Lords Sitting of 1 March 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Truro Bishopric and Chapter Acts Amendment* (33).
Second Reading—Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment (10).
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Cppyhold Enfranchisement (13).
Committee—Lunacy Acts Amendment (7–34).
Report—Solicitors (Ireland) (31).

ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 10.)
(The Lord Thurlow.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD THURLOWsaid, that in asking their Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill he desired to say that its subject was not new to him, as he had for the last five years been practically and commercially connected with the industry, and had for four years been one of the few Members of their Lordships' House who had had electric light in his own house, and thus had daily opportunity of studying it, and of appreciating its comfort and convenience. It would be interesting to know how many of their Lordships actually had introduced electric lighting into their houses. He should think a dozen or a score would be the outside. Among them, however, there was, he was glad to say, the Leader of the House, the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, who had the honour of having been one of the earliest and most successful pioneers of electricity, not only in connection with lighting, but with the transmission of power. He could not help thinking that the experience of the noble Marquess would make him concur with him in thinking that the moment had now come to amend the Act of 1882, under which, as it stood, central lighting stations and house-to-house lighting were a commercial impossibility. Their Lordships must remember the circumstances under which that Act was passed. The science was then in its infancy. Not long before Lane-Fox and Edison had made discoveries in filaments and attachments that had for the first time made

855
incandescent lighting practically possible. Electric lighting then rapidly became a medium for the heaviest gambling in shares known since the South Sea Bubble. So great was the notoriety of this gambling that the Government of the day felt bound to step in to prescribe rules for regulating and arresting the flow of capital into all kinds of hasty and ill-considered schemes. All this had now completely changed. The gambling spirit that raised £5 shares to £60 had passed away and been buried in the ruins of many of the Companies which were then promoted. Out of the 36 Companies which, previous to the Act of 1882, were in existence, only seven of any consequence survived. The stage of leisurely repentance had been reached. Meanwhile, immense progress had been made in every branch of electric lighting. One branch of the subject, almost unknown in 1882, and now justly considered as a necessary element in successful incandescent electric lighting—namely, cells or accumulators for storing electricity—had now been practically perfected. Without storage batteries engines and dynamos must be kept constantly working, and the light, which flickered always more or less with the pulsations of the engine, was injurious to the eyesight and unsatisfactory. Of course, much work remained to be done. Reliable and simple meters were still required, but the position had quite changed. Electric lighting was no longer a dream of the future but a reality, and commercially possible but for the Act of 1882. For example, ship lighting, subjected to no trammels, was now being universally adopted by all the great Companies, the Cunard, the P. and O., the German Lloyd, and by the Navies of the world. Even great buildings large enough to make them independent of central lighting stations and able to generate electricity for themselves had adopted it, such as Buckingham Palace, the Grand Hotel, the Métropole and First Avenue Hotels, several theatres, the Athenæum Club, the Junior United Service Club, the Junior Carlton, South Kensington Museum, the British Museum, the Grosvenor Gallery, and many more; but house-to-house lighting remained an utter impossibility, as capita could not be raised under the onerous provisions of the Act of 1882 for central lighting stations. Let their Lordships
856
compare with this state of things the position of the science abroad and in America, where it was estimated that upwards of £32,000,000, of which £21,000,000 were in arc and £11,000,000 in incandescent, had been invested in electric lighting. To come, however, to the Bill before the House, their Lordships would remember what passed on the subject last year, when three Bills were introduced. For Bill No. 1 he was himself to a large extent responsible, as it was the Bill of a Committee of experts and scientific men who had considered the matter for two years and over which he had the honour to preside. That Bill aimed, no doubt, at too much. Its object was to put electricity on the same footing as gas. This was considered as a desire to set up a second monopoly, while the real object was only to enable it to compete successfully against an existing monopoly. Bill No. 2 was brought in by a noble Viscount not now in his place (Viscount Bury), whose knowledge of the subject was accurate and extensive; and Bill No. 3 was the Government Bill. Those three Bills went to a Select Committee, and important evidence was heard, among others that of Sir Frederick Bramwell, Mr. Preece, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Hucks Gibbs, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Crompton. The result was the amendment of the Government measure, Bill No. 3, and in that amended shape it would have passed into law had it not been for the change of Government and death of the Parliament. The present Bill was founded on that Bill with only one addition. It was last year's Bill No. 3, as amended in Committee with "goodwill" added. It only amended the Act of 1882 as regarded Clause 27, which dealt with the compulsory purchase of an undertaking by a Local Authority. The clause as it stood had been irreverently called the "Old Iron Clause," because under it property was to be compulsorily bought at its break-up value irrespective of its value as a going concern, after only 21 years. The effect of that was to compel undertakers to charge such a rate for electricity as was practically prohibitive and prevented its competition with gas. On this point he must confess to holding strong views, and he could not see why this industry should be treated differently from any other in the event of compulsory purchase by a Local Autho-

