Question put.

Noes 28: Majority 20.- (Div. List,
The Committee divided:-Ayes 48;
No. 32.)

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK said, that arm's length for six months, and then perhaps he might be allowed to remind sweep away the monument as if nothing the Committee that Lord Stanhope, the had happened. then President of the Society of Antiquaries, had given a strong opinion in favour of the Bill, and that he himself, on several subsequent occasions, had brought forward much evidence on the subject. Therefore, the Committee would see that there was no question of the ipse dixit of any one hon. Member on the subject. As regarded the Amendment, they would by it simply have a board of gentlemen to look after these monuments; but he could not help thinking that the action would be incomplete unless there was a right to purchase. If the House thought it was wise to adopt the Amendment, however, he was quite ready to bow to its decision.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD said, the Amendment seemed to him to go to the very principle of the Bill, which would be worth very little if it were carried with the Amendment, because it would give power to the owner of a monument by doing nothing to defeat its object.

MR. ONSLOW said, he thought the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Lubbock) ought to be satisfied with the progress that night, and not keep them from their beds any longer in view of the hard work next week. He would move to report Progress.

SIR JAMES M GAREL-HOGG seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." (Mr. Onslow.)

MR. ANDERSON said, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) was the last man who should make that appeal. The hon. Member had been engaged for the last 10 days in constantly counting the House, and causing business to be postponed when it came on at early hours, and now he was in another way preventing its coming on at-not a late hour-10 minutes past 2 A.M.

Question put.

The Committee divided:-Ayes 34; Noes 38: Majority 4.-(Div. List, No. 33.)

MR. MACARTNEY was of opinion that the passing of the Amendment would be most desirable. The strong objection to the clause was that an owner would constantly have suspended over him the liability of an action in a superior Court. Then, he thought the manner in which possession was attained by the Bill was exceptional. In other circumstances, where property was taken possession of by the public, it was bound to be paid for beforehand--that was so under the Land Clauses Act. Under this clause they were not bound Commissioners either to consent to into do so, without going into a superior jury, or to acquire power of restraint); Court of Law. That had a most unjust and Clause 6 (Power of restraint in case bearing upon a man of small property, of injury to a monument), severally who might be the owner of a valuable agreed to. monument which he did not wish to sell.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK said, he did not wonder at the opposition of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney), if he thought those were the principles of the Bill. It was only if the owner wished to destroy the monument that the Commissioners would have the power to purchase it.

MR. HERSCHELL remarked that under the Amendment, if any owner of a monument wished to destroy it, and sweep it from the face of the earth, he

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Owners, &c., may require

Clause 7 (Appeal from Commissioners in certain cases).

On Motion of Mr. HERSCHELL, Clause struck out.

Clause 8 (Acquisition of monuments or of power of restraint by agreement with persons interested); Clause 9 (Penalty on persons unlawfully destroying or injuring a Monument); Clause 10 (Access of Commissioners to monuments); Clause 11 (Proceedings for ascertaining and paying compensation); and Clause 12 (Treasury may authorize

Clause 13 (Expenses of the Commis- | retain the monument, then the Vote for sion). its purchase would not be necessary. Clause agreed to.

EARL PERCY said, he could not let the clause pass without remark. He should like to have some statement from the Government as to the expense to be incurred under the Bill. It should be a consideration for the Government, at a time when money was supposed to be in much demand, whether this expenditure should be sanctioned.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK said, money would only be expended under the following circumstances. If an owner of a monument wished to destroy it, he would give notice to the Commissioners, who, if they had not already funds in hand, would place the notice before the Treasury. If the Treasury thought proper to expend the money they could do so. If not, the Commissioners' duty

would be to communicate this decision to the owner, and the result would be that the monument would be unfortunately destroyed. He did not think the expenditure would be great, as the monuments did not require to be repaired-they simply wanted to be left

alone.

Clause 14 (Reports on monuments). MR. PELL moved, as an Amendment, to add in page 6, at end of Clause

"And of the monuments transferred by them to any local authority, or in respect of which any power of restraint has been by them transferred to any local authority under the provisions of this Act."

Amendment agreed to; words added.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 (Service of Notices) agreed to.
site of a monument).
Clause 16 (Provision for defining the

Amendment made, in page 7, line 22, by
leaving out from "except" to "situated"

On the Motion of Sir JOHN LUBBOCK,

in line 25.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 (Transfer of a monument to a local authority).

MR. MACARTNEY (for Lord FRANCIS HERVEY) moved, as an Amendment, to insert in page 7, line 32, after "situ

ate,"

"with the consent of such local

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON authority." said, there would be no considerable expense in carrying out the provisions of the Bill.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE remarked

that very much the same principle was carried out in France, where no landowner had ever refused to put an ancient monument in his possession under the protection of the law. He supposed that landowners in France were much the same in this respect as those in England. He firmly believed that if this Bill passed into law there would not be a single landowner who would not at once put his monuments under the protection of the Act.

