SIR FRANCIS BARING said, that a difference of opinion between the Members of the Committee on such an important point was sufficient proof of the propriety of withdrawing the Bill. He wished, however, to make one suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His right hon. Friend was aware that the question, whether the deductions did not amount to a great deal more than was commensurate with the advantages given to the civil servants, had been before the Committee over and over again, and had been referred by them to two eminent actuaries. Those gentlemen stated they had not sufficient materials for a decision, and in consequence of the view taken by the Committee they were directed not to proceed with their calculations. He would suggest, therefore, that as the Bill was postponed, those Gentlemen should prosecute their inquiry, and get at, the truth of the question. The civil servants would then see how far their complaints were well founded.

they were put in possession of the very ject, and it was only by his casting vote detailed evidence which had been taken that the Committee had agreed to change before the Committee with respect to vari- one of the provisions in the right hon. ous parts of the subject, and more espe- Gentleman's own measure. cially with respect to the question of the annual abatements from the salaries. He readily admitted that that subject materially affected not only the feelings of the members of the civil service, but also the efficiency of that service; because that efficiency would naturally be impaired by the prevalence of discontent among those members. He, therefore, felt that it would be improper on his part to force the consideration of the Bill at that moment on the House; and he thought it desirable that its discussion should be postponed till a future occasion. He should, however, observe, that as he had been aware that the Bill in its altered shape was by no means acceptable to many members of the civil service, he had thought it his duty, considering the extent to which it had been changed by the Committee, to lay it before the House in order that the House might have an opportunity, if it should be thought proper, of considering its provisions. He had felt himself called upon to act in some measure as the organ of the Committee which had altered the Bill; but as it appeared to be the wish of the House that the measure should not be proceeded with at present, he would at once consent to its withdrawal, and he should conclude by moving that the Order for its committal be discharged.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood one important recommendation of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said, the Committee had recommended that the salaries of the civil servants should be revised with a view to their reduction by an amount corresponding with the annual abatements. That was not, however, as he (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) understood the recommendation of the Committee. They had only recommended that the salaries should be revised, because they had not thought it desirable that the civil servants should at one swoop be made a present of some £70,000 or £80,000 a year. The Select Committee wished to have the salaries revised, but to have them revised with a due regard to the fair claims of the members of the service. The Bill had no doubt been altered in the Committee, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to have varied in his views upon the sub

1

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, he begged to express his concurrence in the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in withdrawing the Bill; if they proceeded without having the evidence and Report before them, the Bill would appear to be the Report of the Committee, which it was not. He hoped measures would be taken as soon as possible to relieve the civil servants from the agitation and uncertainty in which they were placed in regard to a question of so much importance to them.

VISCOUNT MONCK said, he wished to say a word as to the decision of the Committee with regard to the annual deduction. The Member of the Committee who proposed the Resolution was decidedly of opinion that all the salaries should be reduced in proportion to the abatement, but he had used the words "revised, with a view to reduction," in order to enable the Government to deal with any case of particular hardship that might arise.

Order discharged.

LEASES AND SALES OF SETTLED
ESTATES BILL.

Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clauses agreed to.

MR. HADFIELD said, he wished to

propose, after Clause 19, the following | liament to confer that privilege upon him, clause :it was denied by reason of a prejudice respecting the enclosure of Hampstead Heath. That privilege would be extended. to him in common with every other proprietor by the provisions of the Bill, unless the very objectionable clause of the hon. Member for Sheffield was carried. It was a delusion to suppose that the proposition of the hon. Member would protect the public. Sir Thomas Wilson was not a very young man; he was the tenant for life, and, in the course of nature, would soon be succeeded by the tenant in tail, who could easily obtain the fee simple, and then suap his fingers at their endeavour to prevent him from granting leases.

