Lords Sitting of 14 March 1918

ST. OLAVE'S CHURCH, SOUTHWARK, BILL. [H.L.]
Debate upon the Motion for the Second Reading, resumed (according to Order).
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am sorry to say that the question of the St. Olave's Church, Southwark, Bill, which came before your Lordships' House last week, has not been settled, and I shall have shortly to bring to your notice the difficulty which still exists. The proposal is that the site of the church and the disused burial ground shall be sold in order that the proceeds may be used for the erection of a new church where it is very much wanted in a congested district in Southwark. A statement is before your Lordships' House which shows, first, that the church is not required in its present position and that the attendance is almost negligible; secondly, that the Report of the Attorney-General has been given in favour of the Bill, and that all the various authorities who have to be consulted, including the Crown as the patron, the Bishop of the Diocese, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, have given their assent to the proposals contained in the Bill.
The only point in debate arises in reference to the Instruction which my noble friend Viscount Bryce proposes to move after the Second Reading, namely—
That it be an instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill shall be referred, to amend the Bill so as to provide that the disused burial ground, described as the churchyard, attached to the church (together with any foreshore of the River Thames attached or belonging thereto) shall be preserved unbuilt upon in compliance with Section 3 of the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, with a view to its enjoyment by the public as an open space under the provisions of the Open Spaces Act, 1906, and to preserve access thereto from Tooley-street across the church site.
The promoters of the Bill are as anxious as any one else to preserve and protect open spaces where they are required within the metropolitan area, and I shall read to your Lordships shortly—as I do not intend to deal with the matter at any length—
430
the terms of an arrangement which has been come to between the promoters and the London County Council, who are the statutory authority for protecting and safeguarding open spaces within the metropolis.
The difficulty in this case arises in this way. The site, so far as the church is concerned, opens upon Tooley-street, and so far as the disused burial ground is concerned it opens upon the river; and the value of the site depends really on its frontage to the river and not on its frontage to Tooley-street. I do not like to quote figures, but I will give two in illustration. It is said that the site, dealt with as a whole, would be worth something like £50,000 because the wharfage is of great importance, but if the proposed Instruction was carried the site facing on Tooley-street would have but a mere nominal value in comparison to the frontage on the river. The result would be, not that an open space would be obtained, but that the whole scheme would come to an end; the new church could not be erected, and there would be no open space for the benefit of the dwellers in the neighbourhood. At this particular point an open space is hardly wanted, because owing to change in occupation it has now become, not a residential district in any sense, but a district of warehouses.
To make the matter as short as I can, may I tell your Lordships what the terms are which have been agreed upon with the London County Council, who are, as I have said, the statutory authority to deal with open spaces and to safeguard the rights of the public. The terms are in these words. First, that the church shall be removed to a new site without any addition to it. The church is said to have been erected by a pupil of Wren's, and the desire is to maintain his architecture exactly in the same way by removing the church stone by stone and erecting it on the new site. Secondly, £5,000 is to be contributed to the Open Spaces Fund. That is to say, out of the money derived from the sale the London County Council will be handed £5,000, which will be contributed to the Open Spaces Fund of which they are the guardians. Thirdly, a suitable memorial is to be put up on the wall of the building erected on the church site to be approved by the Council. That is in order to keep an historical record of the old St. Olave's Church. Fourthly, there is to be a slight setting back of the frontage of the site. This is a matter of detail

431
The London County Council pointed out that the frontage site could be improved by a small proportion being put into the street, and this suggestion has been consented to. Fifthly, the name of "St. Olave" is to be preserved in the title of the daughter parish of St. John, Horsleydown. You have there what appears to be a suitable adjustment of all suggested difficulties between the promoters on the one side and the London County Council on the other.
I have consulted the Lord Chairman, and he tells me that it is quite out of accord with the ordinary procedure of your Lordships' House, after a Bill of this kind has been read a second time, that an Instruction should be given to the Committee to insert certain words. You will notice that the form of the Instruction is mandatory, so that the Committee would have no option in the matter. I wish to make this suggestion on behalf of the promoters. They are desirous that the best should be done in the interests of all parties. They are quite prepared, if your Lordships would allow a Second Reading of the Bill, to give an undertaking that as far as they are concerned they will take no objection to any necessary suspension of the Standing Order so that those interested in proposing the Instruction may be heard before the Committee upstairs. It will be quite impossible to explain in detail the special peculiarities which surround this Bill, but it appears to me to be a perfectly fair suggestion that if those who are in favour of this Instruction want to bring their views before the Committee the promoters should facilitate their desire in every way. The Act of 1884, on which I think those who desire the Instruction rely, has a section in it which says, "Nothing in this Act contained shall apply to any burial ground which has been sold or disposed of by any Act of Parliament." I sincerely hope that your Lordships will follow the ordinary practice and not allow a compulsory Instruction to be inserted.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I desire to move the Instruction which stands in my name. My noble friend Lord Parmoor has stated in a general way the purposes of the Bill which is before your Lordships, but I wish to say a little more in order to explain the position. I move this Instruction upon several grounds, which I will
432
state. First of all, let me remark that the Bill deals both with the church and with the churchyard. The case is quite different as regards the church and the churchyard. Those on whose behalf I put down this Instruction are interested only in the churchyard, and whatever arrangement the Committee may make with regard to the church is a matter with which we do not propose to interfere. The Instruction relates only to the churchyard.
I say nothing against the objects which it is proposed to effect by the Bill. The objects in themselves are sufficiently laudable; but what the Bill proposes to do is to override several Statutes, to override the Act of 1884 and the subsequent Act of 1887 which amended and extended the Act of 1884, and to override the Open Spaces Act of 1906. These Acts were passed with the general concurrence of both Houses of Parliament, and they have been found extremely valuable. Under them a very large number of open spaces have been secured for the people of London. I believe that there are 140, or about that number, at the present time. These open spaces are very largely used even in places in which the population is, as has been said of Bermondsey, mainly a population engaged in business during the day, in counting houses and warehouses. People go out during the day, and are able to resort to these open spaces and sit down, and have a little time of quiet. To be able to do that is a very great boon to the men employed in the warehouses and offices as well as to such children as there are in the neighbourhood. Some one has well said that there is nothing more melancholy about the life of those who are engaged in daily toil than the difficulty of obtaining a place where they can be alone and in which they can be quiet for a short time. During the day these open spaces have proved very valuable in the most crowded districts of the city for that purpose, and those of your Lordships who sometimes pass through the city will often have noticed the numbers of people who are taking advantage of these open places, especially during the luncheon hour.
It is a strong thing to override these public Acts, and I think that your Lordships will feel that it ought not to be done unless there is a far stronger case than has been presented here. We ought not to sacrifice local interests, which the Acts were particularly intended to guard, and

