HL Deb 31 July 1918 vol 31 cc105-21
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I rise pursuant of notice to move "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying him to withhold his consent to the Order, dated 9th May, 1918, made by the Railway and Canal Commissioners under Section 13 of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916, in the case of the Minister of Munitions v. Chamberlayne." The facts and circumstances involved in this case are somewhat intricate and difficult to understand without careful study, but I will do my utmost not only to state as shortly as possible the position which I want to make clear to your Lordships, but to do it in such a way that, so far as the facts are concerned, there will be no controversy between me and the noble Lord who represents the Ministry of Munitions.

The estate concerned is in the county of Hampshire, and it is one of considerable extent and of great value. On one corner of it, adjoining land belonging to the South Western Railway Company, a factory has been built by the Ministry of Munitions. The factory was largely constructed before the passing of the Act in 1916, and the building of the factory extends over the boundary of the estate in which I am concerned to the extent of something under one and a-half acres. It is on the extreme edge of the estate, next to land belonging to the South Western Railway Company and, taken by itself, it is a very small encroachment on the large area of the estate; but the proposal under the Order is to take—in consequence of this small encroachment and under the terms of the Act—an area of not less than seventy-six acres. The declared intention of Parliament, so far as most of us understood it when the Act of 1916 was being considered, was to make sure that public money, which, owing to the exigencies of the war, had been expended on a munition factory on private property, should not be lost to the public. It was on that ground, and I think I may say on that ground alone, that the Government were given the powers of acquisition which are to be found in this Act.

I certainly do not dispute, and I do not expect any one of your Lordships will dispute, the right, or the policy, or the wisdom, or the justice of acquiring for the Government such a small area as is concerned here on which a factory has been built, or even a slightly larger area around it, rather than that public money should be lost. But my point here is that the Ministry of Munitions is availing itself of the power to acquire not only the acre and a-half which I have mentioned on the extreme edge of this gentleman's park, but also the mansion house and seventy-six acres—including a lake affording a valuable water supply—upon no part of which has public money been expended before the passing of the Act. It seems to me in these circumstances that it is an absolute abuse of power to attempt to acquire compulsorily under this Act so large and so valuable an area. I will deal in a few moments with the history of the passage of the Act, and I will show, as briefly as I can, what most of us who were present when the Bill was passed really understood by it.

To go on with my statement of facts, about which there will be no controversy, the Ministry of Munitions applied to the Railway Commissioners for an Order for the compulsory acquisition of this large area. The application was resisted, and the Ministry of Munitions claimed that on the true construction of the Act in question the Court had full powers to order the compulsory acquisition not only of all the land mentioned in the application, including the mansion house, but as much as they chose. I am bound frankly to admit that, on the purely legal interpretation of the Act, both the Railway Commissioners and the Court of Appeal have decided in favour of the Order. The decision of the Court of Appeal has been given subsequent to the time that my Notice first appeared on the Paper of your Lordships' House. I say at once that I am not going to attempt to challenge the soundness of the legal position. It would be very presumptuous in me were I to do so; and I also agree with the objection taken before the Courts to any narrative of what passed in Parliament so as to enable the Courts to understand what was meant by the Bill. I quite agree it is not the duty of the Courts to take into consideration what passed in Parliament What they have to do is to interpret the law as presented to them. May I say, and I hope I shall not offend any legal noble Lord, that I think the Courts sometimes take rather a malicious pleasure in deciding purely on the legal structure of the Act without thinking what the evident intention of Parliament was. But that is by the way. It is different here, and different for our purpose, and I do think that in these circumstances I may fairly ask the House to consider the arguments used and the declarations and promises made when the Act was passed and the terms in which it is standing on the Statute Book.

As the act was first introduced into the other House of Parliament it is beyond all question that the mansion house was wholly exempt, as well as the park, gardens, pleasure grounds, and the farm. In the other House of Parliament an Amendment on behalf of the Government was moved by Dr. Addison, proposing to remove the protection given to the park, gardens, pleasure grounds, and farm, and authorising the Commission to take by compulsory acquisition the whole of the property, including the mansion house, if any, where they were satisfied that it was of national importance it should be acquired. As introduced into the House of Commons that clause was challenged, and a considerable debate took place. I will quote one or two words of what was said— Sir FREDERIC BANBURY: It is a very strong order to say that a man may lose his house which has been in the occupation of his family for generations. Mr. ASHLEY: I understand that the Government will not take the whole unless the owner wishes it, and this, I think, ought to be made clear. It is not quite clear in the Amendment. Mr. RAWLINSON: The Amendment certainly ought to be drawn in another form. You ought to have power to take the land which you are now occupying, and, if the owner wishes it, to take the whole of his premises including the mansion house and everything else…Some unfortunate man, who has had a building erected on his park, suddenly finds that the Government have power not only to take that portion but to take the whole. They can hold over his head the threat that they are going to take away the home of his forefathers and the mansion house in which he has lived. I am sure that this is an obvious mistake in drafting, and that it could be put right on some future occasion, but I should like an assurance upon the point. Sir George Cave, speaking for the Government, said he could give the hon. Member the assurance he desired. Then there is a full stop in Hansard. But if the speech ended there it was a distinct promise, which every one would understand. The speech, however, went on—

