Lords Sitting of 28 July 1910

BARON ROTHERHAM.
Sir William Henry Holland, Baronet, having been created Baron Rotherham of Broughton in the County Palatine of Lancaster—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
PORT OF LONDON (REGISTRATION OF CRAFT) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a and passed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.

    MIDDLETON CORPORATION BILL.
    THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, with regard to the three Bills on the Paper, I propose to move that they be read a third time, but that can only be done by the suspension of Standing Order No. 143. This Standing Order simply provides that the print of the Bill must be lodged with the Government Department three days before the Bill is read a third time. That is impossible if these Bills are to get the Royal Assent before Parliament adjourns. The Departments concerned are thoroughly aware of all that has been done and the print will be lodged the third day, a but it will not be before the Third Reading. It is quite a usual thing to suspend the Standing Order at this period of the session, and I ask your Lordships to do so.
    Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be dispensed with in respect of the said Bills.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    Bills read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS (DUBLIN) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BREEKS, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PRO-VISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
LITTLE HULTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL.
YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES AND DRIFFIELD NAVIGATION BILL.
MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
PONTYPRIDD AND RHONDDA JOINT WATER BOARD BILL.
RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS EXTENSIONS, &c.) BILL.
FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL.
EASTBOURNE CORPORATION BILL.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

ABERTILLERY AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be considered on Monday next.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment to be considered on Monday next.
CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments disagreed to, with a reason for such disagreement: The said reason to be printed, and to he considered on Monday next. (No. 141.)
SMALL HOLDINGS (No. 3) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment disagreed to, with a reason for such disagreement: The said reason to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next. (No. 145.)??
MOVABLE DWELLINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. (No. 146.) Bill reported with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and to be printed as amended. (No. 147.)
PORT OF LONDON (PORT RATES ON GOODS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Port of London (Registration of Craft) Provisional Order Bill do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Port of London (Port Rates on Goods) Provisional Order Bill; read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
PORT OF LONDON (PORT RATES ON GOODS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
HIGHLAND RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  FALKIRK CORPORATION GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a(according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERY (BAY OF FIRTH) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND)THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND) moved to amend Clause 8 of the Schedule—
8. No buildings erections embankments or works other than the marks mentioned in Article 6 of this Order shall at any time be commenced or executed within the limits above described without the previous sanction and approval in writing of the Fishery Board for Scotland,
by adding at the end the words "and of the Board of Trade."
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule, Clause 8, line 15, after ("Scotland") to insert ("and of the Board of "Trade")—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND then moved to amend Clause 10 of the Schedule—
10. This Order shall continue in operation for sixty years from its confirmation,
by altering the period mentioned from sixty years to forty years.
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule, Clause 10, line 24, to leave out the word ("sixty") and to insert the word ("forty")—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

WEMYSS AND DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, deemed to have been reported from the Committee.
LORD PENTLAND: This Order was lodged as long ago as December, 1908. Its progress has been delayed by negotiations, and it is very desirable that it should be confirmed before Parliament rises. I therefore move that Standing Order No. 39 be dispensed with.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 39 be dispensed with.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lard Pentland.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved to amend the provision in the 8th Schedule—
The Beveridge Trustees by themselves or members of the family of the hue Mr. Beveridge and their successors in the estate shall have a joint right along with the Trustees and the other riparian proprietors to fish in the reservoir and they shall have the privilege of putting and using a boat thereon,
by inserting, after the word "estate," the words in his Amendment—
Amendment moved—
Eighth Schedule, page 83, line 22, after ("estate") insert ("without prejudice to the Trustees reserve" their full sporting rights on their side of the "reservoir and")—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

COMPANIES (CONVERTED SOCIETIES) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL. [SECOND EADING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, This is a Bill which continues in force the existing
540
duties on tea, tobacco, spirits, and beer in the Isle of Man, and I move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Denman.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

BISHOPRICS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to make Orders in Council with re4pect to Bishoprics, &c.
1.—(1) His Majesty may, from time to time, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, provide for the foundation of new bishoprics, with a diocese and cathedral church in each case, for the foundation of deans and chapters or of deaneries or residentiary canonries in connexion with any such cathedral churches, for the alteration of the boundaries of dioceses as constituted at the date of the Order, and for any matters for which it appears necessary or expedient to make provision in connexion with those objects or any of them, including the transfer as between bishoprics of patronage and endowments, and the proceeds of sale of any house of residence whether effected before or after the passing of this Act, and the annexation (notwithstanding any enactments to the contrary, but subject to the rights of the incumbent at the date of the Order) of a benefice to a deanery:
Any provisions of the Bishoprics Act, 1878, as originally enacted may be applied with the necessary modifications by an Order made under this Act in connexion with a new bishopric to the case of that bishopric.
(2) A recommendation for the purposes of an Order under this Act shall not be submitted to His Majesty unless—

(a) in the case of the foundation of a new bishopric, dean and chapter, deanery, or residentiary canonry, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners certify to His Majesty under their common seal through the Secretary of State for the Home Department that an endowment in their opinion adequate has been transferred to them or otherwise provided and secured to their satisfaction;

(b) the recommendation has the consent of the archbishop or archbishops of the

541
province or provinces affected and, so far as the recommendation affects any then existing bishopric or diocese, the consent of the bishop; and

(c) in the case of the annexation to a deanery of a benefice of which the right of patronage or any interest therein belongs to a private patron, notice of the proposed recommendation has been given to such private patron, and if within one month of the delivery of such notice such private patron claims compensation for the loss (by reason of such annexation) of the right of patronage, or any interest therein so belonging to him, then unless he has been paid by way of compensation the value of such right of patronage or interest therein, to be assessed in case of disagreement by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but a trustee or other person occupying a fiduciary position shall not be bound to claim such compensation.

(3) An Order may be made under this Act with reference to the dean and chapter or deanery of or a residentiary canonry in the cathedral church of any diocese mentioned in the schedule to this Act in the same manner and subject to the same provisions as if the bishopric of that diocese were a new bishopric founded by Order under this Act, and the Order may modify any Act relating specially to any such dean and chapter, but where the Order affects a dean and chapter existing at the date of the making of the Order no such Order shall be made without the consent of that dean and chapter.
(4) Section two of the Bishoprics Act, 1878 (which relates to contributions for the purposes of the endowment of a new bishopric), and section five of the same Act (which relates to the number of bishops sitting in Parliament), shall apply as respects new bishoprics founded or proposed to be founded under this Act, in like manner as they apply as respects the new bishoprics mentioned in the schedule to that Act.
(5) The Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall have the same powers of investing, managing, leasing, selling, and otherwise dealing with funds and property forming part of the endowment fund of any bishopric, dean and chapter, deanery, or residentiary canonry founded or proposed to be founded under this Act as are conferred upon them by the Bishoprics Act, 1878, in relation to the endowment funds of the new bishoprics mentioned in the schedule to that Act; but nothing in this Act shall authorise the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to apply any portion of their common fund towards the endowment of any new bishopric, dean and chapter, deanery, or residential.), canonry save in so far as relates to any part of the endowment of any existing bishopric transferred by Order under this Act to a new bishopric.
(6) Any Order made under this section shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, and may be revoked, varied, or added to by any such Order subsequently made.
(7) Before any Order is made under this section the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during the session of Parliament, and, if either House, before the expiration of that period, presents an address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft Order.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I have handed in two or three Amendments, and I regret that your Lordships did not have them circulated. It was impossible, the Bill only having been read a second time last night, that I could get them in earlier. My first Amendment is to subsection (1) and is to leave out the words which appear in the subsection in parentheses—namely, "notwithstanding any enactments to the contrary"—and to insert "with the consent of the patron or patrons." I said last night that it was quite a. new departure to deprive a patron of his right of presentation irrespective of his consent. In previous Acts for creating new Bishoprics there was in each case a clause protecting the rights of patrons. The provision in this Bill, therefore, is not the least essential to the purposes of the Bill, because all previous Bishoprics have been created without this provision.
I would remind your Lordships of the danger of introducing provisions which constitute a serious evasion of legal rights unless those evasions are necessary for some public purpose. As undoubtedly the creation of new Bishoprics can perfectly well be performed without depriving the patron of his rights, I see no reason why this should be put into the present Bill. Of the parish church which was selected as the Cathedral of Liverpool the Rev. Stephen Gladstone was the patron. I can very well imagine that there might have been a very distinct divergence of opinion between the late Bishop and the Gladstone family; and I think it is very hard that people who have strong opinions on these church matters and have a presentation should be deprived of that in the way proposed in this Bill. Your Lordships will notice that further on in the Bill there is a proposal that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should determine the value of the compensation to be paid to the patron if he demands compensation. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners can be said to be the promoters of these Bishoprics, and to make the persons who are the promoters the judges of the compensation seems to me very undesirable. When dealing with Bills which had reference to Irish land your Lordships felt very strongly that the public body, whether it was the Congested Districts Board or any other body, which was interested in acquiring the land, was not the proper body to determine the price to be paid for the land, and you did secure that it should be the Judicial Commissioner who

