yes,

down to the country copies of the Bill to | if it were the wish of the House that he individuals interested in copyhold tenure, should do so. [ Cries of "No," and "Yes."] and he wished to ascertain their opinions When he he heard on the one side " before the Bill was read a second time. MR. AGLIONBY said, it would be take the liberty of exercising his own judgand on the other side "no," he would clearly his interest, as an independentment, and doing what he thought was fair. Member having charge of a Bill for which he desired the support of the House, to give ample time for its examination; but in this case he did not think the appeal for delay by the hon. Member who had just spoken was well founded. If this were a new measure, he would at once have acceded to the request of the hon. Member; but he had brought in the Bill last Session, and the Select Committee to which it was referred, directed him to report the Bill to the House, who allowed it to be circulated during the recess. He had, too, given public notice that he should bring in the Bill on the first opportunity during the present Session, and, with the exception of one technical portion, he had not altered one single part of the Bill, but had abided by the instructions of the Committee. The measure was therefore as well known now as it would be two months hence, and he would ask the House, under these circumstances, whether it was right to put off the second reading for a whole week? so would be to inflict a great hardship upon To do those hon. Gentlemen who had thought it their duty to come down to discuss the

measure.

ME. HODGSON urged, that persons interested in the measure should have an opportunity of being heard against it by petition or otherwise.

MR. CHRISTOPHER said, he must confess that he did not entirely understand the Bill, and thought it undesirable that such important interests as were involved should be dealt with so rapidly. When the hon. Member (Mr. Aglionby) spoke of this measure having been brought in at the end of last Session, he must be perfectly well aware that Bills introduced at that period were rarely sufficiently wellconsidered by the country. In his own county (Lincolnshire) a great many varied interests would be affected by the Bill, and he should probably receive petitions to present against it. He hoped, therefore, it would be a general understanding that the House would adopt no hurried legislation on the subject, but that sufficient time would be afforded for fully considering the

measure.

MR. AGLIONBY said, he was perfectly ready to explain the provisions of the Bill

The principle of the Bill might be stated in two words; it was in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission on Real Property that sat in the year 1832. If hon. Gentlemen would refer to the book in the library containing the Report of that Commission, they would see the reasons that induced them to recommend that Copyhold tenure should be abolished. A Committee had also been appointed to inquire into the subject, on the Motion of Lord Campbell, then Her Majesty's Attorney General, and that Committee gave its most serious consideration to every part of the question. That Committee almost unanimously agreed-and it was the late Sir Robert Peel's opinion-that a Bill should be passed for the voluntary enfranchisement of copyholds, and that after some time a measure for compulsory enfranchisement should be passed. Ten years had since passed, and the Legislature had not yet made the enfranchisement compulsory. two years to compel the enfranchisement He had brought in Bills during the last of copyholds. second time on each occasion, but they did Those Bills were read a Members, and particularly those connected not meet with the approval of certain hon. with manors. sure It was said that his meawas a one-sided measure-that it tenant. compelled the lord, and did not compel the

it was one thing to compel a man who He (Mr. Aglionby) answered that exercised an oppressive tenure against a number of individuals to do a certain act on receiving compensation, and it was another thing to compel men who were satisfied to hold under that tenure to pay the lord of the manor for their enfranchisement. The House had last year referred both his Bills to a Select Committee, who excluded what they thought was objectionable, threw overboard his notion of onesided compulsion, and made it compulsory on certain terms on both parties to act under the measure. ciple of the present Bill, and if it was now That was the prinread a second time it would be for the Committee to settle the details. The object was to enfranchise copyhold tenure in the lord of the manor, to do justice to the such a way as to give full compensation to tenant, and also do justice to the stewards

of manors. The question of compensation would be left to the Commission for Copyhold Enfranchisement, to whom also it was proposed to leave the carrying out of the compulsory enfranchisement.

SIR GEORGE STRICKLAND said, he had had this Bill so short a time before him, that he could not say he perfectly comprehended it. He was most anxious to see a Bill that would carry on the enfranchisement in an equitable manner both to the lord of the manor and tenant. He had opposed the Bill which had been brought forward on former occasions, and he felt inclined to oppose this on the same ground, that this was a one-sided measure, and that it was a compulsory measure that would act unequally and be unjust to the lords of manors; and in many instances it would be exceedingly oppressive to the tenants, who would be called on to pay sums of money which it might be inconvenient for them to pay. He had great doubts whether they could have a compulsory measure; but they ought to give greater facilities to both parties to come in voluntarily. But there was another objection to the Bill. He wished to see the copyhold tenure-the antiquated feudal tenure-abolished, because the real object of that tenure in former times had now passed away. But this Bill did not abolish copyhold tenure, because the enfranchisement was to entered on the court roll which was to be kept in existence. [Mr. AGLIONBY: That is not so.] He understood that it was so. It was to be converted into an annual rent-charge, which would be attended with all the inconvenience of the copyhold tenure, and, after all, it would not be anything like the feesimple. His opinion was that if they meddled with it they should give the freehold at once, and that, above all, they should not require any record in the Copyhold Court, as this Bill would do. [Mr. AGLIONBY: No!] The hon. Member said "No." The hon. Member declared before that that he wished to keep the Copyhold Court as a Court of Registration; that he had ported a measure for the registration of deeds; and, that, having failed in that, his object was to make the Copyhold Courts serve to register deeds. It was for this reason that he was opposed to this Bill. He thought it was an unjust Bill, giving preference to the tenant over the rights of the lord of the manor; and that it would be an unjust measure, as retaining the old Copyhold Courts, with all their objections

