§ * MR. SPICER (Monmouth Boroughs)Before this Bill is read a Third Time I should like to say a word or two, because if it passes in its present shape it will do great injustice, and will entail a very heavy loss on a charity which is now doing extremely good service. This Bill gives the Government power to purchase certain lands for police court purposes, and part of these lands which it is thus authorised to obtain are the property of the Bishopsgate Foundation. This is the foundation with which the late Rev. Mr. Rogers was so closely identified, and he was the means of re-organising it in 1891. It is now placed on a broad and liberal basis, and is doing splendid work in the way of a technical institute in the City of London, and during the last six months of its career no less than half a million attendances were made. If this Bill goes through in its present shape it means that part of their land, which has recently been let with the consent of the Charity Commissioners on a building lease for 90 years, on very favourable terms, will be taken from them, and the money so obtained will have to be invested in Consols, so that there will be a direct monetary loss, and the charity will be unable to do as much work as they otherwise would. Although I do not intend to divide the House on the question, I do venture to ask whether the Government are not prepared to give some extra consideration, in view of the nature of the charity and in view of the work that it is doing. It is not as if the Government were dealing with a private individual. It is dealing with a charity that is effecting large good in the City. There is no other institution of the kind, and by taking this land you are confining its operations, because the difference between the amount now received from the land the Government propose to take and the interest from Consols which the money will have to be invested in is a very large 315 difference, and will be a serious loss of income; and then, in addition to that, there is the loss of the value of the reversion that would accrue to the estate. Therefore I venture to ask the Government whether it is not possible to give rather more generous terms in the purchase of this estate than they would do in the case of a private individual.
§ MR. COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)I hardly understand my honourable Friend to oppose this Bill, which is for the compulsory acquisition of land for the purpose of the police service. There is no practical objection, I understand, on the part of the trustees to the Government acquiring this land—it is merely a question of the price to be paid for it. I take it that my honourable Friend wishes the House to insert some clause by which that price should be settled. But my honourable Friend is, of course, aware that all questions of price and compensation are settled under a section of the Lands Clauses Act. Before the court which is provided for by that section every argument that can be advanced on the one side or the other may be advanced. My honourable Friend can himself attend, and state in the witness-box the reason why the price should be as high as he wishes it to be; but I think he will see, as the Committee did upstairs, that it will be impossible for this House, without the information before it which would enable it to settle what the price should be, to enter upon the consideration of a question of that character. That will be left to the court, which will take into consideration all the arguments that can be brought before it, and will decide the question as to what is a fair price to be paid by the Receiver General. I hope, therefore, that my honourable Friend will be satisfied with the explanation I have given, and not prolong this discussion.