§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
§ LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, this is a Bill which is promoted by the Select Vestry of St. Margaret's, Leicester, with the view of obtaining the sanction of Parliament to the sale of certain laud which is vested in them, and of providing for the application of the proceeds of sale for the benefit of the inhabitants, the parishioners of the Parish of St. Margaret's. The land in question was in the year 1764, or about that date, awarded to the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of St. Margaret's, and it consists of about 17½ acres. It has been for many years known as the "Parish Piece," and is held by the Churchwardens and Overseers for the time being for the sole use, benefit, and advantage of themselves and the rest of the inhabitants of the parish, for the time being, who pay rates and taxes to the said parish." These 17½ acres which are thus held by the Churchwardens and Overseers for the benefit of the parishioners are situated in the Parish of St. Margaret's, and in the midst of what is now a portion of the town, containing a very large number of inhabitants. At the present time this piece of land is let to certain individuals at a rental of £130 a year, and they again let it out in allotments. The sum of £130 a year is certainly a very inadequate receipt from this valuable property, as your Lordships will understand when I tell you that it has been valued at a sum considerably exceeding £30,000. All that is received from it at present for the benefit of the inhabitants is the £130 a year which I have mentioned. That income has been divided between certain schools in the parish, but it has been found by the inhabitants of the parish, as well as the Churchwardens and Overseers, that it 862 might now with, advantage be sold, and applied to other purposes than, those to, which it is at present applied, and that the very considerable sum of money which would be received for it might be more advantageously used for the benefit of the parish than if the land were left in its present position—the parish being only in receipt from it of the income I have mentioned. Of one thing, my Lords, there can be no doubt, that this piece of land cannot be dealt with more advantageously to the parish by way of sale without the authority of Parliament. The matter was considered by the Charity Commissioners, and they came to the conclusion that it was not a case in which they would be enabled, under their general powers, to make a scheme which might be approved, involving the sale of this piece of land, without the authority of Parliament. The matter has been before the Attorney General, and he has come to the same conclusion, namely, that Parliamentary sanction would be necessary for the sale of the land. Therefore, so far there can be no dispute about that very important point. The Charity Commissioners have suggested that power should simply be given to sell the land by the Act which is being applied for; and that then it should be left to them to settle a scheme uncontrolled by Parliament in the way in which they can settle schemes in cases which come within their powers. On the other hand, the Attorney General has suggested that the better course would be to enable the Court of Chancery to frame a scheme in the way in which, in certain cases, schemes are framed by the Court now. The inhabitants of the parish, on the other hand, would prefer the destination of the proceeds of sale to be determined by Parliament; and they have proposed a scheme which is embodied in this Bill. Of course they are quite conscious that that scheme may be open to objections, and they do not desire to put forward in any way the scheme as one to be absolutely accepted as a necessary condition of the passing of the Bill. They wish, at all events, that there should be power given them to sell this piece of land, and to apply the proceeds advantageously for the benefit of the parishioners. Now, my Lords, the purposes to which the parish have proposed to apply 863 the proceeds of the land I may describe shortly as a scheme for almshouses and out-pensions. The Charity Commissioners, on the other hand, have suggested a scheme which provides for a very considerable variety of objects. They have suggested that it should be applied in part for purposes of education; in part for purposes of a dispensary or infirmary; in part for a provident club; in part for a reading-room, library, and working men's club; and in part to providing allotments under the Allotments Extension Act; and they object to the scheme of the Vestry because, in their view, the establishing of almshouses on so large a scale as proposed is open to question. It does not strike me that the scale proposed is really very extensive; but I cannot help thinking that in matters which are properly within the rights of the Charity Commissioners, no doubt they would carry their views into effect in the framing of a scheme. But I do think there is a danger of too cast iron and rigid a system being imposed on different parts of the country according to the views of the Charity Commissioners. They object to almshouses; but some people may think, as the parishioners here do, that almshouses are a useful form of charity, that they serve important and valuable purposes, and that they would do so in this particular instance. I think that is at all events a matter which is well open to consideration, and which ought not to be subject to the absolute control and determination of the Charity Commissioners. But, of course, I quite admit that the view of the Charity Commissioners is a matter that ought to be taken into the most serious and careful consideration; and those who promote this Bill would certainly be very far from wishing that the Charity Commissioners should not put forward for consideration a scheme for the application of the money to be derived from the sale of this piece of land, or that that scheme, subject to their objections being also heard and considered, should not form a substantial basis for legislation in this matter. Of course that might be carried out by a scheme being prepared by the Charity Commissioners, and any objections of the parish to it being heard, and then, ultimately, the scheme determined upon being inserted in a 864 Schedule to the Bill; so that before the Bill passes your Lordships' House, or Parliament, there should appear upon the face of it the manner in which the money is to be expended, and that the scheme should have Parliamentary sanction. It seems to me that would be obviously a full, acceptable, and satisfactory settlement of the matter. So far I have dealt with the suggested different schemes, and how those schemes are to be carried out; but I understand that my noble and learned Friend (Lord Hobhouse) opposes the Second Reading of this Bill altogether, at the instance of those who take the view that open spaces such as this should be kept as open spaces for the purpose of public recreation. Certainly I should be the last to deprecate in the slightest degree the importance of having sufficient places of recreation for the benefit of the inhabitants of populous towns; but in the present case the view taken by those who promote the Bill is this: that it is not really required; that is to say that within a few minutes' walk of this particular space there exists an excellent recreation ground which is open to the inhabitants of the parish, and which has been laid out for the very purpose. It is within this parish, and, as I have said, is within a few minutes of this very spot. Of course this is a consideration which must be borne in mind, that if you take a valuable piece of ground of this sort and devote it to purposes of recreation, the persons who more immediately benefit by it are those in the immediate neighbourhood, and it ceases to be as it was intended to be, a piece of land used for the benefit of the inhabitants at large; the more especially as here there exists a much better recreation ground than this would be within this very parish, and you would be taking from the parishioners at large that which belongs to them, and applying it for the benefit of a portion only of the people in that parish. That would be the effect of it, and therefore, it seems to me, there is a good deal to be said against the view that on such a ground as that the Bill should be thrown out on Second Reading. I think such a course as I suggest would prevent injustice being done to anybody; the views of all those who are interested would be reasonably and fairly considered, 865 and those views which should be considered most desirable would be carried out. I cannot help thinking that the result would be to append to this Bill a scheme which would give general satisfaction and be greatly for the benefit of the parishioners of St. Margaret's. On those grounds I move that the Bill be read a second time.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
§ *LORD HOBHOUSEI am very sorry to oppose my noble and learned Friend, and very sorry to take up your Lordship's time, but it is my duty to oppose the Second Beading of this Bill. Before I address myself to the subject, I will hand in a Petition signed by 1,200 of the inhabitants, ratepayers of the parish, who are also 1,200 members of the governing body of this endowment. I will not trouble your Lordships by reading the Petition, but I will simply state that the upshot of it, as I gather from a copy which has been given to me, is this: that the petitioners desire that there should be no scheme at all made at the present moment, and that when a scheme is made it should not involve the sale of the land, but that the land should be kept as open land, and used as a recreation ground for the people of Leicester; and they deprecate the Legislature doing anything in the matter until there has been an ample local inquiry made by competent officials. I think when I have stated the case, your Lordships will see that that is a very reasonable Petition. I have said that I am sorry to take up time, but I think that at the present day it is hardly necessary to apologise for asking the Houses of Parliament to hesitate long before they give aid to proposals for the sale (for building purposes) of open land which is situate in the midst of a crowded population in a populous, growing town. I say in the midst, although this land is now nearly at one end of the town. It has, as I read in the Bill, itself been surrounded by buildings on all sides excepting a road frontage. Some 20 or 30 years ago the policy which is embodied in this Bill was considered to be the wisest policy, and it was common then to sell open lands in order to get more money for the purposes of the endowment. Your Lordships will bear in mind 866 that this is a charitable endowment. But a