Lords Sitting of 16 July 1912

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier). [H.L.]
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Sea Fisheries (Conway) Provisional Order.
Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Public Offices (Sites).
And also the Certificate that the Standing Order applicable to the following Bill has been complied with:
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
EXE FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
EDGWARE AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
PRESTON, CHORLEY AND HORWICH TRAMWAYS BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
HOWARD ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
HOUGHTON-LE-SPRING DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

BRADFORD CORPORATION TROLLEY VEHICLES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
BOGNOR GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY (ELECTRICITY) BILL.
FLEETWOOD GAS BILL.
IVYBRIDOE URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Clyde Valley Electrical Power—Was presented by the Lord Willingdon (pursuant to the private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9); read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 119.)
ARBROATH CORPORATION GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Arbroath Corporation Gas—Was presented by the Lord Willingdon; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899. Section 7) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. (No. 120.)

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee. read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, on behalf of the London County Council I beg to move the insertion of the new clause which stands in my name. The subject is
498
by no means a simple one, and if I can but make it clear to your Lordships I think the House will agree that the London County Council has a very strong case. Put briefly our case is this. We are desirous of acquiring the lands set out in the Schedule of this Provisional Orders Confirmation Bill and also in the Schedule of the Educational Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London No. 2) Bill which stands next on the Paper. We desire to acquire these lands as sites for additional schools in London, and where it is proved that these lands are insanitary or can be described as slum areas we ask that we should be enabled to acquire them under the provisions of Part I of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, instead of under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts. The effect of this alteration would he that where the arbitrators decide that the site is a slum area, the County Council should be able to purchase the site at a fair price instead of at the exorbitant price due to its overcrowded nature which they would have to pay under the Lands Clauses Act. As your Lordships know, slum property sometimes fetches an exorbitant price owing to its overcrowded nature and owing to the number of families living in each room. Under the Housing of the Working Classes Act we should be entitled to buy that property at the price which it would fetch if used for reasonable purposes—that is to say, if the houses were occupied by the number of people they ought to accommodate; and, further, we are allowed to deduct from that market price the cost of putting those buildings into habitable repair both structurally and for drainage purposes. The County Council would also be absolved from paying the ten per cent. extra allowance which would be due in respect of compulsory purchase.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of my proposed new clause virtually reproduce paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 4 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act. 1890, and subsection (2) of my Amendment reproduces in substance subsection (2) of Section 21 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act. In other words, the whole of this new clause is already incorporated in a public Act of Parliament. I have only to add, in regard to the effect, of this clause and the result it would have, that the onus of proving that the property is a slum area would not lie with the present owners but with the County Council should your

499
Lordships agree to this Amendment being inserted in the Bill. Under these two Bills we require somewhere about fifty sites for different schools in London. Year by year the London County Council is continually coming to Parliament asking for leave to purchase sites for new schools, partly owing to the increase in population and partly to the reduction in the size of classes and the consequent reduction in accommodation of existing schools. It is obvious that it would be of great advantage to London if we were enabled in purchasing sites to get hold of slum property rather than to abolish good houses with which no fault could he found. As any of your Lordships know, the real difficulty in abolishing slum property is the exorbitant price that that property fetches in the market, and it was to meet that point that the Housing of the Working Classes Act was passed into law. Every one in this House, I think, will agree that the more we can clear away slum areas the better it will be for the people of this country. Under the Housing of the Working Classes Act the purchasing authority is, as a rule, compelled to re-house the people whom it displaces. Under my Amendment that would not be the case. But I would point out that where we buy property which cannot be described as slum property we are under no obligation whatever to re-house. Therefore the point I think, can fairly be made that we should not be compelled to re-house those displaced from slum property any more than we are compelled to re-house those displaced from non-slum property.
The London County Council has obtained a similar clause to this in a good many of its own private Bills—in the Kingsway and Aidwych Improvement Act, in the Rotherhithe Tunnel Act, and on eight other occasions. I think Parliament granted a clause of this character in practically all the London County Council Bills for purchasing land other than Education Bills, up to the year 1905. In 1907 and 1909 the Local Government Board objected to a clause of this character being put into County Council Private Bills. As a matter of fact, their objections were never discussed before a Committee of either House of Parliament, for the reason that objection was taken to the property to which the clauses would apply, and consequently when the property was withdrawn from the Bill this Amendment was also withdrawn as we had no
500
object in putting it in. But the Board of Education have consistently refused to put in a clause of this character in any of their Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, and owing to their decision it is impossible to debate the substance of the principle of this clause in Committee of either House of Parliament upstairs. If it were a Private Bill introduced by the London County Council the County Council could obviously put in the clause and then it would be for the Committee of either House of Parliament to strike it out if they thought fit, but as this is a Board of Education Bill we have no means of getting this Amendment put in except by appealing to your Lordships' House.
We have naturally approached the authorities as to the objections they find to this Amendment, and they have been several. On one occasion objection was taken that the proposal was sprung upon the present owners of property and that they had no chance of opposing this Amendment had they seen fit. We have met that case in the notice to owners informing them that we intended to apply for powers to compulsorily purchase their land. There is a clause put in stating at the same time most clearly that we also intended to apply for an Amendment of the nature of the one which I now propose to the House. That notice is dated December 1, 1911. Therefore the owners of property have had as much chance as they would have had if this had been put into a Private Bill to make any observations they choose upon this Amendment. Then the late Chairman of Committees of your Lordships' House, Lord Onslow, raised the objection, in an interview that he had with the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the London County Council on July 12, 1910. that the sites that we proposed to apply this Amendment to were named in our Amendment, and that therefore it was really more or less blacklisting those sites before both Houses of Parliament. He went on to say that he had no objection to the clause if it was put in general terms. In this instance we have not named the sites to which it is proposed that this Amendment should apply, and therefore we have endeavoured to meet the views of the late Lord Chairman in that respect. Then last year the Local Government Board objected to its approval being found necessary before this clause was made to apply. Originally as this clause appeared

501
in a London County Council Private Bill it had not been thought necessary to put in that the Local Government Board should first approve. A Committee of the House of Commons suggested that that should be done, and therefore those words were added. But owing to the Local Government Board having since objected we have left out the words then inserted and as the proposed clause now stands it is riot necessary to ask for the leave of the Local Government Board. I think your Lordships will agree that the London County Council has done its utmost to meet the authorities in this matter, and the Council is prepared to accept any alteration in words or form that the Government may suggest if only it can manage to obtain the principle of this clause.
The last situation is this, that the Board of Education, in a letter to the London County Council, have refused to insert this clause on the plea that it is not a model clause in accordance with the undertaking given in the House of Commons in 1907. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote the undertaking then given. Answering a Question, Mr. McKenna said—
"The Board of Education are prepared on the request of the local education authority to insert in Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, where the circumstances, in the opinion of the Board, justify such a course, those clauses which, having been frequently inserted in Local Acts, are regarded in the practice of Parliament as model clauses."
I venture to think that your Lordships will agree that no more vague undertaking could possibly have been given, and that it is aptly described as a policy of red-tape. After all, what the Board of Education apparently say is this, "We have never put this into our Bills before and therefore we are not going to do it now." Apparently they are going to support the procedure by which we are compelled to buy good house property and pull it down in order to provide sites for our new schools rather than that we should get hold of slum property and demolish it in order to secure the necessary land.
After all, if you pull down good house property the cost of purchase is fairly cheap, and that is where we should naturally turn; but I think everybody will agree that a school does not improve the value of the
502
property surrounding it. You get a lot of healthy children rushing out, of school into their playgrounds, and naturally they make a noise and objections are raised by neighbouring owners. That occurs wherever a school is placed. But there is this further point, that we reduce the rateable value of the surrounding district if a school is put in the middle of a really good area, whereas if we pull down slum buildings we not only get rid of an insanitary area but we provide a large and desirable open space in that neighbourhood in the shape of the school playground. We make it less a slum area and consequently more valuable. It may be argued that we are endeavouring to compulsorily purchase the land and then write down the price afterwards. That may be so or it may not but that is the law at present. When the County Council wished to acquire land, for instance, for the Aldwych Improvement or for the Rotherhithe Tunnel they were enabled to acquire it under those clauses; and in the same way if we wish to clear a slum area, as we are doing now, then we have been enabled to purchase the land at a lower price under the Housing of the Working Classes Act. Therefore if it is right in that case I maintain it is also right in cases where we require sites for educational purposes. We hear a good deal on public platforms from members of His Majesty's Government about their great concern as to the conditions under which the working classes live. Here appears to ate to be an extremely good way of putting some of that preaching into practice. This is, however, not a show Amendment, and therefore it is not good electioneering. I venture to say that, unless it is found that it contravenes the regulations of this or the other House of Parliament, if the Government refuse to accept an Amendment of this character it will be shown that all these protestations on their part are really only "window dressing" for electioneering purposes. As I said, this is not going to appeal to the electorate; but opposition to this Amendment means that you allow slum landlords, of whom I think nobody in this House approves, to stick out for a very high price, and you prevent the local authority from clearing areas which everybody will agree should be abolished as soon as possible. Really the Government would place themselves in the position of standing up for the slum landlord, not, in the way of protecting his property, but actually preventing the London County Council from

503
purchasing it at a fair price. That is all that the London County Council is asking to do. They are not proposing to run down the price inordinately, but they desire that the price which they pay for slum property should be the fair marketable value subject to the condition of its being put into fair marketable repair.
Here is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone—to provide sites for our schools and also do away with slum property. Every year we are purchasing a large number of sites. I could quote a case at this moment in which we are anxious to provide a site for a school in one of the boroughs of London. We have scheduled a good house property site—that is to say, one or two houses with large gardens behind. Very naturally the borough objects to our purchasing that property, and says it will reduce the rateable value of the surrounding district. The only alternative site is one in the middle of slum property, and the difference in price between those two sites is something like £10,000. The slum property is more desirable for the school; it is situated nearer to the working class population whose children will attend the school when built; but it is obvious that we cannot spend an extra £10,000 on schools all over the place in order to meet the borough councils to that extent in helping them to develop the property in their borough. If this Amendment meets with approval at your Lordships' hands we shall he enabled to get that slum property, not at the same price but at a price approximating to the good house property which we shall have otherwise to acquire. We shall rid that borough of those slums and secure a school in a position in which we require it. I have only to mention that there are something like 700,000 children attending the schools of London, and that we have now undertaken a scheme, which I think will meet with the approval of every member of this House, for reducing the number of children in each class-room to forty for older children and forty-eight for infants, to enable you to realise what an enormous amount of extra accommodation we shall require in ensuing years. This Amendment would be of great assistance to us in that work, and I trust that your Lordships will look favourably upon it, and that the Board of Education may make perhaps an eleventh hour repentance and allow this new clause to be added to their Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, after ("purpose") insert the following new clause, viz.:
"Compensation in case of Insanitary Property.
".—(1) The Council may claim in any notice to treat for the purchase of any lands intended to be taken for the purposes of this Act—
"(a) That the lands to which the notice refers are or comprise any houses, courts and alleys unfit for human habitation; or
"(b) That the narrowness, closeness and had arrangement, or the bad condition of the streets and houses or groups of houses upon any such lands, or the want of light, air, ventilation or proper conveniences, or any other sanitary defects, or one or more of such causes, render any such lands or any buildings thereon prejudicial to the health of the inhabitants either of the buildings on the said lands or of the neighbouring buildings.
"(2) In the event of such claim then on the occasion of assessing the amount of compensation payable in respect of such lands the jury arbitrators or other authority settling the same shall determine whether such lands fall wholly or in part within any of the descriptions hereinbefore mentioned and if they determine that such lands do so fall then in assessing the compensation payable under this Act in respect of such lands evidence shall be receivable by them to prove:
"(a) That the rental of any house or premises was enhanced by reason of the same being used for illegal purposes or being so overcrowded as to be dangerous or injurious to the health of the inmates; or
"(b) That any house or premises are in a state of defective sanitation or are not in reasonably good repair; or
"(c) That any house or premises are unfit and not reasonably capable of being made fit for human habitation;
and if they are satisfied by such evidence then the purchase money and compensation in respect of such lands shall he assessed according to the principles indicated in section twenty-one of the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890."—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGH MORE): My Lords, I think it would probably be for the convenience of your Lordships if I state as briefly as I can the history of this matter as regards your Lordships' Committees for the last six or seven years, because it is to a considerable extent that history which impels me to recommend your Lordships not to agree to the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl, and in doing so I am sure he will acquit me at any rate of any desire for "window dressing." This matter has arisen in this way, and I think the fact explains why the noble Earl was able to quote precedents for the case that he submits to your Lordships to-day.

