said, that in pursuance of his notice he rose to move that the second reading be deferred for six months. The scheme proposed by the Bill was precisely one of those which ought to be referred for investigation to a Royal Commission. He had no desire to obstruct any measure that would have the effect of relieving the traffic of the metropolitan streets; but he considered that the Bill would have a diametrically opposite effect, that it would destroy the appearance of the streets over which the railway was proposed to be carried, and that it would seriously damage a vast amount of property in the metropolis. It proposed to create a nuisance worse than Holborn Hill, by stopping up seven streets, and raising Euston Road eleven feet, with a gradient of one in thirty. Euston Road was one of the great main arteries of the metropolis, and that and similar wholesale interference with property and public convenience had roused the important parishes of St. Pan-eras and St. James to petition against the Bill. Mr. Bazalgette, the engineer to the Board of Works, reported that it would materially affect the sewage of the districts through which it passed. On that subject the provisions of the Bill were altogether silent, and there was apparently an intention to cross numberless existing streets upon the level. Though the railway was to start from the terminus of the Great Northern Railway, it did not appear that that company were in any way promoters of the line. It had no western terminus at all, but proposed to stop short in the immediate neighbourhood of the Regent Circus, in the middle of the small streets surrounding Coventry Street and Windmill Street, from which it was difficult to imagine how the traffic would ever escape. In conclusion the hon. Member moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

seconded the Amendment.

said, that although he had but recently had the honour of being elected a Member of that House, he had long been a practitioner before its tribunals, and he had never known a case in which justice was suddenly and impatiently refused as was proposed by this Amendment. The railway invasion of the metropolis was a bugbear which had been conjured up to frighten the House. Of the twenty-eight schemes originally contemplated only nineteen referred to the northern side of the Thames, and of these six had perished by their own weight. Four more had no new works in view, but related merely to internal arrangements by the railways themselves. Of the remaining nine, three were merely junction lines, of perhaps a few chains in length, and mostly outside the metropolis, and one (the Ludgate station) was not a new work, having' been already sanctioned by Parliament in connection with the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway. Deducting these four from the residue of nine, there remained five Bills, of which four had been already read a second time either in that House or in the House of Lords. So that the Regent Circus Railway Bill now under consideration was the only one of the twenty-eight left, and a simpler case a Committee would never have been called upon to deal with. There was really nothing in its circumstances to call for exceptional legislation. By arrangements entered into with the Great Northern Railway, it would only be necessary to raise the Euston Road to the extent of one in sixty, and one side would be allowed to remain at its present level. It was a mistake to suppose that there would be any crossings on the level in the vicinity of Coventry Street; and power was expressly taken to widen Tichbourne Street, and to open out a new street leading into Regent's Circus. The line had been carefully laid out by Mr. Hawkshaw, with a view of avoiding any open spaces, and of letting light and air into the most crowded districts. The public advantages which had resulted from the construction of the Metropolitan Railway, and the public policy which dictated the Charing Cross Extension, showed clearly that the Regent Circus line ought to be made; and as for the alleged interference with property, the House knew that private interests were, if anything, too well protected. A tradesman, to his knowledge, had openly expressed regret and apprehension lest his premises should not be "injured" by a railway which proposed to purchase the house two doors lower down.

said, the hon. Member, although a new Member, was a skilful and able advocate and a sanguine man; but, in spite of his assurances that there was no cause for alarm and of the ingenious manner in which he had handled his statistics, he had not succeeded in dissipating the general uneasiness with regard to metropolitan railway schemes. If, as the hon. Gentleman said, so many Railway Bills had slipped through a second reading he could only say, more shame for the House of Commons; and if there were so many more undergoing consideration in another place, he hoped the House of Lords would do their duty better. As for those lines which he had called "junctions," he asked the House to take warning from the statement of the hon. Gentleman, and to beware how they sanctioned new lines entering the metropolis, which in the following Session they might be told contemplated little harmless "junctions," of which the principle had been already sanctioned. Then, as for the lines which had disappeared, he dreaded them quite as much as any which were then in full activity, for they would be sure to appear again; and if encouragement were given to such a project as that before them, the Thames would be crossed and London would be dotted over with railways in such a manner as would defy the ingenuity of the most skilful Railway Committee that was ever appointed. He knew nothing about that particular scheme, but in his opinion the House ought to act on the general and wise rule of rejecting every one of these metropolitan lines, in the hope that, even at the last moment, the Government would be roused to a sense of the importance of that great national question, and appoint a Commission to examine into the whole sub- ject of intramural railway communication. If they failed to take it in hand, the next best thing would be for the Metropolitan Board of Works—who, thanks to the hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chairman of Committees), were empowered to act to a certain extent in these cases, and who were acquiring more and more the confidence of the public — to devote their attention seriously to the subject. But whichever course was adopted, he earnestly advised the House to adopt the recommendation of the Duke of Newcastle's Commission, and to agree upon some general scheme of metropolitan intercommunication which would satisfy the public convenience, without handing over the metropolis to the devices and conflicting designs of railway companies. He believed that in the long run the shareholders of these lines would have cause to congratulate themselves if the whole question of metropolitan railways were at the present moment postponed in order to the careful consideration of some general scheme.

