The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-05 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July
_4,

The SrEAsEft took the Chair five 'minutes before Four
o'clock.

The Bristol Parochial Rates Bill (No. 2) was reported.
LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY.

The London and South-Western (No. 1) Metropolitan Ex-
.ension Railway Bill was read a third time and passed.
EREWASH VALLEY RAILWAY. _ _ _

The Erewash Valley Railway Bill (No. 2,) was read a third
time and passed.
Captain PLUMRIDGE brought up the report of the Com-
mittee of the Lady's Island and Tacumshin Embankment.
Bill, which was ordered to lie on the table.
DIRECT LONDON AND PORTSMOUTH RAILWAY.

Mr. B. DENISON brought up the report of the Corn-
mittee on the Direct London and Portsmouth Railway Bill.
BRIGHTON AND CHICHESTER RAILWAY.

Mr. B. DENISON brought up the report of the Com-
mittee on the Brighton and Chichester Railway (Portsmouth
Extension Bill. )
GUILDFORD, CHICHESTER AND PORTSMOUTH

RAILWAY.

Mr. B. DENISON also brought up the report of the
Guildford, Chichester, and Portsmouth Railway Bill.
IRISH GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.

Mr. ESTCOURT brought up the report of the Standing
Orders Committee with respect to the clauses proposed to be
added to the Irish Great Western (Dublin and Galway) Rail-
way Bill. The Committee were of opinion that the clauses
proposed to be added might be adopted by the House.
Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from the Grand
Canal Company against the clauses.
Mr. F. FRENCH said that the petition was only intended
as a repetition of the annoyance to which the promoters of the
Bill had been subjected.
Lord G. SOMERSET could not conceive what objection
could be made to the clauses. _ . _

The clauses were then brought up, read a first, second, and
third time, and ordered to be added to the Bill by way of rider.

The Bill then passed.
NORWICH AND BRANDON RAILWAY.

On the motion of Mr. COBDEN, the Norwich and Brandon
Deviation (Disc and Dereham) Branches Railway Bill was read
a third time and passed.
GLASGOW JUNCTION RAILWAY.

The Glasgow Junction Railway Bill was read a third time
and passed.

TEN HOURS' BILL.

Sir E. HAYES presented petitions from Blackburn, Bolton
and other places in favOur of a Ten Hours' Bill.
. . - .

Sir G. GREY presented similar petitiorta from Bradford and
other places.
General JOH NSTONE presented a petition from Ashton-
under-Lyne, to the same effect.
Several other Members also presented similar petitions.
LUNATICS.

On the motion of Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, the three peti-
tions which he presented yesterday, with respect to the treat-
ment of lunatics in private houses, were ordered to be printed
with the votes.
BURY ST. EDMUNDS RAILWAY.

The Lords' amendments to the Eastern Union and Bury St
Edmunds Railway Bill were agreed to.

DUNDALK" AND ENNISKILLEN RAILWAY.

The Lords' amendments to the Dundalk and Enniskillen
Railway Bill were agreed to.
Mr. MASTERMAN presented a petition from Christ's
Hospital against the Charitable Trusts' Bill.
GLASGOW, PAISLEY, KILMARNOCK, AND AYR

