COMMITTEE.

HL Deb 20 June 1893 vol 13 cc1429-58

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill."—(The Lord Belper.)

LORD HALSBURY

said, he had a preliminary question to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill—namely whether the omission of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act or equivalent clauses was intentional or accidental? He asked the question before the House went into Committee on the Bill, as the answer to it would make a great difference to his mind. If it had occurred by oversight, the omission could be easily supplied; but if the Bill was really intended to be in its present shape a very different question would arise.

LORD BELPER

said, the Bill had come up from the Commons in its present shape after agreement to a certain extent; and the Lands Clauses Act had certainly been intentionally omitted, because it was thought that the procedure under that Act was so costly and cumbrous that its adoption would, to a great extent, have defeated the object of the Bill.

LORD HALSBURY

pointed out that lands were to be taken compulsorily, and there was no provision in the Bill for compensation for damage by severance.

LORD BELPER

said, he did not think it was intended that compensation should not be given, but that the Lands Clauses Act was omitted merely because the procedure under it was expensive and cumbersome.

Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

Clause 1.

* LORD GRIMTHORPE

said, he thought the Preamble would have been better omitted for a reason with which he would not trouble the House then; but he would move to postpone Clause 1.

LORD BELPER

was unable to say anything in reply to the noble Lord, as he had not heard a single syllable he had said.

LORD GRIMTHORPE

said, he merely moved to postpone the clause.

LORD BELPER

said, be would like to know whether the noble Lord had given any reason for it?

LORD GRIMTHORPE

said, he did not give any reason.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, he had also been unable to hear what had been said. Were they to understand that no reason was given for the postponement of the clause?

LORD GRIMTHORPE

said, it was extremely likely the Preamble might be thought altogether inadvisable. He would not argue that now, but would only point out that if an alteration was made in the Preamble Clause 1 would also require to be altered.

LORD BELPER

said, there was no Amendment proposed to the Preamble.

LORD BALFOUR

said, he wished to point out that even if Clause 1 were postponed it would still come on before the Preamble.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2.

* LORD SANDFORD

said, he wished to move, in page 1, line 17, after "Ireland," to insert "or Wales." The Amendment would exempt Wales from the operation of the Bill. It had been suggested to him by statements made in another place by two principal Members of Her Majesty's Government. In the Debate on the Welsh Church Suspensory Bill the Home Secretary stated that "the Nonconformists had covered the country with something like 4,000 chapels;" and a short time afterwards he stated that "the adherents of the Church in Wales owned almost the whole of the land there." If sites for 4,000 chapels had been got by voluntary agreement with landlords, who were almost entirely Churchmen, he saw no reason why Welsh Nonconformists should be empowered to compel a few unwilling landowners to sell their land for the purpose of building chapels. Lord Randolph Churchill, in the course of the same Debate, stated that the Nonconformists were not more than 50 per cent. of the population, and the Prime Minister accepted that, so long as the other 50 per cent. were not claimed as Churchmen. The population of Wales was only 1,500,000, and 4,000 chapels divided among the 50 per cent, would give one chapel for every 31 Nonconformist families. He might mention that about 1,400 schools provided accommodation for the children of Wales, within a distance of some two miles from their homes. He submitted that, a sufficient number of sites for chapels having been acquired by consent, there was no necessity for applying to landowners the thumbscrew of this Bill. Chapels were not only to be provided, but residences also; and the existing ones were very often let in the summer to visitors at a considerable rent. He did not see why land should be seized from owners as a kind of endowment for the ministers of small chapels, who, in many instances, followed profitable secular pursuits during the week. That, he believed, was often the case in Wales. Some very important provisions in the Act of 1873 had been omitted from this Bill in reference to land which ceased to be used for a chapel or residence, as to the limitation of sites to one acre in extent, and as to land not being taken from pleasure grounds or near the private residences of landlords. Those three omissions in a Bill professing to secure the rights of the landowners were very objectionable, and he therefore moved that Wales should be exempted from the operation of the Bill.

Amendment moved, in page 1, line 17, after ("Ireland") to insert ("or Wales.")—(The Lord Sandford.)

LORD BELPER

said, he failed to understand how the noble Lord, if he was in favour of the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, could desire now to exclude Wales from its purview. On the Second Reading be rather dwelt upon the case of Wales, because the bulk of the evidence as to the need for this measure came from the Principality. Several of the witnesses for Wales before the Committee on Town Holdings gave evidence specially as to the necessity for such a measure. The noble Lord assumed, from the number of chapels already existing in Wales, that there was no real necessity for any provision for obtaining sites otherwise than by voluntary means; but there were numbers of instances in which chapel sites could not be got. It was not contended that the powers of the Bill would be used in a vast number of cases; but a number sufficient to show the need for it existed where landlords would not give sites voluntarily; and if evidence were taken on the subject before a Committee, it would be found that the larger number of those cases were in Wales. To leave out Wales, therefore, would be to deal a heavy blow at the practical utility of the Bill, the principle of which was adopted by their Lordships on Second Reading. He hoped the noble Lord would not insist on his Amendment.

LORD HALSBURY

said, he hoped that the Amendment would not be insisted upon for a totally different reason. What were properly called the Welsh counties, since the time of Henry VIII., had been a part of England, and he hoped they would always remain so. He did not know such a place as Wales—for the purpose of legislation Wales and England were the same nation. In saying that, he was only repeating the language of one of the Law Officers in the House of Commons.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, that, it was rather late to take exception to Wales being treated as distinct from England; for that had already been done in recent legislation, such as that on Sunday closing, for instance, and various other matters.