505
All his precedents—I am sure he would admit it quite frankly—are anterior to the year 1905, and I believe I am correct in saying that though this clause has been applied for several times by the London County Council since 1905 it has not been acceded to by your Lordships in any Bill which you have passed since that year.
That is explained in this way. It was about the year 1905 that your Lordships decided that all these Government Provisional Order Confirmation Bills should go through what is known as the Unopposed Committee. Such Bills had previously been examined by one of the officers of your Lordships' House. Under this new direction the Bills were examined in much more detail than before the year 1905, and as a result it was noticed that this clause, which was certainly opposed to the Private Bill practice of your Lordships' House, was being inserted by the Education Department in some of their Provisional Order Bills. This point was one of the first that was noticed. The object has been quite fairly stated by the noble Earl. The result would have been, if it had been allowed, that the London County Council would have been able to get a lower price fixed for the property they were purchasing, and possibly to get rid of the ten per cent. given in respect of compulsory purchase. This was done by adopting part of the procedure, but not the whole of the procedure, of the Housing Acts—by applying part of the procedure of the Housing Acts to the Lands Clauses Acts, a purpose for which the Housing Acts, I submit, were never intended. If public authorities desire to deal with insanitary property they have the machinery of the Housing Acts at their command and have plenty of powers for dealing with such property.
But what I wish particularly to urge upon your Lordships—and I find from the Minutes that have been kept in my Office that this is a point that weighed considerably with my predecessor, the late Lord Onslow—is that under the Housing Acts certain forms of procedure are prescribed which act fairly to the owner, who, after all, is entitled to justice even though he is a slum owner. They act fairly to him, and one of the fairest of those provisions is not embodied in the noble Earl's Amendment. When an authority like the London County Council desire to deal with what they consider an insanitary dwelling-house or area—"nuisance" is the term used, and a
506
house that is a nuisance is defined, among other things, as premises in such a state as to be a nuisance or injurious to health—they have to serve a notice on the owner, and the owner has this enormous advantage conferred upon him, that he is allowed to abate the nuisance himself. The Third Schedule of the Housing Act of 1890 provides that the authority shall, previous to taking proceedings, serve a notice on the owner calling upon him to abate the nuisance, and he has the chance of abating it and so nullifying any further proceedings against him. The proposed new clause which the noble Earl has moved to insert gives the owner, as I read it, no chance of abating the nuisance, because notice is served upon him when they are giving the notice of their intention to treat. I quite agree that the noble Earl has altered this clause so as to give the owner a hearing as to whether his property is a nuisance or not, but I cannot see under this clause that the noble Earl gives him power to abate the nuisance. The pistol is held at his head from the first. The property is to be taken away from him, and if it is in such a condition as to be a nuisance all the disadvantages of this clause are held over his head at once.
Your Lordships will, of course, realise that this is not merely a London question. If this clause is assented to to-day your Lordships will be laying down a precedent which will be adopted at once all over the Kingdom by local authorities in their anxiety to purchase property as cheaply as they can. And what will be the result? If adopted all over the country, instead of local authorities proceeding as fast as they can, as their duty is, with procedure for better housing under the Housing Acts, it will pay them better to sit still with folded hands, leaving the properties insanitary and profiting by their having done nothing if they think that they may require those properties in the more or less near future for a specific purpose. There are plenty of precedents for refusing a power such as this, and I think it would be most unfortunate if it were to be laid down as part of our general legislation that neglect of duties under the Housing Acts was to result to the advantage of local authorities in cases such as these. Therefore, my Lords, my advice, as at present advised, is that your Lordships should not agree to the insertion of this proposed new clause.