Mr. S. CRAWFORD rose to move that the consideration
of the Bill be postponed for three mouths. He did not mean
to throw any imputation on the Noble Lord who had introduced
the measure; but this he would say, that the effort of the
mover was to afford abandant protection to the lords of the soil,
while the right to common would be taken away from the poor
of the country, without giving them any compensation what-
ever. In fact, the effect of the measure would be to give to
a few a power which they never could exercise, namely, a
right to sell the property of future generations. It appeared
that the Bill made ample provision for the protection of the
rights of the lords of the soil, but it contained ne clause by
which to secure the rights of the people.—(Hear, hear.)
If the population of a place amounted to 30,000 or to 50,000,
the whole of the land reserved for recreation, and for the use
of the poor, was to be but ten acres. Now, he thought that
the quantity of land reserved should be proportioned to the
number of the poor.—(Hear, hear.) Yet the Bill proposed
to leave it to the Commissioners to determine whether there
should be any allotment whatever for the poor. He did not
object to inclosures if they were made on equitable principles,
with a due regard to the rights of the labouring classes, and
the poorer tenants. It was not just to deprive the poor of their
rights and enjoyments,and to give them nothing in exchange.
He was aware that the Bill provided that in certain cases the
Commissioners should not take commons for inclosure without
application to Parliament. But that was not for the protection
of the poor, for he had found that, in the passing of inclosure
Bills through Parliament, their rights were disregarded. But
it was said that the poor would be benefited by the increased
employment which the inclosures would afford to them.
However, he did not find that the condition of the poor
had been at all improved by the inclosure of the 6,000,000
of acres, which had been brought into cultivation since the
peace. The fact was undeniable, that the labourers were in
a worse condition than before the inclosures. It appeared to
him that all common land over which the State could exer-
cise control should be cultivated, under proper regulations,
for the advantage of the poor, str far as not to interfere with
the just right of the lords of manors. He knew that when he
went into the question of small occupancy he would be told
that the principle failed in Ireland. Now, he would admit
that there were in Ireland both great destitution and small
farms. But he found that, in the north of Ireland, where
the people were better off than many other part of the country,
there were small occupants.: In Armagh the average number of
acres to the majority of farms was eleven acres. In Down it
was 17, but in Meath it was 37 acres; and as yon went
southward, to the worst-conditioned part of the country,
the extent of the farms was increased. In Cork the average
was 132 acres, in Mayo 120, and in Galway 130.
The labouring classes of Ireland, like the industry of every
other nation, would apply their wages to the cultivation of the
soil, if the amount of those wages enabled them to procure any
land, or to expend the smallest sum upon it. He would again
repeat. that tiat. Aot was aut,st....twly a landlord's Act, and re-
cognised all the rights of the lord of the soil, without doing jus-
tice to the poor; and if this Act should be passed, he had no
doubt but that the immense quantity of land proposed to be in-
closed would eventually become the private property of the
lords of the soil. This Bill contained a vast number of clauses,
no fewer than 161 ; and he did think that a Bill of such mag-
nitude could not, at this late period of the session, receive the
consideration it was entitled to. On those grounds, he bad
thought it necessary to move the postponement of the measure
for three months, and he thought the reasons he had stated
were sufficient to warrant the House in agreeing with him.
Colonel SIBTHORP said he would second the motion, and
in doing so, begged to say he fully concurred in the views of
the Hon. Member opposite. These commissioners of poor-
law and tithe were very expensive to the country, and, com-
paratively speaking, had very little labour to perform. The
Bill gave too much power to the lord of the manor, and not
sufficient security to the poor. When the Bill came into com-
mittee he would endeavour to modify it by every legitimate op-
poAtion in his power ; but he would much prefer its postpone-
ment.

mountable obstacle to improvement, under the plea that they •
had a right to depasture cattle or sheep on these commons
from October till April or May. The whole benefit, in fact,
went to the lord, atid the poor Cottager was too frequently
deprived of all advantage. There were several portions of the
year in which this benefit could not be enjoyed. The objects
had been well explained, however, and under the impression
that this Bill would lead to a great improvement of the
country, he therefore viewed it with great satisfaction; and
he thought that it ought rather to be entitled a Bill for the
improvement of the labouring classes.
The Earl of LINCOLN said he might well leave this Bill
to the House without any remark, but he felt that some ob-
servations had been especially directed to himself—otherwise
the Noble Lord opposite had so fully answered all the objec-
tions which could possibly be preferred against the Bill. The
Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had objected to the
principle of this Bill, but surely if he did so, he ought to have
objected to the principle of every Bill which had been pro-
jected and brought into the House and become Acts of Parlia-
ment for the last twenty years, for they were all based on the
same grounds. The Hon. Member had called this a landlord's
Bill, but the real truth was that the whole object of the Bill
was to preserve the rights of the poor. It did not contemplate
any restrictions on those rights which had not previously
existed. The Noble Lord opposite had said that he had no
objection except to the details of the measure. The Hon. Mem-
bers for Montrose and Rochdale had expressed a particular
anxiety to preserve those rights of which so much had
been said, but there were no rights which other inclosure
bills had touched which this Bill left unregarded. Those
Bills had all been submitted to Committees of the House of
Commons, and he thought that a Committee of that House
was a very fair tribunal. But it was only the rich who were
able to avail themselves of the advantages of this tribunal. But
the poor man had no means of coming before that House. If
he were oppressed he must put up with the evil in silence, but
by this measure he was provided with the means. By one of
the clauses of the Bill, if there appeared any wrong had been
committed, a number of independent parties were appointed to
investigate the claims of those who were injured. On private
Bills there was always a great expense, but by this Bill all
inclosures were to be effected by public Bills, without any con-
cealment whatever. If any private rights were invaded, or if
any existed which were not invaded, there would be an oppor-
tunity of inquiring into the grievance, without any unnecessary
expense. By the form of the present Bill it was provided that
the Commissioners should annually report upon the lands that
were to be enclosed, and on that report a public Bill was to be
based, which should go through its regular stages in that House.
Not at the time of private business, when perhaps only two or
three Members were present to know anything of its provi-
sions, but at the time of public business, when the House was full,
and every portion of it might undergo the most searching investi •
gation, and if the Commissioners should eeeamait any grievous
blunder,tbere.“”ala ba an opportunity for any Member to detect
and expose it. The Hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S.
Crawford) was anxious that the poor should have all the rights
they were entitled to. But, therefore, the Hon. Member
should recollect that where the rights of the poor were affected
compensation was provided, and that these were not rights
which could be said to be handed down from generation to
generation. There were no personal rights whatever impli-
cated. They were rights attached to the grounds and nothing
more. The same principle was adopted in this Bill which had
been brought forward by Mr. Whittle Harvey in 1839. The
Hon. Member for Rochdale again seemed to be very apprehen-
sive that allotments should be made of those grounds which
had been appropriated for recreation, and he lamented that no
ground was to be set aside for any places which had not mere
than 10,000 inhabitants. But, if he would look to the 13th
clause, he would see that a certain reservation was made with
regard to those towns which had a population of only 10,000,
and that a district was allowed which always comprised
a much larger number of persons than properly belonged
to the town. Even had any oversight been made, the atten-
tion of Parliament could always be drawn to the point, so that
no great injnry could possibly be done. By the calculations
which had been made, it was proved that a sufficient space
could always be allotted for air and exercise, without in any
way interfering with the property that might be improved. In
Ireland and in Guernsey the allotments were exceedingly
small, and yet, though the inhabitants were therefore
evidently of the poorer classes, no difficulty had been expe-
rienced. By the 126th clause all the expenses were provided
for. They were laid on the persons who were best able and
most entitled to bear them. But this was a matter of little
consequence, for it appeared that the expense would not be
more than one-eighth or one tenth of the advantage, as had
evidently been shown in the Committee of last year. On
these grounds he hoped that the Bill would pass through all
its stages in the House as quickly as possible.
The House then divided, when there appeared
For the amendment ll
For the original motion
Majority...

The question having been put,
Lord WORSLEY rose and said that he hoped the House
would excuse him for entering into a history of this Bill,
as he had been so much interested in it. In 1837, at the
request of his constituents, he brought forward a Bill for
legitimatising inclosures. The Bill met with great oppo-
sition, but in 1812,7 in consequence7of renewed and numerous
applications, he felt it his duty to bring forward another mea-
sure on the subject. He believed that such a Bill was neces-
sary, in order to improve the condition of the people. In 1842,
when he introduced a Bill, there were no petitions presented
against it. At that time, he suggested that there should be
five Commissioners to carry out the provisions of the Bill. He
was not successful that year. The next year he again intro-
duced a Bill which was not carried, on account of the time at
which it was introduced. The Government said the House
could not pay sufficient attention to it, and suggested a Com-
mittee up stairs to investigate the matter. That Committee
was appointed, and he was one of them. Considerable time
was spent in the investigation, and much evidence was taken.
Witnesses were examined from a great number of counties, and
the result was a decision of the Committee in favour of a general
Inclosure Bill. A Bill, in consequence of this decision of the
Committee, was introduced this year by the Noble Lord the
Member for No`tingham (the Earl of Lincoln.) It had been
considered by some Hon. Members that he had been ill-treated
by the course taken by the Noble Lord, the Commissioner of
Woods and Forests. In answer to that, he could inform the
House that before that Bill was introduced, the Noble Lord
wrote to him (Lord Wortley), intimating his intention
of introducing the Bill, and submitting the Bill to his
consideraticn. He perused it, and intimated to the
Noble Lord that he (Lord Wortley) thought the
Bill was an improvement on his Bill of the previous year, but
suggested it might be considerably improved in Committee.
So far from complaining that the subject was taken out of his
hands, he rejoiced that the Government had taken it up.,
Looking over the measure, though agreeing with it in the
main, there were some parts so vague that it would require im-
proving in Committee ; but, nevertheless, he should be ex-
ceedingly sorry if the Bill was rejt•cted through the course ad.
vised by the Hon. Member for Rochdale. He hoped Hon.
Members, before rejett,ting the Bill, would read the evidence of
Mr. Frankland Lewis, Mr. Graham, and other gentlemen,
who had been examined before the Committee. That evi-
dence, given by men the most competent to judge, showed
that such? Bill was necessary. He thought the present Bill
gave too much power to the Commissioners, and that great
difficulty would be experienced in working the commission.
By this measure parties, who had been living on commons
merely by sufferance,would obtain possession of property, while
those who had really a right to it would be kept out. He
trusted that the Bill would be allowed to go into Committee,
and that in Committee these defects would be remedied, and he
hoped that Hon. Members would pay that attention to the
measure which its importance deserved.
Mr. HUME felt it to be his duty to oppose the Bill, and to
support the amendment. He was even more opposed to this
measure than he had been to the measure which had been
brought forward by the Noble Lord on this subject last year.
The Noble Lord had certainly last year exhibited great cour-
tesy towards those who were opposed to his measure, but still
he felt bound to oppose the Noble Lord. Considering the
magnitude and the importance of the public interests which
would be affected by this Bill, he was surprised that it should
have excited so little attention. He believed that all the lands

