HC Deb 21 April 1852 vol 120 cc964-7

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clause 1.

MR. AGLIONBY

said, he would take that occasion to say that the Amendments proposed to be moved by the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings) would receive his acquiescence.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he was glad to find that the principle of compulsory enfranchisement was not to be persevered in at present. He had felt that if they had compulsory enfranchisement, after the year 1855, of every copyhold in the Kingdom, it would press hardly on poor people if they were required to pay down a sum of money for their enfranchisement—they not desiring any enfranchisement to take place until their occupation of the copyhold should cease.

MR. AGLIONBY

said, his original Bill did not give any compulsory process as against persons in that position; but the Committee after receiving evidence determined that after a given period the plan of the tithe commutation should be followed, and the enfranchisement should then he compulsory, so as to assimilate all the tenures in the Kingdom.

Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 2 to 9.

Clause 10, which provides that questions arising as to any matter of law or fact on any enfranchisement might be referred to the Commissioners.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he thought cases might arise in which an appeal ought to lie from the decision of the Commissioners to a Court of Common Law, similar to that which lay from the decisions of the revising barristers to the Court of Common Pleas.

MR. AGLIONBY

said, he never would consent to have any appeal from the first decision. He would rather, for his part, submit to an unjust decision than be driven about from pillar to post in the manner in which people were treated in the Court of Chancery and the Courts of Common Law, in appealing from one tribunal to another.

MR. WALPOLE

was not aware that that House had ever yet dispensed with an appeal with reference to matters in which nice questions of law might be involved. He certainly thought the decisions of the Commissioners should not in all cases be final; and it occurred to him that the best way perhaps of remedying the difficulties that might occur, would be, that in certain cases the Commissioners should have the power of certifying that there was cause for an appeal, and that the matter should then be referred to a Court of Common Law. In that case the question of law would be decided by a competent tribunal.

MR. AGLIONBY

begged to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would not be disposed to limit the power of deciding when there ought to be an appeal to the Court above, without reference to the wishes of any of the parties interested that there should be such appeal? To the parties having any such power of demanding an appeal on any frivolous objection, he most decidedly objected. He thought, in the matter of an enfranchisement under the Bill, it was necessary that there should be the least possible delay, and next to that the least possible expense. Nevertheless, if the Commissioners of their own free will, doubting their own judgment, should think it necessary to ask the opinion of the Judges, he thought they should have the power of doing so.

MR. MULLINGS

thought it very desirable to have some appeal, as serious questions of law might arise to render it in the highest degree necessary. But this was the hon. Member for Cockermouth's Bill, and he (Mr. Mullings) only meant to coincide in the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole).

MR. AGLIONBY

said, it was only his Bill because he had taken a more lively interest in it than any other person; but it was really the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings). Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) might think it worth his while to prepare some Amendment that would be likely to carry out his wishes between that and the bringing up of the Report, and he (Mr. Aglionby) would then give it his consideration.

MR. WALPOLE

said, the suggestion he wished to make was, that either party might apply to the Commissioners, and if the Commissioners certified that it was a proper case for an appeal, that a case should then be drawn and submitted to the Court of Common Pleas.

Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 11 to 19 inclusive.

Clause 20, which empowers the valuers, in making valuations under the Bill, to take into account, among other things, "the facilities for improvement," incident to the land about to be subject to enfranchisement.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the wording of the Clause, by which the valuers were directed to take particular cases into consideration, in valuing the land about to be enfranchised, and, among others, "the facilities for improvement." He did not know what the term facilities for improvement might mean, and the Commissioners might be called on to go into an unlimited inquiry as to its interpretation. He would suggest that the point he taken into consideration by the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill.

MR. AGLIONBY

said, the clause in question was not his, but was one which had been introduced by some other person. So far from its being his clause, he foresaw the same difficulties and confusion would arise out of it as did the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. JACOB BELL

thought the omission of the words "facilities for improvement" would be a great improvement to the clause.

MR. WALPOLE

said, there might be cases in which land had got a capacity for improvement, particularly when situate in the vicinity of large towns, and his proposition was not to leave out the clause altogether, but to put it in some other shape.

MR. AGLIONBY

suggested that the word "capabilities" should be substituted for "facilities."

MR. H. HOPE

said, that every thing might in a sense be said to be capable of improvement; and he would rather see the word "probability" substituted.

Clause agreed to; as were the remaining clauses.

House resumed.

Bill reported.