The BISHOP of LONDON, referring to the amended Bill for the Enfranchisement of Copyholds, said, that in some cases it afforded a remedy, but in others the remedy was far more severe and summary than the evils it affected to cure. It had also been proposed at so late a period of the Session, that there would not be time for due consideration of its provisions; and, therefore, he suggested to the noble and learned Lord upon the woolsack the expediency of postponing it till another Session. In the mean time he could not avoid remarking that he could not understand why measures of this character, which required so much consideration, were not brought forward at an early period in the Session. He, therefore, wished to ask the noble and learned Lord whether it was his intention to press this Bill in the present Session?
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was objected to the first measure on this subject that it did not go far enough; the objection to the present was, it scorned, that it went too far. He could only say, that the alterations had been made in deference to the wishes of the House; and he apprehended, if such were their Lordships' will, there would be no difficulty in the Bill, as altered, passing this Session.
The BISHOP of LONDONobserved, that others as well as himself were in the predicament of not having had time to consider the alterations that had been made in the measure.
LORD STANLEYsaid, the measure was considered on the previous discussion objectionable on account of its interference; and he thought that the noble and learned Lord took an unfair advantage of that circumstance with regard to the Bill as it now stood. The noble Lord made some observations on the late period of the Session at which important measures had been introduced.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that those parts of the Bill which could be safely postponed would be struck out, and that he should take the opinion of their Lordships whether the other should not be proceeded with.