543
should determine the price of the land in that case.
But for the moment I am pressing the more important point—namely, that the patron ought not to be deprived of his right unless it is absolutely necessary, which it is not, for the creation of the Bishopric. I am quite sure that if any one of your Lordships were the patron of either of those magnificent churches I mentioned last night and took an interest in ecclesiastical matters, you would feel that no money compensation bearing any relation to the pecuniary value of the living would be any recompense to you for being deprived of that important trust. I feel very strongly that if you adopt this principle of going beyond the purposes of the Bill it will be quoted against you, and you will be establishing a precedent which will be used in cases in which you might very much resent it.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("notwithstanding any enactments to the contrary") and insert ("with the consent of the "patron or patrons")—(Lord Sheffield.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not give your assent to this Amendment. The noble Lord has contended that the provision of schemes for the creation of deans and chapters in connection with the Cathedral church is foreign to the main purpose of the Bill. That, I think, can hardly be maintained in view of the fact that a Cathedral church is an essential part of the Bishopric. The Bishop must have his Cathedral church, and it is a matter of great importance not so much to himself as to the working of the whole diocese, where that Cathedral church is situated. Your Lordships will readily understand that it is a matter of great importance that the church selected as the Cathedral of the diocese should be one whose general management would be in harmony with the views, not of any particular section of church people in the diocese, but of the whole diocese itself. The noble Lord has quoted instances in which churches that might be used as Cathedrals have been acquired by trustees or by private patrons who might be very unwilling to part with the patronage. I imagine that in a number of cases the trustees and the patron would be most willing, for the sake of the future of the
544
diocese, to part with their patronage. If it is for the good of the diocese as a whole that there should be a Bishop, then I think it is equally for the good of the diocese that the patronage of the Cathedral church and the deanery within it and the chapter should be in public hands.
I am rather surprised that the noble Lord should have introduced this Amendment, because I am informed that the section which provides for the compensation of patrons who are thus asked to surrender their rights for the good of the Church as a whole was introduced in order to meet the views which he on a previous occasion had expressed. As to his claim that the provision of compensation is inadequate because the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are themselves the promoters of these schemes, I think he has there made a mistake. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are not the promoters of these schemes. They are rather the judges of their adequacy. It is not the business of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to promote schemes for the formation of new Bishoprics, but to satisfy themselves that in point of adequate endowment and other essential matters these are schemes which ought to be submitted to the Privy Council and laid before Parliament. Therefore, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners seem to me not to be in the least. in the position indicated by the noble Lord just now. I can imagine no better body than the Commissioners to judge fairly as to the compensation which ought to be asked.
In previous Bishopric Bills no provision has been made for the compensation of patrons. This clause is entirely new, in order to meet the difficulty of the patrons to whom the noble Lord has called attention. In view of the fact that it is of great importance that the Cathedral church of the diocese should be as far as possible a church under the control of public patrons and not under the control of private patrons, I venture to express the hope that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment. I end by saying that this is not a difficulty, I think, that will in many cases arise. My own experience is that arrangements can probably be made, by the exchange of patronage or otherwise, which would render it unnecessary in every case to resort to the expedient of compelling a patron to give up his patronage. In

545
most cases it could be clone by a friendly arrangement; but if it came to the point of a decision having to be made I think it should be made in the direction of giving the control of the church to public patronage.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I do not know whether it is necessary for me to add anything to what has been so well placed before your Lordships by the most rev. Primate, but as the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment had some communication with me on the subject last year, perhaps I may venture to say that I did not agree to the insertion of this provision in the Bill without feeling perfectly certain that it was a necessary provision or might become so in some cases that might arise. After all, it is not so much the Bishop who selects the Cathedral church. It is the wish of the people of the diocese. They would naturally wish that the finest church in the diocese should be chosen. For instance, if a new diocese was to be set up, and, say, Bath Abbey was to be chosen, it might lead to conflict if it were impossible, by exchange or by some procedure under this Bill, to obtain the patronage of what everybody would wish to be the Cathedral church of the diocese. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I would point out that the fact of getting the living under public patronage was not considered at all necessary in the past. The most rev. Primate and the noble Viscount have said that it would be very rare that this provision would be required. If it would be very rarely used, why not adhere to the law as it stands at the present time, which requires the consent of the patron?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, there is no doubt that it is quite possible to discover isolated cases of hardship which perhaps might arise under the provisions of the Bill as now before you. The question is whether in these circumstances we should insert an Amendment which, if I may say so, has not received much support; in fact, I think no support from any quarter of the House except from the noble Lord himself. I venture to think that your Lordships would be well advised
546
in leaving the Bill as it is, and leaving the remedies of the aggrieved patron to that private negotiation which, as has been pointed out, undoubtedly might take place before the Order was submitted to the Privy Council. I think the demand of the patron might be well satisfied by an exchange of benefice. In the circumstances I hope your Lordships will pass the Bill without the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My next Amendment, which was to leave out paragraph (c), is substantially consequential upon the last Amendment, and therefore I do not move it. But I propose by my third Amendment to add, at the end of subsection (3), the words "but nothing in this subsection shall authorise the annexation of a benefice to a deanery without the consent of the patron or patrons." I read this subsection as giving the authorities power to go back, in the case of dioceses which have been already formed, and reopen the arrangements there. It would enable the authorities to say to a patron who had had his right reserved under the law by which the Bishopric was founded, "We will go back on that and claim your advowson." If I am right in that, it is a very strong measure to introduce into this Bill a clause which would enable a settlement which had been come to in a diocese founded for several years to be disturbed.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 35, at the end of the subsection insert ("but nothing in this subsection" shall authorise the annexation of a benefice to a "deanery without the consent of the patron or "patrons")—(Lord Sheffield.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: The point is a new one to me. I cannot say offhand whether the noble Lord is right or wrong, and I am not quite sure that I appreciate his point. Is it that he thinks that where an Act has already authorised the creation of a Bishopric and under the provisions of that Act certain arrangements have been made with reference to deans and chapters, this Bill would enable those arrangements made under the provisions of an old Act to be reopened? Is that his view?
LORD SHEFFIELD: Not exactly. As I read subsection (3) there would be power,

547
where the Statute creating the Bishopric, reserved to the patron all his rights, to enter upon what is practically an old and established Bishopric and to say to the patron, "We now propose to take away your patronage in order to turn the incumbent into a dean." But if the point is a new one to the noble Viscount, I will withdraw the Amendment at this stage, and ask him to consult those who drafted the Bill between now and the Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My final Amendment is to insert a new subsection at the end of the clause. I understood that it was contemplated that a dean would be in the appointment of the Crown, and it seems to me that both deans and chapters should be in the appointment of the Crown. I therefore propose to add a new subsection to that effect.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 3, line 24, after ("order") insert the following new subsection:
(8) Any order made under this clause for the foundations of deans and chapters or of deaneries and residentiary canonries shall provide for the nomination and appointment of such deans, chapters, or residentiary canons by the Crown.—(Lord Sheffield.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I certainly should imagine that deans would be appointed by the Crown, but it would be extremely inconvenient to insert in the Bill a provision that not only deans but all the members of the chapter should be appointed by the Crown. There are some cases where all the canons are appointed by the Bishop, and it might be well that some appointments should be vested in one patron and some in another. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD SHEFFIELD: If the noble Lord will accept the Amendment in that form I am quite prepared to stop at the word "deans," and leave the question of canonries open. Certainly the noble Viscount does not dispute that a dean ought to be appointed by the Crown.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: Perhaps I might be permitted to say that I can scarcely imagine circumstances in which the Commissioners would propose
548
a scheme in which it was not provided that the dean, except in one particular case, should be appointed by the Crown, and even in that excepted case it would be indirectly an appointment of the dean by the Crown. It is possible that in the case of some of these new cathedrals the Bishop might wish to be his own dean. That is the case in regard to the new Cathedral of Southwark, and it might exist elsewhere. In such a case indirectly the dean would be appointed by the Crown. I can see no objection to the statement being explicitly made that deans, when they are separate from the bishop, should be appointed by the Crown; but I would press very much that the appointment of residentiary canonries should be left open. It has happened in the case at least of one new diocese that large benefactions and endowments were made for the formation of residentiary canonries with the express stipulation that the patronage should be in the hands of the Bishop.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I wish the noble Lord would specify the Amendment that he proposes to move, because I do not think the Amendment as indicated would read.
LORD SHEFFIELD: There seems to be general agreement that this ought to be done, and I think it is safer to insert it in the Bill. Even if the Amendment does not read and the noble Viscount thinks the language inartistic, it could be put right between now and the Third Reading.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Will the noble Lord read his Amendment as he now proposes to move it?
LORD SHEFFIELD: I propose that the subsection should run. "Any Order made tinder this clause for the foundations of deans shall provide for the nomination and appointment of such deans by the Crown."
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Can you make an Order for the foundation of a dean?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: It should be deaneries.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I am not responsible for the wording of the Bill. I took

549
the words from the Bill. If they are clumsy, the people who drafted the Bill are responsible. I move the Amendment in that form, and if it is badly expressed I am not responsible.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR: My Lords, I would point out that the giving of the appointment of cleans to other persons than the Crown is not new. In all the Welsh dioceses the Bishop has the appointment of the deans.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I confess that in regard to this point the Amendment of my noble friend has my sympathy. An instance occurs to my mind of a Bishop who is anxious to subdivide his diocese and has selected a collegiate church to which he has appointed a number of canons and a sub-dean. When the moment arrives and the actual division takes place these people will have something of a claim to the position to which they have already acquired a titular claim. I venture to hope that for the moment, at any rate, we might find a way out on the lines suggested by the most rev. Primate the Arch-bishop of York—that this Amendment should apply to those cases where the dean is not to be the same person as the Bishop. 'That, I think, would be a reasonable Amendment, and your Lordships might be well advised in accepting it.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: After what the noble Earl who represents the Government and the most rev. Primate have said, I do not wish to raise any objection to the Amendment in its modified form. It may require sonic verbal alteration, but that can be made later.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think it would be better that I should put the Amendment in this form—
"Any Order made under this clause fur the foundation of a deanery shall provide for the nomination and appointment of the dean by the Crown."
LORD SHEFFIELD: I accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
The Report of Amendment to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended.(No. 148).