worth inclosing had been already inclosed, and if they had
not, let application be made to Parliament in each case, so that

each particular case might be considered on its own merits.
This was a landed proprietor's Bill, taking from the labourers
the advantage which they possessed of taking air and
exercise up)n the commons of this country. He was sorry to
hear his Learned Friend say that commons were private pro-
perty. He believed that all commons were held by the Crown
for the benefit of the peotle. He was told that in this in-
closure scheme the commoners would have their share. True,
the man who possessed a house might have a small piece of
land given him, but the great bulk of the population would be
shut out from the advantages of air and exercise in these com-
mons. He objected to the Bill when it was in the hands of the
Noble Lord, and he objected to the Bill mole now,
is hen it was in the hands of a Minister of the
Crown. It did appear to hint that they were trans-
ferring power which ought to rest in that Heuse. The
Noble Lord stated that there were certain Commissioners ex-
amined in favour of these inclosures ; but they had no evidence
from any labourers who were entitled to roam in those in-
closures. They depended alone upon the evidence of landed
proprietors, who were going to take away the rights and privi-
leges of the people at large. He believed that village greens
were an exception ; but he was of opinion that these, too,
would yet come within the grasp of the landed proprietors. He

objected to the Bill as socially: injurious, and: he thought the
House ought to consider before they gave this power, which
would sweep away the interest which the people at large
had in the soil of this country. They should identify the people
more with the land. He objected, also, to the board, on the
same grounds that he objected to the Tithe Commission. They
had been paid out of the Consolidated Fund. 60,0001. a year
had been expended on the Tithe Commission for the last ten
years, and none benefited by it but the advowsons. The la-
bouring man had no right to pay tithes for the benefit of the
tithe proprietors. He objected to that clause, and should in
Committee give it every opposition possible. He objected to
the whole principle of the Bill. The motion was to postpone
the Bill till another session. It had already been postponed
for two years, and it would be so much the better if it were
postponed for another year. For these reasons he would give
his support to his Hon. Friend's amendment, and he hoped
that he would take the sense of the House upon it.
Mr. TRELAWNEY said that his principal objection was
to the Commissioners, He thnught, however, that great good
was to be derived by this Bill. Any objection that might be
thought necessary might be made in Committee.
Mr. HENLEY expressed his desire that they should go into
Committee.
Lord PALMERSTON said that he should rather call this

a Bill for improving the circumstances of the labouring classes
of the community, and expressly adapted to promote the in-
terests of that class. There were in England and Wales about
37,000,000 of acres of land, of which it was calculated that at
least ten millions were in the position to be affected by the
provisions of this Bill. If the calculation was correct, that by
the inclosure of these lands employment would be largely
increased for the labouring classes—if, by the inclosing, tilling,
and fencing of the land, and the erection of the buildings ne-
cessary in consequence of the inclosure, employment was given
to one labourer and his family for every fifty atres inclosed,
then the provisions of this Bill would, by bringing these ten
millions of acres into cultivation, give employment to at least
200,000 labourers and their families. If further, as appeared,
it was to the interest of the labourer that the land should sup-
port its population in such a way that wages should be made
permanent, then was the whole principle of Bill one of ad•
mirable utility for the whole country, for it would tend not
only to make wages permanent, but to give employment for
ever on that portion of the soil which was at the present mo-
ment entirely unproductive, and therefore prove of the largest
benefit to the whole country. It was a mistake to suppose that
this Bill was intended in any way to interfere with the enjoy-
ment of the lower classes. There was no intention whatever
to restrict them from places of recreation, or to appropriate
those places which were devoted for the purposes of air
and exercise. Its principles did not apply to such
small places as Clapham Common and Turnham Green, but
to those wide and extensive wastes and commons which in
many places extended in sterile inutility in different parts of
the country. There was nothing in this Bill to affect the
rights of that class whose interests the Hon. Gentleman
seemed so anxious to protect, for it was expressly stated that
no lands were to be inclosed within ten miles of London. Nor
was it intended to take any places within certain distances of
towns, and it was particularly stated that no village green or
other place used for air or exercise was to be taken. The
object of the Bill was to take those large spaces of ground over
which it was presumed the poor had a right of common, but
which were occupied only as a sort of savage hunting grounds,
on which the richer farmer, who employed the labourers in his
neighbourhood, was able to drive the property of those
labourers for his own personal enjoyment, and thus, by the
assistance of fierce dogs, trained for the purpose, to disturb
and harrass the cattle or sheep of his poorer neighbours—so
that he who could best afford to employ the greatest number
of labourers could do the greatest injury. This was the right
of common which this Bill proposed to take away. It was
well known:that the persons who lived on these commons, among
the class of labourers, were far inferior in character to those who
in other parts of the country were supposed to depend upon their
industry for a living. If Hon. Gentlemen had seen as much
of this class of people as he had, in consequence of living
near one of these open spaces or forests in Hampshire, they
would know that nothing was more detrimental to the lower
classes than that opportunity of wild and irregular life which
these commons gave. There was another part of this Bill
to which attention had been directed. In many cases it oc-
curred, that where this right of common existed, and was
vested M the lords of the manor, that they offered au incur•

The House then resolved itself into Committee on the Bill.

On Clause 1 being proposed, which related to the mode in
which the Commissioners were appointed,
Mr. C. BULLER objected to the Bill, because of the great
power which it placed in the hands of a Government Beard.
There w ere but three Commissioners, one of whom was of
necessity the Chief Commissioner of the Woods and Forests, the
second was unpaid, and the third (a paid Commissioner) was
liable to removal at the pleasure of the Ministry. He meant
nothiog disrespectful to the Noble Lord ( Lord Lincoln) at the
head of the Woods and Forests. He (Mr. C. Buller) believed
that the duties imposed by this Act would be as purely adminis-
tered by the. Board with which that Noble Lord was connected.
as by any other of the Government Departments, but he op-
posed it upon principle, and should have done the same if the
Bill had been brought in in the same shape by the Noble Lord
beside hint. Lords of the Treasury, they were aware, might
be in the same way removed as this third commissioner,
and they were very apt to believe those gentlemen influenced
by party considerations. —( Laughter.) The same suspicion
would attach to the present case. He particularly objected to
empower the Woods and Forests, the holders of the Crown
lands, to decide the peculiar questions which would be brought
before them; and on these grounds he would propose to employ
the machinery which had been heretofore in use. He desired
an authority which would be competent to fulfil the duties im-
posed by the Bill, and he desired that that authority should be
totally unconnected with the Government. He knew but of
one such authority, and would, therefore, move that all words
after " that" be left out, and that "the Tithe Commissioners of
England and Wales" be inserted instead.