In

value to the property in question. He, afterwards been rejected by Parliament, therefore, hoped the hon. and learned So- he thought it reasonable that the question licitor General would assent to the adop- should not be re-opened. If hon. Members tion of the clause. As regards the prin- were of that opinion, then they might vote ciple of the clause, it could not possibly for the insertion of the clause; but, unless be impeached, for surely the Court of they could conscientiously say that they Chancery ought not to be permitted to supported it on that ground, the clause reverse the decision of Parliament. ought not to form part of the Bill. any case he thought the clause could not stand as it was proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, because it simply rested on the fact of a Bill having been brought in, and not obtained. The clause, if inserted at all, ought, instead of the words, "has not obtained such Act," to read thus, "and such application has been rejected on its merits, or has been awarded against by the Judges to whom the Bill may have been referred." He hoped, however, the hon. Member for Sheffield would not persevere in the clause. did not believe the Court of Chancery would ever grant an application that had already been adjudicated on by Parliament through the medium of a reference to the Judges.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, that, when a similar measure to the one now under discussion was introduced last Session, he was informed that strong opposition would be offered to it because it would afford facilities to Sir Thomas Wilson to accomplish objects which he had previously been unable to attain. He (the Solicitor General) was, however, enabled to allay the apprehensions which were felt upon the subject, and he stated then, as he would state now, that, while he entertained the strongest objection to the introduction of any clause in a public Bill which amounted to a privilegium in the case of a particular individual, he knew no reason why any particular individual should be exempted from the operation of such a measure. He stated, also, that if the House of Commons approved the principle that propositions which Parliament had deliberated upon and rejected should not be reviewed by a court of justice, that principle should be embodied in the Bill, and that any Member who supported such a principle ought to be able honestly, candidly, and sincerely, to pledge himself that he believed the principle a just one, and that he did not advocate the introduction of the clause with the view of accomplishing any remote or sinister object. The notion that the Bill would give Sir Thomas Wilson the opportunity of doing what he had hitherto been unable to do was altogether idle and unfounded. Hampstead Heath would not be in any danger if the Bill were passed; but, if Sir Thomas Wilson had any private property adjoining the Heath which he could not now lease for building purposes, he would be enabled by the Bill to apply to the Court of Chancery for power to grant such leases. Why should the fact of Hampstead Heath being adjacent to Sir Thomas Wilson's property deprive him of that right? There might be many other cases in which applications had been made to Parliament, and such applications had been referred to the Judges; for, when a Private Estate Bill was proposed, it was generally referred to the Judges for their opinion, and if the Judges had reported against such applications, and they had

He

MR. WIGRAM said, he thought that, if the provisions of the Bill were correct, they should not be swayed by the circumstance that they might possibly affect the case of a particular individual. The object of the Bill was to substitute applications to the Court of Chancery for applications to Parliament, and, though he approved generally of the Bill, he knew the difficulties with which such applications to the Court of Chancery were beset-difficulties which rendered it almost impossible for the Judge to come to a sound judgment regarding them. He would, therefore, vote for the clause, should the hon. Gentleman press it to a division.

MR. MALINS said, the question was brought to a very narrow issue. The House of Lords had given up their privileges, and consented to vest them in the Court of Chancery, and the point was, would the House of Commons do the same?

MR. WARNER said, he considered the Bill as a measure attacking private property. It was an attempt, aided by a newspaper cry, to obtain Sir Thomas Wilson's property with or without his consent.

MR. HENLEY said, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) did not say one word as to the general effect of the clause, but argued it solely on the ground of its application to a gentleman whose name

had been drawn into the debate. Every- felt no personal interest in the matter one body, however, knew that the application way or the other, but, upon general prinof the clause would be much wider. Those ciples, he held that Parliament had a right Estates Bills were always rejected by the to lay it down as a rule that, having itself House of Lords, and the clause would already refused an application for a private apply to any such case. If he thought Settled Estate Bill, no inferior authority it could affect some one individual only should be at liberty to reverse its decision. the clause would not have his support, Circumstances could not possibly vary, for but it was a general clause, as the hon. the circumstances upon which Parliament and learned Solicitor General had clearly had decided in any given case were those shown to the Committee. If it caused in which the property had been settled; inconvenience to A or B, it could not be but, supposing that a change of circumhelped. It had been whispered about, stances did take place, to whom should though it could not of course be true, a renewed application be made? Surely that the Bill would never have been heard to the persons who had decided in the of had it not been for the rejection of a first instance. They were the parties to private Bill. Such things were said, but whom the alleged change of circumstances no one of course could believe it. He should be submitted, in order that they hoped the clause, as amended by the might have an opportunity, if they thought hon. and learned Solicitor General, would fit, of altering their decision. Upon those be assented to by the Committee. grounds he was prepared to vote for the clause.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE said, he was satisfied with the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General that there would be no danger of the Court of Chancery, within a short time, granting an application which had been refused by Parliament. It was a monstrous proposition to maintain that, because a person had at any time in his life applied to Parliament for a private Bill, and been refused, therefore he should for ever afterwards be precluded from applying to the Court of Chancery, under a general Act, although circumstances might have entirely changed. Such a limitation, if adopted, might in many cases defeat the object of the Bill. If any doubt were entertained as to whether the Court of Chancery would or would not, immediately after the passing of the Bill, reverse any decision to which Parliament had already come, then, no doubt, a restriction as to time might be introduced; but if the hon. and learned Solicitor General felt confident, as he had professed himself to be, that no application under the same circumstances would be granted in one place which had been refused in another, there could be no good reason for adopting the clause.

