§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 (Lord, admitting or enrolling a tenant after 31st December, 1885, to give notice of enfranchisement, and in default land not to be subject to fines, &c).
MR. J. W. LOWTHERbegged to move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again; and he wished to avail himself of the opportunity to appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) not to proceed further with the Bill. It seemed to him that the Bill would make a complete revolution in the land system so far as copyholds were concerned; in the course of a few years it would entirely destroy the copyhold system throughout the country. Under such circumstances, it would be the height of folly to attempt to carry the Bill this Session. Contentious matter was involved in almost every clause; and, besides, if the great questions referring to minerals were to be decided in the light of Amendments which had been placed on the Paper by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cricklade (Mr. Story-Maskelyne), the possession] of mineral property would be transferred from one class of the community to another. He, therefore, trusted that the House would consider this as one of those measures which might very well be left over for the consideration of the new Parliament.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. J. W. Lowther.)
§ MR. WAUGHsaid, he was sorry he could not accede to the proposition of the hon. Member. The Bill did not introduce any new matter at all, but 225 simply carried out the recommendations of the Select Committee, and it did so in the most gentle manner possible. The Bill had been read a second time several times this Parliament, and it had been before a Select Committee of which the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. J. W. Lowther) was a Member. It was carefully considered by the Committee, and had now reached the Committee stage in the House. He hoped the Committee would consent to proceed with the Bill.
§ MR. HALSEYsaid, he would join in the appeal of his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Lowther) to the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) not to proceed further with the Bill. It was perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that the Bill had passed its second reading, and had now got into Committee; but it passed the second reading on the night Parliament re-assembled after the Christmas Recess. No one anticipated it would come on; indeed, the hon. Member (Mr. Waugh) was engaged elsewhere, and someone else had to move the second reading. The same thing took place with regard to getting the Speaker out of the Chair a few days ago. The Bill came on during the Ministerial crisis, a time when, as a rule, Business was not taken. The Bill would make important changes. He supposed he must not go into the merits of the measure on the Motion to report Progress; and therefore he would content himself by saying that as they had seen several important Bills withdrawn, and as it was understood that the Session was to be wound up as quickly as possible, it seemed monstrous that a Bill like this, involving the whole principle of copyhold property, should be proceeded with. He, therefore, trusted the Committee would consent to report Progress.
§ MR. STORY-MASKELYNEsaid, he had put down several important Amendments to the Bill; but he did not think they ought to be discussed in the absence of the hon. Gentleman who had given so much attention to the subject, the hon. Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton). He (Mr. Story-Maske-lyne), therefore, begged to support the proposal that the debate be adjourned.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, ho hoped the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. J. W. Lowther) would go to a division, because it would then be seen that nearly every Member who objected to 226 the Bill had spoken in the present debate.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that if they were to have a division on the question of reporting Progress, they ought to know exactly in what position the supporters of the Bill placed themselves. The hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) had said that this Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and that that Committee considered its provisions very carefully. He (Mr. Tomlinson) believed that the Bill which was read a second time was the Bill which came from the Select Committee; but that, if the Amendments which had been suggested were introduced, its character would be considerably changed. He would like to know whether the Committee was intended to sit on the Bill as a Court of Appeal from the Select Committee to which the measure was referred? If they wore to sit in such a character, he did not think they ought to continue the discussion in the absence of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton). He understood that the opinion of his hon. Friend was that the Bill which passed the Select Committee would prove a satisfactory measure; but that, if the Amendments on the Paper were adopted, provisions would be introduced which were inconsistent with his view, and inconsistent, he (Mr. Tomlinson) thought, with the view of the majority of the Select Committee. If the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) was ready to treat the Bill on the lines on which the Select Committee treated it, objection need not be raised to proceeding now with the discussion.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, ho agreed that it would be extremely unwise for this Committee to reconstruct the Bill after it had passed a Select Committee. He supported the Bill on the assumption that the recommendations of the Committee were strictly carried out, and that the House were to accept the Bill as it was passed by the Select Committee. But that was a different question to that raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rutland (Mr. J. W. Lowther), because ho had endeavoured to get rid of the Bill altogether. He commended to hon. Gentlemen opposite the consideration that this was a great reform in the real property law of the country, a reform which had been advocated on every platform throughout the 227 length and breadth of the land, a reform which was advocated by men totally irrespective of politics. The Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair was made by one of the staunchest supporters of the Government, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), who, in making the proposition, said the Bill would effect a most desirable and salutary reform. To get rid of the Bill altogether after it had passed the ordeal of a Select Committee, and composed of some of the best real property lawyers in the House, would be most unfair. If the Bill was wrong, and ought to be thrown out, let it be thrown out fairly, and not by a Bide wind. If it was true that the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) wished to materially alter the Bill, he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would certainly support the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) in resisting the Amendments.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREA-SUEY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)said, the Government did not oppose the Bill as it was passed by the Select Committee; but the difficulty they felt to-night was that the Amendments of the hon. Member for Cockermouth were many in number, and required very careful consideration. It was doubtful whether that consideration could be given at this time, and without that consideration they could not feel sure that the Bill would not be substantially altered by the Amendments. He wished it to be distinctly understood that the Government did not oppose the Bill as it emerged from the Select Committee; on the contrary, they were prepared to support the principle of facilitating the enfranchisement of copyholds. He should vote against the Motion to report Progress.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided; —Ayes 27; Noes 86: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No. 215.)