LORD SWANSEA

said, he must apologise for addressing their Lordships, being only "one day old;" but this Amendment touched him so nearly that he could not forbear appealing to their Lordships most heartily not to pass it. There was no part of the United Kingdom so deeply interested in the Bill as was Wales. That there were so many places of worship in Wales already was no reason why Wales should be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. The County of Glamorgan needed places of worship very much, because the population had increased more rapidly than in any other part of that country. When he first represented that county 38 years ago it had very little over 300,000 in- habitants, and now it contained over 700,000. He bore testimony to the fact that in almost all cases landowners in Wales had been ready to afford sites for chapels, but there were some cases where it had not been so; and he would ask their Lordships not to except that portion of the United Kingdom which needed the Bill more than any other.

* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, if there could be an excuse for exceptional legislation of this kind anywhere, it was certainly not in Wales, for there almost every hamlet had a chapel, and the chapels mostly had residences attached to them. Besides those in towns and villages, numbers of chapels were dotted about in open spaces all over the country.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3.

LORD BELPER

said, he wished to move an Amendment for the purpose of meeting a fair criticism of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees with regard to the form of the clause, that it did not state clearly what the purposes were for which the Bill was brought in, and, instead of doing so, referred to another Act of Parliament.

Amendment moved, In page 1, line 18, to leave out from ("to") to the first ("and") in line 21, and insert ("the acquisition of sites for any church, chapel, or meeting house, or other place of divine worship, and for the residence of a minister officiating in such place of worhip.")—(The Lord Belper.)

* THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he had tried very hard, but could not understand what this Amendment meant. The noble Lord wished to leave out from ("to") to the first ("and") in line 21; but if he would read line 21, he would find there was no ("and") in it. How the noble Lord construed his clause seemed an absolute mystery.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)

said ("and") was in line 20.

* THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, still it was nonsense.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, he had an Amendment to the Bill to leave out ("Church of England"). Several Bills to repeal the Act which gave the Church the power of compulsorily acquiring sites had been already introduced and blocked by the Dissenters.

LORD BELPER

said, he wished to explain that the Amendment had been misprinted—it should be line 20.

* THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that even substituting 20 for 21 would not make sense of it.

LORD BELPER

said, it was simply a printer's error.

Amendment agreed to.

* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, two things should be excluded from the Bill—one, the acquisition of sites by the Church of England; and the other, the acquisition of sites for houses for Dissenting ministers. No reason had been given why Dissenting ministers should be provided with residences under cost price by exceptional legislation when the clergy of the Church of England had not got so far—they had never asked for it, and would not take it. There was no ground for pretending that any difference existed in obtaining sites either for chapels or for ministers' residences; most of them were already provided, and where required could be obtained by private treaty. The Church of England did not wish to obtain churches by compulsory legislation; for, although they had an Act, they desired to repeal it. Only one case had occurred in which that power had been put in force. It was in Birmingham. There was no need to give it by this Bill, when the Church of England wished to have the existing Act repealed.

Amendment moved, In page 1, line 18, to leave out ("any of"), and leave out from second ("the") to end of the clause and insert ("purpose of purchasing a site for a chapel or place of divine worship, but not for any other.")—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)

said, he wished to point out that those words were already struck out of the clause, and that the question before the Committee was the insertion of the words proposed by Lord Belper. If the noble Lord wished to move an Amendment he must move it on those words.

* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, he would move that the word ("church") be omitted from the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, he would move to leave out the words ("and for the residence of a minister officiating in such place of worship.")

Amendment moved, In page 1, to leave out the words ("and for the residence of a minister officiating in such place of worship.")—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)

LORD BELPER

said, he hoped the noble Lord would not press that Amendment. On Second Reading he (Lord Belper) pointed out there was a necessity for this power of getting sites for ministers' houses, and quoted three or four cases where sites had been refused, and where, indeed, strong means had been used to prevent a minister even getting a lodging in the neighbourhood where he was to perform religious worship for those to whom he ministered. Having passed the principle of the Bill, he hoped their Lordships would not cut out an important part, of it. Sites for ministers' houses were included in the original Bill of 1873.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, nobody had any objection, he supposed, to the thing itself; but it was opening up such a strange vista of future grants. He had known instances where an apothecary had not been able to get a house in a town. Ought the apothecary to have Parliamentary assistance to get it? He did not know upon what principle a minister was to have the right above an apothecary. So far as he was personally concerned, he would not offer opposition on the present occasion; but he should like to look into the Acts, and would reserve the right of opposition to a later stage—not because of any objection to the building of ministers' houses, but because it was necessary to see what principles were being opened up by the somewhat novel kind of legislation on which their Lordships were entering.

Amendment negatived.

LORD BELPER

moved in page 1, lines 22 and 23, to leave out ("with, the like exception").

Amendment agreed to

Clause, as amended, agreed to

Clause 4.

* LORD SANDFORD

moved to insert that such sites should not exceed one acre, and should not be part of a demesne-or pleasure ground attached to a mansion house. Those words were in the principal Act of 1873, which their Lordships-were now extending. This provision, was much called for. Not long ago, in two instances within his knowledge, sites were demanded for Board schools, which were less convenient for the children than others which were offered, on the very ground, as the Inspector stated, that the schools would be an inconvenience to the landlord; and in one of the cases there was the double annoyance that the school would be in sight of both the landlord's and the clergyman's-houses. The site also should be limited by adding "not exceeding one acre," because that likewise was in the Act of 1873, and he saw no reason why that limit should be extended.

Amendment moved, In page 1, line 23, after ("extend") insert ("not being part of a demesne or pleasure ground attached to a mansion house.")—(The Lord sandford.)

LORD BELPER

said, he thought that ample protection was afforded by Clause 7, which directed the Local Government Board to have regard to the fact whether other sites might not be obtained, and whether injury would be caused to the owner or occupier of the site. He considered it would be inadvisable to only mention a mansion house, because there were other places, such as business premises, gardens, and small houses, that might be prejudiced if they were not also mentioned. Of course, on the point of principle that objectionable sites should not be demanded he quite agreed with the noble Lord.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, in the Allotments Act the term was rather more extensive—that a Provisional Order should not be made for purchasing any park, garden, pleasure ground, or other locality required for the purpose of a dwelling house. Those seemed to be far better words. It might be quite as unpleasant to a small £10 householder as to a landowner to have a Dissenting chapel built at the entrance of his gardens.

* LORD SANDFORD

said, he suggested the words because they were in the Act of 1873. One acre would be ample, and perhaps too much; but he was quite willing to adopt the noble Marquess's suggestion.

LORD HERSCHELL

said, it was hardly possible to contemplate an acre being required—nobody dreamt of that, and something much less would do.

LORD SANDFORD

said, the Legislature contemplated it in the Act of 1873.

LORD HERSCHELL

did not think it would do any harm, but thought that putting in ("an acre") in a Rill of this sort would rather suggest an extensive operation where it was not intended.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)

suggested that it would be better to insert this Proviso at the end and take the Amendment first.

Amendment agreed to.

* LORD SANDFORD

moved to insert, "Providing that no such site shall extend beyond half an acre."

Amendment moved, In page 1, to insert ("Providing that no such site shall extend beyond half an acre."—(The Lord Sandford.)

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)

said, he hoped the noble Lord would not press this Amendment. It seemed to be open to great objection, because it would become to be thought that an acre was always to be granted in these cases; and it was not to be supposed that a far larger piece of land was to be given than was necessary for the purpose. It would be much better to leave that out.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5.

LORD BELPER

moved, in page 2, line 5, after ("district") insert ("on the largest available scale").

Amendment agreed to.

* LORD GRIMTHORPE

said, he wished to move, in line 8, to leave out that the notice or requisition must ("purport to") be signed by not less than 20 inhabitants. Otherwise, anybody might get up what he chose to call a requisition signed by 20 people, who need only be described as householders in order to put the machinery in action. The person on whom the notice was served might be some quiet individual who had a horror of litigation, and, rather than fight, would allow himself to be turned out of his premises upon a notice ("purporting to be signed.") Some security ought to, at any rate, be given that the signatures were bonâ fide, and the people what they pretended to be.

Amendment moved, in page 2, line 8, leave out ("purport to.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)

LORD BELPER

explained that the reason for these words appearing in the Bill was to prevent any technical failure which might occur if it was incumbent on the Local Government Board Inspector to verify every signature, and in case anyone had gone away or died, or of any other difficulty occurring to invalidate the requisition. That was the sole object of the clause. Probably the difficulty would be met by Clause 11.

* LORD GRIMTHORPE

said, they must consider the use that might be made of it, and the noble Lord had not attempted to say anything about that. There was a great contrast between this and other cases of compulsory purchase by public Bodies with funds of their own, or where people had to show their bona fides by depositing money and otherwise. Here power was given to put innocent people to great trouble and expense at the instance of some active busybody who chose to go about getting signatures.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, he did not appreciate Lord Belper's objection, because the 11th clause would point to the conclusion that the Local Government Board would act reasonably in the case. If anybody objected that the signatures were not what they ought to be, of course the Local Government Board would look into it; but with the words ("purport to be signed") left in it would be sufficient if all the signatures to the requisition were forged. Those words ought certainly to be omitted.

LORD BELPER

said, he would not press for their retention after what the noble Earl had said.

Amendment agreed to.

* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, he would move to substitute one instead of two miles radius of the site within which the householder signatories must reside. In many places such a provision would give an opportunity of meddling to people at a greater distance than there was any reason for.

Amendment moved, in page 2, line 10, leave out ("two") and insert ("one.")—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)

LORD BELPER

said, he did not think any good purpose would be gained by the substitution of one mile for two. Originally the Bill applied to parishes and adjoining parishes; but, owing to their size, that was thought too vague, and after consultation this was inserted. One mile, it was obvious, would not, in many cases, be sufficient to cover the ground to which the church or chapel applied; and many requisitionists for a place of worship might live more than one mile from the proposed site. This Proviso as to distance only applied to requisitionists, and had really nothing to do with what afterwards look place.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

said, he wished to point out the great difference between populous places and country districts. In the former a radius of two miles was an enormous distance for obtaining signatures, while in country places there might be no objection whatever.

Amendment negatived.

* LORD GRIMTHORPE

said, he wished to move, in the same clause, an Amendment to the effect that every person signing the requisition should thereby become liable to the owners, lessees, and occupiers on whom it was served for all costs and expenses which they might reasonably incur in consequence thereof. He said that his object was to secure to the person whose land was required that bonâ fide persons, worth powder and shot, were making the application, and that those who signed the requisition should be made to feel that they were incurring some responsibility. He wanted to prevent people going round and getting signatures without difficulty from persons who might probably be selected because they were insolvent. Considerable cost might be incurred before a Provisional Order was obtained; and it might not be even sanctioned by the Local Government Board, and some security ought to be given that that expense should not be incurred at the instance of irresponsible people.

Amendment moved, In line 11, after ("site") insert—("And every person signing the requisition shall thereto become liable to the owners, lessees, and occupiers on whom it is served for all costs and expenses which they may reasonably incur in consequence thereof.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)

LORD BELPER

said, the noble and learned Lord's Amendment referred only to the requisition to the landowner, to be signed by the people in the neighbourhood, showing that a chapel was wanted. It had nothing to do with, the memorial to be sent to the Local Government Board. It was difficult to see what trouble there could be in connection with the requisition beyond the landowner having possibly to consult his agent—certainly there could be no expenditure. If poor people who might be asked to sign a paper supposed they were to be made answerable for expenses incurred afterwards they would not be inclined to sign it at all; and if such a penalty were to be imposed in connection with the requisition to the landlord signatures would not be obtained from poor people.

* LORD GRIMTHORPE

said, he wanted to prevent such a class of people from having anything to do with the matter, and to provide that those who had any connection with it should be bonâ fide.

LORD HERSCHELL

said, no such protection, surely, was needed for the mere purpose of the requisition. He could understand the point being raised if it related to the memorial on the subsequent proceedings; but this was merely to inform the landlord that the want existed. What expense would that necessitate? To tell people that they might become liable for all costs and expenses would simply frighten them without doing good to anybody. Any costs and expenses must be very trifling.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he did not think that all people looked on costs and expenses with the same kind of philosophy as the noble and learned Lord. In country places the effect would probably be that the Bill would never come into operation at all, and 20 men would never be sot to sign. He should feel very strongly the force of the objection as regards the memorial; but he thought it should not apply to incurring merely nominal expense.

A noble Lord said, he would propose, if necessary, to add the words "incurred merely for their own convenience."

* LORD GRIMTHOPE

said, he thought the noble Marquess's suggestion was best, that something of the kind should be inserted in a later clause in reference to the memorial.

Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

moved, after ("Schedule") to insert ("A,") as he proposed to move the addition of another Schedule. The alteration was necessary now, as no one would have the right to alter a formal clause which had passed through Committee. The addition could do no harm even should their Lordships not adopt the second Schedule.

Amendment moved, in page 2, line 11, after ("Schedule") insert ("(A.)").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he thought this would be very inconvenient, for if ("A.") were inserted the Amendment might have to be discussed afterwards quite unnecessarily. If the noble and learned Earl carried his second Schedule it could then be put in.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, he wished to point out that the insertion of ("A") would be perfectly rational even if there were no ("B").

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he was informed that it would be put in by the Clerk of the House.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, in that case he would not move the Amendment.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

said, he desired to call attention to the Proviso that a plan should be pro- duced without anything being said about architectural design. It was not unreasonable that an owner should know what kind of building was going to be erected on the land. Even in country districts it might considerably affect the attitude of a landowner if he saw that an aesthetic building was to be put up instead of those obnoxious buildings which everyone was familiar with.

LORD BELPER

said, he quite saw the point of the suggestion. This clause only referred, however, to the requisition. Probably the Local Government Board would consider that.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

said, he wanted to avoid having to go to the Local Government Board. If an owner saw that a suitable building was going to be erected, he might not have the same objection as if an ugly building was going to be put on the land.

LORD HERSCHELL

said, it was not until six months after the requisition was sent in that application was to be made to the Local Government Board; and, therefore, there would be plenty of time for the landowner to consider whether he would give his consent or not.

LORD BELPER

said, he would certainly consider that point.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6.

* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, he had an Amendment on this clause which, if Lord Grimthorpe's Amendment was adopted, would not be necessary. The question was, who should be responsible for the costs—those who signed the requisition, or those who signed the subsequent memorial? If the latter, two men of straw might be put up to sign it.

Amendment moved, in page 1, line 16, to leave out ("any two or more of.")—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)

LORD BELPER

said, he understood the Amendment to mean that the whole of the requisitionists should sign the memorial; but some of them might have left the neighbourhood or have died before the six mouths elapsed, while, as the clause stood, two of them might sign it.

Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

asked whether the clause should not be altered by the insertion of words to make the signatories of the memorial responsible for the necessary expenses.

LORD BELPER

suggested that that might be considered at a later stage.

LORD HALSBURY

asked whether it would not be reasonable that there should be some security in reference to persons presenting the memorial, not being necessarily those who had signed the requisition? He appreciated the objection that some might have left the district or died; but, surely, some additional security of bona fides should be given. He would move this in Standing Committee, unless the noble Lord would take notice of that reasonable requirement that someone beyond the two persons mentioned should be responsible.

LORD BELPER

said, he would consider the point.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, it was at least as desirable that the form of Order to be made by the Local Government Board as the form of requisition should be the subject of a Schedule. He thought some form of Order should be prescribed by the Act.

Amendment moved, In page 2, after line 30, to add—("An order made under this Act shall be in the form contained in the Schedule (B.) to this Act.")—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD MONKSWELL

said, the Local Government Board considered a second Schedule quite unnecessary. It was not usual, in matters of this kind, that the Local Government Board should be told what form they should adopt; and they thought it ought to be left to them.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

LORD BELPER

said, he had an Amendment to give further directions to the Local Government Board as to the chief circumstances which they were to regard in determining upon the memorial. This was desirable after the criticisms made on Second Reading in reference to accommodation already available in the neighbourhood. It was clearly somewhat difficult to say within what distance that accommodation was recognised. He had, therefore, adopted the words "a reasonable distance."

Amendment moved, In page 2 line 33, after ("including") to insert ("the accommodation already available within a reasonable distance for religious worship for members of the same denomination.")—(The Lord Belper.)

* THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

asked was that quite sufficient, because it said nothing of the numbers of the denomination? Surely there should be some reference to the number of persons requiring the intervention of Parliament to give them this special accommodation. Their Lordships would not, for 10 or 20 persons, allow these powers to be set to work. This Bill was to remedy cases of genuine grievance. He did not propose to move an Amendment then; but he thought the matter should be regarded in Standing Committee. He would also point out that the words at the end of the clause as to undue injury caused to other property owned, leased, or occupied by the owner, lessee, or occupier would require some alteration. He did not see why adjacent owners were not to be protected.

