PLACES OF WORSHIP ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.—(No. 28.)

HC Deb 09 March 1892 vol 2 cc375-440

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read.

(12.37.) MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

I rise, Sir, to a point of Order of some importance upon which I should like to have your ruling. The Bill just called was only delivered to Members this morning—in fact, I understand from my hon. Friend who has just left the House (Mr. Stuart Wortley) that at the Home Office the Bill was not delivered this morning. I only mention this to show that if a Bill is delayed until the last moment accidents may well occur. I am told copies were in the Vote Office last night, and I believe that is correct; but Members are not bound to go to the Vote Office for a Bill. To none of us was the Bill delivered before this morning, and I ask you, Sir, is it consonant with the unwritten law of the House that the Bill should now be proceeded with?

(12.38.) MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,) Eifion

Perhaps, Sir, you will allow me to explain that the Bill is substantially the same as that which passed a Second Reading last year. Such alterations as have been made have been introduced to meet objections which were raised on the other side of the House. The Bill was in the Vote Office last night, and I informed the hon. Member that he could get a copy there. Under the circumstances, I hope there will be no objection to the Debate going forward. I may state, further, that there has been great pressure upon the Printing Department, owing to the large number of Bills having to be printed. It was intended that the Bill should have been circulated on Saturday.

(12.39.) MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

On the point of Order I may observe that, on looking through the Bill in the limited time at my disposal, I find there that it has been considerably altered in important provisions from the Bill of last year.

(12.39.) MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

I am in the position of not having received the Bill at all, and I come to the discussion as if it were a First Reading. I believe that according to the Rules of the House a Bill, after it has been read a first time, should be in the possession of the House, not of some of its Members; and if it is only supplied at the last moment, how can it be said to be in the possession of the House? All sorts of alterations may have been made in the interval without the knowledge of the House. I may say, also, that the point becomes more important from the fact that a Bill read a second time now receives a priority in its subsequent stages, which formerly was not the case. It is, therefore, the more necessary that the Bill should be in the hands of Members a sufficient time before it comes on for Second Reading. It is important not only that Members of the House may have full knowledge of its contents, but also that they may have the opportunity of hearing opinions outside the House on the subject with which a Bill deals. There are many persons outside the House with whom I have been in communication, and who have not had the opportunity of perusing this Bill and of knowing what it contains. I am told that the Bill has been very considerably altered from the Bill of last year, and I submit we should not be asked to proceed with the Second Reading now.

MR. SPEAKER

What has passed shows the inconvenience of discussing a Bill only very recently in the hands of hon. Members. I cannot interfere, however, on a point of Order to stop the Debate, though, of course, it is an argument against a Second Reading Debate if hon. Members have an imperfect knowledge of the provisions of a Bill.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

After that expression of opinion, perhaps the hon. Member opposite will think it well not to proceed with the Debate now?

(12.41.) MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS

The objections which may arise are such as are fitted for consideration in Committee; and as we do not propose, should the Bill be read a second time, that the Committee stage should be taken until after Whitsuntide, there will be three months for the provisions of the Bill to be carefully examined. In principle the Bill is identical with that which the House last year passed by an overwhelming majority, and the alterations in detail are to meet objections raised by hon. Members last year. The House passed the Bill last year on the understanding that alterations should be made in Committee, and we have now made the alterations, and offer three months for their consideration. Substantially, I say, this is a reintroduction of the Bill moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Glamorgan (Mr. S. Evans) last year. That Bill was based on the recommendations of the Town Holdings Committee, which sat in 1889. On this point that Committee unanimously reported that it was "desirable on public grounds" that religious bodies should have the power to acquire the freeholds of their places of worship. I draw attention to the words used, because the Home Secretary in the Debate last year took objection that it was a novelty in legislation to create compulsory powers except where public interests were concerned, and he objected that the necessities of a particular sect were not matters of public interest. The Committee base their recommendations on "public grounds," not on consideration of the convenience of any sect or denomination. The result of the Division last year relieves me from the necessity of labouring the case on behalf of the Bill. The question of principle was exhaustively discussed, and in the result the principle was affirmed by a majority of more than two to one. We had a majority of 108—the largest in any Division. That being so, I need not go over the arguments again. When we look at the composition of that majority, it is to me, a Nonconformist supporter of the Bill, a great satisfaction to find that it was not made up of Members from one side of the House, it was largely made up of Members from the other side. We unfortunately have been compelled to regard the Conservative Party as antagonistic to Nonconformists, as desirous to repress the progress of Nonconformity, and to re- sist changes on behalf of Nonconformist interests. I hail with satisfaction, therefore, the evidence furnished by that Division that a large section of the Conservative Party are fully disposed to deal with perfect fairness and impartiality, if not with generosity, towards Nonconformists. We are entitled to this feeling, for it will be found that where Nonconformity prevails there will be the most peaceful and loyal of Her Majesty's subjects. Having regard to these facts then, I will not weary the House with arguments in favour of the principle of the Bill, but will confine myself to explaining the alterations made in the Bill since we had it before us last year. In the first place, some comment was made on account of the absence of a sufficient definition of what was a place of religious worship. That has been defined with greater strictness in the present Bill as— Any church, chapel, or meeting house belonging to or held in trust for a religious body for religious worship. There is a further qualification that it must beheld on a lease granted originally for a term of not less than 30 years. This we have introduced to meet the objection that a place of worship might be taken for a year, that a room might be temporarily hired, and then the religious body having installed themselves for an annual tenancy might say "we are going to buy the freehold," and might compel the landlord to sell. Nothing of the kind was intended last year, and I do not think it could have been effected by the Bill; but it is placed beyond possibility by the provision in the Bill now, for there will be no right to claim the freehold where the land is held under a lease originally granted for less than 30 years. I have selected 30 years, because in evidence before the Town Holdings Committee it was shown that on some estates such short leases have been granted and chapels have been built. Perhaps in Committee it may be found that we ought to shorten this term by a year or two, for the reason that very often a lease, for say 30 years, is not really for that term, but from the date when the lease began to run. Entry may be made in pursuance of an arrangement for an original lease, and while the terms are being settled, but before the actual lease is granted, a few months may elapse. So a lease of 30 years might be excluded, and perhaps we may have to shorten the term by a year or two, to prevent accidents of that kind affecting the Bill. But substantially it is intended that all leases granted or originally intended to represent 30 years shall be subject to enfranchisement. Then it was objected last year that the definition in the Bill included not only places of worship, but ministers' houses. It will be remembered that the Home Secretary said there was nothing to prevent a minister residing in Regent's Park, with a place of worship in Albany Street, compelling the owner to sell his house for the purposes of a particular denomination. I do not think that could have been done, because the definition applied to a minister's house is "held therewith." However, to make it perfectly clear, we have provided that it shall include— Any schoolhouse, manse, or minister's house, chapel keeper's or caretaker's house, vestry buildings, land, garden, or burial ground, appurtenant thereto, and held therewith under the same lease or underlease, or under a lease or underlease granted by the same lessor or persons claiming through or under him. So it would only apply in cases of this kind where a lease was granted for the manse or minister's house, &c. It sometimes occurs that people, having built a chapel by subscription, then bethink them of building a manse for their ministers, and go to the owner for additional ground. We extend it only to those cases where the lease is granted by the same landlord or person representing the same person who granted the lease upon which the chapel was built. Objection was taken last year that the interpretation might be construed so that when a chapel was built on a piece of land, possibly part of a farm, the whole farm might be bought out. Again, I think this was a fallacious objection, but we have made the matter clear in the 3rd clause, where it is provided that— If the land and garden held with the place of worship under any such lease shall exceed two acres in extent, the trustees shall not be entitled to exercise such right in respect of more than two acres of such land and garden. Of course, the absolute extent is matter for Committee. We only wish to carry out the principle that the acquisition is only for places of worship and purposes in connection with such. I have selected two acres as the quantity to be sold for valuable consideration without having recourse to registration under the Wharncliffe Act. Then there is the question of the right of pre-emption in case the chapel ceases to be used for religious worship. This is provided for in the fullest manner by Clause 15. It is there provided that where Trustees, after enfranchisement, offer for sale or desire to sell the chapel, or even if they do not desire to sell, but to let for use for any other purpose than religious worship, then they shall give right of pre-emption to the reversioner, exactly in the same way as the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act gives the right of pre-emption to the previous landowner when a Railway Company desires to dispose of land purchased compulsorily, so the Trustees must give the right of pre-emption to the grantor of the lease. All the alterations made—and they are pretty numerous—are of a limiting direction for the protection of the reversioner, and in deference to objections raised last year on the other side of the House. One other alteration has been made which does not arise out of any objection urged from the other side, and it is this: In estimating the compensation it is provided that, instead of a lump sum down, it shall take the form of a perpetual rent-charge based on the market value of the property at the time, and the object of this is to do away with the enormous cost of proving a title. The expense of this proceeding is enormous to the purchaser, and, as the House is well aware, the immense majority of Nonconformist chapels belong to very poor congregations. To give them a form of enfranchisement which would impose on them enormous costs in a large number of cases—I may say in a majority of cases actually more than the amount of the purchase money for enfranchisement—would be to withdraw with one hand what you purport to give with the other hand—a mockery rather than a benefit. I have sought to avoid this disadvantage by securing that a rent-charge shall be given instead of purchase money. If a lump sum of purchase money is paid there necessarily must result an investigation of title that the purchaser may not be required in a few years, or in many years, to pay the money over again to somebody else who proves himself the rightful owner. I proceed on the principle of exchanging the reversion for an annual rent-charge; and so long as the rent-charge is a fair equivalent for the value of the reversion, then it is not necessary to inquire into the title. If the person who is in actual ownership of the reversion should turn out not to have a legal claim, then it is provided that the rightful claimant shall, whenever he raises his claim, have the same remedy in respect to the rent-charge which has been exchanged for the reversion as he would have had in respect to the reversion. This principle I have adopted from the Inclosure Acts. The alteration I have made is an important one. It will be seen that the matter does not affect the title at all, for by the special arrangement of the clause it is provided that the compensation shall be a rent-charge, and when the person who has been in possession is receiving rent for five years—and that, again, is a question for Committee: if five years are too short, it can be lengthened—but if the person is in possession for five years, he has a right to appoint a valuer; and in default of a valuer being appointed, then the County Court is appointed valuer, and the rent-charge is thereupon fixed. With regard to the method of fixing the rent-charge, I have endeavoured also, with a view of avoiding costs, to provide that there shall be only one arbitrator, and I think that is an important principle in the interests of economy. My experience is that whenever each party appoints a valuer, these valuers are apt to consider themselves as advocates for the particular party that has appointed them. You have a double set of valuers; you have valuers as advocates and the solicitors as advocates, and that ultimately leads to the appointing of an umpire; and, therefore, I think it is far better to fix an umpire at once. If the parties do not agree upon a single person to act as valuer, then that single person is to be appointed by the County Court. That meets the objection taken last year to the Bill, which held that a County Court was not a tribunal which could fairly gauge the value of the reversion. The County Court would no doubt be an expensive tribunal, as it would necessitate witnesses and two or three valuers; whereas, having one valuer, appointed by the County Court Judge, saves expense and is an advantage on the side of economy. These are the principles of a Bill which I hope I am not unduly sanguine in trusting the Government will accept with the alterations I have made. Those alterations, as they will see, are very drastic; they are alterations made to meet the objections taken by the other side to the last measure, and I think an examination of the Bill will show also that the objections taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and by the hon. Member for East Bradford have been all fully met in the Bill I now propose to the House. Therefore, there only remains the objection to the principle of the Bill. I do not think I need discuss the principle, for that was decided by the last Division. I must say that the objection taken by the Home Secretary appears to me to be a trivial one, suggested by his own legal ingenuity. I hope the Government will accept the decision arrived at last year, and recognise an earnest attempt made upon this side of the House to meet the objections that have been raised. I therefore beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.