433
the interests of the working class population of London merely for the sake of an improvement, however laudable its ultimate objects may be. That is the first ground upon which I submit that this Instruction is one which your Lordships' House may properly pass. I say nothing—though I know that is important—as to what is in the minds of the people of Bermondsey about the removal of the graveyard. The people of Bermondsey naturally feel that they do not wish the remains of their forefathers to be taken up and removed from this place and planted somewhere else.
I want to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that this is a spot of quite unique interest in London, a spot of that historic interest which it is desirable to preserve as much as possible and which we think is not an inconsiderable asset in attaching the people of London to their city. This place is the site of a famous battle which was fought in the early part of the eleventh century between the Norwegians under King Olaf, who came up with the fleet, and those who were then holding London Bridge. There is some doubt between the different authorities as to what was the respective position of the Danes and the English in this war, but there is no doubt that it was King Olaf's attack upon the bridge which turned the issue of the campaign and which drove those who were holding Southwark out of it, and practically settled the matter that was then in conflict. I will not trouble your Lordships with the details of the different authorities, but it is unquestionable that this is a place of unique and special interest.
We know that the church of St. Olaf existed before the Norman Conquest. There was a large population of Norwegians and Danes at that time in London, and there is every ground for believing that the reason why this spot was chosen whereon to build the church of St. Olaf was that it was associated with this great exploit which he had performed and which his Norwegian compatriots were anxious to commemorate. Curiously enough, exactly on the other side of London Bridge—the north side—there stands a church dedicated to St. Magnus, Who was a son of St. Olaf and who subsequently attained the crown of Norway. So these two Norwegian saints, the one on the north side and the other on the south side of the river, commemorate the association of this part of London with the con-
434
flicts of those days in a way which is of the greatest interest from our early history, and which I thinks deserves to be commemorated.
I would like to add further that the place has another interest. It is almost the only spot along the central course of the river where it passes from Westminster down towards the Isle of Dogs and Greenwich where access to the river is not entirely closed by warehouses. This little open space—this churchyard—just under the south corner of London Bridge, with its quaint little tower looking out upon the river, affords a singularly charming, interesting, and peculiar prospect. You see London Bridge and the spires of the city opposite, and you see the lofty walls of The Tower. It is ore of the places which an artist desiring to draw a picture of the river and the bridge would choose as the very best place for the purpose. It is a place which any one who wants to get an idea of London, or the highest part of the port, would seek, and from which he would obtain a perfectly unique and charming view. Moreover, it is one of the very few open spaces that exist in Bermondsey, and I think the only open space in Bermondsey which fronts on to the river.
My noble friend Lord Parmoor has suggested an arrangement which might be made if this Bill were allowed to go through without the Instruction, and he has mentioned a compromise which seems to have been suggested to the London County Council. I have to remark upon that that it is by no means satisfactory to those who desire to preserve the open space. The promoters have offered to give £5,000 to the London County Council. That apparently would be applied in purchasing some open space elsewhere, perhaps at a considerable distance, and would not be likely to confer any benefit at all upon the people of Bermondsey, and would be without the special advantages and charms which, as I have endeavoured to show, this open space possesses. We are not at all prepared to go before the Committee and take our chance there. We have no locus standi before the Committee. If we were to have a locus standi, as it is suggested we might have, the society which undertakes the charge of these cases would be put to a very considerable expense in engaging counsel and endeavouring to argue its case there. We conceive that, where a general public Act is involved, it