MR. BARROW said, he must maintain, notwithstanding what had been said on the other side of the House, that in dealing with this question they could proceed upon general principles. He knew nothing of the individual to whom allusion had been made, nor, so far as he was aware, had he ever been on Hampstead Heath, unless, indeed, he had passed it on the top of a mail-coach many years ago. He therefore

MR. NAPIER said, that the arguments which had been advanced in favour of the clause, if sound, would, in his opinion, be fatal to the principle of the Bill. But he was not aware that any person who had applied to Parliament for a private Bill and been refused was thereby debarred from making a second application. Where Parliament had refused it would be proper, generally speaking, for the Court of Chancery to object also; but, if it were right to empower that Court to deal with one case, why should it be prevented from deciding in all? He regarded the Bill as one of great importance. It was to extend to Ireland; and in that country he knew many properties which could not be used with advantage on account of the limited leasing powers. He should certainly vote against the proposed clause.

MR. HADFIELD said, he thought that the Amendment proposed by the hon, and learned Solicitor General would be a great improvement to the clause, and he would, therefore, be willing to adopt it.

MR. WIGRAM said, he would suggest that the hon. Member should also add to his clause :-" And where no material alteration in the circumstances under which such Bill was refused has since occurred."

MR. HEADLAM said, that the more he listened to the discussion the stronger became his objections to the clause. If they could not trust the Court of Chancery, they ought not to pass the Bill.

SIR DENHAM NORREYS said, he did not believe there was a single Gentleman in the House, with the exception,

perhaps, of the hon. Member for South | other offices it was thought that the salary Nottinghamshire (Mr. Barrow), who was ought to be £2,000 a year. so simple-minded as not to see that the real object of the clause was to deprive one individual of the right of using his property as he pleased. They wished to preserve Hampstead Heath, but were in reality preventing Sir Thomas Wilson from using another property at least a mile from the Heath.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, he wished to move a clause to the following effect

"That the Court of Chancery shall not be at liberty to grant any application which a Committee of the House has rejected or reported against."

MR. NAPIER said, he wished to propose an Amendment upon the hon. and learned Solicitor General's clause, namely, after the word " rejected," to add, "on its merits."

MR. HENLEY said, he thought that, under the circumstances, the salary was enormous. When the Bill was brought in the Government had an Education Bill in the other House of Parliament, and there was an extensive scheme in that House proposed by a noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) which, if carried out, would have required constant supervision of extensive machinery at headquarters. That large scheme and the

smaller scheme of the other House had equally miscarried, and he did not consider that there was any occasion to set up an expensive Minister who would only have to discharge a moderate amount of duty.

SIR GEORGE GREY said, he must defend the proposal, on the ground of the amount of duty which the Vice President would have to perform; for the office, if it were to be properly filled, would require a person of some official experience holding the rank of a Privy Councillor, who, having a seat in that House, would be able to give any information that might be reMR. HADFIELD moved the addition of quired on the subject of education. Havthe following clause

Clause agreed to.

"Before making any application to the Court under this Act, the party intending to apply shall give notice of such intended application, by advertisement in the London Gazette, three calendar months before making such application, and by advertisement to be inserted once every week during such three months in a London daily paper, and also in a country paper circulating in the county where the estate is situated, and by printed handbills posted on the most usual and conspicuous places in the same county; and any person or body corporate, whether interested in the estate or not, may apply to the Court of Chancery, by Motion for leave to be heard in opposition to any such application, and the Court is hereby authorised to permit such person or corporation to appear and be heard in opposition to any such application, on such terms and in such manner as

it shall think fit."

ing regard also to the amount of other salaries, he did not see how a lower amount could be proposed.

MR. HENLEY said, he wished to guard himself against expressing any opinion as to the amount of salary. He directed his observations against any salary being paid at all. At that late period of the Session, when so many Members had left town, there was no opportunity of dicussing such an important subject in a full House. The Bill had been for many months on the paper, and there did not seen now to be so much prospect of the national system being adopted as there was eighteen months ago. As no inconvenience would result in the recess, he should prefer to have the subject stand over.

MR. HADFIELD said, he would like to take the sense of the Committee upon the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. He would, therefore, move that the Chair man report progress; and if he did not succeed in that, he should subsequently move that the salary be reduced to £1,000. The sum of £2,000 a year was enormous when they considered that a County Court Judge would only receive £1,500.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON : Being aware, Sir, of the sentiments entertained by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) on matters of this