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

(1.10.) MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

I rise, Mr. Speaker, to ask the House to consent to what may appear an unusual Motion; at least it may appear an unusual Motion at this early hour upon a Wednesday's Sitting. I am going to move that the Debate be now adjourned. And I wish to explain to the House that I do so for this reason: When at the opening of the Sitting I asked your opinion upon a point of order, I was aware that, tech- nically speaking, I could not establish my point of order against the hon. Member. But when it had been stated from the Chair that the course which the hon. and learned Member was taking was an inconvenient one, I expected that the hon. and learned Member, knowing from the highest authorities in the House that the course he has adopted will be an inconvenient course, would have seen the propriety of bowing to the suggestion that had fallen from the Chair, and have allowed this Bill to stand over to a later day. Because he did not bow to this suggestion from the Chair, but has taken his own course, I am obliged to move the Adjournment of the Debate. I am fortified in this course by the hon. Member's own speech. He says that it is unnecessary now to consider the principle of the Bill, because of the Division of last year. It is a new doctrine altogether to me, and I think it will be regarded as a new doctrine by many Members in this House, that there should be no discussion on the principle of a Bill, because it had been accepted by even a large majority in a previous Session of Parliament. But I also wish to point out to the House that this is a totally different measure to the Bill of last year; in fact, the hon. and learned Member himself admits it, for he says he has endeavoured so to alter it as to meet all the objections then taken. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member through all the observations he has made, nor do I profess to have the legal ability to grapple with them; but from what I hear upon this side I am led to understand that many of the alterations he has made tend decidedly towards making his Bill worse instead of improving it. But whether that is so or not, I say that the Bill is a different Bill, and upon that ground it should not be proposed except in accordance with the regular proceedings which characterise our Debates in this House. No one will deny that Sir Erskine May was correct when he says that if a Bill is not printed at a Second Reading, its postponement is generally insisted upon. This Bill is, I do not say absolutely, but morally, not printed. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Home Department tells me that at 20 minutes to 12 to-day, when he came to the Home Office, the Bill was not there, and the Under Secretary for the Colonies told me that he had not seen the Bill—that it had not reached him. I mention that to show that the Bill has not been delivered to hon. Members in the proper sense of the word, and to say that it has been delivered is an abuse of language as the term is understood in this House. The hon. Member says that we could have got a copy of the Bill if we had gone to the Vote Office; but that is not the usual way in which a Bill is delivered to hon. Members of this House. I hope we never shall want to legislate in a hurry, and I say this is asking the House to legislate in a hurry, when you ask us to pass the Second Reading of a Bill of a highly contentious character, and as to which there is not ample time for deliberation. I say it is an entire innovation on the procedure of this House. If this Bill is of importance—and so it is regarded by both sides of the House—it is right that we should have an opportunity of consulting our constituents upon it. What opportunities has any one of us had of asking one single member of our constituents his opinion respecting it? Some of the Metropolitan Members might, perhaps, have hurriedly done so had they taken a cab this morning; but the vast majority of the Members of this House have had no opportunity whatever. I hope the hon. Member will see that this is a matter upon which there should be no difference of opinion, and after what I have said I think hon. Members will see that this is a matter which should command the attention of the entire House. I am sorry the Opposition is not represented by its Leader, or by its sub-leader, the right hon. Member for Derby, as I am sure that they would both recognise that my proposition is entirely in accordance with the customs of the House. I am glad, however, to see the Leader of the House present. I think every party will see that I am asking nothing in any way of a factious or partisan character, and I hope hon. Members will see that it is in accordance with the usual practice of this House, which I think tends to the dignity of our debates, that this Debate be now adjourned.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)

MR. SPEAKER

I make no complaint whatever against the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire for pressing the Second Reading. What I said did not amount to so much as a suggestion to the hon. Member. In ordinary circumstances I should not consent to put the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate; but I shall do so now, as I think it is essentially a matter for the House to decide, whether the comparatively short time that has elapsed since the Bill has been placed in the hands of hon. Members and the alterations that have been made in the measure since last Session would militate against the fair discussion of the Bill, and that it is proper that the discussion on the Second Reading should not now take place. The Question is that this Debate be now adjourned.

(1.15.) SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

I am sure the House will thank you, Sir, for putting the position in which the House is so clearly before us. I am sure if you, Sir, had not spoken we should have ventured to combat the deductions drawn from your words by the hon. Member opposite. But I will leave that matter, as you, Sir, have put it in a manner so clearly and so impartially. The hon. Member opposite described the action he has taken as "unusual." I think it is not only unusual, but somewhat ungracious, and even ungenerous. This is a very peculiar Session. Private Members are deprived—and I do not pass any condemnation upon the Government—private Members are deprived, at a singularly early period in the Session, of the whole or greater part of the time which was generally devoted to pressing their views upon the House. That is serious; but this proposal of adjournment is much more serious, for Wednesdays afford the only opportunity which private Members have of putting their views in the shape of legislation, and for pressing that legislation upon the House. This is no question of Party—it is a question of the usefulness of this House. If the few opportunities that remain to us of any Bill introduced by a private Member becoming law be further curtailed, and if Bills for which early Wednesdays have been secured are to be shut out by the action of hon. Members opposite, private Members' opportunities for legislating will practically be confiscated, and I think it is an action in regard to which hon. Members upon both sides of the House should act together to prevent. Now, is there anything unusual about this Bill which excludes it from the category of private Members' Bills, to which every legitimate chance is usually given? I hold that there is not. It is a Bill founded on the unanimous recommendation of one of the most important Committees that ever sat. They were unanimous in their recommendation, and, what is more, it is a Bill which passed its Second Reading last Session after a searching debate. The principle of it has passed the House by a majority which I think it is not unfair to describe as a majority of two to one, in a very full House. Therefore, if there is any Bill as to which exceptional treatment should not be dealt out, I think it is this. What, then, is the reason given? There is only one reason, and that is that the Bill has not been long enough in the hands of hon. Members. But if hon. Members showed the interest in the Bill which many of us take, and which I take, by going to the Bill Office last night, they could have got a copy; they could have got a copy early in the evening, and read it with the aid of such law books as there are in the Library, and such legal advice as one can always pick up from hon. Members interested in the Bill itself, and they could have come here, after the reflections of the previous evening, to enlighten us upon the measure. But some hon. Members did not take that trouble. The Bill was delivered at my house at the usual time this morning with the other Bills, and if it is the case that copies have not been delivered at the Home Office and other public Offices outside the House it possibly is due to some faulty arrangement at those Offices, and not due to the officers of this House. This Bill is the same in principle as was the Bill which was passed by the House under such remarkable circumstances. It differs in certain details, and these details have been explained with remarkable clearness by the hon. Member. It must be remembered that these changes were made specially to meet the objections of detail which were made in the Debate on the Second Reading last year. This Bill deserves not only the partial but the unanimous support of the House, because the objections that have been made against a Bill containing the same principles have been removed. I must say that hon. Members should consider the condition of Wales; the manner in which Wales has been waiting year after year for this change, and that it is a reform of immense importance demanded by the highest sentiments and the highest interests of that country; and they should understand that it would be ungracious, and an ungenerous thing not to do everything in their power to bring the question rapidly to a conclusion.

(1.20.) VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Lancashire, N. E., Darwen)

The right hon. Gentleman tells us that private Members have been very badly treated this Session. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that there was nothing in the world to prevent the hon. Gentleman from drawing and circulating the Bill a fortnight or a month ago. There is no reason why we should not have time to consider the details of this measure, considering the enormous importance of it. If the hon. Member had chosen, he could have had his Bill printed and ready, in fact, when the House met. It is a Bill of the most complicated character, and the changes that have been made in it are very considerable. I am not going to discuss those changes upon a Motion for Adjournment; but hon. Members must see the changes; perhaps changes of detail, but changes of such great magnitude have been made as to constitute a very considerable alteration in the provisions of the Bill. I have seen it stated that so large were the alterations, and so great the mistakes made in the drafting of the measure, that, even if this afternoon it should receive a Second Reading, the Bill would have to be practically redrafted before passing it into law. It is always said that a Second Reading refers only to the principle of a Bill, but in my short experience I have seen many Bills rejected upon the ground that they required so much alteration that it would not be worth while to read them a second time. As to the printing of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman opposite said that we might have got the Bill last night. But he must remember that there were very few Members in the House yesterday afternoon. I, myself, went to the Office and asked for the Bill which was the first Order on the Paper to-day, and I was told that it was not in print. There were very few Members in the House last afternoon, and those who were absent might fairly imagine that no Bill would be taken up which was not printed; and that when with their Parliamentary Papers, there was no copy, they very naturally concluded in all parts of the country, that the Bill would not be taken up, and that it would not be necessary to trouble themselves about it. The hon. Member for Oxford University has rightly stated that we have not had time to consult our constituents. I have no very great knowledge of the customs of the House, but from inquiries I have made I am informed that it is a most unusual course to proceed with a Second Reading under such circumstances. An hon. Member has informed me that this is a matter of the very utmost importance, and that we should resist the proposal that a Bill which was not printed until late in the evening before should be passed on a Second Reading upon a Wednesday at 2 o'clock. I think the hon. Member will see that it is entirely his fault and the fault of his friends, and that we are entirely justified in opposing further procedure with a Bill of such a contentious character.

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

Everybody will admit that my hon. Friend who raised this discussion had a great deal to say for the contention which he laid before the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton, in the few remarks he made to the House, in a tone of which I certainly do not feel disposed to complain, dwelt upon the importance of this Bill for Wales, and upon the fact that its principle was accepted by the House by a large majority when the measure was last laid before them. I am not prepared to deny either that this Bill is of great interest to Wales, or that it was accepted by a large majority last year. What I would point out to the House is these are totally irrelevant matters. What we are considering is, not the value of this Bill, but the circumstances of its introduction into this House. The right hon. Baronet admits—and I must admit—that it was not in the hands of Members until late yesterday evening. He says that they might have obtained copies at 6 o'clock in the office, and have spent the night in considering it, and then have come down prepared to deal with it. But surely the contention is unreasonable. I was myself in the House between 6 and 7 o'clock, listening to the Debate raised by the hon. Member for South Donegal. I again came down to the House shortly after 9 o'clock in order to take part in the Debate upon the Scotch Fisheries, and I had to speak in that Debate shortly after 11 o'clock. What opportunity had I, having got to take part in that Debate, to make myself acquainted with the provisions of the Bill? A more unreasonable contention was never made. Anybody who listened to the clear and lucid statement of the hon. Member who introduced the Bill—a statement upon which I must congratulate him—must be aware that changes in a Bill—whether they affect its principle or not—are always matters of great importance. But the alterations introduced into this Bill are of extreme importance, involving complicated considerations and technical considerations; and the fact that the hon. Member had to spend over half-an-hour in defining the principles of the measure and in explaining the difference between the new Bill and the old Bill shows how necessary it is for the House to have time to consider the changes which have been made. Measures introduced by the Government which are usually of an important character are explained by a Minister in a speech at the First Reading; there is then very often a dis- cussion; then the Bill is printed and circulated, and laid on the Table of the House, and then the Government always allow a sufficient length of time to enable the House to consider the provisions of the Bill before moving the Second Reading, and when it comes to the Second Reading, Members of the House may, if they please, make such observations as appear to them to be appropriate, and which would not be suitable to a First Reading discussion, and there is usually along consideration of the printed Bill as laid on the Table of the House. When private Members, when irresponsible Members of this House deal with legislation, no such course of procedure is adopted, and no such tests as these are applied to their work. The hon. Member who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill has known ever since the Debate of last year what are the main difficulties in detail affecting his measure. He has had many months—eight or nine months—to consider them. But he has not thought fit to acquaint hon. Members with the result of his consideration until 12 hours before the Bill is discussed. Is it unreasonable that hon. Members on this side of the House who are deeply interested in the measure should, under these circumstances, find themselves obliged to complain of the procedure which the hon. Gentleman has adopted? I confess, Sir, that this is a matter which, as you are aware, I have long felt to be a great grievance, and a grievance of which the Government especially, who had got to give their opinion upon private Members' legislation, had a special right to complain. The hon. Member for West Belfast will know how often it was my fate, as Secretary for Ireland, to deal on a Wednesday afternoon with Bills which only reached me late on Tuesday night or on Wednesday morning, and I had to deal with them to the best of my ability. But this is not a practice which is either convenient to the House, or to the object of the legislative efforts of private Members. You, Sir, have stated to the House, as you have often stated to the House before, that this is not a question on which the Chair is entitled to deliver a sort of ruling, which would compel hon. Gentlemen to abstain from the discussion of which notice, though so short notice, has been given; but I think the practice is an inconvenient one, and I earnestly trust that what has been said to-day, and what has fallen from various Members in the discussion which has arisen on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, will do something to make a practice, which I am sure even hon. Gentlemen responsible for this Bill will admit is not a convenient practice, either for their friends or their opponents. With regard to the course which I think should now be taken, I am disposed to advise my hon Friend not to press his Motion to a Division. I heartily sympathise, as I have said, with the object he had in view in making it, and I think the reception which the House should give to the Motion should he wholly irrespective of the merits of the particular Bill discussed. But I think he will have felt that, and probably his object, so far as the general order of procedure is concerned, has been adequately carried out by the very general expression of opinion upon the main subject in all parts of the House, from the ruling which has been delivered from the Chair, and even the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Trevelyan), who advised the House to continue the discussion upon the main subject of the Bill. With that advice itself—though I do not agree with all that fell from the right hon. Baronet—I am disposed to agree; and I would suggest to my hon. Friend that, inconvenient as the course has, no doubt, been to him, and perhaps even to a greater degree to me, he should nevertheless allow the discussion to proceed, which is in Order, which interests a very large number of Gentlemen in this House, and on which it is important that a full and fair debate should take place.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

