Lords Sitting of 2 August 1911

Preamble
The EARL OF CARLISLE—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
PENLLWYN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ST. HELENS CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
SEVERN FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
CORPORATION OF LONDON (BRIDGES) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 158.)
MIDDLESBROUGH, STOCKTON-ON-TEES, AND THORNABY TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL.
  METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 29th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 4th day of July next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed for Tuesday next.
PORT OF LONDON (FIRST ELECTION OF MEMBERS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY (SUPER ANNUATION FUND, &c.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order).
[The references are to the Bill as printed for the House of Lords (No. 109).]
Commons Amendment.
Page 5.
Line 37, leave out ("is") and insert ("and the reserve fund are").
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): I move that your Lordships do not agree with the Commons Amendment, and I shall then submit, in lieu of this Amendment, the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That this House do not agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Amendment moved in lieu thereof—
Clause 3, page 5, line 36, leave out from ("case") to ("general") in line 37.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Commons Amendments.
Page 6.
Line 18, after ("books") insert ("shall be shown separately in the published accounts of the Company and shall be expended only for the purposes of this Order").
Page 9.
Line 25, leave out ("said.") and insert ("superannuation").
Page 10.
Line 21, after ("no") insert ("salaried"), and leave out ("or servant").
Page 12.
Line 19, after ("member") insert (or any person nominated by a contributing member").
Line 20, leave out from ("times") to ("on") in line 21.
Line 22, leave out ("account") and insert ("accounts and all books relating thereto and to make any copies or extracts of or from any such accounts and books").
Line 25, after ("dismissed") insert ("or retiring"), and leave out from ("service") to end of paragraph and insert (" (except as hereinafter provided) shall receive back all his own contributions, without interest, and shall have no further claim on the superannuation fund").
Page 12.
Leave out lines 31 to 37 inclusive.
Lines 39 and 40, leave out ("or from any cause except misconduct, fraud, or dishonesty").
Page 13.
Line 1, leave out from ("contributions") to ("and") in line 2 and insert ("together with an amount contributed by the company on his behalf equal to the member's ordinary contributions, without interest").
Line 3, leave out from ("fund") to end of paragraph.
Page 19.
Line 10, leave out ("one") and insert ("two").
Line 11, leave out ("director") and insert ("directors").
Line 37, leave out from ("proposed") to ("each") in line 38.
Page 20.
Line 1, after the second ("of") insert ("all or such of the candidates as may desire to attend, and of").
Line 2, after ("committee") insert ("open the envelopes and").
Line 17, after ("persons") insert ("(preferably a director)").
Page 21.
Line 33, after ("thereof") insert ("together with a report which shall contain particulars of the number of contributing members and annuitants on the books, the number of members who have died or left the service, and such other information as the Committee may decide upon").
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Commons Amendments.
Page 21.
Line 34, leave out from ("member") to the end of the paragraph, and insert ("The Report shall state also the amount of the reserve fund from time to time").
LORD PENTLAND: I move that your Lordships do not agree with the Commons Amendment, and in lieu thereof I shall move the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the House do not agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Amendment moved in lieu thereof—
Schedule, page 21, line 34, leave out from ("member") to the end of the paragraph and insert ("The report shall state also the amount from time to time standing to the credit of the Superannuation Fund Reserve Account referred to in the section of the North British Railway (Superannuation Fund, &c.) Order, 1911, of which the marginal note is ' Power to set aside funds to meet liabilities ' ").—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Commons Amendments.
Page 22.
Line 11, leave out from ("on") to end of paragraph and insert ("making application to the secretary of the fund").
Line 20, leave out ("chairman for the time being of the Company") and insert ("Junior Lord Ordinary of the Court of Session").
Page 22.
Line 26, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty-eight").
Line 36, at end, insert—
35. An annual general meeting of contributing members shall be held in the month of April of each year, at such time and place in Edinburgh as the committee may determine, and the secretary shall issue a notice thereof containing the agenda and the abstract of accounts and other information printed under the provisions of Article 30 hereof, to each such member at least fourteen days prior to the date of such annual general meeting, and a contributing member may appoint any other contributing member as his proxy to vote for him at any annual general meeting and at any adjournment thereof. Notices of motions to be brought forward at any annual general meeting shall be sent to the secretary not less than twenty-eight days before the date of such meeting.
36. Every instrument of proxy shall be in writing in such form as hereinafter provided and be signed by the contributing member appointing

785
the proxy, and shall be left with the secretary or at his office at least forty-eight hours before the time for holding the annual general meeting whereat the said instrument of proxy is to be acted on.
37. The following shall be the form of the instrument of proxy:—
I, A.B., a contributor to the North British Railway Superannuation Fund, hereby appoint CD., another contributor to the said fund, to act as my proxy at the annual general meeting of the members of the said fund to be held on the day of and at every adjournment thereof.
As witness my hand this day of

(Stamp.)

(Signed.)

A.B.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill returned to the Commons.