435
is before one of the Houses of Parliament, or both Houses, if necessary, that this matter ought to be brought—that it ought not to be left to the chances of a Committee, but ought to be disposed of by your Lordships as a question involving the interests of the people at large and as a question of the general law.
It would be very little comfort to the people of Bermondsey to have an open space perhaps five or six miles from the place where they live. The borough council of Bermondsey, which, of course, is specially interested in the matter, has prepared a Petition, which it has addressed to your Lordships' House, asking that the Bill be not sanctioned in its present form, and supporting the Instruction which I am now moving. They say that what they want, and what they care for primarily, is the interest of Bermondsey; that any thing that may be done in the way which the promoters have proposed to the London County Council would be of no benefit at all to themselves and to the people of Bermondsey, of whose interests they are the appointed guardians. And therefore they conceive that this scheme ought by no means to be accepted, but that it is now our duty to secure their interests by making this a mandatory Instruction. They feel that their interests are primarily concerned, and that it is for this House, for Parliament, which has placed their churchyard under statutory protection, to continue that statutory protection to them.
I submit to your Lordships that it is a very dangerous thing to set a precedent of this kind. Two attempts were recently made to overset the general law which preserves the disused burial grounds, and in both those cases the House of Commons passed an Instruction of this nature and secured for the people their local burial grounds, and also vindicated the general principle that the Statute should be maintained. It would be a most dangerous thing for us to set a precedent the other way, and in this case to overthrow what I believe to be not only the local interests but also the interests of the people of London at large, by allowing the Bill to pass without the Instruction. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will see fit to support the Act, and to support also the interests of the working classes of London, and especially those of the people of Bermondsey, who have expressed their wishes to their borough councillors.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill shall be referred, to amend the Bill so as to provide that the disused burial ground, described as the churchyard, attached to the church (together with any foreshore of the River Thames attached or belonging thereto), shall be preserved unbuilt upon in compliance with Section 3 of the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, with a view to its enjoyment by the public as an open space under the provisions of the Open Spaces Act, 1906, and to preserve access thereto from Tooley-street across the church site.—(Viscount Bryce.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the Instruction which has been moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce. I do not propose to say anything about the merits of this Bill, because I am not forming my opinion upon the merits of a Bill which would naturally go to a Private Bill Committee upstairs to be thoroughly considered. But there is a principle involved—the principle which has been mentioned so forcibly by the noble Viscount. That principle is that Parliament has expressed its opinion in an Act of Parliament that disused burial grounds should not be built over, but that, especially in the London area, they should be kept as open spaces for the benefit of the public. Of course, there is also the sentimental reason referred to by the noble Viscount. I dare say Parliament had that in view too, and that the Act was also passed for the reason that specially in crowded areas of the metropolis, it was of very great importance that these open spaces should be retained, and by a subsequent Act they made it clear that they should if possible be so retained. I am not sure how many, but I believe there are certainly two instances when the House of Commons refused to pass a Bill of this nature without some Instruction of this kind. Parliament, therefore, may be taken to have reviewed this question on more than one occasion and to have deliberately determined to adhere to the general principle of the Act of 1884.
The question of principle is to my mind a very important one. If this Bill were passed without some Instruction of this sort, it seems to me that a Committee upstairs would naturally say, The House has sent this Bill upstairs to us; there can be no question of any important principle being involved, and we presume

437
that the House desires that the Committee should deal with it on its merits. And they would no doubt take evidence upon it on those lines. But I do not think that we ought to leave it in that way to a Committee upstairs to decide the case simply upon its merits. This principle, if it were infringed, would create a precedent that might be continually brought before the House, and a very great deal of harm might accrue to the metropolis as a whole in losing, in consequence of this precedent, disused burial grounds which ought in the interests of the public to be kept unbuilt upon. I think this principle is so important that I give my hearty support to the Instruction which the noble Viscount has moved.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, both the noble Lords who have spoken from below the gangway have mentioned that the London County Council are specially concerned in this case, although we are by no means the promoters of the Bill, and it probably is advisable that at this stage I should say one or two words on behalf of the London County Council. As the noble Viscount observed, this is not altogether a simple matter, because various interests are involved—not, I mean, in the material sense; but there is the archæological interest of which the noble Viscount gave us some indications, there is the architectural interest attaching to a church possessing very peculiar characteristics, as this does, and there is the quite separate interest which has been emphasised by my noble friend Lord Plymouth—namely, that of the general question of the preservation of open spaces in London. Those are all separate matters, and have, indeed, to be dealt with separately. The London County Council are directly interested in all three. There are different committees of the Council which are specially concerned with these three aspects of the question, and therefore it is natural that the Council have given the closest consideration and spent a great deal of time in looking through everything that could be collected on this subject, which we all agree may be shown to involve questions of principle, and is, therefore, of no small moment. I am able to say, as was indicated by the noble Lords who spoke, that on all these separate matters the London County Council have been, generally speaking, satisfied by the promoters of the Bill, and that therefore, although they have peti-
438
tioned against it, they will not pursue opposition upstairs, on the terms which have been suggested to them on behalf of the promoters.
As regards the archæological interest, the history of the site, and so on, it is understood, I am told, that care will be taken that any objects of archæological interest which may be discovered in making the change will be available for one of our museums. So far as the historical interest is concerned, it is proposed that this should be satisfied in two ways—the one by placing some form of tablet, or similar memorial, on the site, explaining that this is where St. Olave's Church stood; and, secondly, what is also an important matter, by transferring, or adding, the name of St. Olave to the new parish of St. John's, Horsleydown, or, rather, the old parish which is to take over the existing parish of St. Olave's. It is true that we do attach great importance to the retention of the name. The name is, as a matter of fact—so I am told, though I had no idea of it before—enshrined in the name Tooley-street, which is, in fact, St. Olave's Street. Most people associate Tooley-street either with the three famous historical tailors who claimed not only to represent but actually to be the people of England, or with the great fire of 1861—perhaps the most famous fire that occurred in London since the Great Fire—when the then chief of the Fire Brigade lost his life, and the feat of "setting the Thames on fire," which is so often spoken of but so rarely witnessed, was actually carried out on a very large scale. Now the name of St. Olave's will be preserved, not only in a degraded form, but will be continued in the new parish.
With regard to the architectural interest, which is considered by those who are able to judge to be very substantial, the proposition is that the church should be removed precisely as it is, stone by stone, and re-erected on a site where it will be of more value for religious purposes than it can be in its present position. I understand that the Royal Institute of British Architects, who were consulted on this point, have expressed warm approval of this proposal. The church, although not of great antiquity, is of peculiar interest as representing one of the not numerous London churches of the pure basilica type, built by Flitcroft, by whom, I think, only one other church

