HC Deb 17 December 1934 vol 296 cc809-11
28. Mrs. COPELAND

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware of the hardship that has been caused in the Stoke-on-Trent area by the removal from that district on 16th November of the local court rolls to distant Harrogate, which will not only double the Government's expense, but the distance and cost involved will also debar local house owners from inspecting these court rolls, as they are entitled to do under the 1922 Property Act; whether the protests made for the return of the said documents are receiving his attention; and what he is doing to expedite this return, bearing in mind that the time for the transference of copyholds to freeholds in this district is limited by statute to December, 1935?

The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. J. C. Davidson)

I am not aware that the removal of the rolls has involved hardship, nor do I understand my hon. Friend's use of the phrase "Government expense." No moneys Voted by Parliament are affected, and the additional charge on the Duchy revenues, if any, is negligible. Most of the court rolls of the Manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme were removed to the Public Record Office, London, 40 years ago. A vacancy having recently arisen in the office of Deputy-Steward, I approved the appointment of Mr. J. A. Eddison, of Harrogate, as being conspicuously the most competent man for the post. As Deputy-Steward the possession of the remaining and more recent rolls is essential to his work, and accordingly they have been transferred to him at Harrogate.

I am advised that the right of inspection given by Section 144 of the Law of Property Act, 1922, does not imply that the rolls must be kept in the district to which they relate. On the contrary, the court rolls of numerous manors are kept at a considerable distance from the manor. I understand that no appreciable inconvenience results from such an arrangement and I see no reason to anticipate difficulty in regard to the manor of Newcastle. The Act allowed 10 years from the 1st January, 1926, for the compensation for the extinguishment of the manorial incidents to be paid by agreement. After that period has expired, only the compulsory procedure, which normally will be much more expensive for the property owner, will be available.

Unfortunately, in Newcastle the progress of extinguishment has been slow as compared with other manors, and it is essential in the interests of the property owners that progress should be greatly accelerated in order that the risk of having to pay the additional expenses of the compulsory procedure may be avoided. After full consideration, I am satisfied that the arrangements made are in the best interests of the parties. I have carefully considered certain protests which have reached me, but for the reasons given above the immediate return of the court rolls would gravely prejudice the interests of the property owners as well as of the Duchy. I therefore do not propose to order their return at present.

Mrs. COPELAND

In view of the great dissatisfaction caused in the district on this question I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment.