HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, &c., BILL.

HL Deb 04 October 1909 vol 3 cc635-712

Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments, read.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, upon the Motion which has just been submitted by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, I desire to call the attention of your Lordships to an incident which occurred at the very end of the Committee stage. Almost at the very end, after the ordinary means of communication with the outside world were more or less ineffective, the noble Earl moved a clause exempting from the operation of the Bill Crown lands in Scotland, and it appeared in the course of the discussion that the clause was rendered necessary, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, because the practice of the Constitution in England and in Scotland are different. In England the Crown and that which belongs to the prerogatives of the Crown are not included in any Act of Parliament unless the Crown is specifically mentioned, but in Scotland it is not so, or, at any rate, there is a doubt as to its being so or not. And therefore in order to exempt the Crown lands of Scotland it was necessary to insert a clause specifically mentioning that.

But the moving of the clause had a very different effect from that which was anticipated by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, for it served to call the attention of your Lordships to the fact, which your Lordships had not at that moment realised, that the Crown lands of England were not within the purview of the Bill. That was a most astonishing confession for the noble Earl inferentially to make. The Crown is a very large owner in many parts of England of town property. The Crown is also a very large owner of rural property, which is, of course, covered with habitations of all sorts. One would have thought that there was no reason on the face of it why Crown lands should be exempt from the housing part of the Bill, for if it is necessary that people should have good houses upon the property of private individuals it is equally necessary that they should have good houses when they occupy them upon Crown property. When we turn from the housing part of the Bill to the town-planning part, the case is still stronger. The property of the Crown—I have not been able to lay my hand upon any Report which exactly describes it—exists in a great many counties of England, notably Lancashire, where there is the property of the great Duchy of Lancaster. That county especially, and other counties too, will be most specifically concerned in the town-planning part of the Bill, for there are the great spreading urban communities. They will have to do in this respect with Crown lands quite as much as with anybody else's lands, while the Crown lands are exempted from the operation of the Bill.

As I said before, that was a most astonishing admission for the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to make. We on this side of the House were so much astonished at the proposal that Scotland should be exempted that several of us at once rose in our places and protested in the warmest manner, and your Lordships were good enough to accept the advice we tendered and the clause was at once rejected. His Majesty's Government must have done it by inadvertence, because if they had had time to consider the effect of their policy, they would have taken a very different course. So far from desiring to exempt the Crown lands in Scotland, I hope they will be prepared to include the Crown lands in England. I ask His Majesty's Government to-day, specifically and on behalf of a great number of noble Lords on this side of the House, to include the Crown lands wherever they may be found in the United Kingdom. I need not say I am not referring to that property of the Crown which is set apart for the amenity or convenience of His Majesty himself in person. That, of course, ought to be exempted from the operation of such a Bill. I am speaking of the Crown lands as they are known generally in legislation, those properties of the Crown which are transferred to the administration of Parliament at the beginning of every reign, and are administered, as your Lordships all know, by the great Public Departments. Such lands, we submit, ought to be included in a Bill of this kind.

The noble Earl used language about half-past eleven o'clock of a most remarkable kind, for he seemed to think that such a power, if granted in a town-planning Bill, Might be used to the disadvantage of the Crown lands. What interest can the Crown have in being a bad landlord? What interest can the Crown have in resisting the legitimate expansion of these great urban communities? Why does His Majesty's Government desire to narrow to this extent the operation of the Bill? I see it publicly stated in many parts of the Press that the House of Lords has been engaged in narrowing the operation of the Bill and confining it, but it seems that the greatest sinner in this respect is His Majesty's Government itself. The noble Earl seemed to think when he spoke that the operation of the Bill might be exercised to the detriment of the property of the Crown committed to the charge of the various Government Departments. Well, my Lords, what is this doctrine of detriment? Are we to say that the Bill itself is to be exercised to the detriment of the property of private individuals? Is it the contention of His Majesty's Government that the Bill is to be exercised if passed into law to the detriment of the property of private landowners? It will only be to their detriment in so far as they are bad landlords, and why should the Crown be the only owner privileged to be a bad landlord? No, it is quite clear that what is good for other landowners is good for the Crown, and if protection is required for certain great national interests—property, for instance, in the hands of the Admiralty or of the War Office—let those great Departments signify their pleasure to the Local Government Board, and when the Provisional Order comes before the Board they will know how to deal with it. That is quite sufficient protection. As to other properties, there should be no exception made, and the Crown lands ought to be treated like any other lands.

I ought to apologise to your Lordships for having addressed you at this length upon this occasion, but the reason is this. I understand it is not within the power of any private member of your Lordships' House to make this alteration in the Bill. I know it is the rule in the other House, and I believe it is the rule here. No private Member can include the Crown in the operation of any Statute, and such a change or amendment in the Bill can only be carried into effect by a Minister of the Crown. Therefore, the only opportunity I have of urging this matter is at this stage when the question is put that the Report be received. I ask your Lordships to join with me in pressing on His Majesty's Government the importance of consistency in this matter, and the necessity of remedying this defect in the Bill.

THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP)

My Lords, I think the position of His Majesty's Government with regard to the special matter which the noble Marquess has brought before your Lordships is really the same as the attitude which they have decided to take up with regard to the various other matters which your Lordships dealt with in the Committee stage of this Bill. May I say, in passing, that I believe it is a matter of accuracy that there is no provision in your Lordships' House with regard to matters affecting the Crown being dealt with on the initiative of the Crown. It is open to the noble Marquess to take such steps as he thinks necessary in the matter. But the position of His Majesty's Government with regard to those other Amendments is plainly this. Your Lordships saw fit to make certain Amendments in this Bill during the three days it was being considered in Committee, and although His Majesty's Government naturally do not agree with a large number of those Amendments still they hardly thought it would be respectful to your Lordships' House to ask you to deliberately reverse on Report conclusions which you came to during the Committee stage. That is why I say we are unable to accept the invitation of the noble Marquess, as it is open to him to make those suggestions which he thinks right but which we do not think His Majesty's Government could be expected to suggest after having made suggestions in the Committee stage which were rejected.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I can only speak again by leave of your Lordships, but after the intimation the noble Earl has been good enough to give, I beg to give notice that on the first opportunity, which I think will be on the Third Reading, I will put down words to meet the point.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, I imagine this Clause comes from a Department which is not a very popular Department, yet is a very useful one—the Treasury. But I think it went too far. I entirely agreed with the noble Marquess Who has just spoken in objecting to the clause as it stood, but unquestionably certain kinds of Crown property should be exempt from this Bill. A Bill of this kind ought, so far as my judgment goes, not to interfere with Crown property which is in the nature of Post Office buildings, or Admiralty dockyards, or War Office buildings, or anything of that kind. All I think the noble Marquess desires is to bring within the scope of the Bill Crown property of the nature of farm lands or cottages, so that the same law may apply to them as would apply to private property. That seems to me a very fair proposition, and I hope His Majesty's Government will agree to it in due course.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP moved the first of a series of five Amendments to Clause 10, and said he would read the clause as it would appear when amended. It would run— Before deciding that a local authority have failed to exercise their powers under Part III of the principal Act, the Board shall take into consideration the necessity for further accommodation for the housing of the working classes in such districts, the probability that the required accommodation will not be otherwise provided in the other circumstances of the case, and whether having regard to the liability which will be incurred by the rates it is prudent for the local authority to undertake the provision of such accommodation. He said no doubt their Lordships would remember that there was some discussion in Committee with regard to this clause and that an Amendment was inserted on the motion of the noble Viscount who had just addressed the House. The proposal was accepted in substance by His Majesty's Government, but they were anxious to secure some further amendment of the words. He desired to say, with regard to this and further Amendments which he would move, there was no point of principle or contention between noble Lords opposite and themselves. They had been careful, he thought, without exception to put down Amendments only of a somewhat drafting nature. With the consent of the noble Viscount he also desired to insert the word "not," so that the phrase would read "the probability that the required accommodation will not be otherwise provided." The word "not" did not appear in the notice of his Amendments on Report.

Amendments moved— In page 5, lines 35 and 30, to leave out the words 'be satisfied that there is a' and to insert the words take into consideration the'; in line 36, to leave out the words which is likely to be permanent'; in line 38, to leave out the words 'that there is no' and to insert the word 'the'; in line 39, to leave out 'that' and to insert the words 'and the other circumstances of the case, and whether'; and in page 5, line 40, and page 6, line 1, to leave out the words under all the circumstances.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

^*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said there was no material difference in the Amendments proposed, and he was willing to agree to them as far as he was concerned.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

VISCOUNT HILL moved a drafting Amendment in Clause 13, to leave out the word "contributing" and to insert the word "contributory."