507
I would point out to your Lordships—a fact which I have no doubt will weigh with you much more than any advice I can give—that this clause was almost consistently asked for from the late Lord Onslow and equally consistently refused by him after the County Council's representatives had been fully heard. The decision has been consistently against them for the reasons that I have pointed out. The noble Earl quoted Mr. McKenna's undertaking. As I read it, that undertaking is the best possible argument against the insertion of this clause. His undertaking was that public Departments were always ready to agree to the insertion of those clauses which are regarded in the practice of Parliament as model clauses; but model clauses merely represent the established practice of Parliament, and the established practice of Parliament since this matter has been gone into much more carefully than it had hitherto been has been to refuse the insert on of this clause, and for that reason my advice to your Lordships to-day is not to agree to the noble Earl's Amendment.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not think anybody can have listened to the Lord Chairman without seeing that he desires to deal with this subject in the most fair and considerate manner. On the other hand, I confess that listening to his speech I could almost have imagined myself back to the time when the whole of the social legislation of the last thirty years was unpassed. I remember in the early days of the 1880 Parliament when a Housing Committee sat for two years under the Presidency of Sir Richard Cross on purpose to relieve the then Metropolitan Board of the difficulties which had arisen, to which effect was given in 1885, and nobody will say that the terms then agreed to by Parliament were in any way unfair or have worked unfairly to the owners of insanitary areas. What my noble friend opposite practically says is this. You are at liberty to go forward with a scheme for an insanitary area under certain conditions, but it would be fatal if a public authority had the advantage of using those same conditions to amend sanitary areas at a moment when it is forced to acquire property for some other public purpose. I really think, with great respect to the Lord. Chairman, that that contention is out of date.
I cannot put before your Lordships sufficiently strongly the situation in which you place a great public authority like the
508
London County Council by adopting the contention, having surrounded the proceedings with all the safeguards which are necessary to see that the owner of an insanitary area gets the fullest compensation for the real value of that which he has to give up, that that advantage must not be reaped for the public unless you go into the arena solely for the purpose of securing that slum area at an enormous expense. This is indeed an urgent matter at this moment. I was sitting in the London County Council only a few moments ago. There is before that Council at the present moment, at the instance of the Board of Education, a proposal to which after a long bargain the County Council is now disposed to agree—that the whole of the classes should be reduced as rapidly as may be from their present size to forty-eight for small children and forty for larger children, and in order to do that the London County Council has to spend a sum amounting to £600,000 a year for all time in addition to the education charges of London, and a very large amount of that goes on the purchase of sites in order to provide these additional buildings. We argue that when you have a public authority, by agreement with the Government, undertaking so great a work, they should not be bound to co into the market and pay sums which we know the owners of these areas are not entitled to in order to keep up the distinction laid down by my noble friend. A public authority when it is working for sanitary purposes has an advantage which is denied to it if it is working for educational purposes.
I cannot help feeling that all that my noble friend said as regards the careful examination of this subject makes it necessary that some tribunal which is not the same tribunal should try these subjects and hear evidence and decide whether you are to ask the greatest municipality in the world to put their ratepayers to so great a charge. My noble friend Lord Stanhope, in his admirable resumé of the position in which we are placed, did not give actual figures, but I have some figures before me with regard to a site at St. Pancras, where property of an unsatisfactory character has been purchased estimated to cost fifty per cent. more than a good property site of equal area. It is unreasonable that the County Council should have to clear away good houses when it has close by a space, where a lung is much needed for the poorer children in that neighbourhood and an

509
opportunity of clearing away an insanitary area. I know that in these matters we are in the other House in the hands of the Government, but I would earnestly ask the noble Earl the First Commissioner of Works, who will reply, to give the facts a fresh consideration and compare the procedure in these cases with that adopted by Parliament with regard to public purchases made on behalf of the War Office. Years ago those purchases used to be under the Lands Clauses Acts. Parliament at length intervened and took steps to enable the War Office, for purposes of defence, to obtain property on more favourable terms. I cannot help thinking, having regard to the large extent to which the existing unrest in the large cities of this country is the result of bad and crowded dwellings, that when this House has the opportunity of putting in force, as I think, an absolutely just procedure, one which has been in other respects found to work without any injustice to the owner, it would be well if we were to adopt this procedure in this case—one of the largest this]louse has ever had to consider—rather than entrench ourselves behind the antiquated precepts of the past
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will realise that we are discussing two different points to-day. First of all there is the general question whether the principle of this Amendment is a good one and whether it is such an Amendment as should be inserted in Bills of this kind. We have also been discussing the smaller point—namely, whether this particular Amendment should be inserted in this particular Bill. I will deal with those two points as wholly separate points. With regard to the actual merits of this Amendment His Majesty's Government are not without sympathy with the noble Earl who has moved it, but the noble Earl. I think, might be warned that attacks such as those which he made upon His Majesty's Government are not likely to secure for him any overwhelming measure of support in his endeavours. Apart from the partisan attack which he made, His Majesty's Government think that this is a matter which might very fairly be considered, and I suggest to your Lordships whether it might not become a matter for consideration, either by a Joint Committee of both Houses, or by a Select Committee of this House, or in such way as the noble
510
Earl may suggest, so that in future the matter of the general principle might, having been once discussed, be either admitted or refused in connection with these Bills. Then let me turn to the smaller question as to whether we ought to insert this Amendment in this particular Bill. On that I hope that your Lordships will follow the advice of the Lord Chairman. That is generally the course which this House takes in matters of this kind, and I venture to hope your Lordships will take it to-day. I do not base my opposition on any question of the merits of the Amendment, but on a matter of order. Your Lordships will see at once that it would be a very unusual step if in a Provisional Order Bill we were to insert a very far-reaching Amendment admitting a principle which has always been refused hitherto in Bills of this kind. That is the ground of my objection to-day to the insertion in this Bill of the noble Earl's Amendment. The last words of the noble Viscount opposite confirmed my objection, for he said this was one of the largest matters which the House has had to consider.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I meant on this particular question of housing.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I agree. But is if wise to insert in a Provisional Order Bill an Amendment dealing with this question? We ought to settle the general principle in the way I have suggested, and then say whether or not this clause should be inserted in all Provisional Order Bills. We could not allow a county council to take advantage of the procedure in this House in order to create a precedent by those means. We think, as I have said, that this matter should be dealt with generally and as a matter of principle, and if the noble Earl will suggest to us any way in which he thinks it most desirable that the matter should be considered His Majesty's Government will be glad to take his suggestion into consideration and do their best to meet him.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think those who listened to the opening statement of my noble friend behind me (Earl Stanhope) must have been impressed by the strength of the case which he laid before the House. I am bound, indeed, to say that when he sat down I found it difficult to conjecture what answer was going to be made to him. The