In deference to the appeal made to me by my right hon. Friend I beg leave to withdraw my Motion. And I may be allowed, perhaps, in doing so, to say that in the course I took I intended no disrespect to you, Sir, nor to the House.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

(1.35.) MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

I had no intention of intervening in this Debate, because last year, when a Bill involving exactly the same principle was before the House, I had an opportunity of saying my say. But there has been circulated to-day a paper of objections to this Bill, which involves some new considerations, and certainly puts them forward in much stronger language than any speaker against the Bill did last Session. In reference to what has taken place, I should like to point out that, so far from our opponents not being able to prepare their case, they have circulated an elaborate Memorandum of some five pages and containing no less than 19 different clauses trying to show to the House why it should not assent to the Second Reading of the Bill. The House will recollect that by a majority of over 100 they agreed to the principle of the Bill last Session. The principle is exactly the same this Session. Those who have read the Bill will know that the only change has been an improvement of the machinery by which it is proposed to carry that principle into effect. In Committee, if it reaches that stage, supposing it is not blocked as it was last year by the hon. Member for Bradford, they will have an opportunity of considering in debate every one of the provisions in regard to the machinery of the Bill. I should like to point out what are the particular errors committed by those who have drawn up these objections which I think will be seen through by hon. Members without much difficulty. It is stated that the object of the Bill is absolutely without precedent. Well, fortunately for us, we can point to the example of the Church of England. In 1818 a measure was passed by which the Commissioners under the Act were enabled not only to enfranchise a holding which the Church wants to obtain, but to go anywhere they choose and compulsorily take land for their own purposes and erect buildings upon it, and buy the freehold out and out whenever they think fit; and that option was not to depend upon any impartial tribunal, but if the Commissioners under the Act thought fit to step into any particular locality they were empowered to do so, without regard to the wishes of the owner of the land. It is said that this Bill has no analogy to copyhold enfranchisement; that copyhold, is merely an obsolete survival. Yes; but there was a time when the incidents of copyhold were even more harassing and obnoxious than leaseholds are to-day. Coke said there was a time when the copyholder could not slumber in peace, but that "time had dealt very kindly with the copyholder." The Town Holdings Committee unanimously passed a recommendation that a religious body should have the opportunity of compulsorily purchasing the fee simple of sites of places of worship and schools. The objections seems to be that a religious body may be "a noisy sect." I do not know why an obnoxious phrase of that kind is introduced; but I would point out that the Church of England has certain noisy sects among its own members. I recollect, for example, seeing the Church Army parading the public streets, and the Church of England has far greater compulsory powers than my hon. Friend proposes to give to the Nonconformist Body under the Bill. It is said I made statements from the evidence given before the Select Committee, without at the same time giving in reply the rebutting evidence, particularly in regard to Sheffield. The reason I did not give any rebutting evidence in regard to Sheffield was that none was given before the Committee. A great deal of evidence was given in regard to the Welsh Church which the landowners had every opportunity of considering, and, if they could, rebutting, through witnesses called on their behalf; but it was not even put forward that the allegations made by gentlemen who came from Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom had overstated the case. The only observation made was that the landowners had improved upon their former practice. In old days in Wales it was impossible to obtain land for erecting chapels except on leases for 20 years, then 30 years, and now, I believe, it is extended to 60 years. But 60 years is too short a time to ask a community of working men to spend what they are able to contribute out of their small savings for the erection of a place of worship. I should like to quote to the House the opinion of one gentleman (Mr. Parry) examined before the Setect Committee belonging to Bethesda on the Penrhyn Estate. He said— In that place men do not like the idea of having to spend such an amount of money upon chapels on such short leases, because they place themselves open to a great many difficulties. There is a clause always in the chapel leases that none but religious meetings are to be held in the chapel. This arbitrary clause introduced into the lease absolutely prevented them from making use of the house for those social and educational purposes which most of us consider to be as important as religious services themselves. He said— There is no possibility of getting the freehold of a chapel, and therefore, when the question of renewal comes on, the deacons have to be very careful how they express their political opinions. Mr. Parry states that the chapels on this estate, most of them—eight or ten—have been built on 30 years' leases, and two or three on 60 years; that at the end of these leases chapels which cost £2,000 to £3,000 in erection reverted to Lord Penrhyn. This is the general result of the evidence that 99 per cent. of Nonconformist chapels in Wales were built on the land of some great landowner, and that the system of tenure on which the leases were granted formed a general grievance throughout the Principality. But this system of tenure is not confined to Wales. In London last year I submitted a list drawn up by an eminent Nonconformist, which showed that more than 40 chapels, most of them historical places of worship, had been abandoned on account of the tenure. In some places hotels had been put up, and in other places warehouses and shops instead. But the evidence was that in many cases no place was provided for a site for a place of worship, and that therefore religious work had been given up, the people thus being deprived of the social and moral benefits which otherwise would have been conferred upon them. In other parts of England they had suffered the same as in London. At Helston, in Cornwall, there was a hard case where seven years before application had been made for a site for the erection of a chapel, and the only terms they were able to obtain was a lease of three lives or three years. We all know what a pernicious system of tenure the life leases is; and if it is bad in the case of ordinary buildings it is far worse in the case of chapels and places of worship. I do not think the House will require a very lengthened consideration of the measure before it affords us a majority at least as large as last year. The Bill is far better drafted, and therefore less open to objections pointed out, than the measure submitted last Session. The evidence, instead of being less strong, is stronger than ever it was, because during the last year or two there has been a large amount of discussion on the case, and the general principle submitted to the Committee upstairs; and I do not know if those who champion the Church of England in this House oppose the Bill, but I do not see how they can possibly have any reason to oppose it. The Bill does not seek to repeal the Act which confers compulsory powers upon that Church. It only provides that every sect should be put on an equality with the Church of England. That is all hon. Gentlemen ask. While doing away with the general grievance in Wales, the Bill will be doing away with injustice from which all denominations have been suffering in London and elsewhere—because in the very poorest parts of London there have been churches abandoned owing to the form of tenure upon which the buildings have been erected; and if, as I venture to think, the House will accept the Second Reading of the Bill, they will be taking a very necessary step forward on that path of religious freedom which, I suppose, is now professed to be followed by all Parties in the House.

(1.50.) MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

I rise for the purpose of obtaining some explanation of the clauses from the hon. and learned Gentleman who brought forward this Bill. The hon. Member for St. Pancras has stated that houses have been built on properties in Wales with leases given only for 30 years, and in some cases 60 years. Now, as many hon. Members who represent Wales know, I own one of the largest coal-fields in South Wales—a property of about eleven miles long. On that property I have granted leases to every religious denomination, at a nominal rental of 5s. per annum. These leases are not granted for 30 years or 60 years, but I have granted these leases as a perpetuity. When the religious denomination, however, to which a lease has been granted at a nominal rental of 5s. per annum, does not require the land for the purposes of religion, I think it is only right and fair that the property should revert to its original owner; and I should like to know if there is any provision in the Bill to that effect.

MR. ABEL THOMAS

That is in the clause.

MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON

I have not seen that clause, and I do not think it is sufficiently clear. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman who has brought in the Bill has not given myself and other Members sufficient time to study it, in order to know whether it is likely to be a benefit to the locality, or whether it might not be a very great curse. I must say that I have decided to vote against the Bill, merely because I have not had time to consider it. If I had had time to give it consideration I should have voted for it, provided I found that the clauses did not interfere with the arrangements I have made year after year on that vast property in South Wales. If the hon. and learned Gentleman who has brought in the Bill gives an explanation of its clauses to my satisfaction, I will be very ready to Support it; if not, I shall be obliged to oppose it.

(1.55.) MR. BYRON REED (Bradford, E.)

I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. Before I proceed with the subject-matter of the details of the Bill, I feel bound to reply to the observations made by the hon. Member for St. Pancras with regard to the memorandum of objections which has been circulated amongst hon. Members. I should like to point out that the Bill was only in my possession, after repeated efforts to get it from the hon. Gentleman opposite and from the Vote Office, last evening at a late hour. It was only by working nearly the whole of the night that myself and some friends outside were enabled to put the objections to the passing of this Bill together; and not until 8 o'clock this morning were we able to get it into the hands of the printers. By great expedition on their part we were able to get printed the few proof copies which are in the hands of hon. Members. I think it right that I should make that explanation. In the second place, I should like to reply to the observations of the hon. Gentleman with regard to the evidence given before the Town Holdings Committee. With reference to chapels on the Penrhyn estate, I have here the second volume of the digest of the evidence given before that Committee, which has been printed and published.

MR. J. ROWLANDS

At whose instance? Is it the Church Defence Association?

MR. BYRON REED

No. Messrs. Cassell.

MR. J. ROWLANDS

Were they asked to publish it?

