Lords Sitting of 15 August 1911

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Commons Regulation (Winton and Kaber) Provisional Order.

Commons Regulation (Barrington) Provisional Order.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Southport Order.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
    Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Consideration of Commons Reasons for disagreeing with certain of the Lords Amendments, read.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING WITH CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS.
[The Commons Reasons are printed in italics.]
Lords Amendments.
Leave out Clause 94 as follows, viz.—
. The following Institutions in the City (that is to say):—

The Royal Victoria Hospital;

The Mater Infirmorum Hospital;

The Ulster Hospital for Women and Children Mountpottinger;

The Samaritan Hospital in Lisburn Road;

The Incorporated Belfast Maternity Hospital;

The Ophthalmic Hospital in Great Victoria Street;

The Ulster Eye Ear and Throat Hospital in Clifton Street;

The Hospital for Children in Queen Street;

The Skin Hospital in Glenravel Street; and

The Nervous Diseases Hospital in Claremont Street;

1080
shall as from the thirty-first day of March one thousand nine hundred and twelve be and the same are hereby exempted from assessment to and the payment of any rates leviable by the Corporation.
and insert the following new clause A.—
. For the purpose of any rate (other than Poor Rate and the Borough Rate) to be made and levied by the Corporation under the provisions of this or of any other Act within the City at any time after the passing of this Act, all lands used as a railway belonging to or leased or occupied by any railway company and constructed under the powers of any Act of Parliament for public conveyance shall be assessed and liable in the proportion of one-fourth part only of the net annual value of such lands respectively.
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reasons:—
Because it is inexpedient to alter in a Private Bill the existing public legislation as is proposed by the said Clause A.
Because there is nothing in the Bill which gives any ground for the proposed alteration of the existing incidence of rates in Belfast.
Because the said Clause A gives large exemptions from rates in the case of particular individuals and throws a new and considerable burden upon others.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, as far as the first Amendment is concerned, which deals with Clause 94, the Belfast Corporation, on whose behalf I am speaking this afternoon, do not intend to question the decision with regard to the institutions mentioned on the Paper. On that Amendment I have nothing further to say, but as regards the insertion of the new Clause I shall have a Motion to make.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): The noble Earl who represents the Belfast Corporation this afternoon has been good enough to inform me of his intention on this point. I believe that the objection as regards Clause 94 has crept in through misapprehension. There was no mention of any objection to the omission of this clause in the debate which took place in the other House. I therefore move that your Lordships insist upon your Amendment leaving out Clause 94.
Moved, That this House do insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, with regard to the insertion of the new clause on the Paper, I desire to move that your Lordships do not insist on your

1081
Amendment. As a member of the Belfast Corporation I want to put this case as forcibly as I can to your Lordships. I am well aware that this House invariably agrees with what has been transacted upstairs by your Committees, but on this occasion there is a strong reason for asking your Lordships not to insist upon your Committee's Amendment. If your Lordships were to insist on the Amendment you would be altering the existing law. The law at present is that railway companies should pay their full rates, and the effect of the Amendment is that they shall be entitled to an exemption of three-quarters of the rate in respect of the principal rates—the police rate which is 11 d. in the £, and the general rate which amounts to 2s. 6d. in the £. That is a big concession.
On what grounds do the railway companies claim this exemption? As far as I can make out, their claim is based upon the Public Health Act. Under this Act where a local authority became a sanitary authority after the passing of the Act railway companies were entitled to claim certain exemptions from rates. But before that Act was passed the Corporation of Belfast was the sanitary authority, and therefore the railway companies could not in any sort of way claim this exemption. It is perfectly true that by some oversight on the part of the officials of the Belfast Corporation a certain remission was granted to the railway companies for a period of some six years, but when new officials were appointed it was discovered that the concessions had been granted quite illegally. The natural result was that the concessions ceased, and now the railway companies have to pay full rates in the city of Belfast.
The Belfast Corporation have been working hard all this session with the view of getting this omnibus Bill passed into law. The purpose of the Bill is to enable them to extend their tramway system, to acquire land for cemetery purposes and street improvements, and there is also a very important scheme in the Bill for the prevention of the flooding of the city. Owing to the city being built on low-lying ground, there has always been the danger of flooding when there is a heavy rainfall, and it has always been a drawback to the advantages of the city to have this threatening danger. The corporation have long had it in their minds to do what they could to get rid of this danger, and a scheme with
1082
that object is included in the provisions of this Bill. The Corporation naturally anticipated that a Bill of this sort, dealing with so many private interests, would have a good many petitions against it. There were a number of petitions, but they have all been met in one way or another and been withdrawn with the exception of the claim of the railway companies to exemption from three-quarters of the rates. Surely at this late hour of the session it would be a very unfortunate thing if a Bill of this sort promoted by a great corporation entirely for the benefit of their ratepayers should be lost; but it will be lost if your Lordships insist upon your Amendment.
I do not like to impute anything to the railway companies. I have no doubt they are entitled to every consideration. But it does seem a wrong moment when a public body is promoting a Bill for the benefit of the community at large, and a Bill which in no way affects railway companies and does not in any sort of way increase the rates or interfere with the incidence of taxation, for the railway companies to take up this position. The moment when a corporation is promoting a Bill of this sort is surely not the moment for the railway companies to come along and use the occasion as a lever for securing relief from rates. I submit that the whole subject of railway rating should be dealt with by general legislation and not by the insertion of a clause of this character in a Private Bill. It may be said that it is practically the general case all through Ireland that railway companies are exempt by legislation as to three-quarters of the rates. That is true to this extent—that by the Town Improvements Act of 1854 all towns which wanted to acquire land for the purpose of improving their streets were allowed to adopt the Act, and having done so were forced to exempt railway companies from the payment of full rates; but this was only the case with the small cities in Ireland. The large and important commercial centres had no occasion to take advantage of an Act like the Town Improvements Act. They never adopted the Act, and in those circumstances the law insists that railway companies should pay their rates in full.
If this clause were insisted upon, it would mean that the railway companies would be exempt to the extent of three parts of their rates. As I have said, the police rate is 11 d. in the £ and the general purposes rate

