Clause 37.—(Definitions for purposes of Part I.) (Hansard, 20 December 1937)

§ Mr. H. G. Williams
I beg to move, in page 32, line 29, at the end, to insert: Provided that in the case of any coal or mine of coal in respect of which any right was saved by paragraph five of the Twelfth Schedule to the Law of Property Act, 1922, the persons who for the purposes of this definition shall be regarded as interested in that coal or mine shall include any person in whom by the custom of the manor concerned such coal or mine is vested and any person claiming under him, but shall not include any person whose only interest in such coal or mine is that by the custom of the manor concerned such coal or mine may not be worked without his consent or any person claiming under such last-mentioned person, I wish that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), in whose name this Amendment stands, had been here, because it deals with a legal problem of very considerable complexity, and I do not suggest that I have fully mastered all the complexities of the 1743 subject. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ask the Noble Lord."] The Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) may in due course seek the opportunity of further elucidating the point. In the meantime this peculiar situation arises. In the case of land held by copyhold the lord of the manor is, in fact, the owner of the capital value of the minerals, and the copyholder has no financial interest in them, though he may have the right to veto their working. In these circumstances, when the Commission have this right in the ownership of coal the right of the veto of the copyholder goes, as does also the capital interest of the lord of the manor. In general, the financial loss is that of the lord of the manor and not necessarily that of the copyholder, because his object in vetoing would be the circumstances which might arise if damage were done to the surface, in which he had an interest in respect of damage to surface. Though I speak subject to correction in connection with this very difficult Bill, I think he would already be protected in other ways. Therefore, it is clearly the lord of the manor only who should be entitled to a share in the global sum and not necessarily the very large number of copyholders.
I am not seeking to defend the interests of the big against the little, though at first sight it might appear to be so; I am seeking that the law, as it may be after the passage of this Measure, shall really represent the facts as they are to-day. I am advised by those who are experts on this subject that the Amendment will really put the law into a form that will be more essentially equitable, and it is for that reason that I move it.

§ Captain Crookshank
My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) says that he has not fully mastered the complexity of the subject, and it is doubtful whether anybody in this country is seized of the intricacies of the copyhold law. What the Amendment seeks to do is to take out of any share in the global figure the copyholder. As I understand it, the rights of copyholders vary considerably in the customs of different manors. Generally speaking, the consent of the owner of. the copyhold as well as that of the Lord of the Manor has to be secured before coal is worked. In cases where that assent is given the 1744 usual practice with copyhold coal is that a payment is made to the Lord of the Manor who passes on some part of it or else it is paid direct to the copyholder concerned.
I cannot accept the Amendment because the coal in or against which copyholders have rights would remain subject thereto, which would mean that there would still exist a form of tenure, for which a payment would have to be made. It is one of the objects of the Bill to get rid of all that kind of thing. Apart from that, the second reason is that these current payments to copyholders were included in the figure of the income which went to make up the global figure. Therefore, it would not be possible to take them out. For these reasons we cannot accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. H. G. Williams
I understand that the drafting of the Amendment would require modification, which does not surprise me, having regard to the complexity of the subject. With regard to the more serious point, that these rights were taken into account in the global sum; as I understand it, that sum was ascertained in a singularly crude manner. They said: "What is the income?" The reply was, so many million pounds. They then said: '"Let us call it 15 years" and they multiplied one by the other and got the global sum. It seems to me that in those circumstances, unless the copyholder was the recipient of some of the£4,500,000, or whatever the precise sum was, it is not possible to say that they were taken into account in fixing the global sum, because that was the product of so much a year multiplied by 15 years. These copyholders were not in receipt of so many pence or so many pounds, and consequently there was nothing to multiply by 15 so far as they were concerned. Therefore, it does not seem to me that they were taken into account. In these circumstances, I hope the Minister will reexamine the text of the Amendment, so that if I move it again at a later stage in the right form, he will re-examine the argument he used, because I think it is open to substantial criticism. However, having regard to what he said and the complexity of the subject, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.