Amendment moved— In page 7, line 41, to leave out the word 'contributing 'and to insert the word 'contributory.'"—(Viscount Hill.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH moved the first of two Amendments in Clause 14, dealing with contracts by landlords in letting working-class houses. He thought he could not do better than follow the example set him by the noble Earl and read the clause in the shape it would run as he proposed to amend it— In any contract made after the passing of this Act for letting a house or part of a house at a rent not exceeding

1. (a) in the case of a house situate in the administrative County of London, forty pounds;
2. (b) in the case of a house situate in a boroughs or urban district with a population according to the 641 last census for the time being of fifty thousand or upwards, twenty-six pounds;
3. (c) in the case of a house situate elsewhere, eight pounds;

there shall be an implied condition that the house is at the commencement of the holding in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation. He presumed he would be entitled to take his two Amendments together as it would be rather meaningless to take them separately. In considering Clause 14, all recollection of Clause 47 defining "working classes" must not be lost sight of. In moving his Amendments he desired to deal with two points. In the first place, the definition of "working classes," and, in the second place, the obligation of landlords to tenants and the extent of that obligation.

As the clause stood at the present time the relation of the landlord to the tenant and the definition of "working classes" were somewhat mingled together. His desire was to separate them absolutely and entirely. No doubt it was claimed by noble Lords opposite and the authors of the Bill that as it stood the definition of "working classes" was better expressed in terms of money value. It was so expressed in the Act of 1890, and no doubt His Majesty's Government would claim that this clause was merely an extension of that Act. But so long as rents were low and were £20 in London, £13 for towns of 50,000 inhabitants, and £8 for rural districts, he did not deny for one moment that they did cover the cases of the great bulk of working-class tenants, and that they did serve probably very well indeed as the basis of a definition. But when they increased those rents, may more, when they doubled them and raised the figure to £40 for London, £26 for towns of 50,000 inhabitants, and £8 or £16, as the case might be, for rural districts, he could not think that that definition could still be maintained. The principle of the definition of rent must break down some time or other. Let it be supposed that the Local Government Board in its enthusiasm had placed £80 instead of £40 as the extent of the limit up to which the obligation of the landlord to the tenant should be imposed. He was sure that no noble Lord could possibly claim that such a proposal would include only and solely those who belonged to the working classes. He did not deny for one moment that it might be perfectly right and proper that the obligations of landlords to tenants should be extended and extended as it was under this clause; but he did not wish that that obligation of the landlord should be in any way confused with the definition of a particular class of His Majesty's subjects.

In subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 14 he deleted the words defining "working classes." That definition in his opinion belonged, as the Committee had decided, to a separate clause—Clause 47—and when the House reached that clause he proposed to make it of more general application. What he wished to do with Clause 14 was to make it nothing but a simple, plain, statement of the obligation of a landlord to a tenant, no matter whether that tenant belonged to the so-called working classes or not. Surely that was more simple and more intelligible than the attempt of His Majesty's Government to mention, he might almost say to confuse, a statement of the obligation of a landlord to a tenant together with a definition of "working classes." He did not think any one could quarrel with £40 as the limit in the case of London. Nor did he feel disposed to challenge the £26 for towns up to and over 50,000 inhabitants; but when they came to paragraph (c) "in the case of a house situate elsewhere," he did feel that that was a debatable point. He noticed that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had an Amendment on the Paper to re-insert"£16" in all cases, and his noble friend Viscount St. Aldwyn had an Amendment down to include "£16" in the case of boroughs. He would remind their Lordships that he had had some experiences which were rather similar to those of the noble Earl; they had both been chief magistrates in towns, and he was sure that the noble Earl would bear him out in saying that there were a great number of houses between £8 and £16 which could not properly be claimed to be in a condition fit for human habitation. If his memory served him right, in his own locality there were houses where from the first floor to the second floor there was no staircase at all, and the inhabitants were obliged to get up by means of a ladder. He did not think any one could claim that such a house was reasonably fit for human habitation. Yet with this clause as it was, with its limit of £8, the landlords of those houses would be entirely exempt from the operation of this Act.

Their Lordships would bear him out when he said how difficult it was in these small towns to get the local authority to put official pressure upon the individuals who owned these properties, and when it came to the medical officer of health, his experience of that officer was that in the examination of these houses he paid less regard to the condition of the houses than to whom the property might belong. He thought that the extension of £8 to £16 as proposed by his noble friend would undoubtedly fall upon the small owners of property. In this particular case, however, he would be guided entirely by his noble friend Viscount St. Aldwyn, because he had had considerable experience in these matters, but he trusted that his Amendment would meet with the approval of the majority of their Lordships.

Amendment moved— In page 8, line 7, to leave out the words 'in letting working-class houses'; and in line 9, to leave out from the word 'habitation' to the first 'a' in line 15.'"—(The Duke of Marlborough.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP said he would follow the example of the noble Duke and deal with both Amendments. In the first place, he asked their Lordships to remember that they were dealing with this Bill as it stood, and he thought he might not unfairly point out that there was nothing in the Bill about an £80 limit. When the President of the Local Government Board did suggest that the limit should be raised to £80, then perhaps they might argue the question as to the conditions to be imposed. Meanwhile what they had to consider was the terms of the Bill, which, as they would see, in the case of London included a limit of £40 value. He was glad to think that when they came to paragraph (c), on the point as to whether it should be £16 or £8, His Majesty's Government would have the noble Duke opposite with them in their attempt to restore the original figure of £16 instead of £8. With regard to these general Amendments, the position of the Local Government Board was that the suggestion made by the noble Duke constituted a very real extension of the Bill. If the Amendment were adopted the clause would deal not only with houses meant for the working classes; that limitation would be entirely swept away. That was an extension of the Bill which at present, at any rate, His Majesty's Government would not be disposed to agree to. This clause as it stood was a reproduction, with certain necessary changes, of Section 75 of the Housing Act of 1890, and that was a reproduction of the Housing Act of 1885. In these circumstances their Lordships would see that these terms and this language were incorporated in their legislation at the present time and it had worked without any difficulty. Therefore they thought it very desirable that they should continue to use those expressions which had done good service and had proved so satisfactory in the past. He therefore hoped their Lordships would not agree to the Amendments suggested by the noble Duke.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said that the noble Earl who had just spoken had founded his argument upon precedents of former Acts of Parliament. The noble Earl might be perfectly correct in saying that this was a thing which had been used hitherto, but as they grew older some of them grew wiser, and he saw no reason why they should not improve upon the drafting of former Acts of Parliament. The drafting of the clause, as their Lordships would remember, was in the Committee stage subjected to considerable criticism. The noble Earl had taken credit to himself that this clause was confined to the working classes. But the term "working classes" was not defined in the Bill as presented to their Lordships by His Majesty's Government. The term, in fact, was perfectly vague. That was a mistake which they set themselves to remedy, and upon the motion of his noble friend the Earl of Camperdown a clause was proposed which now took the place of Clause 47 of the Bill defining "working classes." But the moment they got to that point to try and define "working classes," there was produced at once a dislocation in Clause 14, because it might be that the definition which their Lordships gave of "working classes" in order to explain subsection (1) of Clause 14 would not be consistent with the pecuniary limits which were to be found in subsection (2) of Clause 14. In other words, Clause 14 was constructed upon a false basis. "Working classes" was mentioned as if all working-class people came within the pecuniary limits in the Bill. But they did not. They might have one living in a cottage outside those limits, or a man living in a cottage inside those limits who was not a member of the "working classes." Notwithstanding the precedents which the noble Earl had quoted, the clause contained a very grave objection. Many of their Lordships desired to have a definition of "working classes" in the Housing Acts. They thought it ought to be definitely set out on the face of Acts of Parliament that a particular Act applied to working classes, and was so defined. But then they had the difficulty of Clause 14 to get over. The noble Duke proposed to get over it by leaving out "working classes" and making the clause general. The noble Earl, who was anxious to restrict the operation of the Bill, said it would be a very extreme extension. He did not agree with the noble Earl because the clause was still limited to the pecuniary limits in subsection (2); but, even if it were an extension of the Bill, he would have thought that his Majesty's Government would be the last to offer that as an objection to what they were doing under the Bill. Let them look at the Act not from a party point of view, but as a matter of substance. Did any one contend that any landlord desired to let a house to any one whether he was a member of the working classes or not, which was not fit for human habitation? There was always an implied contract, an obligation of good management, that a landlord should let his house in a condition fit for human habitation. And what was true of Clause 14 was also true of Clause 18. For his part he could see no objection to an extension of this Bill in this particular even if the noble Duke's Amendment really did extend it.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE)