We want power to take that portion on which the munition factory is being erected, and if the owner says 'You must take not only that part but the whole,' then we want power to take the whole. We will take care that words are inserted in another place to make that clear. Your Lordships will see that if they were to have power to take the mansion house it was only to be at the wish of the owner, and not on the mere declaration of the Minister of Munitions. That was the position when the Bill came up to this House.

Here, so far as this clause is concerned, the discussion turned largely on the terms of the proviso proposed by the Government. That proviso, moved by the noble Earl on the Front Bench, was in these terms— Where before the passing of this Act there have been erected on any park, garden, pleasure ground or farm, as above mentioned, any buildings for the manufacture of munitions of war, the Commission may by order authorise the compulsory acquisition of the park, garden, pleasure grounds or farm, or any part thereof, where they are satisfied that it is of national importance that it should be acquired… That clause was challenged by the noble Viscount, Lord Galway, and a discussion followed. I want to quote one sentence from the speech of Lord Buckmaster, who was then upon the Woolsack, and, of course, was speaking for the Government. He said— I must say that if I were preparing a case in order to show that it was of national importance that the park should be retained, I should think I had a very difficult task to satisfy any tribunal in the matter if I could only satisfy them in extreme cases. Lord Elphinstone moved an Amendment which proposed that the park should not be taken by itself, and if the park was to be taken then the mansion house could also be acquired if the owner desired.

I should like to lay emphasis on those words. All through the discussion in both Houses of Parliament the mansion house, the home of the individual, was only to be taken if he desired it. The issue was that perhaps everything would be taken around about the mansion house, and the owner left with the mansion house alone. That was repudiated, and there was an understanding that the mansion house was not to be taken unless the owner thought it was in his interests that it should be taken. The argument, which proceeded from the noble Lord then on the Woolsack certainly lent force to the contention that the obvious interpretation of the Amendment inserted in this House was that the mansion house should not be taken unless the owner desired that it should be taken. On that occasion the Amendment proposed by Lord Elphinstone was rejected by the House, but on the Third Reading the same Amendment was put in, with an additional clause with regard to laying the Order before both Houses of Parliament. I want to emphasise this point. All through the discussions—I have read them over and over again, although I took no part in them—I most strongly say that it was understood by those for whom I am speaking that the option whether the mansion house should be taken or not was to remain with the owner. Whether justified in that assumption or not, I can give your Lordships the assurance that the parties so understood it. As I have said, the Courts have decided against that view on a strict interpretation of the terms of the clause, and they came to that decision no doubt with perfect good faith. No doubt it was because they could not know what had passed in Parliament in regard to this matter.

In any case there has been a serious misunderstanding. Either the promise was intended to be made, or else the fact remains that the promise has not been carried out. I anticipate that what the Government will say on the matter is that their promise was not what it was understood to be, that they did their best to carry out what their real intention was. In my opinion the action taken by the Minister was harsh and unjustifiable. The clause as it stands in the Act was put in at a subsequent stage. As a matter of fact it was proposed on the Report stage but rejected, and it was renewed upon the Third Reading, and then was inserted in spite of the objections taken by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees as a matter of procedure. It is because of this proviso that I am doing my best to speak to-night on this intricate and difficult question.

Under the Act as it stands the only remedy which the owner has is under the last part of the proviso to the first subsection of Section 13 of the Act, which is in these terms— Before the Order made by the Commission comes into effect, a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of thirty days on which that House has sat, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of that period presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon. When this proposal was made it was carefully discussed by the House, and the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees pointed out that it was a very grave departure from the usual practice, and that whichever House it was submitted to would have to decide not by Committee but by debate in the House itself, and he asked what the vast majority of people concerned would have the power to do. Were they to appear by counsel, or how were the parties to be heard in the matter? The proposal was withdrawn, but it was renewed on the third occasion, and, as I have said, in spite of the objections taken by the Chairman of Committees, was passed.

