EXPLANATIONS. (Hansard, 6 December 1867)

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, that in consequence of some observations which had been made by the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council in reference to the course he had thought it his duty to take when this Bill came before him, he wished to make an explanation. As their Lordships knew, Bills such as this were of a hybrid character, and consequently were dealt with both by him and by a Committee of their Lordships' House. It was his duty, when such a Bill came before him as Chairman of Committees, to see that it was in the shape in which it ought to be allowed to go on. This Bill proposed to take for the purposes of the Museum certain lands in Bethnal Green, which, under the deed securing them to Trustees, were to be for ever kept free from all buildings. It was extremely desirable that in densely-populated portions of this metropolis such open spaces should be preserved; and if the condition of so preserving them was about to be done away with, it was right that the parishioners and inhabitants should be informed of what was about to be done. In this case that information which the Standing Orders were framed to secure had not been afforded to the inhabitants of Bethnal Green. Even the preamble of the Bill was defective in not reciting the condition of the deed, or what was about to be done, as was usual in all Bills of this kind. His objection to the Bill was that from the manner in which it had been brought forward, the parties 637 interested had had no proper notice. Public notice of the Bill was first given by publication in The Morning Post of the 15th of November. Now, he thought he might reasonably presume that The Morning Post did not circulate very extensively in Bethnal Green. It was afterwards published in The London Gazette on the 19th, and the last notice in The Post was on the 25th November; and the Bill was brought in on the same day. Leave was given to the Examiner of Standing Orders to sit the next day, and he reported on the 28th. The second reading was taken on the 29th, and the Bill was then sent to a Select Committee, who reported the same day. On the 30th it was re-committed, and was carried through the remaining stages on the same day. The Standing Orders requiring November notices were for Bills expected to be brought in more than two months afterwards. In this case the Bill was brought in on the day following the last notice, and instead of the usual time for petition, and inquiry being allowed after its introduction, the Standing Orders of both Houses had been suspended in order to force it through within a fortnight. He did not say that the object of the Bill might not be a very proper one, but he had an objection to the way in which the Bill was framed. It provided that the trustees of the land or a majority of them should have power to sell to "the trustees for the establishment and maintenance of the East London Museum at such price and on such terms as they agree on." When he asked the agent for the Bill who were the trustees of the East London Museum, the reply was, "Oh, the trust is not yet formed." But was Parliament to give powers of purchase to a trust not yet formed? The only document in the form of an agreement he had seen—by whom drawn up he could not tell—provided that the land was to be conveyed to certain persons called "purchasers," and that these were to be the members of Her Majesty's Government for the time being. "The members of Her Majesty's Government for the time being" were not a corporation capable of purchasing and holding land; yet this was the only legal document produced before him. Moreover, the Bill did not provide for the treatment of the land. There was a provision in the agreement that whatever land was not used for the purposes of a Museum should be maintained by the Government for the 638 time being as a public garden. Here, again, a consideration of some importance presented itself, for unless the members of Her Majesty's Government for the time being were prepared to defray the costs out of their own pockets, means for the purpose must be provided out of the public monies, and no notice had been given in the other House of Parliament of any such intended application, and no Amendment to that effect could be introduced by the Lords. The solicitor for the Bill admitted that the price proposed to be given for the site (£2,000) was very inadequate, considering it land for building purposes; but referred, by way of explanation, to this provision, that the land, as to a certain portion of it, was not to be built upon; but the Government were to be allowed to place whatever buildings were required for the purposes of the Museum, which might include dwellings for the officers and servants, and it was therefore to be conveyed for building purposes, The noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) said, when he was spoken to, "You must have confidence in the Government." He had great confidence in the present Government; but he would not trust them or any other Government with unlimited powers over land in the way here proposed when it was intended that they should be limited. Such powers had never been given, and he thought they ought not to be given. If Parliament considered that certain powers should be conferred on the Government, let them prescribe the mode in which such powers should be exercised. These were the reasons why, in his opinion, the Bill ought not to be further proceeded with before the Recess. Parliament did not usually meet at this time of year, and hence the matter would only stand over till the ordinary period. He regretted that he had not been present on the previous day, when the noble Duke brought forward the subject, but he was in the full belief that the Bill would not be proceeded with, and that the Order would be discharged; and he left the House accordingly in order to catch a train for the purpose of going down into the country; but having seen his remarks in the public prints, he felt it his duty to attend and to assure the noble Duke that he had not the least intention of treating him or the House with disrespect. For the purpose of making this statement to their Lordships he had undertaken a journey of 180 miles.

