Lords Sitting of 10 July 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.17).
And the certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with.
HARROW AND UXBRIDGE RAILWAY.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the

LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL
Ought to be dispensed with and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that the agreement between the London, Walthamstow, and Epping Forest Railway Company and the Midland Railway Company contained in the Third Schedule to the Bill shall be of no validity until the publication in the London Gazette of a certificate by two justices that the said agreement has been approved by a general meeting of the shareholders of the Midland Railway Company held in the month of August, 1899, in accordance with Standing Order 64.
Read, and agreed to.

GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
Committee to meet To-morrow.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION MARKETS BILL.
  MILLWALL DOCK BILL.
    STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL.
    Committee to meet on Thursday next.
DERBY CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
Committee to meet on Friday next.
LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
  BRAMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY BILL.
  The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bills was withdrawn. The orders made on the 27th of June and on Tuesday last discharged; and Bills committed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the orders made on Monday and Friday last discharged; and Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.
BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL.
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments..
LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION (MARKETS) BILL.
  Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn over To-morrow.
IONIAN BANK BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
AYR BURGH BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
BELFAST WATER BILL.
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.

    LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL.
    NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
    SCUNTHORPE URBAN DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BILL.
    TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

INVERNESS HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons agreed to.
TRANSVAAL MORTGAGE LOAN AND FINANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
GREAT YARMOUTH PIER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
House to be in Committee to-morrow.
MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House to be in Committee to-morrow, and Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. to be considered in order to their being dispensed with.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed and referred to the Examiners. (No. 160.)
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  Return showing the total payments into and out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account for the financial year 1898–99.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (JUDICIAL RENTS).
  Return for the month of December, 1898.

  TRADE REPORTS (1899) ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2312. Germany (Frankfort-on-Main).
  No. 2313. Santo Domingo.
  No. 2314. United States (Boston and District).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1898.
  Regulations under the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, as to issue of county stock.
  FINES, ETC. (IRELAND).
  Abstract of accounts of fines accounted for by the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks for the year 1897.
  DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1865.
  Account of receipts and expenditure under the Act, for 1898.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Treasury Minute, dated 3rd July, 1899, declaring that Mr. Henry Gwilliam, artificer, Royal Small Arms Factory, War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his Department.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:—
VISCOUNT CROSS: This clause provides that not less than forty days before the making of a scheme the council shall give the prescribed notice of their intention to make it, and shall state where copies of the draft of the scheme may be

277
obtained, and where the plan therein referred to may be inspected. In the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, forty days is not a sufficiently long notice, because persons interested may be abroad and may not get the notice in time. I therefore propose an Amendment to substitute three months as the term of notice.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 20, to leave out `forty days' and insert 'three months.'"—(Viscount Cross.)
On Question, "That the words 'forty days' stand part of the clause, "resolved in the negative.
On Question, "That the words 'three months' be here inserted," agreed to.
VISCOUNT CROSS: I have a proviso to add at the end of Clause 2. I am very anxious that the expenses in connection with the regulation of commons should he reduced as much as possible, and in the matter of small commons and village greens I do not think it should be necessary to obtain the consent of two-thirds of the commoners, which is a very expensive proceeding. The difficulty, first of all, is to get hold of two-thirds of the commoners, and, secondly, to get their consent. What we propose is that a scheme may go on, unless the Board of Agriculture receive a written notice of dissent either from the person entitled, as lord of the manor, or otherwise, to the soil of the common, or from persons representing at least one-third in value of such interests in the common as are affected by the scheme. It must not be forgotten that we are dealing in this matter with private rights. The lord of the manor, as well as the commoners, undoubtedly has a right, and we must remember that commons do not belong to the public, but to the commoners and to the lord of the manor. Although, as I have said, I am most anxious to reduce expenditure as much as possible, I do not think it is right that private property should he taken away in this summary manner by a Department. It is not a good thing to say that people may break the Tenth Commandment, and, when they have broken it, it is still a worse thing to say that they may break the eighth.
Amendment moved—After line 12 to insert the following proviso:
Provided that if, at any time before the Board have approved of the scheme, they receive a written notice of dissent either—

(a) from the person entitled as lord of the manor or otherwise to the soil of the common; or

