HC Deb 26 April 1892 vol 3 cc1419-37

Order for Second Reading read.

* MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

The Bill of which I now beg to move the Second Reading was originally brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Notting- ham (Mr. Broadhurst) in the years 1884 and 1885. When he became a Member of Her Majesty's Government in 1886, he asked me to take charge of it, and I did so. During that year it was read a second time without a division, and in the year 1887 a division took place upon it, when it was lost by a comparatively small majority. The Bill consists of eleven clauses and one schedule, but as will be seen by any one who looks at it, the gist of its provisions lies in some five or six clauses—from the fourth down to the eighth or ninth. The Bill contains a clause for the acquisition of sites for places of religious worship otherwise than by consent. That is compulsory acquisition of land for this purpose. By Clause 5 a requisition in writing must be served containing certain particulars, and on the receipt of that requisition, after a certain time has elapsed, a memorial is to be presented to the Council which is the authority in the place—either the County Council or the Town Council, as the case may be. And by Clause 7 the Council to which the memorial is presented shall appoint a time for the hearing of it, and certain consequences ensue. If the order be made, within six months of that time the site is to be conveyed. Provision is made for the payment of a sum to show the bona fides of the applicants, and that has to be placed in the hands of the Council. The last two or three clauses are more or less formal, and deal with matters of title. The Schedule contains the form of requisition, which must be signed by a number of persons of whose status and bona fides there can be no question. The Bill is comparatively brief, and as it has been more than once a matter of discussion here before, it is not necessary for me to dwell long upon it. I venture to think it contains all the provisions and safeguards which are necessary to provide against any wrong being done to a single individual. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it will be perfectly possible when the Bill gets into Committee to amend any particular provisions. But the principle now before the House is a very simple one, and the question I ask the House to determine on this Motion for the Second Reading is whether members of a religious denomination other than the Church of England, as by law established, shall have the same power of compulsorily obtaining land for places of worship as that particular Body has. I hope I may appeal to every hon. Member in this House, whichever side he sits on, in a matter of this kind. As I view it, it is a matter of simple justice that every religious denomination should have the same power in this matter as the one particular denomination to which I have alluded. I notice that the hon. Member for Wigan has, since the introduction of this Bill, introduced a Bill taking away from the Church of England the power they now have of compulsorily acquiring land. When that was introduced in another place three or four years ago it did not meet with much respect. And I think it is much better to impartially extend this power to all other denominations than to take it away from the particular Church which now enjoys it. The principle underlying this Bill is contained in the word of which we have heard so much at various times during the discussion of another Bill—namely, compulsion. I believe the mere fact that there is compulsion in an Act of Parliament will be its own remedy. I remember very well, many years ago, going to the then agent of a great nobleman in the Midland Counties, who was almost the sole owner of all the eligible plots of land in a country village, for the purpose of acquiring a site for the School Board of which I was then chairman. He listened to my request, and after I had pointed out the particular site I wanted, he intimated that the nobleman in question would not be able to consent to any such use of the land. His view of the School Board was that it was not needed, and therefore he opposed it. Well, I listened to all he had to say, and then I pointed out to him the powers of compulsion in the Act of 1870. This settled the matter, and we got the piece of land, and that is what I think would happen if we had such an Act of Parliament as this. I hope I do not take too sanguine a view when I express the hope that Her Majesty's Government will see their way not to oppose this Bill. I believe that during my absence on a particular Wednesday the First Lord of the Treasury alluded to this Bill, and said that it might well go to a Committee. If he said so I gather that he really does not oppose the principle of the Bill, and that he would be prepared to send it to a Committee, with the view to its details being discussed and possibly amended. The object of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is to afford persons, otherwise unable, the opportunity of securing for themselves an eligible place in which to worship in the way their conscience approves. I am not going into particular incidents that I could give of people being unable to obtain suitable sites for places of worship up and down the country. I do not wish to do anything on the present occasion to arouse any feelings or create any hostility against this person or the other. I rest my case on the broad ground of justice, that what is right for the Church of England to possess—in this case the power of compulsorily acquiring land—is right for every other religious denomination in the country to have. I do not think I need add any more to the brief explanation of the Bill I have given, and I will therefore move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. John Ellis.)