The very circumstances foreseen by the Chairman of Committees have occurred. This high-handed act has been proposed by the Ministry of Munitions, and the only remedy which the owner of the property has is to request a humble individual like myself, who has had no practice in pleading this class of case, to state his position, such as it is, to Parliament. I have done my best to look into it, and I think that a wholly unnecessary and improper hardship is being inflicted upon an innocent individual, and I have now to ask that your Lordships will give your consent to the Address which I have moved.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying him to withhold his consent to the Order, dated 9th May, 1918, made by the Railway and Canal Commissioners under section 13 of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916, in the case of the Minister of Munitions v. Chamberlayne.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

LORD ELPHINSTONE

My Lords, the motion which has been made by the noble Lord, raises a question of very great importance to the State, and I will endeavour to follow his example and be as brief as possible. At the same time I would like to meet as fully and frankly as I can the various points which he has raised. The noble Lord has briefly sketched the origin of the Acquisition of Land Act, I need hardly say, quite correctly. The chief object of that Act was, as he stated, to enable the Government compulsorily to acquire land where during the war munition or other factories had been erected at the expense of the State. I think that both Houses of Parliament fully recognised that where private interest conflicted with important national interest, private interest, properly compensated, must give way.

This clause—Clause 13—as the noble Lord has said, had a very troublous career in this House. I remember stating, I think on three different occasions, that there were only two cases in the whole of the country which would fall within the scope of that clause, but that those two cases were of such eminent importance from a national point of view that it really was essential, by some means or another, to secure those two properties. I rather lay stress on the words "those two properties," because I did not qualify them in any way, and I think that I am quite entitled to say that I never made any secret at all of what the intentions of the Government were in the event of the Clause passing; in fact, the only reason that the clause was passed was to secure these two properties.

What happend in another place? The then Solicitor-General, who was in charge of the Bill, on the consideration of the Lords Amendments on December 21 used these words— We are all agreed that parks shall not be taken by compulsion; but, as the right hon. gentleman—— that is Dr. Addison, then Minister of Munitions— has told the house, there were two cases in which parks were in fact being used for munition factories, and he asked the House to make an exception in those cases, and to allow us to take those two parks under this general provision. I think this makes it quite clear what it was that we were asking for. It was these two parks. He went on to say that they belonged to two persons, who, though they would sell, would only do so at prohibitive prices, failing any legislation, so that if the House accepted the provision it would cover these two cases. That is a very clear and definite statement of what the intentions of the Government were with regard to these two properties.

This very large and important factory had been erected prior to the passing of the Act, partly on land belonging to the London and South Western Railway and partly on land adjoining, belonging to Mr. Tankerville Chamberlayne. The factory has cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of £1,200,000. We made application in due course, as provided by the Act, to the Railway and Canal Commission for their consent to purchase this property. Their consent depended on two things. The first was whether or not the munition factory had been erected in the park before the passing of the Act, and the second was whether or not, in their opinion, it was of urgent national importance that the park should be secured. They decided unanimously that it was imperative that the Government should acquire not the whole of the park but the greater portion of it, so as to secure not only the actual factory itself but what was equally important, access to the factory and a large water supply, without which the factory could not exist. They also decided that it was absolutely necessary that the administrative block adjacent to the factory, which was known as Weston House, should be acquired. The owner appealed, as he was entitled to do, but the appeal was unanimously dismissed. I think, therefore, that there can be no doubt as to the national importance of acquiring this land.