511
outline of the case is a simple one. The County Council are obliged to provide a large increase of school accommodation. They find it necessary to give fewer places in each school room, and they have, therefore, no choice but to provide additional schools. Then the question arises where are they to put these schools. Is it better that they should take for the purpose sites which are occupied by suitable and sanitary buildings, or is it, on the contrary, better in the interest of the locality that they should go to sites which are occupied by squalid and low-class buildings, and achieve the double purpose of providing the schools which they want and also getting rid of what we describe as slum areas? The advantages of placing the school in the slum area seem to me obvious. And then my noble friend adds to his argument this, that under the procedure under which he proposes the owners of these slum areas should be compensated, not on an artificially enhanced rent which they obtain by crowding a great number of people on a narrow site, but on the true value of the property if reasonably used; and he points out that this is the principle upon which compensation is paid under the Housing of the Working Classes Act. Up to that point the case does seem to me to be a very strong one indeed.
What is the argument in reply? My noble friend at the Table (the Lord Chairman) whose authority on these matters we always recognise, tells us that my noble friend who has charge of the Amendment applies only a portion of the procedure laid down by the Housing of the Working Classes Act and not that procedure in its complete form; and I think he also argues that if these slum areas are to be taken in hand at all it is proper that they should be taken in hand under the Housing Acts and not incidentally under a Bill of this kind. I will not say that those arguments are devoid of force, but I am bound to say that when you come to an operation of this magnitude—for the building operation contemplated by this Bill is a very large operation—it is a little technical to suggest that what would otherwise on the merits seem a most admirable proposal should be ruled out of order because it is an operation which ought to be conducted under a different Bill.
Then I noticed that the noble Earl at the Table told us that under the Housing of the Working Classes Act the owner of the slum property is given an opportunity of,
512
so to speak, setting his house in order and putting the property into a proper and sanitary condition. But am I quite wrong in believing that under the Amendment of my noble friend such an opportunity would not be altogether denied to the proprietor? I see that in cases falling under my noble friend's Amendment when the arbitrator determines that there is a case for compensation he is obliged, in assessing that compensation, to receive evidence to show that the houses or premises are unfit and not reasonably capable of being made fit for human habitation. Therefore I infer that my noble friend's proposal would only come into operation in cases which were so bad that there was no prospect whatever of the premises being rendered sanitary and fit to be occupied.
The real argument upon which we are asked not to insert this Amendment is that it is unusual and inconvenient to incorporate a principle of this importance in a Provisional Order Bill, and I dare say there is something in that. On a point of that kind I am ready to defer to the opinion of my noble friend at the Table. But what impressed me more than that was the attitude of the noble Earl opposite who spoke for the Government. I was glad to note from his remarks that he does not by any means meet the Amendment with what we sometimes call a blank non possumus. What I gathered from him was that he which my noble friend rested his case. I gathered from him that he is prepared to entertain a suggestion, or perhaps to make a suggestion himself, with the object of obtaining some kind of inquiry into this matter. If that is really what His Majesty's Government have to suggest, and if the noble Earl will, perhaps, communicate to the House in a moment what kind of inquiry he has in his mind, I should advise my noble friend who moved the Amendment to be content with having brought the question before the House and having obtained from His Majesty's Government something like an assurance that the point which he has raised—the importance of winch we must all of us recognise—is going to be seriously examined and dealt with at a future time. If the noble Earl will tell us whether we may infer from what he said that some investigation of this sort would be approved by His Majesty's Government, I should certainly not advise my noble friend to divide the House.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Something of that kind was certainly in my mind, but I did not indicate whether the inquiry ought to take the form of a Select Committee or a Joint Committee, but any suggestion of the kind which comes from the noble Earl we shall be glad to consider. When we look into the matter we shall find that a number of technical questions, like model clauses, will have to be considered, and I hope that we shall have the assistance of the noble Earl in the Chair. If the noble Earl opposite will consult with me privately we may agree upon the kind of investigation.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I should like to say that nobody would welcome more than I should the inquiry suggested by the noble Earl who has just sat down, and I would gladly take part in it and place whatever information I could at the disposal of the Committee. As to the point mentioned by the noble Marquess in regard to safeguarding the abatement power, that point had been present in my mind, and I think the fact that the subsections of the proposed new clause are alternative—the word "or" joins them, not "and"—confirms my view of their effect. However, that is one of those points which would obviously come before the Committee, and I will see that it is not lost sight of.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I shall be glad to fall in with the suggestion of the noble Earl the First Commissioner of Works. It is a considerable advance on the attitude which the Board of Education have shown in their correspondence with the London County Council. That correspondence constituted entirely a non possumus. As to the remark made by my noble relative about a partisan attack, I should like to say that I only suggested that if the Government refused to take in hand an Amendment of this kind it was obvious that the statements they made were not intended to be carried into effect, and were merely "window dressing." But if they intend to put their statements into practice then I gladly withdraw that remark.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Right of Trustees holding Leasehold Interest in place of Worship to acquire Freehold.
1.—(1) Where premises held under a lease to which this Act applies are held upon trust to be used for the purposes of a place of worship, whether in conjunction with other purposes or not, and the premises are being used in accordance with the terms of the trust, the trustees, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary (not being an 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 have the right 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 the right in respect of more than two acres thereof; and

(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, or where the trusts upon which the premises are held include the use of the premises (otherwise than by a lessee or assignee from the trustees) for the purposes of any trade or business or for any purposes of a political character.

