§ Mr. Blamire,in presenting a Petition against this 1228 measure, from the owners of freehold and customary lands in the town of Brampton, in the county of Cumberland, and its vicinity, stated, that these petitioners objected to this Bill, as well upon general grounds as upon the inconvenience which it must of necessity impose upon them, by entailing an expense on all lands held by customary tenures much beyond what would be borne by any other description of landed property, by subjecting them to a double registry, viz., the court-rolls of the manors, and the proposed registry in London. He regretted the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Stafford, who had but that moment left the House, for he felt assured that this subject was worthy of his serious consideration. Certainly it was absurd and preposterous to exempt the copyholder from the operation of the Bill, and to bring the owner of customary lands under it; and, indeed, he had hoped, in consequence of what had passed before, that the hon. and learned Member would ere this, have altered the Bill in that respect. The only difference which existed, he believed, between copyhold and customary tenure consisted in the different modes by which the lands were conveyed. In copyholds, the copyholder, when he sells or mortgages, is obliged to appear personally in the Lord's Court, or depute another in his stead, by letter of Attorney, underhand and seal, to appear personally in Court, and surrender into the hands of the Lord, in the presence of the Jury, the tenements sold or mortgaged, to the use of the purchaser or mortgagee, who must also, in like manner, appear personally, or by some other person lawfully deputed, and accept from the Steward by rods the premises in question. These Acts are entered on the court-rolls of the manor, and a copy (called an admittance) is granted to the purchaser or mortgagee; but the court-rolls are the title of the copyholder notwithstanding. In customary or tenant right lands, the mode of conveyance is this: the customary tenant executes a deed called a bargain and sale, directly from himself to the purchaser or mortgagee. This deed is presented to the Court of the Lord, and the Steward, under the sanction of the Jury, takes down an abstract of the deed into the Lord's court-roll, a copy of which being given to the purchaser or mortgagee, is called his admittance. But the court-roll is his title, as 1229 well as in the case of the copyholder. In customary tenures neither the seller nor buyer need appear personally, and there is no surrender into the Lord's hands as a preliminary step, which alone constitutes the great distinction between copyholds and customary lands; but in both cases every change which takes place must be entered upon the court-roll in open Court, and no proceeding affecting the property is valid unless so entered; and to these court-rolls all the would may resort for information. And, so far as regards publicity, the titles to both tenures are exactly upon a footing. In many manors you find lauds of both tenures, and the court-roll for both is to be found in the same book. What a strange anomaly it would then be that the copyholder should be exempt from the Registry Act on the score of its title appearing for centuries back upon the court-roll, and that the customary tenant should be subjected to its operation, when his title during the same period was to be found in the same book, in the same office, and with the same exactness in every respect; but the most iniquitous thing with respect to the customary tenant would be this, that he would be subjected to the cost of a double registry, whilst the one in London would be useless and inoperative, for every intending purchaser or mortgagee would search the court-roils of the manor, where he would find the title as far back as he might wish to go, which would be more confined and limited in London. Besides, the registry in London would be nothing more than what is entered in the court-rolls of the manor. In his opinion the customary tenant, whose possessions were held by a less base tenure than those of copyholders, had never been fairly used by the Legislature. For example, he had never had the power given him to devise his property, as the copyholder had. This distinction was absurd and preposterous, and he trusted the hon. and learned Member would yet propose to place both tenures upon the same footing. The hon. Gentleman also presented a petition from the parishes of Plumbland, and Alpatria in the same county, with the same object in view, and also from Dalston and Castle Sowerby, and in doing so said that the hon. and learned member for Stafford had the other evening spoken contemptuously of the poor little statesmen in the north of England, Now, these two last petitions 1230 proceeded from men of that description; all living upon their own properties; and though their possessions might not be very large, yet that their intelligence and independence were very great he could himself bear ample testimony; and they to a man, looked upon this measure as being most obnoxious and unconstitutional, and declared that though they were warmly and devotedly attached to the cause of Reform, yet still they would not purchase the safety of that great and important measure at the cost of having this Registration Bill become the law of the land.
§ Mr. Hodgespresented a similar petition signed by 100 solicitors of the county of Kent. From an intimate knowledge of many of these gentlemen, he was certain that their motives for opposing the Bill could not be impugned. They were connected with the most respectable persons in the county, and were intimately acquainted with the landed interest. But an additional reason for the feeling in the county of Kent being so decidedly against the Bill was, the custom of gavel-kind which prevailed there, by which tenure land was divided among all the brothers of a family, and of course was split into small portions. The operation of such a measure as a General Registry would, therefore, press with greater severity on that county than on any other in the kingdom.
Sir Francis Blakepresented similar petitions from the Mayor, and several Magistrates of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and from the gentlemen acting on the Grand Jury of that town. With the prayer of these petitions he fully agreed. He assured the hon. and learned member for Stafford, that the hostile feeling against the Bill in all the northern counties continued to increase, and he suspected the same feelings would become general among the landed interest throughout the country. Such an impalatable measure could never be forced upon them. The Bill was an innovation upon established usages and its effects would be to deteriorate the whole rights of property.
§ Mr. John Campbellsaid, if the Registry Bill were really understood by the public, and a strong opposition to it were then manifested, he should consider it to be his duty to withdraw it. But he believed that it was not understood, and therefore he did not think that he ought to withdraw it. He was anxious that it should be 1231 thoroughly discussed in that House. By such a discussion he would appeal to the good sense of the English country gentlemen; by that good sense the question ought to be decided, and not by feelings of prejudice.
Sir Francis Blakesaid, the framers of this measure seemed to think that the landowners did not know what was conducive to their own benefit. Now he, as a landowner, believed that he was just as well acquainted with his own interest as the promoters of the Bill were.
Mr. Bayntunpresented a similar petition from York, and stated, that his constituents felt the greatest alarm at the proposition of the hon. Gentleman: they felt this Bill would tend to increase, rather than diminish the expense and difficulties incident to transfers of landed property, and would entirely preclude the loan of money on the simple deposit of deeds; for by the law of lien, money was now frequently borrowed at a trifling expense, and without delay, by the mere deposit of title deeds. On reading the Bill, he understood all equitable mortgages were to be registered, then liens were to be registered. If that was the case, then a search must be made in London before money could be lent on the deposit of deeds, and the equitable mortgage actually completed in the Register-office, which would increase the delay and expense in a great degree. From what other hon. Members had stated in that House, and what he himself knew, this Bill appeared to be opposed to the wishes, intentions, and transactions, of the greater part of the community, and pressed most hardly on those unable to bear the expense incident to transfers of real property, frequently of small amount—namely, the lower classes of society.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, his opinion in favour of the principle of this Bill still remained unchanged, but he did not consider himself pledged to support all the details of it. In the Committee he should think it his duty to offer such suggestions as might appear calculated to obviate any serious objection against the measure.
§ Mr. John Campbellwould be very proud of the right hon. Gentleman's assistance when the Bill went into Committee. In answer to a doubt which some Gentlemen expressed, as to the probable operation of the measure, he begged leave to say, that the Bill would greatly facilitate the raising of money.
§ Petitions laid on the Table.