§ MR. ONSLOWsaid, he begged to move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. He might say, in regard to the Bill, that he had not gone very carefully into it; but what he deprecated was the line of action Her Majesty's Government had taken to-night. In the first place, they had deserted their Friends, who had taken a deep interest in the measure. ["No, no!"] Eight hon. 228 Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench said "No;" but he said most distinctly to the Homo Secretary that the Government had deserted their Friends, who took a great interest in this Bill. What did they see? Why, this curious thing. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth had certain Amendments in the Bill. The Government did not know much about the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary bad gone over to the other side of the House to consult the hon. Member for Cockermouth and other Gentlemen interested in the Bill, and was told that certain Amendments were to be dropped. That was the way the measure was to be passed by this Government, who said that they would not undertake any Bills of a contentious character. The Bill was decidedly of a contentious character; and he was surprised that Her Majesty's Government, after the promise they had given, had deserted their Friends. He did not like a Bill of this importance to pass by Amendments and letters and communications being bandied about between the Front Opposition Bench and the Members of Her Majesty's Government. Surely it would not prejudice any of the interests concerned if the Bill were to be postponed for a few days. On a question of principle he moved that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Onslow.)
§ MR. SALTHas the hon. Member for Cockermouth dropped his Amendments'? —because I, with a great many other Members of the House, am not aware of the fact.
§ MR. WAUGHYes. I may say that four of these Amendments are Amendments made at the request of Members sitting on the opposite side of the House. Two are Government Amendments with regard to Treasury matters, suggested by the Land Commission. They are not my Amendments at all. I am satisfied with the Bill as it stands.
MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid that, before the hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Holland) rose, he should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crick-lade (Mr. Story-Maskelyne) what course he proposed to take with regard to his Amendments? It was not the Amend- 229 ments of the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth (Mr. Waugh.) that he (Mr. Lowther) objected to so much as those of the hon. Member for Cricklade, which would offect an enormous transfer of property from one class of the community to another. In the absence of both the Law Officers of the Crown and the two late Law Officers, and of the hon. Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton), he thought they would find themselves landed in great difficulty if they were to attempt to go into these intricate questions affecting real property law.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASUBYsaid, ho wished to observe that, so far as regarded the discussion of the Amendments, the hon. Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton), who probably knew more about the law affecting real property than anyone else in the House, had entirely agreed to the Bill as it came from the Select Committee. Those who were prepared to support the Bill as it came from the Select Committee were not prepared to support these Amendments. The Amendments objected to having been publicly withdrawn, and the Amendments of the Government proposed by the Land Commission having been accepted by the hon. Member for Cockermouth, he really thought the Committee should go on with the Bill.
§ MR. STORY-MASKELYNEsaid, the best answer he could give to the hon. Member for Rutlandshire (Mr. J. W. Lowther) was that, whilst the hon. Member said his (Mr. Story Maske-lyne's) Amendments proposed a great transfer of property from one class of the community to another, the view taken of those Amendments by his hon. Friend on his right (Mr. Waugh), who brought the Bill forward, was that they would effect no such transfer at all. The law at present was clear as to the questions that he brought forward, and all he asked was that Parliament should recognize the law as it at present stood. There were, no doubt, questions that might be disputed as to the nature of the proprietorship by lords and possession by tenants in some parts of the country, for the reason that as yet no legal decisions had been given in regard to the kind of tenures he alluded to. Where there had been actions at law, they had not been brought to a conclusion. No one knew what would be the 230 decision of the Courts of Law on certain points—particularly in regard to mineral rights.
