COMMITTEE. [Progress 1st April.] (Hansard, 9 April 1886)

§ VISCOUNT GRIMSTON (Herts, St. Albans)
I beg to move the second reading of the following clause:— But where an owner is entitled to lands which are intermixed with other lands not belonging to him, over which any person entitled as aforesaid as lord of the manor has any rights of hunting, shooting, fowling, chasing, or otherwise taking game, it shall not be lawful for the owner of any part of the land so intermixed and subject to any such sporting rights, to compel enfranchisement of such sporting rights. It will not be necessary for me to repeat the arguments used on a previous occasion in regard to this Amendment. The Government have sanctioned it by the acceptance of its principle, and I 1280 trust they have not gone back from their position in the matter. I will simply move the addition of the clause.

§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. MELLOR) (Grantham)
I should like this Amendment better if it applied entirely to moorlands. I do not think that in this Bill, which received such careful consideration at the hands of the Select Committee of last year, we ought to insert a clause of this kind, or that the Committee could agree to it as it is now drawn. If it is limited to intermixed land of one-quarter the quantity in the hands of the owner referred to, as was originally proposed, I think I may say, on behalf of the Government, that we could accept the proposal. I think it desirable that some such clause should be inserted in the Bill. Last year this measure was referred to a Select Committee, consisting of hon. Members from all parts of the House, amongst them being hon. Gentlemen who have seats in the present Parliament. I was a Member of the Committee myself, and every part of the Bill was carefully considered by us. Speaking, as I say, on behalf of the Government, I should be unwilling to see any part of the Bill seriously disturbed; but what the noble Lord is really asking for is, after all, a small concession. The cases that he contemplates are extremely rare; and I cannot think that the efficiency of the measure, which is a very important one, would be at all impaired by the adoption of this clause limited in the manner I have described. Unfortunately, this Bill, after having been carefully considered by a Select Committee, and after having passed this House, was thrown out in "another place." I am anxious that it should become law this year. I do not think that what the noble Lord has asked for can be said to affect the efficiency of the Bill, or the value of the clauses in it; and so far as the Govern- 1281 ment is concerned, and on the condition I have named, I do not propose to offer any further opposition.

§ VISCOUNT GRIMSTON
I should be happy to restrict the clause to such lands as moorlands; but I do not quite understand the proposal that instead of the words I propose the owner of one-fourth should be entitled to enfranchise the sporting rights. Am I to understand it to be one-fourth of the entire area, or of the intermixed land?

§ MR. C. H. JAMES (Merthyr Tydvil)
I have considered this matter very carefully, and my opinion is that it would be satisfactory to put one-fourth in the Bill in the case of one man, and make it one-half in the case of several people joining in the possession of intermixed land.

§ VISCOUNT GRIMSTON
I would ask the Committee to make it one-third in the hands of several persons, or one-fourth in the hands of one man. That is the least I could accept without a division. I think I must press for one-third.

§ MR. ALLISON (Cumberland, Eskdale)
I think one-third of the owners should be allowed to combine, for there may be a number of small owners. I think if the noble Lord agrees to allow copyholders to combine to the amount of one-third of the whole manor it will be a fair compromise.

§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. MELLOR)
I hope the noble Lord will accept the suggestion made. I know that he is anxious this Bill should pass into law. I think that the offer made on this side of the House is a reasonable and fair one. If he is disposed to accept it, it will be necessary that the clause should be withdrawn.

§ VISCOUNT GRIMSTON
I will take a quarter in the hands of one owner. That is what was proposed by the hon. Gentleman at first, and that is the least I could take.

§ MR. MELLOR
I have no objection to that. My hon. and learned Friend who has charge of the Bill has had great experience in these matters, and is well acquainted with copyholds in this country. He sees no objection to this. I would make this suggestion to the noble Lord—namely, that as the clause requires to be carefully redrafted it should be withdrawn on the present 1282 occasion so as to be brought up in an amended form on the Report stage.

§ VISCOUNT GRIMSTON
That would render it necessary to go through the whole of this discussion again. We should require to sit up once more to a late hour, and, instead of doing that, I should be glad to accept the proposal of a quarter. I think that is a great concession, and I trust the Government will see their way to accept it.

§ MR. ALLISON (Cumberland, Eskdale)
This is a matter of great interest, especially to the district from whence I come. It is hard on small copyholders that they should be saddled with these manorial rights, which put them to such great inconvenience. You must remember that the smaller the number you now exclude from the operation of the Bill the greater difficulty there will be in time to come in getting these rights recognized. It is suggested to me that if the clause is framed as the noble Lord suggests you might have fresh legislation; but if you leave a very small number of persons outside this measure, you may leave them for all time saddled with manorial rights, which I believe, in the opinion of the House of Commons, are inequitable and unfair. I put it to the House that this now House of Commons does not show itself more tender of these rights than the unreformed House that sat last year. This clause was passed in the last House of Commons, it went before a Select Committee of the House, and it has been approved by the Incorporated Law Society. Having passed all these ordeals, I hope it will now be accepted in the form in which it stands. Certainly the small copyholders are anxiously expecting the passing of the clause, because their comfort and convenience in the occupation of their land very much depends upon it.

§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS (Kent, St. Augustine's)
I would suggest that my noble Friend should accept the proposal of the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Mellor), which seems a very fair one, and one which will certainly be more convenient to the Committee—namely, that the clause should be redrafted and brought up on Report.

§ VISCOUNT GRIMSTON (Herts, St. Alban's)
After this expression of opinion, I cannot do otherwise than 1283 accept the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)
I think it would be better to report Progress, so that this clause might be brought up on Committee. Such a course would certainly facilitate the passing of the Bill.

§ MR. C. H. JAMES (Merthyr Tydvil)
I think it would be better to bring up the clause on Report.

§ SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)
I do not see what objection can be raised to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson). There is no need to hurry in the matter. The clause must be redrafted, and as we are in Committee I think it would be well to remain in Committee. If the clause is brought up on Report, it is quite clear the Bill will have to be recommitted.