a measure dealing with the subject in a comprehensive manner.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that if it was the general custom of persons representing a Government on such occasions as the present, to endeavour to please all parties, he feared that he was about to deviate from that custom, inasmuch as he must differ in some respects from all three of the hon. Members who had already addressed the House. He would first deal with the proposal of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He would say at once that he thought the matter had gone beyond the point at which reference to a Select Committee might have been necessary or desirable, and that, in his opinion, the House was quite competent to decide the question for itself. Then he must also say that he could not agree to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for York. (Mr. J. Lowther), to throw out the Bill upon the second reading. There were several reasons why he should object to such a course: one reason was his unwillingness to treat with disrespect a Bill upon this subject which proceeded from a Gentleman of so much experience, and one whose opinion upon these matters was so much entitled to respect as his right hon. Friend, and a still more important reason was that, so far as he understood the principle of the Bill, he was prepared, on the part of the Government, to give his vote in favour of that principle at the present stage of the measure. He understood the main principle of the Bill to be this—that Parliament believed that commons in the vicinity of towns and crowded districts should be dealt with in some manner different from that in which ordinary rural enclosures were treated, that the feelings and interests of the inhabitants of such localities should be consulted, and that legislative interference should prevent their being deprived of the open spaces from which they derived so much advantage. He could not help subscribing most heartily to such a proposition. He was prepared to state, on the part of the Government, that they would consider this question of public rights in land liable to enclosure in a broad and com-

  563
  prehensive spirit, and as an indication of this intention he would support the second reading. At the same time, he was bound to tell his right hon. Friend that he should be sorry to see the details of his Bill become law, inasmuch as he found much of them that was objectionable. In the first place, this Bill would positively prevent the enclosure of any suburban commons. But although he quite agreed that, as a rule, these enclosures should be avoided and prevented, it by no means followed that this rule was without exception, and its operation might in many cases be attended with great inconvenience. Take the case of the town of Nottingham. There was a time—not long ago—when the extension of that town was prevented by the impossibility of acquiring land for building purposes. Until the commons around the town were enclosed, and rights of severalty established, no one of course would venture to build, because whilst common rights existed, the title of no individual to any particular spot of ground could be secured. The consequence was that the poorer classes, who wished to acquire cottages near the town, could not do so, but were driven into the rural districts, far from their work, and thus much inconvenience was occasioned. There were other towns also—Stamford was a case in point—to which the same observations would apply. The commons round Stamford were actually in one of the ordinary Inclosure Bills which had been presented by the Commissioners during the present year, and public inconvenience would probably occur if enclosure was absolutely refused. For this and other reasons, therefore, he thought it contrary to sound policy and to the interests of the poorer classes themselves to lay down such an absolute rule against enclosures as that which appeared to be contemplated by his right hon. Friend. Moreover, he was by no means sure that the Metropolitan Commons Act—of which this Bill was an extension—had had sufficient trial since its passing in 1866 to admit of its wider application. The Select Committee which sat upon this subject last year reported in these words—
  "Sufficient time has not elapsed since the passing of the Metropolitan Commons Act to enable such a fair judgment of its working to be formed as would justify your Committee in recommending the application of its provisions to a wider area than that to which it at present applies."
  564
  His right hon. Friend had alluded to the applications for "schemes" which had been made under that Act. Well, eight such applications had been made; but seven of them had at present not been arranged, in consequence of disputes and local differences, and as the eighth had only recently received sanction, it was impossible to judge accurately as to the good or ill-working of the Bill. But one witness—Mr. Scott—before the general Enclosure Committee last year stated that he thought the objection made by one of the Enclosure Commissioners to this Act, that there had only been seven applications under it, was "its best recommendation." That was the key to much of the support given to the present Bill—that people thought it would prevent these enclosures altogether, and this was further than he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was prepared to go. He regretted very much that the lateness of the hour at which he had introduced the Government Enclosure Bill the other night had prevented him from making any statement upon the subject; but he now proposed to briefly state the points in that Bill which would bear upon the measure then under discussion, and to sketch out the alternative plan which he would prefer to that of his right hon. Friend. The Government Bill was based upon this idea and proposition—that if lords of manors and others, being desirous to enclose commons, came to Parliament in order to obtain a cheap and secure title and greater facilities of enclosure, they should, in return for such advantages received from Parliament, give something to the public of which Parliament was the representative—therefore Government proposed that instead of leaving it to the discretion of the Enclosure Commissioners, whether allotments should be given to the labouring poor for recreation ground, one or both should be compulsorily given in every case of enclosure, and a certain specified proportion of the lands about to be enclosed set aside for this purpose. The Government, moreover, would propose that in the case of commonable lands, which, as distinguished from common lands, were not now subject to public allotments, it should be enacted that, for the future, if any public rights had been exercised over any part of these lands, enclosure should be contingent upon either the preservation of those rights, or the grant-

