said, he objected to going on with this Bill at all. He did not think the Lord Advocate could have taken any course more calculated to prove the truth of what has been said, that the business of Scotland was conducted in this House in a most unsatisfactory manner. The Bill was first introduced in the middle of June, they were now in Committee upon it on the 28th; and neither upon the first nor the second reading, nor upon the present stage of the Bill, had there been any explanation given of the necessity of introducing it at all. The Bill itself was a very short and a very unpretending Bill, and might have been introduced at the commencement of the Session if the Lord Advocate had been attending to the Scotch business as sedulously as he had represented himself to have done. The Bill purported to amend an Act passed about two years ago. The Bill then passed was a sort of continuance Bill. The Lunacy Commission in Scotland was constituted about the year 1857; it was to expire in five years; so that in 1862 it became necessary to introduce a Bill to continue it. The Board consisted of an unpaid chairman and of the Commissioners—medical men—with salaries of £1,200 a year each, and the Secretary of State had power to appoint two Deputy Commissioners of Lunacy at salaries of £500 a year each; there was a secretary with a salary of £300 a year, and a clerk with a salary of £150 a year. This was the Board; but it really consisted of the two medical gentlemen and the unpaid chairman. The Board, so constituted in 1857, soon made itself peculiarly obnoxious. They were armed with large powers, and they speedily came into collision with almost all the parochial hoards in Scotland. Their proceedings were very unpopular; but there was no escape from them. If any person objected to the proceedings of any particular Commissioner, he might appeal to the Board; but inasmuch as the Board consisted only of that Commissioner and another, and of the chairman, they confirmed each other's proceedings. Therefore, when in 1862 a Bill was brought in to continue this Lunacy Board, considerable opposition was made to it by the parochial authorities in Scotland, and who, with that view, sent up deputations to London. The main objections to the measure were directed against the powers of the Commission and its constitution; but ultimately the Bill passed. One clause was, however, inserted in the Bill, to the effect that the Deputy Commissioners appointed by the Secretary of State should continue in office only until 1864. Now, what was the object of that clause? The object was to enable the Lord Advocate, during the two years that the Bill was to continue in force, to see whether a Board might not be constituted in a different and less objectionable form to the people of Scotland than the existing Board, The present Bill proposes to continue in office, two gentlemen with a salary of £500 a year each, whose term of office would have expired in August of the present year. The Bill ought to have amended the constitution of the Lunacy Board. It should have been re-constituted in some manner less objectionable to the people of Scotland; audit ought to have been introduced at the beginning of the Session, so that it might have been considered by the county meetings on the 30th April. But, instead of this, the Bill was introduced in the middle of June. It was on the face of it a very unpretending and simple Bill. It consisted, indeed, of only two clauses and the preamble, and the first clause enacts that

"The provisions of the first recited Act in regard to the appointment of Deputy Commissioners shall be and are hereby continued until Parliament shall otherwise determine."

said, he agreed very much with what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. Smollett), and particularly as to the prevalence of a feeling in Scotland against the continuance of the Lunacy Board as at present constituted. When, however, the objections to the Bill were made known to the Lord Advocate, his hon. and learned Friend had frankly promised that the Bill should really be a continuance Bill for two years, so as to allow time for the consideration of the question. With that understanding, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Smollett) would allow the Bill to pass, in order that, before the two years should have expired, there might be an opportunity of considering the footing on which the Board should continue. He must say that though the existence of such superintending Boards was looked upon with great jealousy by many persons in Scotland, yet he was not one of those who thought that parishes should be left to deal with their own lunatics in the way which they think best; for although there might have been many matters in the Report of the Royal Commissioners on this subject some years ago, yet the fact could not be denied that the manner in which the custody of lunatics was carried on in Scotland was a disgrace to the country. He should much fear that matters would relapse into their former state if there were not in Edinburgh authorities empowered to see that the custody and treatment of lunatics were consistent with the civilization of the age. He did not think it would be practicable to keep lunatics in private houses; and it must be evident that an authority must exist to see that these unfortunate persons are kept with due care, and in a proper manner. How this superintendence should be provided for was a matter for future consideration.

