Lords Sitting of 28 May 1913

VISCOUNT MOUNTGARRET.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Edmund Somerset, Viscount Mountgarret and Baron of Bells, in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the election of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
The Viscount BANGOR—Took the Oath.

DUNDEE CORPORATION (IMPROVE MENTS AND TRAMWAYS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

CONYNGHAM HEIRLOOMS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
BISHOP'S WALTHAM WATER BILL.
CHESTERFIELD CORPORATION RAILLESS TRACTION BILL.
SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL.
WESTGATE AND BIRCHINGTON GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
LOCAL GOVERN MENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
UNITED DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
MIDLAND RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL. [H.L.]
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
HERNE BAY GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
RICHMOND (SUBREY) ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS BILL. [H.L.]
The KING'S consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT 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.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONODGIIMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Purchase of ancient monuments by agreement.
1.—(1) Any local authority within the meaning of this Act may, if they think fit, purchase by agreement any monument situate in or in the vicinity of their area, which appears to them to he an ancient monument within the meaning of this Act.
(2) For the purpose of any such purchase, the Lands Clauses Acts shall be incorporated with this Act (with the exception of the provisions which relate to the purchase and taking of lands otherwise than by agreement), and in construing those Acts for the purposes of this Act, this Act shall be deemed to be the special Act, and the local authority shall be deemed to be the promoters of the undertaking.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I move to add a new subsection to provide that the Commissioners of Works may, with the consent of the Treasury, purchase by agreement, out of any moneys which may be provided by Parliament for that purpose, any monument which appears to them to be an ancient monument within the meaning of the Act. I was, unfortunately, not able to be present in your Lordships' House when this Bill was read a second time, but I have read the speeches that were then made. My noble friend Lord Curzon raised the point with which my first Amendment deals, and I agree so entirely
420
with the observations which he made upon it that I need not do more than say a very few words on this occasion. I venture in this Amendment to put back into the Bill the power of the Commissioners of Works, with the consent of the Treasury, to purchase. It seemed to me an extraordinary thing that this power should have been taken out of the Bill, and I do not think that the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, has had an opportunity yet of explaining exactly why it was taken out. I do not object at all to power of purchase being given to local authorities, but I think it is an unfortunate thing that the Government themselves should not retain the power of making purchases. I always understood that, the object in view was that local authorities should deal with monuments of a minor and local character such as could not be described as of national importance, but that if there was a case of an ancient monument of very great, what we may call of national, importance, the Government should obtain possession of it supposing it were for sale rather than that any local authority should attempt to do so. It is with a view of asking for an explanation from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that I have put down this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, at the beginning of clause 1 insert the following new subsection:
(1) The Commissioners of Works may with the consent of the Treasury purchase by agreement, out of any moneys which may be provided by Parliament for that purpose, any monument which appears to them to be an ancient monument within the meaning of this Act.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Earl who has just spoken. As I stated in the debate on the last occasion, I can see no reason why the power of purchase by the State, which was enjoyed under previous legislation and which was provided for in the first draft of this Bill, should now have been dropped. There may still be cases, as the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment stated, in which purchase by the State may be an infinitely more serviceable and more practicable method of dealing with the question than purchase by a local authority. I shall have a word to say about purchase by local authorities later on; but I would not have your Lordships imagine for a moment that very much is to be anticipated from the power of purchase by local

421
authorities, because, whatever their inclination, they have not the means. Therefore we should certainly retain the power of purchase by the State. During the Second Reading discussion the noble Earl in charge of the Bill replied to me that the provision in previous Acts regarding purchase by the Government applied only to monuments in the Schedule of the Act of 1882. I think, with all respect, that he was not quite correct in that, and that since the Act of 1900 this provision has applied to all monuments and not only to the restricted number to which he referred.
There is a reason which I did not hear stated by the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, but it is important in advocating a power of purchase by the Government. It is this. Under the terms contemplated by the Bill such purchase, as I understand, would be purchase under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act, and therefore would be purchase by the State in circumstances more favourable to the State than purchase in the open market. The State, with the protection of this Act behind it, would be in a better position to make a good bargain for itself. Surely in this matter, when we are trying to set up, or at any rate to encourage, a higher standard of public conduct, the State ought not to be behindhand in setting an example. It is all very well to say to local authorities, "You play your part; you conserve your local buildings"; but the local authorities will reply, "Why should not the State give us a lead?" My own impression is that the only reason that deters the Government from taking such a line is fear of the Treasury. I do not see why you should be any more afraid of the Treasury than local authorities should be afraid of the ratepayers. Indeed, you have much greater command over the Treasury than local authorities have over the ratepayers. In my judgment it is for the Government to set an example in this matter. I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will consent to do so on grounds both of logic and expediency—on the ground of logic because it seems unfair that local authorities should be expected to do the whole thing, and on the ground of expediency because there may well be cases in which the State, and the State alone, can be the purchaser. For these reasons I support the Amendment which my noble friend has moved.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): A great deal of what we may say on this Amendment is very much a repetition of the discussion which took place on this point on Second Reading, and I am afraid that our positions are the same to-day as they were on that occasion. Therefore I shall have to trouble your Lordships with, in some part at any rate, a repetition of what I then said. In the first place, we are of opinion, influenced very largely by some of the evidence given before the Joint Select Committee last year, that it is important to local authorities that they should be in charge of these monuments. The educational value of these monuments is so great that we should like to put in the forefront the duty of the local authorities to take possession of them. We think that they are more likely to be used in that way than if they belonged to the central authority.
But there is, further, the point mentioned by the noble Earl who has just sat down, that when all is said and done there is still retained by the Treasury a general power of purchase which is unaffected by this Bill. His Majesty's Government for the time being must always exercise the power of being able to buy if they wish to do so, and there is nothing in this Bill which takes away from the Treasury or the Department concerned the power, if great necessity arises, to complete the purchase of an ancient monument. But it is important to remember that, however great that power in the past may have been, it has never once been exercised. The noble Earl, Lord Curzon, referred to the statement which I made on the Second Reading, that power of purchase existed only with regard to those monuments which were specially mentioned in the Schedule of the Act of 1882. My impression, after reading the Act again, remains the same—that at the present moment our power to purchase only extends to certain specified monuments; and the fact that that power is not likely to be of very great use in the future is evidenced by the fact that although we have had the power in the past not one single building have we purchased, though in the Schedule some of the most important ancient monuments in this country have been included. We ask ourselves, therefore, whether it is worth while to include in this new Bill a power which in the past has not been found necessary.

423
There is yet another reason why the provision in the Amendment is unnecessary. We have gone further in this Bill in the direction of preservation and do more to prevent ancient monuments being spoiled than in the Bill of last year. Therefore for the State to purchase would be in a great many cases at any rate an unnecessary expense; and your Lordships will, I think, see that if you put in the forefront of a Bill of this kind the power of the Treasury to purchase, you are not likely to encourage local authorities to take advantage of the powers which you give them in later portions of the Bill. Considering the large sums which are demanded always from the State on occasions of this kind, it is clear that by putting the State in as a possible rival to local authorities we might do something to force up the price unfairly as against the Government or the local authority. But this is a Bill on which there has been so much general agreement that I shall not press the House to a Division in regard to the Amendment now before us. I would, however, point out that this Amendment, in so far as it creates a charge or a possible charge upon public funds, comes within that debatable ground upon which I venture to think it is sometimes wiser for this House not to trench. It would in another place involve a financial resolution, and in the present state of business I think it is impossible to deny that any further complication of the measure must retard and might even prevent its chance of passing into law during the present session.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: There are one or two questions which I should like to put to the noble Earl in charge of this Bill. In his reply just now he said that His Majesty's Government desire —and I sympathise with their desire—to put the local authorities in the forefront of the Bill, and to suggest to them the desirability of making these purchases when they can. But what will be the result? Look at what will emerge with respect to local authorities under this clause. In the first place the local authority can only purchase by agreement with the owner. That, of course, will in itself apply a very strict limitation to the number of cases concerned. Then I imagine that before the local authority buys there
424
would have to be an inquiry by the Local Government Board, and that the assent of that Department would have to be given in the event of the money being raised.
Thus we arrive at the stage when, presuming a desire to exist to buy and assuming the consent of the Local Government Board to have been given, the money will have to be raised. This is a point on which I ask for some information. How is the local authority going to raise the money? On what security will it raise it? I imagine it can only borrow on the security of the rates. Will the local authority be allowed to pledge the rates? One must remember this, that local authorities are very amenable to public opinion. The noble Earl said just now that the State had never exercised its prerogative of purchase. Quite true. But that has been due, as I contend, to a failure to recognise its duty on the part of the State, or it may have been due to reluctance on the part of the Treasury. But the local authority has its constituents behind it, and I cannot imagine any local authority, certainly none with which I am familiar, voluntarily putting on an extra rate in order to purchase an ancient monument. I am sorry to say that the local authorities with whom I have had contact do not care at all about the archæo-logical or historic value of monuments. What they think of is the value of the monuments as a means of advertisement for the locality, or as a means of entertainment for the people. If you can show that the proper safeguarding of a particular building will bring crowds of people to visit it at a cost of sixpence each, then the interest of the local authority is excited; or if you can show that in a particular locality it is desirable to have as an open space the ground around an ancient monument, they may be interested. But otherwise, their interest is very slight.
I venture to predict, although we pass this Bill, that just as the noble Earl has said that in not a single case has the Government exercised its power of purchase under the old law, so not a single case will arise in which a local authority will purchase under this Bill. I regard the clause as only of value as indicating to local authorities a form of duty which they will perhaps recognise in theory, but which I expect they will be very reluctant to convert into practice. However, it is not for me to disparage a clause of the Bill