REGENCY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
5. If Her Majesty Queen Mary shall, after becoming Regent, be reconciled to or hold communion with the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the Roman Catholic religion, or shall marry a person professing the Roman Catholic religion, or shall cease to reside in or absent herself otherwise than temporarily front the United Kingdom, Her Majesty shall no longer be guardian and Regent; and all the powers and authorities which she may have derived under or by virtue of this Act shall thenceforth cease and determine.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl the Leader of the House has had time to consider my Amendment since last night. The event which I contemplate is so remote, so exceedingly unlikely, that it would be almost absurd for me to detain your Lordships upon it; but the contingency provided for in Clause 5 is itself so remote and unlikely that it seems fit and proper that if we make any such enactment at all we should make it complete. It appears to me on the face of it that in the event contemplated—namely, that the office of Regent is vacated because of the conversion of the Regent to the Roman Catholic faith or other such analogous proceeding on her part—there would be no provision made for carrying on the Government of the country. There is, of course, also the possible case of the death of the Regent, in which a similar difficulty would arise.
What is really suggested in this clause of the Bill is to put the Regent in a similar position to the Sovereign himself. Under the Act of Settlement, I think it is, if the Sovereign becomes a Roman Catholic the office of the Sovereign is vacated, and the object of the clause is to put the Regent in the same position but there is this difference, that in the case of the Crown Parliament has made provision for what

551
is to be done in that event, because it is provided that it shall be treated as if the Sovereign were dead—that is to say, the next heir to the Throne would necessarily succeed. There is, however, no similar provision if the same circumstances should happen in the case of the Regent. Therefore it certainly seems that some change is required. Moreover, we are not without some historical knowledge of the difficulties. On the first occasion when George III was incapacitated there was considerable difficulty as to how the Regent was to be appointed. I do not Mean to say you can provide for every case, and, of course, Parliament does not attempt to provide for what is to be done in the still more unlikely case of the same misfortune happening to the Sovereign as happened to George III.
When George III was first incapacitated nobody knew what to do, and the two Parliaments—the Parliament of Great Britain and the Parliament of Ireland—acted in totally different ways. The Parliament of Ireland presented a joint address to the Prince of Wales, asking him to assume the office of Regent; but the Parliament of Great Britain, on the other hand, was subject to a difference of opinion between the leaders of the two Parties at that time. As a result they could not agree to present this joint address to the Prince of Wales, and they adopted the rather remarkable device of asking the Lord Chancellor to affix the Great Seal to an Address—I think it was from this House —to the Prince of Wales without authority. That was done. But the fact that that Parliament was driven to such expedients as I have indicated shows how necessary it is in certain events to make provision. With these few words I venture to move the Amendment standing in my name, but I need not say that as far as the words are concerned I am entirely in the hands of His Majesty's Government, and if they agree to the Amendment but would prefer other words, I would willingly accept them.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 3, line 9, after (" determine ") insert the following new subsection—
(2) If the powers and authorities of the Regent cease and determine under the provisions of this section or otherwise than by the attainment by the Sovereign for whom the Regent was appointed of the age of eighteen years, it shall be lawful for both Houses of Parliament to present an address to the Sovereign praying that the person named in such address may be appointed Regent, and there-
552
upon the Sovereign by Order in Council may appoint such person to he Regent, and the person so appointed shall become Regent with all the powers and authorities of that office as if named Regent is this Act, and subject to all the provisions thereof.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, since yesterday I have had an opportunity of looking into this matter. Of course, it is one, as the noble Marquess has indicated, on which one is greatly disposed to be bound by precedent. The noble Marquess has mentioned the case of the first attack which affected King George III, and at the time of the second attack, the appointment of the Regency in 1811, a similar procedure was devised—that is to say, authority was given for the Great Seal being put to a Commission without the Sign Manual, because the King was not in a condition to affix it, and the Commissioners were then empowered to give the Royal Assent to the Regency Bill. Of course, that is not what the noble Marquess proposes in this instance. He proposes that it shall be lawful for both Houses to present an Address to the Sovereign praying that a person named in such Address may be appointed Regent.
On the general question I confess that I am in agreement with what was laid down by those who were formerly responsible in some of these cases, that it is inadvisable to attempt to provide for all possible contingencies and that as much as possible should be left to the Parliament which at some future time may conceivably have to deal with it. In 1840, when the Regency Bill was introduced a somewhat similar proposition was made in another place, and Sir Robert Peel said that in his view nothing was so unwise as to go beyond the necessity of the case by attempting to foresee every contingency that could arise, and to tie up the hands of future Parliaments by making provisions for remote contingencies such as the demise of the Regent, and he thought it would be much better provided for by the Parliament in being at the time when the necessity arose. I understand that the noble Marquess would not quarrel with that statement, because in a sense that is what he proposes to do; but, on the other hand, I think I can persuade him that the procedure which he proposes is not necessary. There is no reason, I am given to

553
understand, should such an unfortunate contingency arise, either that contemplated under Clause 5 of the Bill or that of the demise of the Regent., why Parliament should not proceed as it is proceeding now, by Bill. There is no difficulty in the Royal Assent being given by a Sovereign at any time. It can be given by a Sovereign from his or her cradle; and that being so, I think it is on the whole desirable not to introduce the more or less novel procedure suggested by the noble Marquess, but to leave the future Parliament to deal with the question, should necessity arise, by the ordinary method of procedure by Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am quite satisfied, of course, with what the noble Earl has said. I understand from him that he is advised, on the best authority, that there is no difficulty in obtaining the Royal Assent from a Sovereign, still being an infant, if the case which he and I are bound to contemplate for the purposes of this discussion should really arise. If he is quite satisfied that there is no difficulty in having a valid assent from a Sovereign, being a minor, in the event contemplated, there would be no difficulty at all.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am certain that is so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining Clause and Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a on Monday next.

PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISE MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN had given notice, on the Order for the Second Reading being read, to move that the consideration of the Bill be postponed until after the autumn recess. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Motion which I wish to submit to your Lordships has nothing
554
to do with the merits of the Bill, and therefore I will not go into them any further than to say that the Bill effects, as I am sure every one will agree, a considerable change in the law. The objection which I take to proceeding with the Second Reading now is on behalf of the general liberties of the House. We have on frequent occasions objected very strongly to the indecorous, as we thought, and almost indecent way in which Bills were rushed upon this House. This Bill, I must say, appears to me to sin in this direction to a very remarkable degree. It is not as if we were within three or four days of the end of the session. I very much wish we were, but, as that contingency has not arisen, what I want to know is the reason why this Bill is forced upon the House with such insufficient notice. This Bill was only ordered to be printed on July 21. I do not know whether other members of your Lordships' House may have received it, but I do not think I received my copy until Tuesday, certainly not until Monday. As I understand, His Majesty's Government wish to press this Bill with the intention of passing it through all its stages here before we adjourn. Is that so?
THE EARL OF CREWE: We will answer that in clue course.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Will the noble Earl in charge of the Bill tell me whether I am correct in imagining that it is proposed to pass this Bill through all its stages in this House before we adjourn for the recess?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think this kind of question is most inconvenient at this stage, but if the noble Earl insists upon it, I will say at once—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. If it is inconvenient I will withdraw the question. The Bill, as I have said, was circulated on Monday of this week. It is an important Bill and effects an important change in the law. Why are we to be called upon to proceed with this Bill at once? What necessity is there for hurry? We shall meet in November, and, as I understand, we shall probably have nothing to do when we first meet, and there will be ample time to consider the Bill in an orderly and decent manner. It is not even as

555
if this Bill had passed through your Lordships' House on previous occasions. It is not even as if it had passed through the other House of Parliament. It is a Bill introduced here for the first time. I believe it was introduced by the Government in the other House on two occasions, but was not proceeded with on either occasion; and so far as this House is concerned it is an entirely novel Bill. I think I have made my objection pretty plain to your Lordships, and I do not think it necessary to trouble you, at all events just now, with any further remarks. I beg to move.
Moved, That the consideration of the Bill be postponed until after the autumn recess.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I will at once reply to the question which was addressed to me by the noble Earl in the course of his remarks. It was difficult at the beginning of the noble Earl's observations to give him a definite answer, because the course which His Majesty's Government will take on an occasion like this must necessarily very largely depend upon the sentiment of your Lordships' House and the opinions which are expressed in various quarters of the House, and I do not think it would have been altogether respectful to your Lordships if we had at once definitely answered the noble Earl either in the affirmative or the negative.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Hear, hear.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: And perhaps the noble Earl underrates the effect of his own arguments. We might have wished to proceed at once with the Bill, but we might have been persuaded by the arguments of the noble Earl to postpone its consideration. I will confine myself to discussing the Motion now before the House. It is, I think, somewhat unusual that we should discuss a proposal of this kind before the Second Reading has been moved, but it is consequent upon a Standing Order that this Motion in the form moved by the noble Earl must be taken first. May I point out that we are not acting without precedent in this matter? Other Bills were introduced almost at the same time, I think, as this Bill, and your Lordships do not seem to object to passing those Bills without greater time for consideration. The
556
noble Earl omitted to point out that a Bill very similar, though I think with a different title but with the same object, has been introduced into the other House on a previous occasion, and was there read a second time by a majority of two to one. It was introduced again in the following year, and was supported strongly on both sides of the House and passed without a Division. It was carried through Grand Committee, but although brought forward again in the House it never got beyond the First Reading stage. Therefore the matter is not so entirely new as might appear. At any rate the Bill has been on previous occasions before Parliament. It is, therefore, within the cognisance of members of your Lordships' House at any rate who might then have been sitting in another place, and consequently cannot be described as being a wholly new question. In these circumstances I venture to hope that your Lordships will allow the Bill to be proceeded with this evening.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not think the House can have been surprised that my noble friend behind me should have urged that we were entitled to be given adequate time in which to consider and discuss the provisions of this Bill. It is an important Bill, and it contains certainly a number of highly controversial propositions. My noble friend is correct in saying that it has only been a. very few days before us, and that we have, therefore, not bad full opportunity of examining it. I am not convinced by the noble Earl's argument that the fact of this Bill having been before the House of Commons for some time is of itself sufficient to induce us to dispense with those opportunities of debate which we should otherwise be entitled to insist upon. But my noble friend, I observed, insisted in his argument mainly on the point, that he had been given to understand that His Majesty's Government desired to pass this Bill through all its stages during the few days that remain between to-night and the adjournment for the holidays. I am not aware whether that is so, but I think the noble Earl opposite was fully justified when he told us just now that he is not prepared to make any statement upon that point until he has learned from the discussion which will shortly commence what views are entertained in all parts of the House with regard to this Bill. It seems to me, in these circumstances, that my noble friend