Amendment agreed to.

* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, he wished to move to omit the word ("undue") where injury was done to property. Objection was made on Second Reading that this might lead to difficulty. The word "undue" was one of the most honest in the Bill, since due injury referred to the hideousness of chapels, and undue would mean additional injury.

Amendment moved, in page 2, line 34, leave out ("undue.")—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he did not know what ("undue injury") meant.

LORD BELPER

said, the point was whether the Local Government Board were to be directed to refuse to sanction a scheme which would cause undue or unnecessary injury? Of course, any injury must be considered. In some cases a slight injury might be done to the general appearance of an estate, and that would be an element to some extent to be considered; but a slight injury of that kind ought not to absolutely debar the Local Government Board from giving permission. Their Lordships should leave it to the discretion of the Local Government Board to take into consideration what injury was done by taking the property.

* LORD GRIMTHORPE

said, there was no such thing as undue injury in any of the compulsory Acts. Provision was made in the Acts where property was injuriously affected; but it had never been held that a man could not recover compensation because the injury done was, in somebody's else's opinion, more or less undue.

LORD HERSCHELL

said, he would remind the noble and learned Lord that property could be taken for public purposes, however due or undue the injury might be. Of course, the owner must be compensated. This provision was only in case of undue injury, and then a refusal might be given altogether to allow the building.

LORD HALSBURY

said, he must press for an explanation of ("undue") in the interest of Judges who might hereafter have to consider the point.

EARL CADOGAN

said, he wished to ask, if nobody could give an explanation of what ("undue injury") was, whether their Lordships could be informed what due injury might be?

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, he quite agreed in the criticism made. All injury was undue, having regard to previous rights; and what might be reasonable, looking to the intention of the Bill, would be very difficult to define. He could imagine no worse word for the purpose than this, and the reasons for leaving it out seemed to preponderate.

Amendment agreed to.

* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

moved to add to the clause property adjacent to the site which might be injured. Otherwise rival chapels might be built, and an adjacent owner would have reason to complain of the erection of the Salvation Army Chapel.

Amendment moved, at end of clause, to insert ("or to other property adjacent to the site.")—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)

* THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

asked whether it was necessary to put in these words? What the noble Lord wished to do was to take into consideration whether injury should be caused to other property or not, and the clause might be left as it was. It was not a question of imposing obligations—it was simply a matter which the Board were to consider.

Amendment negatived.

Further amendment proposed, At end of clause to leave out the words "owned, leased, or occupied by the owner, lessee, or occupier of the site.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8.

Amendment moved, In page 2, line 39, leave out from ("determined") to the end of the clause, and insert ("in accordance with the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acts amending the same, with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement.")—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)

LORD BELPER

said, he had stated in answer to Lord Halsbury, before the House went into Committee, the reason why the Lands Clauses Act had been left out of the Bill—that very small sums of money were likely to be dealt with; and it was felt that poor people asking for a small site and paying very small amounts of purchase money should not be brought under the cumbrous and expensive machinery of that Act. It was in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act of 1889. He hoped their Lordships would not insert the Amendment.

LORD HALSBURY

said, the noble Lord was under some misapprehension. As it stood, the section as to arbitration in the Act was simply in skeleton. It gave no ambit of inquiry to the arbitrators—that had to be settled by the parties. All they would have to inquire was the price of the land. All those circumstances which would be open for inquiry under the Lands Clauses Act would not he open here at all. There were no provisions on the subject; and, therefore, either the provisions of that Act or some equivalent provisions should be inserted. Unless Lord Belper could see his way to that he should support the Amendment.

LORD HERSCHELL

said, he could not see the necessity for inserting all the machinery of the Lands Clauses Act providing for notices to be given for the choice of a jury or arbitration and other things, because this would really be the most simple matter in the world. The Arbitration Act provided the necessary machinery, and as to how the matter was to be determined. The Lands Clauses Act dealt with all sorts of large matters; but this Bill was for acquiring small sites at small expense under the sanction of the Local Government Board. What more could be demanded than the amount to be paid for the site? That provided for, all that was necessary had been done.

LORD HALSBURY

pointed out that in the Allotments Act a similar measure—the Lands Clauses Act—was involved.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)

said, he was only too well aware of that, and there was a growing feeling on the point, as was known to everybody interested in allotments. A case had occurred in his own county, where a prodigious sum had to be paid for half-an-acre of land. Many people had come to the conclusion that it was absolutely impossible to put the compulsory powers in force on account of the enormous expense entailed by the introduction of the Lands Clauses Act. If their Lordships were determined to upset this Bill they could not adopt a surer method of doing it than to insert the Lands Clauses Act.

* THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

suggested that it was not merely allotments they were dealing with, but matters of far greater value. Supposing, for instance, the Roman Catholics—who, he believed, were very badly provided with sites—should wish for a site in the neighbourhood of London, and wanted a quarter of an acre for that purpose, a large sum of money would be dealt with, and that could not be done in the summary manner contemplated by the noble Lord. And it was not only the largeness of the sum; but there were questions of rights and tenures to be dealt with. Their Lordships had every desire that this Bill should work; but they could not on that ground disregard rights which for 60 years had been secured in every case where land had been taken compulsorily.

