ALLOTMENTS BILL.—(No. 248.) (Hansard, 14 August 1882)

§ LORD CARRINGTON,
in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he was under the impression, until he had come into the House that afternoon, that the measure had the approval of the Charity Commissioners. He found, however, that several points were ob- 1669 jected to by them, and to meet these objections when the Bill went into Committee to-morrow—if the second reading were agreed to—he should propose a series of Amendments. He trusted the Bill would be passed in some form that would be agreeable to the promoters, who were very much in earnest. The object of the measure was to enable trustees of charity lands to let it out to the poor of the parishes in which such lands were situated. It would be found to work very satisfactorily if passed into law, and he therefore hoped that their Lordships would allow the second reading to be taken.

§ LORD COLCHESTER
said, he thought it was to be regretted that their Lordships should be called upon to proceed with a Bill of that kind at so late a period of the Session. It was a Bill of a somewhat exceptional character, containing many provisions inviting the most careful and deliberate scrutiny. It would be of some value; but the method by which it was to carry out its object was a novel one; and it seemed to him that it would have been a much wiser course to have brought it in at the beginning rather than at the very end of a Session. It had not been a Government measure in the other House, but had been brought forward by a private Member; and it had, owing to the pressure of other Business, passed through the other House of Parliament unnoticed, and with very little criticism; and it was now laid before their Lordships' House at a time when its full discussion was almost impossible, for it could not, in the absence of so many Members of their Lordships' House, be properly considered, and therefore he hoped it would not be pressed forward that Session. The Charity Commission, of which he had the honour to be a Member, objected to the Bill in its present shape, and desired to see it considerably amended, for they had been led, by their experience as to the management of charity property, to see the most serious objections to the Bill—objections which were laid before the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and since then before the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. It in- 1670 volved a novel and unprecedented principle as to the duties of trustees of charitable endowments, requiring them, instead of dealing with their properties. —properties not originally intended to be converted into allotments—as a prudent owner would deal with his own, in the interests of the funds of the charity, to manage them with a view to confer an indirect benefit of a kind different from that contemplated, and, as he hoped to show, on a class of persons other than the persons intended to be benefited. In the Preamble of the Bill was a statement of an incorrect character, which formed the foundation of a large part of the Bill. By the 4th section of the Act the trustees appeared to be debarred from letting their lands for a term of years. They were compelled to be ready at any time to obtain possession, in order to assign land for allotments. It was, indeed, provided by Clause 13 that allotments were to be let at the usual rent of land in the same parish. But the allotments might be only part of a farm. The remainder of the farm might be greatly injured in value by the taking off of a portion for allotments, and the trustees could not even attempt to compensate themselves by letting it for the term of years for which the highest rent was attainable. But it might be said the poor, for whom the charity was intended, would gain more than they lost. It must be borne in mind that the poor of the parish where the lands were situated were not necessarily the poor of the parish to which the endowment belonged. Clause 4, in its curious wording, seemed to be intended to guard the rights of the proper beneficiary. But the lands might be in a distant county. The parish intended to benefit might be in the heart of London, the lands 100 miles away from the people originally intended to be benefited. Again, a charity might be for the aged and infirm who did not benefit by the allotments. The 11th and other clauses undoubtedly gave to the Charity Commissioners powers of protecting trustees in doing what they might think necessary for the pecuniary interest of the endowment; but, by so proceeding, they called on the Commission to exercise powers which might constantly make them appear as opposing the intention of Parliament and depriving the labouring classes of the advantage intended for them by Parlia- 1671 mentary legislation, a position eminently mischievous and calculated to interfere with the useful discharge of their functions.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that he was bound to endeavour to mediate between the opposing views of noble Lords on this question—those who were and those who were not interested in the Bill. There was, no doubt, a desire on the part of all parties to promote the best and most proper use of the lands dealt with by the Bill, and there could be no difference of opinion as to the desirability of permitting allotments of this description to be granted, if they were granted in a proper manner. The object of the Bill was to enable persons to hold allotments of land given for the benefit of the poor and vested in trustees; and it was with the view of promoting that object that the Representatives of the Government in the House of Commons had facilitated the passing of the measure of a private Member. While thinking the Bill would prove serviceable if passed into law he felt that there was much truth in what the noble Lord who last spoke (Lord Colchester) had said, and that the Bill would require considerable amendment. If it were not easy to meet the views of the Charity Commissioners, it would be difficult to pass the Bill; but he should be glad to do so, and the attempt to satisfy them should be made, and he did not despair of success. The framers of the Bill had thought that land fit for the purposes of the Bill might be held in trust for others than the poor people of the parish in which the lands were situated. So far as that could be done without substantial loss to the income of the charity, he saw no objection to the proposal; otherwise it would be open to an objection, which might be met by an Amendment, saying that no part of any land falling within the description contained in the Bill should be separated from the rest, if it materially interfered with the value of the remainder. Then, again, the Bill might be amended so as to preserve all existing leasing powers. With regard to Clause 11, it would be a new mode of legislation first to indicate that certain things should be done, and then to give the Charity Commissioners power to say they were not to be done. The 10th clause proposed a roundabout course of jurisdiction between the Charity Com- 1672 missioners and the County Courts. He would give the power to either one or the other of these jurisdictions, and by preference to the Charity Commissioners. With the amendment of these and some other matters, so that, if possible, no substantial loss should accrue to any charity, the Bill might be reduced to an acceptable form; and he would, therefore, suggest to the noble Lord that he should allow the Bill to be read a second time, and that it should be amended in detail as might be considered desirable when it got into Committee. He hoped that, with that understanding, the Bill would be allowed to be read a second time.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
said, that he thought their Lordships ought not to be expected at that period of the Session to put the Bill into that shape in which it was desirable to pass it. But he entertained a strong objection to the Bill, as it would cause infinite trouble to the trustees of lands situate in distant parts of the country. He objected, to it on the further ground that the trouble and expense of working the machinery of the Bill were such as should not be thrown on anyone. He would like to know who would have the duty of looking after these allotments and seeing that they were properly cultivated. The Bill was a very ill-considered one, and badly drafted, and there would be no time to consider the Amendments suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The principle of the Bill was wrong, and he should oppose the second reading. It was a bad measure, and should not be allowed to pass a second reading—certainly not at that late period of the Session.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)
suggested that their Lordships should wait until they saw the proposed Amendments on the Bill, which were already prepared, and would be on the Paper to-morrow morning, before they decided to reject the measure.