§ MR. TOMLINSONwished to know whether the discussion could be allowed to digress into a debate as to the law on the question?
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member for Cricklade (Mr. Story-Maskelyne) is entitled to answer a question; but, of course, he cannot describe the law on the subject on the Motion that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he would suggest to the hon. Member for Cricklade that he should withdraw his Amendments for the present, and bring them up again on Report.
§ MR. STORY-MASKELYNEsaid, he did not see what object would be gained by following that course. If the question was to be decided at all it would have to be discussed—it would have to be debated in Committee or on Report. It could be just as well discussed now as on the next stage; but, of course, if it were more convenient to hon. Members to take the discussion on Report he would be willing to acquiesce. If the House did not want the Amendments at all it would be as well to take the discussion on them now.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPABTMENT (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)When we come to those Amendments on which there is a difference of opinion they should be put off to Report. I understood from the hon. Member for Cockormouth (Mr. Waugh) that he was not going to press the Amendments. I asked him openly, and he said he was not.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI would appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cricklade not to press his Amendments to-night, and to allow the Bill to pass through Committee. No doubt, on Report, ho will be able to come to some arrangement with the hon. Member for West Somerset with regard to the Amendments.
MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he did not consider the arrangement proposed by the right hon. Baronet at all satisfactory. From the few remarks the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cricklade had addressed to them his Amendments appeared to be and were of a very important character. The hon. Member said they would not alter the law as it at present stood; but one of the Amend- 231 ments, as it appeared on the Paper, would repeal the 48th. section of the Land Act, and thereby make a great change in the law. He would really appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cricklade, and ask him whether he thought they could proceed with a Bill of this kind this Session? The short discussion they had already had showed that it was of a highly contentious character. Several of the clauses would be fought at considerable length; and he would appeal to the hon. Member whether he really thought they would be able to pass the measure into law in the present Session? If the hon. Gentleman went to a division on the Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair he (Mr. J. W. Lowther) should certainly support him.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: — Ayes 16; Noes 86: Majority 70. —(Div. List, No. 216.)
§ MR. STORY-MASKELYNEI beg to withdraw the Amendments I have put on the Paper for Committee. I hope to have an opportunity of bringing them forward on Report.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he must complain of the course taken by the hon. Member. It amounted almost to a breach of agreement. He understood they had voted against reporting Progress on the understanding that the hon. Member might have waived his right of moving the Amendments he had on the Paper. Now, the hon. Gentleman wished merely to postpone the Amendments with the view of bringing them up again on the Report.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was impossible to take away the liberty of a Member to move an Amendment or postpone it as he thought fit; and whatever arrangement might be made with a Member another Member might not be a party to it. A great many Members were anxious that the Bill should pass; and it was, therefore, obvious that to attain the desired end they should not go against the wish of a large section of the Committee.
§ Clause agreed to.
232§ Clauses 2 to 49, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
§ Clause 50 (For accelerating enfranchisement by manors).
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. HALSEYsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to report Progress. It was monstrous, after what they had already agreed to, to ask them to proceed further that night. It amounted to this—that five tenants at will, whose united quit rents might be under 6d. a-year, would be able to combine under this Bill, and have an inquiry held, which the lord of the manor would have to pay for, because he did not see that there was any other arrangement provided for in the Bill. These five men could then proceed to upset the whole of a manor extending, perhaps, over ten miles. The tenants on such a manor as that which he had in his mind might extend over a vast tract of country, and the great majority of them would not hear of this inquiry, and would not come up to vote, unless the lord of the manor went to the expense of bringing them up. The whole manor might thus be upset by five men who had no stake or interest in the matter. He would ask the Government to strike this clause out altogether, or to report Progress, and take time to consider it. He could not believe that a Government of honour, bearing such a high reputation as the present Government did, would consent to pass such a clause as this.
§ MR. WAUGHsaid, this clause in Committee had been drawn almost entirely by the hon. Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton), and he believed that hon. Gentleman still adhered to it.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 91; Noes 7: Majority 84. — (Div. List, No. 217.)
§ Remaining Clauses, with Schedule and Preamble, agreed to.
§ Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next.