PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 30 March 1922)

VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD

My Lords, the Bill of which I have to move the Second Reading sounds very formidable from its title, but it is a very simple and a very innocent matter, and law so uncontentious that even the noble and learned Lords on this occasion might give it the help of their pent-up eloquence and discuss it without being criticised by either of the gladiators whom we saw fight last night. A Bill was passed in 1920 called the Places of Worship Enfranchisement Act. Its object was to enable trustees of places of worship who had only a leasehold tenancy to enfranchise their leasehold and get the freehold from the landlord by compulsion. It was felt at the time that it was rather hard that humble trustees of religious places of worship should have to spend a large sum of money on their chapels and that at the end of their lease the landlord should come down and take away all the money they had spent on the place. But whatever the reasons were for passing that Act, it is no good discussing them now. The Bill was passed unanimously in this House, with the blessing of 1011 the present occupant of the Woolsack and a Bishop; and in the other House, when introduced by the Attorney-General, it was also passed unanimously.

In that Act there was only one exception. Lands that were owned by a railway company, or by people who had powers to use the land for canals or navigation purposes, were excepted, and could not be enfranchised or taken away from their owners. My Bill is to extend that exception to lands which are owned by a charity, and where the charity needs the use of the land for the extension of its own work. If my Bill passes, land owned by a charity and necessary for its own work will not be taken away. I do not leave it to the caprice, if I may use the expression, of the charity to say whether the land is wanted or not. I propose that they must convince the Charity Commissioners, or the Ministry of Education, and get their certificate before they can claim exemption for their land.

I see Lord Clwyd present this afternoon. I know he feels very much on this matter. The Act of 1920 was promoted, mainly, by his countrymen in the other House, and I am glad to say that he and they are in entire sympathy with the object of my Bill. They never intended to hurt any charity in obtaining these powers for the trustees of religious places of worship.

I realise that your Lordships may think it rather soon to bring in an Amendment to an Act passed so recently as 1920, but if so soon after an Act is passed we find it works detrimentally, then the sooner we remedy the injury the better. If we allow this to go on more charities will be injured. Let me give you an example of how the Act is working. About one hundred years ago a hospital with which I am connected granted a lease of some laud to the Wesleyans. They built a chapel and arranged their burial ground. In a hundred years circumstances have changed very much. The hospital, from being one of one hundred beds, is now one of a thousand beds, and its scientific requirements have multiplied a thousand times. Towards the end of this hundred years the Wesleyans no longer wanted their chapel and burial ground, and they sold it to the members of another faith, who approached the hospital for a longer lease. We said, "No. It is quite impossible. The land is wanted very much by the hospital. It is the only land 1012 we can possibly get, and we cannot give you an extension of the lease." That was accepted by them, but suddenly the Act of 1920 comes in and takes the land away from the hospital; land which it needs not for personal profit, but for carrying on its increasing work for humanity. That is quite contrary to what those who promoted the Act of 1920 desired; and if your Lordships pass this Bill such a result could never happen again. It is a result quite foreign to the spirit of the Act, and quite foreign to the wishes of its promoters. I beg to move.