[ { "id": 369550, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-288 - Public Offices & Others - 1898", "page_number": 138, "title": "CO129-288 - Public Offices & Others - 1898", "content_text": "## Extract from the Model Deed for Soldiers and Sailors Homes founded and maintained by the Wesleyan Methodist Church.\n\n### The first schedule.\n\n137\n\nUpon trust that the Trustees for the time being of these presents shall from time to time and at all times hereafter permit the said premises or so much and such parts of the same as shall be required for the purpose to be used, occupied, and enjoyed as and for a Soldiers and Seamen's Home and Institute for promoting the welfare of the seamen, soldiers, and Marines of Her Majesty's forces and also for such Seamen of the mercantile marine as shall be British subjects of Her Majesty without distinction of sect or religion stationed or temporarily being in the Garrison and Port of Sandgate and their wives, families, and friends; and in particular for affording to such persons facilities for recreation, reading, and mental improvement, and for religious, temperance, and other meetings, and for obtaining sleeping accommodation and refreshments (other than alcoholic drinks); and for such other objects for the welfare of such persons as aforesaid as shall from time to time be thought expedient by the Committee of management of the said Institute. But no alcoholic drinks shall be sold, taken, or permitted to be brought upon the premises; and upon such other trusts (consistent with the trust aforesaid) as to the appointment of a Committee of management of the Institute and otherwise as the said yearly Conference of the people called Methodists shall from time to time declare; and that a certificate under the hand of the President or Secretary of the Conference for the time being that any Resolution on the subject has been passed by the Conference shall be sufficient evidence of such other trusts aforesaid.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-288 - Public Offices & Others - 1898.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 458361, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-428 - Public Offices - 1915", "page_number": 454, "title": "CO129-428 - Public Offices - 1915", "content_text": "2\n\nDevon MIRA.\n\nCounty Boroughs.-(a)Devonpart: Plymouth. Urban Districts. (a) East Stonehouse: Ivybridge. Rural Districts. Plympton St. Mary: Tavistock (Civil Parish of Bere Ferrers only).\n\nDORSET HIRE,\n\nMunicipal Boroughs.-Dorchester: Poole Warsham: Weymouth and Melcombe Regis.\n\nUrban Districts. Portland: Swanage\n\nRural Districts.-Dorchester: Pacle: Wareham and Porbeck: Weymouth.\n\nDURHAM.\n\nCounty Boroughs, · - Gateshead : South Shields: Sunderland: West Hartlepool. Municipal Boroughs.-Durham: Hartlepool: Jarrow: Stockton-on-Tees. Urban Districts. Annfield Plain Benfieldside: Blaydon: Brandon and Byshottles: Chester-le-Street: Consett: Felling: Hebburn: Hetton: Houghton-le-Spring: Leadgate: Ryton: Baaham Harbour: Bouth-wick-on-Wear: Spennymoor: Stanley: Tanfeld: Tow Law: Wickham Willington.\n\nRural Districts. Chester-le-Street: Durham: Easington: Hartlepool: Haughton-le-Spring: Lanchester: Sedgefield: South Shields: Stock-ton: Sunderland.\n\nEDGEX.\n\nCounty Borough. Southend-on-Sen.\n\nMunicipal Boroughs.-Chelmsford: Colchester: Harwich: Maldon. I'shan Districts.-Brentwood: Brightlingsea: Burnham-on-Crotch : Clacton Frinton-on-Sea: Grays Thurrock: Shoeburyness: Tilbury: Walton-on-the-Nare: Witham: Wivenhoe. Jural Districts.-Billericay: Braintree-(Civil Parishes of Fearing. Great Coggeshall, Fairsted, Faulkbourne, Hatfield Peverel, Kelve-don, Little Coggeshall, Markshall, Rivenhall, and Terling only): Chelmsford: Lexden: Maldon: Orsett: Rochford: Romford (Civil Parishes of Cranham, Great Warley, Rainham, Upminster, and Wennington only); Tendring. And also the area containing the Royal Victoria, and Royal Albert docks.\n\nGLOUCESTERSHIRE.\n\nCounty Borough.-Bristol. Urban Districts. Coleford: Kingswood.\n\nRural Districts. Chipping Sodbury: Lydney: Thornbury: Warmley: West Dean.\n\nHAMPSHIRE.\n\nCounty Boroughs. Bournemouth Portsmouth: Southampton. Municipal Boroughs.-Christchurch: Lymington: Romsey.\n\nUrban Districts.-Eastleigh and Bishopstoke: Fareham: Gosport and Alverstoke: Harant: Itchen: Warblington.\n\nItural Districts. Christchurch: Fareham Havant: Lymington: New Forest: Romsey: South Stoneham-\n\nISLE OF WIGHT.\n\nThe whole island.\n\n(a) Dovenport, and East Stonehouse, are now included in the County Borough of Plymouth,\n\n3\n\nKENT.\n\n450\n\nCounty Borough.-Canterbury. Municipal Boroughs-Chatham: Deal; Dovor: Faversham: Folkestone: Gillingham: Gravesend: Hythe: Lydd: Maidstone: Margate: New Romney: Queenborough: Ramsgate: Rochester: Sandwich: Ten-terden.\n\nUrban Districts.-Ashford: Broadstairs and St. Peter's: Cheriton: Heruo Bay Milton Regis: Northfeet: Sandgate: Sheerness: Bitting. bourne: Walmer: Whitstable: Wrotham.\n\nRural Districts. Blean: Bridge: Cranbrook: Dover: East Ashford; Eastry: Elham: Faversham: Hollingbourne: Hoo: Isle of Thanet: Maidstone Malling: Milton: Romney Marsh: Sheppey: Strood: Tenterden: Wost Ashford.\n\nLANCASHIRE.\n\nCounty Boroughs. Barrow-in-Furneas: Blackpool: Bootle: Liverpool: St. Helena: Southport. Municipal Boroughs.-Lancaster: Morecambe: Widnes. Urban Districts.-Bispham-with-Norbreck: Cranforth: Dalton-in-Furness: Fleetwood: Formby: Grange: Great Crosby: Heysham: Huyton-with-Roby: Kirkham: Lathom and Burscough: Litherland: Little Crosby: Lytham: Ormskirk: Poulton-le-Fylde: Preesall: Prescot: Rainford: St. Annes-on-the-Sea: Skelmersdale: Thornton; Ulver-ston Waterloo and Seaforth.\n\nLunesdale: Sefton:\n\nRural Districts. Fylde: Garstang: Lancaster: Ulverston: West Lancashire: Whiston.\n\nCounty Borough.-Grimsby.\n\nLINCOLNSHIRE.\n\nMunicipal Boroughs. Boston: Louth.\n\nUrban Districts-Alford: Barton-upon-Humber: Brigg: Broughton Brumby and Frodingham: Cleethorpe with Thrunscos: Holbeach: Long Button: Mablethorpe: Market Rasen: Roxby cum Risby: Scunthorpe Skegness; Spalding: Sutton Bridge: Winterton. Rural Districts. Boston: Caistor: Crowland: East Elioe: Glanford Brigg: Grimsby: Louth: Sibsey: Spilsby: Spalding.\n\nLONDON.\n\nThe area containing St. Katherine's, London, Surrey Commercial, Weat India, Millwall and East India docka.\n\nMONMOUTHSHIRE.\n\nThe whole county,\n\nNORFOLK.\n\nThe whole county.\n\nNORTHUMBERLAND.\n\nCounty Boroughs.--Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Tynemouth. Municipal Boroughs.-Berwick-upon-Tweed: Morpeth: Wallsend. Urban Districts.-Alawick: Amble; Ashington: Bedlingtonshire: Blyth: Cramlington: Earsdon: Gosforth: Longbenton: Newbiggin-by-the-Sea: Newbura: Prudhoe: Rothbury: Seaton Delaval: Beghill: Weetslade: Whitley and Monkasaton,\n\n(5768r-1.) Wt. 20144-135) 219. 2000. 8/16. D&S. G. 1.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-428 - Public Offices - 1915.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 482311, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-458 - Public Offices & Others - 1919", "page_number": 359, "title": "CO129-458 - Public Offices & Others - 1919", "content_text": "DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS. Thus, during the Great War, and while the Defence of the Realm Regulations remained in force, the power of acquiring land compulsorily under the Defence Acts was extended, and restrictions on its exercise removed, but no power was or could be conferred by the regulations to take the land of a subject without payment. Neither the public safety nor the defence of the realm required that the value of the subject's land, or of the temporary possession of it, should be confiscated. Again, if the Executive Government was authorized under the Defence Acts to take and occupy land on paying compensation, there was no necessity for the safety of the realm to take any other course, so long as any restrictions on acquiring immediate possession were removed.\n\nMoreover, there was no Defence of the Realm Regulation purporting to abolish the right to compensation, and even if there had been such a regulation, it would not, in his Lordship's opinion, have been authorized by the powers conferred by the Defence of the Realm Act, 1914, or the (No. 2) Act, 1914. On that point reference might be made to what was said by Lord Esher in Attorney General v. Homer (4 Q.B.D. 245), that \"it is a proper rule of construction, not to construe an Act of Parliament as interfering with or injuring personal rights without compensation unless one is obliged so to interpret it.\"\n\nTHE SEARCH IN RECORD OFFICE. The result of the searches made was that it did not appear that the Crown had ever taken the subject's land without paying for it, and even in Stuart times no claim by the Crown to such a prerogative could be traced. The time covered by the search in the Records might be divided into three periods: (1) before 1708; (2) between 1708 and 1798; (3) after 1795.\n\nIn the first period there were instances of land being required for fortifications, but the land taken or occupied was paid for, as in 1668, when it was decided to construct two new batteries at Chatham \"You are to contract for and buy so much parcel of ground at each of the aforesaid places at the cheapest rate you and they can agree for.\" And in 1681 there was a minute of the Board of Ordnance as to the measures taken for new works at Plymouth and there was similar authority for the purchase of land for works at Hull. In 1708 was passed the first of a series of Acts (7 Anne, c. 26) enabling particular lands to be taken compulsorily.