439
now exists in London; and therefore its preservation is a matter of serious interest. One difficulty only arises over this question of re-erection. It may appear that, although the church has a large seating capacity, it is not considered quite large enough for the new position in which it is to be placed; and it may consequently be desired to add to it. It is a serious question, I understand, whether such an addition could possibly be made without destroying the architectural characteristics of the church; and I believe, therefore, that it is agreed that this matter shall be left open, and that the architectural features of the church should not be interfered with without agreement with the London County Council.
Then we come to the question of open spaces, in which, of course, the Council is supremely interested; and, considering who the promoters of the Bill are, I cannot believe that they too do not both feel, and will express, an equally keen desire that an open space should, if possible, be found if this improvement takes place. The main difficulty, as I understand, of turning this particular churchyard into an open space is this—that if you propose to do this you destroy all the motives for the demolition, or the re-erection elsewhere, of the church; and that, unless it is possible to sell the very valuable ground space which is involved, no money can be forthcoming for the removal of the church or for assistance towards the erection of the church elsewhere. Therefore, though I have no right to say so, because I have not been informed or instructed to that effect, I assume that, if Parliament decided that this has to be kept as an open space, the Bill could not proceed, that the whole transaction must fall to the ground, because the original motive in respect of which it was initiated would no longer exist.
The County Council, consequently, after full consideration, agreed not to oppose the proposal to sell the site—presumably for building purposes—provided that an open space, or a contribution towards an open space, could be supplied from the large sum of money which the site is likely to produce. It obviously is not possible either for the London County Council or for the promoters or for anybody else to say where such an open space could be provided. It is evident that it would be impossible to make any statement of that kind. So far as my own personal opinion is concerned—I cannot say more than that—I think
440
that every effort should be made to find and to create that open space as near as possible to the site of St. Olave's Church, in order that those who might have received some, although as I am told not very much, advantage from the turning of this particular riverside churchyard into an open space, may get some parallel advantage by a provision near at hand. As I have stated, it is quite impossible now to say where an open space could be found, but for myself I certainly hope that it would not be in an entirely different part of London but as near as possible.
In these circumstances, my Lords, the London County Council desire that the various points at issue should be left for the consideration of the Committee upstairs without their being bound by such a preliminary Instruction as that which my noble friend suggests. It is true that it is unusual in the case of a private Bill to fetter the Committee upstairs by an Instruction such as this. I am far from saying that cases might not arise where it would have to be done. I quite agree it is an exceedingly difficult case, because the notion of destroying what appears to be a possible open space and handing over such a space to be built on in apparent contravention of the Act of 1884 is undoubtedly a course which Parliament would not as a rule be disposed to take. But the circumstances are very special indeed in this case, and for that reason I think the Bill ought to be allowed to go to the Committee in order that they may have an opportunity of examining it from every possible point of view.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I do not intend to take up much of the time of your Lordships' House, but I think you would wish to hear from me something in regard to the scheme which has occupied my most careful and anxious consideration for some five years past. I should also be unwilling even to appear that I was in any way opposed to the principle that has been so eloquently advocated by the noble Viscount who moved that this Instruction should be given to the Committee. I need not—perhaps it might not be in order—go over the grounds of the merits and the origin of this Bill. Its one and only purpose is that the resources and opportunities of the Church should be economised and husbanded to the best advantage not only

441
of the Church but also of the whole community.
The parish of St. Olave's is one of those parishes with which we are quite familiar in which the parochial system can no longer be applied. The church has been closed for some months, but the needs of the parish can be fully met by the neighbouring churches. There is another parish in my diocese which a few years ago was a Surrey village, somewhat thinly populated, and which now contains some 30,000 people, and in that parish there is a district containing 10,000 people who are unprovided with any kind of religious or spiritual ministration not only by the Church of England but by any other religious body. The only purpose of this Bill is to use what is not required at St. Olave's, but is so urgently and obviously required in this other part of my diocese.
The point that I would like to bring before your Lordships is that this scheme has not been at all an easy one to formulate. You have already heard this afternoon that there are a great many interests and problems involved. We have heard of the historical associations connected with the place. No friend of mine will accuse me of depreciating the value of historical association and beautiful buildings in educating and refining the community. You have heard of the archæological interest of the place, and of the possibility of archæological discoveries. We have not heard of the complications also involved in the parish connected with the redemption of a Statutory rate levied under an Act of George I. This has been a most difficult matter to deal with, as there was no corporate body that could undertake to redeem the Statutory rate. You will see from the Bill how it is proposed that this should be done. I do desire to say more than anything else that no one has been more anxious than I have been from the first to safeguard the principle that disused burial grounds should be as far as possible utilised and kept for open spaces. As I travel about my diocese in my work in Bermondsey and other areas, again and again I have ample reason and I take every public occasion to express my great thankfulness for the work done by those who have been keeping these open spaces, and particularly by the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association
442
I have said enough to show that this scheme really must be considered as a whole, and stands or falls as a whole, if the main purpose for which it is formulated is to be carried out. Therefore my desire is that the whole scheme should be submitted to the consideration of the Committee of the House, and that they should have full, free, and unfettered discretion in dealing with it. My only objection to what the noble Viscount has moved this afternoon is that if this Instruction were added it precludes the possibility of even considering some arrangement which would satisfy the principle for which he stands, and which I understand is an arrangement which would not be at all unacceptable to those whom he represents. This Instruction would preclude the possibility of even considering any such an arrangement as I have in my mind. Therefore, I ask the house to allow the Bill to go before the Committee of the House unfettered and to give the Committee full and free discretion.
I will only add one further word. Something has been said this afternoon which might give the impression that there was a great deal of opposition. I can only say that the rectory ratepayers have all been consulted, and they have heartily accepted the arrangements. Meetings of the parishioners and business men have been held and they have shown the heartiest approval of the scheme, while the rectory trustees also support the proposal before us.
I speak, therefore, not only for myself and not simply as a representative of the Church interested in this matter, but of the people themselves who are on the spot and directly concerned with the scheme which has been formulated in this Bill.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, as chairman of the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, which has laid down about sixty-five of these burial grounds, may I be allowed a few minutes in which to explain our side of the question? There are two points on which great stress should be laid. The first is that the burial ground is absolutely distinct from the church. Those who support the noble Viscount who moved the Instruction do not desire in the smallest degree to interfere with the sale of the church or the rectory or any property the church may possess in Bermondsey or the neighbourhood. We are interested