425
will which I agree. But I should like to ask the noble Earl in what manner the local authority will raise the money, and the extent to which, if at all, it will be allowed to pledge the rates.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: What will happen under the clause will be that it will become one of its normal powers for a local authority to purchase such an ancient monument as there is within its own borders. Then the process which the noble Earl has accurately described will no doubt take place; but it will remain as it is now within the power of the Local Government Board to say whether in their opinion the money which it is proposed to spend is too much, or whether they think it undesirable that the particular monument should be purchased. We must remember that behind the local authorities there are the electors, and. that the local authorities may be presumed to be anxious to carry out the wishes of the electors, and with that, for my part, I am perfectly prepared to remain content. As to the local authorities acting, I am more sanguine than the noble Earl. Take such a place, for instance, as Anne Hathaway's cottage. I know nothing about it, but it is conceivable to me that the local authority would be inclined to purchase it, and then by the help of a certain amount of contributions—
*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The cottage belongs to the Shakespeare Trust.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I said I knew nothing about the circumstances of that particular case. But there might be lots of similar places which the local authority might wish to buy and which they would be able to secure with the help of contributions, with the future hope of visitors' fees, and with some assistance from the rates. I am not so despondent as the noble Earl is of the use which local authorities will make of this clause, and I trust that with the hope of contributions and visitors' fees they will see their way in many instances to purchase these monuments.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl has replied on many of the points raised by my noble friend, but he has not informed your Lordships whether a local authority could throw a charge on the rates in order to carry out this duty.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Yes, they could do so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My recollection is that in any Act of Parliament which entrusts local authorities with such a power there are words to the effect that the expense should be a charge on the county fund or on some particular fund. I hope the noble Earl will thoroughly satisfy himself on the point before the Bill passes, so that we may not have inserted a nonsensical provision which by itself has no meaning.
*LORD SHEFFIELD: Subsection (1) of this clause provides that any local authority may, if they think fit, purchase by agreement any monument situate in or in the vicinity of their area which appears to them to be an ancient monument within the meaning of this Bill. That obviously gives them power to spend the ratepayers' money upon the purchase, and I should have thought that if they purchased an ancient monument as a direct charge on the rates there would be no need for them to go to the Local Government Board at all. At present we are rather putting up sign-posts, and I hope that these sign-posts will be an encouragement to those who come after us to display more courage and go rather further in preserving our ancient monuments. We have seen, in the case of the purchase of important pictures by the National Gallery, instances where the Treasury have shrunk from giving the whole of the money, but where the Treasury have been stimulated by public opinion into supplementing the original grant. I have no doubt that if a monument like Kenilworth Castle was open to purchase by the public, the people in Warwickshire and outside would come forward with sufficient money to induce the local authority of Warwickshire and the Government to give contributions to complete the purchase. Therefore I hope that words will be inserted which will indicate not merely a power to purchase but a power to contribute towards the purchase.
THE EARL OF CROMER: Clause 21 of the Bill deals with the point raised by the noble Marquess as to the power of a local authority to levy a rate for the purpose of this Bill.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I had not the least doubt as to the power of local authorities to deal with the matter in the way suggested by the noble Earl. I will, however, look into the point, and if that is not so I will bring up any necessary Amendment on Report. But it never occurred to me that a local authority would be able to purchase an ancient monument out of its current rate but would require to get a loan, and in that way the consent of the Local Government Board would be required.
THE EARL OF POWIS: My own experience of local authorities coincides much more with that of Lord Curzon than with that of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. The noble Earl has given an imaginary case of purchase by the local authority. I should like to give a concrete case—I will not mention the particular place publicly, but will give the information to the noble Earl afterwards if he desires it—where the local authority is already the owner of a building such as would come under this Bill. It is a matter of the greatest anxiety in that county lest the local authority may destroy that monument in the interests of economy, and it is doubtful whether there is power to prevent them from doing so. I mention that as showing that there is a distinct danger in putting too great confidence in local authorities in regard to the care of ancient monuments.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, after the second ("the") insert ("Commissioners of Works or") and after ("authority") insert ("as the case may be").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:

PART II. GUARDIANSHIP OF ANCIENT MONUMENTS.
3.—(1) The owner of any monument which appears to the Commissioners of Works to be an ancient monument within the meaning of this Act may, if the Commissioners consent, by deed, constitute the Commissioners guardians of the monument:
Provided that the Commissioners shall not consent to become guardians of any structure which is occupied as a dwelling-house by any person other than a person employed as the caretaker thereof or his family.
(2) The owner of any monument which appears to a local authority to be an ancient monument within the meaning of this Act, and is situate in or in the vicinity of their area may, by deed,
428
constitute the local authority guardians of the monument, if the local authority consent.
(3) Every person deriving title to any monument from, through, or under any owner who has constituted the Commissioners of Works or a local authority guardians of the monument under this section shall be bound by the deed executed by the owner for that purpose, and where the owner of any land being the site of a monument is a tenant for life or in tail, or heir in tail in possession in Scotland, having a power of sale of the land either under the terms of a will or settlement or under any Act of Parliament, the deed executed by the owner in respect of the site of which he is so tenant for life or in tail or heir in tail shall bind every successive owner of any estate or interest in the land, and the execution of any such deed by the tenant for life or in tail or heir in tail in possession shall not render him subject to any liability on account of any depreciation of property attributable thereto.
(4) Where the site of a monument is, at the time of the execution of the deed, subject to any incumbrance not capable of being over-reached by the tenant for life under the powers conferred on him by the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890, or by the instrument creating the settlement, the deed shall not bind the incumbrancer.
(5) Except as provided by this Act, the owner of a monument of which the Commissioners of Works or a local authority become guardians under this Act shall have the same right and title to, and estate and interest in, the monument in all respects as if the Commissioners or local authority, as the case may be, had not become guardians thereof.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move to delete the proviso to subsection (1)—namely, "Provided that the Commissioners shall not consent to become guardians of any structure which is occupied as a dwelling-house by any person other than a person employed as the caretaker thereof or Ins family." I have put down this Amendment as a preliminary step towards leaving out of the Bill altogether dwelling-houses that are actually inhabited, and there are on your Lordships' Paper consequential Amendments to carry that out. I understand, from the Amendments which appear on the Paper in the name of His Majesty's Government, that they do not assent to that proceeding, but I do not know that I need press the point at this moment, because so far as the actual Amendment which is now under consideration is concerned the Government and myself are in agreement. But the Government propose to reinsert the words later on, and no doubt they will explain their reasons when we come to that Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out lines 7 to 10 inclusive.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think it would be convenient to your Lordships if at this stage I explained the difference between the Amendments standing in the noble Marquess's name and those standing in my name. What the noble Marquess does by his Amendments is to exclude entirely ecclesiastical buildings and dwelling-houses from the scope of the Bill. We are entirely at one with regard to ecclesiastical buildings, though I know that that feeling is not shared by some of the noble Marquess's colleagues. He and I, however, are agreed that we must exclude ecclesiastical buildings. What on consideration seems best to us to do is to put into the definition clause such form of words as will entirely exclude ecclesiastical buildings from the scope of the Bill, and then no difficulties can arise in the future.
Then we come to dwelling-houses, and this is where the noble Marquess and I are at issue. The noble Marquess's Amendment goes further than I think your Lordships would generally wish that it should go. His Amendment would make it impossible for the local authority to purchase a dwelling-house even by agreement with the owner; it would make it impossible for the owner of such a house to give his interest in it of his own accord; and it would also make it impossible for the owner of such a house to hand it over to the local authority so as to make them guardians of it. The form of words which I have put on the Paper and to which we shall come in due time, makes this distinction—that without the consent of the owner it cannot be done. The owner of the dwelling-house which is occupied can, by the mere exercise of his will, prevent anything being done. The noble Marquess would prevent the owner from handing it over by consent, but I do not put that disability upon him. I would allow him to do it if he were willing to do so himself. That is the point at issue between us.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I may say at once that I do not propose to discuss the question of ecclesiastical buildings, which it is quite clear does not arise on this Amendment. I am entirely in agreement with His Majesty's Government on that point. But as regards dwelling-houses, I understand that the point between, us is a very small one. The Government wish to retain power for the local authority, and, as the Bill now stands, for the Government
430
themselves, to buy a dwelling-house in which the owner is living. I think that will be a very unusual proceeding and not likely often to be availed of. At any rate, I am not concerned to resist it if the Government desire to have that power. There will, however, be rather a difference of opinion between us when we reach Clause 13. I do not think that Clause 13 ought to be applied to dwelling-houses which are actually occupied. As I mentioned in the observations which I made on the Second Reading of this Bill, there are many houses, with one of which I am very closely acquainted, which might easily become ancient monuments under this Bill, and by the Bill as it stands the owner would not be allowed to throw two servants' rooms into one without giving a month's notice to the Commissioners. That really is absurd, and Clause 13 ought not to apply to dwelling-houses at all. But it will be much more regular, of course, to raise that point when we come to Clause 13.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Your Lordships will see that the next Amendment is part of the scheme, the object of the Amendment being to allow the local authorities as well as the Commissioners of Works to become guardians by consent.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, after ("consent") insert ("Provided that the Commissioners of Works or the local authority, as the case may be, shall not consent to become guardians of any structure winch is occupied as a dwelling-house by any person other than a person employed as the caretaker thereof or his family").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Effect of becoming guardians of ancient monuments. [1882, s. 2.]
4.—(1) Where the Commissioners of Works or a local authority become guardians of any ancient monument under this Act, they shall, until they receive notice in writing to the contrary from any owner of the monument who is not bound by the deed constituting them guardians of the monument, maintain, and shall, with a view to the maintenance of the monument, have access by themselves, their inspectors, agents, or workmen to the monument for the purpose of inspecting it, and of bringing such materials and doing such acts and things as may be required for the maintenance thereof.
(2) All expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works in maintaining the monument shall, subject to the approval of the Treasury, be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
(3) The expression "maintenance" in this section includes the fencing, repairing, and covering in, of a monument and the doing of any other act or thing which may be required for the purpose of repairing the monument or protecting it from decay or injury, and the expression "maintain" shall be construed accordingly.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I move to insert, in subsection (1), the words "the monument" after the word "maintain." This is a purely drafting Amendment for which I am indebted to the noble Marquess opposite.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, after ("maintain") insert ("the monument").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:

