§ The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the Second Reading of this Bill. It professed to deal only with certain particular circumstances connected with copyhold tenure, which, in the present state of the law, made that species of property less productive than it might otherwise he, Both to the tenant and the lord, and less beneficial to the community at large. Their Lordships were aware of the great difficulties and inconveniences which beset copyhold tenure in many respects; and he would advert to those particular cases to which the present Bill referred. The Bill professed to deal with the following manorial rights, viz., the rights to fines, rents, he-riots, and all other payments and renders, periodical or casual, in money or otherwise, the lord's right to timber, the lord's right to enter for forfeiture by reason of waste, and all his other rights in respect of the commission and permission of waste, and provided that they might be commuted by the copyhold commissioners on the application of a tenant, according to the mode of proceeding set forth in the Bill. The customary claims for heriots also made it necessary that some such measure as the present should receive the sanction of Parliament. The claims on account of the value of timber likewise demanded the attention of the Legislature; he would put the case of a well-timbered estate—it might possibly be an estate good for nothing else than the production of timber, and if held of the lord of the manor by a copyholder, the tenant could not touch the timber, neither could the lord; and by that state of the law the timber on the estate was rendered utterly useless. It was surely not fitting that the law should in that respect at least remain unaltered. That which they were, then, called upon to do, and that which the Bill went to effect, would be to create out of copyhold property an estate of full value, giving due compensation both to the lord and the tenant. Suppose, for example, that there was an estate, the existing value of which was 15,000l the tenant's interest being worth 10,000l the lord's worth 5,000l Let the suppose that estate enfranchised, and rendered thereby worth 20,000l; he did by no means propose that the augmentation of value, being 5,000l., should go either to the lord or the tenant—what he should propose was, that they should participate in the benefits of the increase. 994 Further, it was proposed that compensation should be given to the parties interested, not only for what they possessed, but for that which they might reasonably expect to possess—the power of making such compensation being, limited by the value of the property. There was one other topic to which he wished to refer before he sat down, and that related to the steward's fees, which generally varied in different manors; provision, as far as possible, should be made to meet this difficulty, but he hoped without injuriously interfering with vested rights. He trusted it would be found that the Bill sufficiently dealt with this part of the subject. He had only to add, that it was proposed to give the tenant the right of building without losing the benefit of his expenditure, and, as much as possible, to facilitate fair and fitting improvements. These were the principal outlines of the measure, and, having laid them before their Lordships, it was not necessary that he should any further trouble the House.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYadmitted the necessity of amendment in the law, but doubted that the present Bill would correct the existing evils. The Bill, he thought, would not be satisfactory either to lords of the manors or to copyhold tenants; whilst its direct tendency was to destroy the copyhold tenure—in many respects a convenient one—throughout the country. The noble and learned Lord had complained of the hardship of the heriot fine, which operated as a heavy tax. With regard to this objection, and that the incidents of the copyhold tenure obstructed improvements, it was sufficient to say that much of the land in agriculture, constantly improved, was copyhold; and that cottages were built upon copyhold land—and why? Because, whilst it was practically equal to freehold, it was less expensive. The noble Marquess enumerated various objections to the Bill; but his speech was very imperfectly heard. His Lordship moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
§ LORD BEAUMONTsaid, it appeared to him that, by the Bill as it stood, lords of the manor were not fairly treated. They had, at present, a certain protection against copyhold tenants, in respect to nuisances upon land, which protection the Bill, as it stood, took away, without the slighest compensation. The compulsory commutation was not entirely reciprocal; the tenant might compel the lord to commute, but 995 not the lord the tenant. The lord of the manor should—as he had at present—in case of an application for commutation by a tenant, have the option of purchasing out the whole of the copyhold tenure beforeth e tenant could enforce a commutation. He did not draw the same inference as the noble Marquess from the increase of buildings upon copyhold property; it often arose from necessity. The fine upon the death of a copyholder was claimed at a time when the family were least able to pay it; and the fines sometimes occurred in such quick succession as to reduce a family to indigence. With regard to the mode of commutation, whether fixed fines or rent-charge—there was not much difference between them—it should be so regulated as to secure the interests of both parties.
§ LORD REDESDALEthought the principle of the measure dangerous in itself, but still more so on account of the arguments by which it had been sustained. He contended that the present system had worked well, and that it ought not to be altered by reason of a few extreme cases of hardship.
LORD CAMPBELLdefended the Bill, which he conceived to be necessary to do away with an unnecessary odium upon a particular tenure. Glancing at the history of copyhold tenure, the noble and learned Lord showed the successive ameliorations by which the grievances under which copyholders laboured had been removed, and argued that the compulsory enfranchisement of copyholds would be beneficial to lords of manors as well as to other parties affected by the Bill.
§ The EARL of HARROWBYsaid, that the feeling of the country was universally opposed to the existing system. He should, therefore, vote for the second reading of the Bill, and should consider in Committee any objections which might be offered to the details.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that the Commissioners had recommended compulsory commutation, but not compulsory enfranchisement. Under a system of compulsory enfranchisement poor copyholders would be obliged to take a more expensive tenure, and pay a sum of money for taking it, without receiving an equivalent advantage. It appeared to him that the proposed alteration would be productive of more injury and inconvenience than could fairly be attributed to the existing system. The Bill was uncalled for and unnecessary, for voluntary 996 commutations were making satisfactory progress. If the noble Lord pressed his Amendment to a division, he would vote for it, because he thought the Bill unjust, unnecessary, and mischievous in principle.
§ LORD ABINGERthought that it was best to leave these rights to, be gradually abolished by voluntary commutation.
The LORD CHANCELLORwas understood to express a hope that the House would read the Bill a second time, and it could then be amended in Committee.
§ On question that the word "now" stand part of the Motion, House divided:—Content 31; Not-content 16: Majority 15.
§ Resolved in the Affirmative.
§ Bill read 2a