The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-27 00:00:00

when the assizes were about to be held. He entirelY
concurred with his noble and learned friend as to the
unfitness of the old courts for the assizes.
After a few words from the Earl of HAAROWBY and
Lord BROUGHAM, the subject dropped.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
On the motion of Lord STANLEY of ALDERLY,
this bill was read a third time and passed_
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS REPEAL BILL.
This bill was also read a third time and passed.
VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
STANDARD OF GOLD AND SILVER WARES

BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
(LEFT SITTING.)

ROUSE OF CONIIVIONS--(THIS DAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lords' amendments to the British Guarantee
(No. 2) Bill, and the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolver-
hampton Riilway( (Stratford-upon-Avon and Stourbridge
Branches) Bill were considered, and agreed to.
FINCEILEY-11.0AD ESTATE BILL.

On the order fur the second reading of the Finchley

Road Estate Bill,
• Lord R. GROSVENOR said this bill would seriously
interfere with the health and the enjoyment of the pui,-
lie, inasmuch as it would authorise an encroachment
upon Hampstead-heath. This was the fifth bill which
Sir Thomas Wilson had submitted to Parliament for the
same purpose ; but, as in the other four, so he hoped on
this occasion this attempt of Sir Thomas to violate the
provisions of his father's will would prove unsuccessful.
In the case of each bill, the judges had reported that
the object sought to he obtained was opposed to the
wishes of the testator, and since the house stood in the
position of trustees for the public, whose interest would
be damaged, they ought not to allow the bill to pass.
He therefore moved, as an amendment, that the bill
should be read a second time this day three months.
Sir F. THESIGER, speaking impartially, and as
knowing nothing personally of Sir
.Thomas Wilson, had
no hesitation in saying that great injustice would be
done to that gentleman if the house refused to pass this
bilj, which would not in the slightest degree encroach
upon or interfere with the integrity of Hampstead-heath.
In fact, the land which it referred to was at least a mile
away from the heath ; and while, on the one hand, no
advantage would be gained for the public, on the other,
a manifest injustice would be done to Sir Thomas Wil-
son, if the house threw out this bill, which had already
received the sanction of the House of Lords, after the
most careful consideration.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said the real object of this bill
was to upset the will of the late Sir Thomas Wilson, and
therefore, even if it did not interfere with the interest of
the public, the house would be justified in rejecting it,
particularly as it had been reported against by the judges
of the land. It was only a preparatory bill to building
over the entire of Hampstead-he ith ; and as the public
had a vested interest in this part of the metropolis, the
house had no right to pass it without their consent.
Mr. BOUVERIE said this bill had no more to do
with Hampstead-heath than it bad to do with Grosvenor-
square, and he hoped the sentimental prejudice which it
was attempted to raise against it would not be allowed
to prevail. There could be no doubt that, had the tes-
tator been living now, he would readily have concurred
in the object of this bill, which was to apply a useless
farm at Finchley to building purposes.
Mr. HENLEY thought no sufficient ground had been
made out for doing away with the will of the testator.
Mr. M. SMITH supported the bill, and declared that
Sir T. Wilson had no intention of invading any public
right, or encroaching upon Hampstead-heath.
Sir B. HALL contended that if there was no such in-
tention, a clause ought to ba inserted in the bill binding
Sir T. Wilson not to interfere with Hampstead-heath,
but he believed there was such an intention, and that
was why he opposed the bill.
Mr. E. BALL opposed the bill on the ground that, if
they sanctioned the enclosure of Finchley Common, a
similar application would follow in reference to Hamp-
stead-heath.

Mr. R. LOWE threw overboard the claim of the pub-
lic in this matter, which, if they had any, ought to be
paid for, with the intention of taking a common sense
view of the bill. Well, then, did it violate the will of
the testator ? There could be no doubt that it did, that
was why he opposed it.
Mr. IRETON was glad to hear that the hon. gentle-
man felt so much reverence for wills, and he hoped
whe❑ they came to remember the Oxford University Bill
he would still be animated by the sane spirit with re-
gard to the wills of founders. (A laud.h.)
Sir J. V. SR ELLEY should always oppose any mea-
sure which interfered with the lungs of London. This
pr,iperty proposed to be enclosed was within haif-a-mile
of L ndou.

Mr. FREWIN said that could not be, as it was not
even within sight of the heath ; but the bill had no more
to do with Hampstead-heath than it had to do with St.
James's Park.
After some further discussion, in which Mr. FOSTER
and Dr. PHILLIMORE opposed, and Mr. GEACH and
Viscount GALWAY supported the bill, the house divided,
when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it 97