said, that this was a mere continuance Bill. He would not on this occasion dilate on the general management of Scotch business in tills House, but he entirely denied that there was any ground for the general complaint which the hon. Member for Dumbarton had made in regard to it. He thought it would have been much better if, instead of making large criticisms upon the outside fringes of this question, he had applied himself to consider whether, during the time the Lunacy Board had been in operation, there had not been a very marked and beneficent change produced in the management of lunatics throughout the country. He was far from saying that the present machinery was perfect; but he was satisfied that no one who had taken an interest in the question would deny that they had set on foot an improved system for the treatment of lunatics which, although it might be susceptible of improvement, had put an end to a state of things which the hon. Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson) had justly said was a scandal to any civilized country. There was a good deal still to do; but much had been done. The fact was, that the Board had not powers enough under the first Act, and they were therefore extended under the second Act. It was quite true that parochial boards made their representations, and that they came up in a joint body to protest against the two medical members of the Board; but he (the Lord Advocate) was not at all prepared to say that he altogether agreed with those representations; neither did he think that the opinions of such Boards —who are to be superintended, cheeked, and controlled in the management of lunatics by the authorities—are to rule in this matter; but at that time I was perfectly willing to consider the propositions they made to provide for a paid chairman and two paid lay members of the Board by parochial assessment made by the parochial boards themselves. In the end all parties were satisfied that the project was impracticable. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of pledges. Now, he (the Lord Advocate) begged to say, in the first place, that two years ago he came under no obligation whatever; and, in the second place, that, although this Bill, as far as the continuance of the Deputy Commissioners was concerned, was limited to two years, he came under no obligation to adopt at a future time any particular course in regard to the constitution of the Board. In regard to the hon. Gentleman's opposition, he hoped he would not persevere in it, for this reason—that, if the Deputy Commissioners should cease to exist, the whole machinery of the Lunacy Board would come to an end. He (the Lord Advocate) thought the continuance of the Commission absolutely necessary. In regard to the increase of salaries, there was a proposition to increase the salary of the chief clerk. That he believed to be a useful addition. In regard to the Deputy Commissioners, he did not think it could be fairly said that £600 a year was over pay, considering that the whole of their time was spent in visiting lunatic asylums throughout the country, and that they had thrown upon their shoulders very heavy and grave responsibilities. It was a position in which they ought to have— and, indeed, he was happy to say they had —medical science and ability of the first class. But the fact that they had been able to obtain first-class medical ability at £500 a year was no reason why the proposed addition should not be made. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Bill would be allowed to proceed.

hoped the hon. Member for Dumbarton would not persevere in his opposition. He thought that the proposition was quite fair, and that the present system should be continued for two years, and probably in the course of that time either his hon. Friend, or some other person, would be prepared to submit to the Lord Advocate some plan for the re-construction of this Board, if any re-construction should be deemed necessary.

said, he would not persevere with his Motion; but he thought the statement of the learned Lord ought to have been made on the introduction of the Bill or on its second reading.

desired to ask the Lord Advocate whether the duties of the officials, to whom it is proposed to give an increased allowance, have been augmented; and whether it is on that ground that the increased allowance is to be made?

