Sitting of 8 June 1876

MINUTES.
Supply—considered in Committee—Civil Service Estimates—Class I.
Public Bills—Ordered—First Reading—Pollution of Rivers [186]; Erne Lough and River* [187]; Diocese of Exeter [185].
Second Reading—Prevention of Crimes Act Amendment [153]; Agricultural Holdings (Scotland)* [159], debate adjourned; Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment [177]; All Saints, Moss* [172]; Bankers' Books Evidence [171]; House Occupiers Disqualification Removal [29].
Committee—Poor Law Amendment [78]—r.p.
Committee—Report—Commons [51]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Wemyss)* [105]; Burghs (Division into Wards) (Scotland) Amendment* [166]; Local Government Provisional Orders, Aberavon, &c.) (No. 7)* [164]; Burghs (Scotland) Gas Supply (re-comm.)* [175].

PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS—MORNING SITTINGS.—QUESTION.
MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will take

1555
into consideration the propriety, when he proposes that the House shall have Morning Sittings on Tuesday and Friday, of arranging that Notices of Motion shall take precedence in the Morning Sittings of Tuesday?
MR. DISRAELI,in reply, said, he was afraid if he consented to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman all that benefit which the House expected from a Morning Sitting would be prevented. It was not a proceeding which he would ever have recourse to, except towards this time of the year, when the pressure of Public Business was great; and it was his intention, with the permission of the House, that there should be a Sitting next Tuesday morning. In that case he should say with reference to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, that the Government could not undertake to make a House in the evening, because that was not in their power; but they used their utmost efforts to make a House in the evening when they asked for a Sitting in the morning. On Tuesday next he would propose, if the House assented to a Morning Sitting, that the Poor Law Amendment Bills for England and for Scotland should be taken at the Morning Sitting.

PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—EXCLUSION OF STRANGERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the cause of the adjournment of the Debate on the Resolution as to the Exclusion of Strangers from the 30th May last, he will make some other arrangement to ensure the continuance of the Debate at an earlier hour than that of a late Order of the Day on Tuesday the 13th of June, after the discussion on Motions and several other Orders of the Day?
  MR. DISRAELI,in reply, said, that the Order of the Day was fixed for the 13th of this month; and in the present state of Public Business he could not venture to interfere with its position on the Notice Paper. He could not, therefore, at this moment see any prospect of meeting the wishes of his hon. Friend; but he would bear the matter in mind.

  COMMONS BILL.— [Bill 51.]
  (Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 1st June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

PART II.

  AMENDMENT OF THE INCLOSURE ACTS.
  Field Gardens and Recreation Grounds.
  Clause 18 (Situation of allotments for recreation grounds and field gardens).
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREproposed an Amendment requiring that in all schemes for inclosure there should be appropriated for the purposes of recreation or of field gardens an allotment of not less that one-tenth of the whole common to be inclosed. The object of the Amendment was to provide that when inclosure took place greater regard should be had to the interests of the poor. Hitherto, since the passing of the Act of 1845, the provision for the allotment of garden and recreation grounds for the labouring poor had been of the most niggardly description. The agricultural labourer whose cottage was in the neighbourhood of a common practically enjoyed the right of turbary and the right of turning out his cow, his donkey, or his geese upon the common, although in strict law the right of common, being only appurtenant to land, belonged to the owner of the cottage, of which the labourer might be only a weekly tenant. Parliament, therefore, had thought that their practical enjoyment of those rights entitled the agricultural population to consideration when a common was inclosed; and, accordingly, under the Act of 1845, power was given to set out garden allotments of not more than a quarter of an acre each. If the Commissioners in carrying out the Act had not made sufficient reservation for garden allotments and recreation grounds, he admitted that the House was as responsible for that as the Commissioners themselves were. But in the Committee which sat in 1869 on that subject the Commissioners explained the principles on which they made garden allotments. They stated, for example, that they made no such allotments where the cottages were already supplied with gardens, and they did not take into consideration the possible increase of labouring men. Now, he maintained that where

  1557
  the agricultural poor had practically enjoyed rights of common it was unjust to tell them, when the common was about to be inclosed, that they were to have nothing, because they had already got a small bit of land attached to their cottages. It was only fair and reasonable that some allotment should be made to them. The same argument applied to recreation grounds. Hitherto miserably insufficient bits of land had been set out by the Commissioners for that purpose, one or two fenced-in acres being offered as the equivalent for the right of ranging over the whole common. As to recreation grounds, that Bill went somewhat beyond the Act of 1845, because it removed restrictions and left greater discretion with the Commissioners. But their acts for the future might be judged of by their acts in the past. It was most desirable that some limit should be laid down, especially as in future there was to be no appeal to the House for the amendment of the inclosure scheme, and the House could only accept or reject it. The Government in 1871 therefore laid down in their Inclosure Bill a limit up to which those reservations for allotment gardens and recreation grounds should be made; they thought that one-tenth of the common about to be inclosed should be so reserved, but that the reservation should not exceed 50 acres. The clause so amended was approved of by the House of Lords, and he would submit to the Home Secretary whether it would not be wise to act generously with regard to this matter, particularly as the labouring classes believed that the protection proposed to be given to them was insufficient. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 16, line 4, after the word "appropriated," to insert the words "and the Inclosure Commissioners shall require, and in their Provisional Order for the inclosure of the waste lands of any manor specify as one of the terms and conditions of the inclosure thereof, the appropriation free of all charge for the purpose of a recreation ground or recreation grounds, or a field garden or field gardens, or partly for one purpose and partly for the other, of an allotment not less in extent than one-tenth part of the whole of such waste lands; and whenever the waste lands of a manor proposed to be enclosed shall exceed five hundred acres it shall be open to the Commissioners to make such allotment as they shall think fit, having regard to the special circumstances of the neighbourhood, provided only that no such allotment shall
  1558
  be more than one-tenth of the said waste lands, nor of less extent than fifty acres: Provided always, That notwithstanding anything in the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1868, contained, it shall not be necessary to drain and level more than twelve acres of any allotment or allotments for the purpose of a recreation ground or recreation grounds."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmust ask the Committee to reject the Amendment. He considered that each scheme ought to be considered by itself and upon its own merits, and, therefore, that no maximum or minimum should be fixed with respect to the reservation of recreation grounds. If a tenth were fixed upon as a limit the result would be that in the case of the larger commons the recreation grounds would be much greater than the requirements of the population, while in the case of the smaller commons, which were generally situated in populous districts, the quantity reserved would be too small. He believed the fact that Parliament would have the power of throwing out an inclosure scheme would be strongly in favour of those who did not want commons to be inclosed. By throwing out one or two schemes in which sufficient provision was not made for the public and the labouring poor the House would effectually prevent the bringing forward of schemes which did not come up to the approved standard. The hon. Member thought that nothing was done by this Bill for the labouring poor, but he denied the accuracy of that view. They had done a great deal for the poor. They had provided for the expense of clearing all the allotment grounds, which, instead of being handed over to the cottagers in a rough state, would be placed in a fit and proper condition at the expense of those to whom the commons belonged. They were also given other advantages; but the main ground on which he resisted the Amendment was that every case ought to be considered on its own merits, and that the Committee ought not to be tied down by any hard-and-fast rule.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEobserved, that although each scheme was to be determined on its own merits, it might so happen that when a scheme came before the Commissioners some member might approve of the whole of it, except that the recreation ground set out was insufficient, and he would consider himself incurring a grave responsibility if he insisted in throwing out the

  1559
  whole scheme on that ground. A power of amendment ought therefore to be given.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) in his regard for the labouring poor, forgot that in a great number of cases there were no labouring poor to enjoy the extensive reservation of these commons which he would secure for them. If the Committee looked at the Bill as a whole they would see that under the present system there were common wardens and proprietors whose interest it was to see that no injury was done to the commons; but in future if large spaces were set out where there was no corresponding population, there would be no one practically to look after its management; it would become a "no man's land," and the source of all sorts of evil. In his opinion the special circumstances of each common ought to be taken into consideration by the Commissioners when they laid down their scheme for its inclosure.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, the country had ample opportunity of considering this point and they had decided in its favour. The Home Secretary constantly in these debates referred to the decisions of the Committees of 1869 and 1871, when they agreed with his proposals as conclusive on all controverted points. But the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), who was on that Committee, and took the greatest interest in its proceedings, moved a clause exactly identical with the present Amendment, which was repudiated by the Home Secretary. The Committee was entitled to know whether the Secretary to the Treasury adhered to his former views, or if not, what had led him to change them. The Home Secretary asked the Committee to place confidence in the Inclosure Commissioners, but when he saw what their recommendations were he could not do so. In one case there was a scheme for inclosing 685 acres, and out of that they only proposed to reserve for recreation two acres; and in another case there was a beggarly reservation of one acre, which was their last creditable performance! ["Where?"] In these cases there ought either to be no reservation at all, or a very different one. He found four acres was their usual allowance in the case of large allotments; but unless the House, instead of leaving it to their dis-
  1560
  cretion, fixed on a definite proportion, they could not be sure even of that. In the last Bill this very proposition of one tenth was passed, but in "another place" a noble Duke said that the rights of property were in danger—that it was confiscation; and the Bill was in that "other place" in that way unceremoniously rejected. The House must, therefore, distinctly assert the principle that the public and the poor had rights in these commons. He thought that the Government ought to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. GREGORYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down accused the Home Secretary of unfairness when he pointed out that the Report of the Committee of 1869 agreed with his proposals; but the unfairness of the hon. Member in his remarks upon the Commissioners was much more to be condemned. He quoted isolated cases, but did not give their names, which rendered it difficult to follow him. He (Mr. Gregory) thought he had found out the case of 600 acres and the beggarly two acres of reserve on which he had wasted so much scorn and indignation. At St. Dennis, where the common lands proposed to be inclosed were 636 acres, the inhabitants were 1,064, part of whom were engaged in the china and clay works, and the rest in agriculture. The two acres were set apart for an outlying hamlet for recreation, and six acres for gardens; while in St. Dennis itself every cottage had a garden varying from five perches to half an acre; and it was situated at the distance of a mile from any part of the moor, which could not be available so as to render it suitable for exercise and recreation. But the Commissioners did not consider four acres as a maximum, for on turning over the Report in his hand he had just hit on a scheme in the Potteries where the land inclosed was 31 acres, and the allotment 10 acres, or just about one-third. The reason given was that it was near two large towns, and it showed that the Commissioners had adopted and followed out the right principle—namely, that of being guided in each case by its own circumstances.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that was a case where there ought not to be any inclosure at all, the common in question being in the very heart