My Lords, I think it is important that we should understand exactly where we stand in this matter, because unless I misapprehend the intention of the noble Duke's Amendment and the support given to it by the noble Marquess who has just sat down, there is a complete and entire reversal on the part of noble Lords opposite of the line which they took upon the Committee stage. The effect of the noble Duke's Amendment, read in conjunction with his Amendment to Clause 47, is to abolish the "working class" definition altogether.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Only for this clause.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I am reading it in conjunction with the noble Duke's subsequent Amendment with which he himself says it is intended to be read. The noble Duke—I am obliged to allude to it, although I am afraid I am technically out of order—in his Amendment to Clause 47, proposes, and he is himself bound to do it, I think, in consideration of this Amendment, to make the definition of "working classes" merely an inclusive definition. He does not desire to confine the operation under these two clauses to what may be called "working classes." What the precise object is of leaving in the Bill any definition of "working classes" in these circumstances we shall no doubt hear when we come to the clause. Our difficulty in accepting the noble Duke's Amendment, for which there is in some points of view much to be said, is this, that this is a Housing of the Working Classes Bill, and it seems somewhat unusual to include in it a definition of purely general housing such as would be supplied by the clause as amended by the noble Duke. It is quite true, and I think I drew attention to the point on the Committee stage, that the definition of "working classes" is liable to exclude deserving persons. On the other hand you may exclude, by striking out the definition altogether, the idea that these houses are intended to accommodate the working classes. In a general sense, I confess you do admit a certain class of person whom I should have thought might hardly be supposed to come necessarily under the operation of the Bill. If, on the other hand, noble Lords opposite have changed their minds to that extent, I should be sorry to fight the matter further, although, of course, I cannot say that in another place it may not be desired to restore the original form of the clause. If this sudden and complete reversal of attitude does represent the views of noble Lords opposite, I have no wish to press the matter further.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said he sympathised with the Amendment of the noble Duke. He did not see the least necessity for having the term. "working classes" in the clause. He supposed the meaning of the clause was that it was to be a protection for people who hired houses under a certain limit, so that they could have pressure put on their landlords to keep them in proper repair and keep them habitable. Naturally, people hiring houses not of very great value had not as much power or means to have pressure put on their landlords as people who hired houses of greater value. He did not desire even the definition of "working classes" as moved by the Earl of Camperdown. He did not see the use of having this term, in at all, because subsection (2) was meant to protect people hiring houses of a certain value, so that they should be able to get repairs and necessary things done for them. He knew how very difficult it was for people in small houses to get repairs done, and he hoped His Majesty's Government would see their way to accept the spirit of the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I desire to enter a protest against the statement twice made by the noble Earl opposite during the course of his speech that this Amendment moved by my noble friend the Duke of Marlborough denotes a sudden and complete reversal of our policy with regard to this question. We have endeavoured throughout these discussions to make it clear that we are not opposed either to the housing policy embodied in this Bill or to the part of the policy which has reference to town planning, although we have taken exception to the means by which that policy is to be given effect to under this Bill.

What is the proposal made by the noble Duke? This clause, if we pass it, will enact that in any contract made after the passing of the Act for letting a house for habitation by persons of the working classes there shall be an implied condition that the house is fit for human habitation. There is, it seems to us, a blot in that proposal. In the first place, the Bill as originally introduced contained no definition of working classes. Then it is quite clear that if the clause passes as it stands the effect of it will be that this condition of fitness for human habitation will apply only, first, where the premises are to be inhabited by persons of the working classes, and second, where the rental of the premises falls within the figures given further on in the clause. We have endeavoured to correct the first blot by inserting elsewhere in the Bill a definition of "working classes." As for the second, let us suppose two houses absolutely identical side by side, one of them being inhabited by a person who is included in the definition of working classes" and the other by a person not within that definition. Why there should be an implied condition of fitness for human habitation in the case of one house and not in the case of the other, I cannot understand. My noble friend therefore suggests to your Lordships that in the case of all premises coming within the rental limits laid down in the clause this condition should be universally assumed.

The noble Earl opposite represents this as new and dangerous extension. I should have thought myself it was a very salutary extension, and one to which most reasonable owners of house property would be very glad to submit; but if the noble Earl tells us that this extension is foreign to the Bill and if he will take upon himself the responsibility of saying that His Majesty's Government desire that there should be this discrimination between premises which are occupied by members of the working classes and premises occupied by persons other than the working classes, I do not know whether the noble Duke will press his Amendment, against the views of His Majesty's Government.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I certainly have no right to speak again on this subject. It is evident I cannot answer that question until we have dealt with Clause 47.

A NOBLE LORD

You do not answer the question as put.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I suggest that the clause should be agreed to at this stage.

^*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said he would like to understand, if they might do so, because it was surely germane, what course His Majesty's Government proposed to take with reference to Clause 47. What definition of "working classes" did His Majesty's Government propose to accept? Did they propose to accept the definition in Clause 47 either in the present or in a modified form, or did they propose to leave houses occupied by the working classes without any definition at all? If that was the Government's idea, it was a very dangerous one indeed. To enact that houses were to be built by local authorities for the working classes under compulsory orders from the Local Government Board without suggesting either a limit of value or the kind of persons intended by the "working classes" might surely lead to the erection of houses of much greater value than those hitherto contemplated for the working classes, with the result that a much greater burden would be placed on the ratepayers than Parliament had intended. Therefore if these words were to be struck out of the clause, surely they were entitled to some information from His Majesty's Government as to the view they were prepared to take with regard to Clause 47.

THE EARL OF CREWE

Our view is generally this, that it is better to leave in the words "by persons of the working classes" as regards this clause. Although it is true that this could not be taken as an absolutely accurate definition, yet at the same time it is a definition which safeguards the public against the dangers suggested by the noble Viscount. We certainly prefer the view taken by the noble Duke in the Amendment to Clause 47 to the clause as amended by Lord Camper-down, but we should have preferred to go without a definition altogether, and that the Bill should remain in the form in which it came from another place.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— In page 8 line 23, after the word 'pounds' to insert the words there shall be implied a condition that the house is at the commencement of the holding in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.'"—(The Duke of Marlborough.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

^*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved an Amendment to limit the application of the clause in a borough or urban district with a population under 50,000 to houses of an annual rental of £16. He thought it was understood when they discussed this matter in Committee that £8 was too low a limit for boroughs and urban districts, and therefore he proposed to insert these words, leaving £8 as applicable to rural districts only.

Amendment moved— In page 8, line 12, after the word 'pounds' to insert the words '(c) In the case of a house situate in any other borough or urban district, sixteen pounds.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP said the noble Viscount was good enough on the Committee stage to postpone the question for further discussion on Report, and he had promised to try and provide the noble Viscount with some figures dealing with these districts and the cases of houses situated elsewhere. The noble Viscount had in the meantime put down an Amendment creating another class of house in another kind of area. The result of the Amendment would be, as their Lordships would see in a moment, to create three classes of houses, three scales of rent, in addition to the scale of rent inside London. The fact of the matter was that the dividing line suggested by the noble Viscount was really an artificial line. It existed for various purposes of legislation, but with regard to the classes of house which were put into the two kinds of areas there was very little distinction indeed. The same kind of people lived in the small borough and urban districts as in the rural areas. Therefore His Majesty's Government were of opinion that it might create a certain amount of hardship if a limit of £16 was fixed for this new class.

A few figures which he was glad to be able to give to the noble Viscount would, he hoped, persuade him that for houses situate elsewhere £8 was hardly sufficient, and it would be better to take the original proposal in the Bill and leave in the words £16 for houses in the small borough and urban districts and also in the rural areas. The only difference between the noble Viscount and His Majesty's Government was with regard to the rents in the rural areas, and if they could show that the rents in the rural areas were often over £8 in the case of working classes he hoped that the noble Viscount would agree to his (Earl Beauchamp's) subsequent Amendment. There were 376 urban districts with a population of less than 5,000, and 194 with a population of less than 3,000. There were sixty-seven boroughs having less than 5,000 inhabitants and thirty-three with less than 3,000 inhabitants. So their Lordships would see that the conditions in those urban districts were not unlike the conditions in a rural area. On the other hand, take one county alone, the county of Durham, where there were forty-one parishes in rural districts which had populations exceeding 3,000. In those rural districts they would not have the conditions of the £16 limit unless their Lordships agreed to an Amendment; the case would be much the same in a number of colliery or industrial areas, and the general view of the Local Government Board was that it was a classification which it was not very easy to define on the figures before them.

Take the question of rents, there were not many figures available, but there were some which were drawn up by Mr. Wilson Fox, whose authority he thought every noble Lord would admit. According to Mr. Wilson Fox, in agricultural rural districts the rents ranged from £3 18s. to £11 14s. per annum. In respect of houses near towns, in the large agricultural villages, houses which would be within the rural areas would not be affected unless their Lordships agreed to his Amendment. As regards the other districts, figures had been given to various inspectors of the Local Government Board who had to go about the country holding public inquiries with which their Lordships were familiar. In some of those districts the rents for working-class houses varied from £7 16s. to £20 16s., and he would give them in a few moments further particulars with regard to those. In many parishes near London, which were rural districts, the rents were even higher. In Mitcham, for instance, a place which might be familiar to their Lordships, the rents for new working-class dwellings varied from £19 5s. for three rooms to £29 3s. 11d. for five or more rooms.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

That is not an ordinary rural district.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

No; but he understood that Mitcham was a parish near London which was a rural district. There they had a case of a rural district that had a very high rent. Therefore they saw that the distinction between these districts was artificial. The figures he had quoted were from statistics published by the London County Council. With regard to boroughs or urban districts with a population of less than 50,000, he quoted some figures from a report of an inquiry by the Board of Trade. Rents in those districts ranged from £8 15s. 6d. to £13 13s. for three rooms and from £9 15s. to £19 10s. for four rooms; from £13 to £23 8s. for five rooms, and from £16 11s. 6d. to £28 12s. for six rooms. He would now go back to the question of the rents in rural areas which, under the Bill, their Lordships would only allow to be £8, and which His Majesty's Government wished to be allowed to raise to £16. Take the rural district of Chester-le-Street. There the annual rent for two or three rooms was from £12 7s. to £14 6s.; for three to four rooms from £15 12s. to £16 5s., and for five rooms the annual rent ranged from £18 4s. to £20 16s. Take Hemel Hempstead, a parish in Hertfordshire, which would probably be familiar to the noble Marquess opposite. There the annual rents varied from £7 16s. to £9 2s., and from £13 14s. 6d. to £14 9s.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

Is that exclusive of rates?

EARL BEAUCHAMP said he thought so. The rents charged for the dwellings in Sevenoaks which were erected by the rural district council ranged from £10 8s. to £13. In Ryhope, for two rooms, the rent was £10 18s., for three rooms £12 13s. 6d., for four rooms £14 6s., and for five rooms £16 0s. 8d. In Grange-town, a sub-division of that parish, the rent of two rooms was £9 15s., three rooms £13, four rooms £13 7s. 4d., and five rooms £17 9s. 8d. He apologized for troubling their Lordships with these figures, but he thought they went to prove the case that there really was a demand in rural areas for working-class dwellings to be erected which could be let for more than £8. His Majesty's Government therefore trusted that their Lordships would agree to the original suggestion of the Bill and allow the figure £16 to stand, and not agree to the Amendment of the noble Viscount.

^*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN admitted that the noble Earl had proved the extraordinary variation of rents in rural districts in different parts of the country, and it showed conclusively to his mind how very dangerous a basis for a clause of this kind was the rental. Certainly in the parts of England with which he was best acquainted there was no working man living in a house as defined in this Bill of more than £8 rental in a rural parish; but he quite felt, in the circumstances which the noble Earl had alluded to, that he could not press this Amendment, nor could he stand up for £8 as the figure for rural districts. There had also been a change in the clause by the adoption of the Amendment of the noble Duke behind him. Therefore there was no reason why he should press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to restore the figure £16 in the clause instead of £8.

Amendment moved— In page 8, line 23, to leave out the word 'eight' and to insert the word 'sixteen.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HYLTON moved to add to the clause the words, "but the condition aforesaid shall not be implied when a house, or part of a house, is let upon the terms that it be put by the lessee or occupying tenant into a condition reasonably fit for occupation." He thought their Lordships would agree that the case for the exclusion of what were commonly called repairing leases had been immensely strengthened by the acceptance of the Amendments moved by the noble Duke, because they had now withdrawn the words "working classes" altogether from the clause, and were merely dealing with houses in urban and rural districts that happened to be rented at comparatively small amounts. When this Bill was in Committee he tried to indicate that in many parts of the country there were a number of small old houses that were taken by individuals on repairing leases, sometimes by members of the working classes themselves. They took these houses at a low rent on condition that they were given a lease, and during the continuance of that lease they agreed to keep the premises in repair. If their Lordships did not pass some proviso such as that which he wished to move they were going to make it impossible for any repairing leases in future to be legal in the case of houses rented at a low rental and covered by this clause. If they did that he contended they would be depriving a good many people of the working classes and others of the opportunity of doing what they thought at all events answered their purpose, which was to lay out a certain amount of money on the repair of houses, and obtaining houses at a low rental on condition that they kept them in repair. Imagine the case of a carpenter or a mason or a tradesman of that sort who had put by a little money and had an opportunity of taking a lease of a cottage. He was a man who by the nature of his craft could at a low expense do the repairs himself, and it was to the advantage of that sort of man that he should in future be allowed to do what he had been allowed to do in the past. If they did not insert a proviso of this kind there would be the same kind of rut as the country had got into in many cases over hard-and-fast building by-laws. What had been the result? Over and over again the by-laws were disregarded and district councils showed favouritism in the case of some owners. The Local Government Board had themselves admitted the evil of this, and he was glad to see that the noble Earl was going to move an Amendment with a view to remedying this abuse. If they did not pass such an Amendment as he now proposed, they would get into exactly the same difficulty. People would evade the law, and although it might be said that there was a remedy, as in the case of the building by-laws, by means of a mandamus, which any ratepayer was entitled to obtain, yet the remedy was scarcely ever heard of and was never used. He hoped their Lordships would allow a certain amount of elasticity in a matter of this kind.

Amendment moved— In page 8, line 12, after the word 'habitation' to insert the words 'but the condition aforesaid shall not be implied when a house or part of a house is let upon the terms that it be put by the lessee or occupying tenant into a condition reasonably fit for occupation.'"—(Lord Hylton.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP was sorry that His Majesty's Government were unable to meet the wishes of the noble Lord now any more than they were able to meet him at the Committee stage. He hoped the noble Lord would forgive him when he said that he could not agree to his parallel between the Amendment suggested and those dealing with the by-laws. He did not think the case was on all fours. The object of this clause was to protect people who were too poor, and very often too illiterate, to protect themselves. There were some people who were quite indifferent about living in insanitary houses, who perhaps enjoyed living in insanitary houses, and they wanted to protect them from having the power of practically contracting themselves out of this Bill, which was a danger to which the Amendment would open the door. The clause as it stood merely reproduced Section 75 of the Act of 1895, and made it apply to houses of a higher rental in accordance with the general scheme of the Bill. Viscount St. Aldwyn had met him so handsomely over the last Amendment that he scarcely liked to quote him against a noble Lord on his own side, but what the noble Viscount said just now struck him very forcibly. Viscount St. Aldwyn said that the rentals which he (Earl Beauchamp) had quoted were not within his own experience in his own neighbourhood. He could not help thinking that through all these discussions on this Bill noble Lords had been apt to consider the circumstances round the houses with which they themselves were acquainted, and they were not able to project their minds to other parts of the country where all landlords were not as good landlords as most members of their Lordships' House. They had to deal with other districts with which they only became acquainted by reading Blue-books and various literature which dealt with that kind of question. His own experience was that this kind of let was not very common, and he did not think that to prevent it altogether would be a very great hardship. The noble Lord differed from him, and he had no doubt that this kind of let was common and popular in the noble Lord's part of the country. That, however, did not remove the objection of His Majesty's Government, which was that this Amendment would open the door to many abuses. If there were so many exceptional cases where a landlord was unable to afford to put a house in repair and the prospective tenant could afford to do so, the landlord had always the opportunity of borrowing the money from the more fortunate member of the working classes and accept the duty of doing the repairs in the future. He thought it would not be impossible for a landlord to find a way out of the difficulty.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND said that if they were to consider their own experiences and relate them he was afraid this debate would last some time. He would be inclined to retort that he doubted if personally the noble Earl was very well acquainted with the habitations of the working classes. The noble Earl spoke as if the Local Government Board had only one idea in their heads—the small populations that they desired to deal with. He could quite understand the difficulty His Majesty's Government saw in accepting the Amendment. It might happen under certain circumstances that abuses might occur which the Government were anxious to put an end to, but surely they should find some way of framing their measure so as not to deal with very large areas in the country where the rents were very low and where these abuses did not exist. His Majesty's Government must remember that they were raising the price of the houses. The noble Earl said this was simply re-enacting a section of another Act. It was no such thing. It was enacting a section of another Act with the very great difference that they applied it to a very much better class of house. In his experience it was not an uncommon thing for such a man as the noble Lord had mentioned, a carpenter or a skilled artizan in a country village, to take his house on a lease at a low rental and to agree to do the repairs. It would be an intolerable hardship upon the better class of working man if he was not to have these advantages which he wished for and valued, and which, in his experience, led to no abuses whatever. He trusted that if His Majesty's Government did not accept this Amendment they would at least bring forward some Amendment so as not to put an end altogether to repairing leases in rural districts for houses under £16.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I ought, no doubt, to say a word in response to the noble Duke's appeal, but I confess I do not see how a clause such as he desires could be framed. I fear I am falling into the trap which Lord Beauchamp pointed out and which affects most of us in this House—namely, that we are undoubtedly apt to rely too much on our own immediate experiences. I confess I have not known that it was in any part of England a custom in rural districts for houses at a few shillings a week, which after all is the rent contemplated, to be let on repairing leases, and if it is so I think it is an extremely bad custom. We all know that house property of that kind is not a very valuable possession, and those who have it know it is not a valuable possession on account of the heavy bill for repairs. I am bound to say that if it became the custom for landlords who own cottage property of that kind in small towns and villages to get into the habit of letting it at almost nominal rents in order to get rid of the trouble and the cost of repairs, it would be a very bad thing for the communities concerned, and the probability is that the standard of accommodation would fall greatly in such places. I can conceive it possible, of course, that there is such a case as that mentioned by the noble Duke, where an artizan with a house at 5s. or 6s. a week should undertake to do the repairs, but I should have thought such cases were so rare that it would be hardly worth while attempting to deal with them under the Bill. To accept the Amendment of the noble Lord as it stands must, I think your Lordships will all agree, open the door to very serious danger.