(b) from persons representing at least one-third in value of such interests in the common as are affected by the scheme;

and such notice is not subsequently with. drawn, the Board shall not proceed further in the matter."—(Viscount Cross.)
LORD BURGHCLERE: I had proposed to move to amend the Amendment of the noble Viscount by inserting after "provided that" the following words: "in the case of commons exceeding 200 acres in extent." I think the Government might well have accepted the provisions of my Bill as originally drawn, and that we might have relied with assurance upon adequate inquiries being made, and due discretion exercised, by the Board of Agriculture, without referring at all to the absolute veto of the lord of the manor and those interested in the commons. By the Bill as it stands, the lord of the manor and all those interested in commons would have ample opportunity of laying their objections to any scheme that might be proposed before the Board of Agriculture, and I cannot conceive the Board of Agriculture, under any possible I conditions, refusing to listen to those objections or sanctioning any scheme in connection with which there could be shown a shade of justifiable objection. I understand that the Government are unable to accept my Amendment, even in the case of the smallest commons, and I deeply regret that they have arrived at this decision. The Bill as it stands seems to me to be a right and equitable alteration of the law for the benefit of everyone concerned, including the lord of the manor, and I had hoped that, although the noble Viscount could not accept the Bill as it was originally drawn, he would, at any rate, have been able, as a compromise, to support my amendment to his Amendment, limiting that Amendment to cases of commons exceeding 200 acres in extent. However, the Bill, even as amended in the manner proposed by the noble Viscount, contains a concession of considerable value, and an alteration of the law which will be of great benefit to the commons affected. The Bill, notwithstanding the

279
Amendments, absolutely meets those special cases to which I alluded when I had the honour of moving the Second Reading of this Bill, and the hardship of which I ventured at that time to lay special stress upon—I mean the case of the smaller commons, which everyone agrees might be improved, regulated, and used for the enjoyment of the neighbourhoods in which they are situated. Under the Commons Act of 1876 we were obliged, even in the case of very small commons, to go through such an expensive and lengthy procedure as practically to prohibit the possibility of promoting schemes for their regulation and improvement. Under this Bill, even as amended, we get rid of the exhaustive inquiries on the spot, the reference to Parliament, and the reference to the Select Committee on Commons in Parliament. We also get rid of an Act of Parliament, and of the expensive process of sending down a valuer to make an award. I know this only takes place in non-contentious cases, but I am assured, on very good authority, that, in the case of the smaller commons to which I have alluded, in nine instances, out of ten there will be no opposition, and that, therefore, great benefit will be conferred by this Bill. I have reason to believe that if I accept the proviso of the noble Viscount, and withdraw my Amendment to it, the Bill will be regarded by the Government as a non-contentious measure, and will receive their support and encouragement when it reaches the other House, should your Lordships allow it to pass through all its stages here. In order that the Bill may become law this session I will withdraw my Amendment, and accept the noble Viscount's proviso.
VISCOUNT CROSS: I am glad that the noble Lord has seen his way to withdraw his Amendment. The view of the Board of Agriculture coincides with that of the noble Lord, and they believe that with regard to the smaller commons the noble Lord will, in the majority of cases, even with the proviso added, gain his object.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am rather sorry that the noble Lord has withdrawn his Amendment without having it more fully discussed, because I regard the proviso as it stands as rather too stringent. The proviso states that if the lord of the manor or persons repre-
280
senting at least one-third in value of the interests in the common dissent, then the scheme is to be absolutely withdrawn. If it were proposed to take away any rights of property without compensation, I should thoroughly agree with the proviso the noble Viscount proposes, but if your Lordships will look at Clause 7 of the Bill you will see that it is there provided that:
"No estate, interest, or right of a profitable or beneficial nature in, over, or affecting any common shall, except with the consent of the person entitled thereto, be taken away or injuriously affected by any scheme under this part of this Act without compensation being made or provided for the same by the council making the scheme, and such compensation shall, in case of difference, be ascertained and provided in the same manner as if it were for the compulsory purchase and taking, or the injurious affecting of lands under the Land Clauses Acts."
Therefore, my Lords, under the Bill as it stands the fullest compensation is provided, both for the lord of the manor and for any other person whose property it may be proposed to take away. In the first instance, the individual whose right was affected would have the power to appeal to the Board of Agriculture, and we may suppose that the Board of Agriculture would listen carefully to his statement. Then, if the Board of Agriculture should not agree with the person protesting, it is true the lord of the manor would have to surrender his right, but he would be amply compensated. I would put it to the House whether, under the present law, the rights of property owners are not amply protected. Of course as the noble Lord has withdrawn his Amendment there is nothing more to be said, but I think the case which he presented to the House was one deserving of very careful consideration.
LORD DAVEY: I am afraid that the Amendment of the noble Viscount will prove extremely embarrassing, both to the district board and to the Board of Agriculture. I agree that the powers which it is proposed to exercise under this Bill may interfere with the legal rights of the lord of the manor. Therefore it is right, no doubt, that the lord of the manor should have a veto, but this does not apply to the commoners, because with the omission of Clause 8 of this Bill—the omission which the noble Viscount proposes to move—nothing can be done to