(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 a term of years where the term as originally created was a term of not less than twenty-one years, whether determinable on a life or lives or not.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I have on the Paper an Amendment to leave out the word "include" in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) and to substitute the words "would allow." This paragraph ends with the words—
"or where the trusts upon which the premises are held include the use of the premises (otherwise than by a lessee or assignee from the trustees) for the purposes of any trade or business or for any purposes of a political character."
Those words were inserted by the Government as a concession to Lord Newton, but I think that if "include" stands they really amount to very little concession at all. Generally, I believe, trusts are silent on the matter, and therefore in reality the words would only refer to such trusts as contain a provision specifically stating that the premises might be used for these trade purposes. I suggest to the noble Earl that at the next stage of the Bill the words which I have read might be struck out without in any way affecting the Bill. The noble Earl, in an Amendment of which he has given notice, appears to me to meet my objection to a considerable extent, and therefore at this stage I will not move to leave out "include" and to substitute "would allow."
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE*LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE moved to insert at the end of subsection (1) a new paragraph providing that the Bill should not apply where the premises are situate on land which has been acquired by or is vested in the owners thereof under any Act of Parliament, Provisional Order, or Order having the force of an Act of Parliament.
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to exempt from the Bill any site of a place of worship on the property of a public body. I am moving this Amendment on behalf of the Port of London Authority, but as no doubt there are many other public bodies similarly affected the Amendment has been so framed as to include them. The Port of London Authority and their predecessors have from time to time purchased property with the object of developing that property
516
at some future time in connection with their docks, and there is on the property of the Port of London Authority a site which has been let, from philanthropic motives and at a purely nominal rent, for a place of worship, in the expectation that it will revert to the authority when it is required, or, rather, with the certain assurance that it would so revert for the purpose of developing the property. Under the provisions of this Bill those to whom this site is let can acquire it from us on the favourable terms embodied in the Bill; whereas the Port Authority, when the time came for developing that property, would have to re-acquire the site under the ordinary provisions of the Lands Clauses Act. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that this would constitute a serious grievance for the Port Authority and for any other body similarly situated, and I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill may see his way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 29, after paragraph (b) insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) This Act shall not apply where the premises are situate on land which has been acquired by or is vested thereof under any Act of Parliament Provisional Order or Order having the force of an Act of Parliament."—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think there is a good deal to be said for the particular instance mentioned by the noble Lord, but I hope he will allow me to point out one very strong objection to this Amendment—namely, that it goes a great deal further than the particular case which he cited. It goes so far as even to exclude from the scope of the Bill chapels upon sites included within town-planning schemes in respect of which a Provisional Order had been obtained. I am sure that goes a great deal further than the noble Lord intended. I suggest that he should be good enough to withdraw the Amendment now and bring it up on Report in some form which would effect his object without going to the extreme of excluding all these other chapels from the benefits of the Bill.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: I am quite willing to adopt the noble Earl's suggestion. I withdraw the Amendment now, and will consult with him and bring the point up again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to insert the following new clause—
". For the purposes of the assessment of Reversion Duty in respect of any premises the reversionary interests in which are acquired under this Act, the value of any buildings erected or improvements made by the trustees shall be excluded."
The noble Lord said: I bring forward this Amendment in order that your Lordships may consider the effect which Clause 2 (c) of the Bill has upon the incidence of the Reversion Duty. The enfranchisement of these places of worship which is contemplated under the Bill—that is, the enlargement of their leasehold interest into a freehold interest—is an occasion on which Reversion Duty will be collected. Reversion Duty is at the rate of ten per cent. upon the value of the benefit which accrues to the lessor at the determination of the lease and is paid by the lessor. The value of the benefit is calculated under the Finance Act in this way. It is the difference between the total value of the premises at the determination of the lease and the value of the land at the commencement of the lease calculated upon the basis of the rent reserved—upon the difference between those two sums Reversion Duty is paid; but the "total value," in the meaning of the Finance Act, includes the value of the buildings and other improvements. Clause 2 (c) of this Bill prevents the lessor receiving the value of the buildings and improvements in this case; yet though he does not receive them he would be compelled under the Finance Act to pay the Reversion Duty upon them. Therefore under the Finance Act Parliament compels the lessor to pay a duty upon a certain benefit which a subsequent Bill—this Bill—prevents him receiving.
To make this clear I have had some premises valued showing the actual effect of this measure in this particular instance. It is the case of a Congregational chapel and schools let in the year 1890 on a sixty-years lease at an annual rental of £5. On enfranchisement the valuation will be as follows—total value: site, £300; buildings, £2,200; total £2,500. From this sum, for the purpose: of Reversion Duty, has to be deducted the value at the commencement of the lease, calculated on the basis of the rent reserved
518
(£5), which would be £150. Therefore the amount on which Reversion Duty would be payable would be £2,350, although the actual value of the benefit, now that the lessor will not be allowed to receive the buildings, is only the value of the site—namely, £300. Deducting from that the original value, which was £150, the value of the benefit is only £150, and the Reversion Duty at ten per cent. would be £15. So that while the Reversion Duty on the actual value is only £15 the lessor would, in fact, have to pay £235 out of the £300 he would receive. The noble Earl has been good enough to communicate with me on this matter and has referred me to Section 37 of the Finance Act, which he tells me will meet the point. This is a section which exempts the governing body of any charitable institution from the payment of Reversion Duty as long as the land is occupied for the purpose of their trust. Without attempting to argue the point as to whether the trustees of a place of worship under this Bill would be considered governors of a charitable institution, I do not believe that the section meets my point; because surely that section means that it is the governing body themselves who are exempt from the payment of Reversion Duty while in the case under consideration it is not the trustees or the governing body but the lessor, a private individual, who has his land compulsorily enfranchised under this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, after ("payable") insert the following new clause:
"Assessment of Reversion Duty.
". For the purposes of the assessment of Reversion Duty in respect of any premises the reversionary interests in which are acquired under this Act, the value of any buildings erected or improvements made by the Trustees shall be excluded."—(Lord Clinton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am afraid I have very little to say in answer to the noble Lord in addition to what I have communicated to him privately. The Board of Inland Revenue are certain that Section 37 of the Finance Act does exclude the lessor from payment of Reversion Duty in this particular case. The noble Lord and his advisers do not agree with my advisers and myself, and I am afraid we cannot settle a point of that kind across the floor of the House. It is obvious, if we inserted in one particular Bill a clause excluding one