PART III. PROTECTION OF ANCIENT MONUMENTS.
6.— (1) If the Ancient Monuments Board constituted under this Act report to the Commissioners of Works that any monument is in danger of destruction or damage from neglect or injudicious treatment, and that the preservation of the monument is of national importance, the Commissioners may, if they think fit, and if it appears to them that the monument is an ancient monument within the meaning of this Act, make an order (in this Act referred to as a Preservation Order) placing the monument under the protection of the Commissioners.
(2) A Preservation Order shall have effect for a period of eighteen months after the date on which it is made, but on the expiration of that period shall cease to have effect unless it has been confirmed by Parliament; and if a Preservation Order so made is not confirmed by Parliament within a period of eighteen months, no further Preservation Order shall be made with reference to same monument until after the expiration of five years from the date on which the Order which has ceased to have effect was made.
(3) The Commissioners of Works may bring in a Bill for confirming any Preservation Order, and if, while the Bill confirming any such Order is pending in either House of Parliament, a petition is presented against the Order, the Bill, so far as it relates to the Order, may be referred to a select committee or, if the two Houses of Parliament think fit so to order, to a joint committee of those Houses, and the petitioner shall be allowed to appear and oppose as in the case of a private Bill.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I move to omit from the beginning of the clause the words "the Ancient Monuments Board constituted under this Act report" and to insert in their place the words "it appears." I am rather afraid that the Advisory Board will not be quite so active a body as we should like them to be. Is it not natural that the attention of the representative persons who are placed upon such a Board as this, all of them with other occupations of a very important character, may not be drawn to these particular monuments with which the Commissioners of Works ought to deal, and deal at as early a moment as possible? Is it not likely that the members of this Board would act on the motion of the Inspector of Ancient Monuments, and is it necessary that they should intervene? I do not wish to suggest anything which would place a hardship upon an owner, but would it not be more reasonable for the Commissioners of Works to be able to act on the advice of the Inspector of Ancient Monuments? Therefore in order to make the action of this clause as easy as possible I have put down this Amendment, which might be better in another form, perhaps, but I have put it down in the simplest way I could think of. The adoption of my Amendment would enable the Commissioners of Works to take action on the advice of the Inspector of Ancient Monuments. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Southwark, has an Amendment on the Paper which makes some provision for these particular cases, and it may be more convenient to deal with the matter in the way that he proposes.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, leave out ("the Ancient Monuments Board constituted under this Act report") and insert ("it appears").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Your Lordships will see that we ask various important bodies to be good enough to send each a representative to serve on the Ancient Monuments Board. It will be their principal duty to report to the Chief Commissioner when from time to time they think that a special monument is in danger of destruction or damage. The main drawback to the noble Earl's Amendment seems to me to be this, that it would take away from the Ancient Monuments Board their chief duty and their chief occupation; and if the Amendment were carried it would simplify the Bill

433
if we got rid of the Schedule and the Ancient Monuments Board altogether. I should be reluctant to do that, as I believe that the existence of such a Board would be of great value in steadying the occupant of the office of Chief Commissioner of Works and in giving a general feeling of confidence in the action taken.
The Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of Lord Southwark seems to me to meet the case. That Amendment would allow the First Commissioner to act in matters of urgency, but otherwise forces him to rely on the Ancient Monuments Board. It is idle to conceal from ourselves the fact that all legislation of this kind creates a certain amount of distrust in. a good many minds, and it was in order to allay any fears that might exist that I proposed to institute this Ancient Monuments Board as a guard against hasty action. I am delighted to think that our proposal should be looked upon by noble Lords opposite as retrograde and unnecessary and as unduly safeguarding the interests of property. That is certainly a new position in which to find ourselves. But in view of the fact that there really are a certain number of people who are afraid that this power might be used tyrannically by the First Commissioner, I hope your Lordships will allow the Ancient Monuments Board to stand between him and the owners.
*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am disposed to agree with the arguments of the noble Earl who has just sat down. The creation of the Ancient Monuments Board is certainly one of the main principles of the Bill, and it would be a pity to take from them what will be one of their most important and most interesting functions. Therefore I hope that my noble friend Lord Plymouth will be content with the Amendment which is to be moved later by Lord Southwark, which gives him what he requires in another form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD EVERSLEY: I move, after the word "destruction" in subsection (1), to insert the words "or removal." I propose this Amendment because it is not quite clear to my mind that removal means destruction. As the subsection now stands, the provision is only against destruction. I think it ought to apply also to removal.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 28, after ("destruction") insert ("or removal").—(Lord Eversley.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I hope that His Majesty's Government will agree to this Amendment. I can give an instance where it certainly would have been applicable. When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer I received one day from the owner of Stonehenge a letter informing me that unless I gave a very exorbitant sum for Stonehenge and surrounding land the monument would probably be sold and removed by the purchaser to America. The removal of Stonehenge would be a national loss, but it would not be destruction or damage. The words at present in the subsection do not cover an action of that kind, and therefore, although I do not anticipate that such a thing would really happen, I think we ought to safeguard its possibility by accepting the noble Lord's Amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I quite agree with the noble Viscount, and am much obliged to my noble friend for moving this Amendment, which certainly does stop up a loophole in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SOUTHWARK: I move the addition, at the end of subsection (1), of the proviso standing in my name. As the observations which have been made by noble Lords in the course of the discussion this evening show that we are all agreed upon this proviso, it is not necessary for me to do more than move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, after ("Commissioners") insert ("Provided that, if in any case the Commissioners of Works consider that the making of such an order is a matter of immediate urgency, the Commissioners may make the order without receiving any such report as aforesaid").—(Lord Southwark.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The new subsection which I move to insert after subsection (1) is designed to meet an objection which was raised by a newspaper which published an article on the subject of this Bill, in which it was pointed out that unless the Board could inspect a monument which was believed to be in danger they might not be in a position to furnish a report, and that a recalcitrant owner might refuse to allow them permission

