Sitting of 12 March 1884

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—First Report—Public Accounts [No. 98].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Vivisection Prohibition* [134]; Beer Adulteration Prevention * [135].
Second Reading—Disused Burial Grounds [46]; Commons and Inclosure Acts Amendment [63], debate adjourned.
Committed to a Select Committee—Copyhold Enfranchisement [7]; Yorkshire Land Registries [24]; Yorkshire Registries * [80], and committed to Select Committee on Yorkshire Land Registries.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Waugh, Mr. George Howard, Mr. Stafford Howard, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Ferguson.)
  COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

    [BILL 7.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. WAUGH, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he would give a brief review of the various efforts made over a long period to sweep away the cumbersome system of copyhold tenure, according to the recommendations of various Commissions and Select Committees on the subject. In 1832 a Royal Commission on Real Property made an elaborate Report, in which they pointed out—
    "That one of the great evils of the tenure arises in the multiplicity and uncertainty of customs in different manors. Each manor had for itself a system of laws to he sought in oral tradition or in the Court Rolls, or proceedings of the customary Court kept often by ignorant and negligent stewards; but the great evil which is universally experienced where this tenure prevails arises from the check to improvement occasioned by the conflicting rights and interests of the lord and the tenant. These directly interfere with the profitable enjoyment of the soil, and eventually diminish the public wealth."
    They were of opinion that enfranchisement should take place by agreement between landlord and tenant, and that no compulsory enfranchisement would work. Legislation on real property followed on this Report, but copyholds could not be touched by any general law. The Dower Act was passed, but that Act did not affect the customary widow's right called "free bench." The Fines and Recoveries Act dealt with copyholds, but so imperfectly that the cost of conveying copyholds was increased. The Inheritance Act was also passed; but that, again, did not affect customary descents. He had known many expensive law suits arising out of customary descents, irregular and contrary to the course of the ordinary Law of Inheritance. In a recent case a man died entitled to a small estate, partly freehold and partly customary, leaving two sisters. The eldest became entitled to the customary land as customary heir, while the freehold land became theirs as co-heiresses in equal shares; but the younger sister
    1272
    put the elder to a cost of more than £600 to prove her customary right. The Wills Act embraced lands of every tenure; but it was not an unmixed good to copyholders. Testators were apt to leave their freeholds and copyholds to two, three, or four trustees, and when that was the case the lord of the manor claimed a fine and a-half and sometimes two fines for the admission of the trustees, greatly increasing the expenses. It was true that the land subject to copyhold tenure was dininishing to some extent; but under the operation of the Wills Act and the division of tenements the mischief was intensified in the shape of fees to stewards. He might instance one estate where a testator left an estate in Wales to his three sons equally; it turned out that about eight acres of it was copyhold, subject to a fine, certain, of £2 5s. to the lord of the manor and one steward's fee, if kept intact; but the steward, as he was entitled to do, admitted each brother to a third, charging them 15 s. each for the lord of the manor and no less than £7 each for his fees, increasing them 200 per cent. and being a perpetual charge of about 2s. 6d. per acre on the lands for fees alone. In another case, a small copyhold tenement was subject to a small rent of 3s. 6d., and to the render of a hen to the lord of the manor annually. The tenement had been divided into 16 parts. The lord of the manor became entitled to 1–16th of a hen from each tenant, but the steward became entitled to 16 full fees. In other words, his fees were increased 1,500 per cent by the division. It was high time that these practices were put down. He might also give instances of the wrong felt by the soizure of heriots by the lord of the manor. In particular, he might mention a case where a gentleman became a trustee of a marriage settlement, and it happened that about an acre only of the land settled was copyhold subject to heriot. The trustee died. He was a horse racer. He had a stable of valuable horses. At his death the lord of the manor came to seize the best horse, which was worth several thousand pounds; but the stableman having persuaded him that a certain horse was the most valuable, he took it away, subsequently discovering that it was aged and blind in one eye. Various attempts had been made to redress the

    1273
    grievances to which he had referred. In 1838 a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject of copyhold tenure, and that Committee recommended that a very short time should be allowed for voluntary enfranchisement, to be followed ultimatey, if it became necessary, by compulsory enfranchisement. This was followed in 1841 by the 4 & 5 Vict. c. 35, appointing Copyhold Commissioners for five years, and it was anticipated that in that time, by commutation and by voluntary enfranchisement, copyholds would disappear. But from 1841 to 1850 the progress towards enfranchisement was very small; and in 1851 another Select Committee collected a mass of evidence on the subject, and they came to the conclusion that semi-compulsory enfranchisement should be tried, but that after a lapse of three years it should be made compulsory on both lord of the manor and tenant. The Commutation Clauses in the Acts of 1841 and 1852 were found to be inoperative, and in 1858 an Act was passed repealing them; and since 1858 nothing further had been done to expedite enfranchisement. In 1881 he brought in his Bill, founded on the recommendations of 1838 and 1851; but the Bill was blocked. Again, in 1882, he introduced it, and he now presented it with amendment to meet objections then raised, more especially by the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton). The hon. and learned Member published a pamphlet on the Bill of 1882, condemnatory of the Mineral Clause introduced into that Bill, which had been left out of the present Bill. The hon. and learned Member, on the general question, wrote as follows:—
    "It has long been a general opinion that it is expedient to promote the gradual enfranchisement of copyholds, and to remove that complexity in our tenures which is the admitted reproach of our law. It is time to do away with the inanities of the 'lawless hour' and the 'whispering court,' the 'shifting acre' and the 'flying fee simple,' the 'ming land' on which the tenures are so mingled that they can never be known, the ridiculous oath of fealty, suit and service, and arbitrary fines and heriots, 'which add a sorrow to death.' "
    The Bill, in fact, was aimed at removing that "added sorrow to death" which the hon. and learned Gentleman so eloquently described. Every Member who desired to simplify the
    1274
    transfer of land and to establish a Land Registry should support the Bill. The chief provisions of the Bill were in the first two clauses, the remaining clauses dealing with details. First, it provided that a lord admitting or enrolling a tenant after December 31st, 1885, should give notice of enfranchisement within 12 months, failing which the land should not be subject to any fine, relief, or heriot, or any subsequent admittance or enrolment. But the lord or tenant might at any time after the date mentioned enfranchise the land under the compulsory provisions of the Acts, incidental expenses apart from compensation to be borne by the lord of the manor. The notice of enfranchisement must be accompanied by an offer to take a certain sum, and that—if accepted by the person to whom the notice was sent—would be the amount of compensation. He had also introduced a clause which would enable a tenant or owner, or a lord, in respect to land rent, liable to a heriot or other manorial incident, to compel the extinguishment of such rent or heriot; but he had not made this compulsory—it was open to either side to get it redeemed. At present there was some doubt about the law on the point; but the wording of the clause made it clear and distinct that every man having or holding land subject to a heriot might get that redeemed. Another matter with which the Bill dealt trenched somewhat on the Ground Game Act. The Saving Clause, which excepted from the operation of that Act any special right of killing or taking ground game to which any person other than the landlord, tenant, or occupier might be entitled, had created many anomalies. In many cases lords of manor had rights to keep up ground game on land to which land they had no right whatever; and in order to prevent any such thing in future this Bill would make the right to game a question of compensation, not of reservation, so that so far as any owner of land was concerned he might give notice to enfranchise the game and pay compensation for it. He would not enter upon further details; but he trusted the House would consent to abolish those anomalous relics of feudalism, which had been so ably condemned by the hon. Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton) in his pamphlet, and would read the Bill a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Waugh.)
    MR. ELTONsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. In his opinion, the exaggerated charges connected with copyholds to which the hon. Member had referred were due, not to the nature of the tenure, but to the rapacity of the steward of the manor. In fact, the steward had no right, by custom, to charge a greater fee than he was entitled to in the reign of Richard I., which was 3s. 4d. for admission, besides the value, quantum meruit, of any services he might render to the entering tenant. He had always found that if objection was made to the demand of the steward the charge was at once reduced to a proper amount. One great objection to the Bill was that under it the copyholder would have to pay £4 for enfranchisement, which many copyholders could ill afford to pay. In the well-known horse case the lord was deceived by the racer's costume being placed upon an old hack, and he was thus led to choose the wrong animal. In that case, by some rare misfortune, the stables must have been erected upon a small plot of copyhold land in the midst of a large freehold estate. For his own part, he had no objection to these ridiculous customs being put an end to. Without relying on archaic illustrations he might say that a copyholder was a lessee under very restrictive and uncertain conditions, and having a fluctuating rent. Under some of those conditions he could not cultivate his land properly, and he was unable to make the best use of his property. He objected to this Bill on several grounds. In the first place, this Bill was a great deal more than a mere little useful copyhold enfranchisement measure, inasmuch as it proposed to compel enfranchisement and to abolish the jurisdiction of every local Court in the country to which people came by any local custom or tenure. It applied not only to Copy-bold Courts, but to Borough Courts, Hundred Courts, and County Courts, in the old sense of the term. The consequence would be that if the Bill passed a multitude of useless and vexatious rights would be called into operation for the purpose of being extinguished. The Bill proposed to abolish all tenures
    1276
    except free and common socage held from the Crown. A great portion of the land of England was held by mesne landlords, whose existence was revealed only by inspecting their charters, but who were practically never seen or heard of. Between the Crown and the actual freeholder of the land there stood this class, having shadowy rights of escheat and jurisdiction. This Bill would awake some 20,000 or 30,000 courts baron, lords of the manor, and seigniors, after the sleep of centuries, who would set going the question as to what the profits of the tenure and the escheat were worth, and he had had personal experience of what were such claims of escheat where railways took land in the North of England. In many such cases, where the right to escheat would not be worth 2s. 6d., it was alleged that, owing to the fact that many of the tenants were illegitimate and did not make wills dealing with their copyholds, the rights of escheat were very valuable. Another objection to the Bill was that the Enfranchisement Clause was unnecessary, inasmuch as a vast amount of enfranchisement of copyholds had taken place, and was taking place, and would always take place whenever the landlord and the tenant could agree upon terms. In such cases as these it was the policy of the law to allow people to remain quiet, and not to force them unnecessarily into litigation. There were an enormous number of manors in which the customs were regulated by Private Acts of Parliament, or by decrees enrolled in the Courts of Exchequer and Chancery. In such cases the fines had been so reduced as to cause no inconvenience at all. When the fines were fixed, either by Act of Parliament, by decree, or by custom, he thought the copyhold tenure ought to be allowed to remain. He thought he had shown that a universal compulsory measure of enfranchisement would produce great hardship in a very large number of cases, especially in the North of England. His next objection to the proposed enfranchisement was that it would be effected in the wrong way. He admitted that he approved several clauses in this Bill, which was a hardy annual, and which he had read for several years in succession; but his approval of those clauses was dependent on the introduction of several other