557
would he well advised if he would allow us to proceed with the debate upon the Second Reading of the Bill. His Majesty's Government will then have an opportunity of considering whether they should press the Bill forward now or await a later opportunity.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, as expressions have been invited from different parts of the House, I venture, with great submission, to support what has fallen from the noble Marquess. Will the Government give an undertaking that if the Second. Reading is passed this afternoon no further stage will be proceeded with before the adjournment? I venture also to point out that you cannot altogether disregard the character of this measure in discussing this particular Motion. If this were a trumpery Bill that involved no particular principle at all, there would be no objection to our proceeding to pass it through all its stages at the present time; but the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has given no reasons whatever for proceeding with what I can only term the indecent haste which he proposes to utilise on the present opportunity. It is no argument to say that this Bill or a similar Bill has been read a second time in the House of Commons; for, so far as that goes, a Female Suffrage Bill was read in the House of Commons a second time the other clay. That is an entirely impracticable argument to apply to present circumstances. Perhaps one of the noble Earl's colleagues will give a reason why this Bill is introduced at the present moment and why the Government are anxious to pass it through all its stages; but I venture to suggest that no reason has been hitherto given, and I hope that the proposal made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition will be acceded to.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I think the observation made by my noble friend the Lord President with regard to the fact that the Bill had been more than once considered in another place has been somewhat misapprehended. Of course, it is true that in a sense that fact need have no particular weight with your Lordships. But what my noble friend desired to indicate was that the subject was no new one. It has been a matter of public discussion for the last twenty years or so, and presumably, therefore, anybody who takes any interest in it at all is familiar with
558
the general outlines of the Bill. I should not go further than that; but it does differ in that respect from an entirely novel proposal brought before the House for the first time.
The noble Lord has asked whether His Majesty's Government will give an undertaking that if the discussion proceeds to-day no further steps will be taken with regard to the Bill until November. As the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition very fairly said, any decision upon that subject, so far as His Majesty's Government are able to decide it, must depend on the nature of the comments made on the Bill in the course of the discussion. For all I know, the Bill might pass through without opposition, and without knowing what the character and extent of the opposition to it is likely to be, and whether it is of a kind which could be disposed of in half an hour in Committee or would involve very prolonged discussion—without being able to realise those points by some discussion on the Second Reading it is not possible for us to give a definite answer to that question. We should be glad if it could go through, because it is a. good Bill. But the decision whether the Bill should go through in the course of next week is, of course, one which the House must decide, after, as I say, the nature and strength of the opposition to it or the criticism which may be directed at it have been divulged by what takes place on Second Reading.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Perhaps with the permission of the House I might say one word with regard to the course I propose to take on this Motion. I quite admit that it was a mistake on my part to ask the Government at that particular stage to say whether they meant to proceed with the Bill. I merely thought that I might save your Lordships' time. The noble Earl and the Leader of the House have quite properly said that they did not feel themselves at that moment able to answer the question. With regard to this Motion, what I propose to do is to accept the advice which was tendered to me by the noble Marquess and withdraw the proposal, so as to allow the House to proceed to discuss the merits of the Bill on Second Reading. But I reserve, of course, full power to myself, after your Lordships have decided what you will do regarding the Second Reading, to make

559
any subsequent Motion at a later stage of the Bill. On that understanding I withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My, Lords, after the little discussion which has taken place I suppose we may now proceed to discuss the merits of this particular Bill, to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading. Perhaps I might, in beginning, say that I noticed on referring to what occurred in the Standing Committee in another place that two noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench were members of that Standing Committee—Lord Salisbury and Lord Midleton, who both seem to have taken part in the discussions in the Standing Committee of the other House on this Bill.
To turn to the Bill itself, your Lordships will, I think, see even from a cursory examination of it what its object is. Considerable objection, rightly or wrongly, is taken to the leasehold system up and down this country. There are a great many cases of hardship falling upon individuals, and in connection with that echoes occasionally reach your Lordships' House. We are not, however, dealing on this occasion with any case in which an individual suffers hardship, but with the circumstances which attend a religious body when they find that the lease which they have taken of a certain piece of land, and on which they have built their chapel, falls in and they are unable to secure a renewal of the lease. Under the Bill the landlord will get full value for his land. That is, we think, amply secured by the provisions which assimilate the procedure under this Bill to the procedure under the Lands Clauses Act.
There is this, I think, to be said on behalf of those bodies who are particularly interested in this matter. They are themselves in a peculiar position, because they do not have that privilege which does exist, although I admit it is not often used, in the case of the Church of England. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have power to acquire any freehold they require for the purpose of building a church. Naturally the Nonconformists of this country have not got that power. What we propose under this Bill is that where the landlord has shown his willingness
560
to lease to them a piece of land they should be able to turn that lease into a freehold so long as the piece of land and the chapel erected thereon continue to be used for the same purposes as those expressed in the trust deed. The grievance such as it is—and it is a considerable grievance—is felt by the Free Churches in all parts of the country. When a similar Bill was brought forward some fifteen years ago it was stated that within the previous fifty years in the metropolis over fifty Congregational chapels had ceased to exist, the land and sometimes the buildings themselves being devoted instead to trading and other purposes; and what has been experienced by one body has also been experienced by the other.
I will give, as an instance, the position in a Welsh county. In one Welsh parish there are twenty chapels and one schoolroom, which have been built upon leasehold land at a cost of more than £45,000. At least eight of the chapels were erected on a thirty years lease; and in the case of a chapel which cost £3,000, when a further sum of £2,000 was spent upon it the lease was renewed for another thirty years. But although this money is spent in order to improve the chapels and to provide this accommodation, there is no security of any sort or kind that at the expiration of the lease the building or land will be available for this purpose. I ask your Lordships to turn to the Bill itself. You will see at once that there is no attempt in the Bill to secure any recognition of the enfranchisement of any land except land held on leases by trustees for the purpose of public worship; and I am sure your Lordships will recognise at once that there is a very clear and distinct difference between leases held for such a purpose as that and leases which are held for residential or trade purposes. The objects for which these leases are held command at any rate the good wishes of your Lordships' House, and can very easily be placed in a category entirely by themselves.
In Clause 1 trustees holding under leases to which the Bill applies, and which are specified in subsection (2), are given the compulsory powers referred to, and the Bill is to apply to existing as well as to future leases. The proviso to subsection (1) contains two exceptions to the right conferred in the preceding subsection—

561

(a) if the premises exceed two acres in extent the trustees shall not be entitled to exercise such right in respect of more than two acres thereof;

(b) this Act shall not apply where the premises are used or are proposed to be used for the purposes of a place of worship in contravention of any convenant contained in the lease.

Clause 2 provides the machinery by which the compulsory powers are to he carried out, and that is modelled upon the procedure prescribed by the Lands Clauses Act, which deals with the manner in which and the conditions under which lands can be compulsorily acquired, for purposes either of national defence, or general government, or of a local or municipal character, and, under certain circumstances—that is to say, in the case of railways or tramways —of a commercial character combined with public utility. So that you see a very similar power is already conferred on a number of companies, and considering the special circumstances of these religious bodies we do not think that it is asking a. very large measure of concession from your Lordships to extend it to places of worship. The sections of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, mentioned in Clause 2, are the sections dealing with the respective rights as to minerals. Clause 3 saves existing covenants. The first part of the clause is framed on Section 65 of the Conveyancing Act of 1881. The definitions in Clause 4 do not, I think, call for special attention front me on this occasion.
I might refer to subsection (d) of Clause 2—
(d) No allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory.
There are several precedents for such a provision as this—namely, in the Local Government Act, 1894; the Metropolitan Water Act, 1902; the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907; the Housing and Town Planning Act 1909; and the Development and Road Improvements Fund Act also of last year. The modifications of the Lands Clauses Act set out in the Schedule follow the precedent of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act and the Housing and Town Planning Act. Paragraph (6) follows the precedent of the Public Offices Sites Extension Act, and a similar provision has also been inserted in numerous private Acts passed by the London County Council. One matter in connection with this Bill has been mentioned to me which seems to have
562
caused some fear on the part of various members of your Lordships' House. It has seemed to them possible that trustees who acquired the sites of these places of worship would be able, having once enfranchised them, to sell the land for trading or commercial purposes. That, however, is not so. If your Lordships will turn to the Schedule and look at paragraph (3), you will 'see that it is there provided that if the trustees desire to sell the premises or any part thereof, Sections 127 to 132 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall apply as if the premises or part thereof were superfluous lands within the meaning of those sections. That, in our opinion, entirely safeguards the landlords supposing the trustees were to try and divert the use of this land to other purposes. We also think that it would be impossible for them to let the land for other purposes, although that is a somewhat technical point with which I need not trouble your Lordships at this moment, but with which, if necessary, we could deal in Committee.
Finally, I do not know that it is necessary for me to say more than that the object of the Bill is very plainly set forward in the Bill itself; and in view of the fact that' in all these cases the landlords must have been willing that there should be a place of worship on their land and have therefore leased land for that purpose, we do not think that in continuing that piece of land for the purpose of public worship we are inflicting any hardship on the landlords, who have already, as I have said, expressed themselves willing, and in some cases even anxious, that there should be a place of worship for their neighbours in that particular locality. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I should like to say one word on this matter. I personally had hoped that your Lordships might have been able to defer the consideration even of the Second Reading of this Bill until a later period of the session, because it is a Bill which, although not a new one, yet undoubtedly does raise several very important matters. It is, I suppose, almost too late nowadays to oppose a Bill solely on the ground that it interferes with private property or the