435
to inspect the monument. I hope your Lordships will agree to add this new subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, after ("Commissioners") insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Where the Ancient Monuments Board have reason to believe that any monument is in danger as aforesaid, and that the preservation of the monument is of national importance, they may themselves, or by any person authorised in writing by them, enter at any reasonable time upon any premises for the purpose of enabling them to determine by inspection of the, monument whether it is proper for them to report to the Commissioners:
Provided that unless the Ancient Monuments Board consider that the inspection of the monument is a matter of immediate urgency they shall give not less than seven clear days' notice to the occupier of the premises of their intention so to enter upon them."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move to insert a new subsection after subsection (3). The only remedy possessed by an owner who thinks himself aggrieved under the powers which are now conferred is that he may appear before the Committee to which the Preservation Order is referred and may do his best to persuade the Committee to reject it. He may possibly have a very good case, and yet any of us who have had dealings with Committees know that a man thinks twice before he enters an opposition, because of the enormous expense which it involves. The owner of the monument may be a very rich man, but he may be a poor man. Yet his only chance of justice if he has a good case is to contest it before the Committee. Then whom has he to oppose? He has to oppose the armed forces of His Majesty's Government, backed up by the bottomless purse which they have at their command, he himself being a poor man. Let us put the case that he succeeds. I believe that unless the Committee is unanimous he will get no costs against the Government. I submit that that is most unfair. I think the whole system under which the Government are allowed to enter into a controversy with a private individual in which the private individual, if unsuccessful, has to pay the costs, but the Government, if they are unsuccessful, will not have to pay the costs, is on the face of it most unfair. If the majority of the Committee think that costs ought to be awarded against the Government, then they ought
436
to be entitled to award them just as they do against a private individual. That is all that this Amendment proposes. There are precedents for it, but I will not trouble your Lordships with them as I hope there will be no difficulty in persuading the Government to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 12, after subsection (3) insert the following new subsection:
(4) "Where a Committee on a Bill for confirming any Preservation Order report by a majority of the members for the time being present and voting that a petitioner against the Bill has been unreasonably subjected to expense, or has been subjected to an unreasonable amount of expense in defending his rights proposed to he interfered with by the Bill, they may award costs against the Commissioners of Works, and any costs under this section may be taxed and recovered in accordance with the Parliamentary Costs Act, 1865."—(The Marques of Salisbury.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I quite agree with the noble Marquess that there is some case for an Amendment of this kind. I do not, however, quite like the extent to which the noble Marquess's Amendment goes. But I find myself in considerable difficulty in proposing an alternative, because any alternative would come within those limits of privilege to which I have already referred in relation to another Amendment. In the Parliamentary Costs Act, as your Lordships know, there is a provision that a petitioner who has been unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense is entitled in certain circumstances to get his costs, but he must get them by the unanimous recommendation of the Committee. The noble Marquess goes rather further than that. He asks that he should get them if a majority of the Committee think it right that he should receive them. What I would venture to suggest to the noble Marquess is that the general provisions of the Parliamentary Costs Act of 1865 should be made to apply to this Bill, and in that way the owners of ancient monuments would be put in the same position as the owners of any other forms of property. Otherwise the noble Marquess will be creating a new precedent in the way of placing owners of ancient monuments in a specially privileged position in the matter. I have the draft of my suggested Amendment here, and if the noble Marquess desires to move it in that form I shall be happy to hand the draft to him.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Earl wishes an Amendment moved in his own form he must leave the courage to move it himself. I submit that in this Amendment I am not asking for anything unreasonable. There is a precedent for it in the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, Section 145, and also in the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899. It appears, therefore, that our fellow-subjects in the kingdom of Scotland have in this case, as in many others, much better laws than we have. I do not know why that should be so in this case, though perhaps it is due to the fact that they are notoriously more careful in matters of money than their southern neighbours. May I say that I do not fear at all the terrors of privilege, for in matters of this kind the House of Commons has waived its privilege over and over again. I will adhere to the Amendment in the form in which I have moved it, and if the Government wish to alter it they will, perhaps, put their Amendment on the Paper for a later stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Effect of Preservation Order.
7.—(1) While a Preservation Order is in force, the monument to which the Order relates shall not be demolished nor shall any additions or alterations be made thereto or any work carried out in connection therewith except with the written consent of the Commissioners of Works.
(2) If, while a Preservation Order is in force, it appears to the Commissioners of Works that owing to the neglect of the owner of the monument the monument is liable to fall into decay, the Commissioners may, with the consent of the Treasury, make an order constituting themselves guardians of the monument so long as the Preservation Order is in force, and in that case the provisions of this Act shall during that period take effect as if the Commissioners had been constituted guardians by virtue of a deed executed by the owner.
Any order made under this subsection may be revoked at any time by the Commissioners.
(3) Where a Preservation Order is in force no sale of the monument shall have any effect unless the owner of the monument has offered to sell the monument to the local authority in the area of which the monument is situate at such price as may be fixed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as the price which the monument would fetch if sold in the open market, and the local authority have refused that offer.
Loan EVERSLEY: My Amendment to this clause is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 14, after ("demolished") insert ("or removed").—(Lord Eversley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: After the word "nor," in subsection (1), I move to insert the words "except in the case of urgent necessity." The object of this Amendment is to meet an argument that was brought in evidence before the joint Committee. The subsection provides that while a Preservation Order is in force the monument to which the Order relates shall not be demolished, nor shall any additions or alterations be made thereto, or any work carried out in connection therewith except with the written consent of the Commissioners of Works. It was suggested to us that there might occur a convulsion of nature, a thunderstorm, or something which would affect a monument in such a way that if the owner were unable at the moment to do something in the way of preserving, perhaps, a wall that was threatening to fall down, serious results to the monument might follow. It would be impossible, without the insertion of some such words as I suggest, to carry out urgent and sudden repairs. I therefore hope that the Government will have no objection to this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 14, after ("nor") insert ("except in the case of urgent necessity").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This is really more a matter of administration than any thing else. The noble Earl quite fairly instanced the case of a gale, or something of that kind, which might make urgent repair necessary. I can assure him that we should make no difficulty with regard to an owner who honestly did not do more than was urgently necessary at the moment. I hope we may be trusted in that respect. But the Amendment goes further. We have to consider two classes of people, not only good owners who wish to do their duty, but also owners who have neglected their duty. The majority of these Orders will have to be put in force against recalcitrant owners. It is not because I object to a single argument put forward by the noble Earl but because his Amendment goes further than he would wish it to go, that I hope your Lordships will not accept it. In the form in which he puts it, also, there is no easy method of deciding what is a case of urgent necessity, and it might be the owner who would decide it rather than the Commissioners.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I have put down an Amendment to leave out subsection (3) because I cannot see the use of this subsection. It seems to me that if, especially by the addition of the words moved by Lord Eversley which we have just accepted, all power of destruction and removal is taken away by the Preservation Order it cannot really matter whether the owner sells the monument to another person or whether it remains in his own hands. I fail to see what reason there is for preventing him from selling the monument without first of all offering it to the local authority. Moreover, the proposal might very seriously damage the value of the owner's property as a whole. The intending purchaser, attaching considerable value to the ancient monument forming a part of the property, might desire to purchase the property with the ancient monument upon it, and might give considerably less for the property without the monument, although the value of the monument itself might not be great. My only object in moving this Amendment is to prevent any hardship accruing to the owner who wanted to sell a property with an ancient monument upon it, and I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether there is any very important reason why this subsection should be retained.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 20 to 35, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I shall offer no objection to this Amendment, although perhaps I should explain that the subsection was inserted in order to encourage the local authority and give them an opportunity of purchasing the monument. But after what the noble Earl has said and more particularly in view of his remarks with regard to the harm which the subsection might inflict upon an owner who was selling a large property, I shall offer no opposition to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Expert aid to be given by Commissioners of Works.
8. The Commissioners of Works shall, as and when required, give advice with reference to the treatment of any monument which is placed under their protection by virtue of a Preservation Order, and, if in their opinion it is advisable, superintend any work carried out in connection with the monument.
THE EARL OF POWIS: The object of the Amendment standing in my name is to enable the Commissioners of Works, if they think fit, to give advice with reference to the treatment of any ancient monument which is not under their protection. An owner might prefer to keep the monument in his own care, and yet would welcome advice from the Commissioners of Works. It is in the interests of the public that owners of ancient monuments should have available the best advice that can be obtained. Your Lordships will see that the Amendment as drawn is permissive. It says that the Commissioners of Works may "if they think fit" give advice if invited to do so by the owner.
There is a subsection in Clause 16 which gives power to the Ancient Monuments Board to give advice, but I think that if Clause 8 remains as it stands without some such additional words as I have suggested it would look as if the Commissioners of Works were not entitled to give advice, and it might be read in that way.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 40, after ("monument") insert ("and the Commissioners of Works may, if they think fit, give advice with reference to the treatment of any ancient monument which is not under their protection and may, if in their opinion it is advisable, and if invited to do so by the owner, superintend any work carried out in connection with the monument").—(The Earl of Powis.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am very glad to accept this Amendment, but I hope the noble Earl will allow me to make a small alteration in it on Report. I would propose to add a provision that these owners should in the circumstances pay the out-of-pocket expenses—not fees, but just the out-of pocket expenses—of the architects who went down to give advice. I think that will be a reasonable addition to the Amendment.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am pleased that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has been able to accept Lord Powis's Amendment, because I believe that the provision will be of great assistance to many persons who desire to do their best by the ancient monuments in their care.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Saving for buildings used for ecclesiastical purposes or as dwelling-house.
9. This Part of the Act shall not apply to any structure which appears to the Commissioners of Works to be occupied as a dwelling-house (otherwise than by a person employed as the caretaker thereof or his family), or to he an ecclesiastical building which is for the time being used for religious purposes.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I move to delete from the end of this clause the words "or to be an ecclesiastical building which is for the time being used for religious purposes." This is a consequential Amendment upon the definition of what an ancient monument is.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, leave out from ("family") to the end of the clause.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
*LORD SHEFFIELD: I do not propose to offer any opposition to this Amendment, but I hope your Lordships will allow me to call attention to what the view of the Joint Committee was with reference to ecclesiastical monuments. The Joint Committee were unanimously of opinion that much harm had been done by careless restoration in the case of cathedrals and parish churches. They did not, however, recommend any alteration in the law, because they were agreed that if the existing law as to faculties was successfully carried out there was adequate power to protect these ancient ecclesiastical buildings. On page vii of their Report the Joint Committee say—
"The Committee are aware that the ecclesiastical authorities along with the general sense of the nation are increasingly alive to the necessity of protecting old churches while doing what is necessary for their use as places of public worship, but they are of opinion that there are still cases where due regard is not had to architectural and historic considerations in dealing with these fabrics."
It was admitted that there had been, almost up to the present day, cases where injudicious restoration had been permitted, but we were told that the Bench of Bishops were keenly alive to the importance of the matter and were doing as a rule what reasonable and educated public opinion would require.
442
We hoped that in every case the Bench of Bishops, probably by concerted action, would lay down rules among themselves by which care would be taken before any faculty was granted that there was no risk of injudicious restoration. We thought that they might cause the application for the faculty to be advertised in the district, so that persons interested would be acquainted with what was proposed; that then there should be a report upon the proposal by a competent body, on which were two or three architects; and that their report should be published. We felt also, as a further security, that if the Bishop over-rode that opinion he might fairly be asked to state in writing his reasons, and that those reasons should be published. In our opinion a procedure of that sort would considerably strengthen the hands of the Bishops, who are not always free agents in the matter. But, as I say, we did not recommend any legislation in regard to this question, and I do not believe it is necessary.
While we all felt, having regard to the sensitiveness of ecclesiastical authorities to State interference, that it would be better that any action in this matter should proceed from the Bench of Bishops themselves, we considered that the time had come when legislation might be passed providing that in the case of cathedrals and such buildings the two Archbishops might be the court of appeal in the granting of faculties. But prudence dictated that we should rather appeal to the ecclesiastical authorities than call in the omnipotence of Parliament. I think it was the caution and moderation of those members of the Joint Committee who came from your Lordships' House which a little pulled in the rein. It is sometimes said that too much should not be put into this Bill lest it should be destroyed in the House of Commons, but I would like to point out that the Members of the House of Commons who sat with us upon the Joint Committee seemed eager to do everything in their power to preserve these monuments, and were more inclined to call in the aid of the State in preserving them than we were. I hope that we shall have some intimation from the Bench of Bishops that they themselves are thinking of this question seriously, and will be prepared at some future time to lay proposals of their own before Parliament.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: I am glad, as a member of the Joint Select Committee, to find myself in general agreement with Lord Sheffield on this subject. I can assure the House that the Bishops feel very strongly on the matter. We quite realise that there is a certain amount of anxiety in the country, and there is no doubt that we shall do all we possibly can to allay it. It might save time, perhaps, if I just state what the instruction was which I myself desired that we should put into our Report. It was that we "were of opinion that procedure by faculty, when it is proposed to alter any parish church, should in all cases be strictly carried out, and that the chancellor of each diocese should have access to an advisory council, to whom plans of the proposed alterations should be submitted before the work was carried out." In the case of cathedral churches we felt that the "vast importance and the national character of these noble monuments rendered it essential that plans for dealing with them should in all cases be submitted to some central board of advice to he appointed by the ecclesiastical authorities, either one Board for the whole of England or one for each of the two Provinces." That very fairly expresses our view.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I communicated on this subject with Sir Alfred Kempe, who has been chancellor of many dioceses and is now chancellor of the diocese of London, and in his reply he says—
"I certainly do take account of archæological interest in dealing with applications for faculties for alterations in churches, and have frequently refused to allow alterations which appeared to me to be improper."
It is therefore clear that Sir Alfred Kempe has borne these matters in mind, and I believe that will be the universal practice among chancellors especially after the debates which have taken place in your Lordships' House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Notice to be given by owners of certain monuments.
13. —(1) The Commissioners of Works shall from time to time cause to be prepared and published a list of such monuments as are reported by the Ancient Monuments Board as being monuments the preservation of which is of national importance, and of such other monuments as the Commissioners think ought to be included in the list.
(2) Where the owner of any ancient monument which is included in any such list of monuments as aforesaid proposes to demolish in whole or in part, structurally alter, or make additions to, the monument, he shall forthwith give notice of his intention to the Commissioners of Works, and shall not, except in the case of urgent necessity, commence any work of demolition, alteration, or addition for a period of one calendar month after having given such notice; and any person guilty of a contravention of or noncompliance with this provision shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
LORD EVERSLEY: The two Amendments standing in my name to this clause are consequential upon the Amendments which your Lordships have already inserted enabling Orders to be made when a monument is in danger of removal as well as in cases where the danger is that of destruction or damage.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 9, after ("demolish") insert ("or remove")
Page 7, line 13, after ("demolition") insert ("removal").—(Lord Eversley.)
EARL FERRERS: I should like to ask whether this would not affect living sculptors. As the definition clause is drafted an ancient monument does not seem to be limited to what we should call ancient, but would embrace a monument of public interest on the ground, for instance, of its artistic nature; and if a statue on a pedestal might not be removed it would he rather tiresome for modern sculptors and their employers.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The two Amendments which Lord Eversley has moved to this clause are merely consequential, and I have therefore no objection to offer to them.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I move to omit from the end of subsection (2) the words "and any person guilty of a contravention of or non-compliance with this provision shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding£20," and to insert the words in my Amendment enabling any person who contravenes, or gives reasonable grounds for apprehending that he is about to contravene, the clause to be restrained by injunction. The real object to be aimed at is not punishment, but the prevention of damage. I do not know whether the noble Earl in charge of the Bill thinks it is practicable to insert such