said, that the borough he represented (Finsbury) was intersected by this railway from one end to the other. He had, however, told his constituents that he could not support the rejection of the second reading, but that he was ready to vote for referring that as well as all other metropolitan railway schemes to some tribunal competent to deal with the whole question.

said, that eight years before he was the Chairman of a Committee that sat on the subject of the overcrowding of the streets of the metropolis, and the conclusion that Committee came to was, that nothing but a system of railways would clear the streets and improve the means of communication. He therefore advocated the second reading of that Bill on principle; and if the Metropolitan Board of Works had any opposition to offer to the measure, they ought to appear before the Committee on the Bill in the usual way.

said, that after the modification by the House of their Standing Order, the Metropolitan Board of Works, being thereby enabled to oppose the Bill, immediately met and determined to offer to it all the opposition in their power. The scheme materially interfered with the drainage of the district through which it was intended to pass, and would cut through four of the principal sewers of the metropolis. He therefore trusted the House would save the Metropolitan Board of Works the expense of appearing before the Committee, by rejecting the Bill at that stage.

said, he could not see why London should be sacrificed to the convenience of travellers from the North. The House of Commons should do as they had done in Dublin, where nineteen different schemes for railways had been proposed. The Corporation of Dublin condemned those schemes, and said they would not have the city of Dublin cut into pieces in the way proposed. The proposed railway was to be part on the surface and part subterranean at the Euston road, which road the carriages must pass over. [Mr. ROBERTSON: No; it is eighteen feet below the level.] It would pass above ground in Finsbury and below ground in Marylebone, which was peculiar, because Finsbury was higher than Marylebone. He opposed the Bill because the railway schemes had caused the greatest possible nuisance on the south side of the river. If they wished to have the same tiling done on the northern side of the water, they would pass this Bill. It was said that the line was to be connected with the London, Chatham, and Dover line. The latter company was going to cross Ludgate Hill with one of those frightful viaducts now seen in all parts of the metropolis. But the hon. Member (Mr. Robertson) had stated a fact which was extremely important. Among the numerous Bills which he had mentioned, he had called the attention of the House to one, the Ludgate Station and Junction Railway, which was connected with the London Chatham and Dover Line. Now, the House would have an opportunity, before they gave their sanction to that Bill, to stipulate that the intended mode of crossing Ludgate Hill by one of those frightful viaducts should be given up, and it would be the duty of the Committee to which the Ludgate Station Bill was referred to attend to this question.

said, he should support the Motion for the second reading, on the ground that he had not heard one word against the principle of the measure, that four other Bills of a similar nature had been passed by the House, and that Bill ought not to be treated in a different manner.

said, the Metropolitan Board had examined the proposed scheme, and looked upon it as one of the wildest that could be brought forward. They opposed it from the beginning, because the projected line would cut through four or five sewers, the whole area of which would have to be reconstructed. It would also cut through the great Holborn sewer. Another objection to it was, that it could not pass the Euston road without raising that road, seeing that the Great Northern Railway was on a level with the road, and it was impossible to penetrate below the level of the road because the Metropolitan Railway passed at that point. He therefore could not see how it was possible to commence the line. The scheme alluded to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson) as having been recommended by a Committee eight years ago, was for a line running round London.

said, there was a general feeling that the metropolitan railways should be taken up by Government, or by anybody that could deal with them on a uniform principle. If there was the slightest intention on the part of the Government to carry the idea out, the House ought to reject the Bill before them on the second reading. By so doing they would not only he saving the inhabitants of a large district from a severe infliction, but would also save a great deal of money to the promoters of the Bill. It was quite clear that the proposed railway could not be worked on a uniform plan with the railways of the metropolis, because it was not constructed with any regard to the levels of other railways.

