The House divided:-Ayes 94; Noes 295: Majority 201. Adair, H. E. AYES. cussion on the great subject which my | are not friendly; we are not prepared hon. Friend has to-night more indis- to give them a present welcome; we are tinctly indicated. I do not wish to be not prepared to look upon them as prounderstood as altogether putting aside, posals which can be taken up by the on the part of the Government, proposals Administration that now exists in any made by my hon. and learned Friend future year. That being so, we think it the Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes) best that we should at once decline to and others, with regard to the reforms take shelter under the modified chawhich may be found practicable in the racter of the demand my hon. Friend distribution of the property of the makes upon us for the moment; we will Church. What I do think is, that we not look at it, though I must at once are not prepared to enter wholesale upon admit that no fundamental objection those reforms. It is idle to suppose can be taken in principle to the inquiry that they can be dealt with, unless Par- when treated simply as an inquiry. It liament is prepared to give to them is fair to him, as well as to the House, much of its time and attention- much that we should take into our view the more of its time and attention than the purpose for which that inquiry is to be other calls upon it are likely to permit directed, and as that purpose is one of its bestowing. And I must say that which we are not prepared to entertain, even my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. we must ask the House to join with us Welby), who seconded the Amendment in voting against the Motion. of the hon. and learned Member for Frome, must himself have been sensible, Question put. when he had made all the deductions and all the qualifications that he felt to be necessary with regard to the rights of property, with regard to the respect due to vested interests, with regard to the necessity or expediency of preserving prizes in the Church, that the field for action in the province which he marked out for himself was really much more narrow than he might at first have supposed. But whatever is to be said upon this subject should be said as distinct from the Motion before us. The connection of the two matters can only lead to confusion. I look, therefore, for a moment to the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford as entirely apart from these propositions of internal reform; and, so looking at it, I am bound to say that while I can see no reason why we should enter upon this lengthened and elaborate inquiry into matters of fact, when we are already possessed of abundant information for all practical purposes, we are still less disposed to give countenance to this Motion if we are to consider the ulterior purposes which my hon. Friend has alluded to. He has distinctly, and by a process perfectly legitimate from his point of view, given us to understand that he wishes to collect the facts, and to be in possession of them in the most complete and accurate form, in order that he may afterwards found upon them proposals of extended constitutional change. To those proposals we VOL. CCXII. [THIRD SERIES.] Anderson, G. Bright, J. (Manchester) U Holland, S. Lawrence, Sir J. C. Lawrence, W. Mackintosh, E. W. M'Arthur, W. M'Clure, T. Maguire, J. F. Marling, S. S. Melly, G. Morgan, G. Osborne Morley, S. Mundella, A. J. Morrison, W. Muntz, P. II. Palmer, J. II. Richards, E. M. Samuelson, H. B. Child, Sir S. Clive, Col. hon. G. W. Damer, Capt. Dawson- Denman, hon. G. Dickson, Major A. G. Egerton, Capt. hon. F. Goschen, rt. hon. G. J. Gower, hon. E. F. L. | Hamilton, Lord C. J. Hamilton, Marquess of Lorne, Marquess of Lowe, rt. hon. R. Lowther, hon. W. Harcourt, W. G. G. V. V. Morgan, hon. Major Newport, Viscount North, Colonel Northcote,rt.hn. SirS.H. Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J. Parker, Lt.-Colonel W. Pell, A. Pemberton, E. L. Hodgson, K. D. Pim, J. Hogg, J. M. Portman, hon. W. H. B. Holford, J. P. G. Holt, J. M. Hood, Cap. hn. A.W.A.N. Hughes, T. Hunt, rt. hon. G. W. Hurst, R. H. Jackson, R. W Jardine, R. Elphinstone, Sir J. D. H. Jessel, Sir G. Buckley, Sir E. Buller, Sir E. M. Enfield, Viscount Burrell, Sir P. Ewing, A. Orr Johnstone, Sir H. Kavanagh, A. Mac. M. Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G. Forster, rt. hon. W. E. Lefevre, G. J. S. Foster, W. H. Legh, W. J. TRAMWAYS (METROPOLIS) BILLS. Ordered, That the Promoters of any of the Tramways (Metropolis) Bills introduced in this or the last Session and which are now before Parliament shall have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the same Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament. Ordered, That the Promoters of any such Bill intending to suspend any further proceedings thereon, may give notice of such their intention in the Private Bill Office, not later than the twentieth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two. Ordered, That the money deposited in accordance with the Standing Orders or any Resolution of this House in respect of such Bills shall thereupon be returned to the depositors. Ordered, That the Promoters of each such Bill may on or before the thirty-first day of December next, deposit in the Private Bill Office an Estimate (signed by the person making the same) of the expense of the undertaking under the Bill (or so much thereof as the Promoters may determine to proceed with in the next Session of Parliament), and previously to the fifteenth day of January next deposit a sum not less than four per centum on the amount of such Estimate with the Court of Chancery