§ FREEMEN
§ Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)I beg to move Amendment No. 274, in page 166, line 16, leave out Clause 235.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith Amendment No. 274 it will be convenient to take the following Amendments: No. 256, in page 166, line 18, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
§ No. 257, in page 166, line 21, after 'freeman', insert 'or burgess'.
§ No. 258, in page 166, line 26, after 'freeman', insert 'or burgess'.
§
No. 1024, in page 166, line 28, at end insert:
'(c) the keeping by the proper officer of every district which, contains a place or the major part of a place of which there are Freemen a list called the Freemen's roll
1062
for the place on which shall be admitted and enrolled by the proper officer any claimant to be admitted as a Freeman in respect of birth, servitude, or marriage, whose claim has been examined and established by the Chairman of the Council of the said district'.
§ No. 259, in page 166, line 32, after 'freemen', insert 'or burgesses'.
§
No. 1025, in page 166, line 33, at end insert:
'(2) Those entitled to enjoy the rights of Freemen shall include every person who, if the Municipal Corporations Act 1835 had not been passed might have been admitted a Freeman of a place otherwise than by gift or purchase, and every person who for the time being is—
and these shall have and enjoy and be entitled to acquire and enjoy the same share and benefit of the here ditaments, and of the rents and profits thereof, and of the common lands and public stock of the place or body corporate, and of any property held in whole or in part for any charitable use or trust, as if the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, the Municipal Corporations Act 1882, the Local Government Act 1933, and this Act had not been passed'.
§ Mr. GoldingI move the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), knowing by doing so that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) and I will have an opportunity to speak to our Amendments. I am appreciative that I am speaking under the shadow of Owen Glen dower; therefore my comments have to be more brief than they otherwise would be.
I am also aware that the encroachment of the Celts means that there are fewer free Englishmen. This gives me the opportunity to speak up for the English, something which is too rarely done in the House.
I turn to the interests of 340 of my constituents in the loyal and ancient Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, who to my knowledge enjoy a benefit which is almost unique. These constituents are entitled by birth and residence to have their names included in the burgesses' roll in Newcastle-under-Lyme, which is published annually in November. They are thereby entitled to share in the 1063 income arising from the rates and investments which derive from the original burgesses common lands. This year each burgess received £13.
Their rights derive from custom dating back to 1189 in the reign of Richard I. They are more antique than the borough charter, which is 800 years old next year, and more antique than their parliamentary representation. The burgesses were protected by the borough charter of 1235 and by the Magna Carta. They were also protected by the Municipal Corporation Act, 1835, and the Newcastle-under-Lyme Burgesses' Lands Act, 1859. I do not think that I am going too far in asking that what was provided in the Magna Carta should now be provided in the Bill.
I hope that the Bill will be suitably amended in another place to defend the interests of the burgesses of Newcastle-under-Lyme. This will not only please those who cherish ancient traditions but, on a personal note, will delight my good friend and comrade Harry Rhodes who showed me so much of Newcastle-under-Lyme during the bye-election in 1969. The least I can do to repay the kindness he showed me during that arduous campaign is to defend the rights of the burgesses of Newcastle-under-Lyme in the House tonight.
§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)As I understand that the Minister is prepared to make a concession on these Amendments in the other place, I shall not dilate on this issue, except to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who spoke about antiquity, is a mere new-comer in comparison with the history of York. The freemen of York go back for a long time—perhaps before time immemorial—though their parliamentary representation is not quite so distinguished as that of Newcastle-under-Lyme.
There was a grave omission from the original Bill in relation to freemen. It did not get any better when the Minister, introducing the new Clause which is now Clause 235, referred to an "accident of drafting". Freemen of ancient boroughs regard it as a great privilege and honour. To be overlooked by an accident of drafting was something of an indignity.
§ Mr. Graham PageThere was no accident of drafting anywhere in Clause 235. We were merely doing it in another way. It was a perfectly good Clause as it stood.
§ Mr. LyonI was merely referring to the phrase which the right hon. Gentleman used in Committee in referring to the omission from the original Bill. The reference caused some offence. I am prepared to forgive the Minister, because he has acted magnanimously and, I understand, is now prepared to concede in another place. I hope that the Clause which will be tabled in another place will make proper provision in respect of the property rights of freemen. I hope that it will be possible for freemen to find a way to commute their benefits so as to benefit the community at large. I am sure that the freemen of the City of York will take the hint.
§ Mr. Graham PageI am sorry if my memory did not serve me correctly. I had always intended that freemen's rights should be protected in the Bill. Clause 235 as it stands empowers the Secretary of State to give that protection by order. I have had many interviews with freemen from all over the country, because their rights and status differ in each of the nearly 100 towns in which there are freemen. At one time I thought that the best way to deal with this question was by order where we could sweep up together all these rights and say that they should be preserved. The freemen were not satisfied with Clause 235 as it is in the Bill. I was happy to try with them to draft a new Clause to give them full protection in the Bill.
I am happy to be able to tell the House that we have nearly completed that Clause with our legal advisers and that we shall introduce it in another place. I should have loved to have the opportunity of introducing it here, because I feel so keenly that all the rights and status of freemen should be properly preserved. At any rate, we will get the Clause right with our legal advisers and introduce it in another place.
§ Mr. GoldingI beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.