MR. BYRON REED

I am not aware; but I think that Messrs. Cassell usually print and publish such works as are likely to be wanted by the public and to command a sale. After referring to the evidence of Mr. Parry, Colonel Sackville-West, the agent on Lord Penrhyn's estate, goes on to explain that There were 27 chapels on Lord Penrhyn's estate, mostly held on 30 years' leases; but of late three had been built on 60 years' terms. In three cases the 30 years' leases had expired. In two cases they had been renewed. In the other case the occupancy was continued at the same rent—namely, £1, and he had had no application for a lease. One chapel in Llandegai parish was re-let for 30 years at a slightly increased ground rent, but Lord Penrhyn gave £300 to build a minister's house, and pays the rates on an annual value increased by his own expenditure. The other was the Jerusalem Chapel at Bethesda, the site of which—about an acre and a quarter—had been held since 1342 at £1 ground rent. The site was now the most valuable building land in Bethesda, and that when the lease expired in 1872 could have been let for building at £50 a year. Still, the lease was renewed in 1872 for 30 years, at the old ground rent of £1 a year. Then he quotes an instance of a minister's house in Llandegai—a parish in which Lord Penrhyn pays all the rates. The ground rent received from this house is £1; the rates paid by Lord Penrhyn are £1 5s. Again, while this evidence was being given, Lord Penrhyn was considering whether he could accede to an application by the Calvinistic Methodists for the purchase of the reversion on the lease of their chapel. He would be willing to sell for a small sum, but there would be no security that the site, so sold, might not be diverted to other purposes. He added— The oldest chapel in Bangor was now a stable. He further explained that The real reason why landowners prefer to let chapel property on lease instead of selling the freehold, is the guarantee which a lease affords against the conversion of such property to other uses, and against detriment to their adjoining property. In the case of a church, they know that the property can be used for only one purpose, and will be permanently used for that purpose, and no other. With regard to the covenant in Lord Penrhyn's lease against using chapels for other than religious purposes, he stated that It had never, to his knowledge, been enforced, and he considered that the only reason why chapels were not sold in fee was that covenants in restraint of user would not apply to the freehold. It had also to be borne in mind that what Dissenters desired was freehold chapels for much less than their market value, with power to convert them to uses which might cause considerable detriment to the rest of an estate. His reason for granting 60, instead of 99, years terms for chapels was that the reversion to a chapel was valueless, and he always contemplated the value of a reversion in fixing a ground rent. Had the buildings been valuable for other purposes he would not object to grant a longer term. The hon. Gentleman opposite, when my hon. Friend below me was addressing the House, made an interjection, intended to accentuate the fact that the present Bill provides for the landowner being enabled to resume possession of his property before that property can be applied to any other purpose. But, Sir, I would point out that in the clause there is absolutely no condition as to the time when that may be done, and, in the second place, the Bill does not profess to define what is meant by a religious purpose. If the Bill had gone as far as the Registrar General goes, and he gives a long list—I think upwards of 250—and said that these only would be considered as religious bodies, the Bill would have done something; but, in point of fact, the expression "religious body" is left wholly undefined. There is another point. There may be—and I believe generally there would be on the part of landowners (being Churchmen) and others—no manner of objection to allowing the Nonconformist Bodies to hold services or possess buildings on their estates; but there are some self-styled religious bodies of the most objectionable type, and I can understand landowners objecting to let at a peppercorn rent, not to, say Baptists, Methodists or Presbyterians, but having the greatest possible objection to letting their land to the Salvation Army, or the Christian Teetotallers or the Glory Band. There is no power in the Bill to prevent chapels being sub-let to another religious body—it maybe a religious body only in name, a body whose members, by their processions, their ordinances, and their antics, outrage the good sense and the good taste of every right-thinking person. Sir, there is always a tendency in great towns, when districts grow poorer and poorer, for the Nonconformists to abandon those districts altogether, and to remove to more fashionable quarters. By that process the slums are systematically neglected by the Nonconformists. I am speaking of what I know and what I can substantiate; and I say that whereas the slums are abandoned, as they become poorer and poorer, by the "voluntary" and Nonconformist Bodies, these slums are left to depend entirely for religious ministration upon either the Church of England or the Church of Rome. I know a case of a very poor district of Sheffield which was at one time a comparatively fashionable part of the town, and there a very well-known man, Mr. Joseph Lee, built an Independent chapel; but when that part of the town became a slum, and the Nonconformists were unable to support the chapel, they removed to Upperthorpe, and sold Joseph Lee's chapel to the Roman Catholic agent of the Duke of Norfolk. I believe that in many cases the same thing would happen if this Bill were passed, and that buildings now used by the Nonconformists would be handed over to the Church of Rome. Do the promoters of this Bill desire to create a new Roman Catholic patronage and endowment scheme? The title of the Bill is a misnomer. It should be called the Nonconformist Chapels State Establishment Bill, for what is proposed is that certain Nonconformist Bodies shall obtain by force of law that which other people are unwilling to give them, and that, whilst repudiating State interference in religious matters, they are coming to this House and asking for a coercive measure—for a measure of State patronage on their own behalf. And, Sir, be it noted, this, too, at a time when the National Church of England is asking this House, by the Bill of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Powell), to release it from compulsory powers which it does not need, powers which it has only once exercised, and that more than 50 years ago. Here the House and the country are confronted with this significant fact: that at the time the National Church declares that compulsory powers are unnecessary, the voluntary liberality of her sons and daughters having supplied all she needs, and asks the State to take back these powers of compulsion—at that very time the Nonconformist Bodies come to this House and ask for a measure of national patronage and establishment at our hands. Sir, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Bridgeton declared that this Bill was the outcome of the unanimous Report of the Town Holdings Committee. With all due deference to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the Bill differs in many respects from the recommendation of the Committee. There is no provision in this Bill securing to the reversioner the value of the property that may be taken from him. In the second place, this Bill applies to underleases as well as to leases directly granted by the freeholder, and these are important matters. The Bill is a worse Bill than that of last year. Last year's Bill provided that, on a sale of land compulsorily effected, the landowner would receive payment in cash; but the Bill of this year provides that the unfortunate landlord, instead of receiving cash, is only to receive a land- charge, which he could sell, no doubt, but could sell at only a very considerable sacrifice. The Bill of last year provided for no specific term, and might have had application to an annual tenancy. The present Bill is only to apply to leases granted for an original term of not less than 30 years, but may I point out an objection? Supposing within one year of the granting of a 30 years' lease the provisions of an Act like this should be put in force, the landowner would have to sell at the then current value of the property. But the property may be in an improving district, and in the course, not of 29 years, but even of 9 years, the property may be worth considerably more than the price it could command at the date he is called upon to sell. Manifestly, therefore, this clause will enable the property to be exacted from the unfortunate owner at a less price than that which in due course of time he would have been able to obtain. Sir, whenever you make a man sell against his will that which he wishes to retain, or compel a man to purchase that which he does not desire to have, you must inevitably inflict injustice on the one party or the other; in this respect this measure is without precedent, and if a Bill passed on such lines becomes law, it will strike a blow at the very foundation of that freedom of contract on which in days gone by we prided ourselves. Sir, I am aware that the Bill of last year was carried by a very considerable majority, but that arose largely from the fact that hon. Members were under the impression that the Bill was intended to meet the cases of unfortunate Dissenters who were liable to be turned out by harsh and rapacious landlords; and, as all right-thinking men would desire to give any fair relief, they got their substantial majority. But when the House and the country understand the far wider character of this Bill, and the extremely dangerous and novel principles which it contains, the House and the country will see that it is not one to relieve the struggling Dissenters, but a Bill which strikes at the very foundation of ownership and property. Moreover, I may point out that it will not facilitate the granting of leases, but the reverse, for a landowner, like Lord Penrhyn, and others of whom he is a type, have been willing to grant, and do grant, ground leases at a peppercorn rent for the benefit of their Dissenting neighbours. That has been done more or less all over the country. The moment you pass this Bill into law, the landowner who is a Churchman will refuse to tie his hands behind his back by granting a lease to a Dissenting Body, which might place him in the position of parting with his property against his will. The result will be that in few cases will you get leases for chapels at all. Sir, I conclude by saying that the defects to which I have pointed—that the Amendments which lawyers will insist upon to make this a shapely and a workable Bill—are so numerous that in reality the House is asked to give it a Second Reading with the intention of a very different measure emanating from Committee. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this 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. Byron Reed.)

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

(2.35.) MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

Reference has been made by more than one speaker to the present condition of the law, which is said to give privileges to the Church of England, as regards the acquisition of sites. That statement is founded upon an entire inaccuracy, and shows a great want of knowledge of the law upon the subject. In the early days of this century two grants were made by Parliament for the building of churches, and the Legislature at that period passed an enactment enabling the Church Building Commissioners to acquire land for sites of churches and for burying grounds by compulsion in order to carry out the Act. But that power has only been exercised on one occasion, and then simply in order to overcome certain difficulties as to title. Therefore, it is not true to say that the Church of England has exercised such a power generally. It has been exercised on only one occasion; it is, in fact, a dor- mant and extinct power, because it was only given in order that the Commissioners might be able to expend a considerable amount of money which had been granted by Parliament for the building of churches. There is, however, no desire on the part of members of the Church of England to continue that exceptional privilege, which is so cumbrous and difficult to work as to be practically useless. In the year 1887 the present Archbishop of York, speaking on this subject in the House of Lords, said:— The Church of England only desired the same freedom to build as was enjoyed by other Bodies, and had no wish that this enactment should remain on the Statute Book. Therefore, I think the point which I endeavoured to make on former occasions, and which I now urge, is fully made out—namely, that the state of the law in favour of the Church of England is not such as to give any reasonable warrant for what I may term the accusations made against her. This accusation as to exceptional privileges has been made in almost every speech on the subject—sometimes twice in the same speech—and has been repeated in the course of the Debate this morning. It was once made in a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), but, after what I have just said, I hope the allegation will not be repeated. Coming to the Bill, I feel that the House has not been fairly treated in being asked to read it a second time to-day. It is perfectly true that, by an accident, some hon. Members obtained copies of the Bill last evening; but the official circulation did not take place, so far as I am concerned, until 10.30 this morning, so that I had only an hour for consideration of it before the commencement of the Debate. I venture to say that is not a fair manner in which to deal with so large a subject. It is said by the promoters of this Bill that its principle is sound. I venture to say that Members of the House of Commons are entitled to form their own judgment on the principle of Bills, and ought not to accept a statement of that kind without examination. This is a very large question. The principle is entirely novel, it is a new principle to give powers for the benefit of one por- tion of society to acquire land compulsorily. That principle may be good or it may be bad, but it is certainly a novel principle, and one which ought not to be adopted by this House until after the most careful consideration. I do not find, on examining this Bill, that the difficulties diminish as the study is prolonged. This Bill appears to me to be singularly obscure, exceptionally difficult, and so drafted as to create many complications, as well as give rise to many questions. First, I examined the Interpretation Clause, and must confess that it seems to me to be of a singularly imperfect character. It occurs to me that the Interpretation Clause must have been originally drawn in Welsh, and then translated into English by a gentleman who was no great master of the English tongue. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Byron Reed) said there was no definition of what constitutes a religious body. I presume the Mormons and the Latter Day Saints consider themselves religious bodies, but the conscience of the mass of the people of England would describe both their faith and their practice by very different names. One hon. Member made the remark, by way of banter, that religious bodies were sometimes "noisy sects." On that observation I have no comment to make, except that I certainly do regret sometimes that religious bodies do not pay sufficient regard to the quiet which other such bodies desire to have in their devotions. On the last occasion I was at church a noisy band passed during the service, and the voice of the officiating minister was drowned by their playing. The hon. Member who introduced this Bill thought he had got over the difficulty as to a minister's house by a new definition; but I do not so think, and trust a modification in it will be made, as it is still open to the objection raised in the Debate last year. A wider definition is given to the word "lease"; but while landlords might be willing to give a lease for a time, they would have great hesitation in permanently alienating their property. There is one provision incident to compulsory purchase which compels the owner to disclose his title, and it is not every one to whom that is a pleasant pro- ceeding. It is provided that payment may be made by means of a rent charge; but nothing can be less satisfactory than a rent charge on a place of public worship; for if the owner endeavours to recover he is sure to be charged with persecution, and in the great majority of cases will find that the rent charge is equivalent to a free gift. The County Court and the Copyhold Commissioners are to have jurisdiction with regard to this Bill; but when you give special powers to special Courts for special purposes in support of any denomination, that denomination becomes, so far, an established church. I do not object to Nonconformist Bodies having the support of our Courts; but there is some inconsistency in their thus seeking support from the strong arm of the law. With regard to under-leases, this Bill goes entirely beyond the recommendations of the Committee, and is in one sense contradictory to them. I raise these objections from no hostility to Nonconformist Bodies, towards whom I have always shown a friendly spirit; but I ask the House to pause before giving them what I do not seek for my own coreligionists in the Church of England—the compulsory power of acquiring another man's land. When we know how recently this Bill has been brought out, we have reason to complain of the difficulties of detail, the uncertainty as to its principles, and the extreme complexity and ambiguity of provisions which we are asked to adopt, not after the usual time for deliberation, but precisely one hour's notice.

(2.50.) MR. S. T. EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid.)

As the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made reference to the details of this Bill, and as I was in charge of the Bill before the House last year, perhaps I may be permitted to make a few remarks both upon the principles and details of this measure. I hope I shall be able to avoid introducing any acrimony into this Debate, for we on this side do not wish to raise now the question of Disestablishment, but we simply want the House to affirm, as it did last year, that the principle which underlies this Bill is a good and safe one. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have drawn attention to the fact that the Bill has not been long in their hands; but they have not shown any difficulty in grasping its principle; indeed, they have displayed a considerable amount of acquaintance with its details, having been able to prepare a printed circular embodying the views of the Property Association against the proposals of the Bill. As the hon. Member who last addressed the House said that the principle was not at all clear, I would point out that the Preamble is in the identical words of the Preamble of the Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading last year. It is in these words— Whereas it is expedient to afford facilities for the acquisition by religious bodies of the fee simple of their places of worship and hereditaments held therewith upon trust and incidental to religious purposes, be it therefore enacted and so on. There the principle is clearly set out.

MR. F. S. POWELL

I did not say the principle was not clear; but I said the House could not be expected to take on trust the statement that it was the same as that of the Bill of last year.