857
rity. Indeed, it had some claims to almost preferential treatment on account of salubrity, cleanliness, and safety. It seemed to be only a question of an alternative—either to allow a fair valuation of goodwill of the business, or to grant the licence for such a prolonged period as would enable undertakers to recoup themselves without charging a prohibitive price. If 50 years were granted this might meet the case; but, on the whole, it seemed wiser to shorten the preferential term, and to provide for competition at its expiry. This was the only question really to be settled. All were agreed on other points, such as the lamps clause, continuous supply, &c. The goodwill question was a thorny one, and admitted of much being said on both sides. His desire was to place it before the House as an open subject for the House in its wisdom to decide. He was willing to accept any reasonable Amendments in Committee if the House would permit the Bill to be read a second time; and he was willing to postpone the Committee stage to any reasonable date to suit the convenience of the Government and to afford time for deliberation. His only desire was that legislation should proceed this Session, and that an industry which only required fair conditions to progress should, in these days of depression and of large armies of unemployed, go on for the good of trade and of mankind at large. His object was to come to the relief of an industry capable of rendering the most important services to civilization. His own belief was that before many years they would find the Board of Trade prescribing electric lighting, on the score of health and safety, in all factories, schools, mines, theatres, churches, and the like; that the Gas Companies in England would follow the example of the Gas Companies on the Continent and in America, convert their plant and become purveyors of electricity; and that finally Registrar Generals of the future would be able to trace to this cause increased immunity from consumption and other kindred diseases which infallibly arose, to a great extent, from vitiation of the atmosphere now breathed. He could only say, in conclusion, that if the Government would undertake to deal with the matter, he would gladly leave it in their hands, and that he was willing to consider all points open to fair con-
858
sideration in Committee, if their Lordships would accept the view he took of the desirability of speedy legislation, and allow the Bill to be now read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a".—(The Lord Thurlow.)
LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that no doubt the Bill of the noble Lord was founded on the Government Bill of last year as it emerged from Committee; but there were two particulars in which it differed from that Bill—one of addition and one of omission in regard to the powers of the Local Authorities. The first referred to the veto the Local Authorities might exercise when Companies applied for a Provisional Order. When the Bills of last year were being considered by a Select Committee, the Local Authorities demanded nothing less than an absolute power of veto upon any lighting undertaking in their district. He considered this demand excessive; but he would suggest that when a Local Authority was dissatisfied with, or objected to, an electric lighting scheme, the matter should be referred to the Board of Trade, and if it saw ground for overriding the Local Authority it should make a special Report to Parliament. He hoped that this suggestion would be considered by the promoters of the Bill. On the question of the terms on which an undertaking should be acquired by a Local Authority, he considered the inclusion of the word "goodwill," in the terms of purchase, objectionable, and on this point he would await with interest the expression of the views of the Government. He hoped the Bill would be read a second time.
LORD LINGEN, as a Member of the Select Committee who heard evidence upon this question, said that the Bill raised matters of great and general importance. In his opinion, the interests of a Local Authority entitled it to favourable consideration. The lighting of a town was a strictly local question, and in the case of Dover Harbour their Lordships had just given a second reading to a Bill which proposed to give to a Corporation powers even over a military port. There were two classes of witnesses before the Select Committee, the one composed of engineering, scientific, and financing authorities, and the other of town clerks, who were each

859
unanimous in advocating and opposing respectively the proposal that Local Bodies should pay for goodwill.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid, that he thoroughly supported the Second Reading of the Bill, and approved the payment for goodwill if the compulsory purchase of a successful undertaking was insisted upon. No doubt some consideration should be made to Local Authorities for the permission they had granted to Companies to carry out their works; but it should not be more than was just and equitable. With regard to the town clerks alluded to by the last speaker, it was only natural that they should endeavour to serve the interests of their employers by seeking to obtain a ready-made and successful business at a less cost than that they would incur in initiating such a scheme. It was worth consideration whether an arrangement could not be made for the payment of a fair and proper footage-rent by Companies to Local Authorities. If the undertakings of Electric Lighting Companies were to be taken without payment for goodwill, he did not see where appropriation would end. It might be extended to Gas, Water, and Steamship Companies, whose undertakings were all matters of public importance. He believed that in time the electric lighting would so much extend that the machinery would be at a distance from London where land was cheap, and the wires, either overhead or underground, would extend throughout the Metropolis. In that event, he did not see how compulsory purchase without goodwill could be carried out. The attempt to put electric lighting on such a footing ought to be checked at once. The subject of electric lighting was one which he had cherished for a long time, and he believed it was now in a position to stand alone, provided it had a fairer chance than it had when this legislation was introduced. He did not greatly complain of the Act of 1882. He thought that Act had kept back the use of electric lighting, but also had shown that the question must be dealt with on broad and liberal lines.
LORD BEAMWELLsaid, he was a Member of the Committee which sat on this subject, and one thing was quite certain—that legislation on it was necessary. Electric lighting was now a success which could be relied upon. Whether
860
it could beat gas was a question; but, as a light, it was a success. At present, however, it could not be supplied to the public on account of the terms as provided by law. As the law now stood the terms were very hard indeed. It was that at some time or other—at the end of 20 years, or 30 or 40 years—however prosperous the concern might be, it was to be bought, not upon the terms paid for a successful concern, which might have been a failure; but it was to be bought according to the value of the plant and property belonging to the undertakers. It had been said that those were fair terms; but capitalists said—"We do not think so; we shall not subscribe on those terms," and it was in vain to tell them that they ought. The consequence was there was no public electric lighting. He was not going to find fault with the Board of Trade, its changing head or the permanent staff. He thought they ought to do their best for the public; but unfortunately, in this matter, they had imposed such terms that capitalists would not accept them, and so was a stop put to to electric lighting. Therefore, he said, some legislation was necessary. The Local Authorities did not undertake the electric lighting themselves; but after a Company had successfully done so, then they wanted to buy the undertaking at par, or less, not seeing that the undertakers were entitled to be paid for the risk they had run of the undertaking being a failure.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, in the absence of his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Lord Stanley of Preston) he did not like to let the subject pass without saying something on behalf of the Government; but after the speech of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) opposite there was really very little to say. He thought the noble and learned Lord had presented the case with absolute fairness; but he wished to clear himself of the charge which the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench seemed inclined to level against those who supported the Bill. He had never himself been bold enough to have a single share in any of the Electric Lighting Companies. He looked at the matter virtually as a public question; and he

