16 May, 1927.]

if the land ceased to be used for the purposes for which it was granted. That power was done away with in 1894. This Bill gives the Commissioners power to make such a grant again. It is felt right that the State should have the right to take possession of the land if it is not going to be used for the purpose for which it was granted. It is only right to point out to the Committee, however, that that provision is contrary to a certain section of the Law of Property Act, but I suggest that it is reasonable that the State should have a greater power than the subject in that case. It is really, in effect, State property, and if it is granted for a particular purpose and it is not used for that purpose, it ought to revert to the State, although that power is in excess of the power which the subject would be entitled to.

So.

Mr. Ernest Brown.

134. Is there any question of competency about it at all?-No, I do not think Some people might say that you ought not to alter the Law of Property Act, but I venture to suggest that as it is State property it is a reasonable thing to put this in. You understand what I mean. You give it for a church, and in a hundred years' time—as, for instance, in a case in Kensington now-it ceases to be a church. In the case of an ordinary individual he cannot claim it back, but we say in the case of the State, as it is not being used any longer for the purposes of a church it therefore must revert to the State.

Chairman.

135. Would that be so in the case of a private individual if such a condition were put in the original conveyance?— It would no longer apply beyond a certain period under the Rule of Perpetuities, but we say that that does not apply to the State.

136. Clause 18?-You will remember that there is Clause 10 which enables the Commissioners to make grants of land for certain purposes for the benefit of their estates. This Clause is to enable the Commissioners to make, with the consent of the Treasury, grants of money for certain purposes, and this clause really enlarges the scope of the grants which they could have made under Section 5 of the Crown Lands Act, 1894.

[Continued.

This covers such a case as I told you of last time when, you will remember, the Commissioners were asked, out of mining royalties, to give a donation for the erection of a village hall, and they had to say they were very sorry, but the law did not allow them to do it. They could have done it for a church.

Mr. Ernest Brown.

137. It is covered by "educational purposes " in Clause 18?-Yes, it is thought they should have the power to make a grant for the benefit of the particular neighbourhood.

138. Could they do it for a playing They field? I am not quite certain. could now under this clause.

139. You could under this clause ?-I think so.

any

Chairman.

140. Could they do it for any of the purposes detailed in Clause 10, where they can give land?-Clause 18 says: "for charitable or other purposes tending to the benefit of persons residing or employed on land under the management of the Commissioners." Well, I think it might. I think we might possibly get it in somewhere.

141. Are you quite sure about playing fields?

Mr. Bidder.] I think it must include playing fields. I do not see how it could fail to include playing fields when it says "for any charitable or other purposes tending to the benefit of persons residing or employed on land under the management of the Commissioners." do not think there is any doubt about it.

Mr. Ernest Brown.

142. But in Clause 10 they state the other things in detail. There ought not to be any objection about putting in playing fields? Of course, Clause 10 is with regard to granting land. It is not so necessary to grant money.

143. But it is comparable?-If they want playing fields they can get them under Clause 10. Clause 18 is only with regard to money.

144. You might find a case where it would be useful to grant money?—I think we could certainly do it.

Chairman.

145. Clause 18, under which you can grant money, seems much more strictly

16 May, 1927.]

[Continued.

limited? I think that is intentional, because you cannot have a very wide clause when you are giving money. Mr. Bidder.] It is as wide as it can be, I think.

146. Clause

Chairman.

19 is the

19?-Clause clause which has really required this Bill to come before this Committee. As was explained I think on the last occasion, there are two funds, one held by the Commissioners of Crown Lands as trustees. They have no beneficial interest in either fund. It is proposed that the first fund should be transferred to the London Diocesan Fund-and the Bishop of London has consented to that to be held by them under the enabling Act for church purposes in the Diocese of London. Then in Clause 20, which deals with the other fund, that fund is to be transferred to the Gloucester Diocesan Fund on the same trusts as it was held by the Commissioners of Crown Lands. All the Bill does really is to relieve the Commissioners of the obligation of acting as trustees in respect of these two funds.

Mr. Bidder.

147. It widens the trust in the first case, I think?-In the first case it does, but not in the second.

Mr. Ernest Brown,

148. I wonder why the trust was held by the Commissioners at first?-As a matter of fact I wrote a letter to Sir Henry Cautley explaining it to him, but unfortunately he is not here. As I understand it, the position was this: In George IV's reign the Commissioners of Crown Lands made a voluntary grant of certain land to certain Commissioners of the Crown for erecting churches, and they erected on the land St. Matthew's Chapel in Spring Gardens. Ultimately, when it was decided to rebuild the Admiralty and the War Office, this site was cleared of existing buildings, and I suppose because it was on Crown land they decided that the Commissioners, as the donors, had better be trustees for the Ecclesiastical Fund.

149. What is the size of it? It is about £3,500 now.

Mr. Bidder.

It is £7,758 Consols, which comes out at about £3,500. The value is something about half.

Mr. Ernest Brown.

That

150. What about the Gloucester Fund? -The Gloucester Fund was in connection with the time when the Commissioners of Crown Lands had charge of the Forest of Dean. That fund was held by them as trustees for the purposes of maintaining and repairing the buildings of the two churches mentioned in the clause. property has now ceased to be managed by the Commissioners of Crown Lands, having been transferred to the Forestry Commission, and the Commissioners of Crown Lands have no further interest in it. They therefore do not want to act as trustees, but to hand it over to the Gloucester Diocesan Fund.