  1561
  of the Potteries, and surrounded by Stoke, Burslem, Newcastle-under-Lyne, Hanley, &c. He wished to explain that in alluding to the Acts before 1845 he had by no means intended to express his approval of them. What he meant was that, on the whole, the interests of the neighbourhood were better protected before 1845 than they had been since. In his own district large reservations had been made for the poor under private Acts before 1845. The feeling against the Inclosure Commissioners had been caused by the insufficient reservations made by them; and, judging from the speeches delivered by the Duke of Richmond and Gordon, the Marquess of Salisbury, and other noble Lords, in the House of Lords, it was unlikely that they would make proper reservations in the future. Therefore, he moved the Amendment, which laid down a rule that henceforth adequate provision should be made for this purpose. He wished, however, to propose it as an addition to the clause.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 110: Majority 43.
  Clause 19 (Amendment of law as to letting field gardens).
  MR. FAWCETTmoved, in page 16, line 29, after "gardens," insert "not exceeding an acre each."
  Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Application of surplus rents of recreation grounds and field gardens).
  Mr. SHAW LEFEVREmoved, in page 17, line 27, after "neighbourhood," to insert—
  "The trustees of any recreation ground and the allotment wardens of any field gardens may, with the approval of the Inclosure Commissioners, sell all or any part of the allotment vested in them, and out of the proceeds of such sale purchase (by agreement or otherwise) any fit and suitable land in the same parish or neighbourhood: Provided, That the land so purchased shall be held in trust for the purposes for which the allotment so sold as aforesaid was allotted, and for no others: And Provided, That the Inclosure Commissioners shall not sanction any such sale as aforesaid unless and until it shall be proved to their satisfaction that land more suitable for the purposes for which the allotment proposed to be sold was allotted may and will be
  1562
  forthwith purchased; and the proceeds of any such sale shall be paid to the Inclosure Commissioners, and shall remain in their hands until such purchase of other land as aforesaid.
  "For the purpose of any such purchase of land as aforesaid "The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,"and the Acts amending the same, shall be incorporated with this Act, except the provisions relating to access to the special Act; and in construing those Acts for the purposes of this section the special Act shall be construed to mean this Act; and the promoters of the undertaking shall be construed to mean, in the case of the purchase of land for a recreation ground, the trustees of such recreation ground; and in the case of the purchase of land for field gardens, the allotment wardens of such field gardens."
  Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Reports to be made by managers of recreation grounds and field gardens) agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Amendment of law as to town and village greens.)
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for Mr. MACDONALD)moved, in page 18, line 7, after "mentioned," to insert—
  "But no public meeting held on such village green or recreation ground shall be deemed a public nuisance under this Act."
  Mr. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should not like to accept these words. Some meetings might be very proper, but others might be very improper; and while he sympathized with the object of the proposal, he must have regard to the right of the public to have the enjoyment of these open spaces.
  MR. DODSONthought the language of the Amendment too wide.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREbelieved it was a mistake to suppose that this clause would interfere with the right of public meeting.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn;
  Clause agreed to.
  General Amendments.
  Clause 23 (Substitution of Summary Jurisdiction Act, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43. for repealed Act, 7 & 8 Geo. 4. c. 30, in certain sections of the Inclosure Acts), agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Extension of Sec. 105. of the Inclosure Act, 1845, as to exchanges and partitions), agreed to.

PART III.

