SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.] On the motion that the report be received, Mr. Gillon moved, that the report be received that day three months. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that this bill related merely to forty-one Highland schools and he had no objection to a clause to make those forty-one schools subject to any general measure that might be subsequently adopted, HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, July 18, 1838. MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By Mr. MACLEAN, from Glasgow, to take Foreign Commerce into consideration. -By Mr.W. NOEL, from Burley (Rutland), to discontinue the Grant made to the College of Maynooth.-By Sir R. INGLIS, from the Clergy of Winchester, against the Parochial Assessments Bill. WESTERN AUSTRALIA.] Sir G. Grey tern Australia Bill. moved the second reading of the Wes Baronet whether it was fit in the present Mr. Hindley would suggest to the hon, state of Australia to continue till 1841, as this bill proposed to do, the powers which certain individuals-the commissioners→→→ already had. He also thought the abor Mr. Hume thought it would be better not to press the measure during the pre-igines ought to be protected, and that a sent Session. Mr. Gillon said, he would withdraw all opposition if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would undertake that the money should be under the control of the treasury, instead of being placed at the disposal of the Established Church of Scotland. The House divided on the original motion. Ayes 37; Noes 12.-Majority 25. List of the AYES. certain portion of land should be approclause should be introduced by which a out these suggestions to the hon. Baronet, priated to native inhabitants. He threw and he hoped this bill would be so framed in Committee as to meet the cases to which he had adverted. been taken for protecting the aborigines, Sir George Grey said, that measures had which he hoped would prove satisfactory to the hon. Member. Mr. Hume said, when this establishment was commenced, the House received a pledge, that no establishment should be charged on the consolidated fund; instead of which there would be a vote proposed in the course of a few days for 12,000l., whilst there were only 2,000 inhabitants. This was one means of robbing the people of England to keep up an establishment. There was no necessity for a governor and all the other paraphernalia which were found here. It appeared to him, | pense to the landlord. He certainly did that the Colonial Department got money not expect such a measure as this would a great deal too easy. Here was a grant come from what was called the Liberal of money as large as could be required side of the House. The rights of the for a colony of 60,000, or 70,000 persons. poor would be trampled on by this bill. He had no doubt the hon. Gentleman at He believed the bill proceeded altogether the head of this Department found the on a wrong principle, and he should give office as it now was, but if he dealt fairly it his most decided opposition. He with the people of England, he would thought the hon. Gentleman ought to make the parties in the colony contribute give more time for this bill to be circuto their own expense, instead of which the lated amongst the people, in order that colony consisted of persons supported their opinions might be ascertained. He principally at the public expense. could not see what necessity there was, Bill read a second time. for such desperate haste, to inflict so serious an injury on the lower orders of the Sir E. Wilmot thought the evils antici RECOVERY OF TENEMENTS.] Mr. Ag-people for the benefit of the rich. lionby moved, that the Report on the Recovery of Tenements Bill should be fur-pated by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. ther considered. Sir E. Sugden wished to know whether it were the intention of the hon. and learned Member to press the bill further during the present Session. The reason he asked that question was, the absence of several country Gentlemen who were anxious to take part in the discussion on the bill. Mr. Aglionby said, that it certainly was his intention to press the bill forward with all the energy he was possessed of, as it had already been postponed for three different Sessions in consequence of one of the most uncalled-for oppositions, that was ever heard of. Sugden) had been grossly exaggerated. He would be the last man in the empire, to give the magistrates a power which they ought not to have. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that magistrates ought not to be called on to decide on intricate points of law, where tenants in bail and tenants in fee and settlements were in volved. But they were to be called on to decide on merely trivial matters. country, so far as he was aware, was almost unanimous in thinking this a fair bill. The Mr. Aglionby congratulated himself on the speech of the right hon. Member for Sir E. Sugden said, that such being the Ripon, for had he spoken at an earlier pecase, he felt bound to move, that the bill riod, he (Mr. Aglionby) might not have should be re-committed that day three been able to control his remarks on the mismonths. He was sure, if the House representations which the right hon. Memwished to keep well with the country, it ber had made of this bill, as well as on the would not pass the bill, as it gave all the tone, manner, and expressions used toadvantage to the rich and none to the wards himself as a public individual. He poor. That might do very well in Tur- was willing to throw himself upon the key; but it would not do in a civilized country and be tried by it, whether he country. According to the wording of was not as little likely to introduce any the bill before the House, the very nicest law savouring of Turkey, as the right hon. points of law would be submitted to the Member himself. He admitted the stateconsideration of two justices-men, who ment of the right hon. Gentleman, that of necessity, were almost unacquainted the present was not the same bill that with the laws of property. The very first had been three times postponed ; but why use which would be made of the bill, was it not so? Because the Select Comwould be the oppression of the poor, who mittee to which the bill had been referred, were now in the enjoyment of wastes or had altered it. The bill in the present No doubt a great number of shape was not so favourable to the poor poor persons would be immediately turned as when it was originally introduced, beout of such enjoyment, as, with the assist-cause under it the magistrates were made ance of two justices, that might be done, judicial instead of ministerial. He felt at an expense of from 38, to 48. The oh-bound to deny the statements of the right jeet of this bill was, to give the power of hon. Member, that he had acted unjustly turning out at the will of the landlord towards the poor man, his object was to every humble tenant, and without any ex-protect him against the oppression of the manors. out. The House divided on the original motion:-Ayes 112; Noes 7: Majority against the amendment 105. List of the AYES. Acland, T. D. rich. As the law at present stood the te- Barnard, E. G. letting, was to bring his action of eject-Howard, P. H. Baring, H. B. Palmer, G. Parker, J. Parker, M. Rushbrooke, Col. Stanley, Lord TELLERS. Aglionby, H. A. List of the NoEs. Collins, W. from the rich. He was satisfied that the bill would be as much an advantage to the tenant as to the landlord. Sir E. B. Sugden said that, according to his own argument, the hon. Member for Southwark ought to vote with him. The hon. Member for Southwark contended that no difference should be made between the rich and the poor, and it was because this bill would establish such a difference that he (Sir E. Sugden) objected to it. The rights of the poor would be committed under this measure to the decision of an inferior tribunal, and as this was an arrangement to which the rich would not submit, he felt it to be his duty to oppose it. Mr. Pryme contended, that the whole course of English Legislation for centuries had been to establish cheap tribunals, where the amount in dispute was small; but where the sums were larger, they were submitted to a more expensive and august tribunal. This had been the course of legislation from the days of Alfred down to the present time. So much for ancient law and ancient customs, of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Sugden) was at all times the powerful advocate. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say, whether the amount in dispute was 5s or 50s, or 97. 198., as by this bill, that the subject in dispute should be determined by the same jurisdiction as if 1,000l. were concerned? In modern times they had had the Trespass Bill, under which Magistrates had the power to adjudicate on cases under 57. and therefore the principle adopted by the bill was in accordance with both ancient and modern legislation. If this bill worked well, it might be hereafter extended; but it was no argument against the measure to say, that it could not remedy every grievance. Mr. Hawes was prepared to support the bill as it stood. At the same time he should like to know whether the House would go with him in raising the amount to 201. He knew the inhabitants of large towns and of their vicinities were desirous that such should be the case; and if the bill were limited to 102., it would be almost wholly confined to rural districts. Sir Robert Peel had not suggested that the sum should be 201. out of any hostility to the bill, but was prepared to propose, that amendment if he could feel sure, that he should not, by doing so, endanger the He did so on principle, and he should be equally ready to vote for property of 1,0007. being subjected to a summary jurisdiction. He thought he had therefore better at once move an amendment, and would therefore propose the introduction of the words "property rated at a sum not exceeding 201." Mr. Estcourt as a Member of the Committee, had been in favour of the reduction from 207. to 107., in order to get rid of the supposition, that there was any political object in view. He had, however, no objection to the amount being fixed at 201. and should therefore vote, if necessary, for the proposition of his right hon. Friend. Mr. Darby wished to know from the Attorney-general whether or not, under the clauses, a magistrate might not be called upon to decide a question of title. He also thought great oppression and injustice might be inflicted under this bill, on those who might be ejected from cottages which had garden ground attached. The Attorney General said, in answer to the question of the hon. Member, no doubt a case of this sort might arise, A landlord might die, and the tenant might question the son's right as to his legitimacy, but in 999 cases out of every 1,000, the question would be merely one of common tenancy. He certainly was not wedded to fixing the amount at 107. and would therefore withdraw his opposition to extending the sum to 207.; at the same time he must deny the observation, that had been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that this was a law for the rich and not for the poor. By the existing law a sum under 40s, was recoverable in the county courts, and under 57. in the courts of conscience, and no one would pretend to say, that therefore, it was intended by this bill, to make one law for the rich and one for the poor. On the same ground, that those inferior jurisdictions had been formed, it was intended, that cases of ejectment from tenements or property held under 201. should be referred to the decison of the magistrates, because the expense of ejectment under the existing law was so great. Amendment of Sir R. Peel agreed to. The bill went through the Committee. The House resumed, the Report to be received. PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS BILL.] On A |