*(5.50.) MR. KELLY (Camberwell, N.)

I have read this Bill through, and I must say that it seems to me of great importance to know what the Body is which is to carry out its provisions. The Bill is supposed to be founded upon two Acts, one passed in 1873 and the other in 1882. Now, if any hon. Member refers to the Act of 1873 he will find that there is nothing at all compulsory in its character. Its object was simply to empower landlords having limited interests to convey land as sites for places of worship. As to the amending Act of 1882, that was passed simply for the purpose of removing doubt as to whether conveyances could be made by Corporations and other Public Bodies. What I desire is that the body which is to have the compulsory power should be defined. But I do not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill on this account. I have always, I trust, dealt with questions of this kind in anything but a narrow spirit, and if I were convinced that any real difficulty was now experienced in obtaining proper sites for places of worship, I certainly should not oppose this Bill in any way. We have had charges made over and over again—we see them in the papers sometimes—against illiberal landlords, and we hear of the impossibility of acquiring sites for Nonconformist places of worship, but I have always found these charges are vague, and that when they come to be examined they fall to the ground. The hon. Member instead of saying he would not give the cases of difficulty in obtaining sites should have taken care to have done so. If it be necessary to force people to part with their land, well and good, but it must be under some rational and defined system. I do not know what the Council referred to in the Bill for carrying out its purposes is to be. It may be of a character that would not recommend itself to many Members of this House.

MR. JOHN ELLIS

It says either the County Council or the Town Council.

MR. KELLY

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I have looked through the Bill and I am afraid I missed the clause altogether. However, I do not know why this power should be given to such a body. If, as the hon. Member supposes, the County Councils in the different counties would be inclined to give any site which Nonconformists may claim, then I venture to ask the House to consider whether a measure of this character should be agreed to unless some very good reason is shown for it. The hon. Member did not show any reason, but, on the other hand, he carefully avoided doing so. I believe myself that this Bill is out of date altogether. There may have been, and possibly was, a time when certain landlords did place unfair difficulties in the way of Nonconformists when they wished to obtain sites for their places of worship. I question very much, however, whether such people exist now. As far as my knowledge goes, I can safely say I have never heard of any well-found complaints on the part of Nonconformists that they were unable to acquire sites with the same ease as members of the Church of England. I ask the House to reject the Bill because it is utterly unnecessary, and also because it casts an unfair slur upon the landowners of England. I beg, therefore, to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

*(5.58.) MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

I wish to second the Motion of the hon. Member who has just sat down. So far as I am aware this Bill is entirely without precedent. There have been enactments passed from time to time enabling a Local Authority, or a public company, to acquire land or property belonging to others when the object has been to benefit the entire community or a whole neighbourhood. The Bill now before the House, however, is to give power to acquire the property of another person for the benefit of, not the entire community, but a certain sect of individuals. I hope the House will pause before granting anything of the kind. As regards the necessity of the Bill, I am not aware that members of the various religious bodies have any difficulty in acquiring sites for places of worship. The number of such buildings proves that there can have been no difficulty in acquiring sites. I assert that there is no necessity for this Bill; but even if there were, you are going beyond the principles already established. I think there is no more melancholy sight in the country districts than the places of worship which have fallen into disrepair, when the necessity or demand for them has ceased. I see no provision for such a misfortune in this Bill, and I consider it is a misfortune that any landowner, large or small, should have his property disfigured by dilapidated buildings of this kind. The Act of 1873 provides for such cases; and I think, when an entirely novel proposal of this kind is made, there should be at least the same facilities to meet this contingency as have been given in former measures. Some Members of the House are disposed to make sport of the fact that there are a very large number of different denominations; but I am not one of those. I regret that religion should cause men to separate into so many bodies, and believe it would be highly advantageous to the cause of religion if the number of denominations were smaller. But I think it will be admitted that all denominations are not entitled to the same consideration. I presume the Mormons would claim to be considered a religious body; but it would be a strong measure for any hon. Member to bring in a Bill to enable members of the Mormon denomination to acquire sites compulsorily, and to establish themselves on a firm footing to disseminate their most pernicious doctrines. The County Council is to determine whether there is any just demand, and to have regard to all the circumstances of the case. Surely that is a large and comprehensive demand. They have to settle whether or not a site is required by a denomination, and I believe no County Council can fairly judge a question of that kind. The promoters themselves may know whether it is required or not, or they may be ambitious beyond the requirements of the neighbourhood; but it is impossible that a County Council can act with any certainty in a matter of this kind. Nothing is more uncertain than the success of a new place of worship. Sometimes a place which is started under the most favourable auspices goes to decay, and in another case you find that out of a small beginning a magnificent structure will spring up. A further question is whether any undue injury will be caused to the property which is to be acquired, and this is a problem which is most difficult of solution. What injury is due and what is undue is a question which is not easily decided; and I think, in asking a County Council to decide questions of this kind, you would be putting upon that body a power with which it was never contemplated that they should be entrusted. They have not the judicial power of summoning witnesses and putting them on oath. These are some of the difficulties which have occurred to me in considering this measure; but I regret that I have laid them before the House in a somewhat imperfect manner, as I was taken by surprise that this Bill should have been reached so soon. My great objection to this Bill is the introduction of the principle of compulsory purchase, not for the benefit of the entire community, but for one section of the community only. This is, I believe, an entirely new principle. I regard it as a mischievous principle, and I hope the House will not sanction it by agreeing to the Second Reading of this Bill.

