COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 28 July 1890)

§ LORD THRING
I dare say that what is the obvious meaning of this clause is not intended to be its meaning, and I wish to draw your Lordships' attention particularly to this clause. It certainly would, I think, form a difficult precedent at a future time. Your Lordships will observe it provides that any person holding land for public, ecclesiastical, 1010 parochial, charitable, "or other purposes," may, in effect, grant, sell, or exchange it for the purposes of the Public Libraries Act. It then says that where land is held for ecclesiastical purposes the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall assent; that where it is held for parochial purposes, the Guardians and Poor Law Board shall assent, and in the case of other charitable property, the Charity Commissioners shall assent. Then it provides that the money shall be applied as the Charity Commissioners shall decide. But just see what the effect of this clause would be. It enables, in effect, the Trustees of any charity to alter altogether the disposition of their trust by applying land or property which they hold, for the purpose of the Public Libraries Act. Now, I shall not be suspected of having too strong a bias in favour of pious founders, and, I believe that, after a certain time, all charities ought to be considered; but I think to put a clause of this kind in the Act, enabling persons who may hold, as the noble Earl (Lord Meath) will presently show, land for maintaining open spaces,' to allow that land to be built upon for the purpose of forming a public library, is a precedent which may create difficulty in future legislation. If this provision is passed in regard to public libraries it may be passed for any other charitable object which people may think desirable, for example, for the purpose of building a chapel, or public wash-houses, or baths, and no charity will be safe for a moment. To show the carelessness, as it appears to me, with which the measure has been drawn, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that it does not even provide that the money arising from the sale of land shall be applied for the purposes of the original Trust; on the contrary, it is to be disposed of as the Commissioners think fit. Then it is perfectly clear that the word "gift" must be struck out, for I cannot imagine that your Lordships are going to allow the Charity Trustees to give away their land as they like. There is another point. I have said nothing as to the effect in reference to private persons, but I do think it is rather a strong order to allow any owner of land to do what is here authorised. I only wish to draw your Lordships' attention to this clause. 1011 I submit that it certainly ought, in any case, to be amended, and I doubt whether any part of it ought to be proposed.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
Perhaps I may be allowed to ask the noble Lord to tell us what is the meaning of the words "any persons holding land for charitable, parochial, or other purposes." I should like to know what the words "other purposes" mean.

§ * LORD HOUGHTON
I am sorry, as it has turned out, that this Bill was referred to Committee of the Whole House, and not to a Standing Committee, but that was not entirely my fault. I was not aware of any objection being taken to the clause at the Second Reading of the Bill by noble Lords on this side of the House. I do not make any observation upon it whatever, but perhaps the noble Lord will allow this matter to be considered at a later stage of the Bill. With regard to the Amendment which the noble Earl will move, I shall be very glad to deal with that, but perhaps any question of construction your Lordships would be willing should be considered afterwards.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I am bound to say I think the point a somewhat serious one. My attention was not called to it, but it seems to me rather a question of principle than a mere drafting. I do not think it is a question of drafting at all.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
It is really both. I do not quite understand the object of putting in "other purposes." Ordinarily, you read those words ejusdem generis, but when you specify what some of the purposes are—public purposes, or charitable and parochial purposes, the words may have a very wide signification. It is difficult to understand from the language what the "other purposes" can mean, unless they are private purposes. Then there is the other point. In addition, the assent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is required to the alienation of land held for ecclesiastical purposes, and the assent of the Local Government Board in regard to land for parochial purposes, but it requires no assent in reference to these "other purposes," whatever they may be. I cannot help thinking those words must have got in unintentionally.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
I understand the noble Lord would be willing to strike out the word "other," and in that case that the difficulty would be removed.

§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)
How would this proviso affect land held by Universities or Colleges? It seems to me that is a rather serious-question.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
I think myself such purposes as those would come within the word "charitable."

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
No, I think not; they are excepted under the Statute of Elizabeth.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
I am not sure that that would not be so. However, I should certainly think the best course would be to take the course first suggested of putting in "or" before "charitable," and leaving out the words "or other."