The Earl of LINCOLN said that the Honourable and
Learned Member had stated his cbjections in a fair and candid
spirit, and as far as he ( Lord Lincoln) was individually con-
cerned, he should have no objection that the arduous duties
imposed by this Bill should be removed from the department
with which he had the honour to be connected. At
the same time he could not help pointing out, how
differently Honourable Members on the opp,.site side had
viewed the question on former oticasions. He did not antici-
pate the evils which the fertile imagination of the Hon. and
Learned Member had conjured up, and he trusted that the
Hon. and Learned Member would not try to make the liou=e
believe that the power placed in the hands of the Woods and
Forests would be used for party purposes. The Hon. and
Learned Member had referred to himself, as Chief Commis-
sioner, but he seas associated with other two; and with re-
spect to the power of the Ministry to remove the third Com-
missioner, that was, he believed, common to all Commissioners
—( Hear, hear)—to the Tithe Commissioners as well as
others.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Member said,
also, that this Commission was appointed by Government—but
were the Tithe Commissioners not also appointed by Govern-
ment ?—( Hear, hear.) The necessary consequence of the
passing of this Bill would be an enormous increase of applica-
tions for inclosures. 'there could be little doubt that a great
portion of the land which was fit for cultivation would be made
the subject of application to Parliament within the next two or
three years, and that, after that time, there would be very
little to do, and that could be dune by the paid Commissioner.
Colonel SIBTHORP was disposed to give his sanction to
the proposition of the Noble Lord. The Tithe Commissioners
had already put the country to an expense of 220,000/.
Mr. WARBURTON thought that the Noble Lord, the
Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, had not given any
answer to the objections against the proposed constitution of
the Board. But he agreed with his Honourable and Learned
Friend that as there were so many manors under the Crown,
that it would he advisable. for the Commissioners to be free from
the suspicion of political influence.
Mr. HENLEY said that they were in a great difficulty in
having two projects for the appointment of the Board to which
there were serious objections. But the measure of the Noble
Lord (Lord Lincoln) was a great improvement upon the Bill
of last year, inasmuch as it left an appeal to that House.
Lord WORSLEY read an extract from the evidence of Mr.
Frankland Lewis, to the effect that the Tithe Commissioners
would be the best board for carrying this Bill into effect.
Mr. EsTcoUitT supported the proposition of the Noble
Lord. He thought it would be an advantage to have the paid
Commissioner a Member of the House.
Lord LINCOLN, in explanation, read another portion of
the evidence of Mr. Frankland Lewis to support the statements
which he had made.
Lord PALMERSTON said that the great object of this
Bill was to inspire confidence in the minds of the people. It
would fail in that object, as the Commissioners appointed by
it were open to great objections. The political opinions of
other Commissioners would be known to none, but
every body knew what the opinions of members of the Govern-
ment were ; and when an inclosure should turn upon the deci-
sion of adverse rights, either their determination would be
founded upon an undue exercise of a political bias, or that de-
cision would be attributed to that bias. Such difficulties would
arise in the decision of private rights. He was also of opinion
that the argument with reference to the rights of the Crown
was one of great weight, as they ought to be provided for in
some way or other.
Lord CLIVE agreed with what had fallen from his Noble
Friend (Lord Lincoln) with respect to the Commissioners of
the Woods and Forests. He was of opinion that there was too
great a prejudice existing against the Commissioners. He
thought that it would be a great advantage to have the officer
of the Government, the head of the Woods and Forests, con-
nected with this measure, as he would have a personal knowledge
of the business, and would not come down to the House depend-
ing upon a report read the day before, which might be trans-
mitted by the Tithe Commissioners.
Mr. WILLIAMS said they might as well impose a tax upon
the people to pay their deficient rents, as to make them pay
for those inclosures which were about to fall into their own
hands. He would offer his most decided opposition to the
clause as it now stood.
Mr. WAKLEY said that he had already voted against going
into Committee on this Bill. There was a great feeling against
it, but he was of opinion that it would operate in favour of
the people. The great question before the House was, whe-
ther the first Commissioner of the Woods and Forests, a paid
Commissioner and an unpaid Commissioner should constitute
the board, or that the Tithe Commissioners should consti-
tute it. He was in favour of the latter.—(Hear.)
It was highly objectionable that a Minister of
the Government should preside over that board;
he could carry any proposition he pleased, and when called on
for the explanation, he could easily shake it off his shoulders by
stating that he was only an individual member of the
.Com-
mittee. The poor were always borne down and crushed, in his
opinion, by those whose advantage it was to oppress. Probably
the Noble Lord would have no objection to postpone the Bill
after what he had heard that night. He had no doubt that a
reconsideration of the matter would lead them to a better con-
clusion than that which was embodied in the first clause.
Mr. NEWDEGATE was glad to hear the Hon. Member,for
Finsbury support the claims of the poor on this question; and
he fully agreed with him that the right of the poorer classes
was always overlooked on such questions.
Lord EBRINGTON begged to remind the House of the
.
difficulty the Commissioners would encounter their efforts to
deal with commons in Cornwall, many of which were Duchy
property.
Mr. BROTHERTON thought that the Hon. Member for
Finsbury had made out a very good case in favour of the
Bill.—( Laughter. )
Mr. C. BULLER disclaimed all intention of imputing wrong
motives to the Noble Lord who had brought forward this mea-
sure ; but he could not avoid saying that he looked with great
alarm at the Government taking up
.this question, for he very
much feared that the Tithe Commissioners would not have
finished their present Commission in time to take up the Bill,
as they could not finish their labours before some time. For
these reasons, he would certainly take the sense of the House
on the amendment, as he did think the Bill ought not to be put
forward, until such time as the Tithe Commissioners could take
up the Bill.
The Earl of LINCOLN could not see what objection could
be made to the appointment of the proposed Commissioners,
because, in all cases, an application should be made to the

THE SUN, LONDON, SATri,DAY E.TENt.NO, JULY 5, 1845.

Sttretary of State, before any step could be taken by the
Commissidriefg,
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when there
peared to be—
For the amendment ...
Against it E3
Majority against

The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Colonel SIBTHORP said he was decidedly opposed to sash
a regiment of Commissioners as this Bill proposed to appoint.
Lord EBRIN G TON thought the best feature in this Bill
was that it would give protection against encroachments to per-
sons who never before enjoyed such protection.
Clauses 2,3, 4 and 5 were then agreed to.
On clause 6 being proposed, which provides the salary for
the Commissioners, it was proposed to fill up the blank with
1,5001.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS contended that this Bill was intended
to benefit the landowners, and them only. He, therefore, did
not think that the public ought to pay this sum.
Mr. TRELAWNEY supported the proposal of the Govern-
ment.
Mr. WAWN, in order to take the sense o f the Committee
upon this clause, moved that the blank be filled up with 1,0001.
instead of 1,500/.
The Earl of LINCOLN defended the clause as originally
proposed. The sum of 1,5001. could not be too much, when it
was considered the duties that would have to be performed
for it.
Colonel SIBTHORP thought the amount was too high.
Mr. B. DENISON thought it was much better to pay a
good officer liberally than to pay an inefficient officer a small
salary.
Lord WORSLEY opposed the amendment, at the same
time urging on the Government the necessity of one of the
Commissioners being a good lawyer.
Mr. WA KLEY thought just as good a man could be ob-
tained for 1,000/. a year as for 1,5001., and, therefore, if his
Hon. Friend (Mr. Wawn) divided on his proposition, he
should support him. He wished to know what duty was the
third officer expected to perform when he was to be paid no-
thing ? No lawyer would work at that rate he was sure—
( Laughter)—but the result would be that in a few years the
Government would come down to the House and ask another
1,5001. for this other officer, and he, therefore, should, as a
precautionary measure, support the amendment.
Dr. BO WRING thought the best means was to maximise
aptitude, and to minimise expense.—( Loud laughter.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment l3
Against it
Majority against the amendment —so
After a brief discussion between Lord LINCOLN and Mr. B.
DENISON, clause 6 was agreed to with an alteration proposed
by the former, that the valuer should not have the power to
call witnesses except under the seal of the Commissioners.
Clauses 7 and 8 were agreed to without discussion.

On clause 9 being put,
Mr. HUME said that no doubt could be entertained but that
the object of this Bill was to create the greatest possible ex-
pense with the least possible advantage. —( Laughter.) He
objected to the clause on that indisputable account, and
trusted at least it would be materially modified.
After a few words from Lord Lincoln, Lord Clive, Mr. B.
Denison, and Mr. Darby, the clause was agreed to.
Lord WORSLEY, in a few words, moved the adoption of
the following amendment to clause 10 :—" In clause 10, line 11,
to insert after the word them,' or to the valuer acting in
the matter of any inclosure under this Act ;' and in same clause,
line 20, after the word Commissioner',' insert 'or valuer.' "
Lord LINCOLN said the amendment proposed by the Noble
Lord would most materially alter the condition of the Bill ; and
he certainly could not consent to it.
After some conversation, in which Mr. HUME joined,
Lord WORSLEY withdrew his amendment.

On clause 11 being read,
Mr. WILLIAMS wished to know whether Lammas and
Michaelmas land were to be included in that clause, and whether
the Noble Lord (Lincoln) would have any objection to insert
that description of land?
Lord LINCOLN said that land was already included in the
Act, and it was not his intention to exclude any sort of land.
The Lammas fields would all be included in the 12th clause.
Mr. WILLIAMS remarked that it would be better for these
lands to be dealt with without the interference of these Com-
missioners, and inquired if the Commissioners had the power
to inclose these lands ?
Lord LINCOLN replied, that no inclosure of lands would
take place without die sanction of Parliament specially con-
firming the Commissioners' report.
Mr. C. BULLER said it had been stated that there
never would be under this Act any inclosure of land, without
a special Act of Parliament, but he would inquire why, if in
the 12th clause this proviso was inserted, it should not be
also included in the 11th clause. He wanted to know what
there was in this clause to exempt it from the general tenor
of the Act.
Lord LINCOLN said,: the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
(Mr. Buller) did notsulttiritand the clause. The Act of the
6th and ith of William the Fourth, allowed the de-
scription of lands mentioned in the 11th clause, to be
inclosed by a private Bill, and it was most desirable
the same power should be continued to these lands.
They now came to common lands, which could not be inclosed
without special Acts. The Commissioners would be somewhat
analogous in function to the Board of Trade, and could only re-
commend the course that should be taken oa any particular
Bill. It would rest with the Government to confirm or reject.
He had now, he thought, gone through the leading features of
the matter under consideration.
Mr. C. BULL ER said that, according to the 12th clause, no
waste land could be inclosed without an Act of Parliament.
Mr. HENLEY objected to the clauses as being vague, and
imperfect in the sense it was intended they should convey.
Lord LINCOLN sale, that with regard to the subject under
discusssion, no land could be inclosed without an Act of Par-
liament. That he considered to be quite sufficient.
After a few further remarks from several Hon. Members,
clauses 11 and 12 were agreed to.
Clause 13 was then proposed.
An How. MEMBER objected to the clause. The inclosing
Of all the commons of the country would prevent the fairs and
markets being held in many instances, as in many towns they
were held on those commons that were proposed to be inclosed.
Mr. S. WORTLEY asked Hon. Gentlemen to look at the
27th clause. By that clause the Commissioners were called
upon to have regard to the convenience of towns, and
villages, and he thought that the instructions in the clause
were sufficient to preserve the object.
Alr. HUME said, that by the 11th clause an unlimited
power was given to inclose lands without any limit; and he
wished the term village green to be defined. What were one,
or even two acres for the recreation of a village ? He had no
confidence whatever in country gentlemen.
Lord CLIVE thought that, taking this clause in connexion
with the 12th, sufficient care had been taken to secure the
ground for recreation to every village.
Mr. WILLIAMS said that be trusted the Noble Earl
would have no objection to extend the operation of the clause
to 15 miles instead of 10, where the towns had 30,000 inha-
bitants, and three or four miles from other towns.
The Earl of LINCOLN explained that even if this clause
were left out altogether, there would still be sufficient security
for the rights of the poor.
Mr. WAKLEY said that it should be remembered that in
many places there were patches of land not immediately con-
nected with the common grounds, and he thought these ought
to be secured against the "operation of this Act.
The Earl of LINCOLN opposed the alterations on the
ground of the great difficulty that would be occasioned in set-
tling the rights of the commonalty on the extent of these
patches, and he must say the idea was absurd.
Mr. STEUART WORTLEY thought that his Noble
Friend had taken a very proper course in resisting the proposi-
tion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.
S.r WM. JOLLIFFE said the Bill would prove more satis-
factory if the alteration were acceded to.
After some further discussion, the alteration was negatived
without a division.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 14 being put,