519
small class, that that would of itself create a presumption that everything else was outside and would not come within the exemption of Section 37. I am somewhat at a loss to know what suggestion to make to the noble Lord. That is the difficulty which we see—that if his Amendment is inserted it will create a presumption that other leases held under charitable trusts are not exempt. That, I am quite sure, is not within the intention of the noble Lord. I wish we could devise a system by which the Board of Inland Revenue could give some assurance to the noble Lord that the object which he has in mind would really be assured. How that can be done I am at a loss to suggest. But I venture to hope the noble Lord will allow me to communicate with him on this point, in order that, if necessary, we may deal with it on the Report stage. Meanwhile I can give him the assurance that we will not hurry the Report stage. There will therefore be plenty of time to deal with the point thoroughly before the next stage of the Bill is taken.
LORD CLINTON: I do not wish to press the Amendment now if the noble Earl will reconsider the point and communicate with me further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP had an Amendment on the Paper, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause—
".—(1) If any person who appears to the Judge of the County Court to be interested proves to the satisfaction of the Judge that any premises the estate in fee simple in which has been acquired by the trustees under this Act, or any part thereof, are let or are habitually used for any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith, the Judge shall, unless it appears to him that such use was due to inadvertence and will be discontinued, order that the premises, or such part thereof, be sold.
"(2) For the purposes of this section premises shall not be deemed to be habitually used for any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith by reason only of their being used fir such other purpose not more than twice in any year.".
The noble Earl said: I have put down this Amendment in the hope of meeting objections that were raised by Lord Camperdown on a previous occasion, but there are one or two alterations which I wish to suggest in the form of this Amendment. I know that the noble Earl is anxious that we should exclude any possibility of the use of these chapels for political purposes.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: For any purposes except religious.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Quite so. On the other hand, I am sure the noble Earl would not wish to exclude their use for purposes of meetings of friendly societies or in connection with, say, the Insurance Act. The noble Earl would, I am sure, not regard such uses as improper uses. Perhaps the best way to simplify my proposed new clause would be to omit from each subsection the words "other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith" and insert before the word "purpose" the adjective "political." If the noble Earl will allow me I will move the Amendment in that form, and there will be plenty of time to consider it if he thinks it does not meet the case.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:—
"Power to require Trustees to sell in certain cases.
".—(1) If any person who appears to the Judge of the County Court to be interested proves to the satisfaction of the Judge that any premises the estate in fee simple in which has been acquired by the trustees under this Act, or any part thereof, are let or are habitually used for any political purpose, the Judge shall, unless it appears to him that such use was due to inadvertence and will be discontinued, order that the premises, or such part thereof, be sold.
"(2) For the purposes of this section premises shall not be deemed to be habitually used for any political purpose by reason only of their being used for such purpose not more than twice in any year."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL or CAMPERDOWN: The proposed insertion of the word "political" between "any" and "purpose" does come to me rather as a novelty, but at the same time I am sorry to say that it does not seem quite to commend itself to me. The noble Earl, as I understand, now proposes that premises which have been enfranchised should be allowed to be used for any purpose except a political purpose. What if they are used for dancing?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I would be glad to insert words definitely excluding dancing or anything of that sort.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Suppose the premises were used for a cinematograph exhibition. It is proposed to confer this great privilege in respect of these buildings because they arc used for religious purposes, and to extend it further does appear to me to go beyond the scope of the Bill. To