445
an Amendment as I am moving, but it seems to me that the great object is to prevent a person from doing damage and not to fine him afterwards, which is not of ninth use.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 14, leave out from ("notice") to the end of the clause, and insert ("and any person who contravenes or is shown to the satisfaction of the court to have given reasonable ground for apprehending that he is about to contravene the provisions of this subsection in respect of any such ancient monument as aforesaid may on the application of the Commissioners of Works be restrained by interim or perpetual injunction by a Judge of the High Court from contravening the provisions of this subsection and for the purpose of granting an interim injunction prima facie proof of the contravention or apprehended contravention shall be sufficient.
(3) In the application of this section to Scotland, the expression 'High Court' means the 'Court of Session' and the expression 'injunction' means 'interdict.'").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I quite agree with the noble Earl that some Amendment is desirable in order to make it quite certain that there shall be some deterrent force to prevent owners from contravening the clause. I confess I am not wholly satisfied with the£20 penalty, because I suppose that an owner offending against this provision would not mind paying that, or indeed a higher, sum. For that reason I admit that the clause needs strengthening. But I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with the Amendment which the noble Earl has proposed. I suggest that the penalty clause should be strengthened by giving the alternative of a term of imprisonment, which I think would be sufficient to deter anybody from proceeding to destroy an ancient monument. We are here dealing with an owner who has been warned and who knows perfectly well that the monument is in the list and that he ought to let the Commissioners of Works know what he is proposing to do. If he disobeys the law he does so wilfully, and in these circumstances I suggest that we should omit "£20" and insert a penalty of£100 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both. I am sure that a mere monetary fine is not sufficient. If your Lordships, on consideration, are not, willing to accept either the noble Earl's Amendment or the one which I have suggested, perhaps you will allow me to put down an Amendment dealing with the point on Report, when it can then be further considered.
*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am glad that the noble Earl has recognised the importance of dealing with this matter. I think it would be rash for us straightway to accept his suggestion of a penalty of£100 and imprisonment, but it is well worthy of discussion. I hope, however, that before the Report stage he will allow some of us who are interested in the Bill not merely to discuss this matter with him but one or two other points which arise out of the same clause. In his remarks the noble Earl dealt with the case of what he described as the wilful owner. The case which is more likely to present itself is that of the willing owner, and what I want to be clear about is that, the clause as it stands does not inflict any injury upon him. Notice the procedure to be adopted. In the first place, the monument is to be scheduled. I am entirely in favour of the Schedule; I think it is vital to the Bill. But when you schedule a man's monument, with all the responsibilities, the possible difficulties, and even the penalties that may arise in consequence to him, you ought at least to give him an opportunity of stating his case before his monument appears on the Schedule. That was the view of the Committee, for in their Report they say—
"The Committee think that, in the case of an ancient monument declared by the Commissioners of Works, on the recommendation of the Advisory Board, to be a monument of national importance, and after au opportunity has been given to the owner to be heard, the consent of the Commissioners of Works should be obtained before any structural alterations are taken."
That seems to me to be entirely just. It seems hard that. I or anybody else who is in possession of some ancient mansion should suddenly find the building placed on this Schedule without our knowing anything about it. I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to allow us to discuss that point with him.
When a monument is placed on the schedule, what is it that it is contemplated will happen under the clause? The owner is to submit all his plans for alterations to the Commissioners of Works. Does that mean that he is to submit the initial plans for the restoration of the building, or all the plans that may he required from time to time? Take, for instance, my own case Tattershall. The work of restoration which I am conducting there will last altogether two years. Every week almost we make new discoveries as we dig, necessi-