I take it that the noble Lord's criticism is that we have taken advantage of the existence of this important factory, covering relatively only a very small acreage, in order to secure an unnecessary and excessive or an unreasonable amount of the park, and also I gather that statements were made both in this House and in another place which ought to have prevented us morally, if not legally, from taking the mansion house. The third criticism that the noble Lord raised was that of occasioning grave hardship upon the owner. I shall be very glad to deal with all those points. As regards the area taken, it was conclusively proved that it was absolutely necessary for the two reasons that I have already mentioned—first of access, second of water. As regards access, a new road had to be constructed by the Ministry of Munitions across the Park on the further side of the house from the factory, completely cutting off the house and factory from the rest of the park. It was admitted by those who were representing Mr. Tankerville Chamberlayne that the State must have this road. In the appeal the learned counsel who represented Mr. Chamberlayne used these words— I am convinced that the State, in the particular circumstances, must have a road to it. Now as to the water supply. This factory, which is a very important national one, uses somewhere in the neighbourhood of 600,000 gallons of water a day, a small fraction only of which it is possible to procure from the local water company. The only other source for the remainder is the pond which is in the park. This subject occupied a great deal of time when the case was heard, and this is what was said in the judgment— As to the water supply, it is clearly of great importance that it should be acquired, as well as the land which connects it with the factory. A very large daily supply is necessary for the manufacture of the munitions of war, and the Water Company are not in a position to supply it. We cannot grant an easement even if that were satisfactory, which I do not think it would be. It is obvious that the water supply is essential for the purposes of the factory, and that the unfettered access to and control of it should be in the same hands. This also was unanimously the opinion of the Appeal Court, and I do not think I could possibly bring forward any stronger evidence in favour of the action that was taken by the Ministry.

Coming now to the house, I am perfectly well aware of what the then Solicitor- General stated in another place, and winch has been quoted by the noble Lord. But I should like to state that I think it was made equally clear there, as it was by me here, that whatever might happen in other cases these two properties must be acquired, and that it was the intention of the Government to acquire them. I submit that this was accepted by both Houses, that these were admitted to be exceptional cases, and that they must by some means or other be acquired. One of the objections taken in another place to that particular clause was that occupation ought to be the test, and that the Government should not have the power to take more than they were occupying. In this particular case we are only taking what we have been occupying for two and a half years.

Another objection that was taken—and it was also raised in this House by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—was that although I stated definitely that there were only two cases in this country, as we were enacting legislation which covered the whole country we might possibly find eventually that there were other cases which we had not for the moment thought of which would be covered by this clause and that the circumstances might be quite different from these two cases and great hardships might be inflicted. I think that is perfectly obvious, and it was recognised, although we did not think there were any cases to which it could apply. Those were the hypothetical cases to which the remarks of Sir George Cave, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, applied—cases, for instance, where you might have a munition factory erected in a corner of a park, the mansion house some considerable distance off, possibly a mile or more, absolutely unconnected with the factory, where it would be very hard that the owner should lose the house and possibly the whole park. The Government had, and has, every intention of acting in the spirit which was then expressed, and I should like to point out that it would be absolutely impossible for them to do otherwise; because in those cases, I say without fear of contradiction, it would be quite impossible to get, first of all, the Railway and Canal Commission, a perfectly independent tribunal, then the Appeal Court, then in the last resort both Houses of Parliament to decide that it was in those cases essential in the national interest that those parks and those mansion houses should be acquired. They are therefore amply protected. This par- ticular case that we are discussing to-day is not a case of that sort at all, quite apart from the fact that I think it was always clearly understood in both Houses that this property must be acquired. I am glad to say that in the case of the other one that I mentioned no difficulty arises. I made it quite clear that they would both have to be acquired.

What are the facts in this particular case? The Ministry of Munitions has occupied the house as an integral part of the factory ever since May, 1916. The house itself is easily within 100 yards of the factory, and it is linked up to the factory by a series of other buildings, most important buildings, such as the laboratory and the water tower, and the chain of buildings goes up to within 30 yards, or rather less, of the house. The house itself has been entirely altered. I believe we had practically to gut a good deal of the interior; in any case we had to build on very largely to it, and a large amount of public money was spent upon it, a great many thousands of pounds, in order to adapt it for the purposes of the factory. The Courts also found that it would be absolutely impossible, in view of the nature of that factory, that the house standing so close to it could be in the occupation of any one else except the occupants of the factory.

The noble Lord drew a harrowing picture of the unfortunate man being turned out of his house and home by a tyrannical Government, but I should like to point out what are the real facts in this case. Even before we turned the house into a portion of the factory I am entitled to say that it had ceased to be a mansion house, in the ordinary sense of the word in which one uses it, and in which it was used when we were discussing this clause. I say this because it is quite evident from the correspondence between Mr. Tankerville Chamberlayne and the Ministry of Munitions, which I have read, that not only had he not lived there for a great many years, but he had contemplated, and already begun, cutting up this property for building purposes. In his own witness' evidence at the hearing of the case it was admitted that the place had become out of date for residential purposes, and, again, that the park was only a park in name. Mr. Tankerville Chamberlayne himself wrote in February, 1917, and said the place had been spoilt for the purposes of a residence by the railway taking the foreshore and other land for building docks, though the effect of this had been greatly to enhance the value of the land for building.