DACOITY IN INDIA.
LORD WYNFORD LORD WYNFORD rose to ask the Secretary of State for India with regard to the trial in the High Court at Calcutta on 1st April last of the 17 prisoners in the Khulna dacoity case—

1. Whether any restitution of the property extorted or stolen by these men has been made, or compensation in lieu thereof paid, to the various owners; and

2. Whether previous to or during the trial any communications were made to the prisoners or their legal advisers to lead them to understand that if the prisoners pleaded guilty they would be released on their own recognisances; and, if so, by whom and on whose authority such a procedure was adopted.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, a fortnight ago the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, in the absence of the Secretary of State for India, very kindly answered a Question which I had put on the Paper with regard to the trial, in what was known as the Khulna dacoity case, of seventeen men before a special tribunal of the High Court of Calcutta on April 1. May I remind your Lordships that the prisoners pleaded "Guilty," and were somewhat unexpectedly released on their own recognisances to come up
786
for sentence if called upon. The noble Viscount explained how very desirable it was in this and similar cases to avoid delay and prevent the trial being dragged out, and in that respect I am sure your Lordships will be in agreement with the noble Viscount. He further stated that the procedure had the approval of the Viceroy, with whom he was in perfect agreement. But there are two matters in connection with the trial which I think require further explanation.
I may state for your Lordships' information—I hope the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong—that these prisoners did not all come from the lowest classes. Several of them were superior, well-educated, and of considerable social influence and position in their neighbourhood. They had for some time formed themselves into a gang and been making depredations on private property accompanied with the use of firearms, and, in some instances, considerable violence to the unfortunate individuals, their own countrymen, who were deprived of their property. The noble Viscount told your Lordships the other day that on hearing of the clemency extended to them these prisoners left the Court with many expressions of gratitude and joy and returned to their villages; but we did not hear that those whose property had been stolen by these men expressed the same symptoms of gratification, and so far as I have been able to learn not one single word has been said about the restitution to the rightful owners of such property as could be traced or found.
The other matter which I think requires further explanation forms the subject of the second portion of the Question which I have put on the Paper to-night. The noble Viscount, in reply to my Question the week before last, told the House that a very eminent and entirely unsuspected lawyer did make a communication to these men previous to the trial, but it is difficult to understand—in fact, to me it seems extraordinary—why these prisoners should have consented to renounce their defence on a suggestion which I rather gathered the noble Viscount implied was of an entirely unofficial character. That the course to be adopted at the trial was known before the prisoners were brought into Court is evident, because I

787
am given to understand that the bail bonds were all ready and had been made out beforehand. In these circumstances I hope the noble Viscount will see some reason in my asking a further Question on this matter.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, I do not at all complain that the noble Lord should ask for further information. The answer to the first part of the Question by the Government of India is that the only property restored by the guilty persons was a small quantity of melted-down silver, which was, I understand, all that was recovered. I am not aware, and I say this on the authority of the Government of India, that compensation has been paid to the victims of these robberies. As to the second part of the Question, action was taken by the Government of India with a view to bringing about a conclusion of the proceedings. The intention of the Government was conveyed, as the noble Lord has reminded the House, by a very eminent and unsuspected counsel. There is no secret about it; he was Mr. Sinha, who was thought so well of that it was ray duty to recommend him to His Majesty to be made a member of the Viceroy's Executive Council. He was the first Indian Member of that Council, and was a great success I may observe in passing. It was Mr. Sinha who made the communication to these persons, and I think the noble Lord will agree that the view of the Government of India was a very sensible one. There have been two or three trials of dacoity cases spreading over enormous lengths of time, hundreds of witnesses have been examined, and in a quite recent case, the name of which escapes me at the moment, there was a complete breakdown in the end. You cannot wonder, therefore, that the Government of India—and this is the whole Government, not the Viceroy alone but the Viceroy in Council—sought some means, without injuring justice, to avoid proceedings so prolonged and so inadvisable from many points of view. It was in accordance with their authorisation that Mr. Sinha made this communication to one or more of these men, with results which I believe are held by the Government of India to be entirely satisfactory and to have justified the course they took.

PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Right of trustees holding leasehold interest in place of worship to acquire freehold.
1.—(1) Where premises are held under a. lease to which this Act applies upon trust to be used for the purposes of a place of worship or for purposes connected therewith, whether in conjunction with other purposes or not, the trustees, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, shall be entitled as incident to their leasehold interest to enlarge that interest into a fee simple, and for that purpose to acquire the freehold and all intermediate reversions:
Provided that—

(a) if the premises exceed two acres in extent the trustees shall not be entitled to exercise such right in respect of more than two acres thereof;

(b) this Act shall not apply where the premises are used or are proposed to be used for the purposes of a place of worship in contravention of any covenant contained in the lease.

(2) The leases to which this Act applies are leases (including underleases and agreements for leases or underleases), whether granted or made before or after the passing of this Act, for lives or a life or for the unexpired residue of any term originally created for a period of not less than twenty-one years, whether determinable on a life or lives or not.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved to omit from subsection (1) the words "or for purposes connected therewith, whether in conjunction with other purposes or not."
The noble Lord said: This is a Bill of a very unusual, and, I believe, unprecedented character, and it is desirable that its operations should be confined precisely to the objects to which it purports to relate. I move to omit these words because they are objectionably wide and would enable premises to be enfranchised the main purpose of which was purely secular or even commercial. It is quite conceivable that there might be a building which was habitually used