1083
2s. 6d. in the £, and the giving of the proposed exemption to the railway companies would amount to well over £2,000 a year. The case is aggravated by a recent legal decision defining what are lands for rateable purposes in regard to railways. Originally the law intended to cover only land on which the rails ran. That was the general idea of the Legislature; but by a recent decision lands used for railway purposes include platforms, sheds, pens for cattle markets, all kinds of goods sheds and everything else. In those circumstances it is a serious thing from a municipal point of view to allow railway companies to be exempt from the payment of rates to this extent.
If the railway companies are relieved of this £2,000 a year, it must come out of the pockets of the ratepayers, and it will involve to them an extra rate of a half-penny in the £. In those circumstances I ask your Lordships to consider whether this is a clause which ought to be inserted in a Private Bill of this character, especially at this late period of the session. It would mean the establishment of a great principle; and so much weight and importance do the Corporation of Belfast attach to the principle which underlies this clause that they would feel compelled, if the clause is insisted upon, to drop the Bill, which would be lamentable after all the work which has been done in connection with it during the whole of the year. I therefore beg to move that this House do not insist on the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
LORD WELBY: My Lords, I rise to oppose the Motion which the noble Earl has just submitted. This question was very carefully considered by the Committee to which your Lordships entrusted the examination of the Bill and over which I presided, and the decision at which we arrived was a unanimous decision. I would point out that, out of 124 towns in Ireland, railway companies enjoy this exemption in 104, and that in four towns they enjoy some exemption though not to the extent of three-fourths. Therefore in nearly the whole of the towns in Ireland railway companies obtain this exemption, and the Committee of your Lordships' House in these circumstances could not see any fair
1084
reason why the railway companies in Belfast should not enjoy the same exemption. A point which had considerable weight with your Lordships' Committee was that up to a year or two ago the Belfast Corporation actually granted to the railway companies an exemption over a considerable period of time, and I believe I am right in saying that when that exemption was first granted it was also granted in respect of several back years, showing that the Belfast Corporation at that time did not think that the remission of railway rates to the extent of three-fourths was unjust or unfair.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I explained in the observations I made that an exemption had been given to the railway companies under some misapprehension for something like six years, and that it was due to an oversight on the part of the officials of the corporation. When new officials were appointed the oversight was found out and the exemption stopped.
LORD WELBY: My point is that the allowance was granted by the Belfast Corporation of their own free will. Two or three years ago, however, their attention was called to a decision of which they were not aware, and on that they came to the conclusion that they were prevented from granting this exemption. Here you had the Belfast Corporation granting of its own free will this exemption, and only withdrawing it on the interpretation of a legal decision under which they believed they could not legally grant the exemption. Moreover, in 104 towns in Ireland this exemption is granted in respect of land occupied by railways. These grounds appeared to your Committee to be so strong as to justify them in inserting this clause.
There were other reasons which influenced the Committee, but I do not lay very much stress upon them. One was that to a very large extent the same kind of exemption is granted in England, and seeing that it was also granted throughout the larger part of Ireland it seemed to the Committee not right that it should not apply to Belfast. If the exemption is fair in one case it is surely fair in the other. Moreover, I do not think railway companies in Ireland are so prosperous that they can afford to dispense with this exemption. I cannot say that the arguments adduced by the noble Earl were such as to induce me to change my mind on the matter, and I

1085
doubt very much whether they would change the minds of the Committee. Indeed, I have heard from several members of the Committee, and they are unanimous with me in asking your Lordships to adhere to your Amendment.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, I can quite understand that your Lordships would feel great reluctance in differing from the finding of your Committee, and in that respect I share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury. At the same time I also share with him the feeling that the question here involved is one of such importance that it is only right that your attention should be called to it with a view to considering whether you ought to insist on the Amendment inserted by the Committee upstairs. The noble Earl opposite has correctly explained to your Lordships the character of the Bill we are considering, and the character of the Amendment with which we are specially concerned.
I may recall to your Lordships that this Amendment, which proposes to treat the railway companies of Belfast on a differential footing with regard to rating, appeared in the original Bill. It was rejected in the House of Commons in the Committee stage, and was reinserted by the Committee of your Lordships' House. The Commons now disagree with your Lordships' Committee and object to this clause. I believe that Lord Welby's Committee in inserting this Amendment were influenced by what is really a misconception of the facts of the case. They thought, and Lord Welby's language here to-day rather confirms me in my view, that Belfast was in an anomalous position; that in practically the whole of Ireland railway companies enjoy this differential treatment; and that the insertion of this Amendment would put Belfast in the same position as the rest of Ireland.
LORD WELBY: We were aware that in by far the larger number of towns railway companies have the advantage of this exemption.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The noble Lord stated in the course of his remarks that Belfast was an exception, and he said he thought the railway companies of Belfast were entitled to the
1086
same exemption as prevailed all over Ireland. I cannot help thinking that the English law with regard to this question, under which railway companies do derive the advantage of differential treatment, may have influenced the Committee in their decision. But, as a matter of fact, the general Irish law on the subject of differential treatment is not the same as the law in England. Under the general Irish law no railway company is entitled to differential treatment at all. The only differential treatment that exists is that empowered by the Town Improvements Act of 1854, and the Public Health (Ireland) Act of 1878. Neither of those two Acts applies either to the large boroughs in Ireland or to rural districts, and therefore if there is any exception it is rather that in some places railway companies under special legislation do obtain this advantage. The general law of Ireland is quite clear. Under it railway companies are not entitled to special treatment. The Amendment in question, far from removing an anomaly, actually creates an anomaly.
What the Office which I am now representing feel is that this is not a moment to consider the merits or demerits of differential treatment with regard to the rating of railway companies. There may be a great deal to be said for differential treatment. If t hat is so, the Irish railway companies are in a position to introduce a Bill into Parliament for the purpose of putting them in the position which they think fair and which English railway companies enjoy. But they do not do that. They do not come to Parliament and ask the Legislature to put them in that position. What they have done in the past and what they are doing now is to take advantage of the fact that a corporation is promoting a Bill—a Bill which has nothing whatever to do with railway companies. This Bill does not impose a new rate and does not alter the incidence of rating. In fact, it is a Bill for the general improvement and good government of the City of Belfast, and when corporations come to Parliament with these Bills the railway companies hold them up to a species of blackmail, I think the noble Earl said, and they say, "If you do not square us we shall oppose the passage of your Bill and very likely you may lose it." My strongest reason for hoping that your Lordships will not insist on your Amendment now is that

1087
the very same thing happened in the case of the Dublin Corporation in 1900.
LORD WELBY: We specially put the Dublin case out of our consideration altogether. There were peculiar circumstances connected with the Dublin Bill which made us think that it was not a precedent.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I am quite prepared to believe that Lord Welby was not influenced by what happened in the Dublin case. But the railway companies are, and it is the precedent of Dublin which has emboldened the railway companies to act in this way. It was a bad precedent, and I suggest with great respect that it would be very unfortunate if your Lordships seemed to give support to a course of procedure which is really nothing short of a sort of squeeze placed on corporations when they are trying to carry these difficult omnibus Bills, which raise a lot of opposition and are not easy to get through. With regard to the effect of the clause, Lord Shaftesbury has stated that it would throw a burden on the Belfast Corporation of £2,000 a year. The railway companies have not done so badly in Belfast, because for thirteen years I am given to understand they enjoyed a rebate on their rates of £2,000 a year, and this, I am informed, was due to an oversight on the part of the officials of the Belfast Corporation. Lord Welby claimed that the Belfast Corporation had granted this rebate of £2,000 a year out of their own good will to the railway companies, but if your Lordships will turn to the statement submitted to this House by the railway companies themselves you will see that in the last paragraph they use the expression "the railway companies applied to the corporation." I do not for a moment think that the fact is established that the corporation out of good will to the railway companies, feeling that they were entitled to different treatment, granted them this rebate. I am told that the reverse is the case; that the Corporation were in error as to what their powers were in this respect, and that directly they found out their mistake they took steps to compel the payment of the full rates. That is the position.
I may mention that there are many other towns concerned which might be put in similar straits. Cork, Waterford,
1088
Limerick, Londonderry, Wexford, and other towns are in a position similar to Belfast to-day, and if your Lordships establish this precedent it is only human nature to expect that the railway companies will be emboldened by it and act upon it when occasion arises. There may be a good deal to be said for differential treatment of railway companies, but if those companies feel that they are able to persuade Parliament of the justice of their claim, then I say they should bring in a Bill for that purpose and not take advantage of a corporation situated as Belfast is to-day and seek to obtain, by direct pressure, that which they have not had the courage to ask Parliament to grant them.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I hope that on reflection the noble Lord who has just sat down will regret some of the language he has used about what goes on before Committees of your Lordships' House. He talks of the railway companies blackmailing and squeezing the promoters. Is that what happens when parties appear before impartial Committees of your Lordships' House and persuade them to do that which they ask them to do? One would have thought that the Belfast Corporation were here as a sort of Aunt Sally to be aimed at, and that the railway companies have been doing something underhand in order to force them to do what they desire. Nothing of the kind has occurred and nothing of the kind does occur. It is not a question of squeeze; it is not a question of blackmail. It is perfectly open for any party to appear before your Lordships' Committees, and they only get their way if they persuade the Committee that their cause is just; and if you persuade the Committee that your cause is just you are not blackmailing or squeezing.
As regards the merits, I wish to say little. The Committee heard all the evidence on this point, and as a broad general rule I think it is desirable, unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary, that the Committee who have heard the evidence should be supported in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord who represents the Government says that if your Lordships insist upon this Amendment you will be creating an anomaly. I am not going to split hairs with him over the definition of words, but you would be