  Miscellaneous.
  Clause 25 (Repeal of certain parts of the Inclosure Act, 1845, and amendment of law as to reports.)
  MR. FAWCETTmoved the omission of certain words in order to provide that certain commons (which he named) might be brought under the regulation clauses of the Bill, and so saved to the people for purposes of enjoyment and recreation. The commons to which he referred were situated in the neighbourhood of large towns, many of them places in which manufactures were carried on, and the populations of which therefore stood in need of as much fresh air and space for exercise as could be obtained. Under the scheme of the Inclosure Commissioners the portion of these commons proposed to be set apart for recreation grounds was altogether inadequate. To inclose many of the commons, which were very small, would be of no real advantage to anybody, to leave them open under the regulation clauses would prove an immense boon to the teeming populations resident in their neighbourhood. If the old law was inadequate to prevent the public being wrongfully dispossessed of privileges of great value to them, and did not give proper security against wrongful inclosures and for ample reservations in favour of the poor, was it, he asked, unreasonable that the commons he had referred to should be rendered subject to the operation of the present Bill? If he was told in reply that Provisonal Orders had been made for them on the Report of the Commissioners, he would ask what became of the control of that House with respect to any inclosures for which Provisional Orders had been given? Under all the circumstances, he hoped some alteration would be made in the Bill with regard to the commons to which he alluded.
  Mr. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that technically speaking, the retention or omission of the words referred to in the Amendment of the hon. Member would, as he had been advised, make little difference so far as the operation of the clause was concerned, but the point raised—namely, What was to become of those inclosure schemes which had already passed through the ordeal of the Inclosure Commissioners?—was one of considerable importance. Certain
  1564
  schemes had been passed by the Inclosure Commissioners, and a certain amount of expense—about £700 he understood—had been incurred by the parties interested in those schemes, giving an average of a little more than £30 in each case. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that the awards of the Inclosure Commissioners were of no avail until they were confirmed by Parliament. Of late years Inclosure Bills had been introduced, but very few indeed, if any, had passed. He had been in communication with the Inclosure Commissioners on the subject, and the result of his consideration of the matter was this—he would submit a clause on the Report authorizing the Secretary of State to send schemes, Provisional Orders, or whatever they might be called, to a small Committee consisting of one of the Inclosure Commissioners and other Gentlemen selected by him to be further considered by them. On their Report the Secretary of State would form his opinion, and, if necessary, would refer the scheme back to the Commissioners to consult as to the steps to be taken under the altered circumstances of the case. Many of the schemes referred to the House, he believed, would never sanction; but there were others which he thought ought to be agreed to without further expense or delay.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he was in favour of the Amendment; but he considered the statement of his right hon. Friend so satisfactory that he thought the matter might safely be left in his hands.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREwas glad that the Home Secretary proposed to bring up a clause on the Report to enable him to refer back certain schemes to the Inclosure Commissioners, and he trusted that when the clause was presented it would prove sufficient for the purpose.
  MR. GREGORY,with reference to the allotments made by the Commissioners which had been alluded to, pointed out that they had been acting under the Act of 1845, under which the acreage for allotments was strictly limited.
  LORD HENRY SCOTT,now that the Home Secretary had undertaken to deal with the question, hoped that there would be an end to the objectionable schemes which had been too often sanctioned by the Commissioners.
  MR. FAWCETTexpressed his satisfaction at the offer of the Home Secretary, but declined to express a decisive opinion until he had seen the words of the clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Act not to apply to metropolitan commons), agreed to.
  Clause 27 (A common regulated under Act not to be inclosed without sanction of Parliament), agreed to.
  Definitions.
  Clause 28 (Definitions) agreed to.
  Mr. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, after Clause 22, to insert the following clause:—
  (Jurisdiction of county court in respect of illegal inclosures.)
  "A county court within whose jurisdiction any Common or part of a Common is situate shall have jurisdiction to hear, in respect of such Common, any case relating to any illegal inclosure or encroachment made after the passing of this Act, or to any nuisance impeding the exercise of any right of Common arising after the passing of this Act, and to grant an injunction against such inclosure, encroachment, or nuisance, or to make an order for the removal or abatement of such inclosure, encroachment, or nuisance.
  "Any person aggrieved by any injunction granted or order made or refusal to grant an injunction or make an order by a county court in pursuance of this section may, on giving security for costs to the satisfaction of the county court, appeal to the High Court of Justice in a summary manner, or by special case or otherwise, as may be prescribed by rules of court to be made by the Supreme Court of Judicature in manner provided by the seventeenth section of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875.
  "The appellate court may on hearing the appeal reverse, modify, or confirm the injunction or order complained of, or remit the case to the county court from which the appeal lay, with instructions to deal with the case according to the directions given by the appellate court.
  "Where an appeal is lodged against the order of a county court directing the removal or abatement of any inclosure, encroachment, or nuisance, such order shall be suspended during such time as such appeal is pending.
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall abridge or interfere with any existing right of abating or otherwise preventing any illegal inclosure of or encroachment on any Common, or any nuisance interfering with any right of Common.
  "Until rules of court are made for the purposes of this section, an appeal may he had from the decision of any county court under this section in the same manner in which an appeal from the decision of a county court may be had in a case within its ordinary jurisdiction."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREthought the clause good as far as it went; but if the right hon. Gentleman wished to put a stop to these illegal encroachments he must be a little bolder. These arbitrary encroachments were really confiscations. He would accept the clause, although he did not think it applied a sufficient remedy.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTwished the clause had gone further, and desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he could not devise a clause which would bring all inclosures under the eye of some authority—the Inclosure Commissioners or some other body.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEmoved, in page 3, after Clause 2, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Repeal of statute called the "Provisions of Merton," and of other statutes.)
  "2a. The following statutes shall be repealed from and after the passing of this Act, viz.:—
  Chapter four of the statute of the twentieth year of Henry the Third, called the 'Provisions of Merton;'
  Chapter forty-six of the statutes of King Edward, made at Westminster in his Parliament at Easter in the thirteenth year of his reign, commonly called the statute of 'Westminster the Second;'
  An Act of the third and fourth years of Edward the Sixth, chapter three, entitled 'An Act concerning the improvement of Commons and Waste Grounds.'"
  The noble Lord said, that the effect of the Statute of Merton was to give power to the lord of the manor to enclose part of the common land without having obtained the consent of the commoners thereto; but the state of things in England was entirely changed since that Act was passed, and it had indeed become obsolete. The only practical effect of the statute now was to encourage illegal inclosures. The Committee of 1865 were, he added, unanimously in favour of its abolition, which would be desirable even merely as a matter of law reform. He was aware that it had been said that the Statute of Westminster was only declaratory of the common law, but that was a position controverted by those who had made a special study of the question.
  New Clause—(Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out that the statute was founded on the common law, and was afraid that its abolition, instead of being a reform, would lead to complications, inasmuch as it affected the titles by which the rights over commons were in many cases exercised. To interfere as proposed with those titles would, he thought, be a very strong proceeding, and he therefore hoped the Committee would not accept the clause.
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, that he believed, though opinions differed on the subject, that the Statute of Merton was not an exacting, but a declaratory statute of the common law. If the statute were repealed it would probably be necessary to go further and repeal the common law also. Whilst saying this, however, he was very much in favour of limiting inclosures by lords of the manor under the Statute of Merton.
  Mr. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the object of repealing this statute was, if possible, to get rid of those legal proceedings which had been frequent during the past 10 years in reference to commons. Though there was very high authority (Lord Coke) for saying that the Statute of Merton was simply declaratory of the common, there were some recent decisions which looked the other way. It had been held that the Statute of Merton did not apply to right of "turbary," and, if so, it could not be simply declaratory of the common law. The statute was practically obsolete, for the lord could never show that after his inclosure there would be sufficient land left for the commoners. He believed that the statute might be repealed without interfering with any right of importance.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 79: Majority 51.
  Mr. RALLImoved, in page 15, after Clause 15, to insert the following clause:—
  (Definition of power of Charity Commissioners in certain cases.)
  "Whereas by several awards made under the authority of Inclosure Acts prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and forty-five, fuel allotments for the poor have been set out and awarded, and vested in divers persons and bodies of persons as trustees of such allotments:
  "And whereas under the provisions of the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1868, and the several Acts of Parliament and awards made there-
  1568
  under, allotments for recreation grounds and field gardens have been set out and awarded to the churchwardens and overseers of parishes and other persons:
  "And whereas power is claimed by the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales and by other bodies, under divers Acts of Parliament, to divert such allotments from the uses declared by Parliament respecting the same: Be it Enacted, That after the passing of this Act, notwithstanding anything in any other Act contained, it shall not be lawful (save as hereinafter mentioned) to use any such allotment, or any part thereof, for any other purpose than those declared concerning the same by the Act of Parliament and award, or either of them, under which the same has been set out: Provided, That it shall be lawful for the said Charity Commissioners, upon the written application of the trustees of any fuel allotment, and with their consent and the consent in writing of two-thirds of the persons for whose benefit the said allotment was set out, to authorise the use of such fuel allotment as a recreation ground and field gardens, or for either of those purposes, and to make an order under the provisions of "The Charitable Trusts Act, 1860," for the establishment of a scheme for the administration of such fuel allotment accordingly."
  He said that the object of his clause was to preserve the fuel allotments and the allotments for recreation grounds for the purposes for which they had been set apart, or, in other words, to prevent them from being diverted from the uses declared respecting them.
  Mr. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not see why this property should have more protection than any other especial property. It would be rather hard to tie this property up without the possibility of any interference with it by the Charity Commissioners. At the same time, he saw no particular harm which the clause would do.
  Mr. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the substitution of land for money to be spent in coals for distribution amongst the poor was undesirable from its demoralizing effect. It would be better that it should be devoted to recreation grounds or allotment gardens. It was also desirable to stop this land from being devoted to the building of schools.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Mr. SHAW LEFEVREmoved, after Clause 27, to insert the following clause:—
  (Proof of ancient rights over Town and Village Greens.)
  "Whereas the strictness of proof required by law to establish a custom makes it difficult to

  1569
  maintain the ancient rights of the inhabitants of towns and villages over the pieces of land known as Town Greens and Village Greens, by reason that such pieces of land, being commonly unfenced, are occasionally used for recreation by other persons than inhabitants of the places in which the same lie, and also by such inhabitants themselves, for purposes other than recreation: Be it Enacted, That after the coming into operation of this Act evidence of the customary right of the inhabitants of any town, parish, vill, tithing, or hamlet to the use for purposes of recreation of any piece of land commonly known as or reputed to be the Town Green, Village Green, or recreation ground of such town, parish, vill, tithing, or hamlet, when the use thereof by such inhabitants for the purposes aforesaid has been shown during such a period as according to law constitutes user from time immemorial, shall not fail because it is proved that such piece of land has also been used for recreation by persons not being inhabitants of such town, parish, vill, tithing, or hamlet, or by some of the inhabitants thereof, for other purposes not inconsistent with such rights of recreation.
  "Nothing in this section contained shall affect the exercise of any rights not inconsistent with the said rights of recreation which may lawfully be exercised by the owner or owners of the soil, or any other person or persons, upon or over any such piece of land."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSopposed the clause. He thought it was necessary to prove in such cases that there was an absolute user as of right by the inhabitants of the village.
  Mr. SHAW LEFEVREpointed out that as the law now stood it was practically impossible to prove the ancient rights of the inhabitants over town and village greens in the neighbourhood of large towns.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. GREGORYmoved the following clause:—
  (Power to raise money for improvement of Common.)
  "A Provisional Order for the regulation of a Common may provide for the raising from time to time by such persons interested in the Common, and with such amounts as the Commissioners think fit, of money to be applied to wards the improvement of such Common, either by means of rates to be levied on the persons and in respect of the property who and which respectively will be benefitted or principally benefitted by such improvement or regulation, or by means of the sale of any outlying or other small portion not exceeding in the whole one-fiftieth part of the total area of such Common, or by means of letting the pasturage of a part of the Common for any term not exceeding twenty-one years, and mortgage of such lease."
  The object of the clause was for the
  1570
  protection of a common in North Devon known as Westward Ho.
  Mr. SHAW LEFEVREobjected to the latter part of the clause, as the power of letting would virtually lead to the inclosure of at least a great portion of this and other commons. He moved the omission of the words—
  "Letting the pasturage of a part of the Common for any term not exceeding 21 years, and mortgage of such lease."
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, there was no other means of preserving this common from the encroachments of the sea.
  Sir WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the words would apply to all commons, as they were general and not particular.
  Mr. GREGORYsaid, the Committee might very well leave it to the Commissioners to see that the proposal was carried out for its legitimate object.
  Mr. RYLANDSsupported the Amendment.
  Mr. FAWCETTsaid, the proposal would infringe the main object of the Bill.
  Mr. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, there was no necessity for creating such a long vested right in the pasturage as 21 years. It might be let from year to year.
  Sir THOMAS ACLANDsaid, that if the pasturage of Westward Ho could not be let a portion of the common must be sold to raise sufficient funds for the protection of the remainder.
  Mr. ASSHETON CROSSthought there was no necessity for a lease, and security should be taken that the land so let should not be inclosed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Mr. WALSHmoved the following clause:—
  (Appointment of valuer to be confirmed by Commissioners.)
  "An appointment of a valuer after the passing of this Act shall not be valid until it has been confirmed by the Commissioners. The Commissioners may disapprove of a valuer on the ground of his in competency, interest, want of impartiality, or any reasonable cause, and where they so disapprove of a valuer may call a meeting, and a meeting may be held to appoint, and another person appointed (subject to the approval of the Commissioners) to be valuer in like manner