281
the common which will in any way interfere with the rights of the commoners to feed their cattle, sheep, ponies, donkeys, and geese on the common. There will only be then the power to make a scheme for regulating and levelling the common and so forth, but not to deprive any person of any right of common or in any way whatever to restrict or hinder the exercise of his right of common over the whole common as heretofore. Therefore it is not strictly necessary that the consent of the commoners, represented by two-thirds, should be required. I think I am right in saying that only the consent of the lord of the manor is required to the making of a Provisional Order under the Inclosure Acts, although a Provisional Order of that character may seriously interfere with the rights of commoners. Therefore, I do not think it is strictly necessary to the limited purposes to which this Bill will be restricted if Clause 8 is struck out, as I suppose will be the case, that the consent of two-thirds of the Commoners should be obtained when their rights will not in any way be interfered with. There is another objection to the manner in which the Amendment is framed. The noble Viscount's Amendment requires notice of dissent from persons representing at least one-third in value of such interests in the common as are affected by the scheme. The noble Viscount, no doubt, is aware of the litigation which has taken place, and the difficulties which have been experienced in ascertaining exactly who are the commoners who have rights of common, whether exercised or not. That difficulty will be very much enhanced when you have to consider the value of the interests which persons may have in the common; and he would be a bold man indeed who would venture to place a value upon those interests. Therefore it will be extremely difficult for the Board of Agriculture in many cases to ascertain whether the persons who dissent represent one-third in value of the interests in the common, and it will be equally embarrassing for the district board. I would venture to ask the noble Viscount whether, at another stage, he could not consider the expediency of leaving out division (b) of his Amendment.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I am glad that the noble Lord has withdrawn his Amendment, and that there is now a
282
possibility of the measure being regarded as a non-contentious one. I should be glad if the noble Viscount could give the House some assurance that the Bill will be pushed on in the other House and become law this session.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken in thinking that Lord Burghclere has done well in not contesting the Amendments of the Government, and in taking a step which, I hope, will secure the passing of this Bill during the present session. The Bill, as amended, will not secure all that my noble friend desired, but it will, at any rate, simplify to a large extent the process connected with the regulation of commons and village greens. I feel a little regret at the disappearance of the noble Lord's Amendment to this clause, and I hope it will be remembered that there is a great difference between small commons and large commons. This Bill was drafted for the purpose of providing simpler and less expensive machinery for regulating small commons and village greens, the circumstances of which are very different from those of the large commons, some of which are many thousands of acres in extent. Although I am sorry that the Amendment has been withdrawn, at the same time I think the noble Lord exercised a wise discretion in not pressing it.
VISCOUNT CROSS: It is true, as the noble Marquess has stated, that there is a natural difference between large and small commons, but the principle of maintaining private rights is the same and applies to both. With regard to the observations of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Davey), I may say that, although I listened with all the care I could to the very ingenious argument he put forward, no practical difficulty has been experienced in finding out who are the commoners. The difficulty has been in providing the funds for that purpose. My Amendment will do away with a large portion of the expenses, because it will be much easier to find out one-third of the persons interested than two-thirds. In reply to Lord Ribblesdale, I should be very glad, personally, to see the Bill passed as an agreed Bill this session, if possible. I cannot answer, of course, for what may take place in the other House, but I know that it is the wish of the