1089
creating an "anomaly" which already exists in England, and which exists in 104 towns in Ireland—so I ant informed, and it was stated in debate in another place by my right hon. friend Mr. Campbell, whom I generally regard as an invaluable authority upon Irish matters. There are very fee towns in Ireland in which railway companies do not already enjoy what the Great Northern Railway Company now ask for in Belfast.
As I have said, I do not desire to go into the merits. But there is one point to which I think, in my special position, I should draw your Lordships' attention as regards the progress of this Bill through Parliament. My noble friend opposite spoke of the late hour of the session. He is an optimist. I wish I could think that this is a late hour of the session. So far as I can see, we shall be here until shortly before Christmas. He then went on to say that it would be a great pity if this Bill were lost. I agree that it is always a pity if a Bill is lost at the tail end of a session, but I feel I ought to call attention to the way your Lordships have been treated by the promoters as regards this particular clause. What happened? The opponents obtained a decision in their favour in Committee upstairs, and, though there is no legal obligation to that effect, I think your Lordships who have had experience of Committees upstairs will agree with me that the usual procedure is for promoters to accept a decision whether they like it or not and go on with the Bill, or else to drop the Bill or a particular part of the Bill, or, if they do not do that, to ask your Lordships on Third Reading to reverse the decision of your Committee upstairs. But the Belfast Corporation did not do this. They did something for which I can find no precedent within the last ten years. They accepted the decision of the Committee upstairs; they asked your Lordships to read the Bill a third time, without one word to the effect that there was a provision in the Bill to which they objected; and then they asked the other House to disagree with your Lordships' Amendments—not, as I claim, dealing straightforwardly with your Lordships having previously accepted the Bill as it stood on Third Reading.
There have, of course, been instances where the House of Commons in similar cases to this have disagreed with Amendments made in your Lordships' House, but the last case I can find is the Dublin Bill
1090
which has been referred to—the Equalisation of Rates Bill, 1901. But there I notice that on behalf of the promoters the late Lord Spencer drew your Lordships' attention to the point to which objection was taken, and the matter subsequently was the result of Messages between the two Houses and was decided in the way he desired. I do feel that if the Belfast Corporation intended to ask the other House to disagree with the decision of your Lordships' House to which they objected, they ought to have followed what was the usual course and attempted to reverse the decision here on Third Reading first. If they had followed that course there would have been plenty of time for negotiation between the parties; there would have been no danger of the Bill being lost owing to the usual procedure as regards Messages between the two Houses. And if this Bill is lost as the result of the exceptional course which the Belfast Corporation have followed in not dealing straightforwardly with your Lordships in this matter, no one will be to blame but themselves. That is all I desire to say on this point, but I thought it my duty to bring this to your Lordships' notice, because it would be a very undesirable practice to see grow up that parties should accept decisions in one House, allow the Bill to go through the further stages in that House, keeping it in their minds that they were going to ask the second House to disagree with the first House. If that became general, we should have a crop of differences between the two Houses which would be very undesirable and unnecessary.
LORD MAC DONNELL OR SWINFORD: My Lords, although it is true that in a number of towns throughout Ireland railway companies have differential treatment, those towns are small towns. In all the important commercial towns in Ireland, numbering, I am sorry to say, not more than fifteen or eighteen, the rule is that no differential treatment is given. That is the universal rule which applies. This particular clause proposes that in Belfast differential treatment should be given. That is introducing an exception into the rule which applies to all the important commercial towns in Ireland, and I submit to your Lordships that it is not on a Private Bill such as this that an exception should be introduced. If such an exception is to be introduced let it be discussed upon its merits and not in connection merely with a clause introduced into a Private Bill. The

1091
other important commercial towns in Ireland will have strong reason to object if this procedure is followed in this case, because if Belfast is made subject to differential treatment the railway companies in the other important towns to which reference has been made will endeavour to obtain similar treatment.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, before the question is put I should like to say one or two words with regard to the point which the Lord Chairman brought before the House, which I admit is a very strong point—the question of the procedure of the Belfast Corporation with regard to this Bill after it had passed your Lordships' Committee. As far as that is concerned, let me assure your Lordships—whilst admitting, of course, that the Lord Chairman is amply justified in condemning the course taken—that there was no question of want of straightforwardness in the matter. I am rather inclined to think that what happened was due to the fact that the only member of the Belfast Corporation who is a member of your Lordships' House is very erratic and never in the same place more than two days running, and perhaps the Corporation were looking for a champion for their cause and would not have acted in the manner in which they did if they had found a champion or had been more familiar with the procedure of your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord opposite who presided over the Committee which considered this Bill and also the Lord Chairman seemed to think there was no cause for pressing for the deletion of this clause owing to the fact that the Corporation had allowed these railway companies for a long time to receive exemption. Therefore it occurs to me that perhaps your Lordships would be satisfied if some arrangement could be arrived at by which the railway companies would pay only the amount of rate which they were charged by the corporation until recently when they were called upon to pay the full rates. The noble Lord seemed to lay such stress on the fact that the corporation had allowed these railway companies to be exempt in respect of a portion of the rates for some years that I would ask him whether he would rest content if the railway companies should be charged the same amount as they had to pay during the six years in which they enjoyed the exemption referred to.
LORD WELBY: Does the noble Earl mean that the Belfast Corporation would allow the railway companies a fixed sum?
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: The sum that was allowed by the corporation before they found out their mistake and made the companies pay the full rates.
LORD WELBY: I understand that during the time referred to the railway companies were only charged on one-fourth of the rateable value.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: Oh, no; that is not correct. The railway companies were allowed certain exemptions, which amounted to something like £600 a year. I suggest that your Lordships' Amendment should be withdrawn and that something to the effect I have suggested should be inserted in the Bill.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I understand that the suggestion of the noble Earl who represents the Belfast Corporation is that they are prepared to meet the railway companies to a certain extent. If that be so, would it not be better to adjourn this debate in order that the matter could be considered between the corporation and the railway companies? I move that the debate be adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned.—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: On that Motion I should like to say that no one is better pleased than I am that there is a prospect of agreement, but I would suggest that it should be arrived at as soon as possible. It is advisable that the matter should be settled within the next twenty-four hours, so that the Bill should receive the Royal Assent before we adjourn.
On Question, Debate adjourned sine die.

PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, &c.) BILL.
  INDIAN HIGH COURTS BILL.
    LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons.
    PAISLEY DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Pentland); and reported from the Committee, and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow. (No. 176.)
DUNFERMLINE AND DISTRICT TRAM WAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  EDINBURGH SUBURBAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
    METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (NEW WORKS) BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL.
  CORPORATION OF LONDON (BRIDGES) BILL.
    SEVERN FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
THORNEY DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
CONVEYANCING BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881—Was presented by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow. (No. 175.)
PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, &c.) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Lucas). (No. 172.)
INDIAN HIGH COURTS BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Earl Beauchamp). (No. 174.)
LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Ashby St. Ledgers). (No. 173.)

WATSON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Proviso that Rosanna Gertrude Watson not to marry Robert M. Fitzsimons.
6. Provided always and be it further enacted that it shall not be lawful for the said Rosanna Gertrude Watson at any time hereafter to contract matrimony with the said Robert M. Fitzsimons but that such matrimony shall be and is hereby declared to be illegal and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever and the child and children born therein shall be illegitimate and subject to all the disabilities privations and restrictions to which any child or children born out of lawful wedlock is or may be subject by the laws and customs of the United Kingdom or any part thereof.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN): I move that this clause be omitted. It is usually omitted; and I think we might some day or other amend our procedure under which we put a clause into these Bills simply for the purpose of striking it out.
Amendment moved—
To omit Clause 6.—(Earl Loreburn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMA TION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered (according to Order), and agreed to.

MARITIME CONVENTIONS BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this Bill is designed to give effect to two international Conventions, one relating to collisions and the other to salvage, both of which were signed in Brussels last year by the representatives of no fewer than twenty-four countries, including all the principal maritime nations. These Conventions are the outcome of a movement in favour of the unification of maritime law which was started as far back as the year 1885, when various unofficial maritime associations were formed in different countries to promote this object and were affiliated under the title of the International Maritime Committee. This committee, with its branch associations, consists of lawyers, shipowners, underwriters, merchants, and other persons interested in maritime law, and a number of unofficial conferences have been held under its auspices. From this it was only a natural step that an official conference should be held.
The first official conference on this subject was held in February, 1905. On that conference this country was not represented, but owing to the very strong expression of the views of certain associations and chambers of commerce the Government decided to send delegates to the subsequent conferences, which met in October, 1905, and also in 1909 and 1910. These two Conventions, in order to carry out the provisions of which this Bill is designed, were signed at the last conference in 1910. I may mention that at the last two conferences Conventions relating to limitation of shipowners' liability and to maritime mortgages and liens were discussed, but they are in draft form only, and will come up before another conference to be held probably next year. Your Lordships will realise that a great deal of consideration has been given to these Conventions, and in the interval which elapsed between the various conferences the Board of Trade took every opportunity of consulting the different interests which are affected, and I think it may be said that the Conventions as finally signed do meet most of the criticisms which have been raised. Of course, your Lordships will realise that there has had to be, as is the case in all international agreements, a certain amount of give and take, but on the
1096
whole one may say that the important changes which are required in British law are very few in number.
I will now explain as briefly as I can the actual provisions of the Bill. The first clause contains the rule as to division of loss when both vessels in a collision are found to blame. At present, instead of the Common Law rule being applied by which each vessel would bear her own loss, the special rule of the Admiralty Court is applied, by which the total loss is aggregated and then each vessel bears one-half of that total. The Convention and the Bill propose to substitute for this rule a rule by which the damages will be apportioned in proportion to the degree of fault which each vessel has respectively committed. This proposal has the support of shipowners generally, and has not met with any opposition from the great majority of traders. It has, however, been criticised from certain quarters, and perhaps I may state the principal criticisms which have been directed against it.
The first criticism is that this proportional division of loss is not founded on principle. I think this is quite true; but it is equally true that the half-and-half division of loss is not founded on principle. In fact, so much is this the case that it has been known for years as rusticum judicium, a rough-and-ready form of justice. The second criticism is that it is impossible for a Court to fix the exact amount of fault which attaches to each vessel. There are cases, no doubt, where it is impossible to ascertain this; but if your Lordships will look at Clause 1, subsection (1), paragraph (a), you will see that it is laid down that if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is not possible to establish different degrees of fault, the liability shall be apportioned equally. As a matter of fact, this proportional rule does obtain in a great number of foreign countries, and there it has been found, in quite ninety per cent. of the cases that come under the rule, that a half-and-half division is arrived at by the Judge. Therefore you may say that this proportional rule would only come into force in cases where one vessel was very clearly more in fault than the other. The third criticism is that the proportional rule would increase litigation. This is, of course, a matter which can only really be decided by experience. But it is contended that there may be some inducement under this rule to contest a case in the hope of only having to pay a minority

1097
of the damages. On the other hand, by adopting this rule there will no longer be the incentive which there is under the existing law to proceed with an action in the hope of getting off with half of the damages instead of the whole amount because the other vessel concerned was in fault in a small or technical degree. But, generally speaking, I would urge in favour of this particular rule that its adoption is advocated by all the foreign countries which signed this Convention, and that France and Germany have adopted this proportional rule so lately as the year 1900. The adoption of it will remove the diversity of law which at present exists, and it is stated to work well in the countries in which it is established.
The second provision of the Bill deals with the right of claimants to recover damages when both vessels are to blame. At present a claimant in respect of damage to cargo cannot recover in tort more than one half of the damage from the owners of the ship, and the same rule would seem to hold good as to claims in respect of personal injuries. Claimants in respect of loss of life can, however, under Lord Campbell's Act, recover the full amount of the damages from either vessel. The Convention and the Bill propose to alter the law so as to place personal injuries claimants on the same footing as loss of life claimants; but as regards all three classes of claimants the right to recover damages is always subject to the provisions of any contract to the contrary. When a vessel has been made to pay ill respect of loss of life or personal injury a proportion of damages which is greater than the proportion which she is found in fault, she has a right of recovery of the overpaid portion from the other vessel which is in fault, but this is subject to the important proviso that the right to obtain a contribution from the other vessel cannot be exercised when that other vessel is protected by any statutory limitation or exemption from liability.
Let us suppose that a collision takes place between two ships, A and B, and that both vessels have been found equally in fault. A passenger in ship A who has sustained personal injury can proceed against either ship A or B for the full amount of his claim, but if he wins his case—say that he has proceeded against ship B—then ship B can recover from ship A one-half of the amount which she has paid as both vessels
1098
were equally to blame. But this rule is subject to the proviso which I have mentioned—that if ship A has expressly exempted herself from liability for injury to her passengers then, according to the proviso, ship B has no right of recovery from ship A. This may seem somewhat anomalous, but it certainly would appear less anomalous than the alternative. We will suppose that ships A and B are in collision, and that ship A has protected herself against any possible claim in respect of personal injuries and that one of her passengers is injured in the collision. If this proviso is not inserted in the Bill, ship B could then recover from ship A a portion of the very damages from which ship A had sought to exempt herself. To put it in another way, ship A, as long as she is entirely responsible for the injuries which result to the passenger, has not to pay any damages; but if she is not entirely responsible but another vessel is partly responsible, then she has to pay a portion of the damages, although if she was entirely responsible she would not have to pay any.
The fourth clause of the Bill abolishes statutory presumptions of fault, and this is a clause which has met with very general acceptance. It necessitates the repeal of subsection (4) of Section 419, and subsection (2) of Section 422 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Under the first subsection winch it is sought to repeal, a vessel is held to be in fault in a case of collision if she omits to carry out any of the regulations, although such omission may not in any way have contributed to the cause of the collision. For instance, vessel A is crossing the Channel; her port light is burning, but her starboard light has become extinguished. Vessel B is steering a course down Channel, and instead of obeying the rule of the road she holds on her course and collides with A on the port side. Ship B is clearly in the wrong, but under the existing law ship A is also presumed to be in fault because her starboard light was not burning at the time when the collision occurred, although this fact contributed in no way to the collision; nor under any possible conditions could ship B have seen whether that light was burning or not. The second subsection which it is sought to repeal presumes that a vessel is in fault if she does not stand by to render assistance to another vessel after a collision. This is quite an unimportant matter, in view of the fact that any master who does not so stand by

1099
and render every assistance in his power is subject under the Act to extremely severe penalties. That is practically all there is in the Bill which deals with the Collisions Convention.
With regard to the provisions as to salvage, here practically very little change has to be made in British law, and it certainly is a matter for congratulation that all these nations should have been brought to see eye to eye with British law in questions relating to salvage. The only two clauses in the Bill with regard to salvage are Clauses 5 and 6. Clause 5 imposes a general duty on all masters of vessels to render assistance to persons in danger at sea, and Clause 6 provides that where a dispute arises as to the exact distribution or apportionment of a salvage award the dispute shall be settled, not in accordance with the law of the country which makes the salvage award, but in accordance with the law of the country to which the ship belongs.
As to the general provisions, which are the last ones in the Bill, there is one important provision which limits the time during which proceedings can be instituted. Proceedings under the Bill must be instituted within two years from the date that the claim arose, or within one year from the date of payment in the case of a ship which seeks to obtain a contribution from another ship in collision, The point of this provision is to discourage stale claims, and I do not think any hardship can be inflicted by this provision having regard to the proviso by which the Court is given discretion under certain conditions to extend the period if it thinks fit. Clause 8 defines the scope of the Bill, which is to extend throughout His Majesty's Dominions with the exception of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland, which Dominions will, of course, be capable of adopting the Convention and of legislating should they so desire. The Bill contains practically all the Articles in these two Conventions which were signed last year with the exception of one dealing with the defence of compulsory pilotage—a matter which will be considered in connection with the proposals of the Departmental Committee on Pilotage.
I have nothing further to say about the Bill. The Bill is an important one. It is the first step towards a very desirable
1100
object—namely, the unification of the maritime law of all countries. There is no question that a great deal of inconvenience and even of hardship does arise from the diversity of law which obtains in different countries, and in view of the enormous number of cases where British vessels are tried before foreign Courts and where foreign vessels are tried before British Courts I hope your Lordships will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Herschell.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the measure of which the noble Lord has moved the Second Reading is a very important, and I am inclined to believe a very valuable and useful measure. It has behind it, as he has told the House, a great weight of authority. It is intended to give effect to the two Conventions which were executed in the year 1910 at Brussels; and not only does it do that, but it marks a step in a movement which the noble Lord has truly told us has been in progress for some time—a movement for the unification of maritime law, the anomalies and inconsistencies of which have occasioned in the past so much inconvenience and hardship. What I think it is desirable we should remember is this, that the interest of this country in legislation of this kind far transcends that of any other country. It is quite true that twenty-four Powers were represented at the Brussels Convention, but no one of those Powers has a maritime trade comparable at all with that of this country. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that any proposals of this kind should be carefully scrutinised and full opportunity given to the mercantile community to express any views that they may hold with regard to it. That brings me to the only observation I desire to make. I hope I am right in supposing that the noble Lord will be content if he gets the Second Reading before the adjournment, and that we shall not be called upon to deal further with the Bill until much later in the year.
LORD HERSCHELL: That is so. It is not my intention to take any further stage of the Bill until after the adjournment.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 31 st of October next.

PUBLIC ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, this Bill has passed through the House of Commons without opposition, having been backed both by Nationalist and by Unionist Members from Ireland. It deals with traction engines, and its object is to assimilate the law of Ireland to that which prevails in England and Scotland. It contains provisions empowering highway authorities to recover damages for injury done to roads by extraordinary traffic. There are also provisions as to the weight of traction engines and the construction of their wheels. Further, the Bill contains regulations as to the number of men who should attend upon traction engines; provisions as to the consumption of smoke and the prevention of sparks; and, finally, provisions enabling county authorities to make by-laws for licensing traction engines. Two slight Amendments were made in Standing Committee in the other House, which, on careful consideration, would seem to have been very ill-considered, and I understand that it is the intention of the Government to have those Amendments reversed in Committee in this House if your Lordships consent, as I venture to hope you will, to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Charnwood.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am very much in sympathy with what I understand to be the general object of the noble Lord's Bill. In fact, if he cared to call me as a witness I could mention from personal knowledge a case in which the public roads in a part of Ireland with which I am familiar were at one moment reduced to a state rendering ordinary traffic almost impossible, owing to the sudden introduction of extremely heavy motor tourist cars—vehicles of a weight altogether exceeding anything for the purpose of which the roads had originally been constructed. The case is one of great hardship, and I am glad to know that an attempt is being made to meet it.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I should be sorry to accept the noble Marquess's support under a misapprehension; but the Bill does not deal with motors at all.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Surely the first clause deals with a case
1102
where extraordinary expenses have become necessary for the purpose of repairing a road by reason of damage caused by excessive weight passing over it. That, I think, would cover the case to which I referred.
LORD CHARNWOOD: Subsection (1) of Clause 8 limits the expression "locomotive" so as not to include any light locomotive or motor car within the meaning of the Motor Car Acts, 1896 and 1903. Therefore to a large extent motors will be excluded from the operations of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I trust that the noble Lord will not go on with his Bill until after the adjournment. In the meanwhile I shall have an opportunity of looking into the point. But I understood that the Bill was intended to meet the further case which I mentioned.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order), Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, on Thursday last, when your Lordships were good enough to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I said that I would defer any remarks that I might think it necessary to make until your Lordships reached the stage of Committee, and therefore I propose to make them now on the Motion that the House do resolve itself into Committee. This is a Bill which originated, I believe, with Mr. Hayes Fisher, but which was afterwards taken up and carried through the House of Commons in concert with the Government. At the present stage it comes to your Lordships' House containing certain Amendments of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, which it has been found necessary to make to meet defects which have developed in the

1103
course of the administration of the Act. I do not think it is at all likely that your Lordships would wish to alter any of its provisions. Indeed, I do not know that your Lordships have the power to do so.
But I would like to call attention to two of the clauses, because I think they furnish an illustration of the way in which His Majesty's Government very frequently refuse to accept Amendments inserted by your Lordships' House which they afterwards find were absolutely necessary and which this House was perfectly right in making. Clause 2, subsection (1), paragraph (a) of this Bill runs as follows—
"In calculating, for the purpose of the principal Act, the means of a person, account shall be taken of—
(a) the yearly value of any property belonging to that person (not being property personally used or enjoyed by him) which is invested, or is otherwise put to profitable use by him, or which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or put to profitable use by him, the yearly value of that property being taken to be one-twentieth part of the capital value thereof."
That subsection deals with the case of persons who have money and who keep it in such a way that it does not furnish any interest. This Bill proposes to regard that money as having been invested at 5 per cent. I must say 5 per cent. sounds to me rather a high rate of interest to obtain, but still there it is, and I believe that that provision was proposed by His Majesty's Government and inserted in concert with them.
Really when we think of the history of this matter it is very absurd. When the Bill of 1908 was before this House Lord St. Aldwyn pointed out that it was quite clear that there would be persons possessing as much as £1,000 or £2,000 which they would keep in a stocking, or at all events not put out at interest, and the result would be that they would, notwithstanding, draw a pension from the taxpayers. On the Motion of the noble Viscount (Lord St. Aldwyn) these words were inserted—
"So as to produce the largest income that can be reasonably obtained from it."
That Amendment was sent to the House of Commons, but as soon as it reached that House what happened? Mr. Lloyd George said—
"I want to submit to you, Sir, that this is an infringement of the privileges of this House. The effect of it would undoubtedly be to diminish the number of those who could claim a pension."
1104
Of course it would; that was exactly what it was intended for. Mr. Lloyd George proceeded—
"The effect of the Lords Amendment is this. The pension officer would be obliged to recognise the income of a man, not in accordance with what it actually is, but in accordance with what it ought to be if he invested his money in a different way."
As we know, Mr. Lloyd George deals with land, not according to the income derived from it, but according to the income which he says ought to be derived from it. Then he continued—
"For instance, if he invested it in Consols the pension officer might say, 'You are only getting 2½ per cent. for your money and you should invest it at 5 per cent.,' or, if he had £200 in the Post Office Savings Bank, he might say, 'You ought not to invest it in the Post Office Savings Bank. If you were to invest it in some industrial security which you might acquire you would get 5½ per cent.'"
What is Mr. Lloyd George saying now? He is saying in this Bill that the man must invest at 5 per cent., and if he has not so invested the money he will be considered as having invested it at 5 per cent. Then Mr. Speaker said—
"I have considered this question, and I think the Lords Amendment is really an explanation of the words profitable use.' Who is to say whether a man has properly or improperly used his money? What is intended by the words profitably used?' These are vague, general words, and it seems to me that the explanation of the words is that the money is so invested 'as to produce the largest income that can be reasonably obtained from it.' An investment in Consols would not in many circumstances, but might in others, be the largest income that could be reasonably obtained. That is a matter of argument."
Mr. Speaker continued—
"I think it would be the doctrine of privilege run mad to insist upon this as a breach of privilege."
Then there was further discussion, and in the end the question was put "That the House disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," and that was carried.
The Bill came back to your Lordships' House, and, if I remember right, Lord St. Aldwyn said it was not his business to defend the public pocket if the Government wanted to empty it, and your Lordships did not insist on this Amendment. But what is done in this Bill? Clause 2 actually goes further than the proposal in your Lordships' Amendment. That proposal was not that the man must be considered as having invested his money at 5 per cent. What

1105
conceivable reason had Mr. Lloyd George for objecting to your Lordships' Amendment? The only effect of his objection is that the country has been compelled to pay a good many pensions to people possessing sums of money of which they were not making use. That is the first case.
Now let me turn to Clause 4. Subsection (2) of that Clause runs—
"Two years shall be substituted for ten years as the further period of disqualification under subsection (2) of section three of the principal Act, both as respects persons convicted before the passing of this Act, and, as respects persons convicted after the passing of this Act, in cases where the term for which a person has been ordered to be imprisoned without the option of a fine does not exceed six weeks."
An Amendment of that sort was proposed in this House by Lord Saltoun. It was actually agreed to by the Government, and on the motion of the late Lord Wolver-hampton these words were inserted—
"If the term of imprisonment to which he is sentenced exceeds one month he shall be disqualified. .."
Those works likewise went to the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker was asked whether it was a breach of privilege, and he said—
"I am of opinion that this is a privilege Amendment. It extends very largely the benefits of the Bill. The effect of it is to remove the ten years' disqualification from persons sentenced to imprisonment of less than one month—that is, it limits disqualification for ten years to persons who are sentenced to more than one month. The effect of this will probably be to exclude a smaller number of persons; in other words, to add a certain number. Accordingly it varies the charge. I may point out, however, to the House that it is always open to the House not to insist on its privilege if it desires to accept an Amendment."
That was an indication from the Speaker that this Amendment was obviously sensible Amendment, and he advised the House to consider whether it was desirable to insist upon its privilege. Mr. Balfour then asked—
"I should like to know whether the Government propose to insist upon their Amendment";
and Mr. Lloyd George replied—
"Yes. I move that the House disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Then there was a debate; and finally Mr. Asquith said—
"If the House, whatever may be its opinion on the merits or demerits of a comparatively small change in the Bill, were to allow the precedent—
1106
it would be a precedent—to be set of accepting an Amendment of this kind, in my opinion we should very greatly impair the rights and privileges we have always hitherto asserted."
And on that ground he asked the House to refuse to agree to the Amendment.
What are the Government now doing? They are now proposing that where the imprisonment does not exceed six weeks it is not to be a bar to a man receiving a pension. I merely mention these two things because this is not the first instance by several in which the Government have entirely refused to accept any Amendment, however reasonable, if it comes from Your, Lordships' House, and then afterwards found themselves obliged to pass a Bill containing the very Amendments to which they disagreed. I do not know what defence the Government can make to conduct of this kind, but it certainly seems to me an unreasonable thing to object because you do not know what you are objecting to, and then afterwards to reinsert the Amendments in a Bill as if it were the most ordinary thing in the world.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend has called attention to this matter, because I agree with him that it is an instance in which the Government might have considered favourably the Amendments made by your Lordships' House although they were technically breaches of the privilege of the House of Commons. If the Government had in this case invited the House of Commons to waive their privilege, the Bill would have been considerably improved. But what has happened? For more than two years past pensions have been given to persons owning a considerable amount of property the income from which has not been calculated in their income. This would have been avoided had my Amendment been accepted, or had Clause 2 of this Bill been in the original Old Age Pensions Bill. The taxpayers have been penalised to that extent for the benefit of persons whom Parliament never intended should receive old age pensions at all. That is the simple fact.
Then take the other case to which my noble friend alluded—the limitation which

1107
prevented the receipt of a pension by a person who had been convicted of an offence of a certain kind. There, again, the action taken in the other House has accrued to the detriment of the subject, because if the Amendment which is now in this Bill had been inserted in the original Bill some persons would have been eligible for pensions who were not eligible under the more stingent provisions of the Act. I do hope that His Majesty's Government may take this to heart to this extent, that they may be disposed to think that sometimes, even in a Bill which is of this nature and which it is difficult for your Lordships to amend without in some technical manner infringing the privilege of the House of Commons, it may be possible for us to snake suggestions which ought at any rate to be considered on their merits, and which, if so considered, might improve the Bill.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, not only as regards this Bill, but as regards legislation generally, so far as I interpret the mind of His Majesty's Government, we are always glad to have these suggestions, but questions of privilege may arise. As regards the particular Bill now before us, no doubt there has been a change which has now been agreed to; but I can assure the noble Viscount and the noble Earl that it was not because these matters were overlooked or because there was slackness in considering them that the course was taken in the original Act that was taken. I remember well the close discussion it received. It is, I think, a good sound general principle that a thing is only true on the balance of considerations, and at that time it was thought that the balance of considerations was the other way. We are none of us infallible. Experience has now shown that on these two points modifications are required, and they have been made. It was not through obstinacy or mulishness of mind on the part of those concerned that that course was not taken originally, but because it was believed on the balance of considerations not to be the right course.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: With your Lordships' permission I should like to say one or two words in reply to the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount now says that the only reason why this was done was that on the balance of considera-
1108
tions it was thought better. I do not think he listened to the words which I read, because those words were distinctly that the Amendment was rejected simply because it was technically a breach of privilege, although the Speaker in both cases indicated that he thought it was an absurd instance in which to enforce breach of privilege. I never heard anything about the balance of considerations. In fact, I do not think anything was balanced or even considered. The principle on which action was taken was that these were Amendments inserted by this House, and therefore they were to be kicked out.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL Of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Amendments of section 3 of the principal Act.
4.—(1) Any rule of law and any enactment, the effect of which is to cause relief given to a wife or relative to be treated as relief given to the person liable to maintain the wife or relative, shall not have effect for the purposes of section three of the principal Act (which relates to disqualification).
(2) Two years shall be substituted for ten years as the further period of disqualification under subsection (2) of section three of the principal Act, both as respects persons convicted before the passing of this Act, and, as respects persons convicted after the passing of this Act, in cases where the term for which a person has been ordered to be imprisoned without the option of a fine does not exceed six weeks.
(3) Any person in receipt of an old age pension who is convicted of any offence which is mentioned in or deemed to be mentioned or included in the First Schedule to the Inebriates Act, 1898, shall, if not subject to disqualification under the principal Act, be disqualified for receiving or continuing to receive an old age pension for a period of six months after the date of his conviction unless the court before whom he is convicted direct to the contrary.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I move, in subsection (1), after the words "the effect of which is to cause relief given to,"to insert the words"or in respect of." The object of this Amendment is to bring the Scottish law together with this Bill. I am quite aware that the Amendment makes a larger charge, and I would like to explain to the noble Earl how it has occurred. It is due to an error in drafting. As the noble Earl said, the private Members'

1109
Bill and the Government Bill went to Grand Committee together, and it was then arranged that the Government Bill should be incorporated with the private Members' Bill. Therefore, although this is a private Members' Bill it is to all intents and purposes a Government Bill. Quite accidentally, however, when the Bill left the Committee the draftsman omitted to insert these words which had been suggested. I therefore move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 29, after the second ("to") insert ("or in respect of").—(The Earl of Liverpool.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, observe how differently the Government treat this question of privilege when it suits I hem to waive it. Within this last week or fortnight we have had two or three cases in which, where it suited the Government, breaches of privilege have been committed. Here is another instance, but the excuse is made that it is "only a little one." Personally I have not the slightest objection to the Amendment and it is not my business to guard the privileges of the House of Commons, but, if it were, I should certainly point out that this Amendment deals with a question of privilege, and, according to the canons of privilege which are frequently set up by Mr. Lloyd George and others, is an Amendment which it is not competent for this House to insert. I have no doubt, however, that the noble Lord's colleagues in the other House will take a much more favourable view of it than, for instance, if it had been introduced by Lord St. Aldwyn.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: I am afraid I did not explain myself clearly. The Commons themselves wanted this Amendment and they thought that it was in the Bill. It is only because the draftsman failed to put it in that I am asking your Lordships to insert it to-night.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
The Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 177.)

PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
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, and such premises are being used in accordance with the terms of the trust, the trustees, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, 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, 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 under which the premises are held or in any lease superior thereto.

(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.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I propose, at the beginning of subsection (1), to leave out the word "or" ["for the purposes of a place of worship or"], and to substitute the word "and." The effect will be to make the Bill a little more restrictive than it is at the present time.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): This Amendment would, as the noble Earl said, very considerably restrict the objects of the Bill. If a place of worship was held under a trust merely for the purposes of worship and for nothing else, it would not, if this Amendment were inserted, come under the terms of this Bill. It would be necessary that under the terms of the trust it should be held for the purposes of a place of public

1111
worship and for some other purpose as well. I would therefore suggest, as a compromise, that the words "or for purposes connected therewith "should be omitted altogether.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I wish to acknowledge the way in which the noble Earl has met me and to reciprocate as far as I can. I admit that my Amendment would considerably restrict the extent of the Bill, and I am quite ready to accept the noble Earl's suggestion that I should withdraw it, and I move to leave out the words "or for purposes connected therewith."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("or for purposes connected therewith").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The next is a drafting Amendment to substitute the words "have the right" for the words "be entitled" in subsection (1).
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("be entitled") and insert ("have the right").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I move to insert, at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (1), the words "or where the trusts upon which the premises are held include the use of the premises for the purposes of any trade or business or for any purposes of a political character." Your Lordships will probably remember that we had a discussion in Committee on this point, and I promised to try and meet the views of noble Lords opposite and prevent the use of this Bill for buildings which were chiefly used for commercial or political purposes. That is the object of my Amendment, and I hope your Lordships will consider that I have been able to meet the point in accordance with your wishes.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, after ("thereto") insert ("or where the trusts upon which the premises are held include the use of the premises for the purposes of any trade or business or for any purposes of a political character").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I have no objection to the Amendment, but. I would ask the noble Earl whether, instead of the word "include," he would substitute the words "would allow." No doubt trusts in future will be so made as to meet this Bill, but I am speaking of trusts which now exist. A great many trusts do not specifically mention the use of the premises for purposes of trade, and I think it is not unfair to ask that the noble Earl should amend his Amendment by assenting to leave out the word "include" and insert the words "would allow."
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am always chary of accepting Amendments which I have not had full opportunity of considering beforehand. I would therefore suggest that the noble Earl should put down his suggested Amendment for Third Reading, and in the meantime I will consider it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I will put the Amendment down for Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I move to delete from subsection (2) the words "the unexpired residue of any term originally created for a period," and to insert "a term of years where the term as originally created was a term." This is really not an Amendment of substance, but a drafting Amendment intended to improve the language of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("the unexpired residue of any term originally created for a period") and insert ("a term of years where the term as originally created was a term").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Procedure for acquisition of reversionary interests. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20.
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