, in answer to the question of his hon. Friend, begged to say that this Board was originally fixed on a low scale of remuneration. Of late years the annual expenses of the office had increased, and he thought the additional allowance now proposed was in every respect just and reasonable.

said, that as some surprise might possibly be expressed in Scotland at the increased allowance which it was proposed to give, it might be well that it should be clearly understood that it was given on the grounds stated by the Lord Advocate. They had now on the Board gentlemen of the highest position in their profession, and it was desirable to retain them, for if they were to have such a Board, it should be composed of the best men, and of those in whom the public have confidence. The chairman of the Board is Sir John Don Wauchope, and, although he was unpaid, his office was by no means a sinecure. He had done an immense deal of service; and if the Board was to be continued with such a man at the head of it, he ought to be paid. If the Board was to be settled on a permanent footing, he could not understand why public services of the most valuable character should be performed without any remuneration; and if no provision for that was made in this Bill, it ought to be understood that it was not because Sir John Don Wauchope's services were not appreciated.

wished to add his testimony to the zeal and ability with which Sir John Don Wauchope had performed his duties.

said, he did not think they ought to pass this clause in silence. It allowed trustees and guardians of wards to acquire the property of these wards themselves, and with the leave of the Court of Session. It might happen that trustees or guardians of wards, in acquiring their property even with the consent of the Court, might do so for a fraudulent reason. He did not mean to insinuate that this would be the case, but he thought that some explanation of the clause was desirable.

said, this power was to be granted simply upon an application to the Court. He thought that there ought to be some protection, that it ought to be done in the most public manner, because everything ought to be done to prevent collusion on the part of the persons interested, He quite agreed that this was a very questionable power to be given, and one which ought to be guarded in every way possible.

also objected to the clause, and hoped the Lord Advocate would be able to give them some reason why it was proposed. It did not appear to him that there was any good reason for introducing such a novel principle as that of giving powers to trustees to become themselves purchasers of the trusts which they had been appointed to administer.

said, that no doubt this power ought to be watchfully exercised. He thought, however, that the cases in which it would be most generally exercised were family trusts, and where the trustees were generally interested in the property. Very often a much greater price could be obtained from a person who was a trustee. Sometimes the only man who cared to purchase was a trustee, and it would be often far the best arrangement which could be made. He believed that a power of this kind could be exercised on application to the Court of Chancery; and it was intended to give the Court of Session the same power. The general rule that no trustee should become the purchaser of a trust had been found to cause great inconvenience and embarrassment in many cases, and he thought there was a general impression that this power ought to be given. As far as he was aware, he thought it would be of great advantage.

said, the question was whether this power might not be used for an improper purpose, and he thought some clauses should be inserted providing that property which it was proposed to deal with in this way should be offered for public sale, so that the public would come in as a check. There might be advantage in giving the power which it was now proposed to give, but it should be so guarded that the trustees should not be able to take any advantage of the trust.

said, that he knew that great jealousy existed with regard to this clause as it originally stood. At that time, there was no provision that the sanction of the Court should be necessary; and he did not think it would have been possible to agree to it as it then stood. The Committee would remember how jealously the Court of Session guarded the rights of wards, and he did not think there was any reason to fear that the Court of Session would not very carefully exercise the right which it was now proposed to intrust to them. Some cases had come within his own knowledge in which it would have been advantageous if trustees could have exercised this power; and, as it would be exercised under the authority of the Court of Session, he thought no fear need be entertained.

said, that if he were not misinformed, the practice had been, at judicial sales by the Court of Session, to offer the property by public auction.

said, the object of the clause was merely to authorize the purchase of property by trustees. It did not interfere with the power of the Court of Session in regard to selling. He had no doubt that in ordinary cases the Court would not consent to a sale except by public auction; but he was quite willing to consider whether the clause could not be amended in any way before the Report came on.

said, he thought this clause ought not to be passed even in its amended state. It authorized a trustee to hold an office of profit under the trust. He knew that legal authorities in Scotland of the highest kind—including the late Lord Justice General—entertained decided feelings against such a proceeding. There were decided objections to a professional gentleman being a paid trustee; I and, without any imputation, he did not think that was a position in which they ought to be placed.

thought it was a dangerous conjunction to have an agent and trustee combined in the same person.