  1571
  as if no previous meeting had teen held, and no valuer had been previously appointed, and so on until a valuer approved by the Commissioners is appointed."
  The ground upon which he moved the clause was, that a man appointed valuer, might be incompetent or interested, and in other respects not the proper person to appoint.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Sir WILLIAM HARCOURTmoved the following clause:—
  "The unlawful inclosure of any Common or part of a Common shall, after the passing of this Act, be deemed to be a public nuisance."
  The hon. and learned Member said, he did not propose in this Amendment to trench upon the rights of property. That was out of the question. He wished only to interfere with unlawful inclosures, and that he believed was the object which the Home Secretary had in view. When a party came to Parliament and got a power to inclose a common, Parliament protected him; and he thought, with regard to uninclosed commons, the same legal right of protection should be given to the poor, and any invasion of it should be regarded as an illegal act against the public rights, and one which the public had a right to resist. But the poor were not in circumstances to bring an action in a Court of Law to defend their right, and the Parliament should therefore protect them, so that the party illegally inclosing should be compelled to remove the nuisance. The evil of the present state of things was that there were encroachments being made, not under the Statute of Merton, nor under any Common Law right, but by force of the strong arm, or rather the strong purse, of the person either encroaching on or inclosing a common, trusting that those who had a right to resist him would not be powerful enough to do so. He approved of the course which the Home Secretary had adopted with regard to encroachments on village greens, and he only wanted him to take the same course with reference to commons. The effect of the clause which he proposed would be to give a larger locus standi to resist unlawful inclosures—that was, instead of giving it to a few commoners, who might be poor, they would give it to the public
  1572
  at large. The result of making it a public nuisance to unlawfully obstruct or inclose a common would be that any one might abate it, and then the person who put up the obstruction or inclosed the common must prove his title. By adopting this clause the Committee would recognize in the public some right in the commons, and if they were not prepared to make that admission, then the Bill would be of no use at all. He believed the time had come when they ought to recognize that there was a public advantage in these commons which the public had a right to protect. Mr. Augustus Smith, whom he regarded as a public benefactor, prevented the inclosure of a beautiful common by pulling down the railings which had been erected; but he happened to be a commoner, and therefore had a locus standi, which enabled him to act. In like manner, the Corporation of London, having a locus standi, were able to preserve Epping Forest for the public; but they ought not to allow the prevention of a public wrong to depend on the accident of a wealthy person or body having a locus standi. He believed the Home Secretary was as anxious as anyone could be to prevent unlawful inclosures; and he hoped, therefore, that he would accept the clause either in its present or in any other form that would effect that object.
  New Clause—(Sir W. Vernon Harcourt,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not think the hon. and learned Member quite saw the effect of his own clause. He said he did not want to trench on any rights, but the effect of the clause would be to do so. There was a very great distinction between a village green or a highway and a common. A village green was clear and defined; everybody knew what it was, and nobody had a right to encroach on or inclose it. Therefore, any inclosure of it was practically unlawful. So, again, in the case of the Queen's highway. No one had a right to inclose it, and any obstruction of it would be a public nuisance, which any one would have a right to abate. But

  1573
  in the case of commons it was admitted that there were persons who had a right, under certain conditions, to inclose them. Suppose the lord of the manor, with the consent of the commoners, proceeded to make an inclosure, which he had a perfect right to do, it was clear, if this clause were adopted, that any one who said this was an unlawful inclosure would have a right to indict him for a public nuisance. That appeared to him (Mr. Assheton Cross) to trench on the rights of property. Again, though the lord and commoners had legally inclosed, if they afterwards wished to sell any portion of the common they would never be able to make out a title, for 30 years after the inclosure some one could come forward and say it was a nuisance, and abate it. If that was not trenching on private rights, he did not know what was. If the clause said that the inclosure of a common, when it was proved to be unlawful, was a nuisance, he would not object to it; but he could not accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Member in the form in which it now stood before the Committee.
  SIR HENRY JAMESpointed out that if a nuisance were erected on what was called a village green the first thing to be determined would be what the limits of the village green were, and therefore the very same question would be raised as in the case of the unlawful inclosure of a common. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to apply the clause to cases where common had been declared to be unlawfully inclosed would be of no advantage whatever, because the tribunal having declared the inclosure unlawful it would, of course, be abated. His hon. and learned Friend's Amendment stood on the foundation that the inclosure was unlawful. The objection that a man might be indicted for an inclosure which was subsequently found to be lawful applied to every case of an indictment being brought against an innocent man. The clause simply amounted to this, that whereas at present a commoner could abate an inclosure if it were unlawful, the clause, if adopted, would give that power to the inhabitants generally.
  The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the village greens referred to in the Bill were only those greens or recreation grounds which had an old and defined boundary. The inclosure of such a green
  1574
  would be unlawful, and he saw no reason why such an act should not be treated as a public nuisance. To say, however, that any one who considered the inclosure of a particular common a nuisance would have a right to throw the inclosure down and abate it would be to leave the owner, although he had acted legally, practically without a remedy, for he could only proceed by an action at law against those who had thrown down the inclosure, who, in all probability, would be unable to satisfy his claim for damages. It would also be objectionable that a man, if he had unlawfully inclosed a common, should be liable after the lapse of 60 years to be proceeded against by indictment. No lapse of time would, under such circumstances, give him a title to the property. The law at present gave lords of manors and commoners a right to inclose under certain conditions; but the effect of this clause, if it was agreed to, would be far too stringent on the owners of property, whose rights the Bill set out by declaring them to be preserved.
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, the clause would only apply to the owners of property who had illegally inclosed commons, not to those by whom they had been legally inclosed. Lords of the manor or others would be deterred from making illegal inclosures, by the knowledge that they forbade them, and provided a direct means of preventing them. He thought that principle ought to be adopted not only with reference to individual instances, but on the grounds of public policy, and the clause would really be one of the most valuable in the Bill if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman was adopted.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Amendment simply gave the public the power of calling upon lords of manors to show their right to inclose. The Bill had in some respects gone in that direction; and this Amendment, while it would not interfere with any existing right, would certainly prevent illegal inclosures.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, if the Amendment was not adopted the Bill would leave untouched the greatest evils of the present law. They all knew cases in which village greens and commons had been gradually filched from the public; but if this Amendment were agreed to it would give the public a right to re-

  1575
  claim such illegal appropriations without regard to the lapse of time. If that right were not given, when the Bill came to be examined by those outside who were interested in the matter it would be pronounced to be worthless.
  Sir WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had as much respect for the rights of property as either the Home Secretary or the Attorney General, and the Amendment did not trench upon these rights in the slightest. One of the arguments of the Attorney General against the Amendment was that it would prevent the legalization of illegal inclosures after the lapse of time—say 30 years. That was just what he and those who agreed with him wanted to do. The Bill for lords of manors was an admirable one, and that was no doubt the reason why it appeared to give such satisfaction to the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Mr. Knight) who was the greatest incloser in the country. They might be defeated on a division; but at the last moment and at the last stage of the Bill he felt that they were bound to enter a protest against the power to make illegal inclosures, which would be left untouched by the Bill.
  MR. LOPES: opposed the clause as giving an entirely new remedy, and as being an invasion of existing rights of property.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 64: Majority 34.
  MR. KNIGHTstated that he had never made an illegal inclosure.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE (for Lord Henry Scott)moved in the Preamble, page 2, line 4, to leave out after "commons" to "interests," in line 6, and insert—
  "And that inclosures of Commons should not he hereinafter made unless it can be proved to the satisfaction of the said Commissioners and of Parliament, that such inclosure will be of benefit to the neighbourhood as well as to private interests, and to those who are legally interested in any such Commons."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment, but he suggested that words should be inserted stating that a preference should be given to regulations over inclosure schemes.
  Mr. BERESFORD HOPEthought this would be an improvement.
  Amendment amended, and agreed to.
  Mr. FAWCETTmoved in page 2, line 16, after "whereas," to insert—
  "It is no longer expedient, as recited by 'The General Inclosure Act, 1845,'to facilitate the inclosure of Commons, but."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: expressed his belief that the Amendment just agreed to would meet all the purposes they had in view.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday 19th June, and to be printed. [Bill 184.]

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

METROPOLIS—HYDE PARK CORNER.