563
sanctity of contracts. But there was a time, not very long ago, when that would have been a good argument, and I should like your Lordships to consider for a moment the very rapid progress which Parliament is making in leaving off what no doubt are old-fashioned methods, but what at one time were regarded as methods of honesty. Land could not be taken compulsorily from any one unless for very good reasons given, except for some public purpose, and certainly for no purpose whatever unless the purchase was approved by Parliament itself.
That was in what I may call, I suppose, the good days, before we knew the present Government or their immediate predecessors; but since their advent to power there has really been a very considerable change. It began, I think, with the Act which was mentioned by the noble Earl in moving the Second Reading of this Bill—the Small Holdings Act. In that Act, I think for the first time, land was allowed to be taken compulsorily by an Order of a Department unconfirmed by Parliament. Now under this Bill you reach what really is, I hope, the limit of any possible villainy in this respect. You provide that an individual, of his own volition, may purchase compulsorily land which belongs to his ground landlord, without the approval of any Department or without the approval of Parliament. I venture to say that is a very large advance upon what we have always recognised as the methods of compulsory purchase of land in this country.
There are a large number of details in this Bill, even if we accept the principle, which require careful consideration. In many respects it is a very technical measure. I should like to refer to one instance, and perhaps it is only a minor matter. It may be quite right that a reversion of buildings used as places of public worship should be vested in the leasehold. It may be no real hardship to take away that particular reversion from the ground landlord, because I imagine that in the great majority of cases leases for that class of building are in any case continued. At all events in my experience I have never heard of a case where the landlord has exercised his right. But in the term "place of worship" is included the minister's house "attached to or used in connection with any place of
564
worship." I suggest to the noble Earl that there may be instances where the minister's house, although it is used in connection with a place of worship, does not necessarily adjoin a place of worship. A minister may be occupying a dwelling house which was not intended for a minister's house at all. There are many cases I know of where a house is provided for the purposes of a minister, but the clergyman has let it and taken a smaller house elsewhere. It appears that under this Bill he could claim that the purchase of the freehold should be allotted to him personally. That seems to me a considerable hardship upon the ground landlord. I do not wish to go into the details of the Bill now, but I hope, even if your Lordships do grant a Second Reading to the Bill to-day, you will be prepared to put off the Committee stage until after the autumn.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I cannot agree with any noble Lord who says that we are not competent to discuss this Bill now. This Bill in many ways has been urgently needed for years, and in some respects I do not think the Bill goes anything like far enough. The noble Lord who has just spoken complained of the tendency to extend the power of compulsory acquisition of land outside the scope of Parliamentary control. If your Lordships want to preserve your rights of property in land, it is essential that you should recognise the right of the community to come in and acquire land where it is necessary for the convenience and welfare of any substantial body of the population, provided fair and proper compensation is paid. The noble Earl the Lord President of the Council mentioned that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have power to acquire compulsorily land as sites for churches, and I think it is desirable that other bodies wishing for sites for places of worship should have similar power, subject to a right of appeal to some proper authority being granted to the owners of the land.
I do not see why, when there is a substantial body of the community wanting land which is essential as a site on which to erect a building for the common exercise of their religion, they should not have reasonable opportunities of acquiring it; and I believe there is not one in a hundred among members of your Lordships' House

565
who would refuse a site in these circumstances, however distasteful to him the doctrines of the particular body might be. I think the noble Earl the Lord President made a mistake when he said that you might infer, from the fact that existing landowners or their predecessors had granted the leasehold of sites for religious worship, that they were in sympathy with that object. I believe that many landowners have, from a sense of fair-play, readily granted sites for places of worship which were positively distasteful to them.
The noble Earl mentioned Wales. No doubt if you rake up the past history of Wales there have been many cases of very great grievance. I do not say that you could not rake up some cases of grievance now; but I believe that the number of landowners who would venture to withstand the criticism of public opinion and refuse a site is very small. I should be glad if this Bill went further, and enabled, under suitable protection of the reasonable rights of property, the acquisition of sites for the development of other purposes. Not more than an hour ago I was criticising an attempt to invade the rights of private property beyond what was necessary for the particular purpose to be accomplished, but your Lordships were quite ready cheerfully to interfere with the private rights of patrons, although previous legislation showed that that interference had not been found necessary for the purpose of providing new Bishoprics. I think this Bill is subject to criticism from the same point of view. I entirely agree with simple and cheap machinery for settling the compensation to be awarded. I would negative expressly the customary ten per cent. I think if people wish to enfranchise buildings of this sort, they should be allowed to do so at the real value. I do not see, however, that because the purpose for which any particular property is required is desirable the owner should be compelled to give up the reversion for less than its real value. By enacting, as is proposed in this Bill, that in determining the amount of any compensation the value of any buildings erected by the trustees or improvements made by them shall be excluded, the landlords affected would be made compulsory subscribers to chapel funds, and Parliament would thus be practising a vicarious generosity. If a man takes land on lease-
566
hold, especially on a short lease, it is quite obvious that he pays a much smaller-ground rent than if he took a feu or a, 999 years lease.
Lord Clinton called attention to the power to take the house occupied by the minister as well as the chapel. I assume the Bill means held under the same trust and the same lease. If in a town like Southport the minister of a chapel takes, a house convenient for his chapel from the ground landlord the Bill would not give him a right to enfranchise that house. I think the Bill means where you take one conveyance for the chapel and for a minister's house with it. If that is right if that is a sound principle to adopt, you ought certainly, especially in Wales, to go further, for practically every one of the chapels in the part of Wales that I know has also a chapel-keeper's house attached to it, and it is much more essential to the chapel that you should enfranchise the chapel-keeper's house, which is substantially a necessary part of the building, than the minister's house. If you are to affirm the principle that lessees should have the right to enfranchise the site of' their chapel without the landlord taking into consideration the value of the building, including the minister's house, then I say distinctly that in Committee you ought to extend it so as to include the chapel-keeper's house. If you grant the principle you ought fairly to go furthers. For my part I heartily agree with the principle. I am quite sure many of your Lordships who have property where there are a large number of these chapels have been only too glad to grant the fee simple where you could. This is a thing which all of us are doing as far as we can of our own accord. But it is one thing to do a thing of your own accord and another-for the law to step in and say this shall he done and your legal rights altered whether you like it or not.
There is another provision in the Bill, that the intermediate landowner, as I may call him, may take an annuity of the rent-charge instead of a capital sum, but the ultimate landlord, I think, is bound to be paid off in capital. I may mention that in Lancashire we have chief rent for perpetuity, or in those towns of Lancashire where we do not have chief rent we have a 999 years lease, which is equivalent to a perpetuity. I am

567
quite sure that many landowners would much prefer to get their rent in perpetuity than be paid off and have to reinvest their money. But, my Lords, this Bill in principle ought to be passed. It is very much needed. It is fair and proper, and I hope your Lordships will go a great deal further in recognising that the land on which the people live must somehow or other by law be made much more accessible for any purpose which is reasonably desired by a substantial number. I do not say that A.B. is to be able to go to a farmer and say, "I want this field," and get it. You have gone some way towards that by the Small Holdings Act. But where any reasonable section of the community demand land I think they ought to be able to get it. If, however, it is to be recognised that the lessees of chapel property are to get the property for less than the legal value, why should not a municipality be entitled, if they are fortunate enough to get a reasonably short lease from a landowner—say twenty-seven years—to turn round when the land has developed and acquire it under the law at a price below its value? As your Lordships have shown a disregard of this point in the case of ecclesiastical matters, it may be said that you will show the same disregard as to secular. Whether that will be the result or not, we have set a precedent which I notice your Lordships shuddered at when the question came up with regard to Ireland and Scotland. And if you set these precedents on behalf of the established Church and the Nonconformists, I hope we shall be equally self-sacrificing in the interests of the community at large.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down and my noble friend Lord Clinton have found in this Bill at least the germs, if not something more, of some very wide principle with regard to dealing in land. I do not look at it in that way, and I do not think the Bill deserves the denunciation of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton; nor do I find in the Bill any warrant for the proposals the noble Lord who has just sat down has made for a wide extension of the principle of the Bill itself to all kinds of property held for all kinds of purposes by all kinds of bodies. It may be right and proper that some consideration should be given to the necessity, which no doubt exists in some cases, for
568
regular religious bodies to obtain sites for places of worship. That is not a matter dealt with by this Bill, and it does not seem to me, therefore, to be a thing that can be profitably discussed on the present occasion. What this Bill proposes is simply this, as I understand it: that where the landlord or his predecessor has voluntarily given a site on a building lease for a chapel, when that lease comes to an end the persons representing the religious body which owns the chapel shall be entitled to claim the enfranchisement of that site on such terms as are proposed under the Bill. I believe there is a real grievance in this matter that requires to be remedied. I cannot quote a particular instance, but I have certainly heard of cases in which, where such leases have been granted, landlords have declined on any terms to renew them, with the result that the congregations had to discontinue their services in chapels where they and their forefathers had been worshipping, perhaps, for seventy or eighty years. I do not believe for a moment that your Lordships will defend such an exercise of his right on the part of any landlord, and I think the noble Lord is correct in saying that landlords as a rule have shown themselves most generous in these matters, and have readily given sites to religious bodies with whose principles and tenets they themselves entirely disagree. But as these cases to which I have alluded have undoubtedly happened, there is a grievance which Parliament assuredly ought to endeavour to remedy. That is all we are considering, as I understand it, in discussing the Second Reading of this Bill. But what has been said will be enough to point out to His Majesty's Government that there are points in this Bill which do require careful discussion and consideration, and in these circumstances I hope its further stages will be adjourned to the autumn sitting. We shall then have plenty of time to consider such points as have been raised with regard to compensation in respect of particular buildings which may be considered necessary for the purposes of worship in the chapel, whether it be the minister's house or the caretaker's house or anything else which is included in the agreement under which the chapel is held, and the mode in which the compensation should be given, whether by an annual rent-charge to the landlord or a lump sum. Those matters can be considered in detail when the time