283
right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture that the Bill should pass as quickly as possible.
LORD SPENCER: The noble Viscount apparently did not thoroughly grasp the point in the speech of my noble and learned friend (Lord Davey) behind me. I have had a very large experience with regard to commons, and I endorse what the noble and learned Lord has said as to the difficulty of ascertaining the value of interests which persons may have in a common. The difficulty in regard to the commons with which I have been connected was, first of all, to ascertain who were the commoners who had a legal right to the common, and, secondly, the value of their right. I cannot help thinking that there is a very substantial and real objection to division (b) of the noble Viscount's Amendment.
LORD THRING: My Lords, I have had a great deal to do with legislation affecting commons, and, although I am sorry the Amendment was not insisted upon, I cannot but congratulate your Lordships upon having consented to what, I believe, will be a very useful Bill. Under this Bill it will be brought within the power of every county to regulate its ewn commons, and I regard the Bill as a very useful one.
On Question, "That these words be here inserted," agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to. Clause 3, agreed to.
Clause 4:—
V1SCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I move to leave out Clause 4. Under this clause a parish council may apply to the district council of the district comprising the parish to make a scheme for the regulation and management of any common within the parish; and, if the district council refuses or neglects to make a scheme, the parish council may apply for that purpose to the county council. The county council, if satisfied that the circumstances are such that a scheme should be made for the regulation and management of the common, may pass a resolution to that effect, and thereupon the powers and duties of the district council,
284
so far as regards the common, are, under this clause, transferred to the county council, and the management of the common vested by the scheme in that council. Under this clause one authority would practically be set up against the other, and in the opinion of the Government district councils may well be trusted with the making of these schemes.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, to leave out Clause 4."—(Viscount Cross.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The proposal in the clause is entirely in accordance with modern practice, and the power of appeal to the county council has been found extremely useful; it sometimes happens that the district council is not always a wise body, and that the county council, being more independent, can intervene with advantage. I do not think there is anything at all alarming in this clause.
VISCOUNT CROSS: There are certain expenses connected with these schemes which, if the district council has to bear them, are spread over the immediate neighbourhood of the common; but if the common is vested in the county council the expenses are spread over the whole county, the majority of the inhabitants of which have probably never been near the common in their lives.
LORD DAVEY: The noble Viscount has not seen the effect of Section 3 of Clause 4. That section provides that, where a resolution has been passed by a county council under this section, the provisions of Section 63 of the Local Government Act 1894 shall have effect. If the noble Viscount will look at Section 63 of the Local Government Act of 1894 he will see that it is there provided that, where the county council acts in default of the district council, the county council has the right to charge the cost on the district council. I take it that that is the object for which Section 3 is inserted.
On Question, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill," resolved in the negative.
Clause 5:—
VISCOUNT CROSS: This clause provides that a rural district council may delegate to a parish council any powers conferred on the district council in relation to any commons within the parish. I think the power so delegated ought to be confined to management only.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 34, after 'powers' to insert 'of management.'"—(Viscount Cross.)
LORD DAVEY: The noble Viscount is probably aware that parish councils already have the power of management in regard to village greens expressly given to them by Section 8 of the Local Government Act of 1894, and I intend to move the insertion of a clause, at a later stage, to provide that nothing in this Bill shall prejudice that power.
On Question, "That these words be here inserted," agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:—
VISCOUNT CROSS: I shall probably differ from my noble and learned friend (Lord Davey) with regard to this clause, which provides that a scheme under this Act may, with the previous consent in writing of the persons whose consents are required to a Provisional Order under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, include provisions for "adjustment of rights" within the meaning of the Commons Act, 1876. The question of adjustment of rights is such a delicate and difficult one that I think it can be better dealt with under my Act of 1876 than by the Board of Agriculture in the manner proposed; therefore, I move to strike out Clause 8 altogether.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3 to leave out Clause 8."—(Viscount Cross.)
LORD DAVEY: I assumed in my observations that this clause would be struck out.
On Question, "That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill," resolved in the negative.
Clause 9 amended and agreed to.
Clause 10:—
VISCOUNT CROSS: Clause 10 provides that where any common is situated in the districts of two or more district councils the county council of the county within which the common is situated shall, in relation thereto, have all the powers conferred upon a district council in relation to any common within their district, and that the Act shall apply to the county council as if that council were a district council, and the management of the common shall he vested in the county council. It seems to me, and to the Government, that, if the common is situated in the districts of two district councils, the better course would be that those two district councils should work by a committee, as provided in the Local Government Act, 1894, and that the matter should not be referred to the county council at all.
On Question, "That Clause 10 stand part of the Bill," resolved in the negative.
Clauses 11, 12, and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:—
VISCOUNT CROSS: As we have done away with the county council, the words I propose to omit are unnecessary, and this is, therefore, a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, to leave out from 'shall' in line 14 to 'case' in line 17."—(Viscount Cross.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My noble friend said he had "done away with the county council." That seems to be the general desire in this matter, but I cannot see why this jealousy of the county council should exist.
On Question, "That these words stand part of the clause," resolved in the
negative.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:—
VISCOUNT CROSS: My Amendment to this clause, though it strikes out the