EARL PERCY said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was the first person he had ever heard say that landowners in France were in the same position as landowners in England. He must press for the omission of this clause.

MR. HERSCHELL thought the noble Lord (Earl Percy) was under a misapprehension as to this clause. If Parliament did not supply the means for purchase in these instances, the result would be that the monument would be destroyed. That was the only result. If it were not desired by Government to

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

MR. PELL moved, as an Amendment,

to insert in page 7, line 36, after “Act”

the

"Except the power of incurring expenses for reporting to Parliament." purposes of this Act, and except the duty of

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

EARL PERCY objected to the clause as amended. He could not see the advantage of the action of the local authorities which might gradually devolve upon a Town Council or Board of Guardians.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK hoped the noble Lord opposite (Earl Percy) would not press his objection. As an instance of the authority contemplated under the clause, he might refer to the Devil's Dyke, near Brighton. That was of great interest to the people of Brighton, who had shown a desire to retain it under local control.

Clause, as amended, negatived.

Clause 18 (Provision as to public works) agreed to.

Clause 19 (Saving of informalities).

INDEX

ΤΟ

HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES,

VOLUME CCXLIII.

FIRST VOLUME OF SESSION 1878-9.

EXPLANATION OF THE ABBREVIATIONS.

In Bills, Read 1o, 2o, 3o, or 1a, 2a, 3a, Read the First, Second, or Third Time.-In Speeches,
1R., 2R., 3R., Speech delivered on the First, Second, or Third Reading.-Amendt., Amend-
ment. Res., Resolution.-Comm., Committee.-Re-Comm., Re-Committal.-Rep., Report.-
Consid., Consideration.-Adj., Adjournment or Adjourned.-cl., Clause.-add. cl., Additional
Clause.-neg., Negatived.-M. Q., Main Question.-O. Q., Original Question.-0. M., Original
Motion.-P. Q., Previous Question.-R. P., Report Progress.-A., Ayes.-N., Noes.-M., Ma-
jority.-1st. Div., 2nd. Div., First or Second Division.-., Lords.-c., Commons.

When in this Index a* is added to the Reading of a Bill, it indicates that no Debate took
place upon that stage of the measure.

When in the Text or in the Index a Speech is marked thus, it indicates that the Speech
is reprinted from a Pamphlet or some authorized Report.

When in the Index a t is prefixed to a Name or an Office (the Member having accepted or
vacated office during the Session) and to Subjects of Debate thereunder, it indicates that the
Speeches on those Subjects were delivered in the speaker's private or official character, as the
case may be.

-

Some subjects of debate have been classified under the following "General Headings : ".
ARMY-NAVY-INDIA-IRELAND SCOTLAND - PARLIAMENT POOR LAW-POST OFFICE-
METROPOLIS - CHURCH OF ENGLAND-EDUCATION CRIMINAL LAW-LAW AND JUSTICE
TAXATION, under WAYS AND MEANS.

ABERDEEN, Earl of

India-Afghanistan (Expenses of Military
Operations), Res. 297

ADVOCATE, The Lord (Right Hon.
W. WATSON), Glasgow, &c. Uni-
versities

Habitual Drunkards, Comm. cl. 25, 1720
Scotland-Criminal Law—Mr. Barr, Case of,
1829

Law and Justice-Judicial Business of
Nairnshire, 741

Afghanistan

LORDS-

The Russian Mission at Cabul, Observations,
Question, Earl Granville; Reply, The Mar-
quess of Salisbury Feb 14, 1161

The War-Address of General Roberts to the
Chiefs of Kurram, Question. The Marquess
of Ripon: Answer, Viscount Cranbrook
Feb 18, 1393

VOL. CCXLIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

Afghanistan (Expenses of Military Opera-
tions)

Notice of Motion, Viscount Cranbrook Dec 5, 5;
Notice of Amendment (Viscount Halifax)
The Earl of Cork; Question, The Duke of
Richmond and Gordon; Answer, The Earl
of Cork Dec 6, 174

Moved to resolve, That Her Majesty having
directed a Military expedition of Her forces
charged upon Indian revenues to be de-
spatched against the Ameer of Afghanistan,
this House consents that the revenues of
India shall be applied to defray the expenses
of the military operations which may be car-
ried on beyond the external frontiers of Her
Majesty's Indian Possessions (The Viscount
Cranbrook) Dec 9, 219

Amendt. to leave out from ("House") and
insert ("whilst ready to consent to providing
the means necessary for bringing the war in
which we are unhappily engaged to a safe
and honourable conclusion, regrets the con-
duct pursued by the Government which has
3 X
[cont.

243.

Afghanistan (Expenses of Military Operations)— | Afghanistan-COMMONS-cont.
Expenses of Military Operations