MR. S. T. EVANS

I did not ask the House to take it on trust, and, therefore, I have thought it better to read the Preamble, and I will further point out that the operative clause of the Bill, Clause 3, gives, in the very same terms as were contained in the Bill of last year, power to Trustees of places of religious worship to acquire the freehold of those places. The question for the House to decide on the Second Reading is whether that is a principle which ought to be adopted. I am disposed to agree with my hon. and learned Friend who introduced the Bill, in relying to a great degree upon the adoption of that principle last year by the enormous majority of two to one on a Wednesday afternoon. We have been told to-day that that man jority was not properly constituted, but was composed of Members who hardly knew what they were doing, and went into the Lobby blindly following somebody, and not their usual leader, simply because they were caught by the fine title of the Bill, which the hon. Member opposite thinks was a misnomer. The question, however, lies in a nutshell. Are religious bodies to be allowed, upon paying a fair compensation to landlords, to acquire the freeholds of their places of worship, and the hereditaments held therewith? We are in a little difficulty to find out where the opposition to this proposal comes from; hon. Members who oppose it are known as champions of the Church in this House, but they seem disposed now to rest their case upon the sacredness of landlords' property. The principle of the Bill is not a new one, for this House over and over again, for purposes of public utility, has given compulsory powers for the acquisition of land in certain cases. Since 1818 an Act has existed which enables the Church of England—not to acquire the freehold of sites on which they have expended a great deal of money, but to compel landlords at the outset to give them sites for the erection of their places of worship. Hon. Members opposite feel that while that enactment remains on the Statute Book it comes with a very bad grace from them to say that Nonconformist Bodies shall not be placed on a similar footing in that respect; and therefore they have recourse to the expedient of trying to get this House to repeal that useful Act simply because the Church of England has not often found it necessary to use it, as it has been able, without difficulty, to get freehold sites for churches. I believe the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will not allow a church to be built unless the freehold of a site has been acquired, and they have, by adopting this course, shown that in their opinion it is expedient that places of worship should be erected on sites which are freehold, and not on sites of which the Trustees of religious bodies may be dispossessed at the whim of the landlord. The Home Secretary, speaking upon the Bill of last year, would not controvert the general argument that it is a matter of public utility to establish religious bodies, or to carry on religious worship in this country; but he said— The question whether a religious body is one of public utility must depend upon the extent of the religious body with which you have to deal. In England, for instance, the Roman Catholics —to which he said he himself belonged— can make no pretensions of that sort, because they are only a small and disregarded body. I should not have ventured to say that the Roman Catholics were a small and disregarded body, and that they were not pursuing a work of public utility when carrying on their religious work. But I use the argument of the Home Secretary to show that the principle of the Bill is one which the House ought to adopt. No one will say that the Nonconformists are not strong and numerous in Wales; and, therefore, on the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, they should be allowed to acquire land for the purpose of carrying on religious work on the ground of public utility. The Bill is not confined to Wales, but extends to the whole of England; and, from what we have heard, I think it is evident that the shoe pinches in this respect in many places in England. Complaints have been made that the Bill has not been in Members' hands for any length of time, and, therefore, I should like to refer to the details and machinery for carrying out the principle of the Bill. The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Isaacson) was not satisfied that if the place of worship ceased to be used as such it would revert to the landlord. The same complaint was made last year; but if hon. Members will look at the present Bill, they will see it provides that where a place of worship ceases to be used for religious purposes there shall be a right of preemption by the landlord or by the person entitled to the reversion. I promised that last year, and it would have been a breach of faith if provisions to that effect had not now been inserted. I hope, therefore, we shall have the vote of the hon. Member in support of the Second Reading. Then we have a Motion for the rejection of the Bill by the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Byron Reed). In his speech he has somewhat forsaken the familiar ground that these rights ought not to be granted to Nonconformists: he appears as a believer in the doctrine of sacredness of contract. It is late in the day to use that argument when scarcely a Session passes without Parliament interfering with freedom of contract, and setting contracts aside. He also objected that there was no definition of the phrase "religious body" in the Bill. The phrase is well-known in law, and has been used over and over again in Acts of Parliament, and I think the House would be wiser not to attempt a definition. The hon. Gentleman asks if we shall be able to meet him by adopting the very extensive list of over 200 religious bodies made out by the Registrar General. If if it be necessary for the purpose of securing the boon we ask, I do not think there would be any great difficulty in doing so. The hon. Gentleman would not, it appears, include the Salvation Army in that list. I do not think it serves any good purpose to say in this House that they are a noisy set and outrage good taste. Their efforts are chiefly made to attract those who do not go to the regular places of worship, and I think it is to their credit that they have been able to get at the people in the slums who, as a rule, are not reached by the Church of England or the Nonconformist Bodies, as they ought to be. Their methods may not accord with the tastes of many people: but as a body of persons attempting to do good work they should not be buffetted and discouraged, but should be allowed and encouraged to continue the work they have been doing for several years. The hon. Gentleman says the name of the Bill is a misnomer, and that we ought to have called it "A Bill for the Establishment of Nonconformist Bodies."

MR. BYRON REED

I said "for establishing a religion."

MR. S. T. EVANS

It is not establishing a religion at all; such arguments are puerile and scarcely deserve notice; we only ask for compulsory powers to acquire our sites upon payment of fair compensa- tion, according to the value for the time being of the sites in question. Nonconformists are not coming to the House for State aid or Establishment; they would, of course, prefer to free the Church of England from that Establishment, which they think is the cause of a great deal of harm to her. The Report of the Town Holdings Committee as to the enfranchisement of the sites of places of worship and schools is unanimous. It is as follows:— There has been a considerable amount of evidence given from some parts of the country of the difficulty experienced by Nonconformist Bodies in obtaining a secure tenure of their places of worship and the schools connected with them, and of this being frequently felt to be a great hardship. The Committee think that it is most desirable on public grounds that all religious bodies should be enabled to obtain a secure tenure of their places of worship and schools, and they consider that the freeholder who has granted land for such a purpose has no good reason to object to its being so held in perpetuity on his receiving the value of his interest. They therefore recommend that all religious bodies to whom land has been granted on lease by the freeholder for the erection of their places of worship and schools should be empowered to purchase the site, the fee subject to the payment of fair compensation. I venture to submit that what was intended to be recommended was that where sites had been granted on freehold or leasehold reversion they should be purchasable on payment of reasonable compensation. If the freeholder has granted the lease the case would be very simple, and, after inquiry, I find that not a single case was brought before the Committee in which an under-lease was granted. Therefore, as far as the practical operation of the Bill is concerned there will be no difficulty. The principle is the same if there are under-leases, and the House ought, with proper safeguards for the rights of all reversionaries, to allow the Trustees similar power if they were immediate lessees. To protect those rights there are more or less elaborate provisions in the Bill. Each reversionary is to be satisfied in his turn, and to have the right of pre-emption in his turn, so that we are well within the spirit, if not the letter, of the recommendation of the Committee. There is one considerable difference between this Bill and that of last year. Sections 7, 8, and 9 provide that an annual rent-charge is to be fixed and paid. Last year the Bill provided that the value should be fixed and paid in cash, and, for my own part, I certainly perfer that provision. If any hon. Members prefer the arrangement of last year I think their views can be met under Section 14, which provides for the redemption of the rent-charge on the application of either party in cases where the rent-charge is under £5. Most of the cases that would have to be dealt with under this Bill would come within Section 14, but it would be possible in Committee, if thought desirable, to raise the £5 to £10, £20, or even £50, and then either party could go to the Copyhold Commissioners to have the rent-charge valued and redeemed. The hon. Member said that if you fixed the rent-charge you had no regard to the improvement of the district. But that cuts both ways; if the district improves those who become the owners have the benefit, and if it deteriorates they would be the losers. But the valuer is to determine the value of the interest of the landlord or reversionary, based on the market value at the time of purchase, and an important factor in that valuation would be whether the district were improving or not. The hon. Member also asked us not to proceed with the Bill, on the ground that if we did we should find it more difficult in future to acquire sites. He said that no landowner, who was a Churchman, would grant sites for Nonconformist places of worship. I do not think anybody on this side thinks so badly as that of the landowners as a body.

MR. BYRON REED

What I said was, if this Bill should pass, landowners would no longer be ready to give leases at small rents, because obviously it would be against their own interest to do so.

MR. S. T. EVANS

I accept the hon. Gentleman's modification, and am glad he has given it to the House, but I took down his words at the time. We are satisfied there will be no difficulty in this respect, and, if there should be, it will be competent for the House to give the powers, already possessed by the Church of England, to the Nonconformist Bodies to acquire sites; there is a Bill with that object on the Order Book. If the present Bill is read the second time, we shall have no unwillingness in meeting the reasonable wishes of hon. Members on the other side in Committee. There has not yet been a single demand from that side for improvement of the terms of the Bill which cannot be met. We are told that under the Bill we should be able to acquire the minister's house, and the Home Secretary suggested last year that a minister with a church in the East End might compel the landlord to sell him the freehold of a good house which he might occupy in Park Lane. There was no foundation for an observation of that kind in the Bill of last year. The present Bill is also perfectly clear on that point. To enable it to be purchased under the Bill, the minister's house must be held under the same lease, and be enjoyed as part and parcel of the place of religious worship. A burial place also is within the purview of the Bill. If such land is leasehold, under present conditions—under the maxim of law, which says that the landlord is entitled to everything, from the heavens above ad inferos—the burial place where the relatives and friends of the inhabitants of the locality have been interred for years past would go to the owner; not only the chapel and the minister's house, but the graves would be absolutely the property of the landlord. Such a thought is repulsive! The Bill includes, therefore, all the land granted in the lease. I do not say that any landlord would desire to become the owner of such property; I only point out that it is necessary for us, and reasonable, to ask that the whole land taken for the purposes of the place of worship, or incidental to it, should be comprised in the Bill, and the Trustees empowered to secure the freehold. There is no need to go through the evidence given before the Town Holdings Committee. Surely, it is enough for the House, after the Committee has sat for years past, to adopt the recommendation without going behind it to try to show it was not justified. There is no Nonconformist in this House who, if a Bill of this kind had been proposed for the Church of England, would not have voted for these powers being granted; and we only ask, as we surely have a right to do at this time in the 19th century, that we should not be compelled to remain under disabilities under which we have suffered too long, and which I think this House is not only willing, but desirous, to remove at the earliest opportunity.

(3.23.) MR. HUCKS GIBBS (London)

The hon. Member who seconded this Motion has taunted hon. Members who oppose it with not having taken their stand on a Church of England point of view; but I do not think, Sir, this is a question between the Church of England and Nonconformists; it is to my mind a question not of a different faith, nor of different rites and ceremonies, but of morality, and my experience leads me to look with the greatest possible jealousy, not so much on what the hon. Member called infringement of freedom of contract, but on rescission of contract for the benefit of one of the contracting parties. That is a very different and a very dangerous thing. The Mover of the Bill seemed to me to cast aside entirely the principle of the Bill, and dwelt upon the details, which he explained most carefully. He quoted from the principle of another Bill, and said we were, therefore, bound to accept the principle of this Bill, which has, however, been considerably varied from the Bill of last year.

MR. BRYN ROBERTS

I did not say that the House was bound to accept it, but that the fact of the principle of that Bill having been received relieved me from the necessity of again putting it before the House.

MR. GIBBS

The speech of the Seconder was nearly a repetition of his speech on last year's Bill; the same air with variations; and the theme was—"Ote toi que je m'y mette." The intention of the Bill was to help one class of people to take the goods of another class, and that I consider a very dangerous precedent. There is one thing which has not been mentioned in the Debate. The Bill does not merely touch the value of the property taken from the persons concerned, but, what is of greater importance, it is a Bill to relieve a man from an obligation which he has voluntarily undertaken. A tenant has taken a lease with the definite understanding that he is to surrender the lease at the end of the term to the landlord. Doubtless there are more lessees than lessors; but I do not think that is a reason for preferring the former class to the latter. This proposal trenches closely on dishonesty. When a man has said, "I engage to do so and so," your Bill comes in and says, "You need not do it at all." The Bill proposes forcibly to convey property from one man to another, and that, according to this Bill, is the meaning of the euphemistic word "enfranchisement." The hon. Member for St. Pancras compared this Bill with another measure which has been presented to the House, and declared that they were the same thing. But that Bill for the compulsory acquisition of sites does not involve any breach of faith on the part of anybody, which I conceive this Bill does. The hon. Member says that the action of the Church of England has always been founded on the principles which are laid down in this Bill for Nonconformists, inasmuch as new churches are always built on freehold land. Therefore, he says it is desirable that Nonconformists should be able to build their places of worship on freehold sites. But the case is very different as between the Church of England and the Nonconformists. The Church of England is a body of a permanent character, and so I admit are many of the Nonconformist Bodies. But there is a difference between one Nonconformist Body and another, and a temporary body may under this Bill take the same action as an old and established Nonconformist Body. That constitutes a very wide difference. I say, further, that the Bill is drawn without regard to justice. There is, for example, the question of pre-emption in possible cases of a place of worship being used for other purposes, where I complain that the ownership falls into the hands of the intermediate lessee to the exclusion of the lessor. If this had been a Bill only for the purpose of future acquisition of sites, I should say it was an unwise one; but as it is, it is unjust as well as unwise. I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, that if this Bill passed the landlords would not be willing to allow their land to be used for the purpose of chapel building, but it will undoubtedly put impediments in the way of their doing so. Now, as has been said by the hon. Member for Stepney, they often let their land for this purpose at a merely nominal rent. In such cases if, under this Bill, the property reverted to them, the valuation of the land would be affected. I hope the Bill will be rejected, inasmuch as it proposes to deprive one man of his property to give it to another.