in England. Ordered, That not later than three clear days after the next meeting of Parliament each Bill, the proceedings whereon shall have been suspended Main Question, as amended, put, and as aforesaid, may be deposited in the Private Bill negatived. Office in the form required by the Standing Orders, with a Declaration signed by the agent annexed thereto, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect (except where any of the proposed works with which the Promoters do not intend to proceed in the ensuing Session have been omitted from the Bill) as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been so suspended at the last stage of its proceeding in the House in the present Session or in the Session of 1871. Ordered, That such Bills, indorsed by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, as having been duly deposited, with such Declaration annexed, may be laid by one of the Clerks of that Office upon the Table of the House in the next Session of Parliament. Ordered, That in respect of every Bill so laid the Table, the Petition for the Bill and the upon Order of leave to bring in the same in the present Session or in the Session of 1871 shall be read, and thereupon such Petition shall be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, who shall forthwith report to the House whether or not the Promoters have made such deposit with the Court of Chancery in England as aforesaid; and upon the Examiners reporting that such deposit has been made the Bill shall be read a first time and a second time, and referred to a Select Committee or otherwise dealt with as the House shall order. Ordered, That all Petitions presented in the Session of 1871 or in the present Session against any such Bill, and which stood referred to the Committee on such Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session of Parliament."—(Mr. Arthur Peel.) COMMONS PROTECTION, &c. BILL. (Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Morrison.) [BILL 63.] SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. : SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in moving "That the Bill be now read a second time," said Sir, the "Commons Protection Bill" is so named by a mere mistake which occurred in the printing office of this House. It is all but a verbal copy of the Bill of last Session called the Public Lands Bill. The long titlewhich is in both Bills the same-gives a far more accurate impression of the nature of the Bill than does the short. It describes it as "a Bill to provide for the better security of the Rights of the Public in Lands and Commons, and for the beneficial management of public Lands and Commons." The Preamble is the key to the reasons which have led to the Bill being brought before the House. It states that a large part of the lands of England have become vested in corporations for purposes more or less public in their nature; that such lands are often not administered with due economy and profit; that, from the absence of constant supervision, some such lands, common rights, and rights of way have been withdrawn from public and converted to private uses; and that the concurrent management of such lands, where lying together, would afford means for great public improvements. With regard to the first portion of the case, it is impossible accurately to assess the amount of land that is at present vested in corporations. We should, I think, be justified in assuming that much more than what the Bill implies by the phrase "a large part;"-indeed, a vast proportion of the land of England-belongs to corporations. It was stated in 1863 by the present Prime Minister that the income tax on the property of the endowed charities alone would if paid -amount to £100,000 a-year; which would mean that the income of those charities was £4,000,000. The income of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and of the colleges of those Universities, has, I believe, been estimated at £500,000, chiefly derived from land. The landed property of London Companies, and of the Church, is of vast extent. The Returns as to charitable endowments of the smaller kind which have lately been laid upon the Table of the House show, for instance, that in the county of Kent alone there are 14,000 acres belonging to Kentish charitiesthat is, without including lands belonging to Kentish charities in other counties, and without including lands situate in Kent and belonging to the charities of other counties. Almost all of North London and almost all of South London belongs to charities, and the value of the public lands of England has been set as high as £500,000,000. With reference to the second statement of the Preamble-namely, that these lands are for the most part not administered with due economy and profit, I think there will be no difference of opinion. It is undoubtedly true that some of them are administered with strict economy and with much profit; but I think no one will contend that as a whole, or even in general, they are so administered. But there is another statement in the Preamble which is capable of easy proofthat these lands are not administered with due regard to the public interest. Not to go far for an example, I would refer to statements lately made within these walls with regard to the Finsbury Prebend Estate. A complete contradiction was given on behalf of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Thomas Acland), to the charges made by the medical officer of Shoreditch. But The Times of the 13th May returned to the subject, and, after going into much detail, spoke as follows: "It seems plain that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners did not enter upon