447
tating new plans. I have had twenty plans already. Does the provision mean that if this place had been scheduled every one of those plans would have to go to the Government Department and receive their approval That would be a most serious thing to any one doing the work which I am doing, and might act as a very great deterrent. Plans of restoration cannot be discharged, so to speak, straight away; they must be spread over a space of time. It will lead to a great deal of delay if the owner is not to commence before permission is obtained.
But suppose without your permission he does commence the work. I do not see what you are to do with him. When I made that point the other day in the Second Reading debate the noble Earl in charge of the Bill replied that if the owner took the law into his own hands and proceeded the Department would at once put the monument under a Preservation Order. That is a very strong measure. You may have a man willing to do, and capable of doing, the work admirably; yet because he is not prepared to place himself entirely in your hands you hold over his head the threat that the monument will be placed under a Preservation Order. Further, a Preservation Order means in the last resort, if it is confirmed by Act of Parliament, that the Government—the State—will practically have to take over the monument. I see no alternative to that. But this can only apply to monuments of the first class, and only to a limited number of them; otherwise you will enormously increase the responsibilities and pile up the burdens of the State. Then I put the question, How are you to deal with monuments of minor importance, of not sufficient importance to be taken over by the State but of sufficient importance to be preserved from destruction I think we want some machinery a good deal more flexible than that provided by the clause as it at present stands, and this is one of the points which I hope the noble Earl will allow me to talk over with him before the next stage.
There is another point under the Bill. It seems to me that you do not save the very thing you may most want to save. Take the case of stained glass. I will suppose that under this clause you schedule Ockwells Manor, near Bray. As I understand the clause, you schedule the fabric but you do not schedule the contents. You could
448
prevent a man from doing anything to the fabric, but you would not prevent him from selling the armorial glass. Or take Rotherwas. Supposing that under this Bill you had scheduled Rotherwas, would you have been able to prevent the whole of the contents being sold as they have been and removed to America? As far as I can see, no. That is a point that requires consideration, and I suggest to the noble Earl that he should consider between now and the Report stage of the Bill whether when you proceed to schedule an ancient monument you may not also be able to schedule those parts of it which are essential. I have not put down an Amendment on the point because I would sooner act in consultation with the Government than independently, but I mention it now because it is relevant to the present issue.
There is one other point which I fancy is going to be raised by the noble Marquess. As at present drawn this clause applies to dwelling-houses. It is clear it cannot be allowed to do so. But even supposing it does not apply to dwelling-houses, I can see another difficulty which may arise. We will suppose that any one of us has a monument which we are anxious to treat in our own way. We desire to evade the severe restrictions of this clause. As I understand, all we have to do is to put a bed in one of the rooms and sleep in it a single night, and the building escapes. Take Tattershall. All I have to do is to sleep a single night in Tattershall Castle and you can have nothing further to say to it. I mention these as points worth considering, and I hope, as I have said, that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will not be unwilling to allow me and others to meet him before the Report stage with a view to considering some of the points I have raised.
*LORD SHEFFIELD: In my opinion we want both Lord Plymouth's Amendment and the provision in the clause. Power of injunction would be an effective deterrent, but we want also smaller penalties for smaller offences. Sonic noble Lords have talked as if they were dealing with private owners only. I think some of the greatest sinners have been corporations. The gates of the City of York are monuments of importance, but if you have a Philistine local authority in York anxious to widen the thoroughfare they might do what the City of London did in the case of Temple Bar. I do not say that I shed tears over

449
Temple Bar, hut I should regret the disappearance of the gates of the City of York. A corporation would not take notice of a line of£20, but every corporation would be afraid of defying a perpetual injunction. I would press upon the Government that we require the protection of an injunction, and for smaller things we need also the protection of a fine. The essential thing is to have a double-handed remedy. The importance in itself of a. monument is not necessarily the measure of its national importance. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Bristol is interested in inscribed scones, and we all knew that at one time local authorities would have taken inscribed stones to pave the roadway. As to dwelling-houses, if power is to be given to schedule a dwelling-house it must be remembered that in some eases practically nine pars of its importance lie in, say, its early frescos or painted glass, and if those are the essential parts of the ancient monument no doubt there would be a memorandum saying the building was of importance on account of certain things and that would make them part of the monument.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: By all means make the clause effective. I am in sympathy with Lord Plymouth and with the noble Earl opposite in the change which they propose to make. But I ask your Lordships to remember, while you are making the penalties more drastic, what a terrific clause you are applying them to. My noble friend Lord Curzon did not go far enough in his criticism. The first subsection of this clause allows the Commissioners of Works to schedule, not merely ancient monuments, but "such other monuments as the Commissioners think ought to be included in the list." They need not be ancient; they need not be of national importance; they need be of no importance whatever; and if the noble Earl will look at the definition clause he will find that the expression "monument" includes "any structure or erection."
*LORD SHEFFIELD: It must be of national importance.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not necessarily. Any monument may be scheduled which the Commissioners think fit to include in the list. I do not suppose that that is what is intended, but that is the reading of subsection (1) of this clause. Clearly the wording of the subsection will have to be reconsidered.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I cannot agree with the noble Marquess. If he will read the wording of the clause carefully he will see that we only take power over ancient monuments. But I quite agree that the clause would be the better for a consultation between those interested, and I shall be glad to arrange such a conference as will enable us to produce agreed Amendments when we reach the Report stage.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move to add a new subsection providing that the clause shall not apply to any structure which is occupied as a dwelling-house by any person other than the person employed as the caretaker thereof or any member of his family.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 17, to add as a new subsection—
"(3) This section shall not apply to any structure which is occupied as a dwelling-house by any person other than the person employed as the caretaker thereof or any member of his family."—(The Marquess of Salisbury)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have no objection to this subsection being inserted now, but should we find later that a further Amendment is necessary I hope the noble Marquess will allow us to make it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
*LORD EVERSLEY: The object of the new clause which I move to insert after Clause 13 is to provide that it shall not be lawful to sell any ancient monument or any part thereof for the purpose of removal out of the United Kingdom. This new clause is aimed at preventing the possible danger of ancient monuments being sold to American millionaires with a view to their being exported across the Atlantic. There have been several cases within the last few years in which threats have been held out that this would be done, mainly with the object of extracting larger sums of money from local authorities or from the Government or from private individuals. The first case of this kind occurred a few years ago when the owner of Stonehenge sent an emissary to the Government offering to sell it for£120,000, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to entertain so exorbitant a price lie was told

451
that the owner of Stonehenge would in that case sell it to an American millionaire who would ship it across the Atlantic.
Later there was the case of Tattershall Castle. The sale was effected to an American syndicate, not, I believe, with the intention of its being immediately sent across the Atlantic, but statements were made in the Press that it was the intention of the syndicate to send it across to America. Fortunately, however, the noble Earl opposite (Lord Curzon) most generously intervened and paid a very large sum of money for the castle, with the result that it was saved from anything of the kind; and the noble Earl is now engaged, I believe, in preserving it in the interests of the public. Another and more recent case was that of a very interesting building at Maidstone. The Corporation of Maidstone were induced to purchase it for a considerable sum of money through a threat that the owner intended to sell it to an American for the purpose of its being shipped across the Atlantic. I think your Lordships will admit that this kind of transaction ought to be stopped, if possible. I feel great doubt, however, whether these transactions could he stopped under the Bill as it stands.
Let us suppose the existence of a contract between the owner of one of these monuments and an American millionaire with the intention of its being sent across the Atlantic. I presume that in such a case it would be open to the Commissioners under the Bill to make a Preservation Order, and then it would conic before Parliament for confirmation. The question then would arise before the Committees of both Houses whether they would confirm an Order of that kind without calling upon the local authority or the Government to pay the value of the monument as appraised in the contract between the owner and the American millionaire. I feel doubtful on that point.
But there is another clause in the Bill which is worthy of consideration. Clause 7, subsection (3), gives a preferential right of purchase to the local authority in the case of the sale of an ancient monument. The clause goes on to say that the Inland Revenue is to determine the price of the monument, and that the puke is to he the full market value. What is the full market value of an ancient monument? It
452
be extremely difficult to determine. Is it to be determined by the price which an American millionaire has offered for it? If so, I am inclined to think that transactions of this kind will be very rare, and that the clause will be of practically no effect. On the whole, therefore, it seems to me desirable that a clause should be inserted which would make it clear that in no circumstances in future will it be permitted to ship an ancient monument across the Atlantic or to any other country.
There are precedents for legislation of this kind, though not in this country. Many European countries forbid the export of pictures or works of art which the Governments think are of national importance and should be retained in those countries. If that is permissible in the case of pictures and works of art, it is a fortiori permissible in the case of ancient monuments. If I thought that the insertion of this new clause would cause any difficulty in regard to the Bill in the other House I should not move it, but at all events I venture to submit it to the House and ask the opinion of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill upon it.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following, new clause:
"It shall not be lawful to sell any ancient monument or any part thereof for the purpose of removal out of the United Kingdom; and any such sale under circumstances which shall indicate such a purpose shall he of no effect."—(Lord Ercrsley.)
EARL BEAUCHAINIP: Your Lordships know so well the services which have been rendered by Lord Eversley to the cause which we are trying to assist this evening that you will appreciate my unwillingness to say that we cannot accept this Amendment. The noble Lord has had on the Paper during this stage of the Bill a number of Amendments all of which, until the present one, I have been able to accept. I venture to hope that he will be satisfied with the acceptance of those Amendments and not ask us to go to the extreme length of the clause which he now suggests. I think that in many quarters of the House considerable doubt will be felt as to the policy of such a clause as this having regard to the history of a great many of the artistic possessions of this country, which would never have come into the country at all if laws of the nature proposed had been in existence abroad in times gone by.