(3.27.) MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

The hon. Member for Stepney asked my hon. Friend why he should not have the discussion postponed for a few days, in order that Members might have time to consider its provisions. I can only say that if the Bill were postponed for a few days it would never be considered at all. However, as the proposal to adjourn the debate has been withdrawn, I will say no more about it, except that the opponents of the Bill have found time to prepare 19 very elaborate objections to it. Nearly every speaker from the opposite benches has denied, much to my surprise, that the principle of this Bill has been accepted by this House and by the Committee on Town Holdings. What is the principle of the Bill? It is simply this: that where a landowner has voluntarily granted a lease to the Trustees of a religious body, and that religious body has expended some hundreds, or, it may be, thousands, of pounds upon the land, it should not be lawful for the landowner to deprive the Trustees of the benefit of all the money they have spent, and re-enter as if it were his own land. That principle has been sanctioned by the Select Committee on Town Holdings and by the House by a majority of nearly two to one. The hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Hucks Gibbs) said it was in a thin House—

MR. GIBBS

No; what I said was, that it was not a full House.

MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN

It was a House that for Wednesday might be considered full, inasmuch as it contained nearly 300 Members. The hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Byron Reed), said the vote was taken by a House which had not heard the Debate, but I think that is a statement which could be made about many Divisions, and especially the Divisions which are taken on Wednesday. What harm does this Bill do? It does not bring a single acre of land into mortmain. It does not infringe one of the privileges of the Church of England; on the contrary, it gives new powers to the Church of England, and for the purposes of this Bill it proposes to put all religious bodies on an equality, and, therefore, to give to the Church of England equally with the Nonconformists rights which they did not previously possess. It is said that the Church of England does not want any of the powers conferred by this Bill. I am not so sure of that. I mentioned last year the case of a most eloquent clergyman of that Church who had the lease of a chapel granted to him. When the lease came to an end the owner refused to renew it on the ground that the doctrines preached by the clergyman were not orthodox, and he was obliged to go elsewhere, and the congregation was dispersed. But whether the Church of England wants this Bill or not, it is quite certain that the Nonconformists do want it, and it is something like a dog-in-the-manger policy on the part of the Church to refuse to others something which they want merely because she does not want the same thing herself. Why are these provisions necessary in Wales? In Wales the great proportion of the population are Nonconformists, and the immense majority—perhaps I may say the whole—of the landowners are Churchmen. Consequently, the Nonconformists cannot get any ground at all except for the liberality of the landowners, who are Churchmen. It is true that the landowners, after the money has been spent upon their land, have very rarely evicted the people who spent the money. Indeed, it is almost impossible to conceive that any large body of men should be so tyrannous or so oppressive as to use that power, but I will tell hon. Members what does happen. These men are at the mercy of the landowner, and at election times the electioneering agent comes down and says, "Now, you men, if you do not behave yourselves properly during this election you may be turned out," and in that way pressure is put upon the Nonconformists. We want to do away with this state of things. We want to get security of tenure for these men who have invested their money and their labour in the erection of the chapel. Now, what are the objections to the Bill? One hon. Member said that if such a Bill as this passed the result would be extremely disastrous to Nonconformists, because Churchmen would not be so ready to grant leases. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid Glamorganshire in thinking better of the Welsh landowners than hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. If there were any conspiracy of that kind not to grant leases, the result would do more to shake the foundations of all property in Wales than this Bill could do. Another argument that has been used is that the effect of this Bill would be to make Nonconformity into a State religion; as if the mere fact of any public body being empowered to purchase land on equitable terms could have any such effect. Some comment has been expended on the term "religious body." That, if it be an objection, can be set right in Committee. In this case, too, it is a body which is already recognised by the landowner, because it is the body to which he has granted a lease, and his lease does not bind him to any other religious body of which he knows nothing. On the question of the substitution of a rent-charge for a sum down I do not lay great stress, and that can be properly dealt with in Committee. With this exception, every one of the changes made in the Bill have been made with a view of meeting the objections of hon. Gentlemen opposite. First, there is the restriction in the length of the lease; then the restriction as to the amount of land taken; then the right of pre-emption. Then we come to the 18th clause of the Bill, which deals with the objection raised by the Home Secretary last year, and provides that the costs of all the parties should be paid by the purchaser. I hope the House will now be prepared to accept this Bill by a larger majority than before, and I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. Bryn Roberts) that he should refer the Bill to the Grand Committee on Law Bills, which, I suppose, in course of time will be set up. If he does, it will be possible for all these details to be discussed dispassionately and calmly. The Bill will do away with a real grievance, and when it has passed into law, in some half-dozen years there will not be a single Member who will not recognise it as a useful and much needed measure.

(3.51.) MR. DARLING (Deptford)

Although there are matters which to my mind are open to grave criticism, and, perhaps, to alteration, I am in favour of the principle of the Bill, purely from reasons of general policy. I think we should do whatever we can to free all religious bodies from any restrictions or hampering conditions. The dangers of society do not come from people who hold this or that religious view, but rather from people who hold none; and I imagine, if this Bill had been introduced in any other country than this, any statesman would welcome it as a means of setting up some personage or some institution in the community with an interest in preserving social order, with an interest in beating back all revolutionary methods, and any statesman in other countries would be glad to see the multiplication of religious bodies. A Committee was appointed by this House to investigate the whole of this question of enfranchisement, and they have made certain definite recommendations. Amongst those recommendations is this: they have considered the position of the various unestablished religious bodies, and have come to the conclusion, after hearing the evidence, that these religious bodies have a grievance with regard to the obtaining of land for their places of worship. They have made a definite recommendation that that grievance should be removed, and they indicate that it can be removed by allowing those who have leaseholds to acquire the freehold. As I am often called upon at the instance of the Government to vote for the appointment of Committees to inquire into this and that, I feel bound to accept the logical consequence of appointing a Committee. If the Committee make a recommendation, even if I do not agree with it, I should wish, possible, to submit to it. Here the Committee has unanimously made a recommendation, which no one says this Bill does not honestly attempt to carry into effect. There may be differences of opinion as to whether it does it in the best way, but that can be discussed in Committee. But I rather imagine the House is bound to read this Bill a second time out of sheer respect for the Committee. I do not see the good otherwise of appointing a Committee to inquire into anything, unless it is with the object of gaining time and not dealing with a thing. When a Committee is appointed by the Tories the change it recommends is sure to come some time, and I think the best Tory is the one who swallows the recommendations soonest. I have heard no real objection to the principle of the Bill. I have heard criticism of this bit of it or that bit of it, and I have heard it suggested that it could be worked better in another way. The hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan says he prefers the Bill which was introduced last Session, and I am not at all sure that I should not, on the whole, prefer a Bill of that kind. Another hon. Member supported the Bill because he said it gets rid of the last element of feudalism. I must confess to a sentimental regard for the last element of feudalism. I think the system was of great benefit to this country—at all events, it saved all the Army Estimates and provided for the needs of the country, and no recent Minister of War has obtained greater victories than were then gained, as, for example, at Agincourt. It is not from any dislike of the feudal system that I should like to see the rent-charge abolished, but I should like to see these religious bodies put as nearly as possible on a level with the Church of England in the matter of ownership. The difference between the Church of England and the Nonconformists is not that we dissent from their opinions, but that they dissent more from ours, and so they are better off in that respect. But what they object to is certain inequalities before the law; there is more difficulty in the Nonconformists getting a bit of land than the Church of England. That is what they feel, and I should like to remove that as far as possible. I should like the Nonconformists, when they have got their bit of land, to have it absolutely free. To my mind it is impossible that you can have men contented when they know that their ancestors are buried in a piece of ground which is held on a short lease. Of course, this makes no difference to the ancestors, and, you may say, makes no difference to the survivors. But these are just the things which make all the difference in content or discontent in the body politic. I should like to see every grievance of that kind removed. This Bill provides, amongst other things, for these bits of ground which are used as graveyards, and I consider nothing more undesirable than leasehold graveyards which may be used at some future time for purely secular purposes. I should have liked to see the land held free without rent-charge at all. But no doubt there are difficulties about this, and those who are in charge of this Bill see that it would be easier to get it through Parliament if they submitted to a perpetual rent-charge. I see one objection. After all, there is not, perhaps, quite full security with regard to some of the Nonconformist Bodies that a place once used as a chapel will to the end of time be used as a chapel. No doubt that weighed with many people as a reason for not allowing them to secure an interest in the land. If this rent-charge system is introduced that difficulty will not arise. The land will be freehold, but subject to a rent-charge, and if ever parted with for any purpose other than that of a religious body the land would be re-acquired by the first owner of a title to the reversion, and the rent-charge will be extinct. I do not quite know which of the systems I prefer, but I can see that this will get over the objections of many Members who are friendly to the Bill, I do not like to deal with little matters of detail as if they were to influence my vote; nor do I say that these small matters, some of which I refer to, are reasons why we should vote against the Bill. If I venture to draw attention to matters of detail it is only in a friendly spirit, and in the hope that if this Bill is passed by the House in its Second Reading, and it goes into Committee, these matters will be looked into. I notice that the hon. Member who introduced this Bill said that the perpetuity rent-charge was to be calculated upon the market value at the time of the purchase. I noticed that that could not be quite understood by hon. Members, nor am I quite surprised that it was not understood by those hon. Members who drew up the objections to the Bill after reading it in the small hours of the morning. One of the objections is that there are numerous cases in which there are leases by agreement of places of worship that have been granted for a small rent, and they seem to think that if this power of pre-emption is exercised that the peppercorn rent will be taken as the criterion to fix the value of the property. The hon. Member who introduced the Bill said that the perpetual rent-charge should be calculated by the market value. I think that is not clear in the Bill. If hon. Members will look at Clauses 7, 9, and 11 they will see that there are two kinds of rent-charge—one that is to be the price of the freehold, and the other is the annual rent-charge, which is to be the price of the terminable interest. Section 11 provides that the annual rent-charge shall be based upon the market value at the time of the purchase. But there is no section which says that the perpetual rent-charge, as distinguished from the annual one, shall be extinguished upon any basis whatever. I think that that may well have misled those hon. Members who drew up the objections to the Bill. I imagine that if, instead of perpetual rent-charge, there were such words inserted as "annual rent payable in perpetuity," or some such words, that it might be got over. I am sure it is not the intention that where a landlord has given land at peppercorn rent that that land should be converted into freehold, taking the peppercorn as the value, and that where a landlord has rack-rented he should, because of his having done so, receive a large amount for his property. The land ought to come before the valuer not upon the annual value but upon the market value at the time of the purchase, and the rent reserved, whether a peppercorn or £1,000, should have nothing to do with it. I hope if any hon. Member rises upon the opposite side of the House he will approach the difficulties that I have tried to put before the House, for I think, with these difficulties met, there are many Members upon this side, now somewhat hostile, who would support the measure as a fair attempt to carry out the principles recommended by the Committee.

(4.10.) MR. KELLY (Camberwell, N.)