THE EARL OF KLMBERLEY

said, that Clause 9 provided for the distribution of the money and for its proper application. No doubt, there were some sites of great value; but if their Lord- ships desired that people should take advantage of the Bill the introduction of the Lands Clauses Act was a matter of enormous importance. If it must be introduced as a kind of Ark of Salvation, let it be introduced; but he warned the House that it would put an end to the Bill.

* THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he could not see why an arbitration under the Lands Clauses Act should cost more than an arbitration under the General Arbitration Act. It would not do to say that there might be no considerable sums to be dealt with in these cases; and it was a very strong thing to say they were not only to give compulsory powers in these cases, but to give them with less protection to owners of property than in all other cases. He could not see the consistency of objecting to the adoption of the ordinary form.

LORD HALSBURY

said, he wished to know, before they went further, whether Lord Belper would consent to introduce some equivalent clause in reference to compensation for settlements, compensation for injuriously affecting adjoining lands and otherwise, because that would very much determine his vote? This was simply a question of taking the land and as to the value of that land per se without regarding any rights or tenures whatever.

LORD HERSCHELL

said, he did not so read it. The purchase money was to be paid as compensation for the sale; and full compensation was paid for what was got to the persons from whom it was obtained.

LORD BELPER

said, he had no wish that the land should be taken without proper compensation being paid. He had explained that the sole object of not putting in the Lands Clauses Act was to prevent large expenditure in small cases. He would be happy to consider whether words could be introduced to meet the objection raised; but he hoped their Lordships would not insert the Lands Clauses Act.

LORD HALSBURY

said, he hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed to a Division.

Amendment negatived.

LORD HALSBURY

said, he understood the Amendment was withdrawn on the understanding, in answer to the appeal of the noble Earl, that some words would be inserted in Standing Committee upon the subject.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he had not responded to the appeal, which he thought ought to have been made to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill.

LORD BELPER

said, he had expressed his willingness to consider whether the clause, as it stood, properly met the objection raised that certain damage might not be compensated for. He had not undertaken to bring up any words whatever in Committee, but would consider the point.

* THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, if the noble Lord should be unable to find any clause that would give adequate security it would be open to their Lordships to make the amendment at a later stage.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, he desired to submit to their Lordships, after Clause 8, the insertion of a now clause providing that within three months of the commencement of a Parliamentary Session a Bill should be introduced to confirm any Order made under the Act setting forth the Order in a Schedule, and providing that if petitioned against the matter should be referred to a Select Committee. This, with a very slight verbal Amendment, was the same as that moved in Standing Committee in the House of Commons and rejected only by a majority of 4, the votes being 16 to 20. The object was that the Order of the Local Government Board should not take effect until confirmed as a Provisional Order or by Act of Parliament, and giving the opportunity to those interested of petitioning against it in the meantime, the Petitioners being allowed to appear and oppose before a Select Committee, as in the case of Private Bills, and the persons subscribing the Memorial to be deemed the promoters. The Committee would, of course, take into consideration whether the circumstances justified the opposition to the Bill, and award costs accordingly. The reasons in favour of the clause were, first, that it was in accordance with precedent in cases where the public interest was concerned. A clause was contained in the Elementary Education Act of 1870 similar to this as regarded acquiring sites for Board schools, and there it was provided that no Order so made should be valid unless confirmed by Act of Parliament, and that the Education Department might obtain such confirmation. That in substance was the same thing as he now proposed. The compulsory powers under the Public Health Act, 1875, and the Allotments Act, 1887, were all subject to confirmation in the same way. It was a very serious thing to depart from that course, and, in effect, to give a Government Department compulsory powers without appeal for taking land. The more the purpose in view deviated from a public purpose the stronger the objection appeared to be. No doubt at the head of Government Departments there would always be men desirous of doing their duty as they ought; but, nevertheless, it was most objectionable to give such powers to a Government Department without appeal. He could not admit that rights which required compulsory powers to interfere with them ought to be treated more lightly in this than in other cases merely for the purpose of cheapening the process. The proposed clause would effectually discourage any vexatious or unreasonable opposition to a Bill which would, of course, be promoted at the public expense, and not at the private expense of the Petitioners for the Order, because the Committee would take into consideration the circumstances justifying the opposition and give costs accordingly. That would be sufficient to deter any unreasonable use of the power of opposition to the Provisional Order, which there was no reason to suppose would frequently occur.

Amendment moved, After Clause 8, to insert new clause—"The Local Government Board shall, within three calendar months from the beginning of the Session of Parliament in any year, cause to be introduced into either House of Parliament a Bill for the confirmation of any Order made by them under this Act; and the Order to be confirmed shall be set out at length in a schedule to the Bill; and, until confirmed by Act of Parliament, an Older under this Act shall have no force or effect. If any Petition is presented by any person interested to either House of Parliament against any Order made under this Act during the progress through Parliament of the Bill for confirming the same, and before such Bill shall have been committed, the Bill, so far as relates to such Order, shall be referred to a Select Committee, and the Petitioners shall be allowed to appear and oppose as in the case of Private Bills; and the persons whose names shall be subscribed to the Memorial shall be deemed to be the promoters. The Committee shall take into consideration the circumstances under which such opposition is made to the Bill, and whether such opposition was or was not justified by the circumstances; and shall award costs accordingly, to be paid by the promoters or the opponent of the Bill, as the Committee may think just."—(The Earl of Selborne.)

* LORD MONKSWELL

said that, in in the opinion of the Local Government Board, if the principle of the noble Earl's Amendment was accepted, the proper way would be to provide that the Orders under the Bill should be made provisional until they were confirmed by Act of Parliament. It would, however, be inconvenient to require the Orders to be confirmed by Parliament within three calendar mouths from the beginning of the Session, because at the present if Parliament met in November the time was extended to May, whereas the noble Earl's Amendment would make it extend only to February. Section 297 of the Public Health Act would be applicable. He did not know exactly how is should be drafted.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, he thought it would do as it stood.

