HL Deb 22 July 1872 vol 212 cc1505-10

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

LORD REDESDALE

said, that before the House again went into Committee on the Bill, it was much to be desired that reliable information should be laid before their Lordships respecting the number of commons to be inclosed, and particulars concerning their position, surroundings, &c. He was convinced that if it had not been so near the end of the Session their Lordships would never have proceeded with such haste with a measure of this kind, and he hoped that the Committee would at least be deferred until the information he had indicated, and which he should be willing to move for, had been obtained.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

said, that all the particulars desired by the noble Lord were already in print, in the Reports of the Inclosure Commissioners.

House in Committee.

LORD DUNSANY moved, after Clause 3, to add these words— Provided also, that where such land is not within five miles of any town or within three miles of any village or hamlet, and where the population within three miles of the centre of the proposed inclosure shall not exceed ten inhabitants to the square mile, the Commissioners may use their own discretion as to the allotment of any recreation ground or field garden, having regard, nevertheless, to any such right or custom of user as is expressed in clause 4. In Wales and elsewhere there was much land which it would be desirable to inclose, in districts almost uninhabited, or at best but very sparely populated, and where it would be simply absurd to set apart any portion for the recreation of the inhabitants, seeing that hardly any were to be found. At the same time, his Amendment would preserve all existing rights in the cases in question.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

agreed with the noble Lord, and desired to point out further that in many instances a number of commons were situated close together; and was it to be said that the stipulated portion from each of them was to be set aside for recreation? Such a thing would be absurd. Yet, as the Act now stood, the Commissioners would be compelled to do it.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that the portion to be set aside might be used either for recreation or allotment.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

answered that his objection applied equally in either event, because in the districts he referred to the poorer inhabitants were furnished with such large gardens that further allotments to them would be wholly superfluous.

LORD HOUGHTON

asked whether, in the present state of the business of the other House, it was worth while to attempt to proceed further with this Bill? What chance had it of passing the Lower House? By those who opposed all inclosures, the Bill would be regarded as a mere sop, while it would be sure to provoke much opposition.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

said, the last speech would have the effect of impugning the spirit of the Bill. He emphatically denied the assertion of the noble Lord that the measure would be received as a mere sop. He had already several times explained the principle of the Bill, which would give facilities for inclosing commons, without at all interfering with the rights of the public. He trusted that the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

said, the measure ignored the rights of the lord of the manor.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

said, it could hardly be contended that the rights of the lord of the manor were disregarded, as he had an absolute veto over inclosure. The rights of the commoners were of comparatively little importance, but those rights were respected by Parliament. At the same time, Parliament had the right, on behalf of the public and the poorer inhabitants, to impose some conditions upon inclosure.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

doubted whether the right of veto possessed by the lord of the manor under the old Acts would remain when this Bill had passed. The lord and the commoners were entitled to ask from Parliament the means of obtaining a full enjoyment of their rights, and Parliament was now asked to interpose and levy blackmail upon them. If their Lordships adopted the advice given some time ago by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Romilly), and went to their dictionaries for the meaning of words, nothing was "confiscated" which did not go into the Exchequer; but it was certainly spoliation to enact that when the lord and commoners desired to inclose they should be forced to concede to other persons rights which were perfectly new.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 5 (Situation, &c., of allotment for recreation ground and field garden.)

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved to strike out from the clause all words relating to commonable land. His reason for doing so was to meet this case:—Suppose he was the owner of a farm of 600 acres, of which 100 were commonable land—as much his freehold as the other 400, but subject to an easement during certain months in the year by parties who had the right of putting their stock there. Perhaps during that part of the year when the 100 acres were not subject to the easement he might lay them down for hay. If these portions of the clause, however, were allowed to stand, these 100 acres might be taken from him, and he might receive in exchange an allotment of common land on the hill-side which would not keep a donkey if you turned him out on it, and which would be of no use to him whatever. He, therefore, proposed to strike out all the words in the clause relating to commonable land;—the result of which would be that a man could not be deprived of that which was his property as much as anything else that he possessed.

Lines 22–23, moved to leave out ("of the commonable land instead of out of the common or out.")—(The Duke of Richmond.)

THE EARL OF MORLEY

defended the clause as it stood. There was a considerable difference between "common" and "commonable land," and the Bill recognized the distinction between these two kinds of proprietorship. By "commonable land" he meant open fields owned in severalty, liable to be inclosed under the General Inclosure Act, and subject to common rights. He put it to their Lordships whether it was not almost useless to grant allotments at a distance from the houses of those to whom they were made, when, if there were "commonable land," the allotments might be made near the houses? This clause said that where there were both common and commonable land the Commissioners might say that the allotments should be taken out of the commonable land; but if there was a gross injustice—which, however, was not likely to occur—two-thirds of the proprietors would never be found to consent, and the provisional order on the subject would fall to the ground.

LORD WENLOCK

supported the Amendment, on the ground that commonable lands were matters of sale and settlement, and could not be interfered with without giving rise to a great deal of difficulty.

On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 55; Not-Contents 81: Majority 26.

Amendment agreed to.

Words struck out.

THE EARL OF MORLEY moved, after Clause 38, to insert a clause enabling those persons who had given their consents to inclosures proposed to be made under the law as it now existed, and in respect to which the Inclosure Commissioners had issued their provisional orders, to withdraw such consents if they should think fit to do so. The Commissioners were, therefore, authorized to modify the provisional orders so as to bring them under the Act; and the proprietors might either accept the modified orders or withdraw their consents.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, those persons who had agreed to inclosures under the existing law and who had complied with all the terms necessary for the carrying out of inclosures ought to be allowed to complete the inclosures they had begun.

LORD ORMATHWAITE

wished to know what arrangement the noble Earl proposed in cases where the number of landowners was large, and part of them were willing to accept the conditions which this Bill would impose, but the other part were not willing?

THE EARL OF MORLEY

said, the applications for the inclosures which were not yet completed were made after a Committee of the House of Commons reported that no further inclosures should be made until a new measure on the subject had been passed. Therefore, he thought it was not unfair to subject landowners to the conditions which this Bill would impose if they wished to go on with the inclosures they had proposed; but in case they did not like these terms to allow them to withdraw their consent to the inclosures.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, the House of Commons was a changing body, and he did not think that the Resolution to which the noble Earl referred was a reason for imposing the conditions of this Bill on landowners who had consented to inclosures under the existing law if they wished to complete those inclosures.

On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 50; Not-Contents 71: Majority 21.

Amendment disagreed to.

On Motion, that the Amendments be reported on Friday next,

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved that the Amendments be reported this day three months.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

urged that courtesy required notice of such an attempt to reject the Bill. Amendments had certainly been made in it which he disapproved, but it was still a useful Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

remarked on the uselessness of Amendments being made by this House unless the Government assented to them. Without that assent, the Bill would be returned by the House of Commons a few days before the end of the Session, when no Peers would be present to insist on such Amendments.

LORD CHELMSFORD

appealed to his noble Friend to postpone his Motion to a future stage.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

joined in the appeal, promising his noble Friend his support on a future occasion. He hoped the Bill would not leave this House; but it would not be fair to reject it without notice to-night, when the division already taken had shown on which side the majority lay.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, the Government simply asked for fair notice.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

, disclaiming any wish to take the House by surprise, said he would defer his opposition to the Bill till the next stage.

Amendment withdrawn.

The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday next, and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 238.)

House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.