I regret that the hon. Member for the City of London should have thought fit to characterise the Bill as one trenching on dishonesty. If this Bill trenches on dishonesty, he certainly cannot have a very high opinion of the Members of the Committee on whose recommendations it was brought in. I am also surprised that the hon. Member for Denbighshire should have made the attack he did upon the agents and landowners of Wales in regard to their interference in elections. I ask the hon. Member to give just one single instance, in which what he alleges ever took place, and to let us have the names, so that the persons charged may have an opportunity of denying and disproving it. The charge, I venture to remind the hon. Member, refers to a matter of such a nature that it would invalidate any election if proved to be true. It is all very well to fling these charges wholesale at the landlords and agents of Wales; but would it not be a little better to mention them by name? And would it not at least be a little more generous to give them the opportunity of denying them? I trust that the next time he makes those charges he will give us not only the name of the agent but also the names of the Trustees. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire saying that the members of the Church of England have shown a willingness to treat with fairness and generosity the reasonable demands contained in this Bill of those who dissent from them in faith. I venture to say that, as a Churchman, I regard with some pride the fact that the majority of the hon. Members who voted in favour of this proposal last year belonged to the Church of England. The Church of England, so far as I know, has always recognised the good work done by the Nonconformist Bodies; and I venture to think that if this Bill goes with the sanction of this House to the House of Peers, there is not one landowner or one Representative of the Church of England on the Episcopal Bench who will do anything but stand up and say a good word for it—aye, and urge the passing of it in the same spirit as it is being urged here. The hon. Member for Bradford will, I am sure, admit that he does not, so far as his opposition to this Bill is concerned, represent the Church of England. He represents a body in which I have no interest—the Property Protection Society. I am not a property owner, and have little interest in the opposition offered by a Society which gives us no information as to by whom it is subsidised, and which is, for all practical purposes, anonymous and without responsibility. I want to point out, in reference to what the hon. Member for East Bradford has said, that landlords would object to grant leases at all to Nonconformist Bodies, that I think he is most unjust to the feelings which prompt landlords all over the country. This Bill would not alter the position of landlords who in future wished—if such people exist—to keep the freehold of chapels in their grasp, for the man who gives only a 29 years' lease stands clear out of the Bill. This Bill has been spoken of throughout the Debate as if it only applied to Wales. It applies with equal force to the whole of England, and I believe there is no wish dearer to the hearts of Nonconformists and their ministers than that a Bill of this kind should pass, so as to secure for them and for their children the power of carrying on the same religious work long after they have been laid at rest in the chapels which they have built up at the cost of so much and so precious self-sacrifice. The House knows what the feeling of the Nonconformist is towards his chapel. We all look with feelings of affectionate reverence at our churches; but the chapel is not only the place where a Nonconformist worships on Sunday; where his children are taught; where his social gatherings take place; where his dearest friendships and closest ties are formed—but, in a word, it is the one place where the whole of the nobler and sweeter side of his life centres absolutely. If the House would bear in mind that these chapels are built and beautified by the poor working men and small shopkeepers who make endless sacrifices for the purpose, year after year; if the House would bear this in mind, then it would understand what it is that they wish—the great wish, not only of the Welsh Nonconformists but of the English Nonconformists, of those who in 99 cases out of 100 have erected these chapels, is that they should be placed in their hands for ever on fair and equitable terms. It is the wish of the Nonconformists in England, and above all in London, that they should be able to go to their landlord and say, "We request you to give us that security of tenure which will preserve for ever the sacred character which has been given to our chapel by the services which have been carried on in it for so many years. We ask that you should do so, but not at your own expense or loss. Where we can pay for the freehold we will do this willingly; where we are poor, then we ask you to let the Act be carried into effect so as to alter the tenure into a rent-charge, and so still to assure us the right to carry on for all time religious services in our chapels." That is what we need. And, if this were conceded, in a vast number of cases the freehold of the land on which the chapels are built would be acquired without any friction; and any landlord having no strong feeling about retaining the property would be more inclined to part with it, because of the rent-charge being fixed. This rent-charge, too, to the knowledge of the purchaser and the vendor, will fix the probable price to be paid for the freehold. I do not think the hon. Member for Stepney has given sufficient consideration to what is called the Pre-emption Clause. I believe that my own Nonconformist friends will be perfectly willing to say, where ground had been granted for the building of a chapel, and where they have found it necessary to migrate elsewhere, the object for which the ground was granted having ceased, the landlord should have the fullest opportunity of taking back the land which he granted; and our only wish is that he should be so amply protected that, the rent-charge being fixed, he should be able to calculate upon purchasing back the property when no longer used for a chapel, at 25 or 20 years' purchase of this rent-charge. I can only, in conclusion, congratulate the House that in this Debate there has been so very little of religious feeling on the subject of this Bill, which I think has a good deal of interest for the whole community, and a deep interest for every man who realises the necessity for maintaining religious faith throughout the country. I am only too glad that the discussion has been carried on in a very different tone from that in which it was carried on last year—without any question as between Church of England and Nonconformity. This is not a question between the Church and Nonconformists. This is a question in which the Nonconformists claim immediately, through the Royal Commission, that no time should be lost in dealing out to them a moderate and fair measure of justice, to which the House declared last year, and will certainly say again this year, that they are fully entitled—and, as I trust, will again say it by the voice of an overwhelming majority.

(4.20.) MR. ABEL THOMAS (Carmarthen, E.)

In order to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Deptford, I would suggest that in Clause 11 we should insert, after "annual," the words "perpetual and annual," so as to make it read "perpetual and annual rent-charge." I think if that would meet his objection there would be no objection to insert these words. Of course, I believe that what is purchased by the religious body is the value of the thing which is to sell. What is afterwards sold by the religious body is the value of the thing the religious body has to sell. So that, really and truly, the latter part of what I have said would be met by what is always done in all sales of property under compulsion for value. The value is taken of the person who sells, and not of the person who buys. All the hon. Gentlemen on the other side who have spoken against the Second Reading, with the exception of the hon. Member for the City of London, have complained that they had not got sufficient time to read and digest this Bill. Of course, it is clear that if the Bill had been published a week ago it would have been better; but, at the same time, I confess I cannot understand any hon. Member who had an hour to spare not being able to understand the whole of the Bill from beginning to end within that hour. If, in addition to that, he had read or understood the Bill which was brought before the House last Session of Parliament, I venture to think that another hour would be amply sufficient to get at the bottom of the whole of the Bill. Some hon. Members went further. The hon. Member for East Stepney, who was one of the Members who complained, said no care had been taken as to who would be entitled to sell the reversion. Each reversioner must sell for himself; each reversioner can only buy or sell to the chapel the time that he has himself. That is the answer to the hon. Member for the City of London when he suggests that it is not so; and if he would read Section 15 over again he would find that each reversioner is entitled to the value to him, whatever it may be; so that no injustice can be done to the leaseholder or the final reversioner, because each has the full value of the property that he has in the site of the chapel. I must say it seems to me that really there has not been one serious argument advanced on the opposite side of the House why this Bill should not be read a second time. If every landowner who owned a site on which a chapel was erected were honest, and fair, and reasonable, and liberal - minded, there would be no object much in passing this Bill. But one cannot rub out from one's mind that there is an occasional landowner who is not honest, not liberal-minded, and not just; and it is possible he has granted a site for a chapel, say for 30 or 40 years, and he is succeeded by a son who hates a Nonconformist as he hates sin. After all, it is possible. We have seen instances of that; not very many, but still several instances of that kind; and it is just in those instances that the Bill pinches. It pinches nobody else. An honest, fair, reasonable, landlord cannot find any objection to this Bill, because it is quite certain that when a lease fell in he would never dream of pulling down the chapel and turning the site into pigsties. He would ask the tenants whether they would carry out the purposes for which the lease was granted, and would grant it to them again; and upon him this Bill cannot have the slightest effect. It is making compulsory what he himself would do. But there are men, on the other hand, who are dishonourable, unfair, and who are prejudiced against any person holding religious views different from themselves who would, when the clause fell in, pull down the chapel and turn the graveyard round it into pigsties. It is to that sort of person that this Bill applies. It is said the Bill interferes with the rights of property; but this House interferes with the rights of property every day during the Sitting of the House. Whenever a railway wants a Bill, whenever waterworks are formed, whenever want and improvement of any kind this House steps in and says, "It is for the public good, and you individuals shall sell your property whether you wish it or not." We want nothing except that those who have the lease—the religious body—shall be empowered to purchase at a fair market value, at the value at which the particular landlord who holds the lease would be able to sell the lease, supposing he put it on sale in public. I trust, under these circumstances, on this occasion the Second Reading will be passed without, opposition, or that we shall have even a larger majority than we had last time when we have taken every care in drafting the Bill to prevent any injustice being done to any hon. Member.

(4.30.) MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has described the Bill as a just Bill; but I am obliged to oppose the Bill because I believe it to be both politically and economically unjust. This Bill has been brought in in a somewhat surreptitious fashion. It is, no doubt, a highly interesting, but it is at the same time a highly conten- tious measure, and it is a bad precedent that a Bill of this sort should be brought to the stage of Second Reading without having been previously distributed to Members. On these grounds alone I should be obliged to vote against the Second Reaeing. I am glad that most Members have deprecated the idea that this is a question of Church against Chapel. Of course it is not. I do not speak as a Churchman, but as a politician and a political economist. Whether we should make the relations of the State to the religious orders of this country closer than at present is, no doubt, a question open to consideration; but it is one to which, personally, I am opposed. I do not like State interference with religion, and therefore I desire, as far as possible, to limit this interference. The only ground on which the State is justified in interfering is that of public utility. Does that exist now? How does the case stand? Take the Church of Moslem. Is there any reason for England interfering in favour of the Mahomedan Church? Then as regards the Positivists. Is there any reason why the State should interfere in their behalf? Take the two denominations of Latter Day Saints—the Polygamists and the Anti-Polygamists. Is there any reason why the State should interfere for the sake of perpetuating their doctrines? I do not say anything against the Mormons or against Mormonism. Brigham Young left £400,000, 17 widows, and 56 children. I do not disparage a religion which seems to have comforted so great a number of people; I only say I doubt if there is sufficient reason for our passing exceptional legislation in their interests. The Mormons no longer claim to be a Christian section any more than the Mahomedans, but the hon. Member who moved this Bill does not limit it to Christians; he would wish it to extend to every religious body, including, I suppose, the Agapemonites—the Society of Free Love. There has been no public necessity shown for State interference. Again, many of these religious bodies die out; then the question arises, what is to become of the State-acquired sites? I see in Whittaker's Almanack that that eminent sect, the Jumpers, strong and powerful in this country a year or two ago, have died out. Is there a real grievance? It is said there is not a sufficient number of chapels; but if you take the principal Protestant Dissenters, the number of their chapels exceeds the number of their ministers. One of the things they complain of most is an undue creation of chapels. The Independents have 4,500 chapels, and only 2,700 ministers; the Baptists, 3,781 chapels, and only 1,800 ministers; and the Calvinists, 1,400 chapels, and only 1,000 ministers. There is no actual grievance to remedy. I agree with the observation that has fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford that if this Bill passes it may tend to deter landowners from granting leases to the Dissenting Bodies, and to that extent may operate injuriously. The Bill is not required in the interests of public utility, and the interference of the Legislature in religious matters where it is not necessary is retrograde in every sense.

(4.43.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon, &c.)

This is a Bill to enable Nonconformists to purchase sites, the leaseholds of which they have acquired. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said the Bill must be further considered. It is obvious he has not considered it at all. We, on our part, desire it should be carefully considered bp a Committee of this House. But, Sir, I rise to call attention to the evidence given by the only witness who was called—Colonel Sackville-West, and I must say that his evidence, so far from being evidence against this Bill, supplied the best evidence in its favour. It was said by Colonel West that the real reason why landowners prefer to grant chapel property on lease is that it affords a guarantee against conversion to the detriment of the adjoining pro- perty. They know that the property can only be used for one purpose, but that is provided for by this Bill; and if hon. Members will turn to its provisions they will find, whenever it is intended to turn a building now devoted to religious purposes to some other purpose, that the landlord has the right of pre-emption. He does not object to a chapel being used for other than religious purposes. For instance, supposing there is a nominal ground rent, a peppercorn rent, in that case, if the chapel is used for other than religious purposes, the landlord would suffer an injustice. But under this Bill the same thing is done as was suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for West Denbigh (Colonel Cornwallis West). He says that if value is given by the trustees for the ground, he has no objection to the chapel being used for other than religious purposes. That is exactly what the Bill proposes to do. Even taking the evidence of the only witness called before the Committee against the provisions of the Bill, there is no argument against it—the only practical difficulty which he raised has been met by the provisions of the Bill itself. I was sorry to hear certain remarks regarding the Salvation Army. I recently received a letter from the rector of Carnarvon regarding the debate, in which he states that the Salvation Army had done a great deal of work in that town; and I am sure that Churchmen in Wales in towns where the Salvation Army has been working would not wish the hon. Member who championed the Church to use any arguments derogatory of the work of the Salvation Army. I urge upon the House that they should not regard this as a discussion upon the details of the Bill. It is simply a question of principle, and that principle is that property which is let for chapels should be purchased by the trustees of the chapel at a value which would be the true and real value. There is no confiscatory proposal in this Bill, as the full value will be offered and given. I therefore urge upon the House that there is really no satisfactory objection to the Second Reading of the Bill.