Mr. BOUYERIE and Sir WILLIAM JoLLlrrz urged some
obj,ctions, which were not however persisted in, and the
ciause was agreed to:
Clauses 15, 16, 17, and 18 were also agreed to.
Clauses up to 23 inclusive were then agreed to.
On clause 2.4 being proposed,
Lord WORSLEY moved as an amendment that before the
word " such," the words " such directions as to the appointment
of, and instructions to, a valuer as the Commissioners may deem
fit, and also," should be inserted.
After a few worth from Mr. BOUVERIE,
The clause was allowed to stand part of the Bill.
On clause 25 being put,
Lord WORSLEY moved an amendment, that the clause be

struck out, and a clause inserted providing that a meeting be
appointed to consider the expediency of the inclosure, by those
persons who were interested in the land, and also making pro-
vision for the appointment of valuers by the Commissioners.
Lord LINCOLN said that he thought it impossible to agree
to any one of the amendments of his Noble Friend (Lord
Worsley) without admitting them all. He must therefore
oppose them.
After some further discussion the clause was agreed to.
Clause 26 was also agreed to.
On the reading of clause 27,
Mr. HAWES said that there was a great defect in the clause
not giving to the persons most interested a power to say
whether the inclosure should take place or not.
The 27th clause was agreed to.

On the reading of claiise 28,
Lord WORSLEY moved that in lines 14 and 15 the words
" provisional order" should be omitted, and the words " draft
award" be inserted.
The Earl of LINCOLN opposed the amendment.
On the proposal of the 29th clause,
Colonel SIBTHORP moved that it should be omitted.
After a short discussion, in which Mr. Charles Buller, Lord
Worsley, and Mr. Henley took part,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it 27
Majority for the clause —22
Upon the next clause being read,
Lord WORSLEY made a few observations; to which
The Earl of LINCOLN said it would be absurd to have no
clause compelling parties to comply with the orders of the Com-
missioners in certain cases.
Lord EBRINGTON said he conceived it would be equally
absurd not to limit the power of the Commissioners in some
degree.
The Earl of LINCOLN said, if the Noble Lord had read
the Bill, he would see that there was a clause to that effect.
After a few words from Mr. S. CRAWFORD and Lord J.
MANNERS,
The Earl of LINCOLN said he conceived the suggestion of
the Hon. Member for Hertford so useful, that he would adopt it.
The clause as amended was then agreed to.
Clause 32 was also agreed to without discussion, and the
Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on
Monday next.
TURNPIKE TRUSTS' (SOUTH WALES) BILL.

This Bill went through Corn'mittee, and was ordered to be
reported on Tuesday, next.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The further consideration of this Bill was postponed till
Monday.
Upon the motion that the House do go into Committee on
the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill,
Lord CLEMENTS said there was a great defect in the
present law, which compelled inhabitants of a peaceable dis-
trict to pay for constabulary for repressing disturbances in
another. A few Orangemen were the cause of serious dis-
turbances in Leitrim, for which peaceable and well-disposed
Catholics and Protestants suffered by taxation.
Sir T. FREMANTLE said that the observation of the
Noble Lord was not now applicable, but the Government would
take it into their serious consideration. Wher the Consta-
bulary Bill was brought under the notice of the House, the
proposition would be made in accordance with the subject.
The Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be
brought up on Monday next.
FOREIGN LOTTERIES BILL.

This Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Small Debts Bill, and the Lunatic Asylums Committee,
were postponed until Monday.
DEODANDS.
_ _ _

Mr. BOUVERIE obtained leave to bring in a Bill to abolish
deodands.

The Bill was subsequently read a first time.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES (IRELAND).
Mr. T. B. SMITH obtained leave to bring in a Bill for
facilitating the winding up the affairs of joint-stock complain

in Ireland, who were unable to meet their pecuniary arrange-
ments. The Bill was read a first time.
The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the House
adjourned at ten minutes to Two o'clock.