789
for the purposes of a gymnasium, or as a concert hall, or even for political meetings where the owner of the property might be denounced, and yet under the Bill provided only one religious service apparently was held there in the year enfranchisement could be claimed. In Clause 4 there is a very wide interpretation of the expression "place of worship," and I do not think it can have been intended that the Bill should include premises where religious purposes were really only subsidiary. In view of the very wide definition of "place of worship," it seems to me that it would be perfectly possible to claim enfranchisement for buildings which were actually not even contiguous to the so-called religious edifice. In these circumstances I think I am perfectly justified in asking for the omission of these words.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("or for purposes connected therewith, whether in conjunction with other purposes or not").—(Lord Newton.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): If this Amendment were carried it would go far beyond those cases which the noble Lord mentioned. It should be remembered, in the first place, that this Bill cannot possibly apply to any building unless it is being carried on in accordance with the terms of the trust. The terms of the trust must have been approved of by the landlord who originally granted the lease, and the presumption is that the lease was granted by the landlord because he approved of the general objects of the trust; and whatever else there may be in this Bill it is perfectly clear that unless the premises are still being used in accordance with the trust approved of by the original landlord advantage cannot be taken of this Bill. It is also true that these trusts are very often of a somewhat antiquated character. Imagine a case in which the trust, drawn up before there was such a large system of elementary education in this country, provided that evening schools should be held on a certain number of days in the week. The noble Lord will see that by his Amendment the institution or the continuance of those evening schools, to which I am sure he would not object, might prevent the trustees from taking advantage of the Bill as it is drawn at the present time. I am quite sure the noble Lord will agree
790
that because the building happened to be used during the week for continuation schools it would not be fair to prevent the people concerned from taking advantage of this Bill; but that would be one of the results of his Amendment. I have a good deal of sympathy with the endeavour of the noble Lord to exclude from the operation of the Bill premises which are used for wholly secular or commercial purposes, but his Amendment, it seems to me, would go a good deal further than he himself would wish it to go. In the course of the present stage of the Bill I hope to accept a number of Amendments that have been put down by noble Lords opposite which I hope will meet the noble Lord's point, but if, after the Committee stage, he is not satisfied with the Amendments which I propose to accept he could bring up a further Amendment on Report to meet the purely commercial case to which he referred. I hope that on the present occasion he will not press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am sure that my noble friend Lord Newton does not wish to exclude a building used for educational purposes. What he objects to is the extreme wideness of these words. The words include other purposes, purposes which have nothing to do with education and which might be purely secular. The noble Earl says that he has great sympathy with Lord Newton in the objects which appear to be contained in his Amendment. Might I ask whether the Government, as they sympathise with Lord Newton to a considerable extent, will not themselves look at these words and propose some Amendment on Report excluding from the operation of the Bill premises used for commercial purposes and things of that kind?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I shall be very glad to accept that suggestion and to frame an Amendment which would exclude all commercial cases.
LORD NEWTON: If the noble Earl wants me to meet him he will have to offer something better than that. Commercial is too narrow. My Amendment is merely a safeguarding Amendment for the purpose of securing that the Bill shall be used only for its avowed object—namely, for securing leasehold enfranchisement for

791
buildings used solely or almost entirely for religious purposes. I do not think the exclusion of merely commercial cases would meet my point.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to consult with him as to the terms of an Amendment between now and the Report stage. I think it could be made an agreed Amendment, in which case I would put it down on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I propose, in subsection (1) after the word "not" ["whether in conjunction with other purposes or not"], to insert "and such premises are being used in accordance with the terms of the trust." I think these words are entirely in accordance with the intention of the Bill. In fact, the noble Earl said just now that enfranchisement could not be claimed unless the building was being used for purposes connected with the trust. The words are not in the Bill as it stands, and I apprehend that the noble Earl will see no objection to inserting them.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("not") insert ("and such premises are being used in accordance with the terms of the trust").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have no objection to the insertion of the words proposed, which carry out the intention of the promoters of the Bill.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I suppose what is intended is "exclusively used" for the purposes of the trust? Unless those words appear it is merely colourable.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: This is a legal question, and there are other noble Lords more competent than I am to express an opinion on that matter. I do not know whether any of them would favour us with their view.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Might it not be possible that the trust provided that the premises should be used for certain purposes, the purposes contemplated in this Bill, but did not exclude their use for other purposes? I would much sooner have the Amendment as moved than with the addition of the word "exclusively."
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I will retain the Amendment in its present form, and we can look into it before Report.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In the next line of subsection (1) I propose, after the word "contrary," to insert "other than a covenant of agreement against the enlargement of the leasehold interest into a freehold contained in a lease granted or made before the passing of this Act." I believe the noble Earl has no objection to the insertion of these words.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("contrary") insert ("other than a covenant or agreement against the enlargement of the leasehold interest into a freehold contained in a lease granted or made before the passing of this Act").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I propose, at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to insert the words "under which the premises are held or in any lease superior thereto." This Bill deals with under-leases as well as superior leases, and I think it is necessary that these words should be inserted to make clear what is meant.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, after ("lease") insert ("under which the premises are held or in any lease superior thereto").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Procedure for acquisition of reversionary interests.
2. For the purpose of acquiring such reversionary interests as aforesaid the Lands Clauses Acts shall apply as if the trustees had been authorised to acquire the premises by a special Act incorporating the Lands Clauses Acts and sections seventy-seven to eighty-five of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, subject, however, to the modifications set out in

793
the schedule to this Act, and to the following modifications:—

(a) All questions of disputed compensation shall be settled by a single arbitrator to be appointed, in default of agreement, by the county court, whose remuneration shall be fixed by the county court, and who shall be deemed to be an arbitrator within the meaning of the Lands Clauses Acts, and the provisions of those Acts with respect to arbitration shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, apply accordingly:

(b) The consideration payable in respect of any intermediate reversion may, at the option of the person entitled to the reversion, be an annual rentcharge for a term corresponding to the unexpired residue of the term of the reversion:

(c) In determining the amount of any compensation the value of any buildings erected by the trustees, or improvements made by them, shall be excluded:

(d) No allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I move to omit from paragraph (b) the words "the reversion" and to substitute "such reversion." Paragraph (b) deals only with intermediate reversions, but the Bill itself deals with two sorts of reversions. Therefore if the word "such" is not inserted here it might be held to refer to a freehold reversion.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("the") and insert ("such").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved to add at the end of the clause the following new paragraph—
(e) In ascertaining the value of the premises for the term of the lease the sum to be paid for the rent during such term shall be based upon the full annual value of the site, notwithstanding that the rent reserved under the lease may be less than such full annual value.
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to confine the compulsory powers to cases in which full consideration has been given by way of rent or otherwise for the lease of the place of worship. There have been a great many cases in which leases have been granted at a nominal Tent. What happens is roughly this. The members of some religious body go to a landowner and say they want to put
794
up a religious edifice. He asks them what they are prepared to pay. Their usual reply is, "We are poor people; we think that you might give us the site for nothing." Frequently the owner does not see his way to do this. Perhaps he is contemplating rebuilding his property in that particular neighbourhood. Therefore he says to them something to this effect, "You shall have the land at a purely nominal rent"—2s. 6d. a year, or whatever it may be. It is perfectly obvious that in a case of this kind it would be grossly unjust to the landlord to turn his generosity against him in the case of enfranchisement. The case is so obvious that I do not feel called upon to argue it at all. The essence of the bargain has been a nominal rent in consideration of leasehold tenure. Under the Bill the trustees can obtain the advantage of the nominal rent and deprive the owner of the consideration for it. Apart from any question of justice, it is very desirable in the interests of places of worship that this Amendment should be accepted, otherwise the granting of leases at nominal rents such as I have alluded to is not likely to take place in the future.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, after ("compulsory") insert the following new paragraph—
(e) In ascertaining the value of the premises for the term of the lease the sum to be paid for the rent during such term shall be based upon the full annual value of the site, notwithstanding that the rent reserved under the lease may be less than such full annual value.—(Lord Newton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am sure your Lordships will appreciate the very great difference which the noble Lord's Amendment makes in the scheme of the Bill. Let me take a practical example. Supposing that a landlord, because he thinks it right to give facilities for public worship, has allowed certain trustees to erect a chapel upon his land and is content to take £1 a year rent although the land is worth, say, £30 a year. He thinks it right that people should have facilities for public worship, and he therefore lets them have the land at £1 a year. Under the scheme of the Bill if the trustees are anxious to have the freehold they will pay the landlord the discount on the value of the land at the end of the period, as well as twenty-five years purchase, or whatever it may be,

795
of the rent. Under the Bill what we propose is that they should pay the £1, which the landlord agreed to accept, multiplied by twenty-five. The scheme of the noble Lord in his Amendment is that they should pay to the landlord the £30 multiplied by twenty-five, because that would be the real value although the landlord himself had been perfectly content to accept £1 per annum. I hope I have made myself clear. It is the difference between the real value and the value which the landlord out of his generosity is willing to fix. The presumption is that the landlord who granted the land was content to receive £1 a year so long as, under the terms of the trust, the land was used for these purposes. Now under this Bill we very carefully safeguard the fact that the land must continue to be used for the purposes of public worship in accordance with the trust. The landlord has been content to receive £1 a year; the noble Lord wishes him to receive a great deal more. The answer which I can imagine the noble Lord would make to my argument would be, "Yes, you make him take it, but there is no reason why he should not give it back again as a free gift of his own accord to the trustees." That would be perfectly fair in many cases, but not in all cases. In cases where the land was settled or where the landlord was a tenant for life, he would be obliged to receive the larger sum; otherwise he would not be acting in accordance with his duties. Apart from that, there is another practical consideration. If this Amendment was accepted the obvious result would be that trustees would postpone until the very last moment the purchase of the freehold. They would say to themselves, "We arc, enjoying this piece of land for £1 a year. Why should we try and enfranchise it and pay until the expiration of the lease £30 a year? We are perfectly safe under the lease. We will wait until just before the lease expires." That would put the landlord in a large number of cases in the uncomfortable position of not really knowing whether the trustees were going to take advantage of this Bill or not. He would be in a position of considerable uncertainty, especially if he thought of developing the land. In these circumstances, and because it would put a very large burden upon trustees who availed themselves of this Bill, I venture to hope that your Lordships will not accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD HYLTON: The London County Council happen to be freeholders of eight sites to which the provisions of this Bill might be applied. These sites, together with adjoining property, were secured by the Council originally for improvement schemes, and they constitute certain lands which will have to be disposed of ultimately. The Council hope that when the time comes for disposing of the land they will get the full market value. But unless some such Amendment as Lord Newton's is inserted in the Bill they will have to be content with a much smaller sum, and the loss will fall on the shoulders of the ratepayers.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I confess I am not convinced by the argument of the noble Earl opposite. I gather that the intention of the Bill is that persons who hold the building lease of a chapel shall be entitled to enfranchise their chapel if they desire to convert their lease into a freehold. The reason for that provision is that in certain cases chapels have been pulled down at the end of the lease, the congregations turned out, and considerable hardship occasioned. The noble Earl objects to this Amendment, as I understand it, in the interests of the trustees of the chapel. But surely the trustees have only got, if they choose, to retain their position as lessees until the end of the lease; they need not enfranchise till the end of the lease. But when they get to the end of the lease and desire to enfranchise the Bill gives them a right—I think quite rightly—against the landlord which they do not possess at the present moment. But why are they not to pay the real value of the land—not of the building, because the building is rightly excluded under the Bill, but the full value of the land at the time of the enfranchisement? A lease may have been given, for charitable reasons, at a very low rent; but the position surely is altered by the enfranchisement. I certainly never supposed that it was the intention of the Bill not to give a reasonable value to the landlord on enfranchisement, and I do hope that the noble Earl may be able to reconsider the matter at any rate to some extent.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think we are getting a little bit confused. The value of the land is quite a separate thing. I agree with the noble Viscount that it is quite right that the trustees should

797
pay the value of the land subject to the discount. If the land is worth £1,000 thirty years from to-day, the amount to be paid to-day would not be £1,000 obviously. What we are dealing with in this Amendment is the rent. A landlord of his own accord has, we will say, allowed trustees to have land for £1 a year on a lease extending over a number of years. The landlord is quite content in the circumstances to take £1 a year for land which may be worth £30 a year. What the Amendment suggests is that the landlord should be paid the £30 a year, for the Amendment says that the sum to be paid shall be based upon the full annual value of the site—a value which the landlord in his generosity has been good enough to forego. Suppose there are ten years of the lease unexpired. The landlord, under the original terms of the lease, had agreed to take £1 a year. Under the Bill when the sum is calculated which the landlord is to receive it is calculated at £1 a year. But Lord Newton in his Amendment says it must be calculated at £30 a year, which is the real value. The Amendment deals with the question of compensation for the rent and not with that of compensation for the value of the land, which, of course, is an entirely different thing. I submit that the compensation for the rent which is to be given to the landlord should be based upon the sum which the landlord himself was willing to accept when he granted the lease.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Earl has stated his case with great clearness. But is he quite certain that the case which he has put before us is the ease which is in the Bill? As I understood him, the only question which is being considered is that of the remainder of the lease. But look at Clause 2. It runs, "for the purpose of acquiring such reversionary interests as aforesaid." The reversionary interest is the right to turn leasehold land into freehold.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): Put out of account all notion that we are dealing with anything exceptional, and suppose that it is a railway company which is buying. A railway company has, we will say, a ten years' lease, and wants to acquire the reversion. It will buy, not what it has got, which is the lease for ten years, but what it has not got—the reversion. It
798
will pay for the reversion the full market value. So under this Bill. The trustees will not pay more than £1 a year for the lease which they have actually got, because that is their property already.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Will the noble and learned Viscount point to the words in the Bill which cover that?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Clause 2 provides procedure for the acquisition of reversionary interests. It is the reversionary interest which you acquire; the lease you possess already. Your lease, which is your own, merges in the reversion which becomes yours by the purchase, but you pay the full market value of the reversion. Clause 2 runs, "for the purpose of acquiring such reversionary interests as aforesaid …" Those are the only things the tenant has not got, and those are the only things he has to buy. If I have a lease and wish to become the owner in fee simple, all I have to do is to buy the reversion, and the lease merges in that reversion. The difficulty in the Amendment is that Lord Newton would make people buy over again what they have already got. We have nothing to do here with the value of the premises for the term of the lease. The value of the reversion is the value of the rent during the time which is still to run plus the fee simple value at the end of that term. Under Clause 2 full value would be paid for the reversion.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think it is clear that there is no difference between the two sides of the House as to the basis on which we desire that these transactions should be carried out. I understand from the noble and learned Viscount that in the case of a lease with ten years to run at a peppercorn rent, no question arises as to the remaining ten years. Those are already in the hands of the lessees. But so far as the reversionary interest is concerned the purchase, I understand, is to be based on the full market value of the site. If the noble and learned Viscount is quite satisfied that that is so, we are content. But perhaps he will have the matter carefully looked into so that if any doubt exists that doubt may be removed.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I have no doubt on the point, but I will undertake that my noble friend will look into the matter with the draftsman.
LORD NEWTON: Perhaps it would be more satisfactory if I redrafted the Amendment and brought it up on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Effect of enfranchisement on covenants. [See 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 65 (4).]
3. The estate in fee simple acquired by the trustees shall be subject to the same trusts and be subject to all the same covenants and provisions relating to user and enjoyment and to all the same obligations of every kind other than the payment of rent as those to which the lease hold interest would have been subject if it had not been so enlarged:
Provided that any covenant to insure against fire, whether in any particular office or not, and to reinstate and apply the insurance money in reinstating the premises in case of damage by fire, and any other covenant to do any act which may or will be beneficial to the demised promises alone, shall continue in force only where the consideration is payable in the form of a rent-charge, and so long as that rentcharge is payable.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I move to insert after the word "enlarged," immediately before the proviso, the words contained in my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line, 31, after ("enlarged"), insert ("and all such covenants, provisions, and obligations shall be enforced against the trustees and their successors in title by the persons who, but for the enlargement of the leasehold interest under this Act, would for the time being be entitled to enforce such covenants, provisions, or obligations").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Definitions.
4. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "place of worship" means any church, chapel, or meeting-house used for religious worship, and includes a burial ground, Sunday school or minister's house attached to or used in connection with a place of worship:
The expression "freehold reversion" means the estate of fee simple in the premises subject to the lease held by the trustees and any lease superior thereto; and, where the premises subject to the lease consist of land of copyhold or customary tenure, includes the interest of the tenant by copy of court roll or the customary tenant subject to the lease held by the trustees and to any lease superior thereto
800
as well as the interest of the lord of the manor:
The expression "intermediate reversion" means any leasehold interest in the land (whether under a lease or underlease or under an agreement for a lease or underlease) superior to the lease held by the trustees:
The expression "the county court" means the county court for the district in which the place of worship is situate:
The expression "trustees" means the persons in whom the leasehold premises are for the time being vested for such purposes as aforesaid under any trust whether express or implied and includes their predecessors in title.
LORD HYLTON,LORD HYLTON, on behalf of the EARL of DUNMORE, moved an Amendment at the beginning of the clause, after the words "The expression place of worship ' means any church, chapel, or meetinghouse," to insert the word "habitually," and before the words "religious worship" to insert the word "public."
The noble Lord said: I will not weary your Lordships by repeating what Lord Newton said in moving his first Amendment to the effect that a great many of these dissenting chapels throughout the country are used from time to time for purposes very far removed from religion. This matter was brought to the notice of Lord Dunmore, on whose behalf I am moving this Amendment, by the London County Council; and notwithstanding what the noble and learned Viscount opposite told us as to the difference between buying the reversion and the rent, I think it will be admitted that when the London County Council have to dispose of the surplus land to which I referred just now they will under this Bill obtain less money than if some qualifying words such as I now move are inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, after ("meeting-house") insert ("habitually") and after ("for") insert ("public").—(Lord Hylton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Your Lordships will have seen that by accepting a certain number of Amendments we have gone some distance, at any rate, to meet the views of those noble Lords opposite who are anxious that this Bill should not be unfairly used. I would ask the noble Lord whether the Amendments which we have already agreed to do not go sufficiently far. The word "habitually" has no very precise meaning, and is not

801
easy to construe. I suggest, as a compromise, that the noble Lord should not insist on the word "habitually" and I will accept the word "public."
LORD KNARESBOROUGH: As has been pointed out, there is a very great difference between holding under a lease and holding under a freehold. When a man has a freehold and breaks his covenants you have to prove damage, but so long as he only has a lease you can enforce the covenants. I have been advised in these cases that it is a dangerous thing to sell a freehold and rely upon the covenants being kept. Therefore I think it is quite reasonable that when people are proposing to acquire your property against your will they should show that the premises are bona fide used for religious purposes and for the purposes of public worship. A building may be called a place of public worship when it is only occasionally used for that purpose.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I confess I do not see in what way the insertion of the word "habitually" would strengthen the Bill. The premises must be used according to the terms of the trust, and the trust would be one for religious worship and possibly for other things as well with which we have nothing to do. I hope the noble Lord will not press the matter. As to the insertion of the word "public," I would ask the noble Earl opposite whether "public worship" is a proper definition. These chapels are not like churches of the Church of England, which are places for public worship. I suppose a chapel belonging to a sect is not a place usually considered public in the sense that anybody could go there who wished to. I merely ask the question whether it would be a legal definition.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Public refers to the word worship, not to freedom of access; but I will look into the point. I should have thought that the term "public worship" would certainly have included those chapels to which in our mind this Bill should apply.
LORD HYLTON: I will not press for the insertion of the word "habitually" as the noble Earl accepts the word "public."
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I move to amend the first definition so that it would run—
"The expression 'place of worship' means any church, chapel, or meeting-house used for public religious worship, and includes a burial ground, Sunday school, or minister's house attached to or used in connection with and held upon the same trusts as a place of worship."
The insertion of the words "and held upon the same trusts as" is in accordance with the plan of the Bill and makes the provision clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2, after ("with") insert ("and held upon the same trusts as").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule:
MODIFICATIONS OF THE LANDS CLAUSES ACTS AND SECTIONS 77 TO 85 OF THE RAILWAY CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1845.
(1) The use of the premises as a place of worship and for purposes connected therewith shall be deemed to be the undertaking or the railway and the trustees shall be deemed to be the promoters of the undertaking or the railway company.
(2) Section one hundred and twenty-three of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845, limiting the time for compulsory purchase shall not apply.
(3) If the trustees desire to sell the premises or any part thereof, sections one hundred and twenty-seven to one hundred and thirty-two of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall apply as if the premises or part thereof were superfluous lands within the meaning of those sections.
(4) The arbitrator shall, so far as practicable, in assessing compensation, act on his own knowledge and experience, but, subject as aforesaid, at any arbitration held under this Act the arbitrator shall hear, by themselves or their agents, the parties, and shall hear witnesses, but shall not, except in such cases as the arbitrator may otherwise direct, hear counsel or more than one expert witness on either side.
(5) The Lord Chancellor may make rules fixing a scale of costs to be applicable on an arbitration under this Act, and an arbitrator under this Act may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, determine the amount of costs, and shall have power to disallow as costs in the arbitration the costs of any witness whom he considers to have been called unnecessarily, and any other costs which he considers to have been caused or incurred unnecessarily, and, if he thinks the circumstances such as to justify him in so doing, to order that each of the parties shall bear their own costs.
(6) There may be contained in the award of the arbitrator a finding that the claimant, after having been requested in writing by the trustees so to do, has failed to deliver to the trustees a statement in writing of the amount claimed, giving sufficient particulars and in sufficient time to enable the trustees to make a proper offer, and where such a finding is contained in the award, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as to costs of arbitrations shall apply as if the trustees had offered the same sum or a greater sum than that found to be due by the award:
Provided that this provision shall not apply unless the written request for particulars contained a notice of the effect of this provision.
(7) Land includes easements in or relating to land.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved an Amendment in Clause 3 of the Schedule, after the words "If the trustees desire to sell the premises or any part thereof," to insert "or if they let or habitually use or permit to be used the premises or any part thereof for any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith" The noble Earl said: As the Schedule stands, if the trustees desire to sell the premises under the sections which are subsequently mentioned the previous owner would have the right of pre-emption. It seems to me, if they let or permit to be used the premises for other purposes, that in that case, too, the owner ought to have the right of preemption.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 11, after ("thereof") insert ("or if they let or habitually use or permit to be used the premises or any part thereof for any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am very glad to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved to add, at the end of Clause 3 of the Schedule, the words contained in his Amendment, which he explained were intended to remove ambiguity in the drafting of the Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, after ("sections") insert ("and as if in section one hundred and twenty-eight of that Act, the words unless such lands be situate within a town or be lands built upon or used for building purposes' were omitted, and the words who was entitled to the freehold reversion in the lands at the time the interest of the trustees
804
in the lands was enlarged into a fee simple or the successor in title of such person' were substituted for the words then entitled to the lands (if any) from which the same were originally severed'").—(Lord Hylton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This Amendment divides itself into two. I shall be glad to accept the first part down to the words "omitted," and I would suggest that the noble Lord should withdraw the remainder of the Amendment at this stage and bring it up in an amended form on Report. I am not prepared to say that the words in the second part as they now stand are sufficiently accurate to meet the noble Lord's object.
On Question, Amendment down to the word "omitted" agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 159.)