(4.50.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

As the hour is now getting late, and as no Member of the Government has spoken on this Bill, it might be expedient that I should now say a few words. Every Gentleman who has spoken, to whatever Party he belongs, has expressed his own individual view that every legitimate facility should be given to Nonconformists to obtain and retain sites for their chapels. Those opposed to the Bill have never for one moment entertained or supported the idea that the possession of land should be used as an engine for indirectly discouraging any form of theological belief, nor could such a proposition be supported by any body of public opinion represented in this House. But whilst there may be general unanimity as to the objects which the promoters of this Bill assert they have in view, I think something does still require to be said in regard to the substance of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary last year dealt with the clauses and provisions of a Bill which we have been told is to carry out the same objects which this Bill aims at. My right hon. Friend's speech has not been touched even by the most effective of the Gentlemen who have spoken against it to-day. He appears to have made converts even of the Gentlemen who have brought forward this Bill; and they have endeavoured very properly, as I think, to the best of their ability, to meet the objections which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary brought forward on this occasion with so much force. And, in many respects, I think they have succeeded in carrying out the object they have in view. There are, however, still certain difficulties, before I come to the broader question involved, to which I would like to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen who have with so much moderation supported the Second Reading on this occasion. We have very little information as to the grievances which this Bill is calculated to redress. I do not think a single case has been brought forward of any landlord in Wales resuming possession after a relatively short period of years. I there- fore apprehend that that grievance, at all events, does not exist. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) acknowledged the truth of the statement I have now made, and said he knew of no case in which a landlord had used his right of pre-emption for the purpose of turning out any builder or builders of chapels. The right hon. Gentleman alleges that the power the landlord possesses had been frequently used for the purpose of putting undue pressure upon electors at the time of an election.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

I made no charge at all against the landlords personally, nor against the regular land agents; but what I said was, that persons at election times who were or acted as electioneering agents of the landlord put pressure upon trustees of Nonconformists chapels to influence their action.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that that is a very shadowy and obscure explanation; for I think it must be obvious to him that no one would know better than the owners of these chapels who was the landlord or who was his authorised representative, and that, therefore, they would not be affected by any threats launched against them by unauthorised persons falsely representing themselves as the landlord's agents. But if that were done, at all events, by a recognised agent, it would invalidate the election of anybody in whose favour such an act of gross intimidation was committed. Therefore, I suppose we may take it as a matter of fact that not only is there no great grievance, or any grievance at all, arising from the fact that landlords do resume their land, but also that there is no substantial grievance arising from the threats of unauthorised persons that he might resume the land unless votes were given in a certain way. The next point to which I would like to call the attention of the framers of the Bill—and I am sure they would be quite ready to deal with it if I convinced them that an act of injustice would be done by it—is the section which deals with the mode in which compensation is to be allocated. If hon. Members will look at Clause 11, Sub-section "A," they will see that the annual rent-charge to be given is an equivalent for a perpetual ownership; is to be based on the market value at the time of the purchase of the reversion in question. Now take this very simple and obvious case. Let us suppose that the landlord gave a lease at a pepper-corn rent to a certain Nonconformist Body, giving them fair notice that he was not prepared to give it at a pepper-corn rent except on the understanding that at the end of twelve years the value of the land might be increased and made available for some other purpose; but if he were required to give it for ever, he would give it, not at a peppercorn rent, but at a substantial value, and when the matter goes to arbitration, the arbitrators are, under this clause, to take into account the market value of the rent-charge at the time of the purchase.

MR. S. T. EVANS

No; the market value of the reversion.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Well, I stand corrected on that point, but the reversion at the end of 30 or 40 years of a pepper-corn rent—

MR. S. T. EVANS

Of course the reversion does not depend upon the rent at all, but upon the value of the property.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

But the hon Gentleman misses my point, which is, what is the landlord to get for his land? He has given a pepper-corn rent on the understanding that he will get it back, but you prevent that, and give him the value of the reversion, which is a very small matter at the end of 30 years. If you give him the full rent during the remaining 28 years which would run before the lease came to an end, then it might be fair to give him only the value of the reversion; but if he has no rent, and only gets the reversion, you obviously rob him of his property. The House is aware, from the discussion which took place earlier in the afternoon, that the Bill has only been a short time before us, and perhaps I have overlooked some particular method in which this defect might be met; but if it has not been foreseen by the promoters of the Bill, I have no doubt they will be perfectly ready to remedy the defect if it exists. Allusion has been made to the fact that there is nothing in this Bill to prevent a chapel, which has been leased to one religious body, being handed over to another religious body without the consent of the landlord. That is, I think, an omission which the framers of the Bill would be perfectly willing to rectify.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

The lessees would be subject to the covenants.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It is very probable that in the case of short terminable leases the landlord would not think it necessary to putin a covenant, providing that the chapel should only be used by the body to which the lease was granted. If they are given perpetual tenure there should be some restriction in the Bill by which the one religious body would not be allowed to hand over the chapel to another religious body. On the subject of payment of cash instead of rent-charge, I need not trouble the House. I understand that the supporters of the Bill are not all agreed on the point themselves, and, at all events, the hon. Gentleman responsible for the Bill will be ready to adopt views which the House or Committee may express on the matter. There is another point, which, though one of detail, is of great importance, which I should like to bring before the House. There is a clause in the Bill giving the landlord the right of pre-emption. Are you going to compel the landlord to buy back the site, with all the additions that may have been made long subsequent to the time of the original granting of the lease? I do not say that the religious body should be deprived of the value of the buildings, but I think the House will be very careful to consider whether, when it is giving the landlord the right of pre-emption, it will load that right by compelling him to make compensation to the selling body for buildings, to the erection of which he had never consented, and which he ought not to be obliged to pay for. That, again, is a case not provided for in the Bill, and is an omission which the framers appear to have made, and I would strongly urge upon them that they ought to rectify this obvious injustice. Having thus hastily dealt with some of the details of the Bill, let me touch also hastily upon some of the general principles of the measure. I have said that the aims of the Bill have our sympathy, so far as they may be properly described as carrying out the principle of giving every legitimate facility to Nonconformist Bodies to acquire places for religious worship, but we cannot conceal from ourselves that this is a very important Bill, because it involves the rescission of contract. I do not think the House should too hastily commit itself to a Bill of that kind. Do not let us quarrel over the object of the Bill, but do not let us absolutely shut our eyes to the dangers that may lurk in its methods and details. I would strongly press on the House that we ought most carefully to scan every measure which includes as an essential part the rescission of contracts deliberately entered into by persons perfectly free to make them. Allusion has been made to the Report of the Town Holdings Committee, which devoted a paragraph in its Report to this subject. I would point out that, while this question has been represented to us as largely a grievance in the rural districts, the Committee in question dealt with town holdings. The rural grievance was not in the purview of the Committee, and it has not been and cannot be touched by the Report of a Committee which was asked to sit and report on town, and not rural, holdings. I would point out, therefore, to the House that this is not a Report on which, without further investigation, it is good for us wholly to rely in the matter. There is another point; while the majority of the House are influenced in favour of this Bill by the desire to see every legitimate opportunity given to Nonconformists for obtaining places for religious worship, have they noticed that the main provision of the Bill is of a kind which seems to distinctly operate in the opposite direction to that desired; it does not touch leases under 30 years. No lease of less than 30 years comes under the operation of this Bill. That being so, observe the temptation you give to the wicked landlord, who figures so largely in our Debates, to grant leases to Nonconformist chapels for less than 30 years. They may say:—"If I give you a lease for 30 years, the State comes in and says that the contract between me and the Nonconformist Body is null and void, and it is quite within their power, if I grant a lease for 30 years, to keep the place for ever. I shall only grant a lease for a term of years which will keep me outside the Bill." It appears to me that, under those circumstances, the last state of the Nonconformist Bodies would be worse than the first state, and a new Bill would have to be brought in to remedy the grievance of which this Bill would be the cause. I cannot help thinking that this question of the provision of sites for places of religious worship is a larger one than is contemplated by the framers of this Bill. There is another measure which has been printed and circulated this morning, bearing the names of Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Wilson, and others. That Bill does not touch existing leases, but provides for the case, if there be a case, in which there is a great local demand for a site for a place of worship which the landlord absolutely refuses to provide. That case is not before us now, and I pronounce no opinion on its merits. With that Bill in circulation, it is impossible to treat the present Bill as covering the whole ground, but hon. Gentlemen are prepared to vote for it, because they appear to think it deals with and remedies the difficulties which Nonconformists labour under. I think the House sympathises with the general principle of the Bill, using the word "general" in its broadest sense; but I have shown, and I think no answer can be made to it, that in many important particulars this Bill is open to objection, and may deal very hardly with private rights with which nobody is anxious to interfere. And, further, that the very nature of the Bill itself may aggravate the difficulties of Nonconformists, in so far as those difficulties are in existence, and I would remind the House that there are other Bills which deal with this question on somewhat different lines, already printed and circulated in the House. Under these circumstances, and keeping in view that this is a very technical measure—dealing with contracts which deliberately exist, and touching the rights of a very large number of owners—I think the proper course would be the one which I gather was suggested by one hon. Member, to refer it to a Select Committee. I think all the Bills which have been referred to—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Holmfirth (Mr. H. J. Wilson), the third Order on the Paper for to-day; that of the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. J. Ellis); and this Bill—should be referred to a Select Committee, which should be asked to report on the question at large and not upon the details of one of the measures.

MR. S. T. EVANS

I suggested that it should be referred to the Grand Committee on Law.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That, Sir, is not the course usually pursued with regard to private Members' Bills, and is not a course which the Government would recommend on the present occasion. A Select Committee is the orthodox course of dealing with these matters, and one which the House would do well to adopt. On the understanding that this and the other Bills relating to the subject are referred to the Select Committee in the manner suggested, I shall, so far as I am concerned, and so far as my hon. Friends on this Bench are concerned, have much pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

(5.13.) MR. J. B. ROBERTS

I thought the right hon. Gentleman would have given some reason for referring the Bill to a Select Committee; but the only argument used in that direction was that it was an intricate and technical measure. I am perfectly willing to refer it to the Committee on Law.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The whole of my speech showed that the difficulties and shortcomings which I pointed out were the grounds on which I desired to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and not simply on the ground that it was technical.

MR. J. B. ROBERTS

The shortcomings are due to the drafting, but are no reason for sending the Bill to a Select Committee. We ought to send it to a Committee the Members of which are expert in drafting Acts of Parliament. The only object that I have is to have the Bill thrashed out so far as the clauses are concerned, and I should prefer that it came before a Committee of the House.

(5.15.) MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport)

I have no desire to talk this Bill out, but I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will not use his influence to prevent a Division, although we may be beaten. I have always stood up for freedom of contract, and no great necessity for interference has been shown in the present case. We all agree with the objects of this Bill, and in the desire that the Nonconformists or religious bodies of any proper description may be able to obtain places of worship if they have not got them already. But that is a different thing from supporting this Bill, which is more likely to prevent Nonconformists from obtaining places of worship. What this Bill proposes is to interfere with existing rights by giving an option to one of two parties to a contract to alter it without any consideration to the other party. It also gives to private individuals compulsory powers to purchase land. That, I maintain, is wrong in principle, and we have not done it in any other case except to grant allotments. We do not give these powers even to public bodies—even County Councils. Take, for example, the case of education. Everyone admits the necessity for education, but everyone, I am sorry to say, does not admit the necessity for religion. Do we give any education authority the powers which are sought by this Bill? Nothing of the kind. We do not allow a School Board to turn a leasehold, site into a freehold except by special powers. This Bill proposes to allow any half-dozen individuals calling themselves a religious body to interfere with the rights of property. It seems to me exceedingly hard upon a free-holder that because he has granted a lease to some one who had granted it to some one else, and that Someone else to a religious body, the rights of all these people should be taken away from them by these religious bodies. I contend that this Bill should be rejected.

(5.18.) SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

I think there is only one course to pursue. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) made the offer in all fairness; but if this Bill were referred to a Select Committee along with two or three other Bills—one of which is in the last degree contentious—it would kill the Bill for this Session. We have got a most fortunate position this year—a position which Welsh Members may regard almost as Providential. Let us, therefore, take a Division, and have the Bill in a Committee of the whole House after Whitsuntide. When it is once in Committee, with the great favour with which it is met on both sides of the House, and with the certainty that the objections raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) could be met, I have no doubt that we shall carry this Bill this Session.

(5.19.) MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

No Members who sat on the Town Holdings Committee have had an opportunity of addressing the House this afternoon, and I should like to say to the Leader of the House that we took evidence ranging over every part of the country, only excluding some of the agricultural districts, and we went right over the country before we arrived at this decision.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 238; Noes 119.—(Div. List, No. 24.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.