Mr. M . Lare, hi-ember for Stu ttird, on Wed_needa,y carried, by
203 to 103, the second reading of a Bill which materially modifies the method of settling compensation for land taken far public purposes. Hitherto the plan has been to assess the positive damage done ; but in future, if the Bill passes, arbitrators will be obliged to consider the increased value given by the improvement to the adjoining property of the Jame owner. The House thought that most just, and so iu. some cases it 44 but it will in other cases lead to rather abstird,results. Suppose a railway takes ten acres of Vera de Vere's park worn► £1,000, but,
in doing it increases the selling value of the whole park by £10,000. Is Vere de Vere to get nothing for the loss of his land, or is he to pay to the railway £9,000 for improving his estate ? It is quite true that landlords have often been exor- bitant, and that public rights have not been enough insisted on ; but the House seems inclined in its recoil to sacrifice indi- viduals altogether. Every purchase of Consols, say from MM. Rothschild, increases the value of the Consols which MM. Rothschild retain. Ought they therefore to sell Consols always below market rate ? The State has a right to take land for communications, but why should it have it cheaper than anybody else ?