Sitting of 29 May 1908

Preamble
The House met at Twelve noon of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill—Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill; Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order Bill.—Read the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill—"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bethesda, Monmouth, and the Aspatria Silloth and District Joint Water Board District," presented by Mr. Masterman. Read the first time. To be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 255.]

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Cranbrook; Norwich (three); and Putney; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Eastwood, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Rochester, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Coln St., Aldwyns, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions for alteration: From Cranbrook; Hawkhurst; Hyde; Norwich (three); Penrith; and Putney; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Appleby; Ashford; Borthygest; Broadway; Canisbay; Carlisle; Cefn Coed; Everton; Kirkby Thore; Rainham; Rodley:
  1398
  Selly Oak; South Lambeth; Troedyrhiw; Warrington; and York (two); to lie upon the Table.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Dundee; and Kirkintilloch; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND), 1907–8 (AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS).
  Copy presented, of Report and Tables relating to Irish Agricultural Labourers for the year 1907–8 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
  Copy presented, of Fifty-first Annual Report of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, 1907–8 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Horsham Postmen and Sunday Telephone Duties.
  EARL WINTERTON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that postmen at Horsham have been asked quite recently to perform telephone duties on Sundays at a uniform rate of 6d. per hour; whether this duty is proper to the class of telegraphists who have refused the offer of the department to accept considerably less than the regulation pay for Sunday work; and whether he will explain the reason for asking the postmen to undersell their colleagues of the telegraph department.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am making inquiries into the matter.

  Regulation of Friendly Societies.
  MR. J. MACVEAUH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a Select Committee in 1889 reported that the Friendly Societies Act requires amendment, extension, and strengthening; whether he can state what legislation has since been passed in that direction; and whether he

  1399
  can say to how many of the thirty-three recommendations of that Select Committee effect has meanwhile been given.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The following are the Acts passed since 1889 dealing with friendly societies:—

  52 and 53 Vie., c. 22.

  56 and 57 Vic, c. 30.

  58 and 59 Vic, c. 26.

  59 and 60 Vic, c. 25.

  59 and 60 Vic, c. 26.

  In 1891 a Bill was introduced to amend the Law relating to Industrial Assurance; it was ordered to be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade, before which it was in part discussed. It was finally withdrawn in June of that year, being of a controversial nature the state of public business did not allow its being proceeded with. In pursuance of the recommendations of the Select Committee a Bill was brought in and passed in 1896 incorporating all such provisions of the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, as were exclusively applicable to collecting societies and industrial assurance companies. Other of the recommendations being of a codifying nature were already contained in the existing Acts, and the remainder have not been given effect to. The hon. Member will find the recommendations of the Select Committee very fully dealt with in the Annual Report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies for 1890.

  Sunday Delivery of Telegrams at Chester.
  MR. MOND: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state why at the Upton Heath Post Office, Chester, no telegrams are delivered after 10 a.m. on Sundays, which is only 1½ miles from Chester General Post Office, whereas telegrams are delivered from Chester General Post Office to Mickle Trafford on Sundays, which is three miles distant; and whether, in view of the fact that Upton is a growing residential centre, he can see his way to afford greater facilities for the delivery of telegrams on Sundays.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will make inquiry and communicate with the hon. Member.

  Irish Railway Disputes.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to Rule 65 of the Rules (1889) of the Railway and Canal Commission, whereby a purely Irish dispute must be heard in England where the respondent is domiciled or has his principal office in England; is he aware that in a dispute between the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland and the Postmaster - General, in reference to carriage of mails in Ireland, the Postmaster-General relies on the rule and refuses to allow the dispute to be tried in Ireland, where all the witnesses reside; and will he suggest to the rule-making authority a change in the rule so that cases may be tried as far as possible where they arise in substance.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) My attention has been drawn to the rule referred to in the Question, and it undoubtedly has the effect of requiring that a purely Irish dispute with a Department of the Government should be heard in England. So far as the Question relates to the action of the Post Office in the particular case referred to I must refer the hon. Member to my right hon. friend the Postmaster-General. It would be outside my province to suggest to the Railway Commissioners that they should alter their rules, but I am sure that any representation on the subject from the Bar of Ireland would be carefully considered by them.

  British and German Armoured Cruisers.
  MR. J. M. MACDONALD: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many cruisers available for the capture and destruction of merchant shipping are possessed by Great Britain and by Germany respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Germany has forty-seven cruisers of over 16-knot speed, while Great Britain has 100. It is, however, impossible to foretell how many of these will be available for commerce destruction.

  Port of London Bill and London and India Docks Debenture Stocks.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the

  1401
  Board of Trade whether the A, B, and C Debenture Stocks of the London and India Docks are included in the securities referred to in Clause 13 (1) of the Port of London Bill as debenture stocks, the liability for which is by or under this Act transferred to the port authority; and, if they are not, will he state in what way the existing rights of the holders of these stocks are to be preserved.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The holders of the A, B, and C Debenture Stocks of the London and India Docks Company will receive from the port authority in substitution of their present holdings A Port Stock, which entitles them to the same rate of interest, three per cent., as they now enjoy, and their security will consist of a first charge on the port fund and on all the revenues of the port authority.

  Fees for Adjustment of Weights and Measures.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the hardship which is inflicted on small tradesmen through being compelled to pay for the annual adjustment of their weights under the Weights and Measures Act; and whether he can alter the regulations so that they should only be charged when the weights are found to be inaccurate.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I think the noble Lord must be under some misapprehension, as the regulations made under the Weights and Measures Acts do not require the annual adjustment of weights. The Act of 1878 expressly provides that a weight duly stamped is a legal weight throughout the United Kingdom, unless found to be false or unjust.

  Income of Scottish Secondary Schools.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state what sum of money was allocated last year under the Scottish Education Department's Minute of the 27th April, 1899, and the Education and
  1402
  Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892, respectively, to secondary schools under the management of authorities other than school boards; and will he indicate how the total income of such secondary schools last year compares with each of the two previous years.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The sum of money allocated last year under the Minute of 27th April, 1899, to secondary schools under the management of authorities other than school boards was £13,300. Information as to the sum allocated to these schools, in terms of the Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892, last year is not available, the accounts of secondary education committees for 1907–8, in which such information will be given, not having yet been submitted to the Scottish Education Department. The corresponding sum for the year 1906–7 was £6,420. The total income of such secondary schools in respect of each of the last three financial or school years for which information is available was as follows:

  £

  1904–5

  115,854

  1905–6

  112,039

  1906–7

  113,820

  These sums do not include the balances in hand of £5,204, £6,493, and £8,288, respectively, at the beginning of the years in question.

  Meat Prices at Smithfield and Deptford.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will state what was the average price per stone in the Metropolitan Central Meat Market of homegrown beef and mutton for the years 1890, 1895, 1900, 1905, and 1907; and the average price per stone of beef and mutton killed at the Deptford Foreign Cattle Market for the same years.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) No official returns giving the information desired are available prior to 1896, nor

  1403
  have we any information as to the price of mutton killed at the Deptford Foreign

  Prices of Beef and Mutton (per stone of 8 lbs.) at the London Central Market.

  Year.

  English.

  Deptford-killed Beef.

  Beef.

  Mutton.

  Per 8 lbs.

  Per 8 lbs.

  Per 8 lbs.

  1896

  3s. 6d. to 3s. 9d.

  3s. 10d. to 4s. 4d.

  2s. 11d. to 3s. 3d.

  1900.

  3s. 10d. to 4s.

  4s. 6d. to 4s. 11d.

  3s. 8d. to 3s. 11d.

  1905

  1st quality

  3s. 8d.

  4s. 9d.

  3s. 7d.

  2nd quality

  3s. 6d.

  4s. 4d.

  3s. 3d.

  1907

  1st quality

  3s. 9d.

  5s.

  3s. 9d.

  2nd quality

  3s. 7d.

  4s. 6d.

  3s. 6d.

  The figures given for 1896 and 1900 are compiled from the prices quoted weekly in the Meat Trades Journal; those for 1905 and 1907 from the Board of Agriculture's Weekly Return of Market Prices.

  Rebate on Sugar Duty.
  MR. MCARTHUR: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount does he estimate would be required to admit of a rebate being granted equal to the difference between the old and new duties on stocks of duty-paid foreign refined sugar, glucose, and invert sugar, respectively, lying in public warehouses or depots on 7th May last; and what is the basis of his estimate in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) It is estimated that the amount required to admit of the grant of a rebate equal to the difference between the old and new duties on stocks of sugar, on which duty has been paid at the higher rate, would be a sum approaching £200,000. The inclusion of stocks of glucose and invert sugar would of course increase this sum, and the further extension of the rebate to stocks of manufactured goods containing sugar and glucose on which the
  Cattle Market. The other prices asked for are as follows:—
  higher rate of duty had been paid, would entail a further considerable increase, bringing the amount up to a total probably not less than £300,000. The estimate is based on inquiries and calculations made by my official advisers.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Reinstatement of Jeremiah Sullivan.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state what steps, if any, have been taken to secure the reinstatement of Jeremiah J. Sullivan, of Glencuthane, Killorglin, an evicted tenant on the Drummond estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have decided that the evicted tenant in question is a proper person to be provided with a holding if one can be found for him, and they have referred the case to an inspector with the object of procuring a holding if possible.

  Boycotting in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will

  1405
  state the number of cases of boycotting and of persons boycotted thoughout Ireland on the 28th February, 31st March, and 30th April, 1908, distinguishing between the cases of wholly boy-

  Date.

  Wholly boycotted.

  Partially boycotted.

  Total number of cases of boycotting.

  Total number of persons boycotted.

  Minor boycotting and attempts to boycott.

  Number of cases.

  Number of persons.

  Number of cases.

  Number of persons.

  Number of cases.

  Number of persons.

  29th February, 1908

  6

  37

  14

  61

  20

  98

  154

  572

  31st March, 1908

  6

  33

  13

  57

  19

  90

  148

  578

  30th April, 1908

  15

  65

  10

  39

  25

  104

  141

  545

  Volunteer Long Service Decoration.
  MR. YOUNGER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether Volunteers who may complete the qualifying period of service for the Volunteers decoration in the Territorial Army will receive that decoration; whether cases of members of disbanded regiments or of Volunteers who feel they cannot join the Territorial Army will receive consideration though the qualifying period has not been completed; and whether service in any rank will count.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Service in the Volunteers will reckon towards the grant of the decoration to officers. The cases of those who are unable to join the Territorial Force will receive full consideration. The details are not yet finally settled.

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. WINFREYin moving the Second Reading, said that this Bill was promoted by the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, and that it had been read a second time and passed through Committee last session. Owing to lack of time it did not get its Third Reading, but on this occasion he hoped to be more fortunate and to be able not only to obtain from the House the Second Reading
cotting, partial boycotting, and minor boycotting.
(Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The figures are as follows:—
of the Bill, but to have the pleasure of piloting it through all its stages. Its object was to remove an uncertainty in the law affecting an important point in connection with public rights. In order to establish the claim to a public right of way an undisputed user for a period of twenty years had to be proved before the Court. The Judge assumed that some one previous to that time had dedicated this right of way. Unfortunately, however, in the cases where land was held by tenants for life, by lunatics, or was owned by infants or mortgagees in possession, there were certain Judges who had held that, although the user to the right of way might have been proved up to twenty years or more, the fact that there was no one really owning the land who had a right of dedication prevented the assumption from being made that a dedication to the public had been granted. The result of this had been that several important rights of way had been closed, not because the user had not been proved, but because the persons before that time had no right of dedication. About fifteen years ago he was himself personally interested in a case of this kind in his own parish. Owing to a quarrel between the farmers one farmer closed a right of way used by labouring men to go to and return from their work, thereby saving a journey of two or three miles. The right of way having been closed by the farmer, the labouring men tried to assert their rights by removing

1407
the barriers. The magistrates declined to adjudicate on the case, and it was brought before the High Court. He raised a subscription to bring up some of the older men to prove that they had had during thirty or more years the undisputed right to use the footpath. The Judge was sympathetically disposed to hold that some one had dedicated the footpath to public use, but then it was shown to him that at this particular time there was a mortgagee in possession of the land. It was held that there was thus no power to dedicate the land to such a purpose, and the Judge declined assent to the claim. The right of way was, therefore, lost to the public. The object of the promoters of the Bill was to prevent these difficulties from occurring in the future. He had been told that several important footpaths had been closed owing to this legal quibble. It was not a party question, and the Bill had received the support of all the local authorities throughout the country. Its passing would certainly prevent a good deal of litigation in the future. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
MR. HIGHAMsaid the Bill was a very small one, and one which he did not think would give any right where no previous right existed. Everybody who had any experience of testing a right of way found the proceeding a very costly one to fight. The witnesses who had to be brought up, who were usually the oldest inhabitants of the district, were not the men who were likely to impress a jury, independently of which they were apt to be frightened by cross-examination, and very easily contradicted themselves. The Local Government Act was really the only charter of freedom we had with regard to the matter, and it did stop much of the litigation that had been going on for some time. By Clause 14 of that Act parish councils and district councils had power to refuse consent to any proposal to stop a right of way, and another clause of the Act made it the duty of these bodies to protect rights of way. But the Local Government Act left the matter exactly where it was before from this point of view. It was very easy to give away a right of way, but very difficult to prove that the right existed if the landowner contested it.
1408
The law as it at present stood made proof very costly for any man, and it must be borne in mind that it was the individual who always had to fight these cases, A Bill of this description would simplify the procedure to enable people to obtain those rights which they ought to have, rights which extended in every direction, paths across fields, paths to historic sights, and paths over mountains. With regard to the question of paths across fields, they had had in his constituency innumerable questions from county councils affecting diagonal paths across ploughed fields, which were ploughed up every year and then trampled down again, and such questions were always very difficult to settle. For all these reasons, and with the hope that the Bill would receive a favourable reception at the hands of hon. Members that day, he begged to second the Motion for the Second Reading.
Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Winfrey.)
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that this Bill perpetuated a vicious habit which was growing in the House of Commons. If any person was defeated in the law Courts he came to this House and said the law was wrong, and asked them to alter it in his favour. That sort of thing had occurred over and over again, the greatest instance of it being the Trade Disputes Act. It seemed to be becoming a common practice for any person or association who was beaten in the law Courts to come to this House and say that the decision was opposed to what the House intended when it passed that law, and to ask that it be altered. If the decision in the case referred to by the hon. Member opposite had been in favour of the right of way, the hon. Member's Bill would never have been heard of. The statement of the case by the hon. Member opposite gave away the whole reason for the Bill. A person who had bought land and paid money for it had a right to be consulted as to these alleged rights of way when it was borne in mind that the public never paid anything for them Supposing a landowner was a lunatic or had borrowed money on the land and the land was not therefore in his possession at the moment, he surely ought to be prevented from giving a right of way

1409
to the public for which they paid not a farthing. Where the right was obtained by encroachment he did not see why the person who had purchased the property in question should be injured because people, in many cases out of malice, had a desire to walk across his fields. So far as his experience went no landowner in the country desired to close a right of way so long as it was used and exercised in a proper manner. There might be isolated instances of men closing a right of way but the number was small. He contended that Parliament must not legislate for a portion of the community, but for the whole. They must not take a few landowners and say that because they did not behave properly the whole landlord class must suffer. A few Fridays ago the question before the House was the Access to Mountains Bill, and the argument in favour of that Bill was that it was necessary for the health of the people, and in order to make them good citizens and improve their minds, that they should be able to stroll over the mountains. That argument had not been adduced on this occasion, and could not be, because in the country districts of England nobody, except in hay time or harvest, was prevented if he were well behaved from walking across the fields. Because a few footpaths for the moment were shut up that could not be said to prevent the public from being healthy and improving their minds. If this Bill passed into law it might do considerable damage to property. He knew it was unpopular at this time to speak in defence of property, but so long as he lived he hoped he would never fail to have the courage to defend those rights which persons, through hard work either on their own part or on the part of their fathers, had obtained. Let the House take the position of a lunatic in possession of a beautiful property in the country. Lunatics were notoriously long lived. A lunatic might not be sufficiently mad to be confined in an asylum but he might be absolutely incapable of managing his affairs. He might think he was conferring a benefit on mankind by allowing the people to walk past his front door. Let them suppose that that went on for twenty years; that the property was entailed; and that at the end of that time it fell into the possession of the heir at law. That gentleman owing to the death duties was not able to afford to live on the property and he endeavoured to sell
1410
it. Immediately there was a great depreciation in the property owing to this right of way set up by the lunatic predecessor whose action no one was able to control. That was one instance where damage might arise from the residential point of view. But there were other reasons why damage might be done. Land did not grow, but population did. The population was increasing, towns were increasing, and it might be that upon property close to a town a right of way might be allowed to spring up. Then the property was required for building purposes: immediately a question of the right of way arose, and again there was a depreciation of the value of the property to the owner. He could not for himself see that any argument could be brought to bear in favour of the Bill, except the sentimental argument that people who had been in the habit of walking across a field ought not to be stopped. A great number of people would receive benefit by the land being built upon, and the value of the property would be increased, and the more money we had in the country the better he thought it would be for the country. The question would also affect land in the towns. The Bill said that—
"Where any way upon or over any land or water has been actually engaged by the public without interruption, etc."
and it went on to say—
"Unless there was no person in possession of such land or water capable of dedicating such at any time during such period of twenty years."
He maintained that those words were very vague and that they would lead to considerable uncertainty. The hon. Member who brought in the Bill talked about the uncertainty of the law, and said he was desirous of remedying it. He believed the law was always uncertain, and that no Act of Parliament would ever make it otherwise; the very object of the lawyers as far as he knew, was to make it uncertain, for if it was always certain there would never be any litigation. But it seemed to him that the words he had quoted would make the law still more uncertain and would cause a very grave injustice to certain people. They all knew that town property was let on various terms of lease. It might be possible that the owner of certain houses in a street, or of certain stables in a mews,

1411
might have let houses or stables for, say, seven years. The lease might have terminated then, and the owner might have been in possession for a fortnight or so; the lease might be renewed to the other people, and so the period of twenty years might be covered. The people to whom the house or stable were let might have, without the knowledge of the owner, allowed a right of way to spring up either in the mews or in the street, and the result of this Bill, he thought, would be that it would be held that that particular owner, being in possession for a fortnight between the two lettings, would be held to have complied with the provisions of the Act, i.e., he was capable of dedicating it "at any time" during those twenty years. Those words "at any time" would cover the fortnight, and serious injury might be done to town property by preventing alterations and building extensions, because the owner, without knowledge that his tenants were doing something that they ought not to have done, happened to have been in possession for a fortnight. He thought that was a very serious thing, and he did not see how it was to be got over. The name of his noble and learned friend the Member for Marylebone was on this Bill, if he was not very much mistaken, last year, but it had now mysteriously disappeared. He had a great regard for his noble and learned friend and for his legal opinion, and he was in hopes that, having seen the error of his ways last year, he had now quietly removed his name from the back of the Bill, because he was much affected last year when he saw his noble friend's name to a Bill of that character. He thought the second case he had given was a strong reason for not allowing the Bill to pass. The wording of the Bill was extremely vague. It said in Clause 2—
"Where any way, etc., shall be deemed to have been dedicated as a public highway."
But there was no definition of a public highway. What did it mean? Supposing there was a footpath across a field, was that to become a public highway? Under the Bill he was quite certain that any number of learned gentlemen in that House would not be averse from arguing in any Court of law that a public highway under the Bill meant a highway over which one could walk,
1412
drive, motor, or ride, and he believed that they could show precedents for it. He wanted to know whether, supposing there was a footpath, that footpath could be turned into a bridle path, or a carriage track, or a motor track. It seemed to him that the Bill was extremely vague and uncertain, and that it defeated the purpose of the hon. Member who introduced it, who had not foreseen how far his action would take him. He had been actuated no doubt by the spirit which actuated most Englishmen; when they had been beaten they did not like it. Having been beaten in a Court of law, the hon. Member was now trying to come out on top, but he would point out to him that the Bill did very little good to the public. There was plenty of opportunities for them to enjoy rights of way. In many cases the owners of parks very kindly placed them at the disposal of the public, whether there was a right of way or not, so long as they behaved themselves. The advantage of having the right of interdiction was evident, because unfortunately there was a certain number of trippers and people who misbehaved themselves. A friend of his who always had his park open told him that he planted a young plantation, and after it had been growing for four years the trippers pulled up the young trees for walking sticks. If they passed a Bill of this kind and gave the public rights for which they had paid nothing, they took away the power from the owner of seeing that the privilege which he gave was used in a proper manner. Then, again, many people who availed themselves of those privileges did not like to see everything destroyed with paper and glass bottles left all over the place, and those people were protected by the fact that at present the owner had some right to say how people should use his property. He thought he had shown strong reasons why this Bill, which on the face of it was rather an innocent one, should be rejected. His experience was that the smaller and more innocent a Bill was, the more dangerous it would be to pass it. These little innocent Bills introduced on Friday afternoons were recommended on the ground of good-fellowship and all that kind of thing, but were generally extremely dangerous. Therefore, he had much pleasure in moving that this Bill

1413
should be read a second time upon that day six months.
CAPTAIN CRAIGin seconding the rejection of the Bill, asked for some further explanation as to whether it would not defeat the object for which it was intended. It appeared to him that whilst the Bill aimed at bringing into regular form paths that had been defined as rights of way, it might have the effect of making landowners all over the country draw in their horns with regard to little privileges they might have allowed. This question of rights of way was much better left to the natural growth of little privileges and the elastic conditions which land owners might from time to time allow with regard to their property, and it appealed, to him very strongly that if they brought all the landowners in the country face to face with the problem whether they were to allow small privileges, such as cutting across the corner of a plantation or removing a stone wall, in order to accommodate the neighbours, a very natural privilege would be taken away by the Bill, because the owner of the property would say that that gracious and natural privilege would be turned into a public highway. If the highway was to include all the hon. Baronet below him had stated, it would be a very great damage to the property. If this question were left in the way proposed by the Bill, he took it that every landowner in the country, to whatever party he belonged, would be always in dread of any of the little privileges he had allowed, such as the use of a stile at the corner of a plantation as a short way from point to point, being turned into public highways, and he would be compelled for the protection of his property to withdraw those privileges, which would be a great loss to the whole country. Hon. Members acquainted with the rural places of England, and especially Scotland, would know that there were rights of way granted exactly in the manner he had described, and it would be a cruel thing, because of this Bill, to make it obligatory to close them up to prevent their being converted into public highways. He took it that the real meaning of the Bill was that its promoters were desirous of closing up all those roads which were
1414
not statutory rights of way. He thought the House should pause before it permitted the Bill to have a Second Reading. If the measure conferred privileges upon the public instead of taking them away, then there might be something to be said in favour of its Second Reading. But as it was, if the landowners, who had the final word, saw that this Bill passed the Second Reading, though it never got any further, a certain unrest would undoubtedly creep in among them, the natural outcome of which would be that, instead of allowing people to cross a stubble field in winter, or an old plantation, or something of that sort, they would take special precautions that would probably mean the railing off of places hitherto used, and the putting up of walls in other parts. They would say: "At all events we must not allow people to cross our land as they have been doing for the last nineteen years, because if they do it one year more the hon. Member with his Bill will come in and turn our property into a highway for all classes of vehicles." If they looked at Clause 2 of the Bill they would see that it used the words—
"Enjoyed by the public without interruption for a period of twenty years."
He hoped some hon. Member learned in the law would explain exactly what the meaning of "public" was. Did it mean one's own workmen? A workman might have been allowed by his employer for nineteen years to use a particular way to and from his work. That workman might at the end of that period become the employee of a neighbour, and if he had a spite against his former employer, he might seek to use the old way to and from his work for another year in order to get it converted into a macadamised road. He was glad to see the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General present, besides other hon. and learned Members, for he would like to know how this Bill would affect rights of way in Ireland. Rights of way by water and by road in that country were somewhat different from what they were in other parts of the Kingdom. Indeed, as he was reminded by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, this difference as to rights of way in different parts of the country was another point against the Bill, which would bring all those rights

1415
to the same level. He would like to have it made clear what the Bill really meant in this respect, because Clause 2 undoubtedly made it difficult to see what the effect of the measure would be. A great difference would be made in respect of some of the waterway rights in Ireland, which differed from those in England and Scotland. In Ireland there were stepping stones over private streams, and rustic bridges put up by the landowner for the use of the people, and these were to be found in the beautiful glens of both the North and South of Ireland. The stepping stones, or the punt which could be shoved from side to side of the river or stream, would have to be taken away, and the inhabitants compelled to go four or five miles to get across by a bridge. The rustic bridges would disappear, and these beautiful glens, so attractive to tourists, would probably have an unsightly barge to be used as a ferry, or some unpicturesque structure, in place of the rustic bridge, to form the public highway. Clearly the promoters of the Bill had forgotten the effect their proposals would have upon the beautiful scenery in the glens of Ireland, most of which were private property, and the attractions of which brought great numbers of tourists and large sums of money into these districts. The tourists who stayed in these beautiful neighbourhoods bought their eggs, butter, and bacon of the cottagers, and in that way money was brought into the country. He dared say that the promoters of the Bill had never been in Ireland, and did not know what its effect would be. Under this Bill the famous bridge of Carrick-a-Rede, situate in one of the most lovely parts of Ireland, would immediately become a public highway, and would in that case, no doubt, have to be taken down. It was much resorted to by tourists, and, like many other beautiful parts of Ireland, its attractions were of great material advantage to the people in the district. The Bill would take away many ancient privileges, substitute for them a hard and fast rule, set the local inhabitants against the landed proprietors, and afford them no privileges to compensate for the loss of those they had enjoyed. It remained for the promoters of the
1416
measure to show what benefits it would confer.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. HERBERTsaid the hon. Member who had moved the rejection of the Bill had a very exaggerated notion as to what it was going to effect. It was a very small but a very useful Bill. It was not intended to alter rights at all, but simply to alter procedure, and to give legislative sanction to, and define, what had been the practice, according to the best judicial opinion, with regard to the effect to be given to evidence in cases of this kind. It would be of great advantage to the public, both those who wished to maintain rights of way, and those who wished to stop them, because it would define the issue which had to be tried very much more clearly, and in that way it would greatly reduce the difficulty and the cost of fighting actions of this kind. Anyone who had had any experience in right of way cases knew that they were almost always very long and very expensive cases, because of the extreme difficulty and uncertainty of the points to which the evidence had to be directed. The effect of this would be to define in a way which would enable parties to a case of this sort to know precisely the points to which they might direct their evidence, and in that way it would very largely decrease the cost of fighting cases of this kind. There was, however, a great deal in what had been said by both hon. Members who had opposed the Bill as to the fear that it would make landowners necessarily more careful about allowing the public to go on their property. But he wished to suggest to landowners a way in which that could be avoided, and which would enable them to continue to give the public access to their property without losing control of it. There was a very sensible notice put up by Lord Carrington, who was a large landowner in Buckinghamshire, that there was no right of way, but the public were invited to use the