443
only in the preservation of the burial ground as an ultimate open space for London.
The Association with which I am connected was largely responsible for the passing of the Open Spaces Act, 1881, and the Act of 1884, by which it was made illegal to build upon burial grounds. Why was that done? It was done because between 1881 and 1884 it was found that some of these burial grounds were being built upon at a very fast rate. The result of that Act has been that although London has lost 115 burial grounds, almost all these were lost before the Act of 1884. We have only lost one burial ground since that date, and that was the one upon which the General Post Office is built. It was Christ's Hospital burial ground. We opposed it, but, of course, we could not expect to win against the Government. We opposed it upon principle. Parliament has supported us in two other cases which have been mentioned—St. Bride's and St. James's, Piccadilly—and perhaps I might draw your Lordships' attention to the Resolution of the House of Commons in the case of the St. James's Vestry Hall Bill, which was defeated on the Second Reading. The Resolution was—
"That this House, having regard to the policy of Parliament as declared by the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, and the Open Spaces Act, 1906, is not prepared to entertain a Bill authorising the erection of buildings on disused burial grounds in contravention of such Acts."
They took similar action in the case of another Bill with which I will not trouble your Lordships.
I want to point out that the burial ground which the Church at this moment wants to sell is of no value because it is subject to the Burial Grounds Act, 1884, but if Parliament overrides that Act, it immediately obtains a very considerable value.
What is going to be done with the money? Is it going to be given to Bermondsey? No. It is no doubt to be devoted to very excellent objects to which no one in this House would object, but there is a principle involved. There are now 283 grounds unbuilt upon in London, of a similar character, owned by the Church, and many which are supposed to be in the hands of private owners, and what is to prevent speculators and great corporations buying up these burial grounds when they find they are of such an enormous value. The sum of £50,000 has been mentioned this afternoon. I ask your Lordships' House, is it wise, is it right, to give powers to the Church of England or to any other great corporation, excellent no doubt as the objects may be, to take the value from a district like Bermondsey, where open spaces are wanted more than in any other part of London, except perhaps Lambeth? I quite agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, that from his point of view he gets £5,000. But he is responsible, not for Bermondsey, but for the whole of London. Therefore it is absolutely right and proper that he should have his £5,000. But what would happen, supposing we had half a dozen of these grounds being put up, as it were, to auction? Are you going to allow it in each case? I hope your Lordships will recognise, as I was very pleased to hear the noble Marquess say, that this is a matter of no small importance. It is a very important matter. It is not a question of one little burial ground, it is a question of 283 burial grounds. I hope that your Lordships will pass the Instruction.
On Question, whether the proposed Instruction shall be agreed to—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Iveagh, V.

Farrer, L.

Knollys, V.

Hylton, L.

Knutsford, V.

Joicey, L.

Salisbury, M.

Leigh, L.

Loreburn, E.

Barrymore, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway)

Strafford, E.

Blyth, L.

Burnham, L.

Strachie, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Cawley, L.

Sumner, L.

Bryce, V. [Teller.]

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Sydenham, L.

Chaplin, V.

Colebrooke, L.

Weardale, L.

Churchill, V.

Coleridge, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Haldane, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Lichfield, E.

Forester, L.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lindsay, E.

Harris, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Peel, V.

Lamington, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Crewe, M.

Southwark, L. Bp. [Teller.]

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Newton, L.

Armaghdale, L.

Parker of Waddington, L

Balfour, L.

Rhondda, L.

Camperdown, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Sudeley, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Instruction agreed to and ordered accordingly.

THE EASTER RECESS.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl who leads the House whether he is now able to tell us anything of the proposed course in regard to business and the adjournment for Easter?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, in reply to the Question which has been put by the noble Marquess, I have pleasure in stating that I propose to move on Thursday next, March 21, that this House should adjourn until Tuesday, April 9. The Consolidation Fund (No. 1) Bill is expected to pass in another place this evening, and as it must receive the Royal Assent not later than Tuesday, March 19, I shall have to ask your Lordships on that day to suspend Standing Order XXXIX for the purpose of that Bill. The only other matter that I propose to mention is that before we adjourn for the Easter Recess we shall receive from another place a measure entitled Overseas Trading Department (Secretary) Bill. That is a Bill to regularise the position of the new office to which Sir Arthur Steel Maitland has been appointed in the Government, and it is held that that measure should be passed through both Houses of Parliament in the course of next week.

INCREASE OF RENT, &c. (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, I rise to propose the
446
Second Reading of this Bill. It is introduced in consequence of certain proceedings which have been considered by various Departments of the Government with regard to the working of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act of 1915. Representations have been made to various Government Departments, and the matter has been brought particularly to my attention by the Home Office, by the Local Government Board, by the Admiralty, and by the Scottish Office.
Your Lordships are aware that the Act of 1915 was passed for the purpose of preventing an increase of rent over the amount which was paid at the commencement of the war in the case of certain houses of no very great annual value. The value of the houses to which the Act applies is in the country generally £26 per annum, in London £35, and in Scotland £30. Those figures were selected as affording the best available limit at which a line was to be drawn. The effect of that Act, as I indicated, was to prevent the rent being raised above what it had been at the commencement of the war. In order to carry that out it was necessary to give something in the nature of security against the tenants being turned out to make way for other persons who would pay more rent. That was carried out by subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Act of 1915, to a few lines of which I will draw your Lordships' attention. They are—
"No order for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, shall be made so long as the tenant continues to pay rent at the agreed rate as modified by this Act, and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, except on the ground that the tenant has committed waste, or has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or an annoyance to adjoining or neighbouring occupiers, or that the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for the occupation of himself or some other person in his employ, or in the employ of some tenant from him, or on some other ground which may be deemed satisfactory by the Court making such order."

