SECOND READING. (Hansard, 31 March 1892)

§ LORD MACNAGHTEN
My Lords, the object of this Bill is to facilitate the acquisition of sites for institutions which are now commonly known as Polytechnics, by enabling limited owners to convey settled land for the purpose, either by way of sale or free gift. My Lords, I think I can best explain the character of the measure, and the necessity for legislation on the subject, by referring very briefly to the circumstance which has given rise to the introduction of this Bill. A Member of this House is desirous of giving an acre and a quarter of land at 314 Clerkenwell, held under a settlement, for the purpose of founding an institution to be attached to, and form part of, a larger institution known as the City Polytechnic, for which the Charity Commissioners have already settled a scheme. It has been found impossible to carry out the generous intentions of the donor, either under the powers of the settlement under which the land is held, or under any existing Act of Parliament. As regards the defect in the powers of the settlement, I do not think that is to be wondered at. Settlements of large estates in London very commonly contain powers enabling limited owners to give plots of land for public purposes, or quasi-public purposes; but Polytechnics are institutions of such modern growth that they have not found their way into settlements, at least to any large extent. The same observation applies to legislation. There has been no legislation upon the subject of late years. The only Act that touches the question is the Literary and Scientific Institutions Act, 1854, which was passed nearly 40 years ago; but it has been found impossible to proceed under that Act. In the first place the purposes to which that Act are directed are not sufficiently extensive,—and it will be sufficient for me to say that they do not include technical training; in the next place the area is too small,—it is only an acre, and, although it is nearly large enough, I am told it is not quite large enough for all the purposes which are comprehended in a Polytechnic institution; and, lastly, that Act contains a clause of reverter, providing that, where land has been acquired by gift, in case the land should not be used for the purpose for which it shall be given it shall revert to the donor or his representatives. That clause of course would prevent public money from being spent in the erection of buildings upon the site, and it also would prevent the large London Companies, who take a great interest in this movement, from giving sums of money for the purpose. Under those circumstances it became a question whether an application should be made to your Lordships by way of a Private or a Public Bill; and those interested in the movement 315 have thought fit to take the latter course, relying on the deep interest which your Lordships always take in the welfare of the poorer classes, and in anything that tends to make their lives happier and brighter. My Lords, I trust you will give a favourable consideration to the Bill; it is an extremely simple Bill. In the first place it defines those objects which are usually comprehended in a Polytechnic; then it provides for the Governing Body; and then it incorporates those clauses of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act which are not compulsory. The area with which the Bill deals is two acres, and the Bill from first to last is wholly a permissive measure. With these remarks I move that the Bill be now read a second time.

§ * LORD THRING
My Lords, I certainly approve of the object of the Bill, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord has brought it in with the best possible intentions; but I submit to your Lordships that it would require most careful revision in Committee. There is one clause which I must give notice to the noble Lord that I shall move to have struck out,—that is, the clause that enables the lord of the manor, as I read it, to give away either waste land or commonable land, thereby destroying and extinguishing the rights of the commoners. I cannot conceive that such a clause is in the slightest degree necessary for the objects of the Bill; and it is really one of the most unjust clauses that I can imagine. The Bill uses the term "commonable or waste lands"—what will be the effect? There are waste lands by the sides of the roads, on the borders of commons, which add extremely to the amenity of the common or road; yet these are to be given up by the lord of the manor, who really has no pecuniary interest in them at all. And then, my Lords, imagine what will be the case in villages! This clause will enable the lord of the manor to give up the village green, and to have a swimming bath or a gymnasium erected; for the terms defining what is meant by an "institution" are so wide, that they include almost every description of 316 building connected with trade or science. Surely the noble Lord does not intend to give such a power? And then again, with regard to two acres, there is no limit whatever. Conceive what it is! An old man like myself has property in London; I can give away at my age, to the detriment of my successor, two acres of land in London, worth a vast amount, for the purposes of a Polytechnic! Surely, my Lords, there ought to be some restriction upon so large a measure as this. I fully admit that the intentions of the noble Lord are extremely good; but I submit to him that this Bill will require very great revision, and I trust he will allow the clause with respect to commonable land and waste lands to be struck out.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
Before the noble Lord answers, might I ask a question for better understanding exactly the effect of the Bill? I see that it incorporates the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act; but I see that in the Act of 1854 (I am expressing no opinion upon the policy of that Act) the rights of the remainderman are absolutely guarded; because the words are in the first clause: that no such grant shall be made by any person seised, only for life of and in any such manor or lands, unless if there be any person next entitled to the same in remainder, in fee simple, or fee tail, and if such person be legally competent, he shall be a party to and join in such grant. I merely wish to know whether the effect of this Bill will be to remove that condition. If it does remove that condition, it is an enactment as compared with that of 1854 that is entirely novel. If it contains the same condition the precedent of the Act of 1854 is followed. But I should like to know what is the intention of the Bill.