Chairman.

151. I think the Gloucester people have a case, but I do not think the Bishop of London should get that money. I think it should go back into the hands of the Commissioners of Crown Lands.But it is church property. There is no doubt about that. It is not property of the Commissioners. The grant was given in George IV's reign to the church. The State then came along and said: We propose to take this land for building Government offices." In SO doing they had to pay compensation to buy the land, and this fund is part of that compensation which belonged to the church.

66

[Continued.

16 May, 1927.]

may benefit casually, but he is not going to start building chapels anywhere in London for Crown tenants. That is a certainty. If I understand your explanation correctly, you say this was originally church property. Well, it was at the

time when the Government erected the new buildings. The Government then took it from the church at that stage, but, as I understood you, it was originally a grant to the church, and under clause 17 of this Bill if that clause were retrospective we should have been entitled at the time the War Office was erected to have taken that land back and resumed ownership of it?-Well, I do not think so.

I do not think that would apply where the Government compulsorily acquires land. This is not a case of the user of the land having lapsed and having ceased to be used for the purposes of a church and turned into something else. This was a case where the Government passed a special Act of Parliament enabling them to rase this property to the ground and take it over. Parliament

in its wisdom in 1882 decided that compensation should be paid to the church for that piece of property, so that we certainly could not propose at this stage to go back on the decision of Parliament in 1882 and say: "We think you were wrong to give it to the church at all, and we therefore propose to hand it back to the Commissioners."

Mr. Ernest Brown.

154. I suppose the Commissioners have no knowledge as to how the money is used now? It is accumulating. A cer tain grant was made for church purposes, and it has accumulated for the benefit of the church.

Chairman.

155. Clause 17 says subject to a condition of re-entry exercisable for any reason "?-That is in the deed.

Mr. Bidder.] No such right arose in the case of the Chapel of St. Matthew. There was no reason that had arisen which would enable Parliament to re-enter other than that the Crown came down with a heavy hand and decided to acquire the lands compulsorily. But here there was no fault on the part of the transferee of the

right which enabled the Crown to act under Clause 17. It was actively being used as a church at the time, and nothing but the compulsion of the Act which was then passed would have enabled the Crown to get the land back. That, however, is a different thing to the fault of the occupier.

Chairman.

156. You say it is church property held in trust from the Commissioners of Crown Lands, but it was only church property for a specific purpose— namely, looking after, presumably, the spiritual welfare of the Crown tenants?-It is quite true, I think, the position of the Commissioners was that in 1829, or some such date as that, they built this chapel which was used no doubt for Crown tenants, just as no doubt St. Martin's-inthe-Fields was. Then when this church was done away with there was the money lying there, and it was felt that that money should be applied for the benefit of any tenants there might be. Well, there were not any, and that money has never been used, and is not required. The Commissioners say it is not required for their tenants. In so far as they are capable of judging of the spiritual needs of their own tenants they say they do not want the money. But if it is used, for instance, on the borders of London, it is quite likely that many Crown tenants might benefit. The Commissioners really want to be rid of it.

Mr. Ernest Brown.

157. It surely ought to be applied for the benefit of the Crown tenants.-There is nowhere where it can be applied for the benefit of the Crown tenants really. They have had all the benefit that there was from the old chapel, and the Commissioners and the Treasury feel that this money would be properly spent by being used by the London Diocensan Fund for church purposes in the Diocese of London. That is what is proposed here.

Chairman.

158. What did you say was the amount involved?-£3,500 odd.

159. Well, I do not think we need go into it any further here. We know the position. That takes us down to the end

16 May, 1927.]

[Continued.

of Clause 20. Then we have Clause 21.With regard to Clause 21, the only alteration in the existing law is that the limit of £100 has been raised to £1,000. It always has been considered that the Commissioners should have some general discretion, instead of having to get Treasury authority for every little transaction. It is felt that £1,000 is not unreasonable.

Mr. Ernest Brown.

160. It means less red tape?—Yes, that is what it means. It is to facilitate the working of the business. It is simply

new form; the substance is precisely the same. That is as regards sub-clause (2). That is merely form and not substance. Sub-clause (1) increases the limit of £100 to £1,000.

Chairman.

161. That still retains the responsibility of the Minister as Commissioner?— Yes, absolutely.

162. Clause 22 is interpretation?—Yes. Then Clause 23 makes it clear that the Commissioners' powers conferred by this Bill are not to apply to the Royal Parks. That is necessary because the other section has been repealed. The proviso is simply consequential on Clause 12.

163. Clause 24? That is merely a saving clause to cover the Board of Trade or the Forestry Commissioners, or the Commissioners of Works.

164. Clause 25?-Clause 25 is simply drafting so as to cover Scotland.

165. That is the only change necessary? -That is the only one.

166. Clause 26? That is short title and repeals, and the schedule contains the necessary repeals of enactments consequent upon the passing of the Bill.

Chairman.

167. There is no preamble to this Bill? -No.

The clauses of the Bill were severally read and agreed to with an amendment.

The Chairman was directed to report the Bill as amended to the House.

(62434-22) Wt. 3947-3351 500 6/27 H. St G.