remarkable change has come over the convictions and feelings of people in that matter. People have found that money may be purchased too dearly, that it may be purchased indeed at the expense of health and enjoyment; that health and enjoyment are better things; and that when you have got the money, even if it is wisely administered, which is not always the case, the enjoyment of it is confined to comparatively a few, while the health and the recreation are spread over the whole community. And so it has come about—at least I can speak for London—that this desire to keep open spaces, the love of fresh air, of the clear sky, of something to look over, of something to look at which is not bricks and mortar, has come to be a feeling spreading wide and deep among the poorer classes of the community. Now I am not one of those, although I appear at the wish of a Commons' Preservation Society, who oppose at all times and in all places the enclosure of open lands. I think that every case must rest upon its own circumstances. There may be, possibly, a case for doing what is proposed in this town of Leicester; but this I do say, with the anticipation that I shall meet with general assent, that those who come forward with such a proposal applied to lands in the middle of a populous town, ought to show strong and sufficient reasons for it, and that the mere money gain is not a strong and sufficient reason. You may read this Bill from beginning to end and you will find that no reason for this movement is alleged except that of money gain; and I propose to examine the Bill to show that the persons who promote it (who are the Select Vestry of Leicester) are not the governing body who represent this endowment; they do not tell us what the action of the governing body has been, and that they assign no reason why those who desire to oppose the Preamble of the Bill—that is to say, those who desire to contend that at the present moment no scheme should be made and that no sale of the land should take place, are not to have an inquiry in the locality; and why on the contrary they themselves are to have the inquiry transferred from Leicester to London, and to have it take place 867 before a Committee of this House instead of taking place before the skilled Inspectors of the Charity Commissioners upon the spot, and at very-little expense. The position of things is this: this land was given to the parish in lieu of common rights immemorially appertaining to the inhabitants of the parish. I call them inhabitants, but they are a qualified class. However, my noble and learned Friend and I, will not dispute about that; and it is convenient to call them inhabitants of the parish. The open lands were enclosed and the common rights therefore destroyed in the year 1764, and the 17½ acres were then allotted to the Churchwardens and Overseers; but the land was allotted to them upon trust for the use and benefit of the inhabitants of the parish. The administration of charity was not vested in the Churchwardens and Overseers, but it was vested in the inhabitants themselves. The land was—
To be let or otherwise disposed of, and the profits arising from it applied in such manner as the major part of the inhabitants aforesaid assembled in parish meetings to be held at the Parish Church on Easter Tuesday in every year should direct or appoint.Now that may seem clumsy, it is not very common, neither is it unprecedented; but in point of fact, from that day to this the charity has been administered in that way. I so read in the Bill—That ever since the date of the said award the land has been let, and the rents have been applied to various purposes, in accordance with the resolutions in that behalf passed annually at the Easter Tuesday meetings.That being so your Lordships would think that the Vestry, who are now the Trustees of the legal estate instead of the Churchwardens and Overseers, would have gone on to tell us in this Bill what the inhabitants wished; but, again, you may read the Bill from beginning to end, and you will find nothing of the kind; "the inhabitants" after this point are quietly dropped out, and we read of nothing but the views and the wishes of the Vestry. And now, as to the constitution of the Vestry, I must tell your Lordships something. They do not represent the ratepayers of the parish as a London Vestry does in a London parish; they have a very peculiar constitution, for the 868 ratepayers elect 30 persons, I am told—I have not seen the Act, which is quoted in the Bill—and then they submit the 30 names to the Justices of the Peace, who select 20 persons from them; and those persons constitute the Select Vestry. Well, now, I say that the Vestry ought, at the very least, to have presented this matter to the inhabitants of the parish, so that they might have been able to deliberate and express their wishes upon it, I think it would not have been too much if they had propounded the matter at one Easter Tuesday meeting, or, at all events, at some meeting convened so as to be as good as an Easter Tuesday meeting, and then have left it to be pondered over and discussed during the year ensuing, and to be decided at the next Easter meeting. For, observe, my Lords, that it is impossible delay can be injurious in this matter. You may inflict great injury by a hasty determination to sell the land; but there can be no injury in delay, not even money loss, for everybody knows that the value of