said, that formerly there was no such rule as that which now existed, and it was a very ordinary thing for the family agent to be made a trustee. It was considered that it would be of great advantage to have his knowledge and experience. Now, however, the family agent could not be appointed a trustee, without surrendering the agency of the trust. That has been found very inconvenient. He agreed that the general rule was a salutary and wholesome one; but there were many cases in which it would be extremely convenient to have the benefit of the knowledge and experience of the family agent as a member of the trust.

suggested that the clause should be postponed till the Report.

said, that as there seemed to be considerable difference of opinion, he would have no objection to postpone the clause till the Report.

said, the clause gave a very considerable exten- sion of the powers of trustees, and enabled them to invest not only in Parliamentary and East India stock, but in the railway debentures of any railway company paying a dividend. He thought it was a question whether such a power should be exercised without the authority of the Court.

said, the same objection had occurred to him, but he had been given to understand that the wording of the clause was borrowed from the English Act—the 24 & 25 Vict.

said, he rose to move for an Address for a copy of any Correspondence which had passed between any Departments of the Government with respect to the granting pensions to Colonial Governors. Having on a former occasion had the honour of addressing the House on this question, which was of very great importance to a large class of public servants, he would not trouble the House at any length; but before the close of the Session, and after the answers which had been given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he believed the House would consider him justified in pressing the Government for a distinct understanding of their intentions on the subject. He would recal to the House one fact, and that was, that the only class of public servants who were precluded from receiving pensions or superannuation allowances for long services were the Colonial Governors. Their omission from the benefit of the Act of 1859 had been attributed to one of two causes. Either there were most important reasons for their exclusion, or else it had been an oversight, and, on the whole, he was inclined to believe in the latter solution. Three or four reasons had been given why those Governors should not be placed in the same position as other public servants. It was said they were not continuously in the service of the public; but he would ask the House if the service of our diplomatists and other public offcers was continuous? Why, the very service of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not a continuous service. He (Mr. Cochrane) did not know, indeed, how long it might continue, but it was not continuous. There were hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Bench, and also on his own side of the House, who were entitled to pensions. It was also said there would be inducements to retain officers after they became unfitted for service merely with a view of securing their pensions; but he did not see that Colonial Governors were liable to such a charge in an exceptional manner, and did not believe any weight attached to the suggestion. The third objection was that it would open the door to the bestowal of pensions upon a new class of public servants. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could point out any other class of public servants who were in the same position and who did not receive retiring pensions, he would concede to him the whole argument. When they considered the position of the Governors of colonies, the importance of the station they held in the colonies, and the fact that they were frequently very distinguished public servants, it must be admitted that it was unjust to bring them home from stations where they represented the dignity and honour of the Crown, and to leave them in this country without, it might be, the means of subsistence. It might be said that a Colonial Governor was not the servant of the Crown, but of the colony. He did not believe, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would maintain this assertion. The Governor was often the only direct servant of the Crown in a colony, except the officers in command of the troops. The Judges and other gentlemen holding situations in the colonies were, on the other hand, colonial servants, and in many of the colonies they were in the receipt of superannuation allowances. The Governor was, however, the direct servant of the Crown. He was appointed by the Crown, and could be recalled only at the will of the Crown, and he had no one to look to but the Crown for justice and support. The Governor was, indeed, so directly the servant of the Crown that he might occasionally he called upon to take a course opposed to the wishes or interests of the colony. If the colony desired to carry out a policy objectionable to the Home Government, the Governor was compelled to follow the in- structions from home. A Correspondence had been laid on the table from which it appeared that the opinion of the Duke of Newcastle, Mr. Labouchere, and all the other Colonial Secretaries, had been favourable to the granting of pensions to Colonial Governors. It also appeared that the only opposition proceeded from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was very hard, when the opinion of all those interested in the colonial service was one way, that the single opinion of the right hon. Gentleman should prevail against those of the Secretaries of the Colonies. It was not a matter of generosity, but of justice. The salaries of the Governors had been greatly reduced of late years. He believed the reduction was nearly one-half, and their salaries were not large enough to enable these gentlemen to insure their lives or to save money enough to live upon in their old age. Mr. Merivale, a great authority in that House, in his admirable work on Colonization, said that the functions of a Governor of a colony were particularly difficult and arduous. He often formed the only political link between the colony and the Home Government. To execute well the double functions that devolved upon his office demanded a man of no common ability. The occasion usually called forth those abilities, for England, Mr. Merivale added, was in no public department better served than by the higher class of her Colonial Governors. He contended that it was a monstrous thing that these gentlemen who discharged their high duties, according to Mr. Merivale, in this satisfactory manner, should, after thirty or forty years' public service, be declared undeserving of retiring pensions. Without troubling the House at greater length he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the subject a fair and impartial consideration. It was not a mere question of economy. No one would contend that, for the sake of saving a sum which would not exceed a few thousands a year, these gentlemen should give the best years of their lives to the service of the public without the prospect of a retiring pension. He would conclude by simply moving the Address.