observed, that though it was usual to send private Bills to Select Committees, in order that their merits might there be decided on, there were, nevertheless, two sides to that question; for if it should appear that a scheme on its very face was objectionable in principle and faulty in detail, it would be unjust to pass the second reading, and thereby compel persons who were adverse to it to go to the expense of opposing the measure in Committee. The scheme was one of no ordinary character; it was not a question between competitive projectors, or one of compensation to landowners, but it was an attempt at constructing a railway to penetrate the very heart of the metropolis. It was a matter for great regret that, in the infancy of the railway system, some general comprehensive scheme had not been adopted by which an enormous destruction of property might have been saved and a vast outlay of money spared. He was inclined to think that such a scheme would now be found impracticable. but it might be possible within the limited area of the metropolis to devise such a scheme of railway accommodation as should satisfy the reasonable wants of the public and avoid all unnecessary interference with private property and vested interests. They had been told as a recommendation that the Bill was one of many schemes, the others having perished; and he must say that it was the most daring of those schemes, and seemingly promoted by no persons of responsibility. The line was described as one in connection with the Great Northern Railway. It was not, however, promoted by the directors of that railway, but by gentlemen of whom he (Mr. Massey) never had the advantage of hearing before. Those gentlemen came forward with a scheme traversing great streets and interfering with a vast amount of property, and not only greatly obstructing the public convenience, but creating unsightly excrescences to the great disfigurement of the metropolis. For these reasons, though he was extremely reluctant to refuse any one applying to that House an opportunity of being heard, still it appeared to him that it would be fruitless to send the Bill before a Committee; and as there was an almost perfect unanimity against it in the minds of gentlemen qualified to judge, he thought it was one of those exceptional eases in which the House should exercise its discretion, and decline to allow the Bill to be read a second time.

said, he conceived that a strong case had been made out against the Bill, and the fact of the Metropolitan Board of Works being so strongly opposed to the Bill constituted a reason for not allowing it to go to a Select Committee. He had also received representations from many of his constituents adverse to the proposed measure; and though he was averse to refuse the promoters of Railway Bills a hearing, he thought the Bill ought not to be permitted to go any further.

observed that the line was not to be a subterranean line, but was to be executed in open cuttings; and he did not believe that the House would sanction a scheme by which Oxford Street was to be cut into trenches. He thought that Parliament should take some decided steps in order to manifest its determination that the metropolis should not be disfigured by these railway schemes.

said, his constituents, as far as he had ascertained their opinions, were strongly opposed to the Bill.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the fact of one of the defendants, in a fishery prosecution instituted by the Irish Board of Fisheries, having sworn at a trial which took place during the present month at Arthurstown, county Wexford, that Mr. James Redmond Barry, one of the Commissioners, had written to him to the effect "that he was not a party to the prosecution against him for alleged illegal practices, and that the said prosecution was an unfair proceeding;" and to inquire whether the Secretary to the Treasury has taken any and what measures in consequence of the above proceeding on the part of Mr. Redmond Barry?

, in reply, said, that Mr. James Redmond Barry, one of the Irish Fishery Commissioners, had written a letter to one of the defendants in a fishery prosecution by that Board, and tried at Arthurstown, to the effect that he was not a party to such prosecution, and that he thought it was an unfair proceeding. But that letter he (Mr. Peel) understood was intended to be a private communication. There was no doubt that under the circumstances Mr. Barry had committed a breach of duty, and the Board had passed a Minute recording their opinion that the letter ought not to have been written.

said, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, considering the numerous schemes that are proposed for intersecting the Metropolis and its Suburbs with various lines of Railway, he will take into consideration the propriety of recommending the appointment of a Special Committee or Commission to investigate and report upon the same?