453
As to whether we should embark upon a policy of this kind is a matter which demands a great deal more consideration than can be given to it this evening. At any rate, it would be quite impossible to adopt the clause as it stands and add it to the Bill. We should be compelled to narrow very much the definition of an ancient monument. Moreover, such a clause would practically prevent sales by auction, because the vendor would never know whether or not the purchaser was going to move the monument out of the United Kingdom, and he would run the risk of having his sale upset afterwards on the ground that the monument was to go abroad. That would obviously put him in a very unfair position. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will consent to withdraw the Amendment.
*EARL CURZON or KEDLESTON: The noble Earl has pointed out, in his reference to its possible effect on sales by auction, a serious practical difficulty in the way of the acceptance of such a clause as this. I think there might be a difficulty also in getting a clause of this sort through the House of Commons. On the other hand I have the warmest sympathy with the object which the noble Lord has in view, because my own experience is such a melancholy one in that respect. Mention has often been made of what happened at Tatter-shall, but I do not think your Lordships realise that the mantelpieces had been torn out, packed in cases, and were in a stable in London on the verge of being shipped to America by an early boat when I succeeded, by a happy accident, in preventing their departure. My idea is that the best way to do what is desired is not to put a clause in the Bill prohibiting removal out of the United Kingdom, but when scheduling ancient monuments to schedule those parts which it is desired to keep in this country. In that way the operation of the clause dealing with demolition ought to enable a firm hand to be kept on these things. I hope that, after consultation with the noble Earl, we may be able to frame words before the Report stage to meet this point.
"LORD SHEFFIELD: In my opinion the mischief of destroying an ancient monument would be completed if you took the thing from its proper surroundings. To take some important pieces of a complete building and put them in a
454
museum is as destructive of the continuity of the monument as if they were sent to America. The whole interest of these things is that they should be in the place for which they were originally designed. Let us suppose that Dorchester House were scheduled. I think we should all feel that if the chimney-pieces were taken out of Dorchester House it would be a destruction of the interest of the building. I am glad that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill does not propose to load the Bill with this additional clause.
LORD EVERSLEY: After the discussion which has taken place I will withdraw the Amendment. But I may say that I have obtained something from the noble Earl in the Amendments which he has already conceded.
Amendiment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11:
Public access to ancient movements. [1900, s.5.]
14. THE, public shall have access to any monumeat of which the Commissioners of Works or a local authority are the owners or guardians at such times and under such regulations as may from time to time be prescribed by the Commissioners or local authority.
Provided than where the deed constituting the Commissioners or local authority the guardians of the monument so provides, the public shall not have access to the monument without the consent of the owner of the monument.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to amend the proviso, after the words "Provided that," by adding "where the Commissioners or the local authority have been constituted guardians of the monument before the passing of this Act or." The noble Earl said: This is a small Amendment the object of which is to safeguard any person who may have constituted the Commissioners of Works or the local authority the guardians of an ancient monument under the Act of 1900. I believe that under that Act no deed is required. The clause as it stands would allow the public to have access to any monument of which the Commissioners of Works or a local authority were the guardians, provided only that where the deed constituting the Commissioners or local authority the guardians of the monument so provided the public should not have access to the monument without the consent of the owner. If this clause were retrospective, it seems to me that it would not be just to those who had

455
made the public authority the guardians of their monuments and had not specially provided for keeping control over the 'question of public access.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 25, after ("that") insert ("where the Commissioners or the local authority have been constituted guardians of the monument before the passing of this Act or").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I quite agree that this is a point which ought to be guarded against, but it was our opinion that it was amply guarded against by the terms of the Bill itself. Where the owner had excluded the public, that right will be retained. We do not think there is any doubt about it. What the noble Earl proposes might prevent the public from enjoying rights which they had enjoyed before the passing of the Bill. Assume a case where the Office of Works had taken over a monument to which the public had access and had then spent a great deal of public money upon it. The Amendment of the noble Earl, going further, I think, than he meant it to do, would give the owner the opportunity of saying that he would not allow any further right of access, and though public money had been spent in the way I have suggested the public would not have that right of access which they had enjoyed in the past. Therefore I suggest that after the word "monument" where it first occurs in the proviso there should be added the words "whether made before or after the passing of this Act." Perhaps the noble Earl will allow those words to be inserted now and reconsider the point further on Report.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Very well.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend Lord Plymouth is wise in accepting for the time being the words suggested by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. He can look at them again when they appear in print and see if they are effective for his purpose. As I understand the old Act, no one was allowed access necessarily unless it was specifically stated that access was allowed. In other words, unless it was specifically stated that the public had access they did not have access. But I think the words read out by Lord Beauchamp would make it necessary for the owner to show that he had reserved his right. The point needs to be considered before the Report stage.
*LORD SHEFFIELD: At present the presumption of a person who puts his monument under guardianship is that he gives no right to any one except the right to protect. The provision here should only apply in cases where monuments are put under guardianship subsequent to the passing of this Bill. I thought that the Bill of last year gave access over the head of the owner and I called attention to the matter, but the noble Earl explained that that was expressly guarded against. The noble Earl is in possession of the point, and no doubt it will be put right on Report.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP then moved his suggested alternative Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 26, after ("monument") insert ("whether made before or after the passing of this Act").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 1.5:
Penalty for injuring ancient monuments. [1882 s.6; 1900, s.2; 1910, s. 1.]
15. —(1) If any person injures or defaces any monument of which the Commissioners of Works or a local authority are the owners or guardians or to which this section applies by virtue of an order in Council made thereunder, that person shall, on summary conviction, he liable either to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and, in addition to the fine, to pay such sums as the court by whom he is tried think just for the purpose of repairing any damages caused by him, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding one month.
(2) In England, any person convicted of an offence under this Act may appeal to quarter sessions in manlier provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.
(3) The owner of an ancient monument shall not be punishable under this section in respect of any act which he may do to the monument, except in cases where the Commissioners of Works or the local authority have been constituted guardians of the monument, and in that case he may be dealt with as if he were not the owner.
(4) His Majesty may, by Order in Council, declare that this section shall apply to any monument specified in the Order which appears to His Majesty to be an ancient monument within the meaning of the Act, and on any such Order being made this section shall apply accordingly.
LORD EVERSLEY LORD EVERSLEY moved, in subsection (1), after the word "guardians," to insert "or which is the subject of a Preservation Order."
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line:11, after ("guardians") insert ("or which is the subject of a Preservation order").—(Lord Eversley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Relaxation of byelaws.
18. Where it appears to the council of a borough or a district that the erection of buildings of a style of architecture in harmony with other buildings or artistic merit existing in the locality is impeded in consequence of any by-laws with respect to new streets or buildings in force in the borough or district, the council may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, relax the by-laws so far as may be necessary to allow the erection of such buildings, provided that the council is satisfied that such buildings can be erected with due regard I. safety from fire and to sanitation.
LORD RITCHIE: With the leave of the. House I should like to move an Amendment which does not appear on the Paper. This Bill provides for conferring, certain powers on every borough and district council in the country except the Corporation of the City of London. I imagine that that is an oversight, and therefore I will not trouble the House with any arguments on the subject, but will formally move my Amendment,
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 2, after ("district") insert ("which expression in this Act shall include the Common Council of the City of London").—(Lord Ritchie.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This is the first of a series of Amendments which might produce a very pretty quarrel between some of the local authorities in London, and I think it is very desirable that we should not pledge ourselves to take any side in the quarrel this evening. But if the noble Lord will be good enough to put his Amendment on the Paper for the Report stage I am sure your Lordships will be prepared to give it careful attention. In the meanwhile I am sure your Lordships will be anxious to follow the general practice of the House and not accept a contentious Amendment without.
LORD RITCHIE: I am quite innocent of the impending quarrel which the noble Earl suggests, but I will do what; he advises and bring up the Amendment on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Power of councils to make byclaws regulating advertisements.
19. The power of councils of counties and boroughs to make by-laws for the good rule and Government of their areas and of district councils to make by-laws under the Public Health Acts shall include a power to make by-laws prohibiting or restricting the display of advertisements or notices of such a nature, or in such a manner as to be detrimental to the amenities of the locality in which they are displayed: Provided that no such by-laws shall prohibit or restrict, the display of advertisements outside buildings other than ancient monuments or shall apply to such notices as may reasonably be required to warn off trespassers or for similar purposes.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I move, before the words "district councils," to insert the word "urban." The object is to make it clear that rural district councils shall not have power to make by-laws regulating advertisements.
Amendment moved—
Page line 13, after the second ("of") insert ("urban").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to delete the words "to be" ["advertisements or notices of such a nature or in such a manner as to be"] and to insert "in the opinion of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction is." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to raise the point as to what authority is to decide whether advertisements or notices are such as to be detrimental to the amenities of a locality. It seems to me that it is left so indefinitely that we ought to know what the intention of the Government is as to the manlier in which that sort of question should be decided. I therefore move to insert the words "in the opinion of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction," but perhaps the Government have in their minds other methods of deciding this question.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 17, leave out ("to be") and insert ("in the opinion of a. Court of Summary Juris diction is").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I confess that we do not like this Amendment, because it seems to us to be inserting a further and unnecessary authority. All by-laws are subject to some confirming authority. By-laws which concern public health go to one authority, those which concern traffic go to another, and so on. All by-laws of whatever kind are subject to some confirming authority. These by-laws would be subject to confirmation by the Local Government Board. What the noble Earl suggests is that, not only should we have the Local Government. Board, but he also introduces the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. In our view it should be considered as a matter of fact by the Government Department concerned, and not be put before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction as a matter of opinion, because you would then have the conflicting authority of bylaws and Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. Moreover, it is introducing a new principle to submit a by-law to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
*LORD SHEFFIELD: The confirming of the by-law is a matter for the Local Government Board. But surely you would not make the. Local Government Board the authority to decide whether the bylaw had been infringed.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The by-law would first be submitted to the Local Government Board, and if they approved of it any one breaking the by-law would be brought before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and the Court would in the normal way decide whether the bylaw had been broken.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As I understand, the power given is to prevent advertisements anywhere which interfere with the amenities of the district except outside buildings which are not ancient buildings. I do not object very much to this power being given, but I think the House ought to be fully aware of what they are doing.
*LORD SHEFFIELD: The power is limited to the case of ancient monuments.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a point on which I should like to be informed.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The clause follows entirely the recommendation of the Joint Committee on page ix of their Report under the heading "Power to Prohibit Landscape-spoiling and other Undesirable Advertisements." It is not confined to ancient monuments.
*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Is this, then, a provision against vulgar advertisements in general without reference to ancient monuments in particular? For instance, is it contemplated under this clause that local authorities are to act against the erection of the monstrous boards which we see from the windows of railway trains? When I saw this provision in the Bill I thought that the noble Earl wanted to save ancient monuments and the ground round them from desecration, but the reply he has just given seems to infer that the provision has greater scope.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I was misled by a double negative. As the noble Earl will see on reference to Clause 19, there are the words "Provided that no such bylaws shall prohibit or restrict the display of advertisements outside buildings other than ancient monuments, or shall apply to such notices as may reasonably be required to warn off trespassers, or for similar purposes."
*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: What does "outside buildings" mean?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As I understand, this clause is general. There is only one exception—namely, buildings other than ancient monuments. On those buildings advertisements are allowed to be displayed, but everywhere else they are to be capable of being prevented by bylaw.
*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Does "outside" mean the external walls of the building or the environment, of the building?
*LORD SHEFFIELD: My impression is that the noble Earl who moved the Amendment now before us meant that the sanctioning of the by-law should be with the Local Government Board, but that the question of determining whether the bylaw had been violated should rest with the local magistrates. I understand that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill agrees