§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
said, he was sorry that the noble Lord had put himself to inconvenience; and had he been aware of the noble Lord's intention to renew the discussion, he should have taken pains to be prepared as to the particular facts which the noble Lord had mentioned. The noble Lord, while fulfilling, in a manner which could not fail to be satisfactory to their Lordships, the important duties of his high post, seemed also rather to take upon himself to determine the policy of a measure. Now, the duties with which the noble Lord was intrusted by their Lordships' House were to see whether Bills were in proper form, that notices had been properly given, and that various safeguards were properly inserted; these being in their nature, moreover, matters rather of a private than of a positively public character. But as to the policy of a measure, and as to whether Her Majesty's Government ought to be intrusted with a particular power or not, that was a matter for Parliament to determine, and which did not rest merely with the noble Lord, who was not to exercise the powers intrusted to him merely to stop a public measure because he did not think it desirable. This matter had been very fully considered by Her Majesty's Government; a Vote of £5,000 had been taken last year for the purpose of erecting this Museum, and as to the public garden which the noble Lord spoke of, it was a mere strip of ground surrounding the building about to be erected. The cost of maintenance hereafter, whatever that might amount to, would be included, he believed, in the Estimates for the South Kensington Museum. The necessity for this Bill had arisen solely out of the difficulty experienced in executing a conveyance legally, owing to the absence of two of the trustees. He would not venture to contradict the vast experience of the noble Lord as to the framing of Bills; and if the noble Lord, on his own responsibility, thought proper to delay the progress of this Bill until Parliament met again, the Government must only how to the rules of their Lordships' House. At the same time a valuable opportunity would be lost, and as regarded one phrase to which objection had been taken, he certainly held that it was competent for the Ministers of the Crown for the time being to hold lands in the name of the Crown. He only hoped that when they met again the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees would con- 640 fine himself to the legitimate duties of that office, and would not think it right to raise grounds of policy in opposition to this measure.

§ LORD REDESDALE
replied that the only grounds which he had raised were points of form. [The Duke of MARLBOROUGH: No; points of policy.] I say points of form. The noble Duke thinks that when lands are to be conveyed for certain purposes, this is a question of policy. But whenever lands are conveyed for any special' purposes, it is customary to require that those purposes should be stated in the Bill, and that I take to be a matter of form which should properly be observed. The noble Duke has not alluded to the fact that the Bill was run through all its stages in the Commons in one week, and that the only notice given to the parties whom the Bill would affect was given one week previously. If your Lordships deal in that way your Standing Orders parties may be deprived at any time of the lands which belong to them, without receiving that notice which those Orders are intended to secure to them. With regard to matters of policy, I did not touch on that point before, but I will mention a matter of policy now, which I think deserving of consideration. I think it very doubtful policy to maintain, or propose to establish a Museum, and maintain a garden at the public expense for the parish of Bethnal Green. I understand perfectly the policy of having a National Museum established and maintained at the public expense, and, being National, it is necessarily placed in the metropolis; and that we have got at South Kensington. But why is another portion of the metropolis to have another Museum and a garden added? If Bethnal Green is to have this, why not Southwark? And will not provincial towns put in a similar claim? Why should not the taxpayers of Birmingham or Manchester say, "We have as good a right to a Museum as Bethnal Green, and to have it set up and paid for out of the public purse?" Your Lordships will see that the proposition now made is one of those things requiring very careful consideration, and more, I am afraid, than has been bestowed in this instance.