569
comes. All we are asked to do to-day is to admit the grievance and give a Second Reading to a Bill which proposes to remedy it. I hope that your Lordships may be disposed to take that course.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I will only trouble your Lordships with a few words in support of this Bill on Second Reading. I think this question may be approached from two points of view—in the interests of religious communities and in the interests of property. Naturally it is chiefly as the Bill affects the interests of religious communities that I venture to say a few words. This is not a matter which directly concerns the Church of England. I should like to remove a misapprehension which might be created by what has been said, I think on both sides of the House, that the Church of England is in the habit of exercising compulsory powers for the acquisition of freeholds for its places of worship. That is not so. It is true that, by virtue of two Acts of Parliament passed in the reign of George III, the Church Building Commissioners, now the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, have such compulsory powers, but those powers are coupled with so many antiquated provisions that I am informed they are never used. I do not know of any instance within recent memory in which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have compulsorily acquired freehold property for sites. Therefore I should like to make it plain that it is not proposed to bestow upon other religious bodies a privilege which is in the enjoyment of the Church of England and which the Church of England continually exercises. What is true is that in the case of the Church of England no parish church can be consecrated until the freehold has been acquired. Therefore so far as our parish churches are concerned the difficulties contemplated in this Bill cannot arise. They can only arise in the case of unconsecrated buildings.
But I am informed that in many parts of the country there is, as has been pointed out to your Lordships, a very great grievance on the part of many members of other religious communities. They have spent large sums of money upon the building of their chapels. They have become attached to the place in which these chapels are situated, and it is a real
570
grievance if they should be subjected to the risk at the end of the time of being turned out of premises towards the erection of which so much money has been given and to which so much association is attached. It is because I feel that there is this grievance on the part of many Nonconformists that I trust your Lordships may so far as possible be able to remedy it. With regard to the matter as it affects the interests of property, it is obviously not within my competence to deal with that side of the question. I think it has been abundantly made plain that there are points in this Bill that require greater clearness of expression and of definition. With those I do not deal. They have been dealt with sufficiently by noble Lords upon both sides. As a matter of fact, I believe that the grievance alleged only occurs in a few cases, because am satisfied that the great majority of your Lordships would be willing to extend a leasehold in cases where money has been expended on the buildings. But there is, of course, always the possibility of an exception to that general rule, and it is to guard against the grievance that arises if powers are exercised by landlords against the interests of these religious communities that this Bill is directed. I can only say, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, that we give our cordial support to the general principle of this Bill.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I cannot help saying one or two words upon the debate we have just heard. We have been told by the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite that a. great ninny people would very much like to have the fee simple of the site of the buildings which they have erected on lease, and he thinks it a great argument in favour of his Bill that landlords have given their land for this purpose, and therefore in his opinion there is no injustice in annexing the freehold. I know that the ethics of private life and political life are totally different, It would not be possible for noble Lords opposite to treat such matters as these in private life as they treat them in political life. Supposing I lend the noble Earl a horse. I may possibly ask a little money for it by way of hire. The noble Earl's argument comes to this, "I have taken a fancy to this horse and now I intend to buy it"; and he uses my kindness in allowing him to.

571
use the horse for a certain number of months as an argument in favour of my taking no objection to his depriving me of my horse altogether. Those are the ethics of the present proposal.
This proposal is excused upon two grounds. One is that land, as is sometimes said, is a monopoly. It has again and again been stated in this debate that landlords have been liberal in giving their land to various religious denominations, whether they are in favour of the tenets of those denominations or not. Lord Sheffield, who, I think, is partial in such matters, made some reservation in regard to Wales. Of Wales I know nothing. I must confess that I was sorry my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn should have made the statement that he had heard of several very hard cases. Lord Clinton said he was totally unaware of any instance in which either buildings had been unfairly resumed, or the use of land for the purpose bad been refused. I do think that if assertions such as the noble Viscount made are to be brought forward they should be substantiated.
It has been implied that the monopoly to which I have referred is so great that these denominations cannot get land for their purposes, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Sheffield, said it was a great consideration how many people wanted it. That is an excellent argument for taking land compulsorily for religious purposes, but it is no argument whatever for taking advantage of a landlord's kindness in letting a site for a particular building and saying that that particular site should be taken compulsorily. I must say I was somewhat surprised, if he will forgive my saying so, at what the most. rev. Primate said. He most fairly admitted that the question as it concerned the landlord did not concern him. All he felt was that it was very convenient for religious bodies to get property. That I quite admit. But he went further, and said that it was a great grievance that buildings should be erected on leasehold unless the land could be acquired when wanted in fee simple. That is practically the argument he used. My Lords, how far does that go? It is not a religious argument. These people have erected the buildings on the understanding that it was a leasehold, with the full knowledge that at the termination of the lease they would be liable to be dis-
572
possessed. If that is the canon to be laid down by ecclesiastical authorities as to the way we should treat land, I can only say that it is rather a far-reaching doctrine.
I do not want to detain your Lordships by dealing with the details of this Bill. It is a very ill-drawn Bill and will require a great deal of discussion. It does not refer only to religious buildings. It is called the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Bill. I shall have to ask what is a place of worship. When I look at the definition I find that a place of worship means a church, a chapel, or a meetinghouse used for religious worship, and it includes a burial ground, a Sunday-school, and a minister's house. I think that is rather a large series of items to include under the title of this Bill. It does to some extent affect the Church of England, because a great many mission halls are given to the Church of England while the operations of the Church are extending with a view to the building of regular churches afterwards. That is a very good instance. I heard it stated just now in debate that the instances where a landlord would wish to resume the use of a building which had been used for religious worship were very few. But in the case of these mission halls, not a few of them are let on the understanding that when the parish is developed and when the church is built those mission halls shall be resumed for secular purposes. You are, therefore, by this Bill giving a power to religious bodies which they have not only never had before but which they have never dreamt of acquiring. I do not wish to detain the House further on this occasion, but I trust that plenty of time will be given for the consideration of this measure.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: My Lords, may I add a few words in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill? First of all, I have very true sympathy for those who suffer the tremendous hardship of having a building taken away that they have used for public worship for fifty, sixty or seventy years. That is one reason that induces me to vote in favour of the Second Reading. Another reason is that I am most grateful to His Majesty's Government for their attitude in this matter. They have brought before the public, in the most definite and positive way, their sense of the extreme hardship

573
which is inflicted on religious communities in being turned oat of buildings which have been hallowed as a place of worship for a number of years, and the hardship is enormously enhanced in the case of those whom it is proposed to dislodge from buildings the associations with which date back centuries.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I certainly do not rise to oppose this Bill on the ground that it necessitates interference with contract. I do not know whether I ought to make an exception in the case of the noble Duke behind me, but I doubt whether any of us on this side of the House would be prepared to vote against, the Bill on the ground merely that it allowed an invasion of contract. My noble friend Lord Clinton spoke rather wistfully of what he called old-fashioned ideas and old-fashioned procedure with regard to these matters. I would be inclined to say that, while the old-fashioned procedure for the acquisition of land for public purposes was very much too slow, too cumbrous, and, above all, too expensive, modern procedure is perhaps tending to become a little too rapid and reckless. I would certainly never resist a well-considered proposal for compulsorily acquiring property in the public interest, making always these reservations—that those who desire to make out their case must first show that there is a real necessity for such acquisition; next, that there should be proper machinery for compensating those from whom the property is taken; and thirdly—and perhaps this is the most important of all—that there should be a trustworthy tribunal for the purpose of determining what that compensation should be. It is upon that last rock, I think, which some of our modern proposals are apt to split.
The particular proposal before us does seem, I must say, at first sight to be a somewhat violent interference with existing contracts, because these are contracts which have been entered into without any duress being applied and between people who are perfectly competent to make contracts and presumably to protect their own interests. And not only will an opportunity be given for disturbing contracts, but they are to be automatically disturbed whether any grievance is alleged or not. On the other hand I freely admit that it seems to me desirable in the
574
public interest that the occupants of these places of worship should be given an amply secure tenure. I do not think it is even necessary that the advocates of these proposals should be able to produce a series of hard cases in order to support them. I would put it simply upon the broad ground that it was not a good thing that those who occupied. public places of worship should feel that they were liable, from one cause or another, to have their tenure rudely interrupted and to be expelled from the place in they and their predecessors may have worshipped for a great number of years. Therefore I think this proposal can be defended on its merits and without those somewhat dangerous excursions made by the noble Lord on the Back Bench opposite (Lord Sheffield), and, I think, also to some extent by the noble Earl who moved the Bill. The noble Earl began by making a very pointed reference to the prevailing dissatisfaction with what he called the leasehold system. That is a very large question, but for the present I do not think that the House need concern itself with more than the very concrete and limited proposal which is before it.
What has happened, I take it, all over the country is that many owners of land —I think I should be inclined to say most owners of land—have been ready to give to the different religious denominations opportunities of building places of worship upon their estates. That having been done, I doubt extremely whether there is any reason for giving them opportunities of resuming these places, because it is part of the scheme of this Bill that the trusts upon which the premises are originally conveyed are to survive. Therefore, all that will happen under the Bill will be that the chapel carried on as a Methodist chapel will continue to be carried on as a Methodist chapel. It seems to me not irrelevant to observe—and I believe I am correct in making the observation—that in the case of the Church of England it hardly ever happens that a new church is built except upon a freehold site.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: It cannot be consecrated unless the site is freehold.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My case is even stronger than I thought. That being the practice in regard to the