In reply to the question of my noble Friend, I have to state that it has not seemed expedient to the Government to appoint a Royal Commission for the purpose of inquiring the schemes now before Parliament for the extension of railway communication in the Metropolis. Some years since, indeed, a Commission was appointed to inquire into this subject, and they made a very elaborate Report, and it was the custom for many years of the Board of Trade to call the attention of the Committees on Railway Bills affecting the metropolis to that Report. But in certain important particulars Parliament has overruled the advice of that Royal Commission. There was one area in the metropolis which the Commission recommended should never be permitted to be invaded by any railway company. That sacred area, however, has been so invaded. Railway bridges which are at present in the course of construction over the Thames are at variance with the recommendations of the Commissioners: their Report has upon some points, nevertheless, been attended to. I am not quite sure what my noble Friend means by a "Special Committee" for inquiring into this subject. But if he means a Select Committee of the House of Commons, it would, of course, be for the House itself to consider whether such a Committee should be appointed. It is not, however, the intention of the Government to appoint anything in the shape of a Commission to inquire into this matter. But knowing the great importance of the subject, and the strong interest which is felt in the numerous metropolitan railway projects which have now to be considered by Parliament, I gave instructions to an officer of the Board of Trade to institute an inquiry into the general character of these schemes, and I have requested him to make a report upon a certain number of points of great public importance, which I thought he could deal with within a limited time; and when that report shall be made, I will lay it before the House. The House can then, if they should please, refer the report to the Committees on the groups of metropolitan railway schemes under their consideration. The report will contain such information upon the subject as it is in our power to bring before the House. Beyond presenting the report, the Department of Her Majesty's Government with which I am connected do not think it necessary to go. We have felt it to be our duty to furnish the Committee with all the information in our power. That must be my reply to the question which has been put by my noble Friend, and I hope the information the report will contain will be satisfactory.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the First Naval Lord did not receive a Deputation from the Dockyards men during his canvass at Devonport, for the purpose of hearing their complaints against the Regulation issued in October, 1861, which prohibits promotion in the Dockyards after the age of forty-five; whether he did not promise them a full inquiry into the operation of this Regulation immediately after the Election, with a view of its being rescinded if its effect was injurious to the Dockyards men; whether this promise was not in part fulfilled by orders being sent from the Admiralty to the principal officers of the Yards for a report of the working of the said Regulation; whether they had not replied, condemning the restriction as to age for promotion; and whether the Secretary to the Admiralty will place upon the table of the House the Instructions sent, and the reports of the officers thereon?

, in reply, said, Sir Frederick Grey, when he was canvassing at Devonport, very properly refused to receive any deputation, or promise to redress any grievances. After the election was concluded, however, Sir Frederick Grey received a deputation, consisting of certain dockyards men, who complained of the restriction of the age of persons who desired promotion. Sir Frederick Grey brought the question before the Admiralty, who caused a report to be sent from the dockyards, and in no case did the dockyard authorities express a desire to rescind the objectionable regulation. With regard to the publication of the reports, I may state that they are regarded as confidential reports, and I must therefore decline to lay them before the House.

said, he rose to call attention to the Reports of the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, reporting the sale of rights of the Crown in Waltham, Epping, and other forests in Essex, and to the fact that in consequence of those sales numerous in-closures had been made in the forests by the purchasers of Crown rights. Towards the end of the last Session, he had given notice of his intention to call attention to the subject, which he renewed at the be ginning of the present Session. While his Motion referred chiefly to the past, that of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Peacocke) referred altogether to the future. The Report of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests of last year showed that a number of inclosures had been effected by private individuals. He did not question the power of the Crown to dispose of its rights. What he complained of was, that the purchasers should possess themselves of the land over which the rights had been exercised by the Crown, and should deprive others of rights of pasturage which were at least as unquestionable as those sold by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The most grievous evil of all was the taking away of the right which the citizens of London had enjoyed from time immemorial to resort to the Royal forests in the vicinity of the metropolis for purposes of recreation. He agreed with what had been so emphatically stated in that House and elsewhere, that such inclosures were illegal. An Act passed in 1843, provided that no land within fifteen miles of London should be inclosed without the sanction of Parliament; and the same prohibition was extended by a subsequent Act to all common lands throughout the country. It might be said that these Acts did not apply to Royal forests; but he submitted, that when the rights of the Crown were sold, the land over which they had been exercised ceased to be Royal domain, and remained to be dealt with in the same way as other commons. When the forest of Hainault was disafforested by Parliament in 1851, due care was taken to preserve the rights of the public; but of one allotment of 600 acres, fifty acres were set apart for the public. In the case of another forest in Oxfordshire, disafforested in 1853, and of a third in Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire, clauses were introduced into the Acts providing that any person injuriously affected by the passing of the law should receive compensation. The same remark was applicable to other cases. In 1850 a Royal Commission was appointed, under an Act of Parliament, to inquire into the condition of the Royal Forests; and the Commissioners stated in their Report that the inclosures of which he complained were clearly illegal. Moreover, in the notorious case of Hampstead Heath, Parliament had over and over again refused to permit the lord of the manor to inclose. But the vast majority of purchasers of the rights of the Crown, mentioned in the Reports, were not lords of the manor, and they had still less right to interfere with the public interests. He might be told that the aggrieved parties could have recourse to the courts of justice. It appeared, from the Report of the Royal Commission, that the only court to which appeal could be made was the Court of Exchequer. Would it not be a mockery to tell an artisan of London or a poor forester deprived of his rights, that he might go to that expensive tribunal to obtain justice; formerly there was a special court for the trial of forest cases, called the Verderer's Court; but it had fallen into abeyance for years, and there was now, practically, no cheap and easy mode of obtaining justice in such cases. The freeholders of the county of Essex ought to elect four verderers; but the vacancies caused by deaths had not been filled up, and now there was only one verderer, the high sheriff of the county. Again, he could not find that any publicity was ever given to the sale of Crown rights. An intending purchaser made a personal or written application to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and the bargain was soon struck. The fact of the sale was not made known until the purchaser proceeded to inclose. In one instance, that of Chigwell Forest, indeed, an in-closure took place without any purchase of the Crown rights or any application to the Commissioners. The incloser was a Mr. Hodson, who claimed to be lord of the manor, but his act was generally regarded as a most barefaced violation of the rights both of the Crown and of the foresters, and it had been made the subject of a correspondence with the office of Woods and Forests. No such case could have happened if there had been a careful administration of the Royal forests. Another point of complaint was that the rights of the Crown had generally been sold for a mere trifle. The Crown rights over 434 acres were sold to the Marquess of Wellesley for £1,890. In another case 695 acres were given for £3,349; and Mr. Money Wigram obtained 1,377 acres for £4,468. Altogether the rights of the Crown had been sold over about 4,000 acres, and the price obtained amounted to £18,500—a paltry sum for such a vast quantity of land, some of it very valuable. It had been the custom of late years to encourage the formation of peoples' parks in the metropolis, and large sums had been voted for that purpose; but most persons would far rather spend a day at Epping Forest than go through the humdrum of a promenade in one of those parks, however valuable such places might be in their way. Hundreds of thousands of the humbler classes in London were interested in the question, and vast numbers of excursionists were taken by railway and other conveyances to Epping Forest for recrea- tion. In fact, the road thither on some fine days might be compared to the road to Epsom on a Derby day. The facilities for getting there by railway were being increased; and if the land were left open for the people of London to take healthful exercise upon it, there could be no doubt they would gladly avail themselves of the privilege. He had endeavoured to show that these inclosures were illegal, and at variance with the precedents set in regard to the other Royal forests. If he had shown that they were at variance with the case of Hampstead Heath, he thought he had done enough to induce the House to agree to his Motion for inquiry, for it was an inquiry only that he now sought. He would therefore conclude by moving for a Select Committee.

, in seconding the Motion, said, that thousands of poor persons had signed petitions to that House praying for an inquiry into the manner in which inclosures took place in these forests. Speaking on behalf of those poor persons, he asserted that their only desire was to maintain the rights which the people had enjoyed for centuries in these forests, and that they had no wish to interfere with the rights of others. If the Committee were granted, he believed it could be shown by conclusive evidence that the inhabitants of the metropolis had long possessed the right of going upon the land in question, whenever they pleased, for fresh air and innocent enjoyment. Some years ago he had himself seen large processions of citizens, accompanied by barges fitted upon wheels, going from Mile End Road to Epping Forest and a place called Fairlop, where an immense oak stood—a custom which had existed for between one and two hundred years. He maintained that these lands belonged to the Crown; that those who had inclosed parts of them could claim no other right than that of turning out cattle to graze upon them; and that the people ought not to have their right of going there for recreation to use the word of the hon. Member for Maldon "filched" from them. It might be said that these inclosures took place with the consent of the Crown, but in the case of a recent inclosure of 101 acres at Chigwell, both the Crown and the Inclosure Commissioners had been set at defiance. Mr. Gore, of the Woods and Forests Department, was written to on the subject, and he replied that it was impossible for the Crown to raise the question in a court of law; and when the In- closure Commissioners were next appealed to, they stated that they had no jurisdiction, and could take no steps in the matter. There were about forty other inclosures varying from a hundred down to as low as four and even two acres each which could be proved to be illegal; and the open land, on which the people had for ages taken recreation, was gradually disappearing. Surely, that was a state of things which the House could not refuse to inquire into, and thus set the question of right at rest now and for ever.

said, he could not but think that the proposal was of doubtful expediency—at any rate, he felt bound, upon the part of many of his constituents, to protest against the assumption upon which the Resolution was founded, that the inhabitants of the metropolis, or the public generally, had any legal right whatever over the wastes which were the subject of consideration. The question raised was a question of legal rights; legal rights had to be investigated; legal rights had to be respected; and it appeared to him that a court of law was a more fitting tribunal for this purpose than a Committee of the House of Commons. The House should at least know that this very question had been, last year, the subject of judicial investigation, and the result of that investigation before Justice Wight-man was this—a verdict altogether adverse to the claims set up by the public over the waste. The question put by the learned judge to the jury was:—Do you find that, in the Manor of Woodford (a portion of the forest) there is a custom for the inhabitants of that manor to wander about over the waste for air and recreation? and the answer given by the jury was "No." Had, then, the inhabitants of the metropolis any right? What, too, was to be the full scope of this inquiry? During the last few years many inclosures had been made under grants from the lords of the manors, and many very handsome edifices had been erected upon them. The Infant Orphan Asylum at Wanstead, he believed, was an instance of this; the Merchant Seamen's Institution too, also in the same neighbour- hood; and there were numerous villa residences of citizens scattered throughout the forest. Did the hon. Gentleman intend to inquire into the titles of all these properties—did he intend to put the proprietors to the annoyance, anxiety, and expense of defending their titles before his Committee? This could hardly be his intention, and yet the words of the Resolution seemed to intimate that it was. There seemed to be an impression in the House, that it would be desirable to keep all these open places uninclosed entirely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the metropolis, but surely it could not be the serious intention of the House to keep thousands of acres uncultivated, when a few hundred acres, well regulated, would suffice for this purpose. It could not be the intention of the House to neglect altogether the wishes of the inhabitants of the district itself— and entirely to forego the advantages of inclosure. It could not be the intention to declare those to be rights which a court of law held were not rights, or to appropriate for the use of the public that which the law said was the private property of individuals. The law declared that the ownership of the soil was in the lord of the manor, and the lord of the manor, with consent of the Homage, had power to make grants for inclosure. But when any district or parish was to be inclosed at once, then application was made to the Commissioners; an award was issued, allotments were set out to satisfy existing claims, and one allotment was made for the purposes of recreation for the people of the neighbourhood, varying in extent with the population of the parish. This arrangement had to be confirmed by Parliament, and it always had been confirmed until last year, when an exception, mentioned by the hon. Member for Finsbury, was made in the case of the parish of Chigwell. In this case the parish of Chigwell was compelled by a Committee of the House to give up fifty acres instead of five, and that for the benefit of the people of the metropolis; nor did fifty acres represent the whole extent to which Chigwell was mulcted before it could obtain the benefit of inclosure; these fifty acres were the best land on the waste, it had to be drained and levelled and fenced at the expense of the estate; so that Chigwell may be said to have paid the value of 150 acres of land of average value in the parish for the advantage of the power to inclose. Now, this was done entirely because the parish of Chigwell happened to be a pretty spot. Other parishes under exactly similar circumstances to Chigwell, with the exception of their beauty, obtained their in-closures under the very same Act, and were only compelled to give up five acres for recreative purposes for the inhabitants of their neighbourhood. It might be desirable that this fifty acres should be set apart, but it clearly was not just that one parish should thus pay so exorbitantly for an advantage, simply because it happened to be beautiful, while another parish could purchase the same advantage so cheaply. He quite agreed with the hon. Members who thought it desirable that there should be recreation grounds kept open for the people of the metropolis. He quite entered into the feeling of the hon. Member for Maidstone when he described the other day the pleasure he felt in seeing those people enjoying themselves in the forest; and although that enjoyment was not entirely without some drawback—for he found some of his church-going constituents rather scandalized at the joviality which characterized their proceedings on Sunday—yet he was free to admit that Epping Forest was a very proper place for such recreative grounds. The question, however, still remained—who was to find them? It was hardly right that private individuals should be compelled to give up their property for this purpose. The interests in what are now Victoria and Battersea Parks had no doubt been purchased, and so compensation should be given for rights appropriated for such purposes in Epping Forest. He thought it might be a proper subject for inquiry by the Committee, if appointed, how far the Crown was morally bound to provide such recreative grounds. His own opinion was, that when there were crown lands uninclosed in proper places, there tracts should be set out for the public use; but where it was desirable to take such recreative grounds from private persons—lords of manors— there compensation should be made from the revenues of the Crown.