1113
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 such 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 THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN formally moved several Amendments, the effect of which was to make paragraph (a) run as follows—
(a) All questions of disputed compensation 811.11 be settled by a single arbitrator to be appointed, in default of agreement, by the Judge of the County Court. The remuneration of such arbitrator shall be fixed by the Judge of the County Court, and the arbitrator 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.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 13, after ("the") insert ("Judge of the") and leave out ("whose") and insert ("The", and after ("remuneration") insert ("of such arbitrator")
Page 2, line 14, after ("the") insert ("Judge" of the") and leave out ("who") and insert ("the arbitrator").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I move to add to Clause 2 the following new paragraph—
(e) In determining the amount of compensation in any case where the rent reserved under the lease is less than the full annual value of the land, the compensation, so far as it is payable in respect of the interest of the lessor expectant on the expiration of the term of the lease, shall not be ascertained on the basis of the rent so reserved but subject always to the foregoing provisions of this section, on the estimated full value of the land at the expiration of the term of the lease.
Your Lordships will no doubt remember that in Committee we had a discussion on this point, and my noble friend the Secretary of State for War was more successful than
1114
I in explaining to your Lordships the exact bearing of this point. But we concluded the discussion with a promise on our part to consider the point and bring up an Amendment on Report. Your Lordships will see that I have tried to meet the case by this Amendment. There are two different, points—the point as to the value of the land at the expiration of the lease, and the point as to the value of the lease itself and the annual rent which is paid for the lease. They are two wholly separate questions. Noble Lords opposite were afraid that by some phraseology we had used in the Bill there would be some limitation upon the value of the land at the expiration of the lease. That, however, is not so. We are anxious that the freeholder should receive the value of the land less the discount subject to the number of years before the termination of the lease. The provision in this Amendment is to secure that leaseholders who enfranchise shall not pay more for the value of the land during the expiration of the lease than they have been charged by the landlord—that is to say, where the landlord has allowed them to have the land on lease at a rent below the value, in those cases the compensation should be based on the sum of money which had been fixed by the landlord, and not on any sum which the arbitrator might suggest. That is quite separate from the other point, which is the value of the land at the expiration of the lease; and having looked into the matter I can say quite confidently that we have not the least doubt that the landlord will get full value for the land at the end of the lease, subject to the discount, which is a matter of actuarial calculation.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, after ("compulsory") insert the following new paragraph—
(e) In determining the amount of compensation in any case where the rent reserved under the lease is less than the full annual value of the land, the compensation, so far as it is payable in respect of the interest, of the lessor expectant on the expiration of the term of the lease, shall not be ascertained on the basis of the rent so reserved but subject always to the foregoing provisions of this section, on the estimated full value of the land at the expiration of the term of the lease.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: This is a very technical matter, but so far as I can judge. I think the noble Earl has very fairly met the view that was taken on this side

1115
of the House. I understand that under the Amendment the lessee has a right for the duration of the lease to any amount by which a full rent might exceed the rent actually reserved, and having that right it would not be fair to make him pay more than the capital value of the rent agreed upon by the landlord; but directly the lease expires the lessor has a right to the full value of the reversion.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Viscount has stated the law, as I understand it, with entire accuracy. We have this satisfaction, that the words which it is now proposed to insert in response to a desire to get rid of anxieties are admirably chosen words, but they express nothing that was not in the Bill as it originally stood. The words add nothing. They simply explain an element of the law, and some day or another unfortunate Judges will wonder how this clause got in here, as the whole thing is quite clear in Clause 2. But it is satisfactory that we have at last arrived at words which leave no ambiguity in anybody's mind.
On Question, Amendment 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 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 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.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I move, in the paragraph defining the expression "place of worship," to insert "caretaker's house." I hope your Lordships will not think that this is an unfair extension of the objects of the Bill. In many cases the caretaker's house is part of the same building, and in those circumstances it would be rather hard if the power to enfranchise the chapel did not cover the caretaker's house which was part of the chapel and shared a common wall.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, after ("school") insert ("care-"taker's house").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The next Amendment is a purely drafting one in the last paragraph of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("such purposes as" aforesaid") and insert ("the purposes of a place of worship").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment 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, 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, 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, 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.
(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 ender 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.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I move to amend Clause (3) of the Schedule by omitting the words "sections one hundred and twenty-seven "and inserting" sections one hundred and twenty-eight."
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule, line 15, leave out "twenty-seven" and insert "twenty-eight."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I move, on behalf of Lord Dunmore, to add at the end of Clause (3) of the Schedule the words standing on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 20, after ("omitted") insert ("and as if 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 (if any) of such person, and' were substituted for the words then entitled to the lands (if any) from which the same were originally severed; or"').—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am quite willing to agree to this Amendment, which was postponed from the Committee stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would suggest that before the next stage this Amendment should be put into a clearer
1118
form. I am not saving a word against the substance of it, but it is very disturbing to constantly have these pieces of legislation which say that something shall be considered as if something else had been different from what it is.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I entirely agree with the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. No one dislikes these unintelligible Amendments more than I do, and I wish to say that I am not responsible for the wording although I moved the Amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Neither am I responsible. The wording is that of the noble Earl (Lord Dunmore) in whose name the Amendment stands.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Could not the noble Earl in charge of the Bill undertake to put the Amendment into proper form and insert it on the Third Reading?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I will consider the matter and consult with Lord Dunmore. I do not think it would be fair to alter the form without consulting him. As I said, we have no objection to the principle of the Amendment, whatever objection there may be to the exact terms in which it is set out.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 178.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It would be for the convenience of the House if the noble Viscount opposite could tell us what business he proposes to take during the remaining days of this part of the session, and also on what day he proposes that the House should rise for the Autumn Adjournment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: If your Lordships thought fit to sit to-morrow, Thursday, and Friday, we could dispose of all the necessary business. If convenient, the sitting on Friday might be at three o'clock and then the Commission could take place afterwards, between four and five o'clock to give the Royal Assent to the Bills that

1119
would then be awaiting the Royal Assent. Among the Bills to be dealt with are the Old Age Pensions Bill, a Bill to enable the appointment of additional High Court Judges in India, the Labourers (Ireland) Bill, the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, &c.) Bill, the Appropriation Bill, the Telephone Transfer Bill, the Public Works Loans Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Government of India Act Amendment Bill, the Cotton Cloth Factories Bill, and the Geneva Convention Bill. The Bills which must go over to the Autumn include the Copyright Bill, the Education (Administrative Provisions) Bill, the Pacific Cable Bill, and the Telegraph Construction Bill. That relieves the list somewhat and leaves us with those Bills which I have mentioned, most of which are quite short and are not, so far as I am aware, controversial.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am glad to learn from the noble Viscount that he proposes to carry over until the Autumn Session a number of the pending measures. It would, as he evidently feels, be extremely inconvenient—I might say extremely indecent—that during the two or three days which remain to us we should be asked, with an Autumn Session before us, to hurry through measures of any consequence. The noble Viscount suggested that some of the Bills which he hopes to take during the next three days were Bills of little or no importance. May I venture to suggest to him that, though a Bill may be an agreed Bill, there may be many members of your Lordships' House who may desire to examine its details and ask questions about it. The noble Viscount mentioned the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Am I right in believing that under that Bill His Majesty's
1120
Government propose this year to extend the operation of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act? That, I am sure the noble Viscount will recognise, is a matter of considerable importance. The Act in question had a time limit of four years assigned to it. That period of four years was imposed on this House, which very much desired to have a shorter time limit. I must say that if that Act is to be further extended under cover of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill His Majesty's Government are likely to meet with a certain amount of remonstrance from noble Lords from Ireland.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It could be, of course, only for the year, in order to give time to consider whether it should be carried on or not. But I will look into that.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: It is all very well for the noble Viscount to say that the insertion of an Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is merely to give time for consideration. We know that Acts have for a generation been inserted in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and have become permanent when Parliament never intended in passing them that they should be permanent. I think we may fairly ask, if the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act is to be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, that that Bill, if possible, should be relegated to the Autumn.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I will look into that.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter-past Four o'clock.