\n\nBetween 1709 and 1798 every case of taking or occupying land occurred under the powers conferred by the Acts passed from time to time, so that during that period there was statutory authority for the taking of land. The contention of the suppliants that the entry on their land could not be met by saying that the King was not bound by legal fiction was supported by the statute 38 Geo. III., c. 27, which, by section 10, provided that his Majesty might authorize persons to survey and mark out land wanted for the public service and to agree for the possession or occupation, without the amount of the rent being fixed, and in default of agreement the compensation was to be ascertained by a jury.\n\nThe action was one for damages for breach of an agreement to pay for the use of the owner's property (per Ellenborough, C.J., in Hime v. the Crown, 1808). Owners, unless the enemy should have actually invaded the Kingdom.\n\nIn 1795, there was passed the statute 38 Geo. III., c. 27, and in 1803 (43 Geo. III., c. 65), and as doubts had arisen whether the latter Act authorized the absolute purchase of lands for permanent purposes, in 1804 another Act was passed (44 Geo. III., c. 95) enabling land required to be purchased absolutely, and the price to be ascertained by a jury in default of agreement.\n\nThe obligation to pay was a contractual one. The fact that the claim of the suppliants was for an unascertained amount of compensation or even a claim for damages for breach of contract would be no objection to a proceeding by petition of right. Reg. v. Sandgate and Hythe (9 A.C., 745) was a claim by petition of right.\n\nTHE ERECTION OF BATTERIES. In 1819 a question arose about some land between Dover and Folkestone which the Master-General of the Ordnance required for the use of the Crown to erect batteries and form a camp there. The owner was willing to grant a lease of the land during the war, but the Master-General declined to take a lease and expressed himself as determined, for the benefit of the country, to purchase the land in fee.\n\nAgain, in Windsor and Annapolis Railway Company v. the Queen and the Western Counties Railway Company (11 A.C. 607) the law was stated to the same effect by Lord Watson at p. 613.\n\nThese statements were all collected in Thomas v. the Queen (L.R. 10 Q.B., 31), and also in Mr. Clode's book on the Military Forces of the Crown, at p. 135, giving particulars of various cases in the Court of Appeal, where the Court had accepted as law the judgment in Thomas v. the Queen.\n\nThe Defence Act, 1842, reciting various previous statutes, said that it was expedient to consolidate, amend, and enlarge their powers and provisions, and empowered the principal officers of Ordnance to purchase or take on lease lands desirable to be purchased for the defence of the realm, and to enter into any necessary contracts.\n\nMR. JUSTICE PETERSON decided against the suppliants, considering that the case was governed by In re Petition of Right (31 The Times L.R., 596 [1915] 3 K.B., 649), a case where the Crown took possession of an aerodrome near Brighton, which was actually required for the conduct of hostilities in the Air.\n\nHis Lordship referred in detail to sections 9, 18, 19, and 23 of the Act, and said that it would be seen that the statute applied as well in time of war as in time of peace, but in time of war and of actual invasion by the enemy, one of the restrictions on the taking possession of lands and buildings for administrative purposes—the certificate of the Lord Lieutenant or other named persons—was unnecessary, but it remained even in war time, unless the enemy had actually invaded the country.\n\nThe suppliants were entitled to the relief sought by paragraph of the claim made by their petition. The provisions of section 4 of the Petitions of Right Act, 1850, entitled the suppliants to have the costs in the Court below, and of the present appeal, and any costs paid under the judgment below should be repaid to the suppliants.\n\nAfter the outbreak of the Great War two statutes were passed in August, 1914—the Defence of the Realm Act, 1914, and the Defence of the Realm (No. 2) Act, 1914. His Majesty in Council was thereby authorized during the continuance of the war to issue regulations for securing the public safety and the defence of the realm, and such regulations also provide for the suspension by Order in Council of any restrictions on the acquisition or use of land or the exercise of the power of making by-laws, or any other power under the Defence Acts, 1843 to 1875, or the Military Lands Acts, 1891 to 1903.\n\nThose statutes thus provided for regulating the existing powers. Orders in Council were made under the powers of those statutes, and those regulations provided for the suspension of certain restrictions. The 14 days' delay provided for by section 19 of the Defence Act, 1842, disappeared, and authority was given to take immediate possession of land and buildings, where necessary, for the public safety and defence of the realm. Compulsory acquisition, whether permanent or temporary, was authorized without the necessity of invasion of the kingdom as a condition to the exercise of compulsory powers.