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. Kelly.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

(6.9.) THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)

I have listened to the observations with which the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Bill introduced it to the notice of the House. I admit that he gave a very clear though very brief explanation of the measure; but what he failed to do was to lay any facts before the House indicating the necessity for passing such a Bill at all.

MR. JOHN ELLIS

That has already been done in this Parliament.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am not aware whether that is so or not; but the fact that a Bill has been debated on a previous occasion does not absolve us, when a measure is brought forward, from explaining and justifying the proposals that we make to the House. So far as I am concerned, if a necessity were shown for compulsory powers under proper safeguards for the purpose of acquiring sites for religious denominations who are otherwise unable to obtain them, I should not offer any opposition to a proposal of that sort. The proposals really are two. One is that a large number of religious bodies desire to obtain land for the purpose of erecting buildings in which they can conduct services agreeable to their awn consciences, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Ellis) also proposes that where they are unable to obtain these sites they should have compulsory powers given to them. If it were shown that religious bodies desired to obtain such sites and could not obtain them, and that such a desire existed on a large scale, I should be glad to see any well-considered proposal for relieving them of that disability. But the hon. Member, I think, must be aware, and would agree with us, that compulsion ought not to be gratuitously introduced into any Bill unless the necessity for that compulsion existed; and if it were introduced it should be provided for in such a manner that the rights of any individual concerned, especially of those individuals from whom land is compulsorily obtained, shall be amply safeguarded. The hon. Gentleman appears to me to have satisfied neither of those two conditions. He has not given us any indication that any pressing necessity exists, and he certainly has not shown either that the rights of individuals are safeguarded, or that the machinery by which he proposes to carry out the objects of the Bill is really the kind of machinery to the institution of which the House of Commons ought to consent. For what is the machinery proposed? The machinery is not a judicial body which shall inquire the fair price of land and give a decision on the subject. It is not a jury or a properly constituted Court, before which evidence could be taken on oath, and bound to look at the matters which come before it from a judicial point of view. But, as far as I understand the machinery which the hon. Member proposes, it consists of the County Council of the county in which the site is desired; and, with all respect to the hon. Member, a body less fitted to carry out judicial functions it would be hard to conceive. By hypothesis, however, this Bill is only required where the landowner refuses to sell land for the site of a place of worship either from religious prejudice or other causes connected with unfortunate religious differences which prevail in parts of the country, and where the Nonconformist Body could not obtain the site they desired to obtain. If, therefore, the matter is one of acute controversy in the district, how can you go to the County Council elected by the ratepayers and expect a judicial decision? The County Council might have a strong religious bias adverse to the particular sect which desires and ought to have the site. That is possible; it is, perhaps, even in some cases probable, and in that case how can the County Council, elected on Party lines, animated possibly by Party feeling, possibly influenced by strong religious prejudice, calmly and impartially decide a question as to whether a site is required, and a question as to what are the rights of the parties in the matter? The County Council in some cases might defeat the object which the hon. Member has in view. We can suppose a County Council animated by the exactly opposite view, by strong antagonism to the landlord who has refused a site, who would use the enormous powers given by this Bill, not merely for the purpose of supplying the want which exists, but for the purpose of annoying some particular owner of property. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman has suggested that a County Council, a body consisting of 70 or 100 members, shall sit and take evidence on oath, and look into all the details connected with the purchase of some site, and the religious necessities of some denomination. Is it possible that you can turn a body of 50 or 100 gentlemen into a tribunal for taking evidence on oath, and deciding matters of this kind? The hon. Member (Mr. John Ellis) will, therefore, I think, see that the machinery he has devised cannot possibly carry out his objects, or even be so altered in Committee as to be made to carry them out. The machinery he proposes is fundamentally bad, and for that reason I think he will feel that the Bill in its present shape cannot possibly receive the assent of the House. I will go a step further. As I said in my opening sentences, this House, before it gives compulsory powers for the acquisition of property, has always hitherto taken the most ample safeguards for protecting the rights of the individuals from whom property is thus compulsorily taken. What safeguard does the hon. Gentleman lay down? From such study, which I must admit has been rather hasty, as I have been able to give to this Bill, I can find not a single word about price or value, or ascertaining the price or ascertaining the value, or of compensation to the owner of the property from the first clause of the Bill to the last—from its first line to the end of the Schedule. I presume, though the hon. Gentleman has not touched upon that subject in his Bill, that the County Council of 50, 100, or 150 gentlemen who are to take evidence on oath and hear all the case for the applicants and the owner of property are to decide by a Party vote, or by a vote which may be a Party vote, as to how much money is to be given for the land thus compulsorily taken from the property owner. I think he will see that to charge a County Council with the determining of the amount of money or compensation to be given in such cases is to give them a power which they are totally unfit to exercise, and which may lead to the gravest abuses and the gravest unfairness.

