The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-08 00:00:00

NAVY ESTIMATES.

Captain PECHELL wished to know if the navy
estimates were to be brought before the House that
evening ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said ,
that that was his wish.
POOR-LAW (SCOTLAND).
On the order of the day being read for moving the
second reading of the Poor-law Amendment (Scotland)
Bill,
The LORD ADVOCATE said, that as he was de-
sirous to give some time for drawing up the report on
this Bill, he wished that the House would take the second
reading on Friday week.
CHATTEL INTEREST (REAL PROPERTY) BILL.
Mr. SCOTT, in moving the second reading of this
Bill, presented petitions from Dudley, Wolverhampton,
Birmingham, and Stirling, signed by lawyers re-
siding in those localities. He said that he
did not understand on what ground this Bill
could be rejected. The petitions were signed by re-
spectable solicitors of long standing and practice, and he
believed that there were many others in other place,
who were of opinion that it was a beneficial measure.
He hoped they would allow the Bill to go into Com-
mittee, and if they put any restrictions on it, it would be
desirable that they should have them brought under
their consideration.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he did not
feel very much oppressed by the arguments of the Hon.
Gentleman in favour of the Bill, nor did he feel disposed
to depart from the resistance to the second reading of
this Bill which he intimated that he should be disposed
to make. He never recollected having sanctioned such
a measure as that. He did not see the necessity that
the Honourable Member should preface his motion
for the second reading of this Bill by four
petitions, every one of them being in the same hand-
writing, and every one of them being expressed in the
same language.—(Laughter.) If the Hon. Member re-
ferred to the report of the Real Property Commissioners
he would find that they recommended no such measure
as that. The evils which resulted from such a state of
things were obvious. The Hon. Member asked, whose
benefit was it, that the law should remain as it was ?
and he said it was for the sole benefit of the lawyers ;
and that the present Bill would correct this evil, and
its operation would render valid titles that now were
open to being questioned. Now, he (the Solicitor-
General) could not foresee that this Bill would have
any such effect. He could not approve of it when he
saw that the Real Property Commissioners had not
given any intimation of their approval of it.—(Hear.)
He took no particular intertst in the measure,
but at the same time he would not like to lend
his sanction to it, as he apprehended that
much inconvenience might follow. He would suppose a
case, a man dying worth 10,000/. intestate, a party who
might have been the mortgagor of the deceased might
become administrator, and what then would become of
those who were the heirs of that deceased ? On the
whole, he should say, that he could not, in justice to the
public, give his sanction to this Bill; and would, there-
fore, move that it be read a second time that day six
months.
Mr. GRANGER contended that the arguments of
the Solicitor-General were contradictory. Was nothing
to be (lane in that House on this subject, but what should
receive the approval of the Real Property Commis-
sioners ? He really did think that the House should
require some stronger argument than that before they
rejected this measure. The many evils which were con-
tinually springing up by reason of defective titles, ren-
dered this measure absolutely necessary; and, therefore,
he trusted the House would pass it, and he considered
the country was much indebted to the Hon. Member who
had introduced it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said he conceived this measure had
an extremely suspicious appearance, for it did not apply
to the future at all ; therefore the law, as it affected all
future time, would remain exactly as it was now. Then,
there was the fact of the four petitions presented by the
Hon. Member who introduced the measure, being all in
' the same hand-writing, and in exactly the same words.
On these grounds he would oppose the Bill, unless he
should find some specific object to be attained, for, in
its present state, it did not alter the law as it now stood.
Mr. HUME could not see the harm of letting the Bill
go to Committee, for it was a very short one, and could
be easily disposed of.