447
There are other provisions which for the present purpose I need not trouble to read.
The complaints which have been made, and which I am informed are exciting very great feeling in many parts of the country, arise in this way. Your Lordships will observe that the section I have read provides that the landlord may say that he wants the premises for his own occupation, and that is a ground for determining the tenancy. It was never contemplated at the time that the Act was passed that the power should be exercised by a person who bought for the express purpose of turning out the occupying tenant in order that he, the purchaser, might himself occupy the premises, but purchases to a great extent have been made in different parts of the country owing to a variety of causes, and they have occasioned, and they are occasioning, I am informed, very extensive hardships, very often in the case of the wives and families of soldiers who are serving at the Front who, in consequence, lose the occupation which they had under circumstances where it is very difficult to find another house. This is manifesting itself near London, very largely, I am informed, in consequence of the air raids. There are a great many people who have money to spare who very naturally wish to have a cottage near London for the occupation of themselves and their children, where they would be safe from the danger either of German bombs or of our own protective shells while an air raid is going on. The result has been that in districts to the west of London particularly—I believe the case first brought to my attention was in Buckinghamshire—a great many purchases have taken place by persons who bought only for the purpose of ejecting the tenants.
The same thing has manifested itself in other parts of the country, not always for the same reason. In many cases it has been where there has been a good deal of money going, where people desired to acquire a cottage for themselves, and have bought for the purpose of evicting the tenant who was occupying under the Act. This has manifested itself to a very great extent, I am told, in Scotland, particularly in the neighbourhood of Glasgow. Then, having bought, they proceed to exercise the right reserved by the Act to the landlord of saying that he wants to occupy the premises himself, and that therefore the tenant must go out.
448
But this is not quite the whole of the case, because, according to the information supplied to me by the Department, in a very great many cases the sales are of a somewhat peculiar character. They often take this form, that there is a conveyance of the cottage, and the consideration consists in the payment of a comparatively small sum down, and then so much to be paid per week. It seems pretty obvious that that is really very like a tenancy, and that it is adopted for the purpose of avoiding the provision that the Act has made against disturbing a tenant. The person who entered into what I think may without offence be described as a colourable purchase of that nature intends to eject the tenant and occupy the premises himself. That is the mischief to be dealt with, and I am informed by the various Departments I have mentioned that it is exciting a great deal of feeling and occasioning a great deal of hardship in many parts of the country, distant a long way from one another. I need hardly say that it was never contemplated, when the Act of 1915 was passed, that such sales should take place. What was contemplated was that the lessor might want the premises for the occupation of himself and his servants, and the right of resumption was reserved. It was never intended that it should apply in the case of a person who bought merely for the purpose of turning out the tenant and occupying, and still less where the sale was of the nature I have described as not uncommon.
The proposal in the Bill for the purpose of remedying the evil is this. The Bill is extremely short. Its effect is to confine the power given to the landlord to the case of the landlord who let—the lessor—and any one who takes from him by descent or by will or under a settlement made before the day on which this Bill was introduced. His successor under a settlement made before the introduction of this Bill will be entitled to exercise the powers which are conferred on the landlord by the Act of 1915. But a purchaser from the lessor will not be entitled to exercise these powers, if the purchase is made after the date fixed for the commencement of the Bill. That is the scope of the measure, and I will read it to your Lordships. The Bill provides that subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, shall have effect as if at the end

449
thereof the following provision was inserted:—"For the purposes of this subsection the expression 'landlord' shall not include any person who since the twelfth day of March nineteen hundred and eighteen has become landlord by the acquisition of the dwelling-house or any interest therein otherwise than by devolution thereof to him under a settlement made before the said date, or under a testamentary disposition or an intestacy." The provision as to the date of the settlement is inserted in order to prevent the possibility of settlements being got up which are intended merely to get round the Act. It is intended to confine it to the case of general settlements, and the test selected is that it was made before the date of the introduction of the Bill. I venture to commend the Bill to your Lordships' favourable consideration, and I now move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, this Bill is apparently to deal with certain cases which have already taken place. As the Bill stands, I do not see that it has any retrospective effect. Of course, if it has no retrospective effect, it really will not deal with a great many of the hardships which have arisen from the present law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend is quite right. The Bill, as drawn, has no retrospective effect. It stops the thing for the future. But I am bound to say, now that attention is called to it, that very recently a good deal of information has come to me which leads me to think that it may deserve consideration whether to a certain extent the Bill might be made retrospective. The state of things in some parts of Scotland, I am told, is such as to make anything of that kind, if it could be done, very desirable.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I have seen in the newspapers statements made by officers' wives and widows that they have been turned out. Unless this Bill refers to those cases which have already taken place, it really will not meet the evil.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

MEAT PRICES AND SLAUGHTER OF CATTLE.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask the Controller of Food—

1. What is the total number of cattle, either immature or otherwise, which have been killed for civilian or other purposes under his Orders since the prices recommended by him were adopted by the Cabinet, apart from those which were slaughtered for the Army.