and grievances. He thought that it would not give a freehold instead of a copyhold tenure, which was the thing to be desired. Another objectionable provision in the Bill was the giving compensation to stewards. Why, it was a stewards' Bill. He had a Copyhold Court, and he was obliged to pay an attorney every year for holding the Court. He considered this to be a grievance; but he was told that if he did not do it he might lose some of his rights. The attorney was amply paid for his work; but if there was an end of the work, did they mean to say that the attorney had a vested interest in that employment? He believed that when the Bill was fairly examined, it would be found that it was not worthy of support.

MR. HUME hoped the Bill would pass. It was a mere matter of detail whether compensation should be granted to the stewards. He agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Strickland) that they were not entitled to compensation; but this could be settled in Committee. The principle of the Bill was, that it simplified tenure and lessened expense, and to that principle he was favourable.

MR. FRESHFIELD said, the hon. Member for Preston (Sir G. Strickland) only dealt with the details of the Bill, and not the principle. In two counties for which he could speak, the greatest difficulty was found in uniting small farms, in consequence of the copyhold tenure. The House had already sanctioned the principle of the Bill; he hoped, therefore, it would be permitted to pass.

MR. MULLINGS wished to correct an erroneous impression of the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Strickland). The object of the Bill was really to make the whole of the copyhold property free, and the retention of the Courts was to make it apparent to the world that it was free. As to the compensation to stewards, the proposition merely was, that on the execution of a deed of enfranchisement they should have one set of copyhold fees only, including the deed of enfranchisement. supAs far as the Bill went, he believed it to be a very good Bill.

Bill read 2°.

COUNTY RATES AND EXPENDITURE
BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.
MR. BRIGHT (in the absence of Mr.
Mr. Gibson), moved the Second Reading
of this Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, | objected. But this Committee, so selected "That the Bill be now read a Second and so constituted, rejected the Bill of the Time." right hon. Gentleman, and recommended to the House, in a series of resolutions, a number of improvements which ought to be introduced. Notwithstanding that decision of the Select Committee, the right hon. Gentleman, at the commencement of last Session, brought in the same Bill. It was again referred to a Select Committee, but not for inquiry, but a Committee on the Bill itself. On that Committee sat some of the most distinguished Members of that House. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir G. Grey) was a member of that Committee, and he was most indefatigable in his attendance and attention to its duties. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), whose absence from the House at that moment he (Sir J. Pakington) much regretted, was also on the Committee, and likewise gave great attention to this Bill. It was presided over with exemplary patience by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Baines); and after a lengthened investigation, which lasted the whole Session, the Bill was returned to the House with many improvements. It was then too late to pass it; and it was to be expected that when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) brought in the Bill this Session, it would have taken the shape in which the Committee had left it. He (Sir J. Pakington) did not approve of the Bill even in that shape: it appeared to him, that in their anxiety to avoid certain inconveniences, the Committee had fallen into others equally, if not more, objectionable, creating, for instance, double and concurrent jurisdictions, which must prove extremely injurious; and he doubted much whether he could have supported that Bill. But what was the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman now? It appeared to him to be one most disrespectful to that House, for the right hon. Gentleman had brought in a Bill differing not merely in unimportant details, but in those which were most essential, and which formed the very foundation of the enactment. Without going into minor matters, he would just name one most essential difference. In all the former measures introduced into this House on this subject, the right hon. to Gentleman proposed that these intended county financial boards should consist, onehalf of persons elected by the ratepayers,