1417
paths until further notice. In that way, without losing any of his own rights, he gave the public perfect freedom to wander in places where he was willing that they should do it, without acquiring any right which would interfere with his subsequent sale or dealing with the property. If landowners put up similar notices they would prevent any evidence of dedication arising, and it would not be necessary to curtail the rights of the public. There was one respect in which the Bill did not appear to agree with the Memorandum which had been issued in respect of it. The Memorandum said the object of the Bill was to provide that—
"Where the way had been used without interruption for twenty years, and the owner of the land during that time had been under no disability, the right of the public shall be deemed to be established, but where during that time the owner is under disability the period will be forty years."
What they understood from that was that, supposing there had been a user for twenty years, during any of that time, not the whole of it, there had been someone in possession of the land who was under disability and not capable of making a dedication, then the twenty years would not count and they would have to have a forty years user, which would clearly enable someone not under disability to have a long time in possession of the property and prevent the public user maturing into a right. But probably, by a misapprehension, the Bill said exactly the opposite. The Bill said—
"Unless there was no person in possession of such land or water capable of dedicating such way at any time during such period of twenty years."
Therefore if at any time during the twenty years there was any person in possession not under disability the right would be acquired. If the words were transposed so as to read "unless at any time during such period of twenty years there was no person in possession of such land," it would carry out what he held to be the intention of the promoters. But as it stood, supposing there had been a user, it would only exclude the acquisition of a right by the public where an infant came into possession of the land before he was one year of age. If he came into possession at the age of two, or three, the public right would be obtained. He had no doubt
1418
the promoters would be prepared to make an alteration in that sense. Hon. Members had been very much frightened by the use of the word "highway" and had pictured a quiet little path across a field after twenty years user suddenly becoming turned into a road on which motor and traction engines would be allowed to go. But the right which would be gained was only such a right as the user justified, for if the path had been used as a footpath it would only be a highway as a footpath, if used for riding it would be a bridle path, and if it had been used for driving it would be a highway for driving only. But the mere fact of its user as a footpath would not make it into a motor path, and the instances given by Members opposite really did not arise under the Bill.
MR. MCARTHURsaid he had listened very attentively to the remarks of Members in support of the Bill, and he was unable to see that any case had been made out for an alteration in the law as it existed. The result of the Bill if passed would be to restrict rather than enlarge the rights of the public. He desired to refer to the effect of the Bill with respect to cities rather than rural districts, and held that to enact that after the use of a pathway for twenty years it should become a public highway would be extremely dangerous and destructive of what he took to be the doctrine of limited user. He understood that where a pathway had been used for private or for special purposes any rights acquired by the public were subservient to the private rights or special use which had previously existed. To apply that to the case of a seaport—let them take the case of a sea wall or pier under the control of Commissioners for certain specific purposes. Supposing that for a great number of years the public had been allowed the use of that sea wall or pier, was that to be constituted a right, and was it to be taken from the control of those to whom it belonged? There was the landing stage at Liverpool, which was used as a public promenade, but was there for the purposes of navigation. Was the fact that it had been used as a public promenade for thirty or forty years to detract from the right of

1419
the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board? Then again this applied to water as well as land, and conveyed rights of navigation. Supposing the use of a dock had been allowed for twenty years or more. Were the public to have an absolute right, even though the Docks and Harbour Board conceived it desirable for the purposes of navigation that they should be excluded? There was also the case of railway stations. He knew of a case where the general public were now in the habit of going right through a station, not for the purpose of taking trains, but simply because it was a short cut to their places of business. Was the railway company to be compelled to allow the public the use of that station possibly to the detriment of the use for which the station was intended? These cases showed how very impossible the Bill was in its present form. There might be grievances. The mover of the Bill had referred to one, but he could not see how it was met by the Bill. The case he had cited was that of a pathway across a field which had been used by working people for more than twenty years, and then the owner of the property closed it. The case was tried to establish the right of the public, but it failed because at the time when the use began there was nobody who could have dedicated it to the use of the public. But this Bill excepted that very case—
"Unless there was no person in possession of such land or water capable of dedicating such way at any time during such period of twenty-years."
MR. HERBERTsaid it would then have to be proved that it had been used for forty years.
MR. MCARTHURsaid he thought the case cited was where it had been used for twenty years. His point was that the particular grievance would not be remedied. He admitted that there might be cases of grievance where a path which had been enjoyed by the public was closed by the caprice of the owner, and in those cases the right of the public should be vindicated against the owners; but this Bill went very much further than that and would, if it were passed, cause so much inconvenience and danger, and so detract from the rights of the pub-
1420
lic rather than enlarge them, that he should find himself compelled to vote against the Second Reading.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid he did not profess to be a lawyer, and, therefore, should give no opinion as to the legal technicalities of the Bill; but as regarded the general principles underlying it he was strongly in favour of it and only wished it went further. He was a little surprised to find anybody on the opposite side—he hoped there would be none on the Ministerial side—championing deliberate attempts on the part of certain owners of land to appropriate public property. To him public property was just as sacred as private property, neither more nor less, and the whole difficulty arose because a good many people who were strongly impressed with the sanctity of private property, especially their own, had too little regard for the sanctity of other people's property, especially when that property was enjoyed by an indefinite number of persons. In Kent a deliberate system of annexing roadside strips to private property had been going on for a number of years. This practice had been carried on by quite respectable persons, Members of both Houses.
SIR F. BANBURY: This Bill would not touch that at all.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid the Bill gave additional means of stopping the practice, inasmuch as it facilitated legal proceedings. The method adopted was gradually to trim up the brushwood at the roadside till the result was a fairly substantial hedge, behind which the landowner then put a fence, thus annexing what was a valuable amenity to the public, especially in these days when offensive smelling motor-cars made walking along the actual roadway so disagreeable to the pedestrian. Parliament ought to prevent this public injury being done. Recounting efforts of his own to protect the public interest in a case of this kind, he said that after addressing himself to the parish council and the rural district council without satisfactory result he wrote to a Minister, who suggested that he should give 5s. to a traction driver accidentally to charge into the hedge. That suggestion was made as

1421
some other Ministerial suggestions were made, without sufficient knowledge of the local circumstances. He afterwards wrote a courteous letter to the owner, who replied in an insolent letter recommending him to study a certain text in Timothy, which bade him mind his own business. He responded by referring the owner to another Biblical text: "Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmarks." There the correspondence ended. That was a case of deliberate robbery by a private person who was stealing public property, and the House ought to devise some means of stopping it. He suggested that this power should be put into the hands of the Board of Agriculture, because there were many disadvantages in leaving it in the hands of the local authority. Local authorities, consisting as they often did of tradesmen who wished to avoid quarrelling with the local landowner, could not be relied upon to protect the public interest in these matters. There were a great many landowners who would often extend facilities to the public were it not that so many members of the public had no conception how to behave in dealing with country things, and at present the landowner had no remedy except by prosecution for damage, and that was not sufficient. Besides, that put a great financial burden upon the landlord for protecting the amenities of the public which he ought not to be called upon to bear. He suggested that it should be made a criminal offence to do damage to plant life, and that the cost of prosecution should be met from public sources. If that were done they would find landlords less reluctant to extend privileges to the public, and he hoped they would find also less desire on the part of the landlords to appropriate public property.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he found himself in accord with the hon. Member for Preston upon this question, but from very different reasons. In regard to the case the hon. Member had mentioned his only regret was that the matter ended there and that no litigation had arisen out of it. He supported the Second Reading of this Bill and he might state that he did not share the fears of the hon. Member
1422
as to the amount of litigation it might introduce. The law applying to highways was rather anomalous, and it was different from that under which they acquired private rights of way over their neighbour's property. As far as public highways were concerned public rights could only be acquired by the dedication of that highway to the public by the owner, and that was purely a question of evidence. The simplest way would be to put up a notice: "This is a public highway." The evidence of a user of the highway for a year or two years in some cases might be sufficient to justify a tribunal in deciding that the owner intended to dedicate the highway to the public. When they came to consider the legal periods necessary to justify a right of way there was an old diction of the law that if they found the public had used the highway for a considerable period of time the law presumed that the owner must have intended to dedicate that highway to the public or else he would never have allowed the public to use it in that way for so long a time. He wished to add this caveat, that the owner could always prevent that right being established by stopping up the highway for any one day in the year. In the case of all the colleges at Cambridge and in the Temple in London and other places, they found that on a certain day in the year the gates were shut, and no one was allowed to go through unless they asked permission. That practice would not be altered by this Bill. If there had been no owner in existence for a considerable period with power to dedicate—in cases of land in settlement, for instance—difficulty arose, and he agreed with the part of the Bill dealing with this matter. Some points in the measure, however, would require amendment in Committee. One was in regard to its application to Scotland and Ireland. He had a great admiration for Scottish law, but he would leave that question as it was affected by this Bill to his hon. friends representing Scotland. With regard to its application to Ireland he approached that with greater terror, and he would be glad to hear what the state of the law was in that country. As far as England was concerned he presumed the promoter of this measure did not intend it to apply

1423
to a case where a landlord had let land upon a building lease for sixty years, as occurred in so many cases in London, and where the tenant might be tempted to grant a right of way to the public. There would be the ground landlord, and everybody knew that at present under such circumstances a right of way could not be acquired. If the landlord and tenant fell out the tenant in this respect would have a tremendous power against the landlord. Supposing the public had been allowed to use that land for thirty or forty years the landlord would have no power to stop the user and the tenant being hostile to the landlord might let the public in. That power would be given to the tenant in possession of the land, and he did not think the Bill intended to confer that power upon the tenant. The Bill was intended to apply to all questions relating to the assertion of rights of way. If they made it easier for the public to obtain rights of way, they would be very likely to make landlords more active in looking after their own rights. Reference had been made to the practice of railway companies allowing the public to use short cuts, but while that was so, he thought it would be found that the companies were careful to take some means to preserve the rights they possessed in connection with loads and pathways. He did not know the facts in regard to the Liverpool landing stage, but he had not the slightest doubt that the boards which had control of such places were carefully advised as to the means which they should take to protect their rights. The Bill would not affect the Liverpool landing stage in any shape or form. The measure would introduce a very great and useful change in the law, but it would be necessary in Committee to make some modifications in the provisions in order that the intentions of the promoters might be carried out without infringing rights of which landowners should not be deprived.
MR. DUNDAS WHITEsaid it seemed to him that the Bill would constitute an important step in securing public rights of way. They should do all they could to maintain those public rights. The rights were increasing in value every day, because under modern conditions people wanted more and more
1424
access to country districts, fresh air, and fields. He might be allowed to say that in the application of the Bill to Scotland there would have to be very considerable alterations made, and probably a new clause would be required. The principal difficulties which had arisen in England in relation to rights of way were due to the peculiar state of the law in this country. There was in England behind a right of way the presumption of dedication, and consequently any claim to a right of way might be challenged on the ground that there could have been no dedication at some particular time. He was glad to say that in Scotland they were quite free from that. The late Lord Watson, one of the highest authorities on Scots law, in Mann's case in 1885 said—
"According to the law of Scotland, the constitution of a public road does not depend upon any legal fiction, but upon the fact of use by the public as matter of right, continuously and without interruption for the full period of long prescription. I am aware that there are dicta to be found in which the prescriptive acquisition of a right of way by the public is attributed to implied grant, acquiescence of the owner, and so forth, but these appear to me to be mere speculations as to the origin of the rule."
Taking that to be the law in Scotland, the effect of the Bill as regards Scotland would seem to be to shorten the period of prescription to twenty years. He knew that various difficulties might arise from the phraseology of the Bill, and that showed the necessity for making special provision with regard to Scotland. A right of way in Scotland did not depend on conveyance or dedication, but simply on the answer to the question: "Have the public or have they not exercised uninterrupted user as of right of the right of way for a certain period?" It would be a very great improvement if the Bill could be extended in some way so as to apply to England that general principle, so as to get free from the difficulties as to dedication which so often made the attempt to assert public rights nugatory. The uninterrupted use as of right of a right of way for a certain time should be considered as establishing a right to be enjoyed by the public for ever afterwards.
MR. LAMBTONcalled attention to the fact that neither the