2. Were any two-year-old cattle included among them; and how many cattle over that age suitable for slaughter are there left now; and to move for Papers.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before I put the Question which stands in my name, I wish to be allowed to say a word to account for the disappearance of another Question* which was on the Paper for to-day, but which disappeared last night. I felt it my duty to remove it on being asked by the Government to postpone it on the grounds, first of all, that the representative of the Board of Agriculture (the Duke of Marlborough) was ill, and, secondly, that Lord Milner, who would otherwise have taken the place of the noble Duke, was engaged on important war business in the Supreme Council. I therefore had no alternative except to take the course I did. I desire to say this because I had received many appeals and letters entreating me to raise the subject, and I wish to add that I have put that Question
* To ask His Majesty's Government the following questions—

1. How many acres of grass land have been broken up by the orders of the Government during 1917 and 1918; and how much of this has been done by tractors, steam ploughing, or horses respectively.

2. How much of the land so broken up has been properly cleaned and prepared for the spring sowings this season, or is being so prepared now; and whether the requisite labour for its care and good cultivation afterwards has been arranged for and will be forthcoming.

3. Is any more grass land, not broken up already, under orders for ploughing, and if so, how much; and in view of the probable serious loss in the crops to be sown so late in the season, will the Government reconsider the order for ploughings by which the hay crop would be lost until after that crop has been taken, and thereby ensure one crop of value, weather per mitting; and to move for Papers.

451
down for Thursday next, when I hope that we may hear something that will reassure many of those who are extremely anxious on the subject, before we separate for the Recess.
Turning to the Question on the Paper, after the extremely interesting historical reminiscences we have heard this evening with regard to St. Olave's Church, I feel that your Lordships will not thank me for entering upon the somewhat prosaic question of the shortness of meat; but it may relieve the House to know that I have put down this Question solely for the purpose of obtaining information, and that I have no intention whatever of raising a debate on the subject if I can get the information—which I hope and believe I shall do—without a debate.
I notice with great regret that the toll of the submarines appears to be rising again, and I think it is very desirable, in view of the present shortage of meat, that we should know as far as possible how we stand in this country with regard to our own resources. I have raised the question of the two-rear-old cattle because I am informed upon very high authority that this is a matter of great importance. I understand that it is only the cattle two years old and upwards which fatten at all readily without concentrated food. It is most important, in my opinion, that we should know to what extent our stock has been called upon already; because the fact that undoubtedly a great number of the cattle that have been slaughtered under these Orders were immature has naturally meant that cattle in greater numbers have been killed than would have been the case in ordinary circumstances. I mean that if you kill numbers of immature cattle, you sometimes have to kill two where in the ordinary course you would kill only one. I do not think that I have anything further to add by way of reasons for asking this Question, and I now beg to put it to the Food Controller.
THE FOOD CONTROLLER (LORD RHONDDA): My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Viscount means in the first part of his Question. He asks what is the total number of cattle, either immature or otherwise, which have been killed for civilian or for other purposes; and he says later on that he does not refer to Army purposes.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I say quite apart from Army purposes.
LORD RHONDDA: You say "civilian and other purposes," apart from Army purposes. What are the "other purposes"?
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I class them all under your Orders.
LORD RHONDDA: I want to be clear. The figures I am going to give to the noble Viscount now are estimates.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Estimates?
LORD RHONDDA: Yes, they are mere estimates. The noble Viscount refers in his Question to the prices "recommended by me which were adopted by the Cabinet." I think, after Lord Milner's recent explanation, the noble Viscount will accept the circumstances under which these prices were adopted, and the circumstances under which the Order was issued.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Perfectly.
LORD RHONDDA: The Order was issued on August 29. Between September 1 and February 28 (both dates inclusive) the number of cattle slaughtered is estimated at 1,378,000, apart from those killed for Army purposes. About 75,000 were killed for Army purposes in addition. The period I have given is one of six months.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: They were killed under your Orders?
LORD RHONDDA: Since the date of the issue of the Order. Of these 1,378,000 cattle, it is estimated that 1,100.000 were two years old and upwards. That is an estimate based on the Board of Agriculture figures. Therefore the number under two years old is 278,000. It is very difficult to give even an approximate estimate of the number of cattle available for slaughter and now being fattened in the, country. The best estimate—and really I do not know that one can regard it as more than a considered guess—is that there are 260,000 cattle being fattened at the present time in this country, plus the number which have been added for fattening from stores between December 4 and February 4. I cannot make even

453
a guess at that latter number, but it is in addition to the 260,000 which it is estimated were being fattened on December 4. As it has some bearing on the question, it may interest the noble Viscount to know that the number of cattle slaughtered during the twelve months ended June. 4, 1917—before any restriction was placed on prices—was 2,744,000; and that figure compares with the slaughter of 2,490,000 cattle in the twelve months ended June 4, 1916. My point there is—and I wish to draw the noble Viscount's special attention to it—that before any maximum prices were fixed at all by my Department there was an increase of something like 10 per cent.—250,000—cattle killed in twelve months.