This, I think, is a very valuable sidelight on the real cause of difference between the Ministry of Munitions and this gentleman—the question of price. Indeed, I find it very difficult outside that supposition to understand his position to-day. For, as long ago as June, 1916, which was a month before the Second Reading of the Acquisition of Land Act in the House of Commons—therefore the Act was unknown then to the public—he wrote himself naming a price at which he was willing to sell the whole property. In January, 1917, he wrote again to say that he proposed to call on the Government to buy the whole property; and again in February, 1917, he wrote— I require the Department to purchase the whole of this residential property, which means including Weston Park. The lodge has already been sold to the railway company. It is quite clear to me that the issue is not whether or not the State should acquire the house, but what the price is that the State should pay Mr. Tankerville Chamberlayne for the property. I agree that it is a very important question from his point of view, as well as front the taxpayers' point of view.

The hearing of this cause occupied two days before the Railway and Canal Commission, and one of the Commissioners, Lord Terrington, went down himself in order to see the position of the factory and the house, and everything about it, and all the matters in dispute, in order to be perfectly satisfied that justice would be done. I should like to read what was said in the judgment— It was finally argued for the respondent that no case of national importance for the acquisition had been made out—at all events, as regards the mansion house and the larger part of the park proposed to be acquired. By "national importance," I understand is meant that the interests of the State are such as to leave in the minds of the Court no doubt of their paramount importance in reference to the subject matter of the proposed acquisition. In such an event it is intended that the private interests of the proprietor must give way. I have no doubt whatever in this case, after fully considering the evidence, that the applicant has fulfilled the onus which lies upon him to show that it is of paramount importance to the State that it should acquire both the mansion house and the lands objected to. I have inspected the locus in quo. The house is in close contiguity to the factory, and, apart from the fact that it is used for housing the technical staff, invaluable in that respect for the proper supervision of the factory, it would, I think, be on public grounds inexpedient, having regard to the character of the adjoining works, that the possession and control of this house should be in other hands than those of the Government…I think, after viewing the premises and the surrounding neighbourhood, this is essentially a case in which any loss or damage to the respondent can be adequately provided for under the compensation clauses of the Statutes I do not know whether the noble Lord who has put down this Motion realises the, as I think, disastrous and very absurd consequences which would arise in the event of his Motion being carried. After the war three-quarters of the factory would belong to the State, and one-quarter would belong to Mr. Tankerville Chamberlayne—namely, the quarter built on his land; and the factory being admittedly very important, it is obvious that, in spite of this, the Government would still have to buy it by some means or other. But in that case the landowner would be in the position not only of being able to demand the value of the land as such, but also to demand the value of the buildings that stood upon that land. In other words, the State would have to pay twice over for those buildings—once for erecting them, and a second time for buying them from the landowner. That was really what the Act was passed in order to avoid.

I think it has been proved, therefore: firstly, that we (that is, the Ministry of Munitions) have done in this matter only what we perfectly openly and frankly stated at the time we must do and intended to do if that clause passed, that was, to acquire the properties. Secondly, it has been prayed, I think, that it is of the utmost national importance that they should be so acquired. Thirdly, I think it is quite evident that it would be a disastrous thing if the properties acquired were now to be in any way curtailed for the reasons I have given; and, of course, still more disastrous if at the end of the war the fruits of the whole of that expenditure should fall into the hands of a man merely by the chance circumstance of his being the owner of the soil. Fourthly, I think I have shown that nothing more has been taken than is absolutely necessary, or than has been always in the occupation of the Government, which the House of Commons asked should be the test; fifthly, that no injustice has been committed to the owner of this land, who will of course, receive proper financial compensation, awarded not by an interested party—not by the Ministry of Munitions—but, failing agreement, by an arbitration tribunal. Lastly—and this I personally regard as very important—I do not think it can be said that anything has been done by the Ministry in defiance of any undertaking or understanding, implied or otherwise, given either in the House of Commons, or by myself in this House when I was in charge of the Bill. On the contrary, I think that it is carrying out, as I have already said, only what the Government openly expressed their intention of doing. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his Motion.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I confess that I think the House is placed in a position of some embarrassment by this particular procedure; and I also think that nobody is to be more congratulated, if I may say so with great respect, than the noble Earl the Lord Chairman who warned us, at the time of this clause passing into law, how embarrassing we should find it if it ever had to be worked. The situation really is this, that your Lordships' House, although not sitting in your strictly judicial capacity, consisting that is to say of Law Lords only, is really sitting judicially to try partly an issue of fact, and partly to try, if not an issue of law, an issue of equity which is of the greatest importance to private individuals. I approach this subject, therefore, with the greatest diffidence.