  RESOLUTION.
  Mr. C. B. DENISON,in rising to move—
  "That the annually increasing congestion of traffic in the approaches to Hyde Park Corner has become the source of hindrance, annoyance, and danger to the public, and merits the early attention of this House,"
  said, the importance of the matter was so great that he was justified in bringing it before the House by a direct Motion rather than leave it to be discussed on the Vote for the Public Parks in Committee. The question had been considered by the late Government, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adam) prepared a plan. Last year, also, a Vote on Account was taken for a scheme of the present Chief Commissioner of Works, but this scheme had been withdrawn, and another substituted, which was open for inspection at the Office of Works. Meanwhile the evil was a great and growing one. If the House took the line of traffic from east to west—from Charing Cross to Kensington—a distance of 2£ miles in a straight line, they would find that there was practically only one cross-over road for every species of traffic. It was much the same

  1577
  as though the Thames flowed for that distance and there was only one bridge at Hyde Park Corner to accommodate the traffic from north to south. In all Europe there was no other capital in which the great arteries of traffic were so intercepted. The result was great delay to people having urgent business, and at times risk of injury to life and limb. The public were naturally jealous of any curtailment of the Parks, and he would be the last man in the country to propose anything of the sort; but the advantage to the public would be so great by the sacrifice of a small portion of the corner of the Green Park which abutted upon Hyde Park Corner as to utterly outweigh any sentimental objection. That would give a sensible relief to the great bulk of the traffic now existing, and it would require a very trifling outlay of money. Several plans to effect the object so much desired had been suggested. One plan was to throw open Constitution Hill to the general public, but that did not meet with favour, for reasons which remained now in their full force. Another was to make a road from Hamilton Place to Grosvenor Place by means of a partial tunnel, and that that did not meet with favour nobody was surprised. That plan was followed by a plan of the late Chief Commissioner (Mr. Adam) for diverting Constitution Hill roadway, thereby isolating the Archway and bringing Piccadilly by a sweeping curve down into Grosvenor Place. This plan also failed to meet with favour. The present First Commissioner had also his plan, which was to pass under Grosvenor Place by an archway, but there were engineering difficulties in the way, and that had to be abandoned. The latest plan was one, as he understood it, carrying further inland, so to speak, from Grosvenor Place the present Constitution Hill road by a curve, and then passing over Constitution Hill a new road from Hamilton Place down to Halkin Street West. This plan would involve the placing of gateways or arches both in Piccadilly and Grosvenor Place, and would, he feared, be very inconvenient. Of course, every plan would be sure to meet with objections—first, on æthetic grounds; next, on the score of expense; and, lastly, from its interference with the Royal road by Constitution Hill and with the Archway and the Wellington Statue. The question,
  1578
  however, was the most practicable mode of preventing the present great obstruction of traffic. His own idea was that it would be far better to draw a boundary line from Hamilton Place down to Halkin Street West, making that boundary the Green Park and throwing open the intervening space into an ornamental Platz, intersected by the necessary roadways. At any rate, it was a question for the consideration of the House, and he hoped that no plan would be carried out which had not been so considered and discussed in the House. The new plan of his noble Friend would simply give two roads running at right angles into the main road at a very short distance from each other. Such a plan would give no sensible relief to the traffic. He believed there was no satisfactory mode of remedying the evil except that of throwing open this corner of the Green Park as an open space and leaving it afterwards to be dealt with in the matter of roads and cross-roads as the traffic might from time to time require. As to the subsidiary questions of gradients, levels, and the like, he need not detain the House except to say that no possible gradient in these arrangements could be steeper than the one running by St. George's Hospital down Grosvenor Place; and the distance from any point being about the same the gradients would not materially differ.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the annually increasing congestion of traffic in the approaches to Hyde Park Corner has become the source of hindrance, annoyance, and danger to the public, and merits the early attention of this House,"—(Mr. Christopher Beckett Denison,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Mr. ADAMsaid, he was in office so short a time as First Commissioner that he had no opportunity of maturing the plans he had in contemplation. There was no doubt that something required to be done in the direction intimated by the Motion. The block of traffic during the season at Hyde Park Corner was a spectacle which no other capital in Europe could show. Seven different streams of traffic seemed

  1579
  to meet at this point—one from Hamilton Place, two flowing east and west along Piccadilly, two flowing to and from Belgravia and Victoria Station, and two streams flowing out of and into the Park; and this without taking into account the carriages which passed from the Park into Constitution Hill. The difficulty, however, was how this immense traffic was to be relieved. Several plans had been submitted and considered, but none had yet been adopted. While he was in office a scheme was prepared by the Metropolitan Board which involved the throwing open of Constitution Hill to light traffic. The Government, however, were of opinion that this scheme interfered with the Park for pedestrian purposes, and it was consequently abandoned. His opinion was that no scheme which would curtail the privileges of pedestrians in the Park ought to be adopted. The Parks were primarily designed for pedestrians, and not for equestrians or people in carriages, and ought to be maintained in the interests of the former. To his mind the scheme which would commend itself most to public favour would be one which would interfere as little as possible with the use of the Park for pedestrians. Another scheme proposed to turn Piccadilly a little before it came to the Wellington Archway, leaving this Archway standing in the open, like the Arcde Triomphe in Paris. But the arch would, in this case, be isolated and useless, and the question would soon inevitably arise—"Why leave it there at all?" He had suggested a small palliative measure. There was at present an unnecessarily broad foot pavement on the Piccadilly side of the Archway and a little garden in front of the Archway. He proposed that this pavement should be thrown into the roadway and the foot pavement put where the garden now stood. One great advantage his proposal would have would be that it could be carried out within the space of three or four weeks. The model of the plan proposed by the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works had not been seen by many hon. Members. He had had an opportunity of inspecting it, and he objected to the plan because it would cut across a corner of the Park and would interfere with the enjoyment by pedestrians of the Park. It was also open to the great objection that if it were
  1580
  carried out one road would cross another road on the level. Each scheme proposed was no doubt attended with difficulties; but he believed the best solution of them all would be the removal and throwing back to the extent of 50 feet or 60 feet of the Archway surmounted by the equestrian figure of the Duke of Wellington to a position across the entrance to Constitution Hill. That would not in any way interfere with the space available for the public in the Park. The only objection to that plan would be the expense, but that could be got over. The suggestion, at all events, was well worthy of consideration.
  SIR JAMES HOGGobserved, that the Board of Works had given much consideration to the question before the House, and, speaking for himself, he must say he regretted that the Government of the day had not seen their way to carrying out the plan which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adam) had submitted to them. He had not seen the model of the plan proposed by his noble Friend, and could, therefore, give no opinion in reference to it; but this he must say—that some remedy must be found, and speedily, for the great inconvenience which now arose from the constant block of traffic at Hyde Park Corner.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he gave a cheerful and willing assent to the statement of his hon. Friend's Resolution—that the increasing congestion of traffic at Hyde Park Corner had become an annoyance and a grievance, and he could assure the House that he had given a great deal of time to the elaborating of a scheme for the remedying of that grievance. He did not consider that any plan which had been proposed could be regarded as perfect in all its details. All he could do was to recommend one which he believed would be attended with the fewest objections and the greatest benefits. There was always a great objection to throwing any of the Royal Parks into the roadway, and to do what his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adam) proposed would not only take off some of the Green Park, but make Constitution Hill a zig-zag for persons going across Piccadilly into Hyde Park. Neither of the plans which he had heard from his hon. Friend (Mr. Denison) would meet with his sanction. His hon. Friend had not seen the model of the

  1581
  plan now proposed; if he had, he believed his hon. Friend would have said that it fairly met the difficulties of the case. If his hon. Friend had seen his (Lord Henry Lennox's) model, he would have perceived that if he made a road across the Green Park, from Hamilton Place to Grosvenor Place, he would have intersected the line of traffic from east to west by one coming down from the north. The road which he proposed to lay down, however, would do nothing of the kind. It would be 40 feet wide, and would be wide enough to hold four distinct lines of carriages—two going north, and two south. The road would be trumpet-mouthed at both ends. It would be from 76 feet to 100 feet wide in Piccadilly, and the heavy traffic coming from the Midland and Great Northern Railway Stations, and from the east and north-east, would come down Piccadilly, and instead of joining with the traffic coming down from Hamilton Place from the north, it would turn off by the trumpet-mouthed road across the Green Park, and run down Grosvenor Place to the Victoria Station of the London and Brighton and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adam) said he had seen the model, and that he objected to the scheme, because it required embankments and cuttings; but, in point of fact, the scheme did not include either embankments or cuttings. He also said there would be a great pressure of traffic crossing this road across Constitution Hill, in the same way that there was now from Grosvenor Place to Hyde Park across Piccadilly. The traffic, however, across Constitution Hill, as now regulated, did not amount to one-twentieth or even one-thirtieth the traffic which now ran along Piccadilly and met the traffic into Hyde Park. There would be gates, and there would be no more stoppage for traffic than existed all over London wherever two lines of thoroughfare met. Whenever the Royal carriages were seen coming either way, the gates would be closed for a few seconds, and then the traffic would be resumed. If the hon. Gentleman who said he (Lord Henry Lennox) had never given the reasons for abandoning his former scheme would refer to the answer he gave early in the Session, he would find that he gave up his scheme on account of certain engineering difficulties in the gradients,
  1582
  which made it impossible to make a satisfactory job of it, and that he stated it was better to acknowledge an administrative failure than to carry out a plan which he was convinced, after a close examination, would not be satisfactory to the public. Among other engineering difficulties there would be a serious injury to the houses in Grosvenor Place, belonging to the Duke of Westminster. Constitution Hill must necessarily have been raised to such a height as to make a very steep embankment in front of those houses, thereby seriously prejudicing the light and comfort of the ground stories, if not partially of the first stories also. His hon. Friend knew that he could not carry out this scheme without asking for a Vote of money. He was not, however, asking for a Vote to-night for that purpose. After what happened last year his hon. Friend might feel satisfied he would not ride any hobby of his own to death, or carry out any road in which there might be serious difficulties without bringing it under the notice of the House. Even after that had been done, if he found that there were difficulties in the way, the course he had taken with regard to his plan of last year might teach his hon. Friend that he was not likely to force his own opinion in favour of a scheme which would be unsatisfactory to the public. The matter had given him great and constant anxiety, and he had looked into it very closely. He had examined the scheme of his right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Adam), and found that it would increase the difficulty. It would widen Piccadilly, which was not what they wanted. It would only widen the road to the extent of one line of carriages down Grosvenor Place, and would leave the narrow neck of the bottle almost untouched. He felt himself, therefore, unable to counsel the adoption of that scheme. He could assure his hon. Friend that every facility should be given to him to examine the model, and to express his views upon the plan when the Estimate for it was brought forward; and, in the meanwhile, he should be grateful for any assistance which his hon. Friend or his right hon. Friend opposite would give him in regard to this matter. He might mention in favour of his own scheme that the Inspector of Police who was responsible for the safety of the public

