The Press.
London, England, 1858-06-26 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JUNE 26, 1858.

strictest definition of " property," granted at a
remote period, and the title to which had been
legalized by charters, decrees of courts of law, and
enjoyment for six centuries. He maintained that
an interference with the rights of property in cor-
porations was no more justifiable than with those of
individuals ; that, whatever differences might exist
between their legal incidents, there was no distinc-
tion whatever in respect to the beneficial enjoyment
of the property ; that the rights of property in the
hands of a corporation and of an individual were
equally sacred. He contended that the bill introduced
a new and dangerous principle of legislation, opposed
to reason, law, and precedent.
"his amendment was seconded by Mr. CRAWFORD.
Sir G. GREY observed that the arguments em•
ployed by Mr. Roit were the very same which bad
been directed against the Municipal Corporations
Act, and no one would now deny that that was
a most important measure, or would desire to
see it repealed. The adoption of Mr. Roles prop,
sition would be a mere waste of time. The question
raised by him could not be decided by a select com-
mittee. There were two courses open to him—
either simply to move that the bill lie committed
that day three months, or, in committee upon the
bill, to argue against the 58th clause. If the bill
was intended to pass this session, a false issue should
not be raised. Important concessions had been
made, and if the bill were deferred until next
session he should hold himself absolved from his
coesent to them. Mr. Rolt had alleged that the
corporation had not been heard, whereas there had
been a full bearing of all matters before the com-
mission.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS opposed the amendment, the
sole object of which, he said, was delay.
Mr. S. WORTLEY admitted that there was a dis
tinction between corporate and other property, and
that Parliament had the power of dealing with the
rights of corporations ter the public good ; but that
power should be exercised in this case leniently, and
he suegested that this discussion might stand over,
the Government holding out a hope that some
arrangements might be made with reference to the
clauses affecting the property rights of the corpora-
tion consistent with the interests of the public.
Mr. C. W. MARTIN made a few observations re-
specting an amendment of which be had given
notice.
Mr. WALPOLE said he had no power to accede to
the suggestion of Mr. Wortley. He agreed with Sir
G. Grey that the issue raised by Mr. Rolt was not
one which a select committee could try. If, so, they
were losing time in this discussion. At the same
time, he agreed with Mr. Wortley that this was a
matter in which Parliament should deal leniently
and liberally with the corporation.
Sir B. HALL made a vain attempt to induce Mr.
Rolt to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. WARREN supported the amendment, contend-
ing that the matter was not yet ripe for the decision
oOthe house. He denounced the measure as one of
spoliation and confiscation.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that no sufficient answer
had been given to Sir G. Grey's objection, that the
question raised by Mr. Rolt could not be tried by a
select committee.
Mr. LABOUCHERE hinted that it was for the interest
of the corporation not to quarrel with the present
bill.
After some remarks from Mr. NORRIS the debate
was adjourned.
In the evening, on the order for considering the
Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851 Bill, as
amended, a discussion arose upon an amendment
moved by Mr. WILSON with reference to a plot of
land of twelve acres, over which, he thought, the
Government should retain a control for its appro.
p►•iation to public: purposes not connected with science
and art.
The amendment was negatived upon a division,
and the bill was ordered to be read a third time on
Friday.
----•-