    1277
    clauses which would entirely alter the scope of the measure. There were three ways of promoting the enfranchisement of the copyholder. It might be done by authorizing the copyholder on every admittance to compel enfranchisement, and we might go so far as to enact that every application by a copyholder should compel him to enfranchise. But this Bill proceeded in exactly the reverse way. It proposed that the victim should execute himself, and pay most of the expenses of the proceeding. The Bill threw the initiative on the lord of the manor, and there were no valid reasons for making him the operating party. He thought it would be found that the greater part of the expense, even when there was an appeal to the discretion of the Commissioners, fell, at present, upon the person who made the application; but now it was proposed to shift that burden to the lord. There were, then, two plans—either the copyholder might be the first person to initiate the proceedings, or the lord might be the first person to initiate them. But there was also a third, and, in his judgment, a better plan. The provisions of a great measure like this, for altering the tenure of land in England, ought to be carried into effect by official machinery. They might be enforced by the Land Commissioners appointing Assistant Commissioners to go round the country and to revert to the old scheme, mentioned by the hon. Member, of commuting by district. That scheme was sanctioned by an Act passed in 1841, but it would not work in consequence of the clumsy way in which the clauses of the Statute were drawn. The Assistant Commissioners ought to ascertain how much it would cost to enfranchise each district, and the expense would probably be found to be so large that it would have to be defrayed out of Imperial Funds. Any Bill for universal compulsory enfranchisement, unless it were effected by means of a Government Commission, must cause very great injustice to a large number of copyholders. He had pointed out some injustices, and there was another which he would now mention. Copyholds were divided into two principal classes. Some copyholders had a perpetual tenant-right, while others had a doubtful or precarious tenant-right. In the North of England the copyholders had succeeded in establishing that they had in future perpetual
    1278
    tenant-right. In the East and the Middle of England the copyholders succeeded in the same way in establishing their tenant-right, but on the condition, as a general rule, of their paying large fines. Then there was a small number of copyholders, whom he might call conventionary copyholders, mostly in Devonshire and Cornwall. He wished to refer also to the West of England tenure, where it was unsettled whether the tenant-right was precarious or perpetual; and it would be highly undesirable to revive a controversy which, on account of its enormous cost, was generally left alone. In many cases, perhaps, it might be settled by showing that the fines were uncertain in amount; but in other cases the fines were relatively certain, as, for instance, where the homage or a third person had to determine what they should be. There was one very famous case of tenants for lives in which their conveyances expressly stated that they only held for life, yet the Lord Chancellor of that time determined that they had a perpetual tenant-right or right to renewal. On the Church estates and the estates belonging to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Colleges, the tenants, as things stood at present, had no right of renewal at all. They were a very worthy and prosperous set of men, resembling the statesmen in the North of England and the yeomen in the West. The Bill would abolish that class of yeomen altogether, inasmuch as everybody who admitted a copyholder hereafter must initiate a proceeding which would give him a fee simple. He maintained that the Bill would not only be unjust to the small copyholders, whom it was proposed to charge with a great part of the cost of valuation, and with the very much exaggerated stewards' fees, but also that it would oppress out of existence a small and meritorious class of peasant holders. He objected to the ultimate appeal being made to the Land Commissioners, because they were likely to treat the claims of the copyholders in a way which was not in accordance with the traditions of the law. The chief object of compulsory enfranchisement was to put the matter in such a groove as to give the lord a right to the minerals. With regard to the minerals, he thought a tribunal had been chosen which disregarded the decisions of the Law Courts. The custom of heriots

    1279
    was, he admitted, an absurd one. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Elton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid. in the first place, he desired to congratulate the House upon having the advantage of the presence of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down. The hon. and learned Member's ability and knowledge of the subject were known to the whole Profession, and it was, therefore, a great advantage to have him in the House. The House had listened with great interest to the very able exposition which he had made on the subject—in fact, the hon. and learned Member, he (Sir William Harcourt) was happy to say, was one of the most advanced land reformers with whom he was acquainted. The speech they had listened to only showed the progress they had made upon these questions, when they found the Conservative Member for West Somerset getting up and delivering sentiments which he (Sir William Harcourt) was afraid would shock the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), whom he saw sitting on the Front Opposition Bench. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also said in a book which he had published that—
    "Our ancestors appear to have been content with this high-prerogative doctrine, this 'skimble-skamble stuff,' to use Hotspur's phrase, notwithstanding that its history was as false as its etymology. They believed, or professed to believe, that all their freehold estates were derived from the caprice or charity of their ancient, masters, and deemed it to be the height of a grand and superlative ingratitude to cry aloud and clamour against their lords, who were nothing else but their good and great benefactors. The Englishman is even now too apt to sit 'in the mire of feudalism;' and he has shown himself willing, as long as agriculture was prosperous, to govern himself and his property according to archaic laws and customs—the antiquarian's quarry and delight—which in many cases ceased to be practically useful before the Kingdom of England was established."
    He thought everybody was agreed that it was time this skimble-skamble stuff" was effectively dealt with. The existing condition of things was of no
    1280
    use to anybody. They were no use to the law, and they were very oppressive to the copyholders. He did not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to condemn compulsory enfranchisement. Indeed, if he were not mistaken, the hon. Gentleman had a Bill of his own for compulsory enfranchisement.
    MR. ELTON: That was a Bill I took an interest in last year.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was sure he might speak of the hon. and learned Gentleman as not an opponent of compulsory enfranchisement. The principle of compulsory enfranchisement had been already adopted by very high authority, and he submitted that the cry of confiscation ought no longer to be heard. He believed this Bill had the sanction of the Land Commissioners, as well as that of the Incorporated Law Society, and, therefore, it could not be said to involve an invasion of the rights of property. While, no doubt, the House would be prepared to give the most careful consideration to all objections that were raised, he suggested that the proper time for their discussion would be in Committee, when these details could be considered more satisfactorily than by the whole House. With regard to heriots, the hon. and learned Member opposite said that the part of the Bill dealing with that subject was unnecessary. For himself he could not controvert the opinion of so great an authority on that point; but, this again, was a proper matter for consideration in Committee. It might be that that part of the Bill was mere surplusage, although he was rather disposed to believe that something more was required than the existing law afforded to get rid of heriots; but, by all means, let them get rid of heriots which involved great inconvenience and injustice. The House had had a very instructive discussion; and it was to be hoped that the hon. and learned Member opposite would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and that either the House, or a Select Committee—which would perhaps be the better course—would have the advantage of his knowledge and learning on that subject, in order to make that a really effective Bill for carrying out the enlightened views on Land Law Reform which the hon. and learned Gentleman had so well expressed.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON, in supporting the Amendment, asked who demanded that Bill? Not the lords of manors, because they could enfranchise now; not the tenants of manors, because they could enfranchise now; not the public, for not a single Petition had been presented for the Bill. No one, in fact, in England wanted the Bill except the Incorporated Society of Solicitors. It was not surprising that they should promote such a measure, because it would commute stewards' fees into solicitors' fees; and if the Bill became law, the amount of money that would pass into the hands of the solicitors of the Kingdom would be counted by hundreds of thousands of pounds. Those who desired the enfranchisement of their copyhold lands could obtain it under the existing law, choosing the time most convenient for themselves; but if enfranchisement were made compulsory by that Bill, it would come upon many of them at once against their will, and they would be required to pay a large sum of money, which many of them had not got in their pockets. If the Bill were really an object of public importance, the money for attaining it ought to be provided by the public, and not by individuals. He desired as much as the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill to simplify tenure. But it would not be simplified by a Bill of 45 clauses, which no one could understand who had not been trained in the law.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he had listened with pleasure and profit to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for West Somersetshire (Mr. Elton), who must, he thought, have left on the mind of the House a distinct impression that our Land Law system still remained very much what it was called 200 years ago by Cromwell—"An ungodly jumble." He had himself seen, near London, a field ploughed up, and yet the trees in it permitted to stand, to the great detriment of agriculture, because the tenure was copyhold. This was a question which materially affected town communities, especially some of the more thriving manufacturing towns of Lancashire. Take, for example, the town of Accrington, which was, perhaps, the most thriving town in all Lancashire. That town was built almost entirely upon copyhold land. Sir James Caird, who was the highest authority on this subject,
    1282
    had declared that the question of Copyhold Enfranchisement affected town even more than agricultural communities. The Copyhold Courts of Lancashire were generally held in April and October; and although the surrender of a copyhold might take place on the 1st of May, the succeeding Court would not be held till the following October, and the Rule would not be returned to the new possessor until the April of the following year. Thus, under the ordinary circumstances of the sale of copyhold land, eleven months might elapse between the time of the surrender and the taking of possession by the new tenant. It frequently happened that copyhold plots of land, consisting simply of patches of about 500 square yards, were mortgaged, and when the mortgagee died there had to be presented to the jury of the Copyhold Court what was called an inquisition. This jury was generally composed of men without knowledge on the subject, and the chairman of the jury would bargain with the solicitor representing those interested in the land as to how much was to be given to the jury for signing the inquisition, and it invariably happened that that money was spent in drink or in dinner. [Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!] The hon. and learned Member for Bridport might think that an admirable system of land tenure. He did not. The reasons why they ought to make progress with this subject was very evident. He agreed with much the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset said as to the somewhat cumbrous machinery of this Bill. He should have been very glad if the present Bill had been simpler. Sir James Caird, the Chief Commissioner, whose opinion in regard to the compulsory enfranchisement of copyhold carried great weight, said that the measure which he would prefer and which would be the simplest would be that in a term of years, say 30 years, the power of enfranchising copyholds should cease, and that all copyhold lands should then be freehold. That undoubtedly was a very simple method of dealing with the question. For his part, he should prefer to see the period of 30 years reduced to 10 years, and that during the period of 10 or 30 years, as the case might be, either lords or tenants might make use of the compulsory powers of enfranchisement that existed. At the expiration of the

    1283
    period which might be fixed he thought that all copyhold land should become freehold. The great objection he had to the Bill, however, was that it gave no indication of the time at which there would be an absolute extinction of copyhold tenure, and he hoped that in Committee a definite term would be decided on.
    MR. C. S. READsaid, that in the County of Norfolk there was still a large amount of copyhold land. He remembered that when the Copyhold Enfranchisement Act was passed it was believed that at the end of 20 years all the copyhold land would become freehold. They had not seen much of the vexatious action of copyhold tenure when the manors were in possession of the landed proprietors in the neighbourhood. Unfortunately, however, it had been the custom for many years past that wherever a manor was announced for sale a speculative lawyer came forward as a purchaser, and then the position of copyhold tenants was by no means pleasant. It seemed to him that the lord of the manor was a man of kingly prerogative. No length of time seemed, apparently, to bar his rights. In his part of the country he had this distinct advantage. If there was a piece of copyhold land lying in the middle of the estate, it was for the tenant to prove what portion of it was freehold, and the lord of the manor could claim the best portion of the estate as representing his copyhold. The very pith of the question was to distinguish between what was copyhold and what freehold. As an illustration of the injustice of this Copyhold Law, he might mention that 40 years ago a relative of his had a common allotment made to him of half an acre of land. His relative was a very good farmer, but a very bad lawyer. He concluded that because the other allotments were freehold his was the same. The allotment of half an acre was covered with furze, and its value was about 10 s. a-year. It was cultivated as a garden, and then his friend proceeded to build a house upon the ground. After he died the lord of the manor came down upon his representatives and compelled them to be admitted as copyhold tenants. The result was that in order to enfranchise this small piece of ground and the buildings thereon the representatives were compelled to pay
    1284
    £200; whereas if it had been known that the ground was copyhold it could at first have been enfranchised for £5 or £ 10. In a case where the copyhold tenure was fine-certain, he did not think there was anything to complain of in the law respecting it. That was an easy method of recording the title to it, and there was only a small quit-rent to pay. But the great majority of copyholds in Norfolk were fine-arbitrary in their character, and the result was that the lord of the manor, upon the admission of a new tenant, always demanded two years' improved rental. Another curious part of the story was that if the cultivation of a piece of copyhold land was foul or neglected, and the buildings became in any way dilapidated, instead of the lord of the manor receiving the two years' disimproved rental, he maintained that this condition of affairs had been brought about by the waste of the tenant, and therefore persisted, and generally succeeded, in getting two years' rental as if the ground had been in a good state of cultivation. He was clearly of opinion that this copyhold tenure was a great hindrance to agricultural improvement. Farmers and others could not improve or build upon their land without subjecting themselves to an increased fine. It was therefore from the agricultural point of view that he supported the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. HASTINGSagreed with what had been said with regard to this Copyhold Law being a considerable hindrance to agricultural progress. He ventured, however, to point out another great social question in which copyhold tenure constituted a distinct hindrance to improvement in respect to its bearing on the transfer and the tenure of land. That question was the housing of the working classes. He was quite certain that wherever land was held under copyhold tenure in the vicinity of growing towns it was a distinct hindrance to the proper housing of the population. He would give the House an instance of this within his own knowledge. A few years ago, within his own constituency, and near a growing town, a piece of land amounting to 10 acres was sold for building purposes. It was proposed to erect on this piece of land houses for artizans. In the course of the building operations the land was divided into 40 quarter acres. When it had been so

    1285
    divided, and when the houses had been erected, the lord of the manor came forward and claimed 40 heriots in the place of the one heriot to which he had been before entitled. He submitted that a system which permitted an injustice of that kind must necessarily operate to restrict, if not prevent, the building operations which were needed for the proper housing of the working classes. He would give another instance of hardship and oppression also taken from his own constituency. A dairyman owned a small piece of copyhold land, and earned his living by keeping three cows. He died and left a widow and three children. His widow was anxious to provide for the children by carrying on the business of the dairy. Before this could be done, however, the lord of the manor came down and seized as heriot the best of the three cows, and the woman was consequently ruined. She became a bankrupt. No doubt this was an exceptional case; but if he had no other reason for giving his hearty support to the Bill of his hon. Friend, this reason, in his opinion, would be sufficient—that it would make a clean sweep of an old and barbarous custom, which was opposed to civilization and the interests of the people. Any system of law or land tenure which permitted oppression of the kind he had mentioned was one which the House ought, in the best interests of the landowners themselves, at once to sweep
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, if his hon. and learned Friend went to a Division on this matter he should be compelled to support him in voting against this Bill. He was perfectly aware of the difficulties which surmounted the question of copyhold tenure, especially with reference to large towns. In the North of England, where he resided, and where there was a large number of copyholds, no difficulty was experienced. As a rule, the fines were small; and certainly the title was always very clear. With reference to the observation that fell from the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) to the effect that the country people knew nothing at all about the matter, he thought he was correct in saying that the remark had no reference, at least, to the part of England with which he was more intimately connected. He had never heard of the smallest difficulty being felt in the matter. At the same
    1286
    time, he was one of those who would be glad to see the system of land tenure in every way simplified, and the cheaper the law could possibly make this transfer of land the better he thought it would be for all parties. He thought the Bill the House was discussing was a very cumbrous one, and that if it was passed into law he felt sure that the result would be disastrous so far as expense was concerned. He could not agree with the suggestion that had been made that copyholds should become freeholds after a period of 30 years. In that case the promoters of the Bill would really subject themselves to a charge of confiscation. He did not approve any such proposition as that made by the hon. Member for Salford, or Sir James Caird, because he thought it was an invasion of the rights of property. In reference to the provisions of the Bill dealing with the enfranchisement of land, and the disputes that were likely to arise between the tenant and the lord of the manor, he could not conceive anything more likely to create a greater amount of litigation from one end of the country to the other. If there was any body of men who were likely to reap any advantage from the Bill he believed it would be the solicitors who were engaged in settling the disputes. The subject of the measure was of such importance that it should be dealt with, not by a private Member, but by the Government. Such large interests throughout the country would be affected that no private Member could possibly hope, nor should he be allowed, to carry through the measure. And in the event of a Bill of this kind passing, the only way in which the enfranchisement of copyholds could be brought about would be by the appointment of a Commission especially charged with the duty of carrying it into effect; and this Commission should have Assistant Commissioners to go through the country carrying out the work of enfranchisement. If the thing were left to the stewards, the temptation would be too great for them, and the law charges would be enormous. The question of minerals should be made perfectly clear in any Bill of this kind, and they could not take the lord's rights away without giving him compensation; and yet if they came to value them they would find it a very difficult thing to do. If the minerals were to be handed over to the tenant, it might be that he would find

    1287
    himself to pay a much larger sum than he could possibly afford. This question, in short, was left in such obscurity, and would lead to so much litigation, that if his hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Somerset persisted in his opposition to the Bill he should feel himself compelled to vote with him.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, it had been his lot to deal with copyholds in various capacities. He had officiated as steward of a manor, and he had to act in another case for the tenants. Nothing was more unpleasant to him in the whole of his professional career than the stewardship of a copyhold estate. He got rid of his difficulties, however, in the one case by the enfranchisement of the copyhold, and in the other case by his duties being transferred to another. To some members of his profession, copyhold stewardships might be more profitable than they were to him; but he believed that the majority of gentlemen who held the office of steward would be glad to see copyholds enfranchised on reasonable terms. Objection had been taken to the compulsory powers of the Bill; but by some hon. Members it seemed to have been forgotten that compulsory powers were in existence now. The Bill, therefore, did not embody a new principle in the direction of compulsion. The measure might possibly act prejudicially to small copyholders; but this could be guarded against by the Committee to whom the Bill would be referred in the event of its being now read a second time; and it might be deemed by the Committee desirable to confine the operation of the Bill to copyhold tenure of a certain amount. Attached to many copyholds, particularly to those he was acquainted with in his own county, there was a peculiar tenure, known as borough English, by which an estate descended to the youngest instead of the eldest son, and it created very considerable difficulty. Supposing a gentleman who held an estate partly freehold and partly copyhold died intestate, the freehold portion of the estate would go to the eldest son, and the copyhold portion, which might be in the very centre of the estate, to the youngest son. He could not conceive anything that would lead to a prettier family quarrel than the separation of an estate in such a manner. Then, again, fines were difficult to settle, and they led to considerable squabbling and contention in the assessment of them. He did
    1288
    not attach much importance to the stewards' demands, because, as a rule, stewards wore not so exacting as seemed to be imagined. If a steward were too exacting an appeal was provided by the Bill. There was another matter dealt with by the Bill, that of quit-rents and heriots. The latter, as was well known, was the right to the best beast of a deceased, and instances had been given him of the seizure of these by the bailiff of the manor whilst the corpse was un-buried, and under the very windows of the room where it was lying. It was high time that a custom involving such deplorable consequences should be put an end to. Upon the whole, he (Mr. Gregory) considered the Bill a valuable one, and he hoped it would be referred to a Select Committee competent to deal with all the questions which might be raised. He was prepared to vote for the second reading of the Bill, in the hope that they would be able to put copyholds upon a fair and reasonable footing, that they would be able to abolish the system of heriots, and that they would be able to get rid of the objectionable tenures which many copyholds involved.
    MR. DODDSsaid, that on every occasion when Bills of this description were introduced they had been brought under the consideration of the Incorporated Law Society, which made suggestions for their improvement, and he believed that the present measure had the approval of the Society, at all events in its main principles and provisions. A great portion of the property in the County of Durham was of copyhold tenure, held under the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and in respect to such property it was found that the cost of conveyancing was a great disadvantage. He had enfranchised under the existing system several copyholds, some belonging to himself and some to other persons, and he believed that a necessity did exist for the Bill of the hon. Member for Cockermouth. He, therefore, hoped that it would be read a second time, and would then be referred to a Select Committee, by whom the details could be satisfactorily settled.
    MR. TYSSEN AMHERSTsaid, that, while he did not consider himself justified in opposing the Bill, he was of opinion that the proposed changes would not benefit the tenant; indeed, it would be a great hardship on him at the present moment to be called upon to meet

    1289
    the necessary expenses. This was not a Bill to promote enfranchisement, but to compel it. As the law stood at present, it was in the option either of the lord of the manor or of the tenant to compel enfranchisement. He, therefore, held that a great deal of the Bill was entirely unnecessary. Why should it be made compulsory on both parties to enfranchise whether they considered it for their own interests or not? One of the principal reforms of recent legislation with regard to land tenure was the simplification of title; but one of the best registrations of title was that of copyhold tenure. Again, the tendency of recent legislation was to relieve the present tenant for life from burdens; whereas the effect of the Bill would be to increase the burdens to which he was subjected. It appeared to him that there would be endless litigation under the Bill when it came to a matter of questioning rights.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he could not share in the view of the Home Secretary that this was a measure which could be objected to only as regarded details. A good deal of the very able speech of his hon. and learned Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill was very properly directed to matters of detail; and, no doubt, should the Bill proceed further, a great deal of attention would have to be given to such questions. But the hon. Member who had introduced the Bill had wholly failed to show that any person in the position of a copyholder who desired to be relieved from that status, and to acquire his estate in fee simple, was unable to do so under the existing law. He ventured to think that the object of Parliament ought to be to simplify procedure and diminish costs. This Bill, however, would largely increase costs. With reference to the question of minerals, the Bill of 1882 distinctly reserved the right of a lord of the manor to come upon the land dealt with under the Bill to search for and, if need be, to work minerals on payment of the proper compensation to the tenant for so doing. He should like to know why that clause had been omitted from the present Bill? The fact of its omission had not unnaturally created some anxiety in the minds of those who had a shrewd suspicion that there was something underlying the scheme which the House knew nothing about. He had heard it suggested that the clause had been left out in consequence of, and in de-
    1290
    ference to, the suggestion of those who were interested parties; and he should be very glad to have that impression removed. Why should the lord and the copyholder be compelled to enter into expensive proceedings? If either party could, at his own instance, set the machinery of the existing law in motion, who was aggrieved by the status quo? Those who might take advantage of the opportunity of benefiting themselves by the scale of fees were, as far as he could see, the only persons who were interested in the promotion of the Bill. The existing law allowed either party to terminate a copyhold tenure at his discretion; but he could not think why the House should be asked to place obligations on a class of Her Majesty's subjects for no object whatever except to establish a sentimental uniformity. He hoped the House would not adopt a scheme of this kind.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he regretted the want of spirit shown by some Members of the House. When a Bill had been shown to be unnecessary, and was altogether weak and absurd, yet they had not the determination to oppose it. There were some people who would not stand up for their own interests, because they were afraid someone would blame them for so doing. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. C. S. Bead) had argued against the Bill by saying that copyhold was sometimes an admirable tenure, and that the title was simple and convenient; but because he was lord of several manors he stated that he should not vote against it. Valuable property was lost because many hon. Members had not the nerve to stand up and oppose Bills which they knew to be mischievous in their character. The Incorporated Law Society had been spoken of in the debate. That was a Society of solicitors, who would receive the most benefit from the Bill. The scheme was warmly supported by solicitors, because it meant an increase of costs. The prospect must be delightful to the Incorporated Law Society. The entire object of the Bill was "Costs, costs, costs." Even where a mortgage had been given, by this Bill they were to come in and raise a new charge, by compelling the tenant to be enfranchised whether he would or not.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that the question of minerals, which had been dealt with in the Bill of the previous Session and omitted in this, was one,

    1291
    not only of the greatest importance, but one which was of great difficulty, and had operated to diminish the number of enfranchisements. The law now empowered either party to compel the other to enfranchise the land, and the only explanation of the slowness of enfranchisement was that it was for the interest of both lord and tenant not to enfranchise. The Bill was of an ill-digested and incomplete character. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had told them that Sir James Caird, a great authority on the subject, had put forward a totally different scheme. That seemed a reason for not supporting the present Bill. He thought they had better wait for that. He would oppose the second reading of the Bill, not because he admired the copyhold tenure, but because the Bill did not provide a satisfactory mode of dealing with it.
    MR. W. LOWTHERsaid, he was anxious to prolong the discussion until the House got an answer from the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) to the questions which had been addressed to him during the debate.
    MR. WAUGH, in reply, said, if the Bill were sent to a Select Committee he would be able to satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite that it would diminish the costs of enfranchisement more than 100 per cent. perhaps 200 per cent in some cases. He did not propose to meddle with the minerals at all; and he might state that he regretted having, in a weak moment, introduced a clause on this subject into the Bill of 1882. Many of the tenants strongly objected to that provision on the ground that it would interfere with their rights. If he was asked why he proposed to interfere with the status quo, his reply was the expenses of enfranchisement were so great at present that many tenants were deterred from undertaking it. He believed that the Bill now before the House would meet the general wishes with regard to the whole question of copyhold.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 41: Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 36.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

YORKSHIRE LAND REGISTRIES BILL.— [BILL 24.]
(Mr. Dodds, Mr. Charles Palmer, Mr. Barran, Mr. Isaac Wilson.)
YORKSHIRE LAND REGISTRIES BILL.— [BILL 24.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. DODDS, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the House was aware that a general system of registering deeds had prevailed in certain parts of the County of York for a considerable period, the Acts by which the system was established having been passed in the early part of the 18th century. The first Act was passed in I703, and related to the West Biding of Yorkshire, and in 1706 an Act was passed amending it. In 1707 its principles were extended to the East Biding of Yorkshire, and in 1734 a similar Act was passed for the North Biding. By the operation of these several Acts a system of registering deeds, wills, and other documents affecting the titles of the property in the principal portions of Yorkshire came into existence; but it was not a little remarkable that none of the Acts applied to the City of York or the district of Ainsty surrounding that City, although these portions were situated in the heart of the County. The Acts were very similar in character, the West Biding being the principal, and the others were subordinated to it. The only important difference between the various Acts was, that whereas in the North Biding it was permissible to register a deed or any other document in full length, or by way of memorial, in the other two Ridings deeds could be registered by memorial only. The laws had remained unaltered from 1734; but it did not, therefore, follow that there had not been great and very general dissatisfaction with these Acts in many particulars. One of the greatest objections to them was that the Registrars were appointed by freeholders whose properties were of the annual value of at least £100, and the result had been that when there were vacancies very considerable expenses had been incurred, and the charges levied were made heavier than were necessary for the proper discharge of the duties of the offices. The Registrars had not had any legal qualifications for the offices; but these offices had become sinecures for members of the principal County families. Another

  1293
  ground of dissatisfaction was that it was necessary that one of the attesting witnesses should attend at the place in the Riding where the deeds were registered to be sworn for the execution of the documents if the parties resided in the Riding or within 40 miles of the Riding. If they resided beyond that distance, then the deeds might be registered by affidavit. Last year the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Pease) introduced a Bill dealing with the registration by affidavit and other points, and as far as it went it was satisfactory to the public and to the Legal Profession; but the general feeling was that it did not go sufficiently far, and that when legislation took place some other changes should be effected, especially with reference to the appointments of Registrars. At the instigation of several Law Societies in Yorkshire, he (Mr. Dodds) prepared several Amendments to the hon. Member's Bill, and placed them on the Paper; but owing to the feeling that the old Acts should be repealed and re-enacted, with such Amendments as the change of circumstances and time made necessary, the Bill was not proceeded with. That feeling was increased by the fact that Mr. Marsden, the late solicitor for the West Riding, and residing at Wakefield, had prepared a Bill for the repeal of the existing Acts. and the consolidation of the whole into one. He (Mr. Dodds) was then asked to take the step he was doing that day; and consequently, before the Prorogation of Parliament last year, he gave Notice of his intention to introduce the present Bill. Steps were taken to prepare it, and during the antumn an intimation was sent to him that the Justices assembled at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions had determined that they should take up the subject. Under these circum stances, the Law Societies in the North Riding waited to see the course which the Justices would take; and had the Justices dealt with the matter in the way it was thought necessary, probably he should not have been proceeding with the present measure. At the Christmas Sessions he found that a Report from a Committee of Justices appointed in October was presented and adopted by the Justices of the West Riding; but the Justices of the North and East Ridings adopted a totally different course, and in the face of their own Committee's recommendations passed resolu-
  1294
  tions condemning the proposal to abolish the election by £100 freeholders, and sought to vest it in the County Justices until a county authority should be formed, when it should be vested in that authority. If there was an adequate county authority, he, for one, should not be unwilling to accept it; but he was unwilling to agree to a course which, instead of leaving the appointments to the £100 freeholders, of whom no register existed, would transfer them to the magistrates at the different Quarter Sessions. That would result in the continuance of the appointment of gentlemen highly honourable in every way, but having no legal qualifications for the offices, and in whose hands the offices became sinecures. Under these circumstances, he was again appealed to to complete the Bill; and accordingly this measure had been prepared by the eminent counsel who had prepared the Bill which Mr. Marsden had some years ago promoted at the direction of the Justices of the West Riding, and also the Bill prepared for the Justices of the same Riding, which was rejected by those of the North and East Riding. He believed the Bill had the approval of almost everyone connected with the three Ridings. It was divided into two portions—the first relating to the Law of Registration, and the second to the administration of the law. As regarded the Law of Registration, while there were some not unimportant differences, generally speaking the clauses were very similar to what had existed, and to what had been approved of by the Justices of the West Riding. When the hon. Member for Whitby introduced his Bill last year, it was thought desirable to have a Return from the different Registrars showing the amount of fees received during the preceding 10 years; and that Return gave full information as to the receipts from the registration of deeds and documents in the various Ridings, and as to the expenditure connected with it. The first clause to which he would draw the attention of the House had reference to the memorials. The registration of memorials was the common practice, because they were shorter than the deeds, it being only required that they should give the leading portions of the deed, such as the date it was executed, the names and descriptions of the parties to it, the property to which it referred, and the mode in which it had been executed,

  1295
  the parties by whom it had been attested, and the mode in which it had been attested. When that was done the memorial required to be signed and sealed by one of the parties to the deed, and that signing and sealing was required to be attested by two witnesses, who also attested the same signature to the deed itself; and then came the onerous provision requiring personal attendance, if it was executed in the Riding or within 40 miles of it. Another onerous provision was that the memorial should be on parchment with a half-crown stamp, so that it cost 5s. The whole charges practically amounted to about, or a little more than, £3. In the Bill it was proposed that the memorial should be written upon a sheet of paper and attested by one witness, and that when that was done it should be sent to the Registry by post to be entered. If that was adopted, it would reduce the total charges to about, £1. That seemed a small sum in the registration of deeds in any large transaction; but when they came to cases such as existed in that portion of his own borough, situated within the county of York, and in the Cleveland District, where working men had built for themselves cottages, then, where the cost of the land was from £10 to £20, and the cost of conveyancing was about £5, the addition of £3 for registration was a very heavy and serious matter. The appointment of the Registrar not only affected the £100 freeholders, but these working men, who had no voice in the matter. There were some very important provisions with regard to caveats and other matters which he would not refer to; but he would remark that some of the clauses had been accepted by all parties. He thought he might say that the greater portion of the first part of the Bill was what, he believed, would be acceptable to the House generally, and would be acceptable to the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Dundas), who had given Notice to refer this and the other Bill referring to Yorkshire Registries to a Select Committee; but when they came to the other portion of the Bill they diverged from each other, and proceeded on distinct and different lines. The first point upon which they differed was the principle upon which the Registry Offices should be conducted. He (Mr. Dodds) had come to the conclusion that the best course to adopt would be to ask Her Majesty's Govern-
  1296
  ment to make these Registries public offices, instead of, as at present, being vested either in the Registrars for the time being or with the Justices of the Ridings. He desired them to be under the management of the First Commissioner of Works, as the Post Offices and County Courts were. His next proposal was that the person to be appointed to the office of Registrar should in future be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. He supposed it would be said that the Lord Chancellor would make it a "job;" but he did not believe anything of the kind. He had inserted a Proviso that the person selected should be a solicitor of at least 10 years' standing, and must give up all private practice, so as to devote himself entirely to the duties of the office for an adequate salary. He saw no objection, however, to the Registrar holding such a semi-public office as Deputy Clerk of the Peace, or Registrar of a County Court. It had been suggested that a barrister should be appointed to the place; but his objection to giving the Lord Chancellor that power was that it would result in no solicitor being appointed at all. ["No!"] At any rate, it was his experience that barristers were appointed in nine cases out of ten where they could be appointed. His whole object, however, would be gained if the Bill provided that a fit and proper person should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. He did not object to the hon. Member for Northallerton (Mr. G. W. Elliot) taking the office if he liked. All he objected to was the system which had been pursued. The last election in the West Riding took place in 1863. There was no record of what the cost was; but the belief in and around Wakefield was that it cost something like £20,000. He believed that was very near the mark. The present Registrar was a gentleman who was respected by everyone who knew him, and no more honourable man could be found for the post than the Hon. George Lascelles. His objection, therefore, was not to Mr. Lascelles; it was that he lived near Northallerton, 50 or 60 miles from Wakefield, and was seldom seen at the Registry Office at all. The whole expenses of the office amounted to £1,300; and the Return moved for by the hon. Member for Whitby showed that in some years Mr. Lascelles had received £6,000, so that he had, for a sinecure, netted £4,700.

  1297
  During the 10 years covered by the Return, the amount received in fees, &c, by the Registrar, was not short of £48,000; and, in addition to that, there was something for the building and property connected with the office; but the gross amount of the expenses during that period was only £11,700, so that during the 10 years Mr. Lascelles had netted £36,000 clear for discharging the duties of an office which he had scarcely ever seen. If they took the 10 preceding years it would be within the mark to say that Mr. Lascelles had taken, at least, £70,000 clear in 20 years. Was that a state of things which ought to continue? In the North Riding a contest for the Registrarship took place in 1829 between Mr. Peirse, the owner of a very fine property within a few miles of Northallerton, and the possessor of some of the best collieries in the county of Durham, and Mr. Walton, a solicitor, of Northallerton. The contest lasted for six months, and, after the poll had been kept open for several days, Mr. Walton eventually retired. The cost of the election to Mr. Peirse was not less than £50,000, and the result was that within four years he had to sell the home of his ancestors and all his collieries; his family was almost penniless, and he was thus ruined. The cost to Mr. Walton was so serious that he shortly afterwards became bankrupt. Mr. Peirse only held the office a few years, when, upon his death, his son was elected to succeed him without opposition. In the year 1872 a contest was fought for the office between Mr. Crompton and Mr. (now Sir) George Cayley, and the belief was that they spent several thousands between them. During the 10 years Sir George Cayley had held the office his receipts had amounted to something like £10,500. The total expenses did not exceed £2,900, so that Sir George had netted something like £8,000. He, too, resided 60 miles from the Registry. In the East Riding there had been several expensive contests, and the last Registrar discharged all the duties by deputy, and was Resident Land Agent upon a large estate situate nearly 100 miles from Beverley. Since the last election, however, about two years ago, the office had been held by a gentleman who, to his credit, discharged its duties himself. He thought he had shown that the plan which the Justices advocated was not one which
  1298
  ought to be continued. It was his opinion that the salaries proposed in the Bill were much in excess of what would be required for procuring the services of really competent men, who would give their time and attention to this work solely, or in connection with other offices of a public character. Adequate salaries would be paid, to be fixed from time to time by the Treasury, and to be varied as circumstances required, and the gentlemen appointed would hold office during good behaviour. If any complaint arose against them there would be some person to whom it could be submitted, such as the Lord Chancellor. The question of fees would be left entirely to the Treasury, the Bill merely proposing that the amounts should be sufficient to cover the cost of the offices, including the salaries of the Registrars, but that there should be no surplus left for the Treasury. The offices would be made self-supporting; but, at the same time, those who used the Registers would not be taxed more than was necessary. At present the fees did not average more than 5s. for each registration; but the Return in the hands of hon. Members showed that the amount might very well be reduced by one-half without interfering with the self-supporting character of the offices. It was not proposed to interfere in any way with the gentlemen who at present held the offices. Looking at the respect with which vested interests were treated in the House, his desire was to make satisfactory provision for the future in the interests of the public, and especially of those who had small transactions with the Registrars. With regard to the registration of deeds and titles, if what he proposed affected the subject at all, it would be in the direction of carrying out the object the Government had in view. It would certainly not retard any change that it might be desired to bring about, but would leave the course clear and open for it. The hon. Member (Mr. Dundas) had a Bill on the subject dealt with in the present measure; and it would, perhaps, be a convenient course to allow both Bills to be read a second time, and then to refer them to a Select Committee. The matter was one of an important public character, and it would be well if the Government would take up both Bills, and, as a result of the Committee, bring in a measure of their own on the subject.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
  MR. WARTONopposed the Bill. The hon. Member for Stockton desired, under cover of an extensive measure, merely to work out one single clause, caring nothing about the question of the registration of deeds and titles.
  MR. DODDSsaid, he had made no statement to that effect.
  MR. WARTONcomplained that the hon. Member interrupted him merely for the sake of the pleasure he got out of an interruption. The hon. Member did not care whether there was to be a registration of titles or not. The Bill was objectionable on several grounds. In the first place, because it was a disfranchisement of the rights of the freeholder; in the next place, because local feeling was against it; and, further, because it would give patronage to a Member of the Government who would not be so well able to exercise it as the people in the localities concerned. His fourth objection to the Bill was that solicitors were nominated for the appointments. On all these grounds, he thought the obnoxious 31st clause ought not to be accepted. Therefore, he moved the rejection of the measure.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. DUNDASsaid, that the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), in introducing the Bill before the House, had referred to another Bill which had been introduced; and as he (Mr. Dundas) was one of the Gentlemen who had introduced it, perhaps he might be allowed to say a few words upon the matter. By the existing law various duties were cast upon the Justices; and, considering the nature of those various duties, they had thought it their duty to prepare and introduce a Bill upon this question into the House. They accordingly did so, and that Bill had been introduced. The hon. Member for Stockton, he should have thought, under these circumstances, would not have considered it necessary to have introduced a Bill himself; but he had, however, thought fit to do so. When he (Mr. Dundas) came to look at it, he found that it con-
  1300
  tained 43 clauses, and that out of them 37 clauses were in form and substance identical with those of the Bill which had been introduced by the Justices. He considered it a very high testimonial to his proposal that the hon. Member should have thought right to have adopted those clauses. With regard to the office of Registrar, there was no doubt that the present condition of things was an anomaly, and could not be upheld even by those who objected to the disfranchisement of the freeholders. It had been suggested that some system of voting papers would reduce the expenses of the election; but he himself saw great difficulty in such a system. The hon. Member for Stockton had said that Mr. Lascelles had not been near his office; but he (Mr. Dundas) knew Mr. Lascelles was a magistrate for the West Riding, and always satisfied himself that the work in the office was being carried on in a satisfactory manner. Although the post of Registrar was to some extent a sine-cure, yet it entailed very great responsibility, he being liable to make good any loss or damage that might arise. With regard to the administration of the office, it was suggested that the Lord Chancellor should appoint the Registrar, and that the expenses should be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund. That was an intelligible proposition, and something might be said for it if the Government were intending to initiate a system of land registry throughout the country; but he was not aware that they proposed to do any such thing. He would also like to point out that, to a great extent, the success of a system of registration depended on the indexes. The Lord Chancellor was to regulate the forms and fees; but he ventured to doubt, as there was no Local Body to move the Lord Chancellor, whether a very efficient control would be exercised. If the power of making rules were vested in Local Bodies like the local County Boards, subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor, even those Bodies would be able to put the Lord Chancellor in motion, and he thought efficiency would be secured. If the present Bill applied to all England, and not Yorkshire only, he did not suppose any objection would be raised to it. But the Bill was not general, and in Yorkshire there would be a strong local sentiment against the proposed centralization in the

  1301
  matter of patronage and control. For his part, he had no other desire than that the House should pass a good measure; and if this Bill, and also his own Bill, were referred to a Select Committee, he had no doubt that the right of the freeholders and the whole question of patronage would be thoroughly and justly dealt with to the satisfaction of all parties. He was of opinion that the point could not be satisfactorily decided and discussed on the second reading; and if the Bill were read a second time, he should then move the Amendment of which he had given Notice—namely, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid he thought the House ought to have some explanation as to why two Bills should be brought forward on the same subject. His hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Mr. Dundas) had explained that the Bill of which he had the charge had been approved of by the Courts of Quarter Sessions of the three Ridings of Yorkshire; and in those circumstances the House was entitled to an explanation of why another Bill had been introduced on the subject. If the Bill of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) differed in any material respect from the other he could understand it; but, as far as he saw it, the two Bills were practically, and for the most part verbally, identical, except on the question of patronage. What he most strongly objected to in the Bill of the hon. Member for Stockton was the establishment of a system of centralization. They were told that the patronage of the appointment of the Registrar must be handed over to a central authority in London, and he must refer to their previous experience in that respect. The House had last Session vested certain important patronage in the hands of the Executive Government, receiving a distinct pledge that under no conditions should that trust be abused, and that Party politics should be wholly eliminated in the exercise of that patronage. He should incur the risk of being called to Order if he were to say how great was the disappointment which was felt in that House as to the manner in which those pledges had been kept and the patronage administered. The hon. Member for Stockton not only vested the patronage in the Lord Chancellor, but he did not even consider the local
  1302
  authorities of Yorkshire competent to take charge of the building where the duties of the office were to be performed, and proposed to vest the custody of those buildings in the Crown. He thought he might undertake to say that the freeholders and other inhabitants of Yorkshire considered themselves personally able to take care of those buildings without the help of any central authority. The hon. Member not only vested the patronage of the Bill after the failure of the Bankruptcy Act in the hands of the Executive Government; but he also proposed to fetter the choice of that Representative of the Executive Government, and to provide that no person should be fitted to be appointed unless he was a member of the profession to which the hon. Member himself belonged. He should have thought they might have hoped that after recent experiences there would be one particular branch of that profession who would be already satiated with the Governmental patronage, and that election agents who had devoted their services to one particular Party in the State need not hope for another turn in the wheel of fortune. He thought they must be careful in future how they handed over to the Government of the day a series of such appointments, particularly under the conditions he had referred to. The hon. Member had referred to Mr. Marsden as approving of the Bill. Mr. Marsden was a gentleman deservedly held in high esteem, not only in his own immediate district, but throughout Yorkshire, and' his opinion would always command respectful consideration. But he (Mr. J. Lowther) had the highest authority for saying that Mr. Marsden decidedly objected to the proposal to vest the patronage under the Bill in a central authority in London. The Bill was entirely uncalled for, and might be very judiciously laid aside in favour of the one of the hon. Member for Richmond, which had the greater weight of authority on its side. He had gathered from the hon. Member for Richmond's speech that some terms had been exacted from the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of the North Riding under which the two Bills were to be read a second time and referred to the same Select Committee. As a Member of the Court of Quarter Sessions of the North Riding, his belief was that that Court would entertain the strongest pos-

  1303
  sible objection to the hon. Member for Stockton's Bill; and he had, moreover, every reason to believe that the same feeling pervaded the Courts of the other two Ridings; and the only reason why he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing against that Bill was that those who had the more legitimate measure in their charge might fear that that course would raise obstacles in their path, and that it might be more prudent to allow the hon. Member for Stockton's Bill to go before the Select Committee, in the confident belief that they would really hear no more of it. He thought any attempt to perpetuate the very anomalous system of constituency which now existed would be most undesirable. The expenses of the election under the present system must necessarily be very great, while the compilation of a Registry of freeholders was an almost impossible task. He hoped that the Bill which was supported by the Justices would find its way into law, and that the measure before the House would disappear.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that, in the absence of the Home Secretary, it devolved upon him to offer a few remarks on that Bill. He had been Chairman of a Select Committee of that House which had, five years ago, sat on the subject of land transfer, and thoroughly examined the question. That Committee carefully investigated all the different systems of local and provincial Registries; and they came almost unanimously to the conclusion that the Yorkshire Registry, although, of course, as might be expected of a system which was established 180 years ago and had not been altered, it was capable of great improvement, yet it was one that few Yorkshiremen would like to see done away with, thus presenting a remarkable contrast to the case of the Middlesex Registry, which was unhesitatingly condemned by every witness. The Yorkshire system, however, was not uniform throughout the county, and the fees were too high. The mode of appointing the Registrar was about as bad as could be conceived; the cost of his election being very much like the cost of the election of a county Member of Parliament in olden times; but here the analogy ended, for it was necessary for the Registrar to recoup himself afterwards, in a way not open to Members of Parliament, for
  1304
  the enormous expense to which he had been put. The two Bills now before the House were practically the same as regarded the actual legal provisions; but they differed as to the persons in whom the power of appointing the Registrars should be vested. The hon. Member for Stockton proposed to vest the appointment in the Lord Chancellor. He did not know why such severe remarks had been made upon that proposal. The Lord Chancellor appointed all the Judges in the land, the County Court Judges, and numerous other officials—in fact, the whole judicial staff of the country. But on this he did not wish to say anything to prejudice the question—it was a matter that could be decided by the Select Committee. One of his hon. Friends said he was going to oppose this Bill on the ground that the registration of deeds was altogether objectionable, and that, instead of having registration of deeds, there ought to be registration of titles. In the abstract he was in favour of the principle; but before establishing a registration of titles they must have titles that could be registered. The question had been disposed of by a Committee, of which he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had had the honour to be Chairman. No doubt, if they could get registration of title it would be far better, because if they registered the title they registered the result itself; while if they registered the deed they registered only the process by which the result was arrived at. When the subject was before the Committee, evidence was produced to show that registration had succeeded in Australia; but it was quite impossible to apply a system adopted in a new country to an old country. After all, we had some such system under Lord Cairns's Act. At the present time, only one person in 20,000 adopted that system of his own accord; but they could not compel the universal adoption of a system which was voluntarily adopted by so small a minority of purchasers. As things stood at present, he could not look upon a system of registration of title as practically possible; and, that being so, they had to deal with some form of registration which would reduce fraud to a minimum, and cheapen and facilitate the transfer of land. The proper course to adopt was to do all they could to improve the system. He would,

  1305
  therefore, on the part of the Government, consent to the second reading of the Bill, upon the understanding that not only this, but the rival Bill, should be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, it was his intention to support the Bill of the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Dundas), which was the original measure dealing with this subject. As a matter of policy, he consented to the second reading of the Bill of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds). At the same time, he would remark it was fortunate for the hon. Member for Stockton that, in the printed proceedings of that House there was no law of copyright, for if there were the hon. Member would stand in a very uncomfortable position through the operation of that law. Anyone, on looking at the hon. Member's Bill, would see that he had taken a considerable portion of it from the Bill of the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Dundas). He had since so acted as to give his Bill precedence over the other measure.
  MR. DODDS: My Bill, as now printed, was absolutely in the hands of the Lord Chancellor before the other Bill was printed, and has not been altered in any way whatever.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, that might be the case; but the hon. Member knew that the draft of the Bill of the hon. Member for Richmond had been in circulation before the three Courts of Quarter Sessions for months before either Bill could get printed, and, in fact, long before the Bill now before the House was thought of. The hon. Member had received advantages similar to those which he (Mr Stuart-Wortley) had described. The hon. Gentleman, fortunately for him, although he placed himself in the position of the two women who came before Solomon, did not expose himself to the same penalty. Although he was willing to have his Bill sent before a Select Committee to be pulled about, the Bill was not his own child, except as to the one material point of difference between the original Bill and the subsequent imitation of it by the hon. Member for Stockton, as to the question who should have the appointment of the Registrar. There was no doubt that in these Bills a very important question was raised of remedying the Law of Registration, and of getting
  1306
  rid of the decision of the Court of Equity, by which the usefulness of the Registration Acts had been much hindered; a decision which he was surprised had never been modified or removed. Everyone knew that if we were to have a registration of titles in this country, we should have to get rid of the power of settling real estate and creating jointures and portions. But public opinion was not yet prepared for that step. That was why it was not possible here to carry out such a proposal, although it was now in existence in the Colonies. There, however, he would point out, matters of land transfer were of a simpler character than was usually the case in this country. It could only be looked forward to—if, indeed, it were ever adopted—as a thing likely to arrive at a distant date. As to the appointment of the Registrar, the Bill of the hon. Member for Richmond proposed that it should be left to the three Courts of Quarter Sessions; and that Bill, he would remark, came before them with all the weight of the magistrates of the three Ridings. It might doubtless seem right and fitting, if they were prepared to disfranchise the £100 freeholders in the county, that there should be provided a proper substitute for that body. For his own part, he was inclined to doubt whether the appointment should be left with the Court of Quarter Sessions. He doubted whether the Court of Quarter Sessions was of itself the best possible body for the selection of such an officer to rest with; still less did he believe that what the hon. Member for Stockton called "an adequate county authority," would be satisfactory; for he supposed that the hon. Member for Stockton meant a County Board. If that were so, he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) thought that the appointment would either be left to the Lord Chancellor, or go to a small Committee of the Bench of Magistrates, subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor. He hoped the House would consent to the second reading of the Bill, on the understanding that the measure of the hon. Member for Richmond should be read a second time to-day, and that the two Bills should go before the same Select Committee.
  MR. ELTONsaid, that by the Vendors and Purchasers Act of 1874 it was distinctly provided that in Yorkshire the devisee under an unregistered will should be preferred to the heir-at-law. Why

  1307
  was this to be now altered by a retrogressive policy so as to give the heir-at-law a prior title to such devisee?
  MR. DODDSreplied, that this change was founded on the Report of 1850. If the second reading were taken, he would not press forward his measure until the other Bill had passed a similar stage, so that both Bills might go to a Select Committee together.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

DISUSED BURIAL GROUNDS BILL.
(Mr. J. R. Hollond, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Pell.)
DISUSED BURIAL GROUNDS BILL.

  [BILL 46.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  MR. J. R. HOLLOND, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to prevent buildings being erected on disused burial grounds. The Metropolitan Board of Works, he was informed, could not interfere until building operations actually commenced, and it was doubtful whether they could even then interfere successfully. The Bill prohibited building on a disused consecrated burial ground; and as to disused unconsecrated burial grounds it provided that the sanction of a Secretary of State should be necessary. He had been in communication with various Societies interested in this matter; and although he had encountered some difference of opinion with regard to details, he had found opinion unanimously in favour of the principle of his Bill. He hoped, considering the importance of reserving large open spaces in London and other large towns, the House would agree to the Bill being read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. J. R. Hollond.)
  MR. ELTONsaid, he believed that this Bill was specially aimed at the case of a gentleman who intended to build on some of his land which, 40 or 50 years ago, was used as a burial ground. It might, no doubt, be well for the purposes of keeping open spaces that unused burial grounds should be secured. But was not well that any Bill should
  1308
  be passed which did not contain a provision for the compensation, however small, of the legal interest which it was proposed to take away sub silentio if any of these disused burial grounds were private property.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he sympathized with the general purpose of the Bill, which was to secure open spaces in large towns. Some provision should, however, be taken to meet those cases in which faculties had been already granted for the erection of vicarage houses on disused burial grounds. He should not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he should propose to amend it in some respects in Committee.
  MR. BRYCEpointed out that the objections raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Elton) would be much better dealt with in Committee. It was, however, extremely doubtful whether there were any such rights as the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he did not think any hon. Member would object to the provisions of the Bill, because, on sanitary as well as upon other grounds, it ought to receive support. He would, however, suggest an alteration. In Section 5 of the Bill it was provided that one month's notice should be given of an application for a licence to erect any building on a disused burial ground. He thought it would be desirable that more than one month's notice should be given, in order that people might have a greater opportunity of knowing that such an application was made.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped that some pledge would be given that a clause arranging for the compensation of persons whose rights were interfered with would be inserted in the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

COMMONS AND INCLOSURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 63.]
(Mr. W. H. James, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Story-Maske-lyne, Mr. Cheetham.)
COMMONS AND INCLOSURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 63.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. W. H. JAMES, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to enlarge the

  1309
  scope of the Acts of 1866 and 1876 dealing with Metropolitan commons and commons throughout the country. The principle of the Bill was to apply a practical meaning to those Acts and to repeal the Statute of Merton. If the Bill was unopposed he was willing to refer it to a Select Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. W. H. James.)
  MR. ELTONmoved that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months. He objected to the Statute of Merton being repealed by a Bill which it was proposed to read a second time after a speech of half a minute's duration, seeing that that Statute had been the subject of historical controversy ever since the Reign of Henry III. He thought the time now left was too short for the proper discussion of the important alterations in the law which the Bill contemplated. The Bill would take away the rights of lords of the manor to inclose without compensation.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Elton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEcomplained that no sufficient reasons had been given for the changes proposed in the Bill. He should oppose it, as he had always consistently done when it had been on the Paper on several former occasions. The Bill involved very large interests and very large consequences.
  It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

VIVISECTION PROHIBITION BILL.
On Motion of Mr. REID, Bill to prohibit Vivisection, ordered to be brought in by Mr. REID and Mr. FIRTH.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 134.]

BEER ADULTERATION BILL.
On Motion of Colonel BAHNE, Bill for better securing the purity of Beer, ordered to be brought in by Colonel BARNE, Mr. HICKS, and Mr. STOKER.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 135.]
House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.