MR. JOHN ELLIS

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to ask him whether the County Councils have not quasi-judicial powers?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think the hon. Member will be extremely puzzled to find any case in which a County Council, acting as a body, have judicial power at all, and certainly not judicial power of the kind that is given to them in this case. I will guarantee that the hon. Gentleman will not find a precedent for such an extraordinary and abnormal power given to any public body as that of settling whether land shall be bought compulsorily, and then deciding what price is to be given for that land. I do not believe that this Bill, as it stands, would work at all. I am sure it would work badly, but I think it would not work at all. Under the existing process County Councils cannot administer an oath; and I apprehend that the words in the 7th section of this Bill which says that they may take such evidence in such manner as they think fit, upon oath or otherwise—I apprehend that those words casually introduced would not place County Councils in the entirely novel position of being able in their corporate capacity to administer an oath to a witness. Therefore it appears to me that this Bill errs in almost every respect in which a Bill of this kind can err. The necessity for it has not been proved. The particular machinery by which it is proposed to carry it out is unworkable machinery; and even if it were a machinery that could be worked, there is no protection that it would be worked with justice or equity to the owners of the land taken. There is every reason for believing that it would be used either against the Nonconformists or against the owners of property according to the prejudices, passions, or political or religious views of the County Council, or according to the views which might sway or incline the majority of the members of that body. If, however, the hon. Gentleman thinks that a case can be made out for a compulsory Bill, I hardly think he will endeavour to carry this compulsory Bill, and I shall be prepared to have the matter investigated by a Committee of this House, and to put before that Committee both the proposal of the hon. Gentleman and a Bill introduced, I think, by some Gentleman on this side of the House, for depriving the Church of England of the power in this respect which it at present possesses, but which it has not so far found necessary to exercise. The question is one which deserves consideration, but it cannot possibly be settled by the Bill which is now before the House. I am quite prepared to admit that if a case can be made out, if it can be shown that the Nonconformist Body as a whole desire sites and cannot obtain them; that they are deprived of the power of carrying out their own religious worship in their own way by the difficulty of obtaining land on which to erect places of worship—if that can be shown, and if some method can be contrived of carrying out that object with equity both to the Nonconformists and to the owners of property, I should be very glad to accept it. But I think that this Bill in its present shape cannot be passed, and I would suggest to the hon. Member that he should give his adhesion to the proposal I have made.