LORD ALVERSTONE said that if they were not to bring their personal experiences to bear he did not see any good in any of their Lordships addressing the House. He had had large experience of this class of leases, and he asked the noble Earl opposite to remember that he was dealing among others with £40 houses in London, and there were a large number of leases of houses of that rental where the tenant undertook to repair the house, both inside and out. It seemed to him there was nothing improper in that kind of case. He quite understood what Earl Beauchamp said when he feared that in some way it might lead to vicious contracting out, and he thought that point ought to be met. Would not the whole point be met if they made this apply to a house which was let on lease for not less than three years? Sometimes these houses were taken on repairing leases for three, four, and five years, but if the Amendment was limited to the case of leases for three years there could not be any vicious contracting out by the working classes. He must say that on principle, where they had a clause which said £40 in London, £26 in boroughs, and £16 in the country, to enact that a house could not be let upon the terms that the tenant should do the repairs was a very startling proposition. He was satisfied that this Amendment would be absolutely necessary to protect hundreds of honest contracts which had been in force for many years with perfect satisfaction to landlords, tenants, and local authorities. Many local authorities supervised houses of from £20 to £25 a year which were let on these terms, and which were used for the purpose of taking in lodgers.

LORD HYLTON said he was perfectly willing to accept the suggested amendment of his Amendment by his noble and learned friend. The proviso would then run, "But the condition aforesaid shall not be implied when a house or part of a house is let for a term of not less than three years upon the terms that it be put by the lessee into a condition reasonably fit for occupation."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said he let houses at £20 a year where the tenants did their own repairs, and naturally it was a very onerous thing. He would be prepared, if necessary, to accept the responsibility of having to do them, but the danger he saw was not in the £25 houses. He had known cases where men had lived in hovels and had paid £1 a year. The landlord would say, "You can have that place, but don't bother me, and don't ask me for any repairs." He did not see how they could touch a man of that kind except they proceeded against him under the ordinary Public Health Act, and that would be rather difficult.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

LORD CLINTON moved an Amendment in Clause 15 (Conditions as to keeping houses let to persons of the working classes in repair) providing that within "twenty-one" days (instead of twenty-eight days) after the receipt of a notice the landlord might notify the local authority of his intention to close a house for human habitation, and a closing order should be deemed thereby to have become operative.

Amendment moved— In page 9, line 11, to leave out 'twenty-eight ' and to insert twenty-one.'"—(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY moved an Amendment in the same clause giving a landlord the option of appealing to the Local Government Board or to the County Court of the district, against a notice requiring him to execute works under the clause. He said there might be a case of small importance where a landlord might differ from the local authority. At the same time he might not desire to give way and not wish to have to incur the trouble and publicity of a fight in the County Court. Yet he might desire to find out whether his opinion was right, and so he would probably prefer to go to the Local Government Board. Many of his friends outside their Lordships' House had urged him to bring this Amendment forward. Of course, in any matter of serious disagreement a landlord would go to the County Court. In smaller cases he might say he would not go to that trouble and bother; he would rather pay up and look pleasant.

Amendment moved— In page 9, line 31, after the word 'the' to insert the words 'Local Government Board or the.'"—(The Earl of Kimberley.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP said that His Majesty's Government had never liked the County Court, and they did not like it now. This Amendment was an improvement on the Amendment inserted at the Committee stage, and therefore the Government would accept it.

^*THE EARL OF ONSLOW asked whether the option would be with the appellant, so that he would have the power of selecting whether he would go to the Local Government Board or to the County Court, and that it would not rest with the Local Government Board? If he had that assurance from His Majesty's Government he saw no objection to the Amendment.

EARL BEAUCHAMP said that if the noble Earl would look at page 9, line 31, he would see that a landlord might appeal.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, who was responsible for recommending their Lordships to put the Amendment regarding the County Court into the Bill, said that as far as he was concerned he was willing to accept the Amendment. What they were anxious to obtain was that any person who thought himself aggrieved by a local authority should have an appeal, if he liked, to a Court of law. So long as that was secured it did not matter if he had the option, if he preferred, to go to the Local Government Board.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said his Amendment was purely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 9, line 34, after the word 'or,' to insert the words 'against any.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP said the Amendment was not thought to be necessary. If the noble Earl would look at the clause he would see that in line 32 came the word "against," and as it was thought that that already implied an Order, it was considered unnecessary to put in the words "against any."

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved an Amendment to protect the landlord or owner of property in cases where a tenant had failed to perform his covenants to effect repairs. He said he had placed this Amendment on the paper in the hope that they might get some information from His Majesty's Government as to how they meant to deal with a case which he put before them in Committee—a case, for instance, where a large colliery had houses let under a covenant to repair. It was not only in cases of collieries, but collieries had struck him as typical. There might be hundreds of houses and it would be a very serious thing if under this Bill a colliery company could throw on the royalty owner the whole of the responsibility for keeping up the repair of these houses. Something should be done to modify the present clause. He did not know whether the words he had proposed would meet the case, but they seemed calculated to do so. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 9, line 42, after the word 'lets,' to insert the words 'to a tenant for occupation.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP said their Lordships would probably remember the discussion on this point in Committee. He was glad to find he was correct in the opinion he gave off-hand with regard to the specific case mentioned by the noble Duke of houses in a colliery district. The difference between the noble Duke and himself on this point was whether this should apply, as the noble Duke suggested, to a tenant for occupation, or whether, as the Bill suggested, it should apply to tenants for habitation. The definition of landlord which the noble Duke proposed to amend was restricted to persons who let houses under any contract referred to. The noble Duke would see the words in line 42, "In this section the expression 'landlord' means any person who lets the house under any contract referred to in this section, and includes his successor in title, and the expression 'a house' includes part of a house." If the noble Duke would look at the beginning of Clause 15, he would see that the contracts referred to were the same as those referred to in Clause 14, and in that line 2 of Clause 14 appeared the words "letting for habitation by persons of the working classes." Under those circumstances it was not thought advisable to put in a different definition here, making it a tenant for occupation, when the words were already in the Bill, and covered the case to which the noble Duke referred.

LORD ALVERSTONE said he thought the words "letting for habitation" would still leave the doubt which the noble Duke had raised as to whether a person, say a ground landlord who had let a block of cottages to a company, or a company who had themselves let for habitation or occupation, would be responsible. He did not say what course should be taken, but he did not think that the noble Earl had met the difficulty.

THE EARL OF CREWE

Of course, it is a question of legal interpretation, and we must all attach due weight to the opinion expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. I think it is evident we must look into the matter again before the Third Reading, and see whether we have met the point, as we thought we had, by the wording of Clause 14.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND said in that case he supposed he had better withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT HILL said their Lordships would see that Clause 16 extended the powers of making by-laws with regard to lodging houses and the imposing of the execution of works required to be done under these by-laws. On the Committee stage the point was raised as to whether the owner or the landlord was meant by this clause, and he proposed to leave out "or in substitution for." He thought the words as in the clause were rather too wide.

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 23, to leave out the words 'or in substitution for.'"—(Viscount Hill.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP thought the noble Viscount would see that the effect of his Amendment was not altogether without importance, and His Majesty's Government were anxious that these words should be retained. Supposing the words suggested were left out, the duty of executing these works could only be imposed upon an owner in addition to somebody else. It was easily conceivable that there were cases in which an owner ought to do them instead of somebody else, and that would not be possible unless these words were retained. He thought that was a very possible case, and he hoped the noble Viscount would not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND said his next Amendment was a very simple one, and it appeared to be very just. An owner should not be responsible for repairs due to the wilful fault of the tenant.

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 26, after the word 'discharge,' to insert the words:—'Provided that no duty which involves the execution of work shall be imposed under this section upon the owner where the defect in respect of which the Order is made has been caused by the act or default of the tenant or occupier or of any person for whom the tenant of the premises is responsible.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP thought the noble Duke would have said something more in support of his Amendment. A good deal was said on this point in Committee, and he was afraid even after consideration that the Local Government Board did not like it any better than they did at the time. What was the Order to which the noble Duke referred in his Amendment? The noble Duke seemed to contemplate an Order which should be made after some damage to the house had taken place. As he understood it, there was no question of making an Order in a case like this. The by-laws were made for certain specified purposes as laid down in the Public Health Act, and proceedings for the enforcement of the by-laws might be taken. Therefore no Order would be made by any local authority. He did not like to oppose the noble Duke on a technical point of that kind. This clause met cases of accommodation and various other matters which ought, as a matter of duty, to be imposed upon the landlord. If, say, one lodger were to put some small part of the water supply out of order, the result of this Amendment might be that the whole house and the rest of the lodgers would be deprived of water, and there would be no remedy except that of a closing Order. Was not that an inconvenience to every one in the house? If the owner were called upon to repair this defect in the water supply he would say that it must be the fault of the tenant or occupier, and therefore he personally was not responsible. In this case they were dealing with the owners of a class of property which needed to be supervised very carefully, and he did not think it was very unreasonable, subject to notice to the owner of his liabilities, that he should be expected to keep the place in repair himself, however the various defects might have been caused. The landlord had his remedy, which he thought was mentioned in Committee by the noble Duke, which was afforded by the ordinary law. Nothing deprived the owner of that remedy, but His Majesty's Government did not think it necessary to relieve him from the liability of keeping the houses in habitable repair.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said the incident which the noble Earl had just given appeared to him to be inconclusive. If a man by his own act or default made his house uninhabitable, or violated the by-laws in a similar way, it did not seem fair to come upon the landlord. The broad equity of the Amendment should appeal to them all.

EARL BEAUCHAMP said these points were rather difficult to deal with at the present stage. They were more appropriate to Committee, and he regretted—and it was his fault—that they did not deal with these matters in Standing Committee, which was a more suitable tribunal for dealing with these technical and somewhat small matters.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said his Amendment was merely to assimilate the words of this subsection to subsection (6 of the previous clause, the procedure of which it modified.

Amendment moved— In page 11, line 4, after the word 'expenses,' to insert the words 'and against any Order made with respect to those expenses.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

LORD CLINTON said, with regard to an Amendment standing in his name to Clause 17, that in Committee he had had an Amendment down altering the last four lines of the subsection in order, if possible, to remedy what appeared to be a hardship on an unfortunate occupier of a house which had been condemned as unfit for human habitation who could not find any other house. The Government were good enough to say that they would look into the matter and therefore he withdrew his Amendment at that time, and he only put his present Amendment down in order that it might not be lost sight of. There was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the Lord Steward which he thought would meet the point, and he therefore would not move his Amendment.

EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving to omit the penalty in subsection (4), said he was much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, for withdrawing his Amendment. He thought the one standing in his name met the wishes of the noble Lord.

Amendment moved— In page 11, line 38, to leave out from 'to' to the end of line 39, and to insert the words 'be ordered to quit the dwelling-house within such time as may be specified in the order.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

LORD ALVERSTONE thought it would be wiser to cut the penalty out and leave the time specified in the order to quit to the discretion of the magistrate.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Amendment moved— In page 12, line 21, after 'refused' to insert the following new subsection—' (7) Where an appeal is made to the Local Government Board under this section the Local Government Board shall not dismiss the appeal without having first held a public local inquiry.'"—(The Earl of Kimberley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving to omit from subsection 7, paragraphs (a) and (b), which provided that rooms used as sleeping places should be deemed unfit if not sufficiently protected against dampness effluvia, or exhalation, or were not sufficiently ventilated, said that his Amendment was the first of several which were really intended to re-draft that part of the clause. They did not introduce any new principle, with the exception of the succeeding Amendment which the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, had given notice of with regard to lighting.

Amendment moved— In page 12, to leave out lines 31 to 33."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

^*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN pointed out that one of the subsequent Amendments standing in the name of the Lord Steward was more than a matter of drafting. On his motion in Committee words were inserted in the Bill that it should be the duty of the "local authority" to define the requirements necessary, and in his Amendment the Lord Steward proposed to leave out the words "local authority." He attached importance to them, and in due course would move to insert them again, so that the clause would read that the regulations be made by "the local authority with the consent of the Local Government Board."

^*LORD ELLENBOROUGH said it appeared to him that the effect of the Amendments proposed was to give power to the Local Government Board to replace paragraphs which had been struck out in Committee. When they came to look at those paragraphs, it seemed that the framer of them had apparently walked down a street and looked at the front of the houses only. Had he taken the trouble to look behind them he would have seen that a large number of the houses in London were built very much in the shape of the letter L, the front of the houses representing the vertical part of that letter facing the street, and the part represented by the horizontal part of the letter L running very far back. In many of such houses, although the lighting might not always be good, large skylights were provided; they contained plenty of fireplaces, and were well ventilated and as healthy places as could be, and yet he was afraid they would be ruled out under the clauses of the Bill if it was intended to restore power to the Local Government Board to make regulations. One of the proposed regulations was to the effect that windows must be provided equal to one-tenth of the floor area of the room. One way of ful- filling that clause would be by building a partition across a room and so reducing the cubic space the occupant had hitherto enjoyed, and he was afraid of that clause coming back again as part of the regulations of the Local Government Board. Then there were a large number of men servants occupying rooms on the ground floor of a great many houses in London, and it would be impossible to alter many of those houses in order to make the rooms comply with the regulations. This would mean that many butlers and men servants would have to be discharged, and many of such houses, particularly in the West End, that were now protected by the custodians who slept on the ground floor, and who had the safety of a good deal of property dependent on them, would now be deprived of that protection. He really thought that the clauses must have been inspired in the mind either of the noble Earl opposite or the President of the Local Government Board by their having received, without recognising them, a deputation of burglars, not of the ugly "Bill Sykes" type, but of the more civilised "Raffles" pattern. He thought that any such regulations would be better left to local authorities than to the Local Government Board. He had no doubt that the noble Earl opposite would say that these paragraphs were exactly in the interest of the butlers and men servants, and that it was not right that they should inhabit such rooms as he was thinking of. No doubt that might be so in some cases, but at the same time he hoped the Government would take into consideration that rooms can be ventilated by skylights as well as by windows and whether they were not doing more harm than good by exposing such men to the probability of dismissal because of their being of no further use in the way of safeguarding property.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— In page 12, line 33, after the word 'sufficiently' to insert the words 'lighted and.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— In page 12, line 35, after the word 'ceiling' to insert 'or (b) does not comply with such regulations as the Local Government Board may prescribe for securing the proper ventilation and lighting of such rooms, and the protection thereof against dampness, effluvia, or exhalation.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

^*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN proposed to insert, after "the" in the first line of the noble Earl's Amendment, the words "local authority with the consent of the," so that the Amendment would read "does not comply with such regulations as the local authority with the consent of the Local Government Board may prescribe." He attached importance to the point for the reasons just stated by his noble friend behind him. The proposals with reference to areas and everything of that kind as they originally stood in the Bill seemed to him almost absurd, and he had no confidence whatever in leaving such matters to be settled by the Local Government Board. It was a matter which the local authority ought to deal with in the area which it governed with reference to the needs and conditions of that particular area. It was right that the Local Government Board should approve, but he thought that the local authority should initiate.

Amendment moved— To insert after 'the' in the first line of Earl Beauchamp's Amendment, the words 'local authority with the consent of the.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK asked whether the habitual interpretation of the word "lighted" meant lighted by daylight or in an artificial way, because of course that would make enormous difference to the practical working of the clause and the character of the accommodation secured.

EARL BEAUCHAMP thought that generally speaking "lighted" certainly referred to lighting by day. He had in mind a house in Grosvenor-square—he was afraid it was a personal experience—where the footmen's rooms entered on to the kitchen passage and there was no ventilation or daylight of any sort or kind, not even a window. Clearly that was not a room which was lighted. With regard to the Amendment of the noble Viscount, it appeared to the Local Government Board that these were matters where it was desirable that the regulations should be on one general scale throughout the whole of the country, and in dealing with rooms of the kind in question a great deal of inconvenience would be caused by the possibility suggested by the noble Viscount. Not only great inconvenience, but great uncertainty and dissatisfaction would exist if local authorities imposed different regulations in different places. It was the opinion of the Local Government Board that the Amendment as put down in his name really met the case better than the new Amendment of the noble Viscount, and although he did not propose to divide the House he ventured to hope their Lordships would agree to leave the Bill as amended by him.

^*THE EARL OF ONSLOW suggested that there really were very different conditions obtaining in different parts of the country. The clause as it originally stood might be not unfairly applicable to a very large number of towns, but it would work extreme hardship in the county of London, and it was mainly because of that that it was objected to on that side of the House. What might be good in Liverpool or Leeds or Glasgow might be highly unsuitable in London, and he was of opinion that elasticity in such matters was extremely desirable. The noble Earl no doubt was perfectly well aware that there were regulations already in existence in London dealing with the matter, but the trouble was in the case of a room underground which was occupied along with another room over-ground. They were unable under the existing law to get at the occupier. He would use the room above the ground as a workshop because he must have light for his work and the room underground to sleep in because light was not so necessary in a sleeping room as in a working room, and thus evaded the law. He therefore hoped the House would not accept the Amendment of the noble Earl but would accept that of the noble Viscount.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment moved— In page 13, to leave out lines 13 to 16."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved to insert a new paragraph after "exhalation" to provide that a closing order should not prevent a room being used for purposes other than those of a sleeping place. He thought that this must have been intended by the Government. But under the clause as he read it a room would be closed not only for the purposes of sleeping but for any purposes of occupation whatever, just as a dwelling house which was condemned as unfit for habitation. There were plenty of rooms which were perfectly well adapted for store rooms or box rooms and a dozen other purposes although they might not be adapted for sleeping purposes.

Amendment moved— In page 13, line 16, after the word 'exhalation' to insert the following new paragraph— 'Provided that a Closing Order made in respect of a room to which this subsection applies shall not prevent the room being used for purposes other than those of a sleeping place.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP pointed out that although the room would be closed for human habitation it could still be used under the Bill as a store room or a wine cellar or anything of that kind, whereas the Amendment of the noble Duke opened up the possibility of a room which was condemned as unhealthy for human habitation and for being used as a sleeping place at night being used for human habitation during the day. He thought the advantages must be balanced one against the other. His Majesty's Government were of opinion that the Bill as it stood, which prevented such a room from being used for human habitation either during the day or during the night, possessed the balance of advantage, leaving it still possible for the room to be used as a store room or a wine cellar.

^*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN did not think the Bill as it stood prevented such a room from being used by day, because the subsection only applied to a room which was habitually used as a sleeping place. It did not enact that a room not habitually used as a sleeping place whatever the circumstances were might not be used for human habitation during the day.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND agreed that if the room was not used as a sleeping place at the time the order was made it would not apply, but the point was whether a room which was closed as a sleeping place could be used for other purposes.

^*THE EARL OF ONSLOW ventured to think that when the clause came before the Courts they would have some difficulty in interpreting it because subsection (7) said that, a room habitually used as a sleeping place should be deemed to be a dwelling house. Those words were put in in the House of Commons. The fact of the matter was that a room habitually used as a sleeping place, however unfit it might be, must be declared to be "a dwelling house unfit for human habitation" before they could get an order to close. He did not know whether, where a room contravened the provisions, they were going to get a closing order for the whole of the house or not. If it applied to the room only he certainly thought the Bill ought to say it somewhere, and if it did not he did not see how the Amendment applied.

LORD ALVERSTONE understood that it was the objection to such rooms being used for sleeping in which had led to the by-laws being suggested. There were numbers of purposes for which such rooms might be properly used; they might be turned into bathrooms, for example. Some amendment was required if the word "dwelling-house" remained in.

THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, it may be possible to meet the noble Duke to some extent, and we will consider before the next stage how that can be done. At the same time it is fair to point out that all that is required to be done is to make the room free front dampness and effluvia and to see that it is sufficiently ventilated and properly lighted. There must be a great many cases in which it would be most dangerous to allow a room to be used which complied with none of those provisions. We shall have to consider, therefore, whether we can meet the point raised by the noble Duke without opening the rather dangerous possibility of allowing rooms which are thoroughly insanitary in every respect to be inhabited all day for purposes of work.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH said it appeared to him that one difficulty still existed—namely, that supposing the room had never habitually been used as a sleeping place it was still capable of being lived in without any order being made against it at all.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY asked why the word "dwelling-house" in the subsection should not be left out.

^*THE EARL OF ONSLOW said because if they did so nothing would happen. The only way they could do anything would be to leave out "room" and inset "dwelling-house," and then they could bring in the clauses of the Act applying to dwelling-houses which were unfit for occupation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Drafting Amendments to Clauses 18, 21, and 23 agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving an Amendment to Clause 26, said the point dealt with was raised by Lord Monk Bretton in Committee and the Government promised to consider it with a view to bringing up an Amendment at this stage of the proceedings. He hoped that the Amendment he proposed would meet the points which the noble Lord raised and that he would be satisfied. It was the intention of the Local Government Board if they possibly could to meet his wishes.

Amendment moved— In page 16, line 26, after the word 'may' to insert the words 'with the consent of the person or body of persons entitled to any right or easement which would be extinguished by virtue of section twenty-two of the principal Act.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

LORD MONK BRETTON said he was quite satisfied. The Amendment entirely met his point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— In page 16, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words 'of section twenty-two of the principal Act (which vests in the local authority, pipes, sewers, and drains)' and to insert the words 'to that right or easement of that section.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLINTON had on the Paper a series of Amendments to Clause 30, providing that expenses incurred by a rural district council in the execution of Part III. of the principal Act should be defrayed as special expenses of the council in the execution of the Public Health Acts, but should be charged on the whole area of the authority except otherwise declared by the Local Government Board. He said that in Committee he endeavoured to amend Clause 30 so as to provide that the ex- penses of a local authority in the execution of that part of the Act should be defrayed as provided in the principal Act of 1890, and he was certainly under the impression that the noble Earl, on behalf of the Government, had promised to reconsider the question and bring it up on Report. Under the Act of 1890 the expenses of the local authority were defrayed as special expenses and under the Bill they were to be defrayed as general expenses. Special expenses were defrayed upon one-fourth only of the rateable value of certain specified subjects, but the general expenses were charged upon the whole rateable value of the authority. The specified subjects were land and land covered by water, canals, and towing paths, tithes and the permanent way of a railway. Those had all had the benefit of the one-fourth classification up to the present time for the reason which had constantly been stated—that they did not get the same benefit out of the expenditure under the Public Health Acts; and it appeared to him that a change ought not to be made in the system of rating without some reason being adduced for it. He thought that no reason was given in the course of the Committee debate except that His Majesty's Government wished the expenses to be levied not over a contributory district but over a whole area. He had endeavoured to meet that in his Amendment by providing that they should be levied as special expenses on the whole area of the local authority. He moved the first of his Amendments.

Amendment moved— In page 17, line 25, to leave out the word 'general' and to insert the word 'special.'"—(Lord Clinton.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP said the question for their Lordships was who benefited supposing the expenses were charged as special expenses. If charged as special expenses they were paid out of a rate towards which land and railways contributed only upon one-fourth of their value. Under the Bill land and railways very largely created the demand for houses, and as they were benefited by the houses His Majesty's Government did not think it fair that they should be exempted as regards three-fourths of the expenditure. It was the opinion of the Government that the expenses should be paid as general expenses; that was to say, out of the poor rate to which land other than agricultural land contributed in full and to which agricultural land contributed only one half.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND said he did not know anything about rail-ways, but he thought it very hard that railways in agricultural districts should be called upon so largely as they were under the Bill. His own county of Northumberland was entirely agricultural and very thinly populated in one part, while in another part it was entirely manufacturing and very thickly populated, and he would ask why the agricultural centres should have to contribute towards the cost of meeting the demand for houses which manufacturing towns in one corner of the county created.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN regretted that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment did not go a great deal further and take exception to the expenses of a scheme being paid by the whole of a rural district. In some parishes people had built cottages which was in excellent condition and there were sufficient accommodation, whereas in another part of the same rural district there were other parishes where no one had done anything. Was it not monstrous that those people who had done their duty and spent money in providing houses should be rated to supply the deficiency in areas which had not done their duty? The only reason was that they were afraid of placing a heavy rate upon those parishes where great outlay was required, and they were going to make all the rest of the district pay for the shortcomings of a small portion of it. He thought the matter was a very serious one, and it might be necessary for him to move an Amendment on Third Reading.

LORD WENLOCK considered it very unfair on railways to levy a rate on their full value in order to supply housing accommodation for parishes which lay off the route of the railway. Where a railway ran through one thickly-populated area it ran through, perhaps, ten or twelve that were thinly populated, and it was very hard on them to be called upon to subscribe towards housing accommodation in distant parts of their area. Railways are always looked upon as very fair game for taxation. In his own, parish the railway paid one-third of the rates, and at the time of her late lamented Majesty's Jubilee a rate was levied on the parish to celebrate that great event, and in spite of protest on the part of the railway authorities they found themselves involved in a rate to pay for the oranges and buns supplied to the village children. He thought it should be recognised that railways had done their duty in providing cottages for workpeople, especially in rural districts, and he hoped it would not be used as an argument for putting further expenditure upon them that they had done so much to meet their proper duties.