575
Church, I can understand the corresponding desire on the part of other denominations for permanency of tenure. I shall, therefore, give my vote for the Second Reading. But I think, after the discussion that has taken place, it must be abundantly clear to His Majesty's Government that there are a number of points in the Bill which require careful examination in detail, and it would be altogether unfair to the House to ask us to take the remaining stages of the Bill during the few days that separate us from the adjournment. The definition of "places of worship" is an extraordinarily loosely-drawn one, and certainly requires to be considered. There is again a. provision which affects not only leases but under-leases which requires to be examined, and I think there probably is a good deal to be said with regard to the whole of the proposals in the Bill relating to procedure. The Schedule is a very difficult document to study. It contains some extraordinary passages. May I read the first two lines of the Schedule? They run thus—
"The use of the premises as a place of worship and for purposes connected therewith shall be deemed to be the undertaking or the railway."
That may be excellent drafting, but at first sight it reads rather curiously. Therefore I do make a very strong appeal to the noble Earl who will follow me to tell us that he will rest content for the present with the Second Reading of the Bill and that the remaining stages will be taken when we reassemble in the autumn.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, this debate has wandered somewhat beyond the narrow limits of the Bill itself, and in one or two cases has been diverted into a general disquisition upon the rights of property in land. I do not propose to follow those who have made these excursions, because I think this Bill must be taken on its merits and in respect to the particular matters to which it applies. The argument for the Bill is that it applies to places of worship, and certainly I am prepared to maintain, and I should have thought that most, noble Lords in the House would have been prepared to maintain, that a. place of worship is intrinsically different from other buildings of the ordinary kind erected under similar circumstances. I entirely agree with the substance of what has been said by the noble Marquess who has just sat down, and it appears to me to be the main reason for
576
the Bill that the system of short leases is one which in itself is thoroughly inapplicable to an ecclesiastical building. If it had been applied to the churches of the Church of England we should have lost a great deal of that historic sentiment in relation to those buildings which those of us who belong to the Church of England so deeply value.
The most rev. Primate who spoke, as I was glad to observe, so strongly in support of the Bill, alluded to an observation of my noble friend's as to the compulsory powers possessed by the Church of England, and he very truly pointed out that those powers are not easy to exercise, and, as a matter of fact, they are not so far as I know, ever exercised. But, of course, it has to he borne in mind that there is not much reason to exercise them, because freehold land for churches can as a matter of fact always be obtained. I do not know what proportion of the land of England is in possession of members of the Church of England but it must be very large, and I feel almost sorry at this moment that we did not accept the proposition of the noble Lord opposite for a religious census, because it might have enabled us to insert a further table by which we could have come to know how much land belongs to members of the Church of England. It must be undoubtedly a very large proportion of the whole. Therefore the particular difficulties in respect of which this Bill is introduced do not arise in relation to the Church of England.
The noble Duke opposite took a very high line on this subject. He accused us of having an entirely different standard of ethics in public and private life, and asked how we should like to see in private life the principle of this Bill applied. I think the noble Duke has two very distinct standards of ethics—one for the House of Lords and the other as to his own estate management. Here we are familiar with speeches by the noble Duke pressing the rights of property to an extent which, I think, would almost have horrified a French marquis in the reign of Louis XV, whereas I am certain that in the management of his wide estates he does not press those rights, but acts as most, members of your Lordships' House do in giving a reasonable interpretation to the claims which he may possess by law.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Would the noble Earl specify in what respect I have to-night put forward any very strong views as to the rights of property?
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Duke apparently considered that it was an arbitrary invasion of those rights not to permit a landlord at the expiry of a lease of a place of worship to take it over and to put it to any use that he chose. That I consider to be an assertion of the rights of property which at this time it is impossible to maintain, and I am prefectly certain that the noble Duke on his own estates would not desire to do anything of the kind. I am convinced that if a case came before him he would desire to meet those who worship in a building of that kind, and whose fathers had worshipped there before, in the spirit that such a. case would be met, as I believe, by every member of your Lordships' House. I have no desire to enter into any of the various points of detail Which have been raised in the course of this discussion. The noble Marquess and the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, both appealed to us on this side not to ask the House to proceed with the later stages of this Bill before the adjournment. We should have been glad to proceed with them, but I can assure noble Lords opposite that in our desire to do so we had no malignant object in view. The reason why we should have liked to proceed with this measure and to get it through before the adjournment is that the autumn session will, I hope, not be a very long one, but so far as business in another place is concerned it may conceivably be a tolerably crowded session, and it would, in our opinion, have greatly facilitated the passage of the Bill if it could have been got through this House now and taken in another place in one of those intervals of business which, as one knows, always occur even in the most crowded sessions. Therefore, if we respond to the appeal of the noble Marquess and do not proceed with the Bill now, I hope that it may be possible to take the Committee stage at the very beginning of the autumn session. That will certainly give noble Lords interval enough to prepare their Amendments. All I hope is that when we reassemble noble Lords opposite will not ask for more time; otherwise the prospects of the Bill in another place would be in peril, and that, I think, almost all your
578
Lordships would regret, because I think from the debate the general principle of this measure receives the assent of the vast majority of the House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  LICENSING (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
CHILDREN ACT (1908) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments and passed, and returned to the Commons.

IRISH LAND LEGISLATION.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE rose to call attention to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Dublin on Tuesday, 19th July, in the case of the estate of Sir C. M. Dom-vile, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether this decision carries out the intentions they held when the Bill of. 1909 was introduced, and if not, whether they intend to propose legislation to Parliament mitigating the hardships caused by this decision in this and similar cases; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, before I say a few words on the subject of the Notice that I have put on the Paper, I desire to express my regret on two heads to the noble Lord opposite who represents the Irish Office. First, of all, doubtless I owing to the fact that I write a shocking hand, I have been totally unable to induce the printers to spell the name of Sir Compton Dom-vile correctly. I made two attempts, and I do not know which attempt was the worse. Also, owing to a lapse of memory which the noble Lord put right yesterday, I referred to the particular words of the clause in which I am to-day interested and asked the noble Lord whether they expressed the intentions of the Government when the Bill of last year was introduced. The noble Lord reminded me that they were introduced into the Bill on the motion of my noble friend Lord Dunboyne. I have looked up the records and remember the circumstances very well, and I hope this fault of mine in forgetting that fact has in no way inconvenienced the noble Lord in preparing for this afternoon's discussion.

579
If it has, I am anxious to offer him all the apologies I can. The fact, however, that these words were actually introduced as an Amendment from this side of the House I think strengthens my position in making the contention I desire to make this afternoon, for our impression of the significance of these words was very different from what the Courts in Ireland have construed them to mean. The particular words of the clause are—
"in consequence of any direction of the Land Commission a fresh agreement is entered into."
It sometimes happens, not in a case of the sale of tenanted lands but of untenanted lands, that the Land Commission direct an alteration in the price. It may be an alteration in the amount or in the method of payment of the price, and it has been held by the Courts that this direction does not constitute a direction to alter an agreement. It has been held by the Courts that it entails an actual tearing up of the old agreement and the making of a new one. That, we feel is a very substantial grievance, and certainly contrary to what we hoped would be the construction of the Act when it was passed last year.
I am quite aware that the three cases in question are large cases, but this can arise in very small cases and very great injustice will be done if the state of affairs is to he allowed to remain as we fear it may remain as the result of the decision of last week. I may say I know of small cases in which hardship will be caused unless the Government, either by legislation or by administrative action are ready to help us out of the difficulty. Imagine the case of an agreement for the sale of untenanted land, the price being £1,000. The agreement, if it is before the Estates Commissioners now, was probably signed four or five years ago. The Estates Commissioners, when the turn of that estate comes to be considered, may say, "No, we will not advance £1,000 in this case." They need give no reason for saying that. They simply say, "We are only prepared to advance £900." The usual thing then is for the vendor, who may he the landlord or a trustee, to go to the purchaser and say, "The Commissioners will only advance £900; what are you going to do about the balance?" and probably if the man is a substantial man lie gives cash for the £100, or part of it, leaving the remainder on second mortgage. The purchase money would remain exactly the same; the only
580
change would be that the vendor would lose the bonus on the £100 that he takes in cash from the purchaser. All that has happened is that the Estates Commissioners have directed a variation in the method of obtaining the purchase money. But if the Court of Appeal holds in these particular cases—and there is no reason why the same procedure should not be applied to every case of sale of untenanted land in future—that the agreement once varied by the Estates Commissioners is at an end and that a new agreement must be made, it means that the vendor will have to take Stock instead of cash, that the bonus will be reduced in accordance with the new scale, and that the purchaser will have to pay the higher rate of annuity. It does seem unreasonable that merely by this very small variation, in almost every case merely of the method by which the vendor receives his purchase money and not necessarily of the amount at all, all the advantages which were expected at the time the bargain was made should be lost to both vendor and purchaser owing to this, as I think, unexpected decision of the Courts.
These bargains were made years ago, but they have not been carried through owing to the fact, for which no one is to blame, that the administration of the Act of 1903 has not proceeded so fast as the actual signing of agreements under it. I cannot help thinking that by this decision of the Court of Appeal, which I understand is a finaldecision, the Government are every bit as disagreeably surprised as we are, and I hope they will be able to tell us that either by legislation or some alteration in procedure this difficulty will be got over. I am advised that if they gave a direction for the agreement to be altered in a way that might, as the result of negotiation, be suggested by vendor and tenant, the difficulty might be got over, and in that way vendors and purchasers, who certainly in equity are entitled to the benefits of the Act of 1903 in place of the disadvantages of the Act of 1909, would have those benefits secured to them. I hope that the noble Lord who represents the Irish Office will be able to tell us that His Majesty's Government are charitably disposed in this matter.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Dublin on Tuesday, 19th July, in the case of the