(6.22.) MR. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

The hon. Member for Wigan has described this as a novel proposal, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that 22 years ago, before he came into the House, I brought forward a Bill on all-fours, as far as principle is concerned, with this Bill, and that was read a second time without opposition. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour), in all fairness, I admit, objected to this Bill on two grounds—first, that no case had been made out for compulsion, by which I suppose he meant that no case was quoted in which landlords had been asked to sell land for the purpose of erecting places of worship, but had refused.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No actual case has been quoted.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

That may be so. The second objection was to the machinery. I will try to deal with these objections. I confess this Bill has come upon me by surprise. I had not the least idea that it would be reached so early, and I am sorry that there is not a single Member from Wales present beside myself, or they could have given the right hon. Gentleman cases, especially from Wales, where the land belongs in the main to two or three great landowners, in which land had been required for sites for chapels, and had been refused by the landlords. I am not prepared now to quote cases, but they have been mentioned to this House, and cases could be quoted to this House which would abundantly prove the necessity for some Bill of this kind. The second objection was to the machinery. The only other machinery which could possibly be provided for carrying out such a measure as this is the Lands Clauses Act; but that is a matter of the greatest possible expense, and thoroughly unfitted for a purpose of this kind. In the Bill I brought forward 22 years ago I did avail myself of the machinery of the Lands Clauses Act; but it was pointed out in the debate that that machinery was wholly unsuitable in small cases where economy was desirable. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has formed such a low opinion of the County Councils, which, after all, are the creation of his own Government.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

As judicial authorities.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

He seems to doubt whether it would be possible for a County Council elected by popular representation to deal fairly between the landowners and the ratepayers. I entertain a better opinion of the County Councils than the right hon. Gentleman. The rest of his objections were really purely matters of detail. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have carefully read Clause 7, which distinctly gives the power, by implication at all events, to take evidence upon oath or otherwise. But if there is any doubt as to those words being sufficient, I am certain that my hon. Friend who has charge of this Bill would not for a moment hesitate to introduce words which would make the clause properly effective. Then, with respect to a further objection, it seems to me to be quite impossible that you can have words more carefully guarding the rights and interests of landowners; but if you want more words by all means let them be inserted. But these questions are, after all, purely questions of detail, and therefore questions which ought not to be raised on the Second Reading of a Bill, but should be raised in Committee. The hon. Member for Wigan talked about the danger of the Mormons coming to England and the scandal which would be caused if a section of the Mormons were to insist on a compulsory site. That is an argument which has done duty over and over again, and I think was last heard from the lips of the hon. Member himself in the Debate on the Burials Bill. Surely it is merely trifling with a subject like this. I know that the matter is one about which there is a deep feeling in my own constituency and in my own Principality, and, after all, you must bear in mind that the Bill is founded upon a demand for equality. We are merely asking for the Nonconformist denominations the right which the Church of England, whether it chose to exercise it or not, has under an Act more than 60 years old. It seems to me that to grant a thing to the Church of England and to withhold it from the Nonconformists is, to say the least, invidious. If the whole matter is to be inquired into, I trust my hon. Friend will agree to the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury; but I would suggest that the Second Reading be pushed to a Division, if only for the purpose of showing that the House of Commons of 1892 is not less liberal than the House of Commons of 1870.

*(6.30.) MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

I cannot allow the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury with respect to the machinery of the Bill to pass unchallenged. His objections do not go to the root of the Bill, but apply solely to the machinery by which my hon. Friend proposes to carry out the principle. As to the judicial functions of the County Council, the right hon. Gentleman was himself a Member of the Government which endowed all County Councils with judicial functions, and they are now called upon to decide judicially in cases of licensing, and, more than that, the London County Council has decided judicially between Local Bodies and individual citizens. I sat upon a committee of that Council to decide between the Vestry of Paddington and an individual ratepayer, who thought the Vestry was wrong in asking him to make some sanitary improvements in his property. The Committee decided against the ratepayer, who was consequently put to some expense. All these judicial or quasi-judicial powers are now in daily exercise by County Councils. The hon. Gentleman says no evidence has been brought forward to justify the demand. The case has not, perhaps, been prepared with very great care, but evidence was given before the Town Holdings Committee and in the Debates on the Enfranchisement of Places of Worship Bill.