  1583
  at Hyde Park Corner and Grosvenor Place had inspected his plan, and had reported that the relief which it would give to the heavy traffic would be enormous, and that, in his opinion, it would be the only reasonable solution of the difficulty.
  MR. C. B. DENISONsaid, that after what had been stated by the noble Lord he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing on this question.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  Supply—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  CLASS I.
  (1.) £26,303, to complete the sum for Royal Palace.
  (2.) £95,105, to complete the sum for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.
  Mr. RITCHIEstated, with reference to the charges which had been brought against the management of Victoria Park, that he had been in communication with his constituents on the subject, and he had every reason to believe that the charges were totally unfounded. He would be glad to hear if any further communication had been received on the subject from the inhabitants. In the name of his constituents he begged to thank the First Commissioner of Works for the great facilities he had afforded for recreation in Victoria Park, especially in the matter of the extension of the hours for bathing in the lake and the promotion of the game of cricket.
  MR. ADAMinquired whether it was intended to abandon the Vote for lectures to gardeners sanctioned by the Treasury upon the recommendation of Dr. Hooker?
  Mr. C. B. DENISONasked what had become of the amount of £5,000 voted for a new road across the Green Park?
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he had much pleasure in informing his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), that he had received a memorial expressing regret that an anonymous attack should have been made upon the superintendent of Vic-
  1584
  toria Park, and pointing out that even if the charges could have been substantiated, they would not have been worthy of attention. He had also received numerous letters, all testifying to the fact that perfect satisfaction was felt by the respectable portion of the inhabitants of the East End of London with the present management of Victoria Park. In answer to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adam), he had to state that the lectures to gardeners were not to be discontinued; and as to the Green Park, he must explain that on finding his plan of last year impracticable, he had surrendered the supplemental sum of £5,000 to the Treasury. It would, therefore, be necessary for him to ask for a Vote for the new scheme.
  MR. ADAMsaid, that some of the mounds in Hyde Park had been removed, and expressed a hope that the rest would be taken away, and the ground laid down with grass.
  MR. MELLORhoped the noble Lord would let the mounds remain. He had been at some trouble to know where they were, and on having them pointed out, found they were of a decorative character, and as the expense of placing them in the Park had been incurred, he trusted the noble Lord would spend no money in removing them.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £112,938, to complete the sum for Public Buildings.
  MR. RAMSAYtook occasion to object to the item of £3,400 for the maintenance and repair of the structure of the prison at Broadmoor, which, he said, was a comparatively new building.
  MR. C. B. DENISONsaid, that upwards of £8,000 was asked for the Probate Court and Registries, and this required some explanation. There were serious complaints about the proposed removal of the documents from the local registries to London; and he wished to know whether it was intended to bring all these records to London?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that a departmental Committee had been appointed to inquire into the whole question of the expenditure on Broadmoor, and that he had thought it right that certain works which it was proposed to carry on in connection with it should be put a stop to, until the result of that inquiry had been ascertained. Broad-

  1585
  moor was under the control of a peculiarly constituted Board, composed of gentlemen of the highest standing, who took a great interest in it, and who, he felt satisfied, did their utmost to maintain it in a state of efficiency at as cheap a rate as possible.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, it was far from his intention to impugn the conduct of those by whom the affairs of Broadmoor were administered; but he could not help thinking that the sum asked for the ordinary maintenance of the building was excessive.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEwished to ask his noble Friend, whether the scheme which had been entertained for a number of years for re-building the public offices, on a scale befitting their dignity, on the plot of ground lying between the present Foreign Office and Great George Street had been, as stated in the newspapers, abandoned; and, if so, for what reason?
  MR. W. H. SMITHinformed the hon. Member (Mr. Denison) that the sum asked for was to be spent upon district registries, and not for any building in London. The Vote had nothing to do with the removal of the records to London.
  MR. C. B. DENISONasked for information as to the £1,500 required for the restoration of St. Peter's Chapel in the Tower of London.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXobserved, that the scheme for the concentration of the public offices involved an expenditure of £3,000,000, and it was not for him—not having a seat in the Cabinet—to state the reasons which had led to its abandonment. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. B. Hope) should rather address his question to his right hon. Friend sitting near him, who, he had no doubt, would be able to give a satisfactory answer. He could only assure him there was nothing in the scheme which commended itself less to his notice now than it did before, as one that would lead to the ornamentation of London and the convenience of the Public Offices. With reference to the question of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. C. B. Denison), he would say that St. Peter's Chapel in the Tower had fallen into a very disgraceful state for want of repair. Under the chancel was buried Queen Ann Boleyn, and the chapel contained other monuments of great interest. Having opened
  1586
  the Tower of London two days in the week free to the public—a movement which had been deeply appreciated—he thought it would be well that St. Peter's Chapel should be added to the other interesting monuments to which the public were now admitted.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEwould avail himself of the hint given by his noble Friend and ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the scheme for the concentration of the Public Offices had been definitively abandoned or only postponed, and whether there was any chance of their being a large scheme for placing the Public Offices upon any other site?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould not say that the decision of this question proceeded upon grounds which would lead to the definitive abandonment of the scheme. These grounds had reference mainly to the circumstances of the present times, and to the fact that we had a very large and important amount of building on our hands. There were the Courts of Justice, the Natural History Museum, and other buildings which it was necessary to proceed with, while the work that would have had to be done in connection with the concentration of the Public Offices would have cost a very large sum of money even immediately, and would have involved considerable expense prospectively; and from circumstances he need not detail it was not convenient to undertake at the present moment that charge in addition to our national burdens. But he was fully convinced that it was desirable, in the interests of the public service, that they should, as they could, proceed with the concentration of the Public Offices. That object had been kept in view for a great number of years by successive Governments, and from time to time steps had been taken in that direction. One large block within a year or two had been completed, and was now occupied by the public Departments; and he hoped it would be in their power by-and-by to proceed with the work. By placing the Public Offices on the site referred to, they might hope to be able to save a good deal in the shape of rents for offices now scattered over different localities. But it would not have been wise in the circumstances of the present year to proceed with the scheme, although he could say the sub-

  1587
  ject was one they had much at heart. He might add that one or two small portions of the site had been purchased.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £13,440, to complete the sum for Furniture of Public Offices.
  (5.) £25,569, to complete the sum for Houses of Parliament.
  (6.) £4,360, to complete the sum for the new Home and Colonial Offices.
  MR. ADAMobserved, that those Offices still remained unfinished, and he wished to know whether the ornamentation originally designed would be carried out?
  MR. C. B. DENISONasked, whether it was true that the drainage of these new Offices was in a highly unsatisfactory state? It had been publicly asserted that owing to some carelessness on the part of the builder or architect there had been no communication made between the drains in those buildings and the main sewer, and that our public officials had in consequence been subjected to an unwholesome atmosphere prejudicial to their health. He wished to know who was responsible for this state of things if it existed?
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, it was not the present, but the late Government, which was responsible for the corners of the offices referred to being deprived of cupolas. Since he had been in office Sir Gilbert Scott had suggested another way of treating the corners, but the suggestion was not one he approved. However, he laid the scheme before Her Majesty's Government, and it was now under consideration. The drainage of the Home and Colonial Offices had been found on one or two occasions to be in a very deficient state; and, of course, the person responsible was the man who designed and under whom the contractors built—namely, Sir Gilbert Scott. His (Lord Henry Lennox's) attention was called to the matter, and in an incredibly short time the evil was remedied, as far as possible, and since he received the expression of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's gratitude he had heard nothing more on the subject.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £9,506, to complete the sum for Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he observed the greater part of the money asked for was in respect to the new Sheriff Court buildings, and that it had in point of fact, been expended. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, having reference to the Sheriff Courts Bill, which was now before the House, should have advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer to withhold this Vote altogether for the present. There could be no doubt that the Scottish judicial system and the Scottish judicial staff as a whole must come under the consideration of the Home Secretary at an early period. They had about 80 sheriffs and sheriffs-depute in Scotland; but he really could not understand what justification there could be for a grant of public money to erect a new Court House at such a place as Fort William, where the whole sum under litigation during the year was not equal to the interest of the sum of money the public were going to pay. His own opinion was that they might reduce the number of Judges in Scotland in those Courts by one-half, and, with great advantage to the community, get the business done as it was done elsewhere, by the Sheriff going about from place to place. As he observed the Lord Advocate in his place, he did trust that the right hon. Gentleman would concur with him in these observations, and that he would advise the discontinuance of such Votes for such places and for such purposes. It was simply a waste of the public and the ratepayers' money, and of the energies of the officers that were employed in those Courts. He saw that certain sums of money had already been voted, or he would have asked for a discontinuance of these Votes altogether. Under the circumstances, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would take care that he did not lend his sanction to Votes of this character in future, or if he (Mr. Ramsay) had the honour of a seat in that House, he should certainly take the sense of the House against voting such sums of money.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £2,084, to complete the sum for National Gallery Enlargement.
  In reply to Mr. Adam,
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that the new National Gallery had been

  1589
  finished and handed over to the Office of Works. He could not say when it would be opened to the public, as that depended on the Trustees, who were at present engaged in re-arranging the pictures.
  Vote agreed to.
  (9.) £143,718, to complete the sum for Post Office and Inland Revenue Buildings.
  (10.) £11,573, to complete the sum for British Museum Buildings.
  (11.) £46,050, to complete the sum for County Courts Buildings.
  (12.) £4,043, to complete the sum for Science and Art Department Buildings.
  (13.) £105,500, to complete the sum for the Surveys of the United Kingdom.
  Sir WALTER BARTTELOTasked whether the survey had been going on satisfactorily, and whether the Government were using their best endeavours to advance it? In his own county a certain portion of the survey had been completed two years ago, and they had not any maps yet. He was told that a certain number of persons had been discharged, and that as little expense as possible was being incurred. This was a matter in which all were exceedingly interested, and the great object was that the survey should be carried on as rapidly and finished as soon as possible.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, the survey was progressing very favourably, and every exertion was being made that the means placed at the disposal of the Government would allow. It was quite true that some men had been discharged, but that was owing to the natural wish expressed by the Treasury that they should not have Supplementary Votes this year. His hon. and gallant Friend would understand that he felt a delicacy in pushing on maps of a district with which he was connected, lest other parts of the country should charge him with partiality. The maps, however, were being pushed on, and he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that there was no one who had more at heart the rapid progress of the survey than he had.
  Mr. DODSONsaid, he did not think the noble Lord had answered the question whether the Government were doing their best to advance the survey.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he understood the answer of his noble Friend to be that the progress was satisfactory to himself and the Government. No doubt if a larger sum were placed at the disposal of the First Commissioner the advance would be greater and more rapid; but it was not thought right to spend more than £130,000 in the course of the year on the matter. It was hoped that the surveys would be completed within the next 13 or 14 years.
  Vote agreed to.
  (14.) £7,405, to complete the sum for Harbours, &c. under the Board of Trade.
  (15.) £7,500, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Fire Brigade.
  (16.) £194,991, to complete the sum for Rates on Government Property.
  (17.) £951, to complete the sum for the Wellington Monument.
  Mr. BERESFORD HOPEtrusted that at last some satisfactory assurance would be given that a positive date had been fixed for the completion of this monument?
  LORD HENRY LENNOXreminded the hon. Member that at the time he came into office this monument had been in hand for upwards of 23 years, during which period little or no progress had been made towards its completion, while great doubt had been entertained whether even when finished it would be successful. Since the death of Mr. Stevens the castings had gone on with great rapidity, and several portions of the monument had been exhibited in the sculpture gallery, and no dissentient voice had been raised against the extreme merit possessed by the work. The work was rapidly approaching completion, and he hoped the country would have an opportunity of judging before long whether the monument would be one worthy of the country and of the illustrious man in whose honour it was being erected. He understood that the work would be completed before the end of the present financial year.
  Vote agreed to.
  (18.) £65,000, to complete the sum for the Natural History Museum.
  In reply to Mr. Adam and Mr. Beresford Hope, who trusted that Mr.

  1591
  Ayrton's proposed mutilation of the building by razing the towers and cupolas would not be carried out,
  LORD HENRY LENNOXstated that the Government had the contractor's assurance that the building would be completed by the 1st of November, 1877, and that it was under his consideration whether it was advisable to restore to the proposed elevation the ornamental features which the late Government had directed to be struck out.
  Vote agreed to.
  (19.) £4,644, to complete the sum for Metropolitan Police Courts.
  In reply to Mr. Adam,
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the site in Castle Street fixed upon for the erection of the new Bow Street Police Court and station had been given up on account of its great inconvenience, and arrangements had been practically concluded with the Duke of Bedford for a site for both in Bow Street, and a Bill would shortly be introduced for carrying it into effect.
  Vote agreed to.
  (20.) £65,325, to complete the sum for New Courts of Justices and Offices.
  SIR HENRY JAMEScalled attention to the fact that £933,000 had already been expended in purchasing the site of the New Courts of Justice, which at 4 per cent interest represented £37,000 a-year lying useless. £148,000 had been expended, and as £826,000 was to be expended, and they were progressing at the rate of £80,000 a-year, it would take 10 years before the whole sum was spent and the buildings completed. He wished to know whether it was true that the contractors were confined to the expenditure of only £80,000 a-year?
  Sir WALTER BARTTELOTasked for an explanation of the item of rates and taxes which were paid in respect of the site of the New Courts of Justice.
  MR. MELLORcalled attention to the sum of 15 per cent being charged for architect's fees.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, the Government were not satisfied with the progress which had been made in the building of the New Law Courts. Everything had been done that could be done to urge the contractors to a completion
  1592
  of the work. Mr. Street, the architect, had been unceasing in his appeals to them in their own interest—for if they failed in their contract they would have to pay a very heavy penalty—to proceed more vigorously with the work. Mr. Street had reported to the Office of Works quite recently that the contractors had not been employing a sufficient number of men to carry on the work according to the terms of their contract. In the month of May they had expended only a sixth of the money that had been voted for the building. Only two years and a quarter remained to them to finish the eastern portion of the building, and only four years and a quarter to finish the whole building. The building ought to be completed in seven years from the time when the work was commenced. Unless the contractors exhibited much more vigour and employed more men than they did at present, he could hold out very little hope to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the building would be completed within the four and a-half years that had yet to run.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, it was currently rumoured that no provision was made for the Court of Appeal in the new building, and that Court would have to sit in the Chancellor's Court in Lincoln's Inn. He hoped that rumour was not correct. Such a course would be very inconvenient to the Court itself, to the Profession, and to the public. He hoped that some assurance would be given that provision would be made for the Court of Appeal in the building.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, it appeared from what had been stated by the noble Lord that there was little chance of the Courts being completed within the time contracted for. If not, he should like to know if the Government intended to press for the penalties for non-completion? He should also like to know how it was that £11,000 had been paid to the architect for commission?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Act of Parliament under which the site of the new buildings was acquired provided that certain rates and taxes which were chargeable in respect of the property that was cleared away from the site should continue to be paid, and they had been paid from the moment the Government acquired the site. No more had been paid to the architect for the preparation of the plans and drawings

  1593
  than the agreement provided for. That agreement was made by the preceding Government, and it had been most strictly complied with. Mr. Street had not asked for and certainly had not received a single farthing more than he was entitled to. He might state, on behalf of the Treasury, that the greatest possible dissatisfaction had been expressed at the very slow progress which had been made with those buildings. Although £80,000 was taken in the present year's Estimates, the smallness of the sum was due to the hopelessness of their getting more of the work done than would be covered by that amount of expenditure. Remembering that the money voted in past years had been surrendered, he thought it would have been simply deceiving the Committee to have made a larger provision than there was a reasonable prospect of expending. But the Treasury had intimated to his noble Friend that if the contractors would advance faster with the work there would be no difficulty in providing the money required for its execution.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that although no blame attached to the Government, the result was most unsatisfactory and very injurious to the country. Everything that was possible ought to be done to compel the contractors to complete the buildings. The penalties to which they were liable ought to be enforced against them; and, if necessary, the work should be taken from them and put into other hands.
  LORD HENRY LENNOX,in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), observed that Mr. Street's original designs included no salon or hall for the Court of Appeal, because, at the time when the drawings were made and accepted by the Government of the day, the new Court of Appeal was not in existence. His attention had been called to the matter last year; and, no doubt, when the work had progressed a little further, the Lord Chancellor would communicate with him, and proper provision would be made for the Court of Appeal if it was necessary or expedient to place it there. At the same time, Lincoln's Inn, the present site of the Court of Appeal, was, he believed, in every way satisfactory to those who practised in that tribunal.
  Mr. MORGAN LLOYDregretted very much that he had failed to get a satisfactory reply to his question. He could not believe that if, owing to any course whatever, provision had not been made for the Court of Appeal, it was too late to make it now; and he thought also that the Government should take steps to press on the construction of the buildings.
  MR. W. H. SMITHremarked that the designs for the New Courts of Justice were settled before the new Court of Appeal was dreamt of, and to attempt now to interpolate the Court of Appeal into a contract which was not being carried out in a satisfactory manner would be to afford the contractors a very good excuse for not completing the work in time, and also take from the Government the power of enforcing against the contractors the penalties to which the latter were liable, penalties which it was their intention to enforce as far as possible.
  Vote agreed to.
  (21.) £1,951, to complete the sum for Ramsgate Harbour.
  (22.) £2,100, to complete the sum for New Palace at Westminster, Acquisition of Lands and Embankment.
  MR. C. B. DENISONasked his noble Friend for information as to the probable time when these works would be completed, and what was to be done with the land after the completion of the Embankment?
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that the Embankment had been completed, and the present Vote was merely required for railings and for laying out the ground. It was not intended to place anything on the Embankment until a general plan had been arranged with regard to the concentration of Government buildings.
  Vote agreed to.
  (23.) £12,960, to complete the sum for Lighthouses Abroad.
  (24.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £37,330, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the British

  1595
  Embassy Houses, Consular and Legation Buildings, &c. in China and Japan, Constantinople, Therapia, Madrid, Paris, Teheran, Vienna, and Washington."
  Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFFcomplained that proper houses had not been provided at Berlin and Rome; and also that some of these Embassy houses were managed by the Chief Commissioner of Works and some by the Foreign Office.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that the present arrangement had been determined by the Treasury in order that the whole of the Votes might appear under one head; and added that suitable houses at Berlin and Rome had been applied for, and that the subject was under the consideration of the Government.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that the Estimates under this head were in a most unsatisfactory state, and that there was a great deal of looseness in the drawing up of the Foreign Office part of them; he therefore moved that the Chairman do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
  Mr. W. H. SMITHstated the Estimates were now under one head instead of two as formerly, and that the whole subject would be fully considered by the Government.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL. [BILL 78.]
  (Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Salt.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 7th April.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 12 (Paupers not to vote election of guardians.)
  Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH (for Mr. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE)moved, in page 4, line 5, to add—
  "and that a list of the names of persons objected to who have received relief during the past year, sealed with the common seal of the
  1596
  board of guardians, shall be sufficient evidence of their having received relief."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir HENRY JAMESasked if this was not the measure which the Prime Minister stated would be taken on Tuesday next?
  Mr. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, it always was his intention to take the Bill that night in preference to any other he had on the Paper, and if his right hon. Friend said that the Bill would be taken next Tuesday, no doubt he thought it would not be reached in time before then.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

  PREVENTION OF CRIMES ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [Bill 153.]
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Secretary Cross.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the object of the Bill was to simplify the registration of criminals, and thus make the system more effectual for the prevention of crime. At present there were 169,521 names on the register, and the number was increasing at the rate of 28,000 a-year. A large number of names were registered for trifling offences and for juvenile offences; and numbers entered made the registry of comparatively little value for purposes of reference. The Bill would empower the Secretary of State to limit the number of crimes for which registration would be necessary, and make the system more handy and practical, than the cumbrous system which now existed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.— [Bill 177.]
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that under the Act of last Session provision was made for the registering of branches affiliated to Friendly Societies as branches, instead of, as heretofore, as separate societies; and that it entailed considerable expense in advertising upon societies which, having registered as separate societies, desired to be registered as branches. The object of the Bill was to do away with the necessity of advertising, providing that the societies certified to the Registrar that both the branch and the society were willing to agree to the proceedings, and the measure had the concurrence of all the great Friendly Societies. Any questions of detail could be considered in Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

  BANKERS' BOOKS EVIDENCE BILL.
  Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Backhouse, Mr. Sampson Lloyd, Mr. Watkin Williams.

  [BILL 171.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to permit certified copies or extracts from bankers' books to be produced as evidence instead of the books themselves.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDsupported the Bill, and observed that he had known cases in which great inconvenience had been caused by bankers' ledgers being detained in Court for several days.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Government did not object to the Motion, but the Bill would be submitted to the scrutiny of the Attorney General before it went into Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

  HOUSE OCCUPIERS DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.— [Bill 29.]
  (Sir H. Drummond Wolf, Sir Charles Russell, Mr. Onslow, Mr. Ryder.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [22nd March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. HAYTERobjected to the Bill being proceeded with in the absence of some hon. Members who were interested in it. He should support the Bill if the whole subject of the registration were dealt with; but he objected to any alterations being made in favour of a particular class. He moved that the debate be adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." (Mr. Hayter.)
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFhoped the Bill would be read a second time, and he pledged himself to give reasonable opportunity for introducing Amendments in Committee.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERsaid, he understood that the question raised by the Bill was not one as between one side of the House and the other, and expressed an opinion that his hon. Friend was not making an unreasonable request in asking the House to proceed with this Bill before the hour of half-past 12 had arrived.
  MR. RYLANDSthought at that late hour it was unreasonable to ask the House to proceed with the debate.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 57: Majority 44.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the better prevention of the Pollution of Rivers, said, that he would not at so late an hour detain the House by a lengthened statement. He wished, however, to remind the House that the subject was entirely removed from anything like a Party character. A Royal Commission on the Pollution of Rivers had been sitting for many years, and last year the final volume of their Report was published. The time had therefore arrived when something ought to be done. Three or four Bills had been presented to Parliament, and, although they had from various causes failed to pass into law, there had never been any dispute as to the necessity for legislation on this subject. The obstacles were, however, very great, and the alarm of the manufacturers had been so difficult to deal with that successive Bills had been brought in and withdrawn. Last year there was a reasonable opportunity of passing the Bill brought into the other House by the Marquess of Salisbury, if it had not been for the late period of the Session at which the measure came down to that House and the necessity of proceeding with other measures, A Bill for preventing the pollution of rivers, however, formed no part of the Government programme of the Session, and advisedly so. But several hon. Members had within the last few months urged him to bring forward a measure on the subject, and he had reason to believe that a Bill somewhat of the character of that which had passed the House of Lords last year would be generally acceptable. The present Bill, he might add, proposed to enact generally that rivers were to be kept free from pollution, and that their pollution in various ways was to be a stat table offence. In the first place, it was intended to prohibit the casting of noxious refuse, whether manufacturing or mining, into rivers so as to pollute the stream or to impede navigation. The second part of
  1600
  the Bill related to the mode of dealing with the sewage of towns, and it was proposed that the pollution of rivers by that means should also be made a stat table offence, but that ample time should be given within which proceedings should be instituted, as well as ample time to the authorities within which to construct necessary works. There was nothing in that portion of the Bill more stringent than had for many years been the law with reference to the streams which flowed into the Thames and the Lea, in both of which cases the arbitrary power of preventing the throwing of noxious sewage into those streams had been prohibited. The manufacturing and mineral pollution of rivers stood in a very different position; but it was not deemed expedient in such a Bill as the present to make any exceptions from the general obligations of the law, but it was proposed in the case of manufacturing and mineral pollution not only that ample time should be given, but that industrial interests should be duly considered, and that no prosecution should be instituted except by the public sanitary authority with the sanction of the Local Government Board. Up to that point the Bill stood very much in the position of that which had passed through the House of Lords last year, but there were two or three important additional provisions. It was proposed to constitute a Conservancy Board which would take in hand the function of carrying out the necessary works, and that the sanitary authorities might be permitted to pass bye-laws and regulations and give facilities for the use of their sewers. The prosecutions under the Bill were, he might add, to be carried on before the County Court Judges, as under the Bill of last year. Other points of importance would remain which might be dealt with in future measures; but he hoped the present Bill, as an initiative measure, would in future secure our rivers from pollution. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsupported the Motion. There was a general consensus of opinion in favour of Watershed Boards.
  Mr. M'LAGANsaid, the people of Scotland would experience a great disappointment if the Bill did not pass, and he urged hon. Members on both sides of

  1601
  the House to do their best to help the President of the Local Government Board on with his scheme. He did not believe there would be much difficulty experienced in preventing the pollution of rivers by sewage, as there were now so many plans for the utilization of liquid manure. He felt convinced that the measure would prove of the utmost utility and benefit to the country.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to make further provision for the better prevention of the Pollution of Rivers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH and Mr. SALT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 186.]

DIOCESE OF EXETER BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the foundation of a new Bishopric out of a part of the Diocese of Exeter, said, that the first reason for the creation of the See of Cornwall was that the diocese of Exeter was a very large one, not only in numbers and population, but in size. The second reason why he asked the House to consent to this Bill was the special one that the funds were practically forthcoming for the purpose. An offer had been made to the Government of the sum of £1,200 a-year from a single individual for the formation of the See; but attached to that condition was one condition that the See should be formed in the lifetime of the donor. That gift had been most generously met by the Bishop of the diocese. The See of Exeter was entitled to an income of £5,000, and it was proposed to transfer it from that which was the highest to the lowest of the ordinary Sees—namely, £4,200; but the Bishop of the diocese, with that generosity and zeal which characterized him in every action of his life, insisted that this reduction of his income should take effect from the moment the new See was founded. To meet the sum of £2,000 a-year a very large sum was collected among the people of the new diocese. He proposed to follow precisely the plan of last Session for the formation of the See of St. Albans—namely, to enable Her Majesty, whenever she received a certificate from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that the funds were in hand, to form the new See out of the
  1602
  Archdeaconry of Cornwall. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEhoped that in the course of time a more extended Bill for the increase of the Episcopate would be devised.
  R. HAYTERexpressed his thanks to the Government for having brought in the Bill, which he believed would meet a pressing want.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to provide for the foundation of a new Bishopric out of a part of the Diocese of Exeter, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Cross and Sir HENTRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 185.]

  ERNE LOUGH AND RIVER BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. William Henry Smith, Bill for the improvement of the Navigation of the Lough and River Erne, ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Henry Smith and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 187.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.