The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-10 00:00:00

FIELD GARDENS BILL.

Mr. ESCOTT hoped the Hon. Member who pro-
posed this Bill would not persevere in it. He (Mr. Es-
cott) had looked through the Bill only this morning, and
he should say he felt astonished at the compulsory
p,,wers contained in it; and he would be still more asto-
nished if it should be persevered in its this state. It con-
tained many provisions of an extraordinary und novel
character, such as he conceived were strongly compulsory;
for instance, it gave a most stringent and compulsory
power to field-wardens over the occupiers of land, a
po Ner by which they could determine upon the manner
in which they should deal with land taken by them, and
which might be either to the detriment or the advantage
of the parish ; and yet with a power so undefined
they were to be endowed for a period of three
years. In cases of inclosures the Bill gave the power
to demand from the Commissioners, under an inclosure
Bill, a perpetual lease. On these grounds he did hope
that those Hon. Members who gave this Bill their sup-
port on the ground of its being a beneficent measure,
would well consider it, at least before it received the third
reading. But what did it also do ? Why, supposing the
scheme should turn out ruinous—supposing the benevolent
objects should not be carried out, the Bill allowed the
drawing on the parish funds to pay the tithes, rents, and
taxes. He should think that the Hon. Member would
hardly contend for such a proposition. The Bill,
in short, gave the Commissioners extraordinary powers—
it not only gave them power to fix the rent of
the land, but who should hereafter be the owner
of it. But supposing that the concern should
should not be a losing one. What then ? Why the
field wardens were to pay over the profits to the poor-
rates. He believed that there was nothing so objection-
able as mixing up land w:th the relief of the poor.
He thought from the interference which this Bill
occasioned with the parochial authorities, it was
very likely that the expense would be thrown on the
parishes. He was glad to say that the condition
of the labourers had been very much improved since the
Hon. Gentleman had first taken them under his hand.
But he thought that the voluntary system had answered
so well that it was unwise to introduce any compulsory
measure ; and he, therefore, moved that the Bill be read
a second time that day six months.
Mr. W. COWPER said that the Hon. Gentleman had
stated that he had read the Bill that morning ; but
he thought that he had not had time to consider its
provisions. One of the main reasons for making those
provisions compulsory was that they could not be
carried out without the consent of the parishes.
The Hon. Member then proceeded to discuss the details,
and defend the principle of his measure. The object
of this Bill was to afford relief to a vast num-
ber of those who deserved the consideration of this
House. A vast number of agricultural labourers
and artisans, who depended upon their daily labour for
their livelihood, would be benefited by it, as a rood of
land would afford sufficient food for a labourer and his
family.
Mr. M. MILNES anticipated only one good effect
from the measure of the Hon. Gentleman—the applica-
tion of waste lands about towns to the most profitable
purposes. The agricultural population would not be at
all benefited, nor did he think that the general advantage
of these allotments was sufficiently established. He
supported the measure, because he thought it would
lead to a beneficial appropriation of waste lands in the
vicinity of large and populous towns.
Mr. BOUVERIE opposed the Bill, thinking it would
interfere with the rights of property. It was unfair to
prevent. the owners of land from obtaining the amount
of rent which was the real value of their land, and on
these grounds he should support the motion of his Hon.
Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Escott), and
vote against the measure.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM thought this measure was
calculated to effect a very useful object. and he thought
that, as there would be ample opportunity for amending
any of the provisions which were calculated to cause
either public or private injury, they might be amended
in Committee. If the Hon. Member had not taken the
right way to do all he desired he would effect much, and
for this reason he trusted the House would not oppose
the second reading. There were some clauses to which
he felt insuperable objections. He objected especially to
that provision which secured the rent on the poor-rates;
but these things might be altered, and he thought it
would be hard if the Hon. Gentleman were not allowed
to have his Bill read a second time.
Lord JOHN MANNERS congratulated his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Cowper) on having arrived at the second
reading of his Bill, and he congratulated him also on
the very remarkable opposition which it had met with.
His Hon. Friend the Member for Winchester had stated
that there would be some show of reason for this Bill if
it had been brought in when wages were low; he could
tell the Hon. Gentleman that the wages of framework-
knitters and of labourers generally were just as low now
as they had been for years past ; and the feeling in
the midland counties was all in favour of the Bill, as he
could state from his own experience. He should, there-
fore, vote for the second reading,
Mr. HINDLEY said, that if the Hon. Member for
Winchester pressed his opposition, he must certainly
vote with him. There were several very serious objec-
tions to all the details of the measure, and he should,
therefore, oppose it.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY hoped the House would
not object to allow the Bill to pass through its present
stage. He thought the object of the Hon. Gentleman
who had brought forward the subject deserved all the
consideration that could be given it.
Strangers were then ordered ►o withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared--
For the second reading 92
Against it
Majority for the second reading —74
ihe Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed.
AUCTION DUTIES REPEAL BILL.

The Auction Duties Repeal Bill was read a first time,
and ordered to be read a second time on Friday.
The Infefcment (Scotland) Bill then wont through
Committee, the report was read, and the amendment
ordered to be printed.
The Heritable Securities Bill also went through Com-
mittee, and the report was read.
The Museums of Art Bill then went through Com
mittee.
An amendment was propised by Mr. BUCK, which
was afterwards withdrawn, on the recommendation of
Sir James Graham.
The Bill was ordered to be reported to-morrow.
FISHER-LANE GREENWICH IMPROVEMENT