If I may say so, I think that, in the extremely able statement which we have heard from the noble Lord who has just sat down in one respect he did not strengthen his case by dwelling upon the national importance of the acquisition of part of this property. I say this not that I despise (as I need not tell your Lordships) the question of national importance, but because I presume, from the statement made by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that the very reason why these assurances were made in both Houses of Parliament while the Bill was passing through was in order to reassure Members that the case of national importance would not be pressed too far. In point of fact, what was represented to the Government was that if the case of national importance alone were to be considered, undue hardship would be inflicted upon individuals. So the Government said in effect—I may be wrong, and if so I should be very sorry to be misleading the House—"Where it comes to a case of a man's park, and, in particular, where it comes to the case of his mansion house, there we (the Government.) will see that no advantage is taken of this clause in order to inflict undue hardship on the individual; and this notwithstanding the fact that a certain national importance might be sacrificed in the prospect." Therefore I do not think that we must consider only the question of national importance if we are to apply our minds—if I may say so in the presence of many noble and learned Lords—judicially to this question.

But I go further and say that we must not apply too much the legal point of view. My noble friend frankly admitted that, upon the legal construction of the Statute, no doubt the Commission and the Court of Appeal were absolutely right in the decision they gave on the terms of the Statute. But it was clear that something more was intended by Parliament than the strictly rigid legal interpretation of the Statute, because they inserted in your Lordships' House this very provision under which we are acting, by which, notwithstanding what the law said, there was to be an equitable power reserved to both Houses of Parliament to correct any hardships which might be imposed upon individuals by an over-rigid legal interpretation of the Statute. Therefore I rather discard from my consideration a too careful regard to the question of national importance and a too careful regard to the strict legal interpretation of the section.

What it seems to me really to come down to is this—Is there a great hardship inflicted upon this gentleman in respect of taking his mansion house? I do not pretend to have gone into the case so carefully as my noble friend has, but I listened intently to his speech. I certainly gathered—and I think Your Lordships gathered—that what the Government practically promised was that they would not allow the Statute to be so used as to take away what is a bona fide mansion house of an individual, or his park, where it was unnecessary to do so. Upon that I was greatly impressed by the argument of the noble Lord who has just sat down. I confess that if the facts are as he states them I should have some difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that this is the bona fide mansion house of the gentleman in question. He seems to have been intent upon dividing up his park as building plots, and he seems to have at one time contemplated compelling the Government, which he had the power to do, to buy the mansion house, and all the evidence which I have seen and heard leads me to the conclusion that though it is a mansion house it cannot be considered to be in any sense the mansion house upon which this gentleman relies in order to house himself and to be the abode of his traditions and his comforts, and indeed hardly a house which he intends to inhabit himself at all. If the facts be as I have tried most inadequately to state them, I should be inclined therefore upon that ground, and that ground alone, to support the Government. I do not think we ought to be guided merely by the question of national importance or merely by the question of the strict legal interpretation of the section, but I do think that unless it is really the bona fide mansion house of the gentleman himself his plea falls to the ground, and we ought to support the Government and not my noble friend.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

My Lords, the noble Lord who initiated this discussion and the noble Marquess who has just sat down, referred to me, and I should be churlish if I did not rise to thank them for the generosity with which they have drawn attention to the fact that when I ventured to be a prophet last year I was, as events have proved, a true prophet. I should like to emphasise the fact, and surely it is shown this afternoon, that it is an inconvenient thing when the ordinary practice is departed from. When the Government or anybody else want to buy property, is it not much better that it should be scheduled in the ordinary way, and the case decided in Committee one way or another once for all? That is the course which the Government refused to follow, or at all events did not follow, last Year; and I feel sure that although your Lordships will be inclined to adopt the advice of the noble Marquess you will at the same time all agree that my noble friend Lord Balfour was entirely justified in the course which he has taken this afternoon in calling the attention of this House to this matter.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I adhere to my views that a very real hardship has been inflicted, and inflicted in a way that need not have been done if it had been made more distinct during the course of discussion in Parliament, before the final stage was reached, that it was intended to take this course; but having regard to all the circumstances, and knowing your Lordships' desire to proceed to important business, I think I can say nothing more after the expressions of opinion of the noble Marquess and the Lord Chairman of Committees, but ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.