461
with that. Now we have got on to a separate point, as to how far these advertisements are intended to be prohibited. The Joint Committee made a more sweeping recommendation because they recommended that local authorities might make by-laws prohibiting these vulgar advertisements where they were displayed outside or upon public buildings, erections, or ancient monuments. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill stated that the Government had adopted the words of the Committee. They have not adopted them exactly. Under the clause these advertisements are not prohibited outside buildings other than ancient monuments. The noble Earl opposite asks whether "outside buildings" means the external walls or the environment. We did not think it our business to meddle with the whole country-side. We were dealing with ancient monuments.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This discussion has arisen over the wording of the latter part of the proviso. I will see that on Report a form of words is introduced which is not open to misunderstanding on the part of anybody.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that the noble Earl admits that the Court of Summary Jurisdiction will have ultimately to decide, not whether the by-laws are good or not, but whether they have been broken.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: That is so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The object of the next Amendment is to make it quite clear that the borough council and the county council shall not have concurrent powers.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 22, after ("purposes") insert ("and that any by-laws so made by the council of a county shall not have effect within any borough or urban district in the county")—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Local authorities.
21.—(1) The council of every county and borough shall be a local authority within the meaning of this Act.
(2) The expenses of a local authority under this Act shall be defrayed, in the ease of a county council out of the county fund, and in the case of a borough council out of the borough fund or borough rate, or if no borough rate is levied, out of a separate rate to be made, assessed, and levied in like manner as a borough rate, and a local authority may borrow for the purposes of this Act in the case of a county council, as for the purposes of the Local Government Act, 1888, and in the case of a county borough council, as for the purposes of the Public Health Acts; but the money borrowed by a borough council shall be borrowed on the security of the fund or rate out of which the expenses of the council under this Act are payable.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I move to omit the word "county" ["and in the case of a county borough council."] This is a mistake which we wish to correct.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, leave out ("county").—(Ear Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22:
Definition of ancient monument. [1882, s. 11; 1900, s. 6 (1).]
22. In this Act the expression "monument" includes any structure or erection; and the expression "ancient monument" includes any monument, the preservation of which is a matter of public interest by reason of the historic, architectural, traditional, artistic, or archæO-logical interest attaching thereto, or any remains thereof, and includes the site of any such monument, structure, or erection, and any part of the adjoining land which may be required for the purpose of fencing, covering in, or otherwise preserving from injury the monument, structure, or erection, and also includes the means of access thereto.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I move to add to the definition of "monument," at the beginning of the clause, the words in my Amendment. This is consequential on the discussion we had earlier in the evening.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 8, after ("erection") insert ("other than an ecclesiastical building which is for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD EVERSLEY LORD EVERSLEY moved, after the word "erection" where it last appeared in the clause, to insert "or of preserving the aspect thereof."
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 15, after ("erection") insert ("or of preserving the aspect thereof").—(Lord Eversley.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I do not like the form of this Amendment, but if the noble Lord will allow me to do so I will bring up on Report some words which will carry out his object. The preservation of the aspect of a building may entail the keeping of miles of land free from building. On the other hand, in order to preserve the character of the ancient monument it might he necessary not only to preserve the aspect of the building, but also to preserve the places from which the building might be seen.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*LORD SHEFFIELD: On the Question that Clause 22 stand part of the Bill I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the definition of "monument." It is a definition which I hope the Government will consider before they part with the Bill. "Monument" is defined as including any structure or erection. Afterwards the clause deals with the site of any such monument, but it must be governed by the definition and can only be the site of a structure or erection. The general feeling on the Joint Committee was that this definition was not wide enough. Take the case of the White Horse. That is neither a structure nor an erection: it is an incision. We recommended on the Committee that "monument" should be defined as meaning "any immovable monument in the widest sense of the word whose preservation was in the interests of the public," and that it should include an earthwork, excavation, or structure. We found that the definition of monument in foreign legislation on the subject was much wider and in that respect much better. I hope that before Report or before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House the Government will insert words which unmistakably cover such things as the White Horse.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It is quite clear that such a case as the White Horse ought to come within the provisions of this Bill, but I am sure the noble Lord himself will see that the Amendment which was suggested by the Committee was not one that was likely to be approved of by the legal mind. "Any immovable monument in the widest sense of the word" would not be a definition that would commend itself to the draftsman. If the noble Lord would accept such a word as "excavation" we might come to an agreement on Report.
*LORD SHEFFIELD: I would much rather leave it to the Government draftsman to select suitable words now that attention has been called to the point.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25:
Short title and application.
25.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Ancient, Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913.
(2) This Act shall not apply to Ireland.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to ask why the Bill is not to apply to Ireland.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: They have in Ireland sufficient authorities, I believe, which can deal with the matter in a different way. There is no hidden meaning behind the exclusion of Ireland.
Clause 25 agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:

ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

Session and Chapter.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

45 & 46 Vict. c.73.

The Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882.

The whole Act.

63 & 04 Viet, c. 34.

The Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1900.

The whole Act.

10 Edw. 7 & 1 Geo. 5, c. 3.

The Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1910.

The whole Act.

Amendment moved—
Page 11, after ("The whole Act") in each place where those words occur insert ("except so far us it relates to Ireland").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Your Lordships may remember that in the Report of the Joint Committee there is a. suggestion that monuments which are scheduled as ancient. monuments should he exempt from Probate and Death Duties. There is no mention of such exemption in this Bill. I should like to ask whether the Government have considered the matter, and whether it is possible for us to raise it in any form on Report, or whether such exemption, if contemplated, would have to be made as an Amendment to the Finance Act both in this House and in another place.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am in communication with my right hon. friend upon the point. He is not unfavourably disposed to consider it, but he is of opinion that it should be done by an Amendment to the Revenue Bill or the Finance Bill—I cannot charge my memory at the moment as to which Bill he mentioned.
The Report of Amendments to be received on the 5th of June next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 50.)

UNDERGROUND WORKROOMS BILL. [H.L.]
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I propose to put this Bill clown for Second Reading on Monday next, but if it should appear between now and then that that day is too early for the Government, I shall be willing to postpone it again.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Monday next accordingly.

MACCOLL'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, in the absence of any business on the Paper for to-morrow, I beg to move that the House do adjourn until Monday next.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes kick re Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before One o'clock.