said, he was bound to admit that there were many subjects which might be inquired into by Select Committees with great advantage, but among them certainly did not come technical and strictly legal rights. The objection which the Government entertained to the Motion, and had expressed to the hon. Gentleman who made it, was, that from the particular terms in which it was couched it sought very plainly to erect a Select Committee of that House into a court of judicature for the purpose of inquiring into, and expressing an opinion with reference to the rights of individuals and of the Crown. Nothing could be more inconvenient than such a course of procedure, and nothing more dangerous than the precedent which would be set if the House should accede to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman in the terms in which it was expressed. The hon. Member proposed that the Committee should inquire into the legality of recent inclosures. That was a strictly legal question. The inclosures were legal and justifiable in point of law, or they were not. If they were legal and justifiable, no ground of complaint could be made; but if they were illegal and could not be maintained, there was a proper tribunal to appeal to. That tribunal, unlike a Committee, would not exhaust itself with the mere expression of an opinion, but would record and enforce its judgment by ordinary process of law. An inquiry by a Committee, therefore, would not be efficacious even if convenient. But a Select Committee had not the powers and machinery of a court of law, even for the purpose of inquiry. It could not compel the attendance of witnesses, or administer an oath. The inquiry, therefore, would be defective as well as inconclusive in its result. He denied the existence of the rights which the hon. Member for Finsbury alleged. It was said the poor foresters had not the means of asserting and maintaining their rights in the Court of Exchequer, and therefore a Select, Committee should be appointed. If that were so, Committees, already tolerably well occupied, would find a vast accretion of employment in inefficacious inquiries into the alleged rights of parties who were too poor to prosecute their suits in the ordinary courts of justice. He was not, however, disposed to deny that some inquiry was needed, and therefore he would make a proposition which he had already communicated to the hon. Member, and which he thought would satisfy all parties. Instead of the hon. Member's proposition he would suggest that a Committee be appointed—

"To inquire into the condition and management of the Royal Forests in Essex, and into any inclosures which may have taken place therein since the Report of the Commissioners of 1850; and to consider whether it is expedient to take any steps for preserving open spots in such Forests."

said, he was quite willing to withdraw his Motion, and accept the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, that in the absence of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliffe) the cause of whose absence they all deplored, he rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Acts relating to the turnpike roads in the neighbourhood of the metropolis north of the river Thames. The metropolitan roads had been under the charge of Commissioners, of whom the right hon. Baronet the Member for Petersfield was one, and upon former occasions turnpikes had been removed, and the charge of the roads transferred to the parishes. A Royal Commission which sat in 1859 recommended a large extension of that arrangement, and the Bill proposed to relieve fifty-one miles of road within the district governed by the Metropolis Local Management Act, by removing twenty-fire turnpike gates, and fifty-six side gates, which were serious impediments to traffic. In order that any parishes which might be affected by the Bill should have an opportunity of stating their objections, he proposed to take the second reading before Easter, and afterwards to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, where all parties could be heard. Being a hybrid Bill, it would afterwards come before a Committee of the Whole House, so that there would be ample opportunities for the parishes to state their views. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to introduce the Bill.

said, he had been in communication with the right hon. Member for Petersfield, whom he had assured of his cordial support in carrying out the object in view. The reference to a Select Committee would, he thought, meet all the objections that could be raised.

said, that he thought the subject was in very good hands, and was glad to find it was intended to send the Bill to a Select Committee; but he wished to know whether it would be a Committee of thirteen or fifteen Members, or one of five Members. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: Of five Members.] That would meet all objection, as it would enable the parishes, some of which were grievously burdened, to appear and state their cases.

said, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill, the object of which was to permit voting by ballot at municipal elections.

said, he thought some explanation of the Bill ought to be given. He believed it was intended to allow votes to be taken by ballot in municipal elections, but it appeared that the hon. Member who had introduced the Bill was not present.

moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

said, the Bill was a mere supplement to an Act which had been passed some time previously for the election of Select Vestries. The vestries so elected had worked remarkably well.