building land in populous and growing towns does not decrease, but increases, by a postponement of the period of sale. But what have the Vestry done? They convened a meeting, as I understand, last November. It is mentioned in the Petition that I have presented. At that meeting 129 persons attended—65 voted for the Bill and 64 against it. In fact, the resolution in favour of the Bill, which was presented in block to the meeting, was carried by the vote of the Chairman. Your Lordships now, I think, have it that this matter has never been submitted to those persons who are the governing body of this endowment in any regular way. When it was submitted irregularly the votes were equally divided; and now 1,200 of those persons come forward and protest respectfully against any interference by the Legislature until there has been such an inquiry as will thoroughly ascertain the wants, views, and interests of the parish in this matter. Therefore, I think the Bill stands on exceedingly weak grounds as regards the views and needs of the people of St. Margaret's. But I would ask: Why should the aid of Parliament be invoked at all at this stage? The reason assigned in the Bill is that the 869 Vestry has no power of selling the "Parish Piece," and accordingly their purposes cannot be effected without the authority of Parliament. Of course it is quits true that the Vestry cannot sell. They could not sell even if they were the Trustees of the Charity (which they are not), because no Charity Trustees can sell without the assent of the Charity Commissioners. By the assent of the Charity Commissioners they could sell; but I do not insist upon that because it is certain that the assent would not be given except in view of making a scheme, and when the Charity Commissioners came to make a scheme they would be hampered by the fact, by the accident, that these Trusts instead of being for purposes which are declared by private deed, are declared by Act of Parliament. Therefore, no satisfactory scheme could be made, because they could not interfere with this unwieldy governing body, and probably they could not mould the Trusts in the way in which an effective schema—would have to mould them. Bat they have, entirely unaffected by this Act, the power of inquiring and of making a report. They may hold an inquiry, as they constantly do under their ordinary statutory powers, for executing which they have a skilled and experienced staff of Inspectors; and such inquiries are held in the most efficient way on the spot where the people are who are interested in them, and almost without expense to the Charity, the whole expense of the skilled labour involved in the inquiry falling on the Charity Commission. There is no reason whatever why in this case such an inquiry should not be held, and the views of the Charity Commissioners, if they have any in the matter, embodied in a Report, which Report, of course, they would communicate to the tribunals that desire it. They may come to the conclusion—we believe they would come to the conclusion—that at the present moment it is not desirable that there should be a scheme at all; that it is better to let the property be employed for the present in the useful way in which it is being used—that is to say, let out in allotments to 147 of the working men of Leicester, and to wait until the growth of the town makes it desirable to have a recreation ground where there are now allotments. The noble and 870 learned Lord said, as he is no doubt instructed, that there is at present ample recreation ground for the parishioners of this parish; but I am instructed to the contrary, and that although there is a park within a moderate walk of this particular locality, yet there are two considerations to be taken into account against that; one is that this park is kept as an ornamental ground and is no more a recreation ground for these inhabitants than the enclosed part of St. James's Park would be a recreation ground for the people of Wardour Street and Dean Street in Soho; and the other consideration is, that the town is rapidly growing round this land—this growing parish will have more inhabitants, and those inhabitants will year by year be more distant from the Abbey Park. But, after all, those are local matters; those are matters which would be threshed out by a preliminary inquiry before the Legislature takes any action at all. It has been common enough both for the Court of Chancery and for the Charity Commissioners proposal to inquire, though there is no jurisdiction to frame such a scheme as would be desirable for the purpose of doing what is proposed, and then to thresh out the matter, to indicate the headings of a scheme, and then let the parties go to Parliament with a private Bill to carry it into effect. That would be a reasonable course to take. Or another course would be to come with a Bill simply to untie the hands of the Charity Commissioners, and to provide that they might make a scheme in respect of this charity, though it is established by Act of Parliament, in the same way that they could make a scheme if it had been established by private deed. Either of those courses would be unobjectionable, but to transfer the onus of opposing the Preamble of this Bill to a Parliamentary Committee, who cannot direct a local inquiry, but must act upon such evidence as people can procure from Leicester, and bear the expense of procuring from Leicester—to thus