LORD HERSCHELL

said, that was supposing the principle of the Amendment were accepted; but he ventured to think that it was not really necessary to insert it. He could not share in the alarm the noble Earl expressed lest a Public Department, acting in the full light of day, should not really deal with these matters justly and properly. In truth, these proceedings by Act of Parliament where opposition occurred were enormously expensive. It was all very well to say that the Committee might award costs, but that would not put back into people's pockets the money they had expended in promoting a proceeding of this sort, even should the Committee consider the opposition unreasonable. Such a clause would certainly deter people from having anything to do with the provisions of the Bill at all. Some landlords might be of a litigious disposition, and be willing to spend a considerable sum in opposing the measure in both Houses of Parliament, and so put the parties to great expense. In that case they would have to bear a ruinous amount of costs. It was quite true the practice had been to pro- vide for the confirmation of these Orders by Act of Parliament; but it was worthy of consideration whether that was essential in all cases, and whether a matter of this kind might not be left to a Public Department which would inquire into all the circumstances.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

asked, whether the Local Government Board proposed that in all cases confirmation should be given by Act of Parliament?

* LORD MONKSWELL

said, no. His previous observation merely went to this: that if there should be confirmation by Act of Parliament, it should be under a clause differently drafted from that proposed by the noble and learned Earl.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

said, that if their Lordships thought an Act of Parliament was preferable, it was desirable they should have the matter fully before them, so that they might decide this point.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the question was one of opinion, in the first place, whether or not these purchases should be confirmed by Provisional Order. The wording of the clause was quite immaterial, the first question being whether a Provisional Order should be required at all.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, he quite agreed with the noble Earl. He was willing to strike out from his Amendment the words "three calendar months from the beginning of a Session of Parliament" in any year. Subject to that, the clause was admitted by his noble Friend to be a better form. If the House should adopt it, it might, of course, be improved at a later stage; and he thought a Division might properly be taken upon it now. It looked very much as if the practice of obtaining Provisional Orders was to be gradually superseded by giving compulsory powers to the Local Government Board, and to that he was inflexibly opposed.

LORD BELPER

said, he must point out that the purposes here were not on all-fours with those for which the Local Government Board Provisional Order and Act of Parliament procedure had been arranged. The small amounts involved would really not justify so extensive a procedure. If this clause were added to the Bill it would practically become inoperative, because the poor people requiring these sites for their places of worship would be unable to enter upon Parliamentary proceedings which might land them in heavy expense. He did not question that this was making a slight departure from the ordinary procedure; but he did not believe their Lordships wished to make the Bill a dead letter. He hoped they would see their way to leave this power in the hands of the Local Government Board, which, from the way they generally conducted inquiries, might be relied upon not to abuse it for political purposes.

On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 55; Not Contents 27.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.

Consequential verbal Amendments made.

Clause 10.

* LORD SANDFORD

said, he wished to propose Amendments taken from the Act of 1873, with the view of securing that, in case land conveyed under the Bill should at any time be used for other purposes than those for which it was acquired, it should immediately revert to and become a portion of the estate of the then owner, without his having to repay the amount which had been paid to him for such land.

Amendment moved, In page 3, line 19, after ("Act") to insert ("or any part thereof"), and after ("time") to insert ("be used for other purposes, or"); line 20, after ("cease") to insert ("for a year"), and after ("Act") to insert ("the same shall immediately revert to and become a part of the estate of"); line 22, after ("severed") to leave out the rest of the clause.—(The Lord Sandford.)

LORD BELPER

said, he understood the Amendment to mean that the hind should revert back without any payment whatever by the landlord. The land having been paid for, he really could not see why the landlord should get it back without a fair payment being made for it.

* LORD SANDFORD

explained that when he put down the Amendment the amount of land to be taken compulsorily was unlimited. Two or three acres might be let, say, for allotments by the Dissenting minister from a large site, which he would probably call his glebe, and that would be stopped by the pro- vision against any part of the land being used for other purposes.

LORD BELPER

said, he did not think the leave to purchase would ever be given under such circumstances, if the glebe was to be used for other purposes. He hoped their Lordships would not alter the clause, as it had been practically agreed to by both sides.

Amendment negatived.

* LORD SANDFORD

said, the clause should not be allowed to stand as it was, and he would advise his noble Friend to reserve dealing with the clause for the Standing Committee, as he thought it required further looking into.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 11, 12, and 13 agreed to.

Clause 14.

LORD BELPER

, in this clause, as to minerals remaining the property of the vendor, moved to leave out ("surface works") and insert ("buildings thereon,") in the sentence— Provided that the vendor shall only work them upon paying due compensation for any injury to the surface or surface works.

Amendment agreed to.

* LORD GRIMTHORPE

moved to leave out the clause, and to insert that "the rights of the vendor and purchaser in regard to minerals should be the same as under the Railway Clauses Act." By the clause, as it stood, owners were to be deprived of their minerals, because, although they are to remain the property of the vendor, be is to be prohibited from working them, and yet is to get no compensation. That was contrary to every principle which had hitherto been laid down.

Amendment moved. To leave out the whole Clause and insert "The rights of the vendor and purchaser as to minerals shall be the same as under the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)

LORD BELPER

said, he was at the disadvantage of not having heard a single word the noble and learned Lord had said; but he concluded the proposal was to make the purchaser responsible for any damage which might be done by the landowner working the minerals—that if the church or chapel was, or any house built on the land, damaged and fell down, the purchaser would have no remedy. Their Lordships knew the difficulties sometimes arising under these clauses in reference to railways and other public undertakings; and he hoped they would not load the Bill by putting in these small matters an onus of that sort on the purchaser, who would, of course, have no means of watching to see whether any mines might be extending under his building or not.