  565
  ing of a public allotment. Then, with regard to the commons in the vicinity of towns, which were dealt with under the Bill now under discussion, Government proposed that, taking some such scale as that mentioned in the Bill, enclosures within a certain distance of places containing a certain population, should not be altogether prevented, but should not proceed without the consent of the local authority of such places. Thus it would, he hoped, be impossible that enclosures should proceed against the public feeling of localities, which ought to be consulted. If the local authority, not objecting to the enclosure, wished to secure for recreation or allotment ground a larger portion than that which would be secured by the provisions of the Government Bill, they might make their consent contingent upon their acquisition of such larger portion, for which they would pay a certain rent-charge from their total funds. But, with respect to the first allotments, given under the general Act, for which a rent-charge was now paid by the allottees, the Government Bill would provide that, for the future, those allotments should be given free of charge. There were several minor provisions in the Government Bill—which was not a long one—to which, he would not then allude. One more argument he might mention as weighing against the total prohibition of enclosures, and this was founded upon the rating aspect of the question. The pressure of local rates was now very severe; unenclosed land contributed very little to these rates, and it would be a more than doubtful policy rigorously to exclude such lands from being brought into a state of cultivation in which they would produce more, and aid in bearing the heavy weight of local taxation. He had been asked what he would do with the ordinary Enclosure Bill now before the House—this Bill affected the enclosure of 21 commons, comprising upwards of 12,600 acres of land, of which upwards of 7,000 acres were subject to allotments. This showed in some respect how large the subject really was. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) proposed to test the different provisional orders sanctioned by this Bill by the provisions of the Government Bill just introduced—to proceed with those which did not violently clash with those provisions, but not to sanction enclosures which
  566
  would be opposed to the resolution of last year's Committee, that no further enclosures should be sanctioned by Parliament until certain recommendations of theirs had been adopted, and alterations in the law made, which would be found embodied in the Government Bill. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) could say much more on the question, but was anxious to curtail his observations at that hour. His hon. Friend the Member for York had referred to those gentlemen who assembled in Trafalgar Square, and, seated astride the lions, talked largely of the many thousand acres of land out of cultivation in England which ought to furnish employment for the people. He must take leave to doubt whether his hon. Friend fully and correctly appreciated the intention and scope of the arguments used by these Trafalgar Square enthusiasts. They were not demanding the enclosure of these commons as a means of adding many acres to the large estates of landowners who might be lords of manors; but that which they desired was an appropriation of these and other lands to purposes, and in a manner, which his hon. Friend would probably consider, in the very strongest sense of the word, a misappropriation. Let him give a word of advice to his hon. Friend and to other landowners. If they wished to check democratic action in these matters, and to oppose the views which were fulminated in Trafalgar Square and other similar places, the true way to do so was to deal in a large, fair, and liberal spirit with such matters as they were now discussing. He would be glad that the House should, by an unanimous vote, pass the second reading of this Bill, solely as an indication of its desire to consult the interests of the dwellers in crowded places, and to afford them fresh air and open space where such could be found. He remembered, in his own county, instances where formerly there were miles of pleasant rides for equestrians—and pleasant walks for pedestrians across green turf, where now there was nothing but dusty road. It was impossible to look back upon such a change without regret, and it must be far worse to those who dwelt habitually in narrow streets, and to whom these open spaces were invaluable. He trusted, therefore, that the, House would indicate their opinion by affirming the prin-

  567
  ciple of the Bill at its present stage, and at the same time he reserved the fullest discretion to the Government to prefer its own alternative plan, and either to oppose the present Bill at a future stage, or, adopting so much of its provisions as they approved, to incorporate those provisions with their own Bill, so that the House might pass one measure upon the whole subject of enclosures.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he regretted that the Government opposed the reference of this Bill to a Select Committee, because the details of a measure of this kind must require most careful examination. It was clearly the opinion of the House last Session that that course ought to be taken with the identical measure then before it.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, this was a very important question, and while he quite concurred in the wishes of his right hon. Friend who introduced the Bill (Mr. Cowper-Temple), he thought the House was placed in some difficulty by the statement made from the Treasury Bench. The hon. Gentleman who made that statement (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had declared himself in favour of the second reading, and therefore in favour of the principle of the Bill, while at the same time he had propounded a measure which was totally at variance with the principle of the Bill. He (Colonel Barttelot) thought that the rights of property as well as the interests of large towns should be consulted. The present Bill, however, regarded the latter exclusively. Under these circumstances, he thought the Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee, which could report in ample time for any legislation to be founded upon the Report this Session.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, he also hoped that the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. ASSHETONsaid, he thought the House had overlooked one large class of property which would be affected by the Bill, and he thought it would be better to send the Bill to a Select Committee.
  COLONEL CORBETTsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple) whether he would consent to send the Bill to a Select Committee, as his answer would materially influence the course of many hon. Members.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, he could not consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that in that case he should take the decision of the House upon it.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed for Wednesday the 22nd day of June next."—(Mr. Cowper-Temple.)
  MR. GOLDNEYmoved that it be referred to a Select Committee.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "committed" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "to a Select Committee,"—(Mr. Goldney,)—instead thereof.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that an addition to the very large number of Select Committees already sitting would cause inconvenience to hon. Members, and he would recommend that the hon. Member (Mr. Goldney) should postpone his Amendment until the 22nd of June, when the Motion was made for going into Committee. In the meantime, he did not at all despair of framing clauses which would satisfy both his right hon. Friend and those who had criticized his right hon. Friend's (Mr. Cowper-Temple's) measure. The Government was clearly of opinion that the Bill should be limited so as not to bring about the enclosure of land required for the recreation of the people.
  MR. GOLDNEYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. J. LOWTHERobjected.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 77: Majority 56.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill committed for Wednesday the 22nd day of June next.

  TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE, &c. BILL
  On Motion of Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Bill to continue certain Turnpike Acts in Great Britain; to repeal certain other Turnpike Acts; and to make further provisions concerning Turnpike Roads, ordered to be brought in by Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bi11 125.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.