287
words "London County Council," is not in any way an attack upon that body. The following clause—Clause 17—provides that a scheme under the Bill shall not apply to any common which is the subject of a scheme made under the Metropolitan Commons Acts, 1866 to 1878, which the Department are of opinion work most satisfactorily, and which they would be very unwilling to see amended in this Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 32, after 'This' to insert 'Part of this'; and to leave out from 'apply' in line 32 to the end of the clause, and insert 'to the council of a county borough in like manner as if that council were the council of an urban district.'"—(Viscount Cross.)
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left oat stand part of the clause," resolved in the negative.
On Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted stand part of the clause," agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 amended and agreed to.
Clause 18 amended and agreed to.
LORD DAVEY: I desire to move the insertion of a new clause providing that nothing in this Bill shall in any way prejudice the right of management of recreation grounds and village greens vested in parish councils by Section 8, Sub-section (1) (d), of the Local Government Act, 1894.
VISCOUNT CROSS: I have not had time to refer to the clause, and would therefore suggest that the noble and learned Lord should put his Amendment down for the Standing Committee.
LORD DAVEY: Very well. I will do so.
Clause 19:
VISCOUNT CROSS: This clause was framed some years ago to meet a special case. It has since been found possible to do without it, and as it is not now wanted I move its deletion.
Amendment moved—
"In page5, to leave out Clause 19."—(Viscount cross.)
On Question, "That Clause 19 stand part of the Bill," resolved in the negative.
Clause 20 amended and agreed to.
Clause 21:
LORD TEYNHAM: I beg to move the insertion of a new sub-section to provide that all the powers exercisable by the London County Council and other local authorities under the Open Spaces Acts of 1877 to 1890 may also be exercisable by the county council of any administrative county. The only county councils which at present possess these powers are the London County Council and the County Council of Middlesex. I think it will be admitted that the London County Council has made good use of its powers. Indeed, it may be said that the gratitude of Londoners is chiefly due to the council on account of the zeal it has displayed in acquiring open spaces and public parks in the neighbourhood of London. Middlesex obtained these powers under a private. Act last year, and, although so short a time has elapsed, it has already spent £20,000 in the acquisition of open spaces, and is now prepared to spend a further sum of upwards of £20,000. Every county council, of course, will not have the same opportunities as those of London and Middlesex, but the County Councils of Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire, Essex, and the county councils of counties in which there are large manufacturing towns will be able to make good use of these powers. I see that the noble Viscount has an Amendment to strike out Clause 21.
VISCOUNT CROSS: I have withdrawn my Amendment to strike out the clause.
LORD TEYNHAM: Then I hope the noble Viscount will accept my addition.
Amendment moved—
"After Sub-section (3) to insert new subsection: 'All the powers exercisable by the London County Council and other local authorities under the Open Spaces Acts, 1877 to 1890, may also be exercisable by the county council of any administrative county, and any expenses incurred by a county council under

289
the said Acts shall he defrayed as expenses incurred under the Local Government Act, 1888.'"—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT CROSS: I have no objection to offer to this Amendment, if it is agreeable to the House.
LORD BURGHCLERE: I have examined the Amendment, which I regard as an excellent one, and one which will greatly improve the Bill.
On Question "That this sub-section be here inserted," agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended [No. 161.]

