The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF CO.II,VIONS, July 17.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
COPYHOLDS ENFBANCLIISEMEN r BILL.
On the motion that the House should resolve itself
into a Committee on this Bill,
Sir G. STRICKLAND moved as an amendment that
he House should go into Committee on the Bill this
day three months. His objection was to the whole Bill
itself, and not to any particular portion of it. He sub-
mitted it was not framed so as to carry out its professed
object, namely, the doing away with copyhold tenure and
the converting it into the tenure of fee simple. The
Bill was called the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill; but
when he looked into the principle of the Bill he found
there was not one provision which would lead to the en-
franchisement of oopyholds. The Bill, in fact, proposed
a commutation of rents, which it would effect in a most
unjust manner. The principle of the Bill was a confis-
cation of private property; and he contended that it was
a universally recognised rule in that House never to in-
terfere with private property unless some great public
benefit would result from such interference. He con-
tended that no such public advantage called for the pass-
ing of the Bill before the House. The Bill, in fact,
sought to interfere with the-interest of the landlords for
the benefit of the tenants.
Mr. MULLINGS seconded the amendment. He was
afraid that this Bill was only introduced for a par-
ticular occasion, and though he had voted for the
second reading of the Bill, he now felt it to
be his duty, having changed his views on the
subject, to oppose the Bill on going into
Committee. He did not believe that any Bill of this
sort would be carried out by a private Member, but it
must be taken up by the Government, and that could not
be done without much more evidence than they had
before them at present. That was the course which he
should recommend, and he should be happy to give them
every assistance in his power.—(Hear hear.)
Mr. HUME supported the Bill. lie was sorry to see
that the Honourable Member had changed his course of
proceeding upon the subject. The question was whether
copyholds were an evil or not, and he thought
that anybody who knew anything about the matter
would confess that they were a great nuisance
both to the holders: and to the lords of the
manors. He quite agreed that this ought, if possible,
to be a Goverment measure, and that, too, had been the
opinion of the late Sir obert Pee'. He hoped the
House would allow the Bill to go, into Committee.
Mr. HENLEY considered that whether they allowed
the Bill to go into Committee or not, it was quite clear
that a Bill of this kind could not pass into law.
Mr. AGLIONBY complained of the course which had
been taken both in doors and out. of doors with respect to
the 8i4.1. The objects and provisions of the Bill had
been equally misunderstood and misrepresented.
Honourable Members had no right to discuss the
principle of the Bill, upon the present oc-
casion, upon going into Committee, after the second
reading had been carried by a large majority.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... ... 40
Against it
Majority —9
The House then went into Committee.

On clause 1 being proposed
Mr. MULLING'S moved the omission of certain
words with the view of inserting others, to place all
manorial rights at the disposal of the Copyhold Commis-
sioners for the purpose of their ultimate abolition.
Mr. AGLIONBY opposed the amendment.
Mr. 11ULLINGS was anxious to see all manorial
rights destroyed, and copyholds placed on the same
footing, as freeholds. That was his mbar:, for proposing
the amendment.
Lo-rd HARRY VANE, was quite certain that
if this . Bill was to effect any: good it
must be confined to the simple obiect of doing away with
certain inconsistent copyhold rights, reserving all the
rest that were not objectionable,
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND thought differently.
The Bill, to be of any use, should altogether abolish
c opyhold tenure, and he certainly should support the
amendment.
dr. HUME would vote for the amendment if be
thought it were practicable. He was anxious to see all
copy hold rights destroyed; bat it was impossible to do it
under this Bill.
Sir B. HALL said the principle involved in the amend-
ment was too large to admit of its being left to the de-
cision of the Copyhold Commissioners; but still he
would support it if the Hon. and. Learned Member would
ex'slude mines and minerals.
Mr. HENLEY wished to knoW if.. the Honourable
and Learned Member who had charge of the Bill in-
tended to exclude from its operation all copyholds
that do not enjoy the right of renewal.
Mr. AG LION BY replied i❑ the affirmative.
Mr. MULLINGS agreed that all copyholds ought
not to be enfranchised, but still he would only preserve
mines and minerals, and in order to meet such excep-
tional cases, he had no oNfetion to add to his amend-
ment the words " except as hereinafter provided for."
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... - ... 47
Against it
—a

