[BILL 26.] TILLED READING. (Hansard, 16 July 1885)

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he must ask to apologize to the House for rising to move the re-commitment of the Bill, in respect of a new clause. As a matter of fact, his attention had only just been called to a possible danger which might result from the operation of the Bill—namely, the inclosure of certain waste and common lands. Hon. Members 1017 would be aware that in many manors there existed a custom, with the consent of the copyholders, of inclosing the waste, and as long as the copyholders were unanimous, the danger was very small. But he understood that if the Bill passed in its present form, it would be possible for the lords of manors to continue to deal with the waste for the purpose of creating new copyholds; and there would be much greater danger of inclosing waste and commons under the Act, than there was at the present time. He proposed therefore to add a clause to the Bill, to the effect that after the passing of the Act it should not be lawful for a lord of the manor to create any new copyhold. That clause appeared to him to be in harmony with the Bill, the object of which was to convert copyholders into freeholders. The object he had in view was to prevent lords of manors, after the passing of the Bill, having any greater facilities than they had now for creating new copyholds.

§ MR. ELTON
said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), having discovered a microscopic grievance in this case, proposed to apply a heroic and drastic remedy. If there was a real apprehension on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that this sort of inclosure would occur at a future time, he (Mr. Elton) was quite unable to imagine why the right hon. Gentleman could not take the usual course of amending one of the Inclosure Acts. It was true that, in one or two manors, there was the custom of the lord of the manor, with the consent of the copyholders and freeholders, inclosing little bits of waste, and that had been declared by the Master of the Rolls to be a valid custom. Being thus established, it was a valuable right, although it was a right which was very rarely used. But notwithstanding that the right existed, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to abolish it, without making any provision for 1018 compensation. He (Mr. Elton) thought that some proposal on this subject might be sought from the Inclosure Commissioners. While he admitted that the intention of the right hon. Gentleman was meritorious, he entirely disagreed with the manner in which his proposal was made. He did not want to put his objection on technical grounds; but he would point out that the House had be-fore it a large measure for converting copyholds into freeholds; that the subject had been discussed for three or four years under different forms, and that the Motion which the House was asked to accept by the right hon. Gentleman would insure the rejection of the Bill in "another place." He hoped the House would not assent to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to re-commit the Bill, and that they would hear from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General some arguments in support of that view.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)
said, he desired to supplement the remarks of the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken (Mr. Elton), and to point out to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) that there was really no practical danger of the kind he had suggested. He (the Attorney General) perfectly well understood the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, and he quite agreed that he was prompted in this matter by laudable motives in wishing that there should be no more inclosure of waste land; but he would point out that a person who was made a freeholder would have the same right to interfere then as he had before; and he could assure him that this Bill, which was for the purpose of enfranchising copyholds, could have no operation of the kind which he apprehended. He should say, from his own experience, that freeholders were more likely than copyholders to object to inclosure; and as he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would gain anything by the clause he proposed to move if the Bill were re-committed, ho would suggest that it would be better that the Motion for re-commitment should be withdrawn.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
Am I right in understanding the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that an enfranchised 1019 copyholder will have the same right as he had before he was enfranchised?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Certainly, as I understand the law.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
Am I to understand that the enfranchised copyholder will have the right to appear at homage and object to inclosure?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
I did not say "appear at homage" at all. I said he could object to the inclosure, and the decision of the homage would not be binding on him.

§ MR. GRANTHAM
said, the language of the clause was "every inclosure by a copyholder." Now, where there was a small piece of waste land which had been added to the copyhold existing as it did, the copyholder should have that small piece entered. This Amendment would prevent that. It would not apparently touch the case of a new copyholder.

§ MR. BRYCE
said, the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton) was an authority on the subject of copyholds; and, as he (Mr. Bryee) understood, the hon. and learned Member did not assent to what the Attorney General stated—namely, that the enfranchised copyholder would retain his right to oppose an inclosure. It was an important point, and the Amendment should be accepted in the interest of the preservation of commons near London. He did not think the House would be well advised if it were to allow even a small piece of common to be inclosed. They had reason to regret that they had awakened so late to the importance of stopping the inclosure of commons; and henceforth the inclosure of no part of a suburban common should be permitted. It had been suggested that a Bill should be brought in to amend the Inclosure Acts. Well, every Session of the present Parliament a Bill on that subject had been brought in by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James), but it had never got to a second reading, having been persistently blocked by some reactionary Members. If he were told to wait for the passing of that measure, he would answer that he would prefer not to look to the two birds in the bush, but to keep the one in the hand, in the shape of the Amendment of the Bill of the hon. Gentleman beside him (Mr. Waugh).

MR. J. W. LOWTHER
said, he desired to move the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Gentleman would not be in Order in moving it now. The Question that I have to put is, "That the Bill be now read the third time."