MARRIAGES VALIDITY (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MACNAGHTEN: My Lords, at the instance of several persons of great eminence in Ireland, including four very distinguished judges, chancellors of seven dioceses, and including also His Grace the Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of all Ireland, and, I believe, with the full approval of the Irish Lord Chancellor, I venture to submit this Bill to your Lordships. I am not quite sure that I am in a position to do complete justice to the difficulty which has led to the introduction of this measure, because I am not an ecclesiastical lawyer, but I will explain to your Lordships in a sentence what the difficulty is. When two persons marry, one of whom resides in Ireland and the other in England, and they are married by banns, and the banns are published in the two countries to which they respectively belong, it has been suggested that the marriage is or may be invalid. That is a very startling suggestion. I am not altogether certain that I appreciate the point myself. I am informed, however, that it is quite visible to the eye of an ecclesiastical lawyer. But herein is a divergence of opinion. Ecclesiastical lawyers in Ireland say there is nothing in the point. Ecclesiastical lawyers in England of considerable eminence think that the point is a serious one, and that it is quite possible that a marriage of the sort to which I have referred might be
290
declared invalid. I do not think I need pursue the subject further, because I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that on such a point doubts ought not to be permitted to exist. When parties marry in good faith, believing that they are complying with the law in every particular, it is intolerable that there should. be any unnecessary doubt as to the validity of the marriage. I am happy to say there is an exact precedent for this Bill. The same doubt occurred in the case of marriages solemnized under similar circumstances, where one of the parties to the marriage resided in Scotland and the other in England. An Act was passed in 1886 to remove any doubt in such a, case—it is the 49 Victoria, Cap. 3. I need not trouble your Lordships with reading that Statute, because it is, mutatis mutandis, absolutely the same as the Bill which I now beg to move be read a second, time.
Moved, "That the Bill be read 2a."—(Lord Macnaghten.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The EARL of HALSBURY): I confess that I do not share the doubt which has been raised, as to the validity of marriages such as those to which the noble Lord has referred, but as some objection may be raised I think the noble Lord has done wisely in bringing forward this Bill, to which I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading.
On Question, agreed to.
Bill read 2a (according to order); and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order); a further Amendment made; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
QUESTIONS.

  GOVERNMENT VALUERS AND THE ESTATE DUTY.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): In the absence of my noble friend the Earl of Bradford I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a question, of which my noble friend has given private notice—namely, whether, in the event of the

  291
  Commissioners of Inland Revenue sending a valuer of their own to value property for estate duty purposes, they are entitled to withhold from the person from whom duty is claimed information with respect to the figures of such valuation; and, if so, whether it is fair and equitable that the Commissioners should do so.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS): The Commissioners of Inland Revenue act, for the purposes of fixing the estate duty of a property, under the 7th Section of the Finance Act of 1894. That section provides that the capital value of the property shall be what, in their opinion, it will fetch in the open market. There are provisions for enabling them to employ valuers, if they think necessary, to enable them to form that opinion. There is nothing in the section which compels them to accept that valuation, and they are in no way bound to inform the persons of whom the duty is claimed of the figures of such valuation. It is, in fact, in the nature of advice upon which they may arrive at whatever decision they think just. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he can see no equitable reason against their declining to give that information.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I think the answer is very unsatisfactory. As I understand, the successor to property has to send in his valuation. This applies specially to works of art and matters of that kind. If the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are not satisfied with that valuation, they send down their own valuer. If that valuer values at a lower price than the successor's own valuer, surely the successor ought to have the benefit. If the valuation made by the valuer appointed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue is higher than the valuation of the successor, the latter is compelled to pay a higher succession duty. The attitude of the Inland Revenue in this matter is very much like the old game of heads I win, tails you lose.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: If I understand the matter rightly, this seems to me most iniquitously unfair. Having been responsible, with others, for the Finance Act under which all this is done,
  292
  I am not at all disposed to press the Government to fritter away the provisions of that Act, but, at the same time, I do not think it is reasonable that the Treasury should have a standard of right and wrong which is not the standard of a man in ordinary transactions. The point raised is not an infringement of the provisions of the Bill, neither would it weaken those provisions, and I therefore hope that it will receive more consideration.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I differ from the noble Earl, inasmuch as I am not responsible for the Act in any way; but I think the noble Earl is a little harsh upon the Inland Revenue, and for this reason. If it were true, as he says, that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were following a course which no ordinary gentleman would follow in his private affairs, I think it is probable that they would come within the reach of the courts of law. If they did come within the reach of the courts of law I imagine that some patriotic citizen would bring the point practically to the test. I do not know whether it is a fact or not, but it is certainly very desirable that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue should not be, in the view of the country, exposed to the censure which the noble Earl has passed upon them.