Majority
The amendment was consequently lost.
On returnine: to the gallery, we found
Mr. HENLEY proposing a farther amendment on the
first clause, providing that there should be enfranchise-
ment only on the demand of three-fourths of the copy-
holders of an eetare.
Mr. AGLIONBY opposed the amendment. His great
object was to provide tur individual enfranchisement.
Mr. GOULBURN supported the amendment, which
he contended would prevent great injustice being done
to the lord cf the mai,or.
Sir B. BALL wished to see (he landlord and
tenant put on the s.un routing as each other,
and he would be ready to give each of them
equal facilities for enfranchisement ; and he would
recommend the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire not
to press his present amendment, but to insist upon some
provision by which the lord also could claim enfran-
chisement.
After a short conversation, in which Sir C. Burrell,
Sir G. Strickland, Mr. Hume, and Mr. Aglionby took
part,
Mr. HENLEY defended his amendment, and refused
to withdraw it.
Mr. MULLINGS thought that there would not be any
great Lcilities given to the small copyhkilders by this
clause, and he should support the amendment.
Lord E. HOWARD supported the amendment, but
expressed himself favourable to the principle of giving
power to the lords of manors to commute with equal fa-
cility as their tenants.
Atter a few words from Mr. J. A. SMITH, the Coln-
mitee divided., when there appeared—

For th, zm endment ••• 74
Against
Mjority ... —3O
The ame ment was accordingly carried, and it be-
came 3n original proposition.
Mr. HUME then moved as an amendment that the
majority of the tenants in number and amount should
have the power to decide the question of enfranchisement.
Mr. LIENLEY said, introducing the ♦alue of the
property would seriously affect the small cottage-holder,
who would be outvoted by the rarge tenant.
Mr. HOME met this objection by proposing to leave
out the words that had reference to value, which would
make the amendment run thus: "the majority of the
tenants in number."

- After a short conveitation, the Committee again
divided, when there appeared.

For the amendment 53
Against it
Majority ... —l3
The amendment was accordingly
Mr. SPOONER suggested to the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman the propriety of withdrawing the Bill. On
calm consideration he hoped the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman would see that that was the best course he could

pursue.-
Mr. AGLIONBY had been cala.ly considering this
Bill for two years—(A laugh)—and be certainly must
say the manner in which ho bad been met, this session
was most unfair. Ha certainly should not withdraw it
at this stags.
Mr. SPOONER bad no other alternative, thee, but •to
move that tne Chairman do at once report progress:
Mr..AG'LIONBY reiterated his statement that this
opposition "could only be_charaeterised by the term fite-
•tious; !mit it would nut dcter him from proceeding with•
the DM.'

SifJ:(112:10-1t04. reminded the lion. and Learned
Gatleretn that the "amendments which had jut been
carried " would entail upon him -the necessity of consider-
ably attering'the remaining provisions, and he pat it to
the Ham and Learned Member whether it would not be
better to postpone the Bill for the purpose of consider-
ing the alterations that were required.

Mr. AG LIONBY was quite prepared to make all the
alterations, and agree to all the omissions which now
became necessary, and he hoped the Committee would'
go on with the details.
The Motion that the Chairman do report. progress was
then withdrawn, and iho clause es amended was agreed to.

On clime 2.,
Mr. AGLIONBY said, in order to accomplieh the
object of the foregoing amendments it would be neces•
aatoy to make considerable verbal alterations in this
clause, and he therefore hoped the Committee would
consent to postpone it.
Clause 2 was postponed.
On clause 3 being moved.
Mr. G. J. HE ATHCO rE moved as an amendment tF at
the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again,
•it being advisable, in his opinion, that the further pro-
-gross of the Bill should be stayed altogether.
• Mr. AGLIONBY hoped that the House would not agree
to the amendment of the Hon. Member. He (.fr. Ag-
lionby) had been twine already prevented from proceed-
ing with this Bill, first, by the I?erby, day, secondly, by
the Ascot Cup day; and now hp thought it rather bard
that he should be again prevented from proceeding with
it in conseciaence of the agricultural meeting at Exeter.
Mr. G. J. HEATHCOTE eventually withdrew his
amendment, and the clause was agreed to.

On clause 4,
Sir B. HALL proposed that this clause should be
amended by making it incumbent on e comissioners
under the Bill to entertain any application which m sy
be made by the lord or lards of the manor who may to
, the owner or owners of three-fourths in value of the
manor.

Mr. AGLTONBY could not consen` to the proposed
amendment, inasmuch as it would completely alter the
leading principle of the Bill, and press with grest everity
on the poorer class of tenants. - --
Sir B. HALL wanted to put tin 7ord o" the manor 'n
the same position as the copyholder in s arry.n; out a
proposition for enfranchisement.
After a desultory conversation, in which Mr. G3cl-
- Mr. Henley, Mr. II me, Mr. 4,n)tey, and T.
Aeionby took part,