MR. KELLY

The hon. Member for Denbighshire referred to some evidence in that Debate, and I challenged him to give a name, but he did not do so.

* MR. LAWSON

There was evidence by Welsh witnesses that they could not get sites, and some of the witnesses from rural districts and Wales went so far as to give reasons for a Bill of this character, although outside the scope of the Committee's inquiry. My hon. Friend asks for nothing more than to bring the whole case and law into a logical form. Under the Act of 1818 Commissioners acting for the Church of England can obtain land for a new site or for the enlargement of a church compulsorily; and my hon. Friend asks that the same power may be given to other religious bodies, and that they may be placed on a footing of equality. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) proposes to repeal the powers in the case of the Church of England, not because that Church is unworthy to possess them, but because other bodies think they should receive equality of treatment. I think the First Lord of the Treasury would be acting more fairly if he allowed the Second Reading to pass, and then referred the Bill to a Select Committee, and I do not see why the Bill of the hon. Member for Wigan should not go to the same Committee.

(6.35.) MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

I rise to ask whether the First Lord of the Treasury proposes to read these two Bills a second time and send them both to a Select Committee, or whether he intends to oppose both Bills and refer the question to a Select Committee? If the former is the position he takes up, it would be satisfactory to many Members on this side; but I do not see that there would be much gain in adopting the other course.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman has asked which of two possible courses I recommend the House to adopt. It is, perhaps, my fault that I did not make myself sufficiently clear. I do not believe this is a possible Bill, but I have no objection to the principle if the necessity for it can be shown before a Select Committee. Under these circumstances, I see no reason to object to the Second Reading, it being distinctly understood that we take that view, and that the whole question be threshed out before a Select Committee.

(6.38.) MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

I hope it is understood that the whole question is open; that the whole question is to go before the Select Committee. I do not think that hon. Members quite realise that the Act of 1818 has only been acted upon once, and one of the grounds urged for repealing it is that there is now no religious feeling in this country which will prevent the acquisition of sites without compulsory powers. The theory of hon. Members opposite is that the whole country is divided up amongst large landowners; but even if that be so, there may be small occupiers who may be affected by this Bill, and I do not see any provision for compensating them as distinct from the owner. The right hon. Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) contended that the procedure under the Lands Clauses Act would not be applicable, as it was so expensive. I would ask him to consider the nature of the inquiry to be held by the County Council as proposed here, and he will find that that would not be inexpensive. I should like to know what the position of a small owner would be. It might be that the animosity of two local religious bodies might go so far that one might feel pleasure in bringing the property of a member of the other body before the County Council. There is also nothing in the Bill which requires those persons who acquire sites to use them for religious purposes; it might be used for the erection of houses or anything else. I think it would be a distinct advantage to get these matters investigated before a Select Committee.

(6.42.) SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)

After what the First Lord of the Treasury has said, there seems to be little occasion for further discussion. But I confess it does seem to me an odd sort of arrangement to refer to the same Committee another Bill which proposes to take away from another denomination the power this Bill proposes to give to Nonconformists. It brings back to my recollection an incident of some years ago when a similar Bill was before the House, when I ventured to point out that the Church of England possessed this power. That was violently denied by the whole of the clergy of the Church of England. I was denounced with bell, book, and candle by a right rev. Prelate, who said I had invented a Statute for the purpose of attacking the Church of England. I ventured to refer him to the Statute Book, but I do not think he had the grace to apologise. The Church seems to have become aware of this power, and wants to get rid of it. But the Church of England is not in the same difficulty in getting sites from landowners as are the Nonconformist Bodies, and it is ridiculous to say that one rule should apply to both—in Wales, for instance. To say there is no grievance is contrary to my experience and the testimony I have heard. I have often heard the question discussed; and though the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware of the instances which have occurred, I have seen them over and over again. If the question goes before a Committee I hope it will end by giving all denominations power to acquire compulsorily sites for their places of religious worship, and that it will not be urged that the Church of England will give up its power if you will continue the disability of the Nonconformists. I hope the Bill will go to a Committee with the view not of narrowing its limits, but rather of enlarging them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

I presume my Bill will be referred to the same Committee.

MR. SPEAKER

Not now.

Bill committed to a Select Committee.