said, that if the House passed the Bill, they would probably soon be told by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley), that a Bill authorizing vote by ballot at elections of Members of Parliament was only a comple- ment of an existing Act. Therefore he would cordially support the Amendment.

said, that he regarded the Bill as a step in the right direction, and he should certainly vote for it. He hoped to see an extension of the principle to Parliamentary voting.

said, he thought it would be unusual in the absence of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. A. Smith), who had charge of the Bill to meet it with the Amendment which had been proposed. The absence of the hon. Member was accidental, arising from the sudden postponement of a Motion that had been expected to occupy some considerable time.

said, that in his opinion Parliament might very properly put the system of vote by ballot to the test in the proposed instance. If it failed, the general application of the system would not of course be persisted in; but if it succeeded, as he believed would be the case—though any man must be presumptuous who spoke confidently about the success of new systems — then an unanswerable argument would be supplied for its further extension.

said, he should be sorry if they were to go to a division on the second reading of the Bill without anything more being said upon the subject. There was a great distinction between the Bill before them and the Bill of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley), because at that time in all the large parishes in the metropolis the votes were taken by means of voting papers. There was therefore no novelty in the proposition, and the object was merely to extend to municipal elections in small boroughs in the country, where a great amount of bribery, drunkenness, and intimidation, or at least cajolery, took place, a system which had worked most beneficially in the metropolis. He thought that when the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy) moved the Amendment, it was not because he had well considered the subject of voting by ballot in municipal elections, but on account of the horror he entertained of the ballot in the abstract. He (Mr. Locke) was of opinion that it would be extremely unfair not to read the Bill a second time, seeing that it was distinct from the general Bill for the application of the ballot to the election of Members of Parliament, and that the objections to it, whatever they might be, would be more appropriately dealt with in Committee.

said, he must admit that the Bill was intended in a great measure to be auxiliary and supplementary to the general question of the ballot, but at the same time the adoption of the principle was proposed to be altogether voluntary, and he thought that that would remove many of the objections to it. He had been a complete convert to the ballot, from what he witnessed at an election in which he was himself concerned immediately after the passing of the Reform Bill, though he did not attribute to it all the great advantages that some of its advocates thought it would be likely to produce. He believed that much of the success of the system would depend upon the constituency upon which it might be tried, but that a great deal more would depend upon the machinery by which it might be carried out. He also felt that it was very undesirable that any plan should be adopted as regarded Parliamentary representation which might afterwards prove a failure; but the proposed measure would, he hoped, afford a satisfactory test of the system of ballot voting. Nothing could be worse than the present mode of conducting municipal elections; and if the House had any regard for the character of local government, they ought to pass some measure to correct and counteract the malpractices, which had been growing worse and worse every year. Hon. Members had only to refer to the evidence taken before the Committee of the other House of Parliament in 1859, for a description of all the evils of the present system. It was true that the object of that Committee was to show the country that they ought to be very careful how they lowered the Parliamentary franchise; but the evidence proved the necessity for some alteration in the manner in which municipal elections were conducted. He proposed that the town council should have the power of taking the votes by ballot in whatever way they pleased; but that having adopted the system, they should adhere to it for five years. The Bill was entirely of an experimental character, and he hoped the House would allow it to be read a second time.

Sir, I have always been an opponent of the ballot; and the mover and supporters of this Bill very fairly avow that this is the first step towards proposing the ballot for Parliamentary elections. One hon. Member has told us that it is ancillary and supplementary to a proposal for vote by ballot; and as I should on any occasion when such a proposal came before the House vote against it, I can have no hesitation in supporting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to delay the second reading till this day six months. Every argument that I have heard adduced in favour of this Bill could be adduced in favour of vote by ballot at Parliamentary elections; and the objections which I have always felt and often stated to such a mode of voting at Parliamentary elections apply in principle to the present proposal, because the election of a municipal body is a political election. It has not the same political importance as an election of Members of this House, but there is no question that it is a political act. The principle of my objection, which I think a sound one, is that no man should in this free country perform a political act without its being known to his fellow-citizens how he performs it—that he should bear the responsibility for good or evil of the act which he has thought fit to do. I think responsibility ought to go hand in hand with political action. The object of the Bill is to withdraw the conduct of voters at municipal elections from public observation —to make their voting secret, and therefore to divest them of that responsibility which I think under a free constitution ought to follow every political act. I shall therefore vote against the Bill, and support the Amendment.