  THE MILITIA AND FOREIGN SERVICE.
  LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for War in reference to an Army Order dated 8th May, 1599, which sets forth, among other things, that in case 75 per cent. of a Militia battalion elects to serve abroad, the whole battalion will be considered liable to so serve; whether the remaining quarter of the battalion, in case it does not so consent, is liable nevertheless. I also desire to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War how many Militia battalions have up to the present time consented to serve abroad, and whether they consented unanimously, or with a minority of 25 per cent. refusing to so serve. The Army Order to which I refer has given rise to great perplexity among those interested in Militia matters, and any elucidation which the noble Marquess can find it convenient to give

  293
  will, I am sure, be hailed with great satisfaction.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I think the Army Order to which the noble Lord refers is that of the 10th of May. He has not quoted it quite accurately. What it says is that a Militia unit may be registered as available for special service if not less than 75 per cent. of the officers and men composing it offer to accept the liability. But there is no intention of enforcing the liability against any men, whether they amount to 25 per cent. or a lesser percentage, who do not voluntarily offer to accept it. This point was explained in the House of Commons by the representative of the War Office. It has not yet been found possible to register any Militia battalion as available for special service, the number of men volunteering having in no case come up to the 500 required by the Army Order. But, although no battalions have been registered as such, 3,213 infantry militiamen have engaged as individuals for special service with their line battalions, and would be available if those battalions were to be detailed for service. Of the Militia artillery eight corps have been registered, 75 per cent. of the men having volunteered in each case, and 250 men in each corps having been found to comply with the conditions laid down. These corps belong respectively to Sligo, Wicklow, Lancashire, Durham, Limerick City, Antrim, Yorkshire, and Edinburgh. Besides these, 490 Militia artillerymen have accepted the special service system liability as individuals, making in all 3,703 men of this arm. In our opinion the above facts are not sufficient to justify a conclusion as to the success of the experiment. The Army order was not issued till May 10th, when sonic corps had begun their training and others were assembling. These corps had, consequently, insufficient notice of the liability to seven days' extra training which is required of all men accepted for special service. In the circumstances it is not unsatisfactory that we should have made even a comparatively small beginning, and we hope that the numbers will be largely increased when the conditions offered are more generally understood.
  LORD BRAYE: The point I desire to
  294
  have elucidated is whether, if 75 per cent. of the Militia battalion elect to serve abroad, the remaining 25 per cent. would be at liberty to retire from the battalion, or must they go abroad with the others.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope I have made it quite evident that there will be no compulsion on the 25 per cent. of the battalion to serve with their comrades who have accepted special service liability. The manner in which they might be disposed of is a question which will have to be considered when the occasion arises; but I would suggest that one way of doing it would be, in the case where there are two Militia battalions, to transfer the 25 per cent. temporarily to the other battalion.
  LORD BRAYE: I understand that, although the word "unanimous" is not used in the Army Order, a Militia battalion must consent unanimously to serve abroad before it can be sent: that is to say, if one single man in a battalion refuses so to serve, the whole battalion would be counted as having voted against serving abroad. What I want to know is whether the 75 per cent. mentioned in the Order is to be considered as equivalent to a unanimous consent.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If the noble Lord will allow me to show him afterwards the Act of Parliament upon which these arrangements depend, as well as the Army Order which carries out the Act of Parliament, I think I shall be able to explain to him what I admit is an intricate matter, and one which I think at the present moment he does not quite understand.

  MEETINGS OF CONVOCATION.
  LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether a joint assembly of members of the two Convocations is not in fact a meeting of the Convocations, and therefore illegal without a licence from the Crown. I understand that those who summoned the special meeting of the Convocations referred to anticipated that there would be some difficulty, because the public Press had referred to the assembly as an irregular meeting. They thought, however, that by not meeting as Convocation, but as individuals, they could evade the custom or the law by which it is necessary to obtain a licence from the Crown before they met. It may be that the

