Lord Brougham, on moving the second reading of the Bill for the enfranchisement of copyhold tenements, said that there had been three or four hundred divisions of territory, in every one of which property was held by a different law. It was certainly a most anomalous thing, the wonder being, that it should continue to exist. There was no general classification, no systematic arrangement—each territory, each township, each hamlet, had its peculiar law. He knew many cases in this country in which a house was held under one law and the garden under another—nay, even one part of a house which it had been his lot to inherit was held under one law, and another part under another. That, he assured their Lordships, was precisely the state of the law in this country, as far as regarded freehold and copyhold property, up to the very moment at which he was addressing their Lordships. He had stated to their Lordships, the last time he brought the matter before them, the provisions of the Bill. The provisions of the present Bill were the same as those of the Bill of last year. One defect which it was desirable to remedy was, the want of a reciprocal interest between the landlord and the tenant, and the only alteration that 357 had been made in the present Bill had been, that instead of leaving it entirely to the option of the landlord, so that all the tenants together could not enfranchise without his consent, seven or eight clauses had been added, to the effect that in the event of a large preponderance of the tenants of the manor requiring the enfranchisement, the landlord should be bound, with proper power of appeal and proper protection, to give his consent. He had stated last year that that ought to be the frame of the Bill; but upon that, as upon all the other provisions of the Bill, provided they only agreed in the principle that it was fit to give facilities for the removal of this opprobrium on our law, ample opportunity would be afforded in the committee above stairs, to which it was his intention to move this Bill be referred, for discussing all the minor principles, and certainly all and everyone of the details. He felt some reluctance in sending the Bill to a committee up stairs, because both Houses were charged with shifting from themselves the responsibility of legislating. They would be liable to this charge if they legislated in accordance with the views of commissioners unconnected with Parliament. He saw no objection, however, to adopting the result of the enquiries of commissioners, provided that measure were introduced on the responsibility of the Government, or of an individual Member. He did not think he should subject their Lordships to such a charge if he referred this Bill to a committee, for the purpose of discussing its details. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.
§ The Lord Chancellorwas prepared to agree to the second reading of this Bill, and also to the proposition that it should be afterwards referred to a select committee. The mixed interests of landlords and tenants, and the rights of each under the present law, undoubtedly were productive of great inconvenience. The object of this measure appeared to be to obviate that inconvenience, and therefore it was, no doubt, one deserving the favourable attention of their Lordships. For his own part he should feel it to be his duty to attend to the details of the measure in committee: and he only hoped that the noble and learned Lord who had brought it in would take care to allow full time for its discussion.—Bill read a second time.