§ * LORD HOUGHTON
I should be quite prepared to accept that.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I must reserve to myself liberty to move that the word "public" be left out also. I am more afraid of that word than of the others.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
I am a little doubtful, I confess, about the whole clause. It seems to me, unless there is some precedent for it, it is rather an innovation to allow property held in trust for a charity of one kind, to be applied for a charity of a different kind, even with the consent of the Charity Commissioners.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
That is exactly what I meant.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I think, at all events, there ought to be reciprocity, and that the Public Libraries Trustees ought to be allowed to alienate their land for the benefit of other charities.

* THE EARL OF MEATH
I had given notice of an Amendment to this clause, but I do not quite understand whether the Motion before the House is to strike out the whole clause or not. My point is with regard to the preservation of open spaces.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
As at present advised, I do not propose to take any part in the discussion upon this portion of the clause, because I shall be very much disposed, when the Question is put by the Chairman "That this clause stand part of the Bill," to meet it with a negative.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
I do not know that there would be any harm in allowing Trustees to do it by way of sale or exchange, because then they would get the full value of the laud. I should content myself with taking out the word "gift."

* THE EARL OF MEATH
I cannot agree to the point as to sale. It appears to me that is a very important matter. How this clause got in is difficult to understand. It was not in the original Bill, and was only put in at the last moment on Third Reading. I do not know who is the author of this clause. It is in this connection a somewhat peculiar circumstance that in this Metropolis one very populous district, Bethnal Green, has been for the last 12 months in the throes of an agitation for this very purpose—that is, to get land which was conveyed 200 years ago for charitable purposes, and in regard to which there is a Trust to keep it as an open space, built over. There is an agitation going on as to whether some of the land could not be used for other purposes than that of an open space, and there are three distinct purposes put forward, one to erect a library upon it, another to erect a vestry hall, and another to build an infirmary. There has been a division of opinion on the subject, and there have been about 70 public meetings held in the district. Public opinion is greatly divided upon it. There are a certain number of ratepayers who are anxious to utilise the ground for these purposes. It is a terrible temptation to them to save money by building upon public land. On the other hand, there are a large number of ratepayers who wish the Trust to be maintained. I must adhere, I think, to the Amendment which I have moved, which is— Provided also that land held on trust to be preserved as an open space, or on trust which prohibit building thereon, shall not be 1014 granted or conveyed for the purposes of this Act.

§ * LORD HOUGHTON
I should have been very glad if I could have accepted the noble Earl's Amendment, sympathising as I do with his object—

THE EARL OF MORLEY
I would point out that the Amendment before the House is the insertion of "or" before "charitable."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
My noble Friend behind me has requested me to move an Amendment in the 18th line. You will there find the words— And the said Board and Commissioners respectively may provide for the application of the moneys which may be derived from the sale of any land. It seems to me the money ought to be held for the purposes of the charity. I think, as suggested, the words should be— The moneys arising from any sale or exchange of such land shall be applied for the same purposes as the land exchanged or sold.

§ LORD HOUGHTON
I think I have some right to complain that a considerable number of Amendments should have been brought forward upon this clause, of which I have received no notice. However, as they all come from this side of the House I suppose I cannot say very much about them. I think it is quite obvious that the sense of the House is with the noble Earl who has just sat down, and I, therefore, do not know that there would be any great object in my attempting to evade the proposal. Still I was anxious on other grounds that the Bill might have passed without any Amendment at all.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
Upon that appeal for some addition in the way of amendment from this side of the House I rise to gratify the noble Lord, and I think the best amendment is that we should say "No" to the question that this clause stand part of the Bill. It really requires very careful looking into. I want to know who "any person holding land for public purposes" is? Does that mean Ministers of the Crown? Does it mean every person who has a fiduciary interest of a limited and temporary character in land applied for public purposes? I think, considering 1015 the enormous importance of the interests involved, these words need to be very fully considered.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
The unfortunate thing is that this was not observed when the Bill was under consideration before. This is eminently a matter which should have been considered in Standing Committee.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
Quite so.

§ * LORD HOUGHTON
I will accept, the suggestion of the noble Marquess. I need not say I am hardly, at this moment, prepared to argue intricate questions of the kind raised, and I reserve to myself liberty to bring the matter forward at a later stage of the Bill.

THE EARL OF MEATH
I withdraw my Amendment.