transfer the matter without a very strong case being made for it is, in fact, oppressive, and is a proceeding to which I should hope your Lordships would not lend any countenance. I have omitted one matter that I ought to have mentioned, in con- 871 nection with ray statement that a complete change of policy has been adopted of late years with respect to these open lands. That change has found expression in an Act of the Legislature. It was found that under schemes formed no doubt upon the older views of policy, sales were being effected of what are commonly called fuel allotments, and field gardens and recreation grounds; and in the Commons Act of 1876 a provision was introduced forbidding such sales. It is there enacted that as to field gardens and recreation grounds, they shall not be meddled with by scheme at all, and as to fuel allotments they shall not be meddled with, excepting for the purpose of turning them into field gardens and recreation grounds. Now I do not mean to say that that enactment governs the present case; because in this case the land was not originally set out in allotments, it was to be for the benefit of the inhabitants simply; but I cannot help thinking that if the framers of the enactment I have just mentioned had been told that there was land in this position; that being originally given like the fuel allotments in lieu of rights of common for the benefit of the inhabitants of the parish, but which had in fact been used for a number of years—40 or more, as I learn from the Petition—for allotments for working men in the parish, and benefiting the parish in that way—I cannot help thinking that those who framed the enactment I have mentioned would have considered that lands in this position were equally worthy of protection. My Lords, I think I have now assigned my reasons why this Bill should not be read a second time. To recapitulate them very briefly, they are these:—Dwellers in populous towns have set their faces more and more against the taking of open lands within the ambit of those towns for the purpose of building. The Legislature has in a case that is strictly analogous forbidden that such open lands should be meddled with. The promoters of this Bill are not the managing body or the governing body of this charity They have not told us the views of the managing body. They have not taken any proper step to ascertain those views. So far as they have taken any step at all, the meeting held was equally divided; and 872 here by this Petition 1,200 of them come to your Lordships to deprecate any further proceeding by the Legislature in this matter. Furthermore, the Vestry can get all they can reasonably ask at the present time by going to the Charity Commissioners and asking them to send down a skilled Inspector, who will hold an inquiry in the town of Leicester, and will thresh out all these matters in dispute between us, and ascertain as well as he can, not only what are the facts of the case, but what are the real views and interests of the people of Leicester. My Lords, I submit that these are reasons why you should pause before now reading a second time a Bill of this kind; and that if your Lordships can see your way to pause for six months it will not be one moment too long.
§ Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
*THE EARL OF MORLEYMy Lords, I shall detain the House but a very few minutes in commenting upon the speeches that have been made, more especially as it is not necessary for me at this present moment to discuss the merits of the scheme that is before the House as embodied in the Bill. I am in this somewhat singular position—that I agree entirely with the opinions expressed by my noble and learned Friend who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, and at the same time I agree, to a very large extent, with the opinions of the noble Lord who has moved the rejection of the Bill. With a great deal of his speech I entirely sympathise; but I cannot admit that the reasons he gave were sufficient reasons for rejecting the Bill at the present stage of its proceeding. The noble Lord seemed to me to have two distinct reasons for asking the House to reject the Bill at the present stage: one reason was the absolute one, that it is altogether undesirable to have any scheme at all, on the ground that open spaces should be allowed to remain wherever they exist at present, under present circumstances. If the House adopts that view I quite agree that the scheme ought to be rejected. But the noble Lord gave another reason which seemed to me to be a very reasonable one; he maintained 873 that the House is not a fit tribunal to prepare a scheme for a charity of this description; and he added (in which I quite agree with him) that a local inquiry is very desirable. But the noble Lord did not refer to the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, namely, that there should be inserted in the Bill a provision that any scheme that is to be sanctioned by Parliament should in the first instance be assented to by the Charity Commissioners. That assent would obviously imply and involve a local inquiry, and not an inquiry here. It seems to me that is a very reasonable suggestion, and one that covers all the important points mentioned by the noble Lord who has just sat down; and I am all the more induced to ask the House to assent to this solution of the question because not longer ago than three years there was a case which was precisely on all-fours with that which is before the House on the present occasion. The case I refer to, and to which I desire to call your Lordships' attention, was that of a Bill dealing with St. Mary's Hospital, Newcastle-on-Tyne. In that Bill, before it was passed through the House, a clause was introduced into the Preamble to this effect—
