HC Deb 28 February 1879 vol 243 cc2053-63

(Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Osborne Morgan, Sir Richard Wallace.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 21st February.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

EARL PERCY

said, he did not wish to revert to the causes of the Bill having been postponed; but it had been necessary to put down Amendments. It was perfectly impossible for them to consider that Bill carefully then, and have full discussion on points which should have been raised on the second reading. He really thought at that hour of the night they could not be expected to go into this lengthy subject. He would move that the Chairman report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Earl Percy.)

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, he saw no reason why they could not proceed. He thought that a number of the Amendments were consequential Amendments—that was, if the first were disposed of, the others would follow. There would be a saving of much time if they proceeded, and he believed it would be in accordance with the convenience of hon. Members as it would avoid the necessity of bringing them on another occasion to the House on the subject.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, his noble Friend (Earl Percy) had no intention to obstruct; but gainsayers might misinterpret him, and say that under his guidance this Bill was becoming itself an ancient monument. He thought that the Committee might well go on, considering how the House had been most suspiciously counted out of late.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, they had latterly had some good advice from the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope); but he (Mr. Macartney) would venture to impress upon the House that if they went into the consideration of the Bill, and if the Amendments were argued at the length they ought to be, they would be met with cries of "Divide, divide!"

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 54: Majority 16.—(Div. List, No. 31.)

Clause 1 (Definitions) agreed to.

Clause 2 (Appointment of Commissioners).

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved as an Amendment—In page 1, lines 24 and 25, to leave out from "In-closure Commissioners for England and Wales," to end of line 10 in page 2, and insert, "Trustees of the British Museum."

EARL PERCY

asked whether the Government had the consent of the Trustees of the British Museum to undertake these duties, and what reasons the Government had for thinking that those gentlemen were specially fitted for the duties under the Act?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the Government had ascertained that the Trustees of the British Museum were willing to undertake the charge placed upon them by the Bill. The reasons of the Government for choosing those gentlemen were that they believed them to be thoroughly competent to deal with the subjects contained in the Bill, and also with the interests of those possessing ancient monuments, and so give confidence in the working of the Bill without any undue expense to the country.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Mode of applying Act to Monuments).

MR. RIDLEY,

in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 20, Subsection 2, to leave out "subject to appeal in the manner hereinafter provided," and insert, "subject as hereinafter provided," said, he trusted the Committee would see that, by passing this Amendment, the shape of the Bill would be materially improved so far as it related to monuments not mentioned in the Schedule. Her Majesty's Judges had proved themselves competent to decide every description of difficult questions; but he thought they could be hardly expected to say accurately whether a monument was really of ancient Roman or Saxon origin or not. He had ventured to suggest a more suitable mode of appeal by moving his Amendments, which provided that a Return should be annually made to the Houses of Parliament of all monuments to which it was proposed to apply the Act.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

EARL PERCY (for Lord FRANCIS HERVEY) moved the following Amendments:—In page 2, line 22, to leave out "is," and insert "being;" in page 2, line 23, to leave out "public," and insert "national;" in page 2, line 23, after "preservation," to insert "would, but for the application of this Act, be in danger of serious injury or destruction." Also in page 2, line 24, after "pleasure ground," to insert— Provided always, That this Act shall not he applied for the first time to any Monument after the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty five.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, he should be happy to accept the second Amendment, but he could not accept the others. Under the first Amendment, the Act could not be applied to any monument without implying that the owner of the monument was likely to destroy it, a suggestion which was far from the intention of the Act.

EARL PERCY

thought the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) had then made a great admission. If these monuments were not in danger of being destroyed, what was the object of the Bill?

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

explained that the Bill was intended to apply to monuments which were in danger of destruction from neglect and similar causes, in cases where owners, who lived at a distance perhaps, took insufficient interest in their preservation, though they never would actively sanction their destruction.

Second Amendment agreed to; word substituted accordingly.

Remaining Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SERJEANT SPINKS moved, as an Amendment, to leave out Sub-section 2. His Amendment proposed to prevent the Bill from applying to any ancient monuments, not mentioned in the Schedule, which at any future time might be discovered. There were a considerable number of ancient monuments mentioned in the Schedule of the Bill, and as the Bill had been many years before the House, he thought there was not any great probability of the further discovery of any really important monuments to which this Act ought to be applied. However, after the Bill had become an Act of Parliament, it might be considered beneficial to include newly-discovered ancient monuments under the provisions of the Act—a course which would probably give great annoyance to the proprietors of the land upon which the monuments were discovered. It seemed to him much better not to insert the sub-section, and thus narrow the operation of the Bill to those monuments which at present existed. As far as the monuments mentioned in the Schedule were concerned, every landowner upon whose property they existed had had the opportunity of going before a Select Committee, and that Committee had decided which monuments were fit and proper to be included in the Bill; but as regards future monuments there would be no opportunity of questioning their fitness before a Committee of the House, the only remedy being to go to a Court of Law. He therefore thought it would be much better to accept the Amendment, and then the promoters of the Bill could bring in a Bill in the future to deal with the question of any monuments that might be discovered in the future.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

hoped the hon. and learned Member for Oldham (Mr. Serjeant Spinks) would not press the Amendment, as any monuments which in the future might acquire special interest, perhaps from the destruction of others, would only be dealt with after due consideration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RIDLEY moved, as an Amendment, to insert in page 2, line 35— A Return shall be made to both Houses of Parliament not later than the thirty-first day of March in each year, setting forth every such notice which shall be given during the twelve months next preceding the date of such Return, or since the date of the last Return, and the description and situation of the monument in respect of which each and every of such notices shall have been given; and this Act shall not apply to any monument other than the several monuments specified in the said first Schedule until the expiration of four calendar months from the date of the Return of the notice relating thereto, nor shall this Act apply to any such monument if within the said four calendar months it shall be otherwise ordered by either of the said Houses of Parliament. Provided always, That whenever any such notice has been served as aforesaid it shall not be lawful for any person to injure, or to permit injury to be done to the monument specified in such notice between the time of the service of such notice and the expiration of four calendar months from the date of the Return thereof to the said Houses of Parliament as aforesaid, without the consent of the said Commissioners, and whoever shall unlawfully and wilfully so injure or permit injury to be done to any such monument shall be liable to be prosecuted as mentioned in the ninth Section of this Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Notice to be given to Commissioners of intended injury to a monument to which this Act has been applied).

EARL PERCY moved, as an Amendment, to leave out in page 2, line 38, after "Commissioners" to end of Clause, and insert— For a period not exceeding six months from the date of such application. In case the Commissioners shall not within six months from, the date upon which this Act shall have been applied to a monument have agreed with the owner to purchase it, or a part thereof, the right of the owner over such monument shall revive and continue to be the same in all respects as if this Act had not been passed. He hoped that hon. Members would believe he was reluctant to trespass upon their patience, and he was almost ashamed at that hour to go on at any length. It, however, had not been his wish to do so; and he, therefore, must proceed with his Amendment, which embodied his main objection to the measure before the Committee. He had always objected to the measure, not from any disregard to, or an absence of interest in, these ancient monuments, which all who had any respect for antiquity must venerate, and especially so now that the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Lubbock) had enlightened the world upon these antiquities so well and ably. It made them feel grateful to the ancients for giving the hon. Baronet the opportunity thus to instruct them. But he could find no advantage in the establishment of the precedent contained in the Bill. This was a first attempt to take property compulsorily, for a purpose not distinctly of utilitarian character. If the hon. Baronet had taken steps to inform the House of any real objection to the present system, he should have been in a position to have met him. As far as he was aware, the House was entirely ignorant of the necessity for this measure, except the statement of the hon. Baronet; and, although he was an undoubted authority, he (Earl Percy) thought they should not accept the word of any hon. Member on behalf of a measure which introduced quite a new feature. He could conceive a case, where a landowner was not resident, in which an ancient monument might be neglected; and there it might be desirable to give the Commissioners power to make arrangements with him to take charge of the monument if he was not prepared to see that it was properly preserved.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 38, after the word "Commissioners," to leave out all the words to the end of the Clause, in order to insert the words "for a period not exceeding six months from the date of such application. In case the Commissioners shall not within six months from the date upon which this. Act shall have been applied to a monument have agreed with the owner to purchase it, or a part thereof, the right of the owner over such monument shall revive and continue to be the same in all respects as if this Act had not been passed."—(Earl Percy.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, that perhaps he might be allowed to remind the Committee that Lord Stanhope, the then President of the Society of Antiquaries, had given a strong opinion in favour of the Bill, and that he himself, on several subsequent occasions, had; brought forward much evidence on the I subject. Therefore, the Committee would see that there was no question of the ipse dixit of any one hon. Member on the subject. As regarded the Amendment, they would by it simply have a board of gentlemen to look after these monuments; but he could not help thinking that the action would be incomplete unless there was a right to purchase. If the House thought it was wise to adopt the Amendment, however, he was quite ready to bow to its decision.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, the Amendment seemed to him to go to the very principle of the Bill, which would be worth very little if it were carried with the Amendment, because it would give power to the owner of a monument by doing nothing to defeat its object.

MR. MACARTNEY

was of opinion that the passing of the Amendment would be most desirable. The strong objection to the clause was that an owner would constantly have suspended over him the liability of an action in a superior Court. Then, he thought the manner in which possession was attained by the Bill was exceptional. In other circumstances, where property was taken possession of by the public, it was bound to be paid for beforehand—that was so under the Land Clauses Act. Under this clause they were not bound to do so, without going into a superior Court of Law. That had a most unjust bearing upon a man of small property, who might be the owner of a valuable monument which he did not wish to sell.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, he did not wonder at the opposition of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney), if he thought those were the principles of the Bill. It was only if the owner wished to destroy the monument that the Commissioners would have the power to purchase it.