581
estate of Sir C. M. Domvile.—:(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, the noble Earl who moved this Motion has lost no time in bringing this matter to your Lordships' attention. I may say that there is no official report of what took place at the trial by the Court of Appeal in the case of Sir C.M. Domvile's estate, and we have to rely solely on a newspaper report. We have telegraphed to the Estates Commissioners, and they have given us to understand that in substance the report that has reached us is correct, but it must not be supposed as far as the facts are concerned that I am answering on any higher authority than the newspaper report. The noble Earl seems to me, in the speech he has made, to have altered the ground upon which he brings this case before your Lordships. If you refer to his Notice you will see that he at first asked whether this decision carries out the intentions of the Government in the Act of 1909. I understand lie now accepts the fact that the particular words with which he is concerned were not in the original Bill, but were inserted at the instance of Lord Dunboyne. He further, I understand, no longer claims that this particular case, at any rate, is one of hardship.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Yes, I say it is one of great hardship.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I understood the noble Earl to state a hypothetical case only.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Only because the hypothetical case was a small case, and these are big cases, I wanted to show that this is not only a matter of big sales and holdings, but a case which will frequently happen, and very often in small cases.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: At any rate the noble Earl does not now seem to think that there is any cause for legislation, and that very largely modifies the position he has taken up. I do not know that it is necessary to go very deeply into this case. It is a rather difficult and complicated one. The whole case turns upon the interpretation of words inserted at the instance of Lord Dunboyne, to the effect that the Estates Commissioners may make a direction in cases
582
in which some variation of the terms of purchase are contemplated, and that the effect of such direction on their part is to bring the new purchase under the terms of the old scale. It really turns upon that.
THE EARL OF DONOUGIIMORE: To remain under the terms of the old scale.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Yes, as the noble Earl says, to remain under the terms of the old scale. In this particular case there were three farms belonging to Sir C. M. Domvile, and in the year 1905 Sir C. M. Domvile came to an understanding with his tenants for the sale of those three farms at sums all exceeding £5,000. That was lodged with the Commissioners in 1905. The case was not reached until 1909. Then the Commissioners informed the trustees of Sir C. M. Domvile's estate that they could not advance more than £5,000 in any case. It seems then that the vendor came to an understanding with the tenants by which they were to pay the balance over and above the £5,000, and he applied to the Commissioners to see whether he could still obtain the twelve per cent. bonus and the cash under the old scale. He proposed to effect this in one of two ways, either by endorsing the consent on the existing agreements or by entering into fresh agreements by regarding the action of the Estates Commissioners as amounting to a direction. Upon that the Estates Commissioners applied to Mr. Justice Wylie, the Judicial Commissioner, and asked for a decision as to whether, if they gave a direction, the agreement would come under the old scale; secondly, if they gave no direction, whether it would come under the old scale; and, further, whether their minute saying they could not advance more than £5,000 constituted a direction. The Judge gave no opinion on the first point. He ruled on the other point in the negative—that is to say, that their Memorandum did not constitute a direction, and that, in the failure to give such a direction, the agreement would have to be regarded as a future purchase agreement; and that was confirmed on appeal, as the noble Earl says. But I would point out that there is nothing in this judgment to preclude the trustees front applying to the Commissioners for such a direction. I do not believe they have ever done it. Does the noble Earl know?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I do not know about this case. I know a case in which an application either has been made or is going to be made in a very few days.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: At any rate there is nothing in this judgment to preclude their making such an application; nor is there anything in the judgment to prevent the Commissioners, so far as I know, from making such a direction. Therefore, if I may say so very respectfully, I think that in bringing this forward at this stage the noble Earl is somewhat premature. For all we know the grievance which he thinks exists may have disappeared in the natural course of administrative action. With regard to the question as to whether this is a hard case or not, I am perfectly prepared to admit that if the decision as to this particular purchase had been reached before November, 1908, the vendor and the tenants would have been entitled to the much better terms which then existed. But I should also like to point out that when the parties entered into the agreement for so large a purchase as this, they were aware that, under Section 1, subsection (4), of the Act of 1903, agreements for purchase of over £5,000 could only be sanctioned if the Commissioners regarded such sanction as expedient, and also that a refusal to sanction voided the agreement. They must have known in the year 1905 that they were running great risks of not getting the agreement they had made sanctioned. I may further say, in that relation, that had it not been for the Act of 1909 the hardship, of which they regard this particular case as an example, might have been very much greater, because after September, 1908, the original terms of the Act of 1903 automatically ceased.
It is very difficult to say how far this case is representative. This is the first case of the kind which has been reached. The Commissioners are quite unable to forecast how many similar cases there may be in front of them; but I would point out that it can only apply to a limited number of cases. For instance, all the cases which you may define as zone cases must go through automatically, and the Commissioners would not have any power to vary the terms of the purchases as they have in this case. I may say that it is not at all the intention of the Estates Com-
584
missioners that this should be regarded as a precedent of what is likely to happen in the future, and I think it is really too early to judge as to what the effect of the interpretation of this particular phrase in the clause may be. Meanwhile I cannot see what there is to prevent the trustees from making an application in the ordinary way to the Estates Commissioners, and after they have made that application it will be time for us, I think, to consider what action, if any, it is necessary to take in the matter.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, it seems to me that the whole crux of this matter lies in the question asked by the Estates Commissioners of the Judicial Commissioner. I can understand him giving no answer. This has happened before. It happened in my case when I sold my property. I arranged with the tenant when the sum was over £5,000 that he was either to find the rest of it or it was to remain on second mortgage. But what I complain of is that His Majesty's. Government have expressed no wish to settle this matter. This is really a test case, and the noble Earl asked what they were going to do in the matter. The Government have referred the matter back, so to speak, to the Estates Commissioners. They say, "If the trustees choose, they can go to the Estates Commissioners." But I must point out that the Estates Commissioners asked a question of the Judicial Commissioner which is the crux of the whole thing, and that question is not answered. I do not see that the Estates Commissioners, if it is going to be referred back to them, can say anything more about the matter. The bargain was made under the 1903 Act; then came the Act of 1909, and when it is a question of the twelve per cent. bonus it is very easy to say, although we do not think it is quite right, "We do not look upon this as the original bargain; there has been a variation by the Commissioners." I can quite understand that upon that variation the Commissioners, or people in authority, may say, "Oh, no, this bonus cannot be paid on the full sum; a new direction has been granted by us." That is the whole reason why Sir Compton Domvile's trustees had to take the matter before the Courts. The answer the Government have given us now is to refer us back to the Estates Commissioners, which I consider most unsatisfactory.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The ease has never been raised in a substantive form. The Judge refused to give a decision on a merely hypothetical case. If the trustees apply to the Estates Commissioners then the case would come forward in a substantive form before the Judicial Commissioner.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Then he can really answer the question that they put to him. Now we have got to the crux of the matter, because that is the thing on which the whole question turns. I hope that the trustees of Sir Compton Domvile will refer it back to the Estates Commissioners, and then I hope the Judicial Commissioner will see his way to give a direct answer. We shall then know where we are. I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Ashby St. Ledgers, for explaining that point, and I have nothing more to say about the matter at present.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I have to thank the noble Lord for the hint he has given us, as regards this first question, that we should approach the Estates Commissioners, and I hope from the way he has addressed us this afternoon that we may look for as favourable a decision from them as we should get from the noble Lord if we were applying to him.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLONBROCK LORD CLONBROCK rose to ask His Majesty's Government for the following information as to the working of the Irish Land Act, 1909, during the period ended June 30, 1910—

1. How many vendors have lodged originating applications for direct sales from landlord to tenant and other sales;

2. What is the total of the advances applied for under such applications;

3. How many purchase agreements at three and a-half per cent. annuities have been lodged;

4. What is the total of the advances applied for under such agreements;

5. How many originating requests have been lodged fur sales of estates direct to the Land Commission;

6. How many holdings are comprised in those requests.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to put the Questions that stand in my name on the Paper with the object of obtaining information on these various points. At first sight Question 2 and Question 4 might appear to be identical, but they are not so, because Question 2 refers to originating applications which contain besides tenanted land parcels of untenanted land, whereas Question 4 refers only to the advances and the purchase agreements confined solely to tenanted land. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give me the information asked for.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, the information the noble Lord asks for is as follows. The Estates Commissioners report that from December 3, 1909, to June 30, 1910, thirty-five originating applications were lodged by vendors for the sale of the estates therein comprised direct to the tenants. In answer to Question 2, 352 purchase agreements for the sale of holdings on these estates have been lodged, and the purchase money applied for therein is £106,979. In four of these estates no purchase agreements have yet been lodged. In reply to Questions 3 and 4, 2,379 agreements at three and a-half per cent. annuities have been lodged, and the advances therein applied for amount to £611,226. These figures include those given in answer to the second Question, and the difference represents purchase agreements lodged for sale of holdings on estates in which the originating applications were lodged prior to the passing of the Act of 1909. The reply to Questions 5 and 6 is that fourteen originating requests have been lodged by the vendors for the sale of the estates therein comprised direct to the Land Commission. The estimated number of holdings comprised in these requests is. 480.
LORD CLONBROCK: I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state how soon the Annual Reports of the Irish Land Commissioners and of the Estates Commissioners respectively for the year ended March 31, 1910, may be expected to be in the hands of the public.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The Report of the Irish Land Commission for the year ended March 31, 1910, has been submitted to the Lord Lieutenant. It is now in the printer's hands, and will be

587
resented to Parliament in the course of a few days. The report of the Estates Commissioners is in course of preparation. The major part of it is already in print, and it will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Will it be laid before Parliament by November?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I cannot say. It will be laid as soon as possible.

HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS (DUBLIN) BILL.
Read 1s; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Lord Ashby St. Ledgers). (No. 149.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL—(UNOPPOSED ORDERS).
Reported without amendment.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL—(Merthyr Tydfil Order).
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Six o'clock.