That the Charity Commissioners have put forward a detailed scheme for the administration of the Hospitaland so on—That the Commissioners have assented thereto, and it is expedient that the scheme so agreed to and set forth in the Schedule to this Act should be carried into effect.In that way you would obtain all the advantage of having a scheme prepared by a skilled body accustomed to the preparation of schemes dealing with public charities; you would have that scheme scheduled to the Act, and thereby Parliament would reserve to itself that right of which I think it should not divest itself, of having the power and control over the scheme to be ultimately carried out. On these grounds I would ask your Lordships to assent to the Second Reading of the Bill on that distinct understanding; that is to say an undertaking to which, as I understand, the noble and learned Lord who moved the Second Reading was prepared to agree on the part of the promoters of the Bill—that the Charity Commissioners 874 should be asked to prepare a scheme to be scheduled to the Bill. I would point out to the noble Lord who opposes, that if in that scheme, when prepared and scheduled, he finds anything to object to, he will have ample opportunity of presenting his objections when the Bill comes a third time before your Lordships' House.
§ *THE DUKE OF RUTLANDMy Lords, after the weighty opinion which has been expressed by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committes, I shall not take up the time of the House at any length; but I wish, being conversant with the circumstances in the town of Leicester, to say that a great deal of the speech of the noble Lord, who has moved the rejection of the Bill, must, I think, have been made in ignorance of the local circumstances in this case. Now, the Select Vestry here, although it is so called, does in reality represent fairly and completely the predominant opinion of that very large parish of St. Margaret's; and when the noble Lord says he is asked to present a Petition signed by 1,200 of the inhabitants, and founds himself upon that, I must remind him that 1,200 is only a very small proportion indeed of the 100,000 people who inhabit that parish.
§ *LORD HOBHOUSEIt is signed by 1,200 ratepayers. The 100,000 are not ratepayers.
§ *THE DUKE OF RUTLANDQuite so; but I venture to say that your Lordship's House ought not to be asked to reject on Second Reading a Bill brought before it under these circumstances on the score that a small minority of 1,200 ratepayers have sent in a Petition against it. I venture to say that if Private Bills are to be treated in this fashion—if Private Bills, which do not find any great opposition in the localities from which they come, are not to be judged by a Private Bill Committee, you may as well abolish Private Bill legislation altogether. The fact is, my Lords, that the predominant opinion in the parish is in favour of the scheme. It is not for me to say whether the scheme is the wisest that could be prepared or not; but the House may fairly take it that the scheme represents really the opinion of the great body of the inhabitants; and after the full explanation which was given of it by the noble and learned 875 Lord who moved the Bill, I trust your Lordships will have no hesitation in giving it a Second Reading.
§ LORD HERSCHELLI should like to say a few words with reference to what was stated by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees and the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill, to point out that I had intimated, in moving the Bill, I thought that it was a case in which it was desirable, and the propriety of which might very well be recognised, for the Charity Commissioners to look into the matter and prepare a scheme, although I gave reasons why I thought it was not desirable to regard their view as final, but to preserve the control of Parliament over the scheme. I am informed that there is nothing to prevent such a local inquiry as my noble Friend has spoken of being held by the Charity Commissioners, and their framing a scheme upon it in ample time for proceeding with the further stages of this Bill during the present Session. Obviously, under those circumstances, it would be extremely undesirable, when everybody admits that if anything is to be done by way of dealing with this land by sale, and your Lordships would not, I think, be willing to say that all the expense shall be entirely thrown away which has been incurred in introducing this Bill, when all that the noble Lord desires and requires can be arranged for and really completed during this Session, and the Bill then passed upon the Report, dealing with the matter according to the method which seems desirable after that Report appears. Parliament would in that way still keep its control over the matter after the local inquiry has been made, which will give the views and feelings of the inhabitants, as well as their suggestions in the preparation of the scheme.
§ On Question, whether ("now") shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly.