HL Deb 02 August 1911 vol 9 cc788-804

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—

  1. (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;
  2. (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 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 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 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 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 the schedule to this Act, and to the following modifications:—

  1. (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:
  2. (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:
  3. (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:
  4. (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 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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: I am very glad to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

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 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.)