  295
  affair is not of much importance in itself, but, in view of recent events in the Church, it is desirable to look rather closely into these matters. Questions of considerable importance may have been discussed at the meeting, but as it was held in private, the public do not know what went on there. I wish to know whether the Government consider that the proceedings were irregular.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for saving that his question is not whether these proceedings were or were not irregular. The question is, whether the proceedings were illegal. The noble Lord is quite right in suggesting that it is a question of fact, and certainly no Member of Her Majesty's Government could give an answer to the question without knowing more about the facts than the noble Lord has disclosed. I know nothing more about the proceedings than what the noble Lord has just mentioned, and these facts do not appear in the question on the Paper. The fact that some gentlemen met together in private and discussed questions of interest, although they had reference to important matters which had lately been discussed elsewhere, does not necessarily in point of law make that a meeting of the Convocations; and whether that constituted such a meeting I, as an individual Member of Her Majesty's Government, am not prepared to affirm. I should hesitate to answer such a question until I knew absolutely what was done; in what character these gentlemen came together, and whether or not they were invested with any particular mission from anybody else, or purported to act themselves in any official character. I should hesitate to express any opinion upon a subject which might become a matter of debate in a court of law; but if the noble Lord were to ask me, even as an abstract point of law, whether a sitting of convocation without Her Majesty's licence was illegal, I would have no difficulty in answering him; but he would not require my assistance as to the answer to that question. In these circumstances I can only say, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that the facts which the noble Lord has brought forward are insufficient to enable them to form a judgment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am a little astonished at the profound ignorance
  296
  of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to what has taken place, because I thought the noble and learned Lord, in common with most of us, read the newspaper reports of what took place at meetings of Convocation. I should have thought that he would have known that after the regular meeting of Convocation there was, according to the intelligence which has reached the public, a meeting of the two Convocations together. It is said that that was only a meeting of the members of the two Convocations. I do not wish to impute to those gentlemen any desire to evade the law, but to the ordinary mind it looks uncommonly like it. I do not pretend that anything very serious would arise from the meeting, and I certainly should not have said a word about the subject except for the fact that I could not help thinking, when I read the account which appeared in many newspapers, that this was part and parcel of what is going on in the Church, and of an ardent desire on the part of a good many people connected with the Church of England to pass by, if they can, the civil power. It is only from that point of view that I attach any importance to this question. I have not the least objection to the two Convocations meeting together, but I do feel jealous of anything being done by a side wind, especially at the present moment, which is not authorised by the law of the land. Therefore I have a certain amount of sympathy with the question which the noble Lord (Lord Kinnaird) has asked. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has asked that a case should be drawn up. I do not feel competent to do that, and I do not think it is necessary that a case should be laid before the Government. It is the business of the Government to watch everything of this kind, and to see that nothing is done which in any way passes by the prerogative of the Crown.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am 10th to confess that I do not study ecclesiastical literature with the devotion of the noble Earl, and I was utterly ignorant that this awful thing had taken place. I thought the Convocation of York met at York, and the Convocation of Canterbury at Canterbury, and how both could possibly meet together immediately afterwards I fail to imagine It is a very terrible thing which the noble

  297
  Lord has discovered, but I think, when he has discovered a gunpowder plot of this kind, he ought to go further into it, and supply us with more detail. It is impossible for this Assembly to recover from the shock it has sustained unless we know the precise nature of the conspiracy against our civil law to which the noble Lord has alluded in his question. I would suggest to the noble Earl for his comfort, if this thing disturbs his sleep, that this confusion has arisen from his not sufficiently dwelling upon the word "meetings," and the different meanings of it. I doubt very much whether it is illegal for the members of Convocation to meet if they come across each other in a room, but, if they meet for the purpose of exercising any of the powers which belong to Convocation, I suppose they would be assuming powers which they did not possess, and would be acting, if not illegally, in a highly unconstitutional manner. I doubt exceedingly whether the members of Convocation do not put more value on their own time than to go through a process which would be entirely destitute of result. Quarter sessions cannot meet without a licence from the Crown; but if the magistrates meet together in the county town no one would ever dream of calling it un-constitutional. The doctrine laid down by the noble Earl is that all Englishmen are at liberty to meet where they please unless they happen to be invested with some ecclesiastical authority. That is a limitation of our rights which the noble Earl will have to explain more clearly. So far as I can see, I am afraid the noble Lord has discovered a mare's nest, which I suppose is something like a bishop's nest.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six of the clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.