MR. HERSCHELL

remarked that under the Amendment, if any owner of a monument wished to destroy it, and sweep it from the face of the earth, he had only to hold the Commissioners at arm's length for six months, and then sweep away the monument as if nothing had happened.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 28: Majority 20.—(Div. List, No. 32.)

MR. ONSLOW

said, he thought the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Lubbock) ought to be satisfied with the progress that night, and not keep them from their beds any longer in view of the hard work next week. He would move to report Progress.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Onslow.)

MR. ANDERSON

said, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) was the last man who should make that appeal. The hon. Member had been engaged for the last 10 days in constantly counting the House, and causing business to be postponed when it came on at early hours, and now he was in another way preventing its coming on at—not a late hour—10 minutes past 2 A.M.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 38: Majority 4.—(Div. List, No. 33.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Owners, &c, may require Commissioners either to consent to injury, or to acquire power of restraint); and Clause 6 (Power of restraint in case of injury to a monument), severally agreed to.

Clause 7 (Appeal from Commissioners in certain cases).

On Motion of Mr. HERSCHELL, Clause struck out.

Clause 8 (Acquisition of monuments or of power of restraint by agreement with persons interested); Clause 9 (Penalty on persons unlawfully destroying or injuring a Monument); Clause 10 (Access of Commissioners to monuments); Clause 11 (Proceedings for ascertaining and paying compensation); and Clause 12 (Treasury may authorize expenses), severally agreed to.

Clause 13 (Expenses of the Commission).

EARL PERCY

said, he could not let the clause pass without remark. He should like to have some statement from the Government as to the expense to be incurred under the Bill. It should he a consideration for the Government, at a time when money was supposed to be in much demand, whether this expenditure should he sanctioned.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, money would only be expended under the following circumstances. If an owner of a monument wished to destroy it, he would give notice to the Commissioners, who, if they had not already funds in hand, would place the notice before the Treasury. If the Treasury thought proper to expend the money they could do so. If not, the Commissioners' duty would be to communicate this decision to the owner, and the result would be that the monument would be unfortunately destroyed. He did not think the expenditure would be great, as the monuments did not require to be repaired—they simply wanted to be left alone.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, there would be no considerable expense in carrying out the provisions of the Bill.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

remarked that very much the same principle was carried out in France, where no landowner had ever refused to put an ancient monument in his possession under the protection of the law. He supposed that landowners in France were much the same in this respect as those in England. He firmly believed that if this Bill passed into law there would not be a single landowner who would not at once put his monuments under the protection of the Act.

EARL PERCY

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was the first person he had ever heard say that landowners in France were in the same position as landowners in England. He must press for the omission of this clause.

MR. HERSCHELL

thought the noble Lord (Earl Percy) was under a misapprehension as to this clause. If Parliament did not supply the means for purchase in these instances, the result would be that the monument would be destroyed. That was the only result. If it were not desired by Government to retain the monument, then the Vote for its purchase would not be necessary.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 (Reports on monuments).

MR. PELL moved, as an Amendment, to add in page 6, at end of Clause— And of the monuments transferred by them to any local authority, or in respect of which any power of restraint has been by them transferred to any local authority under the provisions of this Act.

Amendment agreed to; words added.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 (Service of Notices) agreed to.

Clause 16 (Provision for defining the site of a monument).

On the Motion of Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Amendment made, in page 7, line 22, by leaving out from "except" to "situated" in line 25.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 (Transfer of a monument to a local authority).

MR. MACARTNEY (for Lord FRANCIS HERVEY) moved, as an Amendment, to insert in page 7, line 32, after "situate," "with the consent of such local authority."

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

MR. PELL moved, as an Amendment, to insert in page 7, line 36, after "Act"— Except the power of incurring expenses for the purposes of this Act, and except the duty of reporting to Parliament.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

EARL PERCY

objected to the clause as amended. He could not see the advantage of the action of the local authorities which might gradually devolve upon a Town Council or Board of Guardians.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

hoped the noble Lord opposite (Earl Percy) would not press his objection. As an instance of the authority contemplated under the clause, he might refer to the Devil's Dyke, near Brighton. That was of great interest to the people of Brighton, who had shown a desire to retain it under local control.

Clause, as amended, negatived.

Clause 18 (Provision as to public works) agreed to.

Clause 19 (Saving of informalities).

EARL PERCY

thought the clause very comprehensive. In fact, it covered almost everything which could occur.

MR. MARTEN

was of opinion that the words covered a large area.

MR. HERSCHELL

said, it was simply so to cover any informality on immaterial points.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20 (Saving of the Duchy of Cornwall); and Clause 21 (Short title), severally agreed to.

Forward to