\n\nLORD JUSTICE WARRINGTON delivered judgment in agreement with that of the Master of the Rolls.\n\nDISSENTING JUDGMENT. LORD JUSTICE SCRUTTON, in a dissenting judgment, said that important questions of principle underlay the dispute as to the basis on which the suppliants ought to receive compensation out of public funds.\n\nThe suppliants alleged in their petition a voluntary delivery of the premises by them to the representatives of the Crown upon an agreement for payment by the Crown of a fair rent or other compensation. Apart from the alleged agreement they claimed that they were entitled to be paid rent or compensation by virtue of the Defence Act, 1842.\n\nThe alleged agreement was traversed by the Attorney-General, who alleged necessity and the existence of a state of war for the occupation of the premises for securing the public safety and the defence of the realm, and said that the occupation was properly and lawfully taken by virtue of his Majesty's Royal Prerogative, as well as by virtue of the power conferred by the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act, 1914, and of the regulations made thereunder. He said that no rent or compensation was by law payable.\n\nMr. Justice Peterson gave judgment for the Crown on all the questions raised by the pleadings.\n\nPage 346", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-458 - Public Offices & Others - 1919.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 482318, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-458 - Public Offices & Others - 1919", "page_number": 366, "title": "CO129-458 - Public Offices & Others - 1919", "content_text": "Chapter 45 (28th July 1804), enabling land so required to be purchased absolutely, and the price to be ascertained by a jury in default of agreement.\n\nIn 1819 a question arose about some land between Sandgate and Hythe which the Master General of the Ordnance required for the use of the Crown to erect batteries and form a camp there; the owner was willing to grant a lease of the land during the war, but the Master General declined that proposal and expressed himself as determined for the benefit of the country to purchase the land in question, \"and in case Mr. Jeffery persisting in the refusal to sell to bring in a Bill in Parliament to empower the Board of Ordnance to purchase the land in question, and to have the value ascertained by a jury as is usual.\" (Book of Extracts, page 419). No suggestion of taking by virtue of any prerogative was advanced by the Ordnance.\n\nThe Defence Act, 1842, recites various Acts of George III., George IV., and William IV., whereby various provisions have been theretofore made for the purchase of land and hereditaments for the public service, and for the defence and security of the realm, and that it is expedient to consolidate, amend, and enlarge such powers and provisions. The Act then provides by sections 5 and 6 for vesting in the principal officers of Her Majesty's Ordnance, lands and hereditaments or any acquired and thereafter to be acquired for the defence and security of the realm. Section 9 confers power on the principal officers of Ordnance to purchase or take on lease lands desirable to be purchased for the defence of the realm, and to enter into any necessary contracts. Section 16 authorises the principal officers of Ordnance to enter on, survey, and mark out any lands or hereditaments wanted for the defence of the realm, and to treat and agree with the owners of the same either for the absolute purchase thereof, or for the possession or use thereof during such time as the exigence of the public service shall require.\" By section 19 if the parties interested fail to agree within 14 days upon the consideration for the absolute purchase or the annual rent or sum for the hire, either for a time certain, or for such period as the exigence of the public service may require, then certain justices of the peace, or other persons named in the statute are authorised and required to put the said principal officers into immediate possession of the said lands and hereditaments, and to issue their warrants to the sheriff to summon a jury, to value the premises and assess the compensation to be paid for the absolute purchase or for the possession or use thereof as the case may be. Then follows a proviso that it shall not be lawful for the principal officers to use any lands, buildings, or hereditaments taken under the compulsory process for the barrack service or to erect any barrack buildings thereon. By section 23 it is provided that no lands, buildings, or hereditaments shall be so taken without the consent of the owners, unless the necessity or expediency of taking the same shall be first certified by the Lord Lieutenant or certain other persons, or unless the enemy shall have actually invaded the United Kingdom at the time when such lands, It will thus be seen buildings, or other hereditaments shall be so taken.\n\nthat the Statute applies as well in time of war as in time of peace; but in time of war, and actual invasion by the enemy, one of the restrictions on using the compulsory powers, namely, the certificate of the Lord Lieutenant or other named persons, is unnecessary. This restriction, however, remains in war time, if the enemy has not actually invaded the kingdom; and there is also the restriction of having to allow 14 days to elapse before the principal officers are entitled to require that they shall be put into immediate possession of the property. The subsequent assessment and payment of compensation is not a restriction.\n\nThe obligation to pay follows on the acquisition of the interest in the land, but the assessment and payment take place after possession of the property has been given to the principal officers, and does not hinder or affect the principal officers in putting the property to such uses as they may think fit. After the outbreak of the great war, two statutes were passed in August 1914, the Defence of the Realm Act, 1914, and the Defence of the Realm (No. 2) Act, 1914. His Majesty in Council was thereby authorised, during the continuance of the war, to issue regulations for securing the public safety and the defence of the realm, \"and may by such regulations also provide for the suspension of any restrictions on the acquisition or user of land, or the exercise of the power of making byelaws, or any other power under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1875, or the Military Lands Acts, 1891 to 1903.\" These statutes thus provide for regulating the existing powers. Orders in Council were made under the power of these statutes. The Defence of the Realm Regulations, 1914, and the Defence of the Realm (No. 2) Regulations, 1914, were issued, and amended by an Order in Council dated 17th September 1914. These regulations provide for the suspension of certain restrictions. The fourteen days' delay provided for by Section 19 of the Defence Act, 1842, disappears, as authority is given to take immediate possession of land and buildings where necessary for the public safety or defence of the realm. Again, compulsory acquisition, whether permanent or temporary, is authorised, without the need for any invasion of the United Kingdom as a condition precedent to the exercise of compulsory powers. Thus during the continuance of the great war, and while the Defence of the Realm regulations remain in force, the powers of acquiring land compulsorily (whether permanently or temporarily) under the Defence Acts are extended, and restrictions on its exercise removed, but no power was or could be conferred by the Regulations to take the land of a subject without payment. In order to secure the public safety and the defence of the realm, it may be necessary to obtain immediate possession of land and buildings, but neither the public safety nor the defence of the realm requires that the value of the subject's land, or of the temporary possession of it, should be confiscated. Again, if the Executive Government is authorised under the Defence Acts to take and occupy land on paying compensation, there is no necessity for the safety of the realm to take any other course, so long as any restrictions upon acquiring the immediate possession of the land are removed. Moreover, there is not any Defence of the Realm Regulation purporting to abolish the right to compensation; even if there had been such a regulation it would not in my opinion have been authorised by the powers conferred by the Defence of the Realm Act, 1914, or the (No. 2) Act, 1914. On this point I may refer to what was said by Lord Esher in The Attorney General v. Horner, 1 Queen's Bench Division, page 245, that: \"It is a proper rule of construction, not to construe an Act of Parliament as interfering with or injuring persons' rights without compensation unless one is obliged to so construe it.\" And also to the judgment of Lord Justice Bowen in London and North Western Railway Company v. Evans, 1893, 1 Chancery, 16, at page 28. The legislation cannot fairly be supposed to intend, in the absence of clear words showing such intention, that one man's property shall be confiscated for the benefit of others, or of the public, without any compensation being provided for him in respect of what is taken compulsorily from him. Parliament in its omnipotence can, of course, override or disregard this ordinary principle if it sees fit to do so, but it is not likely that it will be found disregarding it, without plain expressions of such a purpose.\" The contention of the suppliants that the entry of the Crown upon the land was in fact under the Defence Act, 1842, and subsequent provisions, and that the liability to pay ...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-458 - Public Offices & Others - 1919.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 } ]