GENERAL SMUTS'S VISIT TO SWITZERLAND.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the statement of The Times of March 1, that General Smuts, a member of the War Cabinet, had met Count Albert Mensdorff (formerly Austro-Hungarian Ambassador to Great Britain) in Switzerland; and to afford His Majesty's Ministers the opportunity of explaining this episode.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord puts the Question which stands on the Paper in his name, I feel it to be my duty to ask your Lordships' permission to make a very brief statement as to the circumstances in which this Question is put, and as to what has happened with regard to it. It was only on Saturday morning last that I saw the Question for the first time on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House. I considered the matter very carefully, and I came without hesitation to the conclusion that a Question of this sort might lead to a discussion here which it was exceedingly undesirable should take place.
Your Lordships know—no one knows better—that a Question in this House is a very different thing from a Question in another place. There a Question in definite form is put by an hon. Member; it is put in a formal manner without addition, and to it the Minister responsible for the Department gives such reply as he chooses, or, if he so desires, declines to give any reply at all. Here, under our strange but
454
long-standing procedure, we act in a different way. The Question upon the Paper is not necessarily a Question alone. It is apt more frequently than otherwise to expand into a speech, which may be the precursor of other speeches; and there may arise out of what looks like a simple Question a debate of a prolonged and even exciting character, and the Minister concerned may find himself at the end in a position in which it is almost impossible without incivility to give a curt reply.
My Lords, I was further aware of the fact that the subject alluded in this Question had been mentioned by an hon. Member speaking in debate in another place, and on that occasion the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Balfour, took the same view as I did. He declined to make any reply whatsoever to the subject alluded to in the Question. Accordingly, my Lords, having come to this conclusion, I ventured to write a letter to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. In that letter I said that I was a good deal surprised at his having put this Question on the Notice Paper of your Lordships' House without giving me an opportunity, as representing the Foreign Office here, of expressing an opinion as to the propriety of it—all the more so that I happened to know that I was in the House and on this Bench when the noble Lord handed in the Notice of this Question to the Clerks at the Table. I went on in this letter to say that I was sure the noble Lord, from my long experience of him—which will be endorsed by all your Lordships—would not wish to do anything injurious to the public interest; but I said that I thought it would be obvious to him, upon reflection, that to answer such a Question was quite impossible, and that to put it could only do harm.
In these circumstances I expressed the hope that my noble friend would consider the propriety of withdrawing his Question from the Paper; and I added, in conclusion, that if he was unable to take that course—which I did not for a moment believe—I should be reluctantly driven to tell the House that I had asked him to do so, and to decline myself to give any answer to the Question. That, my Lords, is the letter which I wrote to my noble friend on Saturday morning last. I took steps—such steps as were open to me—to place it immediately in his hands, but finding some difficulty in ascertaining his whereabouts (because I know that he is actively engaged in the public service) I left the

455
letter at his club, with instructions that it should be handed to him at the first possible moment. There, I believe, it remained over Sunday, but I have every reason to believe that it was handed to my noble friend in person on Monday-evening.
Three days have elapsed since then. During that time I have received no communication from my noble friend. I have not received even an acknowledgment of my letter, and not until two minutes ago, in the precincts of your Lordships' House, did my noble friend approach me to tell me that he had received my letter and was disposed to take certain action upon it. No doubt there must have been some good reason why my noble friend refrained from extending to me, on a matter of considerable public moment, the courtesy of a reply. He will be able to explain that if he desires to do so. All I wish on the present occasion to say is this, that I earnestly renew to him now at this moment the appeal which I ventured to address to him in my letter on Saturday last, and that I am certain that his regard for the public interest—on which no one counts more confidently than myself—will induce him to give an affirmative reply to my appeal.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, if the noble Earl thinks that I have been intentionally guilty of any discourtesy to him in not having answered or acknowledged his letter before, all I can say is that I beg his pardon, because no discourtesy of that kind was intended. I came down to the House this afternoon for the purpose of publicly acknowledging that he had written to me, because I thought it due to this House and to the noble Earl to give some explanation of why I had put the Question upon the Paper. The noble Earl has read me—I do not mean to say this in an offensive way—something like a very friendly lecture with regard to the propriety of asking his permission to place a Question on the Paper. If he says that that was the proper course for me to have taken, I accept what he says.
But, my Lords, I have been placed in this position before by Ministers with regard to Questions that I have tried to put. When I have privately consulted with Ministers before, I have been turned down more than once; and although personal affairs should not interfere in a matter of this kind—in putting a Question upon the
456
Paper—I will be perfectly frank with your Lordships and say that I was prompted by previous experience in the procedure of the House. My experience has been that if you wish to bring forward a matter here the wisest and safest plan was to put the Question on the Paper and see what happened. I put this Question on the Paper, and then I received the letter from the noble Earl, for which I thank him. I also thank him very much for saying that he was sure I had no wish to do anything injurious to the public interest. If your Lordships will allow me to say so, that exactly describes my position. I rather wish that he had not used any threat about what he was going to do to me supposing I persisted in my Question.
If I kept the noble Earl in a state of suspense, the reasons for that I need not go into. I was obliged to take some time to consult with my friends about what would be the proper course, and I have come to the conclusion to withdraw the Question unreservedly, and not attempt to press it either in the House or out of it. No other course is open to me; and I am quite sure that the noble Earl will give me the credit of wishing to do so independently of any pressure he may have placed upon me by saying what he would do supposing I refused to comply with his request. Now, I am not going to say anything about the subject-matter of the Question, because it would not be fair; but I might be allowed, perhaps, to say that in general terms there could not be very much secrecy about it. I was not, in my judgment, attempting to disclose anything which could be of value to the enemy. The incident to which it referred had already taken place some time ago. It was evidently thoroughly talked about on the Continent, and the news that this interview had taken place appeared in The Times, which it is not unfair to describe as one of the official organs of His Majesty's Government. Something had already been stated about it in the House of Commons, and I assure your Lordships, with the greatest sincerity, that I thought it was not improper that some notice should be taken of it in your Lordships' House. His Majesty's Government could then take what course they thought right as to what they would tell your Lordships about the incident itself. As it is judged by the noble Earl to be inimical to the public interest to say anything more about it, I have nothing more to say.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of March 13.]
BRIXHAM GAS BILL. [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on Wednesday last and yesterday discharged, and Bill committed.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the following Bills ought to be dispensed with:

Alliance and Dublin Gas Bill.

Basingstoke Gas Bill.

Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill.

Sheffield Corporation (Consolidation) Bill.

Read, and agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons, that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House to consider the said Bills do meet the Lords Committee in Committee Room A on Wednesday next, at three o'clock, as proposed by their Lordships.
Moved, That the House do adjourn except for Judicial business, until Tuesday next.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
House adjourned at five minutes past six o'clock.