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, that when hon. Members remembered the great extent to which this Bill differed from its predecessor, they would not be surprised to hear that he felt it his duty to meet the Bill at this stage with the most decided opposition. Measures of this kind were, in his judgment, an attempt to introduce into the financial arrangements of counties principles that were not adapted to them. Without calling in question the connexion that ought to exist between taxation and representation, he was prepared to assert that that rule, although generally applicable to all countries with free institutions, did not apply at all to county affairs, or only in a degree which was very limited, and it would not be wise in Parliament, for the sake of adopting a theoretical advantage, to tamper with arrangements which had long worked beneficially to the country, and which had never worked more beneficially than at the present time. The financial affairs of the counties were now confessedly conducted with greater publicity, a closer economy, and a more scrupulous regard for the general interests of the public, than at any former period. In spite of these views and these facts, he should, however, have not opposed the second reading of the Bill had it been presented to them in the shape in which it came from the Committee last year, because the House had so far recognised the principle of the Bill as to send it to a Select Committee for further consideration. In that case he would have reserved his objections for discussion in Committee. But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) had not brought in his Bill in that shape, or even in the shape in which it was submitted to the House at the commencement of last Session. He must call attention to the extraordinary course taken by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this Bill. Two Sessions ago, when the right hon. Gentleman first brought in this measure, it was referred to a Select Committee, which was empowered to take evidence. That Committee, of which he (Sir J. Pakington) was a member, devoted itself to a most laborious inquiry into the whole subject. That Committee was selected by the right hon. Gentleman himself. It was a Committee the composition of which they who were unfavourable to the principle of the Bill

in the county paper, and then he received | peared to him to be a proper mode, four communications from Boards of Guar- namely, to give the ratepayers power to dians. The first, from the Board of Cook- select such persons, be they magistrates ham Union, and signed by the clerk, com- or not, as seemed to be best qualified to municated a resolution of the Board to the act as a financial board for controlling the effect that the expenditure of the county assessment and expenditure of the county was conducted in the most economical and rates. With regard to the charge of unsatisfactory manner, and that, in their fairness on his part towards the Comopinion, the Bill was unnecessary. The mittee, he thought hon. Members were next was from Abingdon, the Guardians of going too far in making that assertion, which Union resolved that they did not because he felt he was entitled, when consider there was any necessity for the bringing in the Bill, to have the provisions application of the Bill to the county of in accordance with his opinions. While Berkshire. The next communication was he adhered to the principle of the meaa private letter from the chairman of the sure, he felt he was entitled to bring the Newbury Board of Guardians, who stated matter of detail in the way before the that the Board had met and arrived at no House that he thought the House ought to conclusion regarding the Bill. There was deal with it, leaving it to the House in only one union out of the twelve to which Committee to deal with those matters as he had written, that had returned a reply it thought proper. He admitted the Bill, favourable to the Bill. The Board of as originally proposed, was so constituted, Guardians of the Wantage Union avowed that of the members of these financial their belief that the object of the Bill was boards one half were to be magistrates, just and the principle good; but, at the and the other half were not to be magissame time, they thought the object of such trates; but in going through the Select a measure would be defeated if ex officio Committee very great alterations were guardians were allowed to sit at the county made in the powers vested in these boards. board. Thus only one Board of Guar- The Committee ruled that the regulation dians out of twelve expressed an opinion in of gaols, the appointment of officers, and favour of the Bill. He was consequently all other matters not strictly financial, prepared to vote against the second reading should be left intact to the magistrates; of the present Bill; and, if the hon. Gen- and it being no longer necessary that a tleman (Mr. M. Gibson) found himself in a certain proportion of magistrates should minority, he had only himself to blame for be associated with the elected members, not having dealt more fairly with the the Bill was purposely altered, leaving the House. ratepayers to elect magistrates if they pleased, but not compelling them to take magistrates, as it was not intended to trench in any way on the judicial duties of the magistracy. The Bill proposed that the financial board should fix the amount of salaries which the officers should receive, leaving to the magistrates to appoint those officers, and to make the regulations necessary in the gaols; and this, he contended, was in accordance with the principle laid down by the Committee, that these boards should be strictly financial, and not in the smallest degree interfere with the judicial duties of the magistrates. With regard to the alterations respecting the constabulary made in the Bill since it came out of the Committee, it was first proposed that the financial boards should decide whether the rural police should be adopted or not; and as to the appointment of the chief constable, the Committee in the first instance decided that the financial boards should have that power, because it was said town councils in boroughs had

MR. MILNER GIBSON thought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down went a little too far when he assumed that, because certain of the Unions in his county were silent, they were opposed to the mea

sure.

He had quite as good a right to say that silence might imply consent. Anxious as he was to see the ratepayers exercising some control over the county expenditure, he could not go so far as the Board of Guardians of the Wantage Union, who declared that the county magistrates ought not even to be eligible to sit as members of the financial boards.

MR. ROBERT PALMER said, the Wantage Guardians thought that the Poor Law Guardians ought not to have the power of electing a person who was a magistrate.

MR. MILNER GIBSON, on the contrary, was in favour of allowing the guardians to elect magistrates if they thought proper. He (Mr. M. Gibson) proposed to constitute the county boards by what ap