possession of this great estate with any definite policy to guide them in its management, or with any just idea of the done nothing which was not strictly within their magnitude of the interests at stake. They have right; but they have failed to show either the intelligence or the public spirit which might be fairly expected from trustees for the public." So much for the present management of the public lands. The third statement which it is my duty to make good is that, from the absence of constant supervision, some lands have been withdrawn from public and converted to private uses. This, again, is a statement which no one who is acquainted with the subject will controvert. If, however, there be need for examples, I would point to the gradual swallowing up of the public rights in the lands of Dartmoor, by the action of the Duchy of Cornwall, without the sanction of this House. In the Reports, | time. The ground-rents are upwards too, of the Charity Commissioners there of £5,000 a-year, and the value of the are many cases given in which lands estate was estimated 40 years ago at and rent-charges appear from documents upwards of £50,000 a-year. From the in their possession to have been granted increase in the value of property in the which cannot now be found or identified, midst of London, it will probably be and are lost to that public use for which worth £100,000 a-year when the leases they were designed. An account of the fall in. Many of these smaller streets, Prison Charities of the City, printed in courts, and mews might be greatly im1870, states a singular case of the loss proved in the accommodation they would of charitable lands. The report is in afford as dwellings. No doubt, many of the following words:these leases could be advantageously purchased for the short residue of the term, and the sites applied to improved dwellings with vast social advantages, as well as greater profit to the institution. The Committee of the Foundling Hospital, with the responsibility of administering wisely these large funds, could not be expected to embark in any schemes of public improvement. The "Certain tenements near Paul's Wharf in the parishes of St. Benet and St. Peter were left by John Fuller in 1592 for poor prisoners. In 1780, the Society for the Relief of Prisoners-for small debts - filed an information against the lessees of the property, no rents having been applied for the prisoners since 1764. An enquiry was directed to find who was the heir-at-law to the last trustee, in order to get new trustees appointed. The matter was neglected until 1862, when the solicitors of the Attorney General were advised that some one had no doubt acquired an adverse title by long possession, and that it would be useless to take any proceedings to recover." Thus much have I said of special reasons for legislation. I next would come to speak of the particular form of legislation, which it is that we propose. The Preamble of the Bill sets forth that the concurrent management and disposition of public lands that lie together would be for the public advantage, and it instances the case of lands in London as an example of what is meant. We might compare what has been done by Lord Westminster in Pimlico and what has been neglected, which, under this Bill, might easily be effected, upon the vast charitable estates of Finsbury, by the concurrent management of charitable lands. One fourth of the whole area of London is in public hands. I consider it fortunate that the House will have the advantage of hearing the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) on this occasion. I believe that the hon. Member is treasurer of the Foundling Hospital, and as such must be well acquainted with the large estates of that institution. The trustees of the Foundling Hospital have 40 acres of land in perhaps the most central part of London, including all the streets and houses between Russell Square on the west, Gray's Inn Road on the east, Regent Square on the north, and Great Ormond Street on the south. It comprises many squares, streets, courts and mews, let on about 200 different leases, most of which will expire in about 20 years overseers under whom the estate would be placed by the present Bill would not be limited to improvements on this property alone. The Foundling Hospital estate nearly touches on the property of several other wealthy institutions; near it are the estates of the Tonbridge School, the Aldenham School, Seckford Hospital, and many others. The powers thus united would afford means of metropolitan improvement of incalculable value, which could never be obtained by a multitude of separate proprietors acting without concert, if not in hostility to one another. The first action of this Bill would be to startle those who have not hitherto been interested in the subject, by making known the extent of the lands over which public rights exist. As Mr. Hare put the case in an article which appeared in The Fortnightly Review, the public wants, first information and then access a knowledge of the property it possesses, and then an opportunity of competing on fair terms for the occupation of these estates in a competition in which no prejudices, no private interests, and no personal favour will be allowed to prevail, and in dealing with which there shall be no place for any other than the single object of the public good. We might point to the management of the Greenwich Hospital Estates by John Grey of Dilston, as explained in Mrs. Butler's life of her father. That is the model which in this Bill we have taken for imitation. The Bill directs the administrative bodies of the public lands, within each district, to elect an |