521
allow these enfranchised premises to be used for any purpose except political is a considerable enlargement of the Bill. I think that the new clause as it stands on the Paper and not as the noble Earl has moved it meets my view quite sufficiently. At all events under that new clause if the premises are used for purposes which are not religious, then the Judge can order that the premises be sold. In that way you do not prevent the use in the first instance, but you provide a cure for the misuse afterwards, and to that extent I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment as it stands on the Paper, but not with the word "political."
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I admit that a dance or cinematograph exhibition would be an improper use to which to put such buildings. But take, for instance, the present great crusade against consumption. Surely it would be a great pity not to allow these buildings to be used for meetings held in connection with that crusade. We might say "if it was let for hire," or something of that kind.
LORD NEWTON: If the noble Earl's Amendment is accepted it would enable meetings of any sort to be held not more than twice in the year.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: That exception simply applies to political purposes.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I think that is hardly right. The second subsection in the proposed new clause proposes that "for the purpose of this section premises shall not be deemed to be habitually used for any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith by reason only of their being used for such other purpose not more than twice in any year." I suggest to the noble Earl that he should insert in this subsection the word "any" so that it would read "any such other purposes." As the words stand, the building might be used twice for one purpose, twice for another purpose, and so on. The noble Earl said just now that I would surely not object to the building being used for a meeting in connection with national insurance. I really do not know. That might be a very good purpose, but it is not a religious purpose. As I said just now, I very much object to the scope of the Bill being enlarged. It is a very drastic Bill as it is, and I strongly object to any provision likely to enlarge its scope.
LORD NEWTON: This Bill is being passed for a particular purpose—namely, to enable particular denominations to acquire their places of worship. Why cannot we leave it there? The noble Earl in charge of the Bill wishes that the persons who acquire these buildings should be able to use them for other purposes. I suggest that it would be more consistent and give greater satisfaction to noble Lords on this side of the House if he would leave the Bill in its original form.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Upon one point I feel very little doubt. If an Amendment dealing with the subject is to be inserted at this stage, I would prefer the formula which appears on the Order Paper to the altered version which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has suggested. What we are talking about is the case of a chapel which has been enfranchised as a chapel, and the object of any clause of this kind is to provide that if, after enfranchisement, the premises are used for some purpose which by no stretch of imagination can be connected with religious worship, then the premises should be ordered to be sold. If that be the object of the noble Earl's Amendment, I venture to think that the original text on the Order Paper carries it out much better than the amended text.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I would point out that this Bill has been passed on two or three occasions by your Lordships' House. The original purpose was to allow chapels to be used for the same purposes for which they could be used under the trusts, the idea being that a benevolent landlord had let the land, very often at a peppercorn rent, for the benefit of the Nonconformists of that area, and had allowed the premises to be used for other purposes than religious services. In previous years the Bill had been allowed to go through without any of the drastic curtailment now suggested. I admit that it is always unfair to propose an Amendment to this House without due notice, and as this is somewhat complicated, although it sounds more complicated than it is, I will withdraw the clause in the form in which I have moved it and will propose it as it stands on the Paper.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:—
"Power to require Trustees to sell in certain cases.
".—(1) If any person who appears to the Judge of the County Court to be interested proves to the satisfaction of the Judge that any premises the estate in fee simple in which has been acquired by the trustees under this Act, or any part thereof, are let or are habitually used for any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith, the Judge shall, unless it appears to him that such use was due to inadvertence and will be discontinued, order that the premises, or such part thereof, be sold.
"(2) For the purposes of this section premises shall not be deemed to be habitually used for any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith by reason only of their being used for such other purpose not more than twice in any year."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I have no objection to this Amendment, but I cannot agree with the noble Earl's account of what occurred previously. On the last occasion that this Bill was before the House the noble Earl will remember that he accepted from me the words "would allow" instead of the word "include," and those words "would allow" made it quite clear that the buildings could only be used for religious purposes and could not be used for any other. Therefore this House up to the present time has not allowed the Bill to pass in the shape in which the noble Earl has to-day proposed to pass it.
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, caretaker's house or minister's house attached to or used in connexion 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:
524
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 the purposes of a place of worship under any trust whether express or implied and includes their predecessors in title.
LORD CLINTON: I wish to say a word with regard to the definition as respects a minister's house. We on this side are quite content, where it was originally granted for a minister's house and is really part of the same building and held under the same trust as the place of worship, that in respect of the minister's house there should be the same power of enfranchisement. But there is considerable difficulty in this matter, because you may have a place used as a minister's house situated in quite a different part of the town, which was never intended originally for a minister's house, and which was so let on a sub-lease without the knowledge of the original lessor. I claim that it is a considerable hardship that a house which the landlord had let for a private residence and which his immediate tenant had sublet as a minister's house should be compulsorily enfranchised because it happens to be occupied by a minister. If necessary, I will bring up an Amendment dealing with this point on Report.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule:
Modifications of the Lands Clauses Acts and Sections 77 to 85 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845.
(1) The use of the premises as a place of worship and for purposes connected therewith shall be deemed to be the undertaking or the railway and the trustees shall be deemed to be the promoters of the undertaking or the railway company.
(2) Section one hundred and twenty-three of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, limiting the time for compulsory purchase, shall not apply.
(3) If the trustees desire to sell the premises or any part thereof, or if they let or for valuable consideration 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-eight 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 section one hundred and twenty-eight of that Act read as follows:—
Before the promoters of the undertaking dispose of any such superfluous lands they

525
shall.…first offer to sell the same to the person who was entitled to the freehold reversion in the lands at the time when the interest of the trustees in the lands was enlarged into a fee simple or the successor in title (if any) of that person; and if that, person or his successor in title, as the case may be, refuse to purchase the same, or cannot after diligent inquiry be found, then the like offer shall be made to the person or to the several persons whose lands shall immediately adjoin the lands so proposed to be sold, such persons being capable of entering into a contract for the purchase of such lands; and where more than one such person shall be entitled to such right of pre-emption such offer shall be made to such persons in succession, one after another, in such order as the promoters of the undertaking shall think fit.
(4) The arbitrator shall, so far as practicable, in assessing compensation, act on his own knowledge and experience, but, subject as aforesaid, at any arbitration held under this Act the arbitrator shall hear, by themselves or their agents, the parties, and shall hear witnesses, but shall not, except in such cases as the arbitrator may otherwise direct, hear counsel or more than one expert witness on either side.
(5) The Lord Chancellor may make rules fixing a scale of costs to be applicable on an arbitration under this Act, and an arbitrator under this Act may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, determine the amount of costs, and shall have power to disallow as costs in the arbitration the costs of any witness whom he considers to have been called unnecessarily, and any other costs which he considers to have been caused or incurred unnecessarily, and, if he thinks the circumstances such as to justify him in so doing, to order that each of the parties shall bear their own costs.
(6) There may be contained in the award of the arbitrator a finding that the claimant, after having been requested in writing by the trustees so to do, has failed to deliver to the trustees a statement in writing of the amount claimed, giving sufficient particulars and in sufficient time to enable the trustees to make a proper offer, and, where such
526
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 leave out the word "desire" at the beginning of section (3) and to insert "whether in pursuance of an Order by a Judge of County Courts under this Act or otherwise, propose," and to leave out "or if they let or for valuable consideration 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." Your Lordships will see that this is not a matter of great importance.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 11, leave out ("desire") and insert ("whether in pursuance of an Order by a Judge of County Courts under this Act or otherwise, propose") and leave out from ("thereof") to ("sections") in line 14.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 121.)
House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.