§ LORD MACNAGHTEN
In that respect I think the Bill does go considerably beyond the Act of 1854; but it has become more and more the practice now to consider the tenant for life as in point of fact representing the whole inheritance. Of course the subject will be for your Lordships' consideration in Committee. But with regard to the matter to which my noble Friend (Lord Thring) referred, I 317 may say that that very clause to which he has taken so much objection is to be found in the Act of 1854. At the same time, I do not know that it is by any means a necessary provision of the Bill; and I should be very glad to omit it.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
Perhaps I may be allowed, as I only asked for information before, to make some observation now upon the subject. No one can be more desirous than I am to relax in any reasonable way the fetters which entail presses upon life owners and settlement; wherever it is necessary there should be full power to part with land for a consideration, I am, as much as any man, in favour of relaxing those fetters, and enabling land to be dealt with in the same way as it might be dealt with by an owner in fee. But it certainly becomes a very different thing indeed when you are going to allow an owner for life, who may be only owner of a certain portion of what I will call the value of the estate, to give away a large portion of that value without consideration, because in that way he is dealing with property that is not his own. If he sells a portion of the property on grounds of public policy, I think he might rightly disregard the wishes of the remainderman, that is to say, that the remainderman, because he wishes the property to be preserved in a particular form should not be allowed to stand in the way of that property being used for some public purpose, due compensation being given, as in an ordinary case of an owner of a fee simple, for the value of that property, and that property being thereby preserved for the person entitled to it. But it is a very different thing indeed to allow the owner of what is only a particular portion of the value of the property to give away a considerable portion of it which belongs to another man. This is not a slight matter, my Lords, because four acres (and this Bill provides that as much as four acres in any one city may be given away) may represent property of very great value indeed, and it might easily happen that the owner of the life estate might be on bad terms with the remainderman and 318 might think it a very nice way indeed of, in fact, defrauding the remainderman of all his property. Four acres might in a town like this represent £40,000 or £60,000, or a great deal more; in an ordinary town it would represent very nearly £10,000; it may be in point of fact the whole of the remainderman's property. But supposing the owner of the life estate wishes to deprive the remainderman of his property, he has only got to make a present of four acres to some institution: And the institutions which are included in the Bill are also so numerous that he would have no difficulty in giving an acre here, an acre there, and two acres in another place until the whole of the property was exhausted. As I have said, I do not in the least desire that the rights of property should stand in the way of property being used for public purposes; but I think it is necessary to pause before we give such very extensive powers as this Bill proposes. Might I add one single word to say that I am very glad that the noble Lord is ready to make a concession about commons. It is true that there is such a clause in the Act of 1854 as the clause in this Bill; but since 1854 the public feeling with regard to commons has entirely changed; what in 1854 would have been thought a most harmless clause would now be thought by the public a most injurious clause; therefore I am very glad that clause is to be omitted.

§ LORD MACNAGHTEN
My Lords, I quite admit the force of what my noble Friend has just now said. And with regard to the other criticisms, with which I sympathise to a great extent, I think there would be no great difficulty in introducing some provision that would guard against the powers of the Act being improperly used to the detriment of the remainderman.