said, he was unable to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member for the correspondence with regard to granting pensions to Colonial Governors, and for reasons which the hon. Member would admit were to a certain extent satisfactory. It was not necessary nor desirable that he should follow his hon. Friend in the argument he had used in favour of granting these pensions; but he might state that he agreed with him that the subject should not be considered simply as a question of money, because it involved very grave considerations of a public character. The reason for not producing the Correspondence was this:—It was the desire of the Government to give the subject that full and impartial consideration for which his hon. Friend had asked. Of course it would be understood that he spoke without prejudice to the judgment at which they might arrive, but he could readily give the assurance for which his hon. Friend seemed most anxious, namely, that this subject would not be looked at as a simple question between the Colonial Office and the Treasury, in which the Colonial Office had a natural leaning towards the interests of its own servants, and the Treasury had a natural leaning towards the interests of the Exchequer. The Government would consider the case as a whole, and with all the matters bearing upon it. His hon. Friend would, therefore, see why they could not produce the Correspondence, which he might add was incomplete. He could not say that he regarded the question from exactly the same point of view as the hon. Gentleman. The Duke of Newcastle had submitted his views to the Treasury, but the state of the Duke's health had been the cause of some little delay. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Card-well) had taken the matter into consideration, and had addressed two communications to the Treasury, the latter of which he had not yet seen. When his hon. Friend said that the Colonial Governors were the only public servants who were not in the enjoyment of pensions, it should be observed how very broad was the distinction between the two cases. The Colonial Governors were not for the most part paid out of the British revenues, but out of the revenues of the colonies, and, indeed, many of those who were disposed to advocate the system of pensions for those Governors considered it as part of a larger measure— namely, that of paying their salaries in all cases out of the Imperial revenues. He did not deny that there was much to be said in favour of that view, but it was not the view of Parliament, for the tendency of late years had been to reduce as rapidly as they could all payments connected with the Colonial Governments. However, he would give the assurance which his hon. Friend had asked, that during the recess every effort should be employed on the part of the Government to prosecute an inquiry into the matter to a satisfactory conclusion, and that whatever decision might be arrived at should be arrived at when they were in possession of all the facts of the case. He trusted, therefore, his hon. Friend would not press his Motion.

said, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that there were political considerations of very grave importance involved in the question, but he thought that those considerations pointed very decidedly to the policy of holding out fair inducements to men of ability to enter the service of the Crown as Governors of the colonies. Those considerations pointed to the reasonableness of the conclusion, that when the best years of a man's life had been devoted to the performance of duties of so important a character he should not find himself on his return to the country without that compensation which the other servants of the Crown obtained. Entertaining those opinions, he thought that, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, his hon. Friend would do well not to press his Motion to a division. Though he could wish that the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been more encouraging, still he understood him to have given a pledge that during the recess the question should receive ample consideration. They had some reason to complain that it had not received consideration earlier. He had hoped that a decision upon it would have been come to during the present Session. But now that they had a distinct promise that that interesting subject should receive the serious attention of the Government, he earnestly hoped it would meet with a favourable consideration at their hands.

said, he was happy to hear that the question should receive the careful consideration of the Government, which in this case, he presumed, meant the careful consideration of his right hon. Friend himself, for, as he understood, there was no other Member of the Government who had any doubt upon the propriety of making the allowances. The speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies on the last occasion was most encouraging to the hopes of the Governors, When it was admitted that they were the only class of public servants who had no retiring allowances, when it was considered that they were at once the direct representatives of Her Majesty in our colonies, and exercised the most important functions, and that many of them, after long years of service, were reduced to live in obscurity and penury, as he knew well, the question arose upon what grounds this anomaly could be sustained. None could be alleged except in regard to the public purse. But on the highest grounds of policy it was essential that men who had filled such important positions should be provided for on their retirement. It had been stated that Colonial Governors were frequently paid out of the colonial revenues. The very utmost that would be required for the purpose would be £10,000 or £12,000 a year. Civil and military officers and Ministers of the Crown all received pensions, and why should the Governors of our colonies be the only exception?

said, he only wished to repeat now the pledge which he had given before, and which had been redeemed as far as time had allowed. Her Majesty's Government had carefully considered the subject, it was still being considered, and, he would add, would receive their best consideration.

, in moving a Resolution on the necessity of preserving open spaces in and around the metropolis, said, few questions were more interesting to the mass of the industrial population, not only to those in the metropolis itself but to those residing in the suburban districts which were fast becoming connected with the metropolis. The importance, and he would say the absolute necessity, of preserving open spaces for the recreation of the people would not be denied by any one; but, in order to prove it, he would call attention to some very striking facts connected with the large increase of population in the metropolis. In 1851 the population of what was termed the metropolitan district was 4,700,000; in 1861 it was net less than 5,600,000, or an increase of 900,000 in the short space of ten years. In the same period there was an increase in the number of houses to the amount of 103,000; that increase was still going on, and he questioned whether at any time during the ten years it advanced at a greater ratio than at this moment. But the important point was this—that while the necessity for open spaces was increasing, the difficulties of obtaining control over them were increasing also. That was not the first time that the question had been brought forward, though not in the same form as that in which he submitted it to the House that evening. But whenever it had been considered, whether in reference to Hampstead Heath, or to the places to which the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Peacocke) had called attention, there had been almost an unanimous expression of opinion in favour of the preservation of those spaces. A very few years ago London might be said to have been belted with these natural parks. Many of the commons on the south and north sides of London had become entirely extinguished, being appropriated for building purposes; and others were in process of extinction. In dealing with this matter there were two questions—the question of the forests and that of the commons and open spaces in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, and those questions ought to be kept distinct. The question of forests had already been dealt with by Parliament, which had decidedly expressed its opinion by addressing the Crown, praying that the forestal rights of the Crown might be preserved. Subsequently a Committee was appointed, which reported that it was absolutely necessary, for purposes of recreation, to preserve these forests. The Government, however, had taken no action in reference to the matter until within the last few days, when a communication was sent to the Metropolitan Board of Works by the Secretary to the Treasury, asking that Board whether they were prepared to purchase the rights over Epping Forest, with an ultimate view to the cession of the rights of the Crown. He would presently show that the Metropolitan Board of Works had no power to deal with the matter, but, if they had, there was no necessity for throwing that duty on them. The commons rested on a different tenure, for the rights over them belonged, not to the Crown, but to the lords of the manors, the copyholders, and the commoners. With respect to the inclosure of commons, ap- plication was generally made to Parliament through the Copyhold Commission, but there were some startling exceptions to that rule, and Wandsworth Common, one of the largest and best on the south side of the metropolis, was being appropriated for building purposes, though no application to inclose it had been made to the Copyhold Commissioners, and, consequently, the case had never come before Parliament. Therefore, the fact that lords of manors were able to inclose commons showed the necessity of Parliament to deal with the question. The Secretary to the Treasury had suggested, in a letter, that the Metropolitan Board of Works should take up the matter; but, as he had already intimated, it was neither in their power nor was it their duty to do so. The best proof that it did not possess the power was that whenever it had considered it desirable to carry out the construction or formation of any park it had been under the necessity of applying to Parliament for powers for that express purpose. It was true that the Act of Parliament constituting the Board authorized them to form Public Parks by purchasing land by agreement, but nobody who knew the nature of the negotiations for the purchase of land would dream of the Board forming a park in the neighbourhood of London, unless they had such compulsory powers as they did not possess. The Metropolitan Board of Works were told to maintain Epping Forest for the purpose of public recreation, but, as that was beyond their jurisdiction, the forest must be preserved at the expense, if the Board determined to undertake the task, of the inhabitants of the metropolitan districts; and the inhabitants of the neighbourhood of the forest beyond the jurisdiction of the Board, while enjoying great benefit from the preservation of the forest, would not contribute one farthing towards the expense. He would also take the cases of Mitcham and Wimbledon Commons, and he asked what would be the result if the Metropolitan Board of Works undertook to preserve them as places of public recreation. With regard to Mitcham Common, the inhabitants of the healthy and increasing town of Croydon would derive great part of the benefit, and would not contribute in any degree to the expense. So with regard to Wimbledon Common, the inhabitants of Richmond and other large towns would receive great advantage from the common being preserved, but would not be called on to pay one farthing. The Metropolitan Board of Works had already incurred liabilities for improvements to the extent of between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000. That very large expenditure was to be defrayed by the metropolitan ratepayers, and it was impossible to go on imposing fresh rates on the metropolis, the Metropolitan Board having no other means of raising funds except by direct taxation. If that Board were to be called on to preserve these open spaces—a duty which he thought more properly belonged to the Government—the House ought not to be so chary in giving the Board the same powers to tax the metropolis as were exercised in provincial towns. In bringing the question forward, he did not wish it to be understood that he was desirous that these open spaces should be transformed into neatly trimmed and laid out gardens and parks. His object was to have them preserved in all their wild and uncultivated condition, and it would be a pleasant sight to see the boisterous enjoyment of the working people in places where there did not exist those restrictions which were natural and proper enough in well laid-out gardens. He did not wish that the money for this purpose should be taken out of the Consolidated Fund, but he asked the Government to introduce a Bill giving the necessary taxing powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works to carry out the object. He concluded by moving the following Resolution:—

said, it would be a cause of much regret if none of the open spaces around, and, more especially, those in the metropolis, should be preserved; and he owned that it was the duty of the Government, more particularly in those cases where the intentions of Parliament had been expressed, to attend to those things. In an ordinary case, where there was an open space in which different persons had an interest, as commoners, tenants, or lords of the manor, the inclosure of such land, if it was within a certain radius of the metropolis, could not be effected without an Act of Parliament. On such an application being made, therefore, Parliament could either refuse it or grant it under certain conditions, as, for instance, with regard to the reservation of so much ground for the recreation and health of the public. When an inclosure was recently authorized in Chigwell parish, fifty acres were allotted for the use of the public. It was a mistake to suppose that there had been any very considerable diminution in the open spaces in and around the metropolis. It was nearly twenty years since the Act in regard to inclosures within the metropolitan radius of fifteen miles was passed, and during that time not more than about 1,500 acres had been inclosed, the greater part of which was upwards of ten miles from town. On the part of the Crown there had certainly been no disposition to deprive the inhabitants of London of any rights to which they were fairly entitled in that respect. He was willing to admit that in the administration of Crown property regard should be had to the effect of open ground on the public health, even in preference to the benefit which the public might otherwise derive from the disposal of the land. In Epping Forest the Government did not feel at liberty to convert the Crown's forestal rights of sporting and hunting as an instrument for virtually depriving individuals of their property. As a proof of the anxiety of the Government to give due consideration to the claims of the public in regard to open spaces, he might refer to the parks of London, and especially to the new ones, Victoria and Battersea, which had in recent years been added to the number. With respect to the commons, which were the property of private persons, it was not the duty of the Government, and it would be quite impossible for them, to deprive the owners of the right to use the ground in the same manner as other owners of private property were entitled to do. At any rate, it could not be done without giving compensation to the owners, many of whom, moreover, having only a limited interest, could not sell if they wished. The Government would also require to be armed with special powers for the purpose. The chief, and crowning difficulty, however, was the source from which the expense of preserving the open spaces should be derived. He could not admit that it was the duty of the Government to provide the means out of the public purse. There ought to be no difference in that respect between the metropolis and the other large towns of the country. As to the suggestion that further powers should be given to the Metropolitan Board of Works, it would receive the consideration of the Government. As to the Resolution he did not see how it would advance the object the hon. Member had in view, and he could not agree to it on the part of the Government.

said, he could not agree that the Government had carefully guarded the rights of the public with regard to Epping Forest, because a number of houses had been built, and gardens and grounds attached to them, upon and from land taken from the forest, and over which the public previously had a right to roam. Therefore, he said, the Government had not sufficiently performed their duty. The object of the Motion was to make the Government more careful for the future. There might be some difficulty in providing parks and open spaces in the metropolis— from what source the necessary funds should be furnished for the purchase of the land and for compensation to those whose property was interfered with; but he did not think there was any analogy between the metropolis and large towns in the provinces, because the metropolis was spread over a vast space, and comprised within a certain area between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 of inhabitants; besides, the whole country had an interest in the capital, to which all were from time to time attracted either for business or pleasure. For these reasons it was most essential that its health and ornament should be provided for by the nation. Parliament was in the constant habit of legislating specially with respect to improvements in the metropolis; and that was a further reason why a portion of the funds should be furnished by that House. From time to time there had been encroachments round about the metropolis, which could not occur in Dublin, for instance, where the people had the Phoenix Park, and could get into the country almost immediately. A railway had been carried through the centre of Wandsworth Common, and when that had been done he presumed any other nuisance might be introduced. Tooting and Streatham had also been subject to encroachments. The Resolution was intended to promote the desirable object of preserving those open spaces which were so essential to the public health; but it would not embarrass the Government by pledging them to any particular mode of doing so. He thought the Resolution deserved the support of the House, and hoped his hon. Friend would press it to a division.

said, it was much to be regretted that the open spaces in the neighbourhood of the metropolis had been allowed to be cut up by railways. When those railways were constructed, if there had been a public officer to protect the interests of the public, in all probability they would either have been stopped altogether or forced to take another direction. Until such an officer were appointed he was afraid the recreation grounds around London would continue to be encroached upon.

observed, that persons claiming to be lords of the manor were in the habit of laying hold of hundreds of acres in Epping Forest and elsewhere, without any steps being taken on the part of the Government to protect the rights of the Crown and of the commoners. It was high time that the Attorney General should be instructed by the Treasury to interfere in such cases.

said, he entirely agreed with his hon. Friend that it was most desirable that some means should be taken to preserve the commons round London from inclosure at the rate that was going on. Wandsworth and Mitcham Commons, to say nothing of Epping Forest, had been largely encroached upon; but he thought his hon. Friend would not be advancing his object by the Resolution which he had proposed. The Government was not obliged or required to suggest a solution for the difficulty which was felt in the matter. Last year an Act of Parliament was passed which threw on the Metropolitan Board of Works the duty of looking after open spaces within their jurisdiction; but he believed they had not yet done anything in the matter, and he suspected that the present Resolution, if passed, would not remedy their failure. It would be far better to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the whole subject, and endeavour to ascertain how the difficulties now experienced could be overcome.