ENFRANCHISEMENT OF COPYHOLDS. (Hansard, 5 June 1839)

§ Sir Edward Sugden
trusted, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would postpone this bill till next Session. He was friendly to a system of enfranchisement, and he would be glad to co-operate with the learned Gentleman opposite, in endeavouring to found a measure giving greater power of voluntary powers of enfranchisement, and such other provisions as would meet the justice of the case; but he could not, consent to the compulsory power, which would do great injustice to many parties, especially where a tenant for life might be obliged to pay for the enfranchisement of a reversion. He objected also to the introduction of a system into this country which would require the assistance of commissioners, to be paid at the public expense. He hoped, however, that the bill would be brought forward in the next Session of Parliament at such an early period as would ensure its being passed.

§ Mr. James Stewart
said, that if the compulsory clauses were objected to, they could be withdrawn, as the bill provided also for voluntary enfranchisement. He could see no reason, therefore, why the bill should not be proceeded with. He had not introduced the measure upon his own authority, but upon the authority of a Select Committee of that House, and the resolutions upon which it was founded had been drawn up by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Tamworth. Let the bill go into Committee; and if it was then determined that the compulsory part ought to be abandoned, he was willing to adopt the voluntary part alone. It was no fault of his, he could assure the House, that the measure had not been brought forward earlier.

Sir G. Strickland
thought the bill so objectionable, that its defects could not be remedied by striking out the compulsory clauses, and he should therefore move that the Committee be postponed to that day six months, and it would depend upon the support he received whether he should press it to a division. He did not oppose the second reading, because he had understood from the hon. Member for Honiton that he would reprint the bill, and modify the compulsory clauses. The bill had been reprinted, and the clause remained as objectionable as ever. He thought it should have been intituled, "A bill to take away the rights of all lords of copyhold manors, and to compel 1399 the tenants, whether willing or not, to purchase the same." The bill was a direct interference with the rights of private property, in a manner in which the Legislature had never dealt with it before. Hitherto they had never interfered with those rights, except when great public utility demanded it. He thought, that any general bill giving a compulsory power of enfranchisement applicable to all cases alike, would work great injustice. That was the opinion of Mr. Blamire, the chief tithe-commissioner, to whom the working of this bill was to be intrusted, and of many others. He objected also to the clause giving compensation to the stewards as if to bribe them into acquiescence in the measure, for vested interests, when he had never heard of such a thing as a vested interest in these stewardships. He concluded with moving, that the Committee be postponed to that day six months.

§ Sir R. H. Inglis
seconded the amendment; for though he did not object wholly to the bill, vet he entertained such objections to the compulsory clauses, that unless the honourable and learned Gentleman would promise in committee to erase all those classes, he could not allow the bill to proceed.

§ The Attorney-General
regretted that any opposition had been given to a bill which he was convinced would confer great benefits on the country. He had himself brought in a bill for the enfranchisement of copyholds, founded on the report of the real property commissioners; but that bill only provided for voluntary enfranchisement. A committee was then appointed formed of Members of both sides of the House, and in which the right hon. Member for Tamworth took an active part, to consider the whole question; and though he in the committee opposed the insertion of the compulsory clauses, yet, finding that they were strongly advocated by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, and other well-informed persons, he had given way, and cheerfully yielded up this bill to the management of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Honiton. The committee had called before them the tithe commissioners; and it was their opinion that it could be done, and done beneficially, though, as the hon. Member for the North Riding said, no general rule could be laid down. That was the very reason why it was proposed to appoint Mr. Blamire and other discreet 1400 men to carry out its provisions, and see that justice was done both to the lord and to the tenant. He hoped that they would not allow the session to pass over without doing something to remove the reproaches cast upon the present law. He readily admitted that the copyhold tenure had some advantages, but there was no advantage which could not easily be transferred to freeholds, and what were the disadvantages of the tenure. The interest of the Lord in the soil was such as to work great public injustice. For instance, to all timber which was growing on copyholds the Lord was entitled, and the result was, that none was planted, and this circumstance had given rise to the saying that "the oak was too noble a plant to grow on a servile soil." Then, again, on a regrant on death or alienation, the lord was generally entitled to a fine equal to two years' improved value. So that no one would build upon copy-hold land, or lay out any money to improve it. The hon. Baronet said, that this bill would deal unjustifiably with private property, but when the public good required it, they must deal with private property, taking care, however, that all interested in the property should have ample compensation. In this bill all the interests of the lord were carefully guarded, and it was equally beneficial to the lord and to the tenant. As, however, he found that the bill as it stood was to be strongly opposed, and as in the present state of the session any measure so opposed could not be expected to pass, he would advise his hon. and learned Friend to withdraw the compulsory clauses. The bill, even then, would do much good. At present, when a tenant was on his death-bed seven or eight different persons were waiting round him, in eager expectation to seize upon his cattle. These were the remains of a barbarous age, and if they only got an alteration in that respect from this bill it would do good. If the House would consent to go into committee, he was sure his learned Friend would do all that could be reasonably desired, and he hoped that they would succeed in obtaining an instalment of progressive reform in copyhold law; that this bill, if it passed, would not be held up as final, and that they would never hear anything of the finality of the Copy-hold Reform Bill; for whilst any abuses were to be remedied, he for one hoped that reform would proceed. He thought that the present bill, even when altered, would 1401 do great good, and he trusted that the owners of copyholds would gladly submit to regulations required for the public good, as well as the Church had submitted to regulations for a like purpose.

§ Mr. Estcourt
said, the interpretation clause was much more comprehensive than it had been arranged when the bill was in committee, and, in consequence, there was the most unjust interference with private property.

Mr. Aglionby
protested against striking out the compulsory clause, which was the most important part of the bill. Still, however, much good would remain in the bill, and if forced he must assent to it; however, he would never lose an opportunity, so long as he had a seat in the House, of endeavouring to get rid of this odious remnant of the feudal system.