LUNACY BILL. [H.L.]
Bill read 3a (according to Order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN): My Lords, I have several Amendments to move One of the purposes is to add to the strength of the Lunacy Commissioners, and the necessity for that has arisen in this way. It has been necessary for me to make orders in three successive years diminishing the number of visits which each Commissioner had to make because their number was insufficient. I do not think I ought to continue doing so any longer, because while the number of Commissioners in Lunacy is the same as in 1845 the patients under their care have increased from 25,000 to 120,000. As to Clause 1, I have been reluctantly obliged to give up the hope of effecting in this Bill an amalgamation of the Lunacy Departments because Parliamentary time will not suffice for the carrying out of that much needed reform. The object of my Amendments is to jettison what I am afriad I can no longer hope to carry in this Bill.
Amendments moved—
Leave out Clause 1 [Amalgamation of the Lunacy Departments].
Clause 3, page 2, line 3, leave out from ("1911") to the end of the clause.
After clause 3, insert the following new clause—
".The number of paid Commissioners in Lunacy shall be increased by two, and for that

805
purpose the Lord Chancellor may appoint two persons to be Commissioners in Lunacy, and the provisions of the Lunacy Act, 1890, with respect to the qualification of Commissioners shall apply to any Commissioner appointed under this section."
First Schedule, page 3, leave out the First Schedule.
Second Schedule, page 5, leave out the Second Schedule.
In the Title, leave out ("amalgamate the Lunacy Departments") and insert ("provide for the appointment of two additional Commissioners in Lunacy").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ASYLUMS OFFICERS.
LORD MONK BRETTON: I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown on questions relating to the Asylums Officers Superannuation Act, 1909, and submitted to them last Autumn, will be made public during the present Session of Parliament.
LORD HERSCHELL: The effect of the opinions referred to by the noble Lord has already been communicated to the officers and servants and to the local authority concerned in the appeal which led to the Law Officers being consulted, and it is about to be made known in a circular letter to Visiting Committees generally and to other interested persons. Perhaps I may briefly state the conclusions at which the Law Officers have arrived in the matter. They have advised that a dispute as to whether an officer or servant of an asylum is an "established officer or servant" within the meaning of Section 17 (1) of the Act is not a dispute which the Secretary of State has any jurisdiction to determine under Section 15, and apart from any proceedings that may be taken before a Court of Law, no authority except the Visiting Committee of an asylum has any jurisdiction to decide what officers or servants are established; that the list of established officers and servants is made up of (a) such officers or servants employed in a permanent capacity as
806
have the care or charge of patients, together with (b) such other officers or servants as the Visiting Committee in its sole discretion determines by resolution to include; that the division of the officers or servants placed on the list of established officers and servants into two classes is to be made by the Visiting Committee with the consent of the local authority. The local authority's consent is required to the division into classes, but they have no other jurisdiction with regard to the list; and there is no appeal to the Secretary of State in the matter.

ALIENS AND THE MERCANTILE MARINE.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the case of the steamer "Coomassie," owned by Greeks, flying the British flag, and trading without British officers or men, which recently formed the subject of a Question in this House; to ask the result of the inquiries which have been set on foot; whether the "Coomassie" is still flying the British flag; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any further steps in the direction of preventing foreign-owned vessels from registration as nominally British-owned vessels, and ensuring that merchant vessels of genuine British ownership shall be commanded and officered by British subjects.
LORD HERSCHELL: I am afraid that I have had very little time to go into the question which the noble Lord has raised, but I will give him all the information I have been able to get. The vessel to which the noble Lord refers, the "Coomassie," belonged to the African Steamship Company (Messrs. Elder Dempster & Company) until February or March of this year, when she was bought by the Anglo-Ionian Navigation Company, Ltd., a company registered in London under the British Companies Acts. This Company applied to the Registrar of Shipping with a view to registering their title to the vessel, but, as it was doubtful whether the company was entitled to own a British ship, the Commissioners of Customs ordered. an inquiry to enable the company to produce evidence of the location of their principal place of business and their title to own a British ship, the Commissioners of Customs ordered an inquiry to enable the company to produce evidence of the location of their principal place of business and their title to own a British ship.

807
In May last Lord Musketry called attention to the case in your Lordships' House and he was given certain information as to the results of the inquiries which the Board of Trade had made as to the manning and officering of the vessel. At that time the question of the ownership of the vessel and her right to fly the British flag was under consideration by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and the noble Lord was told that the Customs had ordered an inquiry into these matters under Section 51 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906. The inquiry, however, did not take place for a very good reason— namely, that the Company informed the Registrar of Shipping before the inquiry was begun that the vessel had been sold to Greek subjects and consequently her registry as a British ship was closed.
As regards the noble Lord's suggestion that steps should be taken to prevent foreign-owned vessels from registration as nominally British-owned vessels, it might be pointed out that the "Coomassie" was never registered as a British ship under the ownership of Greeks, as the transfer from her British owners to the company who owned her at the time of the occurrences to which the noble Lord called attention in his previous Question was never officially recorded. So far as the case of the "Coomassie" goes, therefore, it appears that the existing provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts were sufficient to prevent a company whose title to own British ships was doubtful from registering their title. I may add that if the noble Lord knows of any cases in which foreign-owned vessels have been registered as British ships and will communicate the facts to the Board of Trade, I can assure him that the Board will be fully prepared to consider whether any action is necessary.
With regard to the last part of the noble Lord's Question, the Board do not propose to take any steps to alter the law as to the officering of merchant vessels set forth in Section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and Section 56 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, except in the direction indicated by my noble friend Lord Granard on May 31 last.
LORD MUSKERRY: I have a further Question to put to His Majesty's Government—namely, whether it is a fact that a Greek bearing the name of Nicolas Bulgaris
808
passed the Board of Trade Examination as Only Mate at South Shields on January 26 of the present year, and was granted a certificate for that grade; whether it is a fact that this gentleman had previously seen no service whatever in British merchant vessels; and whether under such circumstances he was eligible for a certificate entitling him to act as an officer on British ships; and whether it will now be essential that he shall serve as an officer in British ships preparatory to obtaining his certificate of a higher grade under the Board of Trade enabling him to command British merchant ships. I submit that it is extremely unfair that an alien who has never previously served in a British merchant ship should be able to obtain a British certificate. This is not only unjust to British officers and British apprentices, but it is also a dangerous thing for this country to allow to go on.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's Question I have to say that it is the case that the Greek named passed an examination for a certificate of competency as Only Mate at South Shields on January 16—not January 26, the date given by the noble Lord—and that he had had no service in British vessels. He had served for over five years in Greek vessels, and was therefore entitled under the Board's Regulations to present himself for examination for the certificate in question. It is not essential that a candidate for any certificate should have served in British ships provided that he can produce satisfactory testimonials as to conduct and character, and that he is able to prove that the service has been in the required capacities, and that during the period of service he has held a British certificate of the rank required by the Regulations.
It may be of interest if I state that the number of certificates of competency of all grades issued to foreigners is very small indeed. Out of 4,351 certificates granted in 1910, only 78, or 1·8 per cent., were obtained by foreigners. Even this small total is decreasing. The annual average number of certificates obtained by foreigners in the period 1896 to 1900 was 107, or 2·2 per cent., while the annual average for the period 1906 to 1910 was 73, or 1·6 per cent. It is not possible to say how many foreigners do hold certificates of competency, but the following figures showing the number of foreigners

809
who were actually serving as master or mate on British vessels on April 4, 1906—the date on which a census was taken—may be of interest—

Total Number British and Foreign.

Number of Foreigners.

Percentages of Foreigners.

Masters

10,017

120

1·2

Mates

13,481

352

2·6

These figures refer to vessels engaged in both the home and the foreign trades, and therefore include a number of officers who hold no certificates of competency.
LORD MUSKERRY: Are we to understand that a man need not serve in a British vessel to get his First Mate certificate and his Master certificate?
LORD HERSCHELL: I understand that that is so; but before he becomes a Master he must be able to produce a British certificate as Mate.
LORD MUSKERRY: Our own men have to produce their Second Mate certificate and First Mate certificate.
LORD HERSCHELL: As far as I know that is also the case where a foreigner becomes master, and they must be British certificates.

VOTE OF CENSURE
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to give notice on behalf of my noble friend Lord Curzon, who is not able to be here to-night, that on Tuesday next he will move a Resolution in the following terms—
"That in the opinion of this House, the advice given to His Majesty by His Majesty's Ministers, whereby they obtained from His Majesty a pledge that a sufficient number of Peers would be created to pass the Parliament Bill in the shape in which it left the House of Commons, is a gross violation of Constitutional liberty, whereby, among many other evil consequences, the people will be precluded from again pronouncing upon the policy of Home Rule."
As the matter is one of importance I beg to give notice also that on Tuesday I shall move the suspension of Standing Order No. XXI in order that my noble friend's Motion may take precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Of course there will be no objection to that. In moving the adjournment of the House I would suggest that it would be convenient that we should not meet again until Tuesday.
House adjourned at Six o'clock to Tuesday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.