Mr. T. B. C. SMITH would oppose the Bill on the
ground that it would have a most mischievous effect, as
a retrospective measure. In Ireland it was sometimes
the practice of an attorney to set up his own clerk as the
representative of a deceased party, in order that he might
make him administrate with the view to giving himself
(the attorney) the power of enforcing any charge he
might have on deceased's property, and sweep it all
w
cll l
tv oet rfh ye giving
strongly
vhineothergw the
hcu creditors etdhd
sameoaittpo
oppose
illthis
is ;
se powerßai
tni and
wta
nhai
ssa3B , t
this
i badll oiwnt
oh
pu erl
country.dipn rheeiajpHvul
edee,i
the
ddo
effect
fe
therefore,eee
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY would wish to know were
the Government prepared to say that a provision for the
bond fide sale of an assignment was one which should not
be made ? lie would say let the Bill be read a second
time, and in the meantime the solicitors of the country
would have an opportunity of expressing their opinion
upon it.—(Hear, hear.) And let the operation of it be
postponed for three or four months, in order to afford
that opportunity.
Mr. CHRISTIE suggested that the Bill should be al-
lowed to stand over, and abide the result of Lord Cotten-
ham's Bill.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he should vote against the
second reading of the Bill, without any hesitation what-
ever, more especially as there was a comprehensive Bill
regarding probate laws coming down from the other
House of Parliament, under the high auspices of Lord
Cottenham.
Mr. SCOTT replied.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading 27
Against it
Majority —3
FIELD GARDENS BILL.
Mr. COWPER then moved that 'the House go into
Committee proforma on the Field Gardens Bill.
Mr. ROEBUCK moved that the Bill be read a second
time that day six months. The principles of the Bill
were wholly untenable, and the only way it could be
improved would be to erase its chief provisions. The
main object of the Bill was to supply wages—to be a
sort of auxiliary to the poor-law. Poor persons were
to be allowed to have land as a means of supporting ex-
istence, whereas it was cle it that the labourer in any
well-regulated country ought to depend upon wages. They
' were about to bring down the'peopleof thiscountry to the
condition of the pauperised potatoe-fed people of Ireland.
He wished to remove the poor man from this kind of
mock humanity. Let them.look to any place in which
these allotments hal existed for twenty years and they
would find a settlement of paupers. Advantage was
taken of the labourer who had a little ground of the
farmer, and less wages given to him, on the assumption,
forsooth, that he had a pig and a garden.
Mr. B. ESCOTT seconded the amendment.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM hoped the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman would not press the motion to a division.
He (Sir James Graham) had stated to the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, both in public and in private, that
he had great objection to several of the clauses in this
Bill. If the Hon. Gentleman should press his amend-
ment, he (Sir James Graham) would certainly feel it
• his duty to vote for the committal of the Bill pro forma.
He believed that the Hon. Gentleman who bad intro-
duced the Bill had done so with the most humane
' motives. The acquisition of small plots of land by the
labourer with his dwelling, was 3
great source of hap-
piness and comfort to him, This Bill, however, would
not give him that. The provisions of the Bill were
compulsory, and the land which would be allotted
I to the labourer under this Bill would be at
1 a distance from his dwelling. This Bill would
I enable the field wardens to say to the labourer,
"You have half an acre of very productive land, ansi
you pay a small rent for it, you can therefore work for
me for lower wages." Thus far he agreed with the Hon.
Member for Bath, and the Hon. Member for Bath had
only done h;s duty in entering his protest against a por-
tion of this measure. Should this Bill go into Com-
mittee, he (Sir James Graham) should most narrowly
watch the details of this measure.
Mr. ROEBUCK said, that his object was to draw at-
tention to the mischievous effects of this Bill. After what
had fallen from the Right lion. Gentleman, he should
not press his amendment.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the Bill
passed through Committee
MEDICAL BILL.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM then rose to move the com-
mittal of this Bill. He wished the House to commit the
Bill pro :forma, for the purpose of introducing certain
pro
alterations which he was about to submit. He had
always had an earnest desire,
if possible, to adjust the
differences which unhappily existed between great bodies
of the general practitioners of England and Wales,
and the governing body of the College of Surgeons.
The College of Surgeons was in possession of a char-
ter which gave them extensive privileges, and under
which they enjoyed great power and influence. The
general practitioners numerically were very strong and
powerful, and if they were empowered to return the re-
presentative body in the shape of the Council, in a very
short time the elected body would reflect the wishes and
opinions of the constituent body He had spoken of
the general practitioners in the terms of Prttise which he
felt was due to them. In rural districts they were a
most important class, but in the metropolis the surgeons