861
had no interest in it, and never expected to have, except as a means of promoting a product of public utility. The history of this case was really the history of the action of a Public Department. The Board of Trade was horrified, and intelligibly horrified, at the position in which Parliament found itself in respect to the Water Companies. It was not entirely satisfied with the position in which Parliament found itself with respect to the Gas Companies. He did not say that that feeling had so much plausibility as the other. But the Board seemed to have resolved that it would not allow Parliament, as representing the public, to fall into that difficulty again; and that it would take good care that when electricity came for its authorization to Parliament, terms should be arranged which would place the public in a much better position than they were in with regard to the gas or water companies. But their very natural and praiseworthy feeling was carried to an exaggerated point. Their precautions were excessive. The legislation passed in 1882 had absolutely stifled the enter-prize of those who wished to introduce the electric light into this country, and they were now in this position—while in other countries the electric light was used for public purposes, it had not been used in this country, and could not be used, except by those Companies or Institutions or persons who could have the whole machinery for their own use, and produce their electricity entirely for themselves. He could not imagine that Parliament could look on this as a desirable state of things. Why were they not to have the comfort and advantage of this light, which those who were in a position to use it showed an increasing desire every day to have? The only argument which had any plausibility—and it was an argument which appeared to prevail in the minds of many noble Lords—was that they must save the rights of Local Authorities in this matter. He did not dispute that this was a very suitable matter for the Local Authorities to undertake, if they were willing to do so; and he could quite imagine that in 1882 the Board of Trade and the Local Authorities, generally speaking, thought it would be a pity to allow Companies to step into their place. But five years had passed away, and the Local Authorities were not inclined generally
862
to take this enterprize up. They were really putting the Local Authorities in the position of the dog in the manger; they would not allow the Companies to enter upon an enterprize which they would not undertake themselves. With respect to the noble Lord (Lord Lingen), who had cited the case of Dover Harbour, he would point out that the two instances—that of the electric light and Dover Harbour—were not on all-fours. If the Town Council of Dover had come to their Lordships to claim liberty to fill Dover Harbour up and shut it up until such time as it should be convenient for them to open it themselves, then they would have been in exactly the position of the Local Authorities now, who wished to stifle all electric lighting enterprize until they saw their way to undertake it themselves. He did not think that that was a proposition which Parliament ought to support. He inclined, in spite of the terror of the example of the Gas and Water Companies, to go back to ideas of less restriction and greater freedom in this matter, and to allow enterprize to have its full swing, to remove the obstacles which had hitherto impeded it, and to offer terms, not such as they thought the capitalist ought to accept, but which they found by experience he would accept. So it might be possible, by giving rights which were generous and large, to procure for the public the full advantage of those scientific inventions which other nations had, and which now, by our restrictive policy, we prevented the public from enjoying without doing any good to the Local Authorities which were the subject of so much tender care.
LORD THURLOWsaid, he would endeavour to amend the Bill in Committee, with the object of meeting the views which had been urged.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.—(No. 13.)
(The Lord Hobhouse.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HOBHOUSE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had been the subject of a great

863
deal of discussion both in and out of Parliament for several years. It had been before a Committee of the House of Commons in 1884. It was passed in 1885, and came up to their Lordships' House very late in the Session. The Second Reading of it was then refused. In 1886 the Bill again passed the House of Commons, and, although in some details it had been altered, in essentials it was the same Bill as passed by the House of Commons in 1885 and 1886. The Bill contained a vast number of details of a technical character; and the measure was a proper one to lay before a Select Committee. He was, therefore, glad to find that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Stanhope) had put down a Motion that in the event of the Bill being read a second time he would move that it be referred to a Select Committee. The object of the Bill was to accelerate and facilitate the enfranchisements of copyhold. There were two propositions in connection with this subject which he thought should be established—(1) that the extinction of copyholds was a matter of great public interest; and (2) that the extinction would not proceed to any efficient extent unless some pressure of law was put on the parties interested in them. The Real Property Commissioners, in their Third Report of 1882, did not recommend compulsion, but only that some facilities and inducements should be offered. Nothing was done on that Report with regard to copyholds. The matter, however, was specially inquired into by a Committee of the House of Commons which sat in 1838. That Committee was of remarkable strength, including, as it did, the then Attorney General (Lord Campbell), Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, and a number of county Gentlemen. They said that—
"The abolition of this tenure would not only be of great public benefit, but should be made, if possible, a national object. They are also of opinion that no plan which merely leaves the option to the parties to enfranchise will meet the exigency of the case, and they are therefore desirous of seeing a plan of enfranchisment introduced which shall have a due regard to the rights as well of the lord as the copyholder, but which shall be eventually compulsory on both."
And they concluded—
"They earnestly desire that measures may be speedily taken to accomplish this object with reference as well to lands of customary as of copyhold tenure. It appears to them that the best mode of effecting it would be by giving
864
every facility to enfranchisement for a short term of years, and that after that period the enfranchisement should proceed on the compulsory principle."
That Report led to the passing of the Act of 1841, which was the first Copyhold Enfranchisement Act; but the measure applied compulsion in a peculiar way since abandoned, and its machinery was so clumsy that it did not work at all. Only voluntary enfranchisements took place under this Act, and they only reached a yearly average of 42. About 10 years later the matter was again made the subject of inquiry by a Committee of Parliament, who again advised compulsion, and in the result the Act of 1852 was passed. That Act gave, with compulsion, an impetus to enfranchisement, and during the six years of its operation the yearly average was 243. Further compulsion was applied by the Act of 1858; and up to the end of 1883, the latest date to which he could find any tabulated account, there were about 13,000 enfranchisements under it, or an average of 554 yearly. And with all this effect of compulsion there had been no complaint—at least, no audible one—from the parties subject to it. He observed by the tables that of late years there had been a considerable decrease in the number of copyholders enfranchised, and he was told that this was due to the circumstance that the Treasury desired that the office fees should be increased so as to make the parties, in fact, pay the office expenses, and to the rule—a very unjust one as he thought—that the applicant should pay the costs. The present Bill altered the rule about costs, and introduced provisions intended to enable the parties to get what was tantamount to a statutory award for themselves without resorting to the office at all. There were still a great number of copyholds left. In Lancashire, he believed, there were considerable tracts where the whole land was under copyhold, and their Lordships were all familiar with them in different parts of the country; while those who had the greatest experience, and were most conversant with the working of the copyhold system, were most strongly of opinion that it was desirable to give a fresh impulse to their enfranchisement. What, then, was the amount and measure of the compulsion proposed by the Bill? It proposed that on the next ad-

865
mittance the lord should serve on the tenant who came to be admitted a notice of enfranchisement, and if he omitted to do so he should be subject to certain, penalties. With such notice the Bill proposed that the lord should be bound to serve a statement of what he was prepared to take as compensation for enfranchisement. Now, if there was to be any compulsion at all it was impossible to conceive any that would create a less amount of vexation than those provisions. The Bill imposed the very minimum of trouble and expense. The notice is to be given when the lord must be holding a Court for admittance, and has the tenant face to face with him. And the offer is to be made when the lord is demanding his fine, and therefore must have been estimating the improved value of the holding. There were two other clauses which affected compulsion—Clauses 10 and 11—which dealt with sporting rights, and removed them from their present position as manorial incidents which could only be enfranchised by consent, into the category of other incidents, which could be enfranchised in the ordinary way. By Clause 32 the parties were enabled by a memorandum of enfranchisement to obtain that which was equivalent to a statutory award; and there were other clauses connected with it, and drawn with the intention of enabling the parties to dispense with the assistance of the Commissioners, thereby saving time and cost. Clause 44 directed the Commissioners to publish a scale of compensation for the guidance of valuers and parties, it was proposed that compensation should be by way of rent-charge wherever it was of less value than £25—that was to say, whenever it amounted to £1 a-year. That clause had been recommended by the Incorporated Law Society; but he had inserted it rather as affording a basis for discussion in Committee than from any notion that it would be accepted as it stood. It was a subject on which there were great differences of opinion. Other clauses dealt with the payment of rent-charges. Others of considerable importance gave powers to limited owners to give discharges for compensations, to retain small sums, and to charge their payments upon the settled estates. But he would not now go into further detail. He attributed considerable importance to the fact that this measure
866
had received the approval of the Incorporated Law Society and of the Land Commissioners. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
LORD BEAMWELLsaid that he should not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, because he understood that it was the general desire of their Lordships that it should be read a second time, with the object of its being referred to a Select Committee. He opposed a somewhat similar measure which was brought forward in 1885, on the ground that it proposed to make the enfranchisement of copyholds compulsory, and it was rejected on the Motion for its Second Reading. He fully admitted that the copyhold tenure was a bad one, from which the greatest possible good was not obtainable, and he believed it would be a good thing if, by the wave of a magic wand, the whole of the copyholds could be turned into freeholds. But it should be left to the decision of the landlord and tenant whether that tenure should be converted into freehold.
THE LORD CHANCELLOE (Lord HALSBURY)said, he was anxious to state at once that, although he did not altogether approve of some of the proposals of the Bill, he did not intend to oppose its Second Reading. He thought that this measure was a great improvement upon the former one. In the present Bill there was, at all events, an effort to preserve the rights of the two parties to the enfranchisement. It was clear that, in the interests of both parties, and in the interests of the public, it was desirable that something should be done to improve the existing law in regard to copyholds. Every lawyer had admitted over and over again that the copyhold tenure was a bad one, and that it had given rise to questions of great difficulty with regard to the minerals lying beneath the land subjected to it. The noble and learned Lord who had last spoken had objected to the enfranchisement of copyhold lands being made compulsory; but it must be remembered that unless some pressure were brought to bear, people would not be induced to move in the matter. He was glad to find that the machinery of this Bill was much more simple and less expensive than that proposed to be established by

867
the measure of 1885. He hoped that when the Bill came to be examined by a Selcet Committee, it would be still further improved.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, that as his noble and learned Friend had accepted his proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, he should support the Second Reading. While admitting that it was desirable to get rid of copyhold tenure, he did not think that there was a great demand for it on the part of the public, seeing that yesterday a Petition had been presented from 269 manors against it. Moreover, the enfranchisement of copyholds was proceeding, if not rapidly, at least satisfactorily—554 enfranchisements a-year—and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had enfranchised 2,500 copyholders. He thought that it was unjust to the landlords, whose interest was remote, to require them to defray the cost of valuation, of fixing the boundaries, and of ascertaining the quantity of minerals beneath the surface out of the almost nominal fines which they received. He would like to see a clause introduced which would guard the rights of the lords of manors to the minerals on the land. There were many complicated clauses and difficulties in the Bill which would require to be carefully dealt with by the Committee. He hoped that power would be given to call for evidence.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that this measure was one in which great interest was taken in certain parts of the country, and especially in Lancashire. There was a large tract in Lancashire where the lords' interest was so small as to be of very little value. Those copyholds were considered of much greater value to the stewards, and on enfranchisement the stewards got an amount of compensation far exceeding any which the lords got. A tenure of that description was kept up much more in the interests of the steward than of the lord, and therefore their lordships would not be surprised that the feeling in that part of the country in favour of enfranchisement was very strong. He would ask his noble Friend to consider this question of stewards' compensation. As far as he saw, if the lord was to get anything under £50 the steward was to get £4. He would like to see it provided that when the lord gained only a few shillings the steward should not gain a few
868
pounds. He thought it would not be impossible to devise a scheme by which a certain number of copyhold tenants might act together so as to reduce the cost. There were many cases in which people would enfranchise if something were to force them, but who would not unless some such compulsion were applied. As to what his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) had said about the public interest being only the interest of those who possessed the land making such arrangement as they pleased; he thought that if a law of tenure was prejudicial to the public interests the public had a right to provide that it should not exist. He was very much struck by what he had seen when taken professionally to a manor on which certain enfranchisements were to take place. As he went along he observed the most striking contrasts. On some holdings there were new, handsome, and costly buildings, while on others the buildings were squalid and mean; and he was able at once to put his finger upon the holdings which had been enfranchised and upon those where no enfranchisement had taken place. He quite admitted, however, that the Bill ought to be carefully scrutinized in Committee.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was willing to admit that they ought to simplify the law so as to make registration of title more possible, and, therefore, he would not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. But he must demur to what his noble Friend in charge of the Bill had said as to the burning desire of copyholders to enfranchise land. With regard to what his noble and learned Friend had said about the unimproved condition of the buildings on unfranchised holdings, he would observe that the laws gave the copyholders a perfect means of securing themselves against the slightestloss or inconvenience arising from their desire to improve. All they had to do was to enfranchise the house on its unimproved value and to improve it afterwards. What probably was the case on the holdings of which his noble and learned Friend had spoken was, that where men had capital they enfranchised and put up good buildings, and where they had not the bad buildings remained. He was aware that there were parts of the country, such as Lancashire, where serious inconvenience

869
did arise under the present state of things. But the returns on the subject were not a sufficient guide as to the number of enfranchisements. It was only the copyholds enfranchised by the Land Commissioners which were given. There were a large number besides which were enfranchised. It was more costly to go to the Land Commissioners than to enfranchise by agreement. It would certainly be a great public advantage if anything could be done to simplify land tenure; but it was not necessary to do anything which would tend by worrying the copyholder to force him into enfranchisement when he did not desire it, and he thought the Bill would have somewhat that effect as it at present stood. If it was thought necessary to compel copyholders to enfranchise, it should be done by a direct Act, with as little expense as possible to the persons interested, and by a law which all classes of persons could clearly understand.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he thought a sense of obligation must be felt by the House and by all those who desired to promote reform of the law, to his noble Friend (Lord Hobhouse) for bringing the subject forward and putting this Bill into the greatly improved form in which it stood. Whether the inconvenience of copyhold tenures was greater or less, all were agreed that it would be a good thing to get rid of them; and this Bill, which would at least accelerate and facilitate their extinction, was therefore a step in the right direction. He hoped that the Bill might emerge from the Select Committee and become law this year.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.

LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
(NO. 7.) COMMITTEE.
House again in Committee (according to order).
Clause 3 (Order for reception of private patients, to be made by County Court Judge, Magistrate, or Justice).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY), on rising to move the Amendments to Clause 3 which he had undertaken to prepare when the Bill was previously in Committee, said, that he
870
had endeavoured to meet the views which many of their Lordships opposite expressed when the subject was before under discussion. He believed Amendments such as he proposed were necessary to make the Bill acceptable and to ensure its being passed into law. He would now move the omission of subsections 9 and 10.
Moved, To omit sub-sections 9 and 10.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Motion agreed to.
Moved, To add the following sub-sections:—
"Upon the presentation of the petition the judge, magistrate, or justice, shall consider the evidence of lunacy appearing by the medical certificates, and whether it is necessary for him personally to see and examine the alleged lunatic, and if he is satisfied that an order may properly be made forthwith he may make the same accordingly. The judge, magistrate, or justice, if not satisfied with the evidence of lunacy appearing by the medical certificate may, if he thinks it necessary so to do, visit the alleged lunatic at the place where he may happen to be. When a lunatic has been received in an asylum, hospital, or house, or as a single patient under an order of a judge of County Courts, magistrate, or justice, and has not been already visited by such judge, magistrate, or justice, the lunatic shall have the right either to be visited by or to be taken before a judge, magistrate, or justice, having jurisdiction within the district, unless the medical superintendent of the asylum or hospital, or the medical proprietor or attendant of the house, or the medical attendant of the single patient, shall sign a certificate in writing that such right would be prejudicial to the lunatic, and shall send the certificate to the judge, magistrate, or justice. If such certificate is not signed the superintendent or proprietor of the asylum, hospital, or house, or the person having charge of the lunatic as a single patient shall, within 24 hours after the lunatic's reception, give him notice in writing of such right, and if the lunatic within seven days after his reception desires to exercise such right, the superintendent, or proprietor, or person having charge of the lunatic as a single patient, shall forthwith give notice in writing thereof to the judge, magistrate, or justice, who shall thereupon either visit the lunatic or procure the lunatic to be brought before him by the superintendent, proprietor, or other person. If any superintendent or proprietor of an asylum, hospital, or house, or any person having charge of a single patient omits to give either of the notices mentioned, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsuggested some verbal Amendments in the new provisions of the Lord Chancellor.
LORD HALSBURYsaid he would undertake to consider the Amendments and to make them, if he could, on the Report stage.

871
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to printed as amended. (No. 34.)

TRURO BISHOPRIC AND CHAPTER ACTS

  AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Bishopric of Truro Act, 1876, and the Truro Chapter Act, 1878—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of Truro; read 1a. (No. 33.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter after Ten o'clock.