HL Deb 06 March 1832 vol 10 cc1156-7

On the motion of Lord Kenyon, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Agricultural Labourers' Bill.

Lord Kenyon

said, it had been suggested to him that the interests of persons entitled to reversions of property might be affected by the Bill: he begged to introduce such words as would give every possible security to the present holder of the property, who might consent; and to continue that security to the person possessed of the reversionary interest, so as to give him all the benefits to which he could be entitled on coming into possession. He also begged leave to introduce words to protect the interests of persons connected with quarries, and to strike out the latter part of the tithe clause, which enacted, that no abatement was to be made for fencing and setting out the lands.

The Duke of Richmond

wished to have a clause introduced for the purpose of giving Overseers the power of entering upon the land, should the allotment be vacated.

Lord Kenyon

was perfectly willing to adopt the suggestion made by the noble Duke.

The Bishop of London

understood the noble Lord had introduced a clause which would affect moduses. This was a question of considerable difficulty, and would require great attention in the framing of it.

Lord Kenyon

said, the right reverend Prelate would have an opportunity, at a future period, to move any amendments he might think proper.

The Earl of Carnarvon

considered this as a measure of great importance, inasmuch as it affected rights of property to a great extent. On reading the Bill, he had found that the name which had been given to it was a misnomer, for it would afford no greater relief to poor agricultural labourers than to poor labourers of any other description. The Bill might more properly be named "a General Inclosure Bill." He had great doubts as to the propriety of many of the details of the Bill, and as to its being attended with all the benefit to the poor that was expected from it. Still he did not mean to object to the principle of the Bill; but hoped that, after the Bill should have passed the Committee, with its amendments, ample time would be given for considering its details, before it was sent to the other House.

The Bill went through the Committee. House resumed.

Back to