1425
Lord-Advocate nor the Solicitor-General for Scotland was present, though the Bill under discussion contemplated the making of serious alterations in the law of both England and Scotland. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire had pointed out that the law of Scotland was entirely different from that of England in regard to rights of way. He hoped the Law Officers of the Crown would state whether his hon. friend was correct in his explanation of the measure. If he was correct he would not oppose it. The hon. Member for Preston had made some extraordinary remarks in regard to what had been done in Kent. If landlords were allowed to take away highways from the public in that county, he could state that he had never heard of its being done in the north of England. What had been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London in regard to disabilities placed in the way of the public deserved some consideration. There were a great many landowners who did not impose restrictions to prevent people walking from one place to another, but if a public right of way were to be set up by twenty years use of the way, landowners might be led to consider whether they should continue their present practice. If the hon. Member in charge of the Bill would in Committee formulate or accept Amendments providing the necessary safeguards, he would not oppose the measure.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he did not share the apprehensions of some of his hon. friends on that side of the House. He thought great advantage would result from legislation which would have the effect of making landowners more active in asserting their rights. If a landlord who thought he had a certain right made it clear that he really possessed it, much friction would be done away with. What was proposed by this Bill would make the question of proof much easier. He agreed with the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire that the Bill as it stood could not be applied to Scotland. Under English law he understood that the right of the public to the use of a highway could only be acquired by dedication to the public by the owner of the highway.
1426
The first clause of the Bill would alter the conditions under which the dedication took place. In Scotland there was no such thing as dedication, and therefore Clause 1, the only operative clause in the Bill, was meaningless so far as the law of Scotland was concerned. In Scotland the conditions necessary to the acquisition of a public right of way were very simple. It had only to be proved that the way had been
used without interruption by the public to go from one public place to another as a matter of right for the prescriptive period of forty years. If this Bill was to be proceeded with—and he hoped it would be—he would suggest to the hon. Member in charge of it that he should see that some Amendment or clause was introduced to make the position of Scotland in this matter clear and definite. If the prescriptive period in Scotland was to be reduced from forty to twenty years, well and good, but that was not in the Bill at present. He thought a very strong case could be made out for that. In the Conveyancing Act of 1874 it was laid down that a private right could not be acquired in a period under twenty years. If the hon. Gentleman were to take the opinion of the Law Officers for Scotland, he would find that the Bill as drawn was entirely inapplicable to Scotland.
MR. BYLESsaid he had listened with interest to the exposition of the land laws given by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and was glad to know that that hon. Gentleman was in sympathy with the main object of the Bill. That explanation only showed how very few rights the public had in the land and how very difficult it was to acquire them. There was a story of a trespasser who was wandering over some place when the landlord met him and asked: "What are you doing here? Do you know that this is my land?" The reply was: "I must be on somebody's land, I have none of my own." That was the case with most of them. It had, he believed, been laid down by Sir Frederick Pollock that the public had no right to be anywhere except on land which was dedicated to the public, or on the public highway, and there the public had to move on, or on the seashore between high and low

1427
water mark. Therefore, he was entirely in sympathy with any effort of this kind to extend the rights of the public to go over the land in which they lived. An hon. Member had told them of a very interesting notice which Lord Carrington had put up somewhere on his estate telling the public that they had no right of way there, but that he was perfectly willing that they should go there. That reminded him of a famous Judge who put up a board bearing the legend: "Trespassers will not be prosecuted." If there were more landlords of that kind there would not be as much agitation as at present for the acquisition of public rights of way. At the same time existing rights of way should be watched and guarded and care taken to check the invasion of public rights by private individuals. Everyone knew that that was being done by associations such as the Commons Preservation Society. It was because he believed that this Bill would tend to increase public rights of way and prevent the infringement of these rights by private owners, that he supported it. He was once concerned in an affair which cost him a good deal, and taught him how few public rights of way there were. There was a long stretch of moorland covered with heather between Airedale and Wharfdale with paths all over it, and a local Commons Preservation Society, with which he was connected, believed that the public had rights over this common land. At any rate they thought they had a right to roam over it. There was a demonstration, and litigation ensued which he was sorry to say resulted in the loss to him of a sum which ran into three figures. He learned his lesson, and it was because he had learned his lesson that he was in favour of any legislation which would secure to the public a right to go over the land on which they were born. No doubt the Second Beading of the Bill would be carried by a large majority, but what he asked was: Is the public likely to acquire this new right demanded in the Bill? In fact would this Bill result in anything? They had discussed for a whole Friday the Access to Mountains Bill; but did anybody think they would have a right of access to mountains before this session ended? It was so with many other Bills of that
1428
kind. He was coming fast to the conclusion that a good deal of the work of this Parliament was futile. There was something wrong in the State of Denmark by which they could not get what they wanted. The King had called this Parliament together that they might legislate in the manner and in the direction which the people desired. The people desired this Bill, to judge from the support which it received. And judged by their votes the people desired many other things, but they could not get them. Yet the previous night they had spent hours marking time. He thought that the attention of the Government should be directed seriously to the procedure of the House, so that it might be possible that Bills which the House and the country desired and which had been voted for by large majorities should be really passed.
SIR F. BANBURY: May I point out that it was the Government which wasted the time of the House last night.
MR. BYLESsaid he attached no blame to the hon. Baronet, and, therefore, he did not think that he had any cause to interrupt him. He hoped that some means would be found by which Bills which the people wanted and for which the representatives of the people voted by enormous majorities and which passed their Second Heading often without a division, should become Acts of Parliament. He supported the Second Reading of this Bill.
MR. YOUNGERsaid he had had considerable experience in dealing with rights of way inquiries, and he had presided over two in his own county. This Bill proposed to make a greater change in the law of Scotland than some hon. Members imagined. He did not agree with the hon. Member opposite that the prescriptive period by which rights of way could be
acquired in Scotland would be altered by the Bill. At the present time a path had to be used for a period of forty years before a right of way was created. But there was a very important provision—not perhaps of the common law—but as the result of a long string of legal

1429
decisions, that no right of way could possibly exist or be conferred unless the path started from one public place and ended in another public place. That was to say that there could be no right of way to a cul de sac, no matter how long the public had used that path. What he wanted to know was whether this Bill would get rid of or entirely revoke those legal decisions which had in some cases protected the rights of the public and in other cases had gone contrary to the interests of the public. He himself had presided over a very long and bitter inquiry, and as a result of the evidence then given witnesses had been cutting one another's acquaintance ever since. Undoubtedly, in that case the path had been commonly used by the public for over sixty years, but owing to the fact that it could not be proved that the path ended in a place of public resort, the claim to the right of way had to be refused. He imagined that this Bill went further than was supposed, and he thought that it was very inconvenient that they had not the Law Officers for Scotland present to advise the House on the point. These gentlemen were paid large salaries and they ought to attend to their duties and perform them. The only Law Officer in his place was the Solicitor-General for England. Did or did not that hon. and learned Gentleman know whether this Bill interfered with the legal decisions in Scotland to which he had referred?
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,): No, I have no special knowledge of the law of Scotland.
MR. YOUNGERsaid he had only asked the hon. and learned Gentleman the question for the purpose of making his point clear that there ought to be some one in the House to explain the law of Scotland. Unfortunately the hon. and learned Member for South Edinburgh who was capable of affording the information was also absent. He did not Object to the Bill at all, and would support the Second Reading. He did not take the extreme views expressed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, but he thought that
1430
they ought to vote for the Bill only on distinct understanding that questions the such as he had referred to should he carefully dealt with in Committee.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid it was a very curious thing that when an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency rose to ask a point as to the law of Scotland, the legal advisers of the Crown in Scotland should have beat a hasty retreat. He did not think that there had been behind the Bill sufficient support in the House to justify them in giving it a Second Reading. Although many hon. Members had risen in their places to support the Bill most of them had guarded themselves with the qualification that they hoped it would be altered almost beyond reconition in the Committee stage. There was no doubt that this Bill was in the same category as the Access to Mountains Bill debated last Friday, the primary object of which was to give greater freedom to those who had not, under the present law, those facilities for moving about in country districts which the promoters of the Bill thought they should have. The primary object to the Bill was not to define the law. The Bill was brought forward for the benefit of isolated cases. It was a measure for penalising a great majority in order to make a small minority do that which everyone agreed they ought to do. A phrase was used by the hon. Member for the Wycombe Division of Bucks, which, in his opinion, always did a good deal of harm when used in this House. He said that the Bill
"was a small and very useful measure."
The danger was that these Bills brought forward by hon. Members on the back benches were sometimes adopted by the Government and forced through by means of closure and the guillotine in a way that everyone deplored. He did not think that the remedy proposed by the hon. Gentleman, of putting up notice boards, was a desirable one, nor did he think it would meet the case. His own opposition to this Bill was founded upon the fact that it was a piece of entirely unnecessary legislation. The Bill seemed to be small and not very harmful, but there were many dangers

1431
which had been entirely lost sight of by its promoters. One was that those who were now willing to allow open footpaths for the purpose of benefiting large numbers of people in the country would have seriously to reconsider their position if the Bill became law. There were many men responsible for the management of properties who, unknown to their employers, had allowed people to make use of what was or might become under this Bill a right of way. Those persons would be very unwilling to prejudice their employers by allowing those rights to continue. It was admitted that the law at the present time with regard to rights of way was uncertain, but that was not an unmixed evil. He did not know if this Bill became an Act that it would make the law more certain than it was now. It was most important that the Bill should either meet with a direct negative or be withdrawn by its promoters, as it must be obvious that it had not the support behind it which would justify its being passed into law. For these reasons he would support the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London.
LORD R. CECILagreed that there was not a great deal of support behind the Bill; but this was because it was, genuinely, a small measure; and behind small measures of change a large amount of support was not always to be expected. So far from its being unnecessary, in his opinion it would be a desirable Bill to pass. It did not make much change in the law. All it did was to declare that one of the views taken by the Judges was the correct view. The opponents of the Bill were, however, entitled to say that many of the speeches delivered ostensibly in support of the Bill had nothing to do with it. It did not, for example, deal with the theft of strips of land by the wayside, though he agreed that there was a great deal to be said for making it as much a criminal offence to steal land as to steal goods. The Bill only dealt with prime rights of way, not with the general rights of the public to stray all over a common. That was because it left the law where it was as to what constituted a right of way. They would still have to prove that the right had been used
1432
for twenty years. In the same way the junior Member for the City of London had spoken of the danger which might occur owing to a lunatic being the owner of a property. If the lunatic was the full owner he could at this time dedicate a right of way across his land and destroy the whole value of the estate to his successors. If he was in full possession this Bill would not affect his position. If he was tenant for life then the proof of forty years use would be required, and it was exceedingly unlikely that a lunatic would be in possession for forty years. He thought a case had been made out by the hon. Member for the Kirk-dale division of Liverpool and the hon. Baronet with regard to towns, and the promoters should consider whether they should not except boroughs and cities from the operation of the Bill, which was really mainly intended to secure the use of country footpaths. He was doubtful whether the ultimate effect of the Bill would be to increase rights of way. He thought its effect would be to diminish them. It would define more accurately than had ever been defined the rights of the public and of the landowner, and it would call the attention of landowners to the danger of allowing a right of way unless they intended to dedicate it to the public. He would be quite frank with hon. Members opposite, though he was afraid it would not carry them with him when he said that he was a little doubtful of the benefit to the public of prosecuting; these rights of way. It must be remembered that rights of way were constantly getting seriously in the way of great public improvements and the beneficial development of land. Nobody who had had much to do with railway and waterworks companies would contradict him when he said that one of the difficulties with which they had to deal were footpaths which were little used but were technically highways, and could only be got rid of by an Act of Parliament. He was doubtful whether, on the whole, the multiplication of rights of way was a public benefit. On the contrary, he thought it was the reverse. His support of the Bill was based simply on the fact that it would define more accurately the rights of the contending parties, because it was desirable that there should

1433
be as little dispute on these matters as possible, and that when it came to litigation the dispute should be as simple as possible. For these reasons he thought it was a desirable Bill, and he hoped it would be passed into law. He had always felt that the great blot upon the procedure of this House was that there were not two channels for legislation, one reserved for contentious measures, the passage of which should be made as difficult as possible, and the other for non-contentious measures, which should be given a short and simple path to the Statute-book. He had always felt that, and would be glad to join with any hon. Member who would devise some means to bring it about. It was a matter which did not affect the front benches because such measures as would be benefited would not be much spoken about on the platforms of the country. If any Member felt inclined to enter with him upon such a crusade he would give him such help as he was able.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,), who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that he thought the noble Lord who had just sat down had been a little hard upon the front benches. But the Bill was, as the noble Lord had just said, a small one, very restricted in scope, and very modest in aim. It did not affect existing rights very substantially. In fact it did not affect them at all, but it simplified the proceedings and facilitated the enforcement and the proof of those rights. The landowner would have, under this Bill, the same power as he had had now for many centuries of interrupting the public user of a way, or of preventing any injurious inference of an act of dedication being drawn. The Bill simply stated that proof of user for certain periods should be sufficient to establish presumption of dedication, and that where the right of way had been enjoyed for a full period of forty years it should be deemed conclusively to have been dedicated as a public highway unless there was evidence negativing such dedication. It had been pointed out that the way in which public rights had been acquired in England was by either direct or presumed dedication. The law would presume that
1434
proof of user would be unnecessary, for instance, in a case of a building estate where the roads had been thrown open as part of the development of the estate and there had been no user beyond a few weeks or days. On the other hand, it might be necessary to prove a very long user to establish a right; the proof might go back for twenty years, and yet the circumstances be such as to rebut the presumption of actual dedication. In the case of land in the possession of a lunatic, proof of user had to go back thirty or forty years. In the Courts, some Judges had said that, if proof of user went to the limit of living memory—that was, that the oldest inhabitant had always known it to be open for use—under such circumstances they would infer that there had been a dedication, no matter how remote that dedication might have been. One case went back as far as the time of Queen Mary, and the learned Judge in that case expressed the opinion that where a user had been established for forty years he was entitled to presume there had been dedication not only as far back as the time of Queen Mary but the time of William the Conqueror. But other Judges had construed the fact of dedication much more strictly, and in regard to litigation of this kind it was, at the present time, impossible to say how the Courts would decide. All that this Bill proposed to do was to settle the law, and to simplify procedure. In substance it was proposed to confer upon the public, in respect of their rights, just the same procedure as existed in the case of private rights of way. In dealing with private rights, the Courts were assisted by Statute, and this Bill laid down a simple and cheap procedure. That was important to the landowner in every way, because by the Local Government Act public rights of way were placed now under the guardianship of public bodies, and they would be able to be fought and vindicated more frequently than before, and the landowner had therefore an interest in the law being as cheap as possible. This Bill did not alter the law as to the facts; it merely said that certain facts, generally regarded by Judges and juries as sufficient, should by law be sufficient to prove user. The House of Commons

1435
did not think twelve years possession an unreasonable time to establish a title to the freehold and enable a man to take possession of the actual land. Twelve years user of land, under conditions which showed that a man intended to assert his right to it, gave him the actual soil and a freehold of that land. Therefore, if Parliament thought fit, after such a short period as that, to confer a statutory title upon the man who was using the land, surely it did not seem unreasonable to say that in the case of public rights of way twenty years in the one case, and forty years in the other, should be considered to be sufficient. He hoped the House would pass the Bill.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid the noble Lord behind him had indicated that in his view there was no large volume of public opinion behind the Bill, or at all events not sufficient to justify its passage into law, yet he went on to say that there was nothing about it more jealously guarded than any intrusion of the rights of the public. He (Mr. Cross) made a strong point of that. Private ownership of land tended to arrogate to itself more and more of the rights of possession. The old rights enjoyed by the public in the old times were very numerous, and he considered that in many cases railways, large buildings, and other erections, that took place on land, made the extinguishment of those rights a matter of impossibility to the landowner, but that made it all the more necessary that public rights should be conserved, and that the litigation which might arise should be less costly than in the past. Like his hon. friend who spoke from the front bench, he had himself borne a large share in the defence of public rights of way, and in one particular case it was taken in the Scottish Chambers of Justice and passed through other Courts and was only maintained by an appeal to the House of Lords, undertaken at great private expense. It was because he believed there was no public feeling in regard to access to land more clear in the general sentiments of the people of this country, particularly of Scotland,
than that they desired to preserve the ancient rights of way, that he had pleasure in supporting this Bill.
MR. MEYSEY THOMPSONsaid he should like to have one or two points elucidated. He thought the Bill if passed, might have a serious effect in causing landowners to be chary about granting privileges. One of the supporters of the Bill had referred to the fact that if a path became a highway, what guarantee had they that next year the Government would not bring in a Bill to say that a public highway could be used for all purposes by the public? Let them take the case of a landowner who granted privileges to the villagers to use a path running by the end of his house down the carriage drive; supposing a Bill was brought in, that man's house might be made unfit to live in by motor cars being allowed to pass along the path. Another point he wished to be clear about was this: As soon as a path became a right of way, who paid for its maintenance? Was the maintenance still paid by the owner, or would it be maintained out of the rates?
SIR W. ROBSON: This Bill does not deal with that question at all.
MR. MEYSEY THOMPSONsaid that if a path became a right of way and was to be used by the public, it was very hard that the owner should still have to pay for the increased wear and tear on the path. In the case of waterways, as soon as one became a right of way they might say that an ornamental bridge was no longer fitted for the traffic over it, and have an ugly erection put up in one's grounds to enable the traffic to go over it. That was what would happen if the road was to be maintained out of the rates. He thought it was a Bill that was very apt to cause exactly the opposite effect to that desired, viz., the effect of shutting up footpaths and waterways.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 160; Noes, 13. (Division List No. 109.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barker, John

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Ashley, W. W.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bennett, E. N.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Beale, W. P.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Bowerman, C. W.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Rees, J. D.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Higham, John Sharp

Renton, Leslie

Brace, William

Hobart, Sir Robert

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Brigg, John

Hodge, John

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mp'n

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Brooke, Stopford

Hudson, Walter

Roe, Sir Thomas

Burke, E. Haviland-

Idris, T. H. W.

Rowlands, J.

Byles, William Pollard

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Cameron, Robert

Jenkins, J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Sears, J. E.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Seddon, J.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jowett, F. W.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cheetham, John Frederick

Joyce, Michael

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Clancy, John Joseph

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Cleland, J. W.

Kekewich, Sir George

Snowden, P.

Clough, William

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Stanger, H. Y.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Steadman, W. C.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Lupton, Arnold

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sutherland, J. E.

Cox, Harold

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Crean, Eugene

MacVeigh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Crooks, William

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Cross, Alexander

M'Callum, John M.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Devlin, Joseph

M'Crae, George

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dillon, John

Magnus, Sir Philip

Verney, F. W.

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Marnham, F. J.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Masterman, C. F. G.

Wardle, George J.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Mooney, J. J.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Elibank, Master of

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Waterlow, D. S.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard.

Watt, Henry A.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Everett, R. Lacey

Napier, T. B.

Whiteley, Rt. Hn. G. (York, W. R.

Findlay, Alexander

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Flynn, James Christopher

Nicholls, George

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Grant, Corrie

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Williamson, A.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Gulland, John W.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Halpin, J.

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Younger, George

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Perks, Robert William

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Winfrey and Mr. Arthur Dewar.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Price C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central

Hayden, John Patrick

Radford, G. H.

Helme, Norval Watson

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gordon, J.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Gretton, John

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Castlereagh, Viscount

Helmsley, Viscount

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hunt, Rowland

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Captain Craig.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

M'Arthur, Charles

Fell, Arthur

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

COAL MINES (CHECKWEIGHERS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL): This Bill is out of order. Clauses
1438
2 and 3 go beyond the title of the Bill, so that the Bill cannot proceed.
MR. BRACEsaid he was afraid, after consultation with Mr. Speaker, that he could not contest that ruling, but he should like to say, on behalf of the Federation responsible for the introduction of the measure

1439
that they handed all the material to a properly trained draftsman and a legal gentleman. It only showed the pitfalls they were all liable to in connection with that matter, and he could only express his regret that the Bill should be prevented from coming on.
Whereupon the order was discharged, and the Bill withdrawn.

ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The provisions of this Bill are practically identical with those of the Access to Mountains Bill which has passed the Second Reading and is now before the Standing Committee. This Bill, therefore, cannot be proceeded with as the House has already given a judgment upon it.
Whereupon the order was discharged, and the Bill withdrawn.

COMMONS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. PIKE PEASEsaid that in view of the fact that two Bills had been withdrawn quite unexpectedly, and that a large number of Members interested in this Bill were not present, he thought the consideration of the Bill should be adjourned.
MR. TREVELYANthought it would be rather unreasonable not to proceed with the Bill, because it was one which dealt with only one or two and not any very vital points in connection with the laws for the regulation of commons, which he thought the House was quite capable of deciding. He had been asked to move the Second Reading of the Bill by the hon. Baronet the Member for Northwich, whose name was on the Bill. The object was to facilitate the regulation of commons. There would, he thought, be no difference of opinion as to the desirability and value of the general regulation of commons so that they might be used to the best purpose. Constantly it was found that commons
1440
in various parts of the country required drainage or fencing, that there were rights of the commoners which needed to be regulated, that arrangements were desirable for recreation of various kinds, for fencing in cricket pitches and golf greens, and for preventing the destruction of birds' nests or injuring the timber, and for preventing fires, which were of very frequent occurrence where no proper regulations were made. There was in existence at the present time means for providing regulations by Provisional Order after careful consideration, in the first place, by the Board of Agriculture, then by a Select Committee of that House, and then by Provisional Order passed in that House. Regulations could not be undertaken at all unless one-third of those interested in the common desired them, and a Provisional Order could not be brought forward unless two-thirds, of the commoners interested were ready to accept the Provisional Order proposed. Besides that, the lord of the manor could exercise an absolute veto, and prevent regulations being made. What the Bill proposed to do was not very revolutionary. It was simply to abolish the veto of the lord of the manor. He said it was not revolutionary because in the case of the London commons, by an Act of 1866 the veto of the lord of the manor was abolished. It was left entirely to the commoners and to the Board of Agriculture, irrespective of any veto of the lord of the manor, to make regulations if desired in London, and there did not really seem any reason why that should not be extended to country districts. It had been calculated, he thought with fair accuracy, that the interests of the lord of the manor in commons averaged out at about one-fifteenth of the general interests in such common lands, taking the commons all over the country, and it seemed unreasonable that a man with one-fifteenth of the interest should be able to exercise an absolute veto as against very likely the whole of the rest of the commoners. Those who had been interested in providing regulation schemes told him that the veto of the lord of the manor exercised a considerable effect in preventing the regulation of commons. He thought that would be obvious to the House when he mentioned the fact that there had been only thirty

1441
regulations of commons carried through in the last thirty years, and that the veto was a considerable bar to proper regulations. According to a Report in 1836 by the Lands Commissioners, who discussed why the regulations of commons in the last ten years prior to their inquiry proceeded at such a very moderate rate, they came to the conclusion that the right of the lord of the manor to veto application for regulation which was given by the Enclosures Act was a hindrance to regulation. He, therefore, hoped the House would accept the general principle of the Bill, and he thought they would find, if they looked into it in detail in Committee, that all reasonable rights of the lord of the manor were properly preserved in the Bill. In the first place the rights of the lord of the manor were not prejudicially affected by the Bill, and he was able to exercise his influence as owner of part of the common rights together with the other commoners, and he would be able to exercise that influence when it was a question of deciding whether these regulations should be undertaken or not. He had his share with the other commoners. Finally, the House might feel that it was not likely that the rights of the lord of the manor would be in any way prejudicially affected, because that House itself had the most complete control over any schemes made under the Enclosures Act. In the first place there was the Select Committee to which the schemes would have to go, and, secondly, all these schemes had to pass by way of Provisional Order Bill through that House. He, therefore, hoped that this small amendment of the law would be accepted fairly readily by the House. He did not think that he need go into the other clauses, because they were mostly of a minor character and consequential.
LORD R. CECIL: Will the hon. Member explain the meaning of Clause 8? It is very difficult to understand.
MR. TREVELYAN: The practical effect of Clause 8 is that it will give to the parish councils the use of any exhausted parish lands for recreation grounds.
LORD R. CECIL: Exhausted parish lands—what are they?
MR. TREVELYAN: They are lands which have been used for quarries and worked out. I beg to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
CAPTAIN CRAIGthought that the House would agree that the Bill of which they had just concluded the discussion in reference to rights of way was one as to which the mover had taken them into his confidence, explaining every portion of it in a clear and concise way. In this case, they had a Bill of first class importance thrown upon the House without a word of explanation such as was usual with a Bill of this nature. The measure was brought suddenly upon them owing to the previous two Bills on the Paper having been ruled out of order. It affected all the commons throughout the country, a fairly wide subject; besides which it went in for legislation by reference. He himself had had no opportunity of turning to the Acts named in the Bill, and for all the House knew about those Acts, which had been in force for some years, they might be of the most revolutionary character. Yet this whole question was brought before them and they were asked to discuss it though they had not had the least idea that it would be brought forward by the hon. Member, who was perfectly able and clever enough to have given them full details. The Radical Party, who backed the Rights of Way Bill, had also supported the Bill in regard to deer forests last Friday, and they would have backed up another Bill that day if it had not been ruled out of order by Mr. Deputy Speaker. Every Friday they had some proposal from the Radical and Labour Party to take property which belonged to somebody else. Whatever else underlay these Bills, that was really what they came to. The hon. Member who had moved the Second Reading had said that every precaution had been taken that the rights of the lord of the manor should be preserved. He thought that the hon. Gentleman, having felt a qualm of conscience, had corrected himself by saying that all "reasonable rights" should be preserved to the lord of the manor. On that practically turned the whole question of whether or not any of them would be