LORD HALSBURY

said, he thought the noble Lord hardly appreciated the suggestion of Lord Grimthorpe.

LORD BELPER

said he had not heard it.

LORD HALSBURY

said, that under the clause as it stood the vendor was not to be paid for the minerals, and they were to remain his property, but he was not to be allowed to work them; if he did so, and caused any injury to the surface rights in working such minerals, he was to be called upon to pay compensation. In the ordinary case, if an owner had land taken from him by a Railway Company, he was entitled to be paid for the minerals, or else he had a right to work them, oven at the risk of bringing the surface down. This clause would reverse the whole policy of the law in that respect, and he could not, therefore, support it.

LORD HERSCHELL

said, it would be better to leave the clause as it was than to introduce the Railway Clauses legislation with regard to minerals which had not proved very satisfactory. They had given rise to not a little litigation, and had not been considered a model of legislation. In his opinion, the law was well settled, that if land were sold and the minerals reserved the owner could not interfere with the surface and with the buildings thereon unless the right to do so were expressly reserved.

LORD HALSBURY

had said nothing inconsistent with that.

LORD HERSCHELL

said, he was glad his noble and learned Friend agreed with him, and it seemed better to leave the clause as it was than to introduce the Railways Clauses Act.

* THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

said, that, having been Chairman of the Commission on Mining Royalties, his impression was that the clause as it stood was entirely in accordance with the re- commendation of the Commission on that point. The owner had a right to work the minerals, but must pay the surface owner for any damage occasioned thereby.

On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 20; Not-Contents 25.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule.

* LORD GRIMTHORPE

said, he was unaware that they had yet got so far as to call the Church of England a denomination, and as the Schedule stood a question might arise as to whether the Church of England was intended. It was stated on Second Reading that the Church of England had already power to acquire sites compulsorily. He would remind their Lordships that some years ago this very question was discussed, and he then satisfied their Lordships that the Church of England had no such power. In that he was backed by much higher authority than his own. If all Religious Bodies were to be put on the same footing the Schedule ought to be so framed that no doubt could arise. Nobody could be offended if it were put in the form, "We, the undersigned members of the Church of England, or the," and then leave the blank to be filled up by whatever designation the requisitionists adopted.

Amendment moved, In line 2,after ("of the") to insert ("Church of England or the"), and leave out ("denomination of").—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)

LORD BELPER

said, the Bill did refer to the Church of England. If the noble and learned Lord wished to provide that the Church of England should be put before other denominations, he had not the slightest objection. It might be put "We, the undersigned members of the Church of England," or whatever the denomination might be.

LORD GRIMTHORPE

said, that was exactly what he suggested.

LORD BELPER

said, he thought if the words "or of the denomination" were left in they would make better English.

* LORD GRIMTHORPE

The reason he proposed to leave them out was that it would be better to leave the parties to fill in the form for themselves. The Roman Catholics, he supposed, would not like to be called a denomination, and they should be left to call themselves what they pleased.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, it was rather too late for the noble and learned Lord to bring in his Amendment, and it would be better to leave the Schedule as it was. The matter could be considered in Standing Committee. It was merely a question of wording in a matter upon which all were agreed.

* LORD GRIMTHORPE

assented that it should be done in Standing Committee.

LORD BELPER

said, the Bill already referred to the Church of England, and there was no reason why it should not stand as it was.

LORD GRIMTHORPE

said, the noble Lord did not quite realise the point. The Church of England was a legal and recognised title, but he did not know that there was any well-known and recognised title for the various other Religious Bodies—he was quite sure there was not for some of them. That was the reason for his Amendment.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he opposed putting these words in because the Schedule would then not be at all satisfactory. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would be content to leave it for Standing Committee, as there was no real question in it—it was merely a matter of words.

LORD BELPER

said, he would consent to put in any proper words in Standing Committee.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

* LORD GRIMTHORPE

said, he doubted if "grant" was the right word to be used. It was used in the former Acts because they enabled people to convoy estates without any sale at all; but in this case there would be no grant in the ordinary sense of the word, and therefore it would be better to put in some such word as "sell."

Amendment moved in line 6, leave out ("grant") and insert ("sell.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)

LORD HALSBURY

said, the word "grant" under the Conveyancing Act included "convey."

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he desired to draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the Schedule differed in rather an important particular from the Amendment he had previously inserted in Clause 3 as a definition of the objects of the Act—the acquisition of sites for any church, chapel, meeting house, or other place of Divine worship, or for the residence of the minister officiating in such place of Divine worship. Therefore, according to those words, the residence was only to be provided in conjunction with the chapel to be built at the same time. But the Schedule went much further: it said— To grant the site shown on the annexed plan as a site or for the enlargement of a site for the residence of a minister officiating in that or any other place of worship within one mile of such site. That was a very large increase in the operation of the Bill to be introduced simply in a Schedule in this way. He did not ask the House to pronounce then upon it, but to consider it at a future stage.

LORD HERSCHELL

said, he was not quite sure that the noble Marquess had not misapprehended the scope of Clause 3 as amended. He did not understand it to moan that the site must be acquired for a chapel and for the residence of the minister of that chapel. He thought the construction of the clause would apply generally to any and not to a particular chapel.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that might be the construction in law, but it was not English.

LORD BELPER

said, that was certainly what he intended—to make it the same as the Schedule, but he would consider the point.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble.

Verbal Amendments.

Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 159.)