1443
in favour of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman had said at first that the Bill would preserve all the rights of the lord of the manor, and then in the next breath he said "all reasonable rights." But it was just there they found so much difficulty in appreciating the Bill, and it was just there that he personally wished to take the opportunity of moving its rejection. They had now got access to mountains; they had got the rights of way under the control of the various local authorities, and now they had the question raised of what they were to do with the commons. It was a most revolutionary proposal. The hon. Member said that all reasonable rights would under this Bill be preserved to the lord of the manor. What were the rights of the lord of the manor now as compared with what they would be under this Bill if it became law? So far as he knew the lords of the manor now had the veto or last word with regard to any change proposed to be made in the commons, and there was no exception to the lord of the manor having the last word as to any agreements which were made for the convenience of the commoners. He presumed he was correct in saying that, but if he was not perhaps some hon. and learned Member would correct him. But this Bill took the veto away, and therefore the hon. Member's statement that it preserved all the reasonable rights of the lord of the manor seemed to him to be somewhat contradicted by the Bill. If, for instance, Clause 8, which was passed over in such a perfunctory manner by the hon. Gentleman, was studied, hon. Members would see that the lord of the manor had not a word to say with regard to what should be done in respect of exhausted parish lands; indeed, all through the Bill there was a depriving of the lord of the manor of ancient rights and privileges. Was any body of men in the country more interested in seeing that the commons were properly supervised and used to the greatest advantage of the commoners than the lords of the manor? The lord of the manor was practically lord of the soil to a considerable extent, and he had to take into consideration the whole of the property of the neighbourhood and see that it and the commons harmonised. That was what had been done hitherto, and it was
1444
that which gave the country parts of England their prosperous and beautiful appearance. But it seemed to him that this Bill, looking at it superficially, which was the only way they had an opportunity of looking at it, would imperil that harmony, peace, and quietness which had hitherto characterised the relations between the lords of the soil and the commoners. It was neither right nor reasonable that the House should have thrust upon it on a Friday afternoon, without notice, an intricate Bill without at all events some explanation. The character of the commons might at any time by a wild move on the part of a certain number of commoners be hastily changed if this Bill were passed, whereas from time immemorial they had been cautiously watched by lords of the manor. The lord of the manor was a sort of Upper Chamber ready at all times to veto anything of a radical nature proposed by the commoners, and he proved a valuable safeguard for the preservation of those rights, such as grazing, shooting, and occupying, which had been handed down from generation to generation. The present generation, he thought, ought to be very chary of making any alteration. If cricket pitches and football grounds and other facilities for enjoyment were wanted on commons, it was very easy to apply to the lord of the manor. There were very few instances where a lord of the manor refused such requests or interfered so long as everything was fair in the interests of himself and his successors; and it would be very unwise indeed to make a change at such short notice. He had occasion earlier in the afternoon to protest against the absence of any Law Officers for Ireland to answer undoubtedly important legal questions as they affected Ireland; and in this Bill also they had no Law Officers for Ireland present to keep them right. After all, the law relating to commons in Ireland was very distinctive indeed; it was absolutely useless to go on discussing a Bill which referred to Ireland unless they had a Law Officer of the Crown for Ireland or the Chief Secretary present to answer questions. On that ground and also because the House was, not prepared to legislate on such a large and important subject he moved the adjournment of the debate.
SIR PHILIP MAGNUSseconded.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Captain Craig.)
LORD R. CECILhoped the House would assent to the Motion for the adjournment. It seemed perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. It would not be a moral lesson to those who were sometimes accused of talking unduly, if they were told, as a punishment for restraining themselves in regard to one Bill, that they were to be made to pass another Bill which they had not had the opportunity of studying. After the Rights of Way Bill, there was the Coal Mines (Check-weighers) Bill. It was one which he had looked into, and, seeing that it was a measure that would divide hon. Members, and would be likely to last the rest of the sitting, he did not think it necessary to inform himself of the other measures on the Paper. It was not quite fair to hon. Members to undertake the discussion of a measure of this description when no one had any notion that it would come before the House that afternoon. Those who had had an opportunity of reading it, would see that the Bill was one of all others which certainly ought not to be brought up without proper warning and consideration. It was a remarkable instance of the vice of legislation by reference, and it was all the more remarkable because on the back of the Bill was the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Northwich Division of Cheshire who was known as a very violent, and justly violent, opponent of that kind of legislation. He would give some of the instances of this legislation by reference.
MR. SPEAKER: The Motion for the adjournment having been moved, no discussion can take place on the Bill.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was only trying to give reasons why the debate should be adjourned.
MR. SPEAKER: If the noble Lord refers to the clauses of the Bill, he will be discussing it.
LORD R. CECILsaid he would not discuss it more than to say that if hon. Members would read the Bill they
1446
would see that his observation was well founded, and that the clauses were exceedingly complicated and difficult, and made reference to a large amount of other legislation. It was, he thought, a double offence against legislative propriety to bring such a Bill before the House without any kind of warning, and without giving hon. Members an opportunity of considering it at all. It was one thing to be able to master the contents of a single Bill, but it was another and a very much more difficult thing if one had to read and digest a very large amount of other legislation. He could not help thinking that the House would be better advised on that warm afternoon to take the opportunity of enjoying the fresh air than to press forward with the Bill. If that course were taken, hon. Members opposite would not have cause to repent of their consideration. He really thought the House would be ill discharging its duty if it insisted upon passing a measure of this description without warning.
MR. LUPTONsaid that several Members opposite had commented on the fact that there were no Law Officers of the Crown present. It seemed to him of great importance that in discussing measures of this kind they should have the assistance of the Law Officers. They ought to have the best legal information to assist them every day they were there. He did not mean that all the Law Officers should sit all day long on that bench, but they always ought to be at hand, and some of them ought always to be on the front bench. They did not get the legal assistance to which they were entitled, though that was not peculiar to this Government. He hoped the time was not far distant when they would as a rule see the Law Officers for Scotland, England, and Ireland always upon that bench, so that when a Bill was brought in dealing with the whole kingdom it should not be thrown in their face and urged as a reason for delay that the Law Officers were not present to guide the House.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid the Speaker had ruled that they were not entitled to discuss the Bill at that particular moment, and he was not anxious to discuss the Bill. But hon. Members did not thoroughly understand its provisions for

1447
the reason that they had had no opportunity of discovering what they were. From a cursory glance it appeared to him that the Bill might cause very great danger to the beauty of the country. They had come to the House intending to vote on other Bills which were first, second and third on the Paper, and which were now out of the way. It was perfectly impossible for them or for hon. Members opposite, who often claimed a larger share of intelligence, to bring intelligence to bear on this Bill. The mover of the Bill no doubt thoroughly understood its provisions, but he had not taken the least trouble to explain many of them, and it was impossible by a cursory glance at the Bill, without referring to the passages which were embodied in it, to come to a decision on it. He had got hold of two of the main statutes which were alluded to, and it was perfectly impossible to see in the few minutes he had had how they affected the main provisions of the Bill, and to what extent they were embodied in it. He hoped in the interests of intelligent legislation the Motion for adjournment would be carried and that they would not go on considering Bills which they could not understand, on which they could not give an intelligent vote, and which might lave consequences which none of them could foresee.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he was very reluctant to interfere on a private Members' day, but when he heard that the two intermediate Bills were going to be ruled out of order he had taken steps to gather what was the view generally in the House with regard to further proceedings. It seemed to him the general view was that this Commons Bill, being on almost the same subject as the Bill already dealt with and largely the same persons being interested, should be proceeded with. He gathered also that it was the general feeling of the House that after this Bill others of a different character should not be taken, and he thought it would be the view of the Government that if this Bill went through they should not proceed further. With regard to this Bill the Law Officers of the Crown were in attendance. The Solicitor-General had
1448
listened to the only speech made in criticism of the Bill, and was in attendance to deal with other criticisms if they should require his reply. Under those circumstances he would suggest that the House might proceed with this Bill, and that other Bills should not be proceeded with. He hoped the Motion would not be pressed.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the trouble he had taken in ascertaining the wishes of the House as to what Bills should be proceeded with. He was evidently of the opinion that it would be inadvisable under the circumstances to proceed with other Bills, but he made an exception with regard to this because the general opinion was that it should be proceeded with. Might he ask whether the hon. Gentleman had taken the opinion of the Opposition, and if it was not consistent with all traditions of Parliament that the minority, however small and insignificant, should be consulted upon a question as to what business was or was not to be taken?
MR. WHITLEY: I did consult the other side of the House. I was expressing the general opinion after having spoken to all parts of the House.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was much obliged, but he did not know whom the hon. Gentleman had consulted on that side of the House, because the right hon. Gentleman who was, he presumed, the Leader of the Opposition at the moment, was against proceeding with the Bill, as was everyone else on those benches. They were entitled to some consideration on an occasion like that. He had made research into the Check-weighers Bill, and spent considerable time and study in preparing his notes thereon, because he always endeavoured before addressing the House to master the facts of the question to be considered. In these circumstances, and not having any idea that the Bill was out of order, it was absolutely impossible for him to have mastered the contents of the present Bill. He did not intend to allude to them because he did not know what they were. That was his argument

1449
—that they were asked to discuss a Bill about which they knew absolutely nothing, and on which it was impossible for them to have informed themselves. He saw the name of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Northwich on the back of the Bill. Where was the right hon. Baronet? Surely it was the invariable custom that the Member whose name appeared first on the Bill should nave something to say as to whether it should be taken or not. He had as much right to say he believed the right hon. Baronet was opposed to the Bill being taken at that hour and under those circumstances as the hon. Gentleman had to say he was in favour of it. They neither of them knew what his views were. The hon. Member for Market Harborough was not present either. In fact he could see only one Member whose name was on the Bill.
MR. TREVELYANsaid he was particularly asked by the right hon. Baronet to introduce the Bill because he knew he could not be present.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that that was a proof that his contention was right. The right hon. Baronet had asked the hon. Member for two reasons—first, because he could not be there; and, secondly, because he knew the Bill was not coming on. All he wanted the hon. Member to do was to say "Monday" or "Tuesday" when the clerk called the name of the Bill. The last division showed there were, he believed, l73 Members present. A simple calculation showed that there were 500 away. They were asked to pass an important Bill in an hour and a half when 500 Members were away, none of whom could lave expected the Bill to come on. The proposition was so self-evident that it was unnecessary for him to say anything more. He hoped the House would adopt the Motion on the understanding that when it was carried the House would rise. He would not go into the question of it being a fine summer afternoon. He was always willing to be present whether it was wet or fine. He had a great love and admiration for the House of Commons, and he did not want to see it make itself ridiculous; when it passed legislation he wanted it to be in a state
1450
to understand the legislation it was going to pass. He should heartily vote for the Motion.
SIR J. JARDINEthought many of the objections taken to proceeding with the Bill were really matters which could be dealt with in Committee. The absence of 500 Members on a fine summer's day was not a reason why they who were at their places should be debarred from seeing the Bill read a second time. He would like to have spent the afternoon on one of the numerous commons round his home in Surrey, but he knew too well that they wanted regulating. There were many things to be done about these commons, and therefore he and no doubt many of his hon. friends were there to do a piece of business if the Rules of the House, without any particular strain, would permit. Far would it be from him to insist on hasty legislation or anything that might come within the term "sharp practice," but they were only following the ordinary procedure of the House. As to the difficulties of legislation by reference, he thought in the present case they hardly existed.
MR. FELLsaid there were two proposals before them. One was whether they should adjourn and enjoy these commons which it was proposed to discuss, and the other was whether they should spend the afternoon in, as far as he could see, trying to destroy them. The hon. Baronet proposed that they should go and enjoy themselves on those commons, and he heartily supported him. The Bill had been sprung on them. Were there half a dozen gentlemen who had read it, who had gone through all the references and read the Acts to which it referred, and were therefore in a position to speak and vote on it? Was there anyone who knew what it meant and could vote on it honestly? The hon. Member for Cambridge University was entrenched with books which he believed contained some of the Acts referred to. He might in half an hour with his legal knowledge be able to master it, but was it possible for them all similarly to obtain copies of the Bill and thoroughly master it? Was it

1451
reasonable? Had they ever done it before? On these grounds he heartily supported the proposal that they should adjourn.
COLONEL LOCKWOODthought it would not be foreign to the present debate to ask that at all events some reason should be adduced in answer to the various arguments which had been put forward by Members of the Opposition as to why they should not proceed with the Bill. It had been said that no one expected the Bill to come on, and that there was a great deal of legislation by reference, and various other points had been made, and they had heard no reason at all why these arguments should not be accepted by the House. The hon. Member for Halifax had stated that the opinion of the House was in favour of proceeding with the Bill, but the minority had not been consulted on the question, as it ought to be, however small it was. There was nothing important in the Bill that could not wait—nothing of such vital importance that they should pass it without any knowledge of what it contained. There was extraordinary unanimity on that point. They had heard no one who said he understood it. Some of his colleagues were the most industrious Members the House contained—the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, for instance—and if he did not understand it he did not
suppose there was anybody in the House who did. Small as they were in numbers, at all events they were as intelligent as hon. Members opposite. Perhaps that was going rather a long way, but they might hope to attain to it, and they might ask for some reason in favour of proceeding with a Bill which no one expected to come on or understood in the least. He should like to know what the mover had in mind when he placed his name on the back of the Bill. Had he studied it? Had he gone into the statutes, and was he of opinion that it was of advantage to the idea he had in his mind that they should proceed to discuss it?
MR. HUNTsaid that hon. Members opposite wanted the House to buy a pig in a poke. It was perfectly absurd to suppose that anyone could understand the Bill unless they had given very serious consideration to it. Would anybody on the opposite side get up and say they really thought a dozen Members in the House understood anything about it? It was a very strong order to try and shove a Bill through under such conditions, perfectly well knowing that nobody knew anything about it.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 48; Noes, 161. (Division List No. 110.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Ashley, W. W.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon, J.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hamilton, Marquess of

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bottomley, Horatio

Helmsley, Viscount

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Houston, Robert Paterson

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Watt, Henry A.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Younger, George

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Craik, Sir Henry

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Craig and Mr. Meysey-Thompson.

Cross, Alexander

Magnus, Sir Philip

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Beale, W. P.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Barker, John

Bellairs, Carlyon

Atherley-Jones, L.

Barnes, G. N.

Benn, W. (Tw'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Bennett, E. N.

Henry, Charles S.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Boland, John

Higham, John Sharp

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Bowerman, C. W.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Price, C. E. (Edinbgh, Central)

Brigg, John

Hodge, John

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford. E,)

Brooke, Stopford

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Bryce, J. Annan

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Byles, William Pollard

Hudson, Walter

Rees, J. D.

Cameron Robert

Idris, T. H. W.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Causton Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Illingworth, Percy H.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cheetham, John Frederick

Jardine, Sir J.

Rowlands, J.

Clancy, John Joseph

Jenkins, J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Cleland, J. W.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Clough, William

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Sears, J. E.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Jowett, F. W.

Seaverns, J. H.

Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Joyce, Michael

Seddon, J.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Kekewich, Sir George

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Cox, Harold

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Sheehy, David

Crooks, William

Laidlaw, Robert

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cullinan, J.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Snowden, P.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lupton, Arnold

Stanger, H. Y.

Devlin, Joseph

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Steadman, W. C.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Summerbell, T.

Dillon, John

M'Arthur, Charles

Sutherland, J. E.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

M'Callum, John M.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

M'Crae, George

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Elibank, Master of

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Marnham, F. J.

Verney, F. W.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Vivian, Henry

Everett, R. Lacey

Menzies, Walter

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Findlay, Alexander

Molteno, Percy Alport

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Flynn, James Christopher

Montgomery, H. G.

Wardle, George J.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Mooney, J. J.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Morrell, Philip

Waterlow, D. S.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Grant, Corrie

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Whitehead, Rowland

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Gulland, John W.

Napier, T. B.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Nicholls, George

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Halpin, J.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Williamson, A.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Harwood, George

Nuttall, Harry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Trevelyan and Mr. Lyulph Stanley.

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Original Question again proposed.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he desired to put a few questions to the Solicitor-General, not on behalf of the lords of the manor or of any sporting rights, but purely on behalf of the existing commoners who held common rights. He was not speaking of the sort of commons or village greens which were found in Surrey, but of large tracts of land, covered with herbage and underwood, over which certain commoners had rights, such as turbary, stocking, and cutting under-
1454
wood, to which they attached considerable importance. He would have no objection to the Bill if it recognised and scheduled those rights, and prevented unauthorised persons from using them. One of the greatest grievances of owners was that these rights were always being infringed by unauthorised persons. It was a difficult thing to say who had got these particular common rights, because few of these poor people had any title which they could show. He believed the law was that those rights only attached to a particular tenement and lapsed when the tenement was removed.

1455
He wished to say a few words as to the rights of the lords of the manor. He had shown how valuable those rights were to a commoner, but supposing anybody infringed the rights of these poor commoners, how were they going to fight their case? In a case which had come within his own experience a man began to build a house on such a tract of common land. The commoners did not know what to do. They could not combine, because they were not sure of their legal status. The only person who could do anything was the lord of the manor. They went to him (the speaker) and he did the common-sense thing, for he took his own men with him and pulled the house down. He thought those commoners had supported him at the poll ever since. In all villages there was a tendency to take vacant farm houses and cottages and turn them into residential buildings, and the first thing they wanted to do was to make a lawn tennis ground. Often they came to him to ask for power to take turf and he refused on the ground that it deprived the people of their stock runs and the hills of their wild beauty. Under this Bill the lord of the manor would have no such powers, and he very much doubted whether the parish council would exercise the powers that were given to them. The framers of the Bill must have had in their minds the ordinary common of the sort that was to be seen in Hampshire. They had not in mind those great tracts of land which were the ordinary adjuncts to the villages in the counties of Somerset, Devon, and Cornwall. There was a large population in his division who lived on the edge of the hillside and provided a source of very valuable labour for the farmers during the summer months. In the winter time they got their living by making brooms and cutting and selling underwood. He earnestly appealed to the House not to pass any legislation
1456
which would take away from a very poor but deserving class, their principal means of livelihood, and transfer very old and valued rights to an entirely new community at the discretion of the parish council.
SIR S. EVANSsaid that the right hon. Baronet had, apparently to a great extent, misconceived the object of the provisions of the Bill, and he could assure him that, if it passed, it would have none of those injurious effects of which he had spoken with so much alarm. The main object of the Bill was to prevent one man stopping the regulation of the common under the Commons Act of 1876, when the very large majority of the commoners desired to have such regulation. Within such objects as were laid down in that Act there was no interference whatever with the right of any single commoner, and those rights were specifically expressly preserved in this Bill and by the Acts of 1876 and 1899. His right hon. friend need not therefore be afraid that there was anything in the Bill which affected the interests of the commoners or of any lord of the manor, except in one particular. Before any provisional order could be made by the Board of Agriculture there must be a local inquiry, at which the Board, through its representative, must be satisfied that they had got the consent of persons representing at least two-thirds in value of the local interests of the common. The order made by the Board of Agriculture had then to be confirmed by Parliament, so that every possible means was given to everybody to see that nothing unjust or unfair was done. If the order had been made with the consent of two-thirds in value of those interested, it could, at the present moment, be prevented from taking effect by the mere veto of the lord of the manor. It could not reasonably be desired that the lord of the manor by his own individual veto should thwart

1457
the wishes of the vast majority of the persons interested in the common, and go against the recommendation of the Board of Agriculture, after the fullest local inquiry. That was the main provision of this Bill. If Members wished to maintain the right of absolute veto by one man without his giving, or possibly having, any reason for it, they should vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. He did not, however, think anybody could rightly say that where there had been a local inquiry and an expression of opinion of the vast majority of the commoners it ought to be in the power of one person to exercise a veto in virtue of an old title.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODasked a question as to the protection of the existing commoner against the new commoner.
SIR S. EVANSsaid that in any order they would have to consider the local interests of the commoners. The common would have to be regulated for those who were interested in it. They were not dealing with the question of trespassers at all. He did not condemn in any way the action of the right hon. Gentleman in pulling down a trespasser's house. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would, as a magistrate, take care to avoid being guilty of a breach of the peace. As long as this precaution was observed he had acted quite within his rights, and probably had done very cheaply and expeditiously what could only be done otherwise after a great deal of trouble and litigation, and he was not surprised that in this he had the full approval of his commoners.
LORD R. CECILcalled attention to the unsatisfactory way in which he considered some of the clauses were drafted, and if the Bill went any further than the present stage he hoped some steps would
1458
be taken to make them more intelligible. The main part of the Bill was contained in the second section which was in the following terms—
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, the Board of Agriculture may certify the expediency of a Provisional Order for the regulation of a manorial common without obtaining the consent of the lord of the manor to such Order or to the draft thereof."
That was not a very convenient way of legislating. It put on anyone who wished to know what the provisions of the Bill were the duty of searching through the Acts from 1845 to 1899, but he admitted that there were considerable drafting difficulties in putting it more simply. He happened to have personal knowledge of the working of the Inclosure Acts. His right hon. friend the Member for the Wellington Division of Somerset had pointed out how very conveniently a meadow might be managed without infringement of the commoners' use of it by the lord of the manor if he was left to deal with it without undue officialdom and red tape. He would tell the House his experience of a considerable common in the South of England, known as Ash-down Common, Sussex, which was under the control of a Board of Conservators by an Act passed some time in the early seventies. There had been disputes over and over again between the conservators and the commoners, and a serious state of things had arisen. The Solicitor-General had told them that the right of commoners would not be interfered with under any regulation scheme of the Act of 1876. That might be so technically, but it was not so in the case of the Ashdown commoners. He did not pretend to know who was right or who was wrong, but there was a most bitter dispute going on. The commoners claimed the right—and they had the right—of feeding their cattle on the common. They also had the right to the fodder and to take it home. That was undisputed.

1459
They further claimed, however, the right to sell it, and the conservators objected to this, hence the whole dispute. The commoners declared they had had the right to sell this litter and fodder for many years and that it was a gross hardship on them that their rights should be interfered with in that respect. If the matter had been in the hands of the lord of the manor what would have happened would have been that the commoners would have sent a deputation to him, and in all probability the matter would have been settled by mutual concessions. But under the conservators, the whole matter was in the hands of the clerk, who lived miles away in a distant part of Sussex. Before the commoners could go to the conservators they had to go to this gentleman; and he would have to bring the Question before a meeting of the conservators, and matters would never get any "forrarder." The result in this particular case had been that a dangerous feeling had sprung up in the district. The existing state of things there was really an outrage on civilisation. If it had occurred on the other side of St. George's Channel it would have given rise to many Questions in this House and very properly so, and the Chief Secretary would have had many anxious hours. Year after year great tracts of this common were burned by incendiaries, who poured paraffin or some such stuff on the heather, and when the fire sprang up they were a long way off and it was impossible to detect who had caused the fires. The conservators were powerless. They had appointed a second ranger, but how could two rangers effectively watch a common twenty miles long and many miles broad? These fires occurred whenever there was a dry season, and whenever the gorse and heather were in a condition to be burned. Serious danger often threatened the houses bordering the common. All that arose from the faulty nature of the government of the common.
1460
All these things might have been avoided if the law of the common had been allowed to remain in its pristine condition of elasticity. He could tell of many other disputes which had arisen. There was a part of the common upon which golf was played, and the disputes over this portion had been enormous. Sometimes the commoners objected to the golf-players, and at other times the conservators had raised the question whether the golf club was not infringing their rights. Quite recently the lord of the manor, who was thought to be dead, had risen again and developed rights of his own, threatening to turn the golf club off the common altogether unless they were prepared to pay a large sum of money. These troubles had arisen largely by reason of the regulation of the common, and he doubted whether it was a wise thing for those who were promoting the Bill to insist on the regulation of commons. He did not know that by regulation they would get advantages which they did not get by leaving the management in the hands of the lord of the manor. If the lord of the manor stood in the way of what was for the public advantage, no one would be doubtful of the necessity for the measure, but when they came to look into the matter more closely they saw that there was grave doubt whether any advantage would be got by regulating commons in the way proposed. The House was entitled to more elaborate reasons in defence of the desirability of regulating commons before they took away one of the obstacles which at present existed. They should be shown that what was in itself desirable had been prevented by the operation of the present law. If it could be shown that regulation was a desirable thing, then the mere question of the rights of the lord of the manor, protected as they were by provision for compensation, ought not to be absolutely conclusive in the matter. He had still a dislike for regulations of all kinds. It

1461
seemed to him that it was too often forgotten in that House, particularly by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that a rule or regulation was in itself an evil. He agreed that the Socialist view was that the more regulations we had the better—that individual freedom was a mistake. That was the position of the despot. The despot and the Socialist were agreed, but he was neither one nor the other, and he disliked all laws and regulations, though he sometimes supported them because it could be proved in some cases that the evil of being without them was greater than the evil of having them. But those who supported regulations had to show that they were going to do positive good, and he should certainly oppose in this House any further interference with personal liberty unless it was shown that it would do good. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
MR. MEYSEYT HOMPSONseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that the Bill was one of those measures which it was just as well should be exposed. Nominally it was a Bill for securing public rights, but practically it was a Bill to secure the exclusive use of commons to the middle class. He had had experience of the use of these commons by that class. The common he had in his eye had been used to a large extent under sufferance, and the users of it were only kept within certain bounds by the right of an appeal to the lord of the manor. He referred to the common of Berkhampstead. To a large extent the lord of the manor had
1462
allowed golfers the use of the common. The royal game had been filched from his own country, vulgarised by the English, and turned into a subject of betting, until it had become an epidemic of madness south of the Tweed. It was threatening to spread over every unoccupied district and to destroy the solitude of many places which were formerly pleasant. In the case of the common to which he had referred the vast mass of the poorer inhabitants were to be deprived of their common rights, and they were to exercise no authority over, or interfere with, the use of the common in future. The Solicitor-General had quoted the limitation provided for by Clause 2, that the Provisional Order should not prejudicially affect profitable or beneficial rights. That was all very well, but there were other rights. The great mass of the inhabitants of the town of Berkhampstead had benefited by the use of the common as a place of recreation, but it was absolutely destroyed, especially on Sundays, by the selfish action of golfers, who practically monopolised the place. It was therefore impossible for the inhabitants to establish any beneficial or profitable right to the common, where they had been accustomed for generations past to walk about with their wives and children. That, however, was not profitable, and the Provisional Order might set such a claim as theirs altogether on one side. He was perfectly certain that not in one case only but in many cases these commons had been caught hold of by a certain class who entirely disregarded the interests and the rights of the class below them. The rights of this lower class would, in his opinion, be far safer in the hands of the lord of the manor, because he would have nothing to fear from the selfish use of the common by those who would be just the people to dominate the parish councils. In the case of Berkhampstead he did not believe there were half-a-dozen of the poor people who would dare to stand up against the

1463
parish council. It was only the knowledge that the lord of the manor could interfere and stop their use of the common, which kept selfish people within limits. He supported the Amendment.
MR. C. H. CORBBTTsaid he was sorry he was not present to hear the whole of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone. He only heard the end of the speech. He was one of the unfortunate conservators of Ashdown Forest at one time, and he knew the conservators were not great favourites with the noble Lord. There had been a great deal of bickering, and they had never been received with great favour. He did not think the noble Lord should be so hard on the conservators.
LORD R. CECILsaid he did not intend to attack the conservators. He merely wished to point out that as a result of the system a series of disputes had arisen which the conservators had, in fact, been powerless to allay.
MR. C. H. CORBETTsaid he apologised. He did not hear all that was said by the noble Lord. He quite agreed with him that the regulating of Ashdown Forest was by no means perfect. It was a bad system, but the conservators had to use the regulations given them, and were quite powerless to alter them. That, however, was not a reason for not regulating the commons; it was a reason for regulating them properly. Let the House consider the scheme. Who elected these conservators? They were elected by men who had a vote in respect of the acres over which they claimed common rights. Some of these men had 1,200 votes, whereas ordinary commoners to whom the common was of some advantage had only two or three votes each. Was there not some difference between regulating a forest
1464
or a common so that all the people interested had some voice in the election of the conservators, and leaving it practically in the hands not of one lord of the manor, but of half-a-dozen? If the Bill could only apply, therefore, to Ashdown Forest, he thought it would be a great improvement on the present regulation. The noble Lord must remember that this regulation was the result of a law suit between the lord of the manor and the commoners. The commoners thought the lord of the manor was trying to deprive them of their rights, and they appealed to the Law Courts to get this regulation. With regard to golf courses, there again there was always a difficulty when strangers came down into a country district and wanted to use a common over which the commoners thought they had exclusive control. The Ashdown Golf Links, however, had been situated on the common for many years, and in his opinion they were likely to be there for many years to come. He was not at all sure that some of the complaints raised by the commoners with regard to these links were not like many other similar complaints, simply made to get better terms out of the golf club.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he intervened because of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone. The noble Lord said he was neither a despot nor a Socialist, and the impression gathered from the definition he gave of his own opinions was that he was an Anarchist. He told them he desired to be subject to no rule or regulation, and he must say that that was quite in keeping with what he knew of the noble Lord's antecedents. Speaking as one of the conservators of Ashdown Forest in Sussex, he was bound to say that the noble Lord showed great restiveness and his replies to the correspondence were certainly more facetious than respectful. The noble Lord made a

1465
road which he should not have made and the conservators told him that he had no business to do so, and that they were there to protect the forest. The reply they received was that he had every right, and when he had said that the conservators, in common parlance, were "done," because if they had summoned him, he would at once have set up a defence on a point of law arid they would have had no power to take the matter to the High Court. He thought the conservators should have the power to sue and be sued. What he would suggest was that the Bill should be read a second time, and then sent to a Select Committee of which the noble Lord should not be a Member and on which he himself should have a seat. He thought that very soon they would come to a scheme which would pass sometime in the ensuing session.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid that no reason had been given for taking this Bill at the present time. All the speeches which he had heard so far from hon. Gentlemen opposite about the Bill, assumed that the lord of the manor was the only person whose interest was concerned. That was not his opinion, from his reading of the definition of "lord of the manor," in Clause 1. That definition included "any person or persons interested in a common which is the subject of a Provisional Order." That, he took it, meant any other commoner than the lord of the manor. He could not claim the extensive experience of commons possessed by the noble lord, or by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, but he had known cases where the authoritative representatives of commoners had agreed to a particular way of using a common which had been very much against the wishes of the commoners, and the latter had shown their disapproval by adopting, as a protest, the summary methods just mentioned by the hon. Member for Somerset.
1466
Therefore, he did not think they could conclude that because a parish council was in favour of certain regulations for a common, these were approved of by all the commoners. This proved that representation was, as a matter of fact, but a make-shift way of trying to find put what the, people wished for. They had seen the evil in larger matters than in the representation on parish councils. It could not be said for one moment that a parish council actually represented the opinion and wishes of the commoners, many of whom probably never voted at a parish council election, took no part in any of its proceedings, and did not know that such an important body existed. The House should be very chary of taking away the rights of the lord of the manor and the commoners, and handing them over body and soul to either the parish council or any other body. This Bill adopted the same principle as other Bills introduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite, of taking away the control from local people and centralising it as far as possible. He was quite surprised that subsection (b), Clause 3, did not contain provisions for setting up a commission. That would be in accordance with the usual procedure of Bills emanating from the same quarter, but it went as near as possible to doing it. The Bill had the vice of centralisation common to many Bills of its kind. It gave to the county council the power of directing and overruling the district council, which, as a rule, had a greater knowledge of what was required than the parish council, and had some work to do. Moreover, those who elected the district council usually paid some attention to the choice of their representatives, which was not the case with parish councils. The Bill contained no provision for assessing the compensation to be given, and settling the rights of the lord of the manor, or of the various commoners who came under the definition of "lord of the manor." Perhaps the promoters of the Bill would have

1467
something to say upon that point, because it was very obscure. These he regarded as valid objections to the passing of the Second Reading of the Bill that day. He quite agreed that if, as the Solicitor-General had said, this was only a measure to prevent an obstreperous lord of the manor from not allowing the wishes of the commoners to be carried out, he should not vote against it; but it went very much further than that by allowing a parish council to do things which might be quite contrary to the wishes of the commoners, or the majority of them. Commoners were people who liked to be let alone; they did not want other bodies than themselves to deal with the rights which had been theirs from time immemorial. Therefore, he would support the Amendment of the noble Lord, not because he objected to the principle of the Bill as explained by the Solicitor-General, but because it was brought on at a time when it was not expected, and hon. Members had not had sufficient opportunity of making themselves acquainted with its provisions or of giving it adequate discussion.
THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,)said there was nothing revolutionary in the proposals of the Bill as had been suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for East Down. The whole object of the Bill was to put rural commons on the same footing as Metropolitan commons in regard to the veto of the lord of the manor. He did not understand that any hon. Gentleman opposite took objection to the lord of the manor being over-ruled by the Metropolitan councils, and, therefore, he took it that there had been no grievances in these cases; and there was no reason to anticipate any grievances and difficulties arising from the extension of the right to rural parish councils. Grievances there were when in opposition to the wishes of the great majority of the commoners and of the inhabitants
1468
of the district, an obstreperous lord of the manor exercised his veto to prevent a useful regulation being applied to a common. The noble Lord the Member for Thirsk had said that he had no very great faith in parish councils.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid that what he, had stated was that the commoners had no great faith in the parish councils.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid that he would not go into that question at the present moment, but as his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General had pointed out, there was ample protection to the lord of the manor and the interests of the commoners, inasmuch as a Provisional Order would require the approval of the Board of Agriculture and the sanction of Parliament. Therefore, all interests were thoroughly safeguarded. The Bill was really intended to prevent the abuses of public commons referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities, and if that was not the case he would not assent to it. The Bill secured that where the veto of the lord of the manor was over-ruled in the general interest of the public, the lord of the manor would have compensation for any loss he suffered. The question before the House now was whether or not they agreed to the principle of the Bill. If they were agreed on the principle they should give the Bill a Second Reading and send it to a Committee upstairs, where the details would be carefully considered, and fair play would be given to the interests of the lord of the manor or to any alleged legitimate grievances of the commoners. He therefore hoped that as the great majority of the House accepted the principle of the Bill, it would be given a Second Reading.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that the hon. Baronet the Member for Somerset had failed to

1469
understand the effect of the Bill, or he would not have said that it proposed to do for rural commons what had been done for the Metropolitan commons. He (Mr. Stuart Wortley) opposed the Bill because it sought to impose upon the lord of the manor and the local people the will of strangers to the place. That was the vice of the measure. The mover of the Bill had very carefully covered over all facts very necessary to be known. There were three parties interested in the question. In the first place, he supposed the lord of the manor must be alluded to. He knew a common—he supposed it was one which had been referred to in the course of the debate—where the sporting rights of the lord of the manor had been exercised by himself and his friends without any injury to anyone in the neighbourhood. These were just the sort of rights which no compensation could replace. If these rights were taken away, or practically extinguished, no one in the locality would be benefited, but a great many persons would be deprived of their means of livelihood. Then, in the second place, there were the commoners or villagers who should be considered. A majority of two-thirds of them would by no means give the necessary security that the proposed regulation was a good thing. The interests of the minority and of the lord of the manor might be over-ridden by outsiders who wanted to make use of the common. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill wanted to impose his will and get his pleasure at the expense of others. That had been the case in the New Forest as between the claims of a Commons Preservation Society and the rights enjoyed for over a century by the villagers. The third party was the stranger, who in these days was getting to be more powerful than he used to be, or ought to be. He meant the people who came from a distance, and wanted to filch away the rights of the villagers in the use of the
1470
common. He would vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he did not wish to speak in a hostile way of the Bill. With great respect to the Solicitor-General, he begged to differ from him from the point of view that there were more interests involved than the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated. There was a great difference between a country waste and a suburban common, and he could give instances where serious injury had been done to the rights of commoners as well as to the lord of the manor by schemes of the kind proposed in the Bill. The hon. Member who introduced the Bill had told them that there was not the slightest difficulty in understanding it; but there were a great many references to Acts of Parliament which made the proper understanding of the measure an exceedingly difficult matter. He did not wish to oppose the Bill, but he entered his protest against a highly technical and complicated measure such as this being introduced on a Friday afternoon without adequate explanation being given in non-legal language as to the effect of its provisions. The additional difficulty did not occur in this case as in the Bill first discussed that afternoon with reference to Scotland, inasmuch as the Bill only applied to England and Wales.
MR. ASHLEYsaid he would vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, because of its principle, that commons should be regulated as far as possible so that they might be used by the people. He, however, did not agree with many of the details of the Bill, which he thought were too sweeping. He did not see why the sporting rights of the lord of the manor should be interfered with, but he did not object to the regulations of grazing rights and the

1471
cutting of timber, if compensation was given.
COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he honestly objected to the discussion of a Bill which contained difficult provisions when they had not had an opportunity of considering them. After the speeches which had been made he began to see a little light, and to understand What it was the hon. Members who introduced the measure wanted. They wanted to take away something he had got. He Was afraid that the Bill contained that principle in essence. It might be fortunate or unfortunate for him as a lord of the manor to have a veto on proposed regulations for a common.
And, it being Five of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the Business.
Whereupon Mr. TREVELYANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
PORT OF LONDON BILL.
Ordered, "That the Petition of the Glasgow Shipowners' Association against the Port of London Bill, presented on 27th May, be referred to the Joint Committee on the Bill."—(Mr. Younger.)

POLICE FORCES WEEKLY REST-DAY.
Ordered, "That Mr. Herbert Lewis be discharged from the Select Committee on Police Forces Weekly Rest-day."
Ordered, "That Mr. Ellis, Mr. Remnant, Mr. Wiles, and Mr. Guy Wilson be added to the Committee."—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)

CRICCIETH WATER AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee (Selection A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Joyce, Mr. Smyth, and Mr. Waldron (in respect of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill); Mr. Harrington, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Thomas O'Donnell, Mr. William Redmond, and Mr. Patrick O'Brien; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill): Mr. Sheehy, Mr. Kavanagh, Mr. Hazleton, Mr. James O'Connor, Mr. Charles MacVeigh, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh, Mr. Haviland-Burke, and Mr. O'Malley.
Report to lie upon the Table.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 3).
Sir JOSEPH COMPTON RICKETTreported from the Committee on Group 3 of Railway Bills: That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday, 24th June, at Eleven of the Clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
Adjourned at five minutes after Five o'clock till Monday next.