THE EARL OF CREWE

It seems to me that the question is not such a burning one as noble Lords who have argued for the Amendment appear to think, because the clause provides for each case being considered on its merits, and where it can be shown that the benefit attaches to one district only, that district can be made to pay. That seems to be the common sense solution of the question, and I am afraid it will be found that the preference given to agricultural land and to railways under the Amendment as suggested by the noble Lord will not all over the country be considered a fair one. We cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment, although we will not attempt to divide the House upon it.

EARL BEAUCHAMP pointed out that the Local Government Board had power under the section to declare "that any such expenses are to be levied as special expenses."

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved— In page 17, line 26, after the word 'Acts,' to insert the words 'but shall be charged on the whole area of such authority'; and in line 28, after the word 'as' to insert 'general expenses or.'"—(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

^*THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to insert a new clause, after Clause 36, providing that in the administration of the Housing Acts regard should be had to the requirements of persons of the working classes, and it should be the duty of the local authority to secure as far as practicable that dwelling accommodation provided, under those Acts was occupied exclusively by persons of the working classes, and that, other things being equal, the local authority should give priority to applications made by British subjects belonging to the working classes for such accommodation. He said that his Amendment was one for which he ought, perhaps, to offer some apology to the House, and especially to his noble friend Lord Camperdown, who had moved a somewhat similar Amendment in the Committee stage of the Bill. Their Lordships, however, did not adopt that Amendment, very largely at the instance of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, but he thought the House was under some slight misapprehension. Viscount St. Aldwyn moved that in calling upon a local authority to provide accommodation for the working classes the Local Government Board were to take into consideration the various circumstances, including the probable effect upon the rates, and the noble Viscount thought that that would sufficiently safeguard the ratepayers against the provision of housing accommodation for those who were not strictly of the working classes. It really was not a question of the Local Government Board calling upon the local authority to provide houses, but of cases where the local authority decided under the clauses of the Housing Act, 1890, that accommodation was required to be provided by persons who were displaced by improvement schemes.

There was no provision whatever under the present law defining the class of person who would inhabit the dwellings provided under the Housing of the Working Classes Act. Their Lordships had heard a good deal about the definition of "working classes," and he thought it was the intention of the House that some definition of "working classes" should be inserted in the Bill, and that so far as possible the application of the Acts should be in the interests of those classes primarily if not solely. He had the honour of being for some time a member of the London County Council, and he confessed that during those years he was very greatly struck by the class of persons who inhabited the dwellings that were put up at the expense of the ratepayers. Their Lordships would naturally suppose where a displacement took place that the new buildings would be inhabited by the persons who had been displaced. That was not the case; an extraordinarily small proportion of those displaced found room in the new buildings. To some extent no doubt that was owing to the, fact that the buildings had to be erected in close proximity to the place where the displacement occurred, which was usually a crowded area either in the centre of London or in other great towns. It was precisely in those crowded areas that the value of land was highest and therefore the cost was greatest. The consequence was that the London County Council had to charge very high rents in order that the ratepayers might not suffer severely by the housing operations.

From a return made every year by the London County Council of those accommodated in the Council's dwellings, he found that no less than 356 clerks, a large number of insurance agents, musicians and policemen, and eleven managers of public-houses lodged in County Council dwellings. They had heard the clerk described as the black-coated working man, and he was not at all sure that that was not a very accurate description; but the result of the present state of things was that there was a very strong feeling in the minds of poor people, especially in the East End of London, that the municipal dwellings were not pro-provided for them to live in, and they had to go into other slums perhaps worse than those from which they had been displaced. He asked that preference should be given to persons of the working classes as far as practicable. He said as far as practicable because there might be cases where it was impossible to find persons, strictly speaking, of the working classes to occupy the whole of the rooms, and he would be the last to put a charge on the ratepayers by saying that because persons of the working class could not be found that therefore the rooms were to be left absolutely untenanted. He was told that the rule was always first come first served with regard to those applying for accommodation, and that no inquiry whatever was made as to whether the applicant was of the working class but only whether he could afford to pay the comparatively high rent. Another grievance, and one very acutely felt, was that a great deal of the accommodation was given to those who were not of British nationality, and he thought it should be the duty of the local authority to give the preference to men of the working classes of British origin. He also thought that there should be a register available at all times to those who cared to inspect it showing what accommodation was vacant.

Amendment moved— After clause 36 to insert the following new clause: '(1) In the administration of the Housing Acts regard shall be had to the requirements of persons of the working classes, and it shall be the duty of the local authority to secure as far as practicable that dwelling accommodation provided under those Acts is occupied exclusively by persons of the working classes, and other things being equal, the local authority shall give priority to applications made by British subjects belonging to the working classes for such accommodation. (2) The local authority shall cause a list to be kept showing particulars of the accommodation comprised in every dwelling provided by them in the exercise of their powers and duties under the Housing Acts and of the rent, and such list, so far as it relates to dwellings vacant or about to become vacant, shall be open at all reasonable times and subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by the local authority to the inspection without payment of ratepayers in the area and of persons of the working classes who desire to apply for dwelling accommodation provided by the local authority under the Housing Acts.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP said that the figures mentioned by the noble Earl involved a considerable number of rooms. Up to the end of December, 1906, there were no fewer than 145,000 rooms provided in London, and the proportion of managers of public-houses was not very large when they divided eleven amongst 145,000. If there was a feeling on the part of the working classes in the East End of London that there was an insufficiency of accommodation for them that was a sound argument for encouraging the London County Council to pursue the policy of housing accommodation and to build a great deal more largely in future than they had done in the past. As to the keeping of a register, local authorities naturally would wish to let their houses and the list would be at the disposal of any one. He would venture to repeat a question he put before in Committee, whether it was not a great deal better for the ratepayers that those dwellings should be occupied by somebody even if not by people strictly of the working classes than that they should be left empty, therefore imposing a still further charge upon the rates.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said they had heard an extraordinary defence of the Bill as it stood. The noble Earl said it seemed to him that the London County Council had not kept pace with the times in building. He did not know on what that statement rested when they were told by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that the occupants of these houses were very largely persons who did not belong to the labouring classes. Did he mean that the London County Council would be justified in going on building houses without end at the expense of the ratepayers? Surely the eleven publicans who were spoken of were never intended to be housed at the expense of the ratepayers. Some representatives of the City of Edinburgh had told him a few days ago that exactly the same thing had happened there; that the houses they had built under their Housing Act were mainly occupied by persons quite of a superior class. They now asked, "How long is this to go on? Now that the houses which we have built are occupied by persons of a class quite superior to labourers, are we to have a new scheme and are we to go on building at the expense of the ratepayers?" He therefore supported the Amendment.

^*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN very much doubted whether the Amendment would have much practical effect, because the noble Earl had found it necessary to insert the words "as far as practicable." They must all feel, as the noble Earl the Lord Steward had said, that if members of the working classes could not be found to inhabit the houses, they must, in the interests of the ratepayers, be let to somebody else. But surely the local authority, having at the expense of the ratepayers erected houses for the working classes, ought to try and secure that they should be occupied by persons who were members of the working classes. That, he thought, was a very reasonable proposition.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I am in some agreement with the noble Viscount who has just sat down—namely, that this provision, if your Lordships insert it in the Bill, will not have a very far-reaching effect. If it really be the fact that local authorities by deliberate preference let their rooms and their houses to persons who do not belong to the working classes, it seems to me very difficult to alter that except by appealing to them and convincing, for instance, such bodies as the great councils of London and other towns that those are not the purposes for which the houses were intended.

^*THE EARL OF ONSLOW pointed out that what he had said was that they let them to the first comer whoever he was; his object was to seek to impose a duty upon them to find out whether the first comer was or was not a member of the working classes.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I am afraid the Lord Chairman is rather sanguine in proposing to insert a provision of that kind in an Act of Parliament. We return again, of course, to a definition of the working classes, as to which, I suppose, he and I are not in complete agreement. I confess I do not see what reason of public policy there is if you are going to build houses for anybody that should make it more to the public benefit to build houses to be occupied by a mechanic than to be occupied by a clerk. Both have their business in the neighbourhood of the place in which the houses are built, and I confess I have never heard any attempt yet made to show why you should build a house for one and not for the other. I can understand the attitude of mind which says that no houses should be built by local authorities at all and that the work should be left entirely to private enterprise, and I can understand the attitude of mind which says—and I could indeed agree with the proposition—that the local authorities should not build houses of high value as a speculation; but to suppose that you can usefully go beyond the general test of the cheapness of the house is a thing which I regard as impracticable. With regard to the attempt to amend the Alien Act, which I think is what the noble Earl is attempting to do, there again I do not think his provision is of a really serviceable character. It is also, I think, of a rather invidious nature in itself, and I confess I should be sorry to see it inserted in the Bill; but I gather that the Amendment has the approbation of noble Lords opposite, and therefore I will say no more.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I am glad the noble Earl shows a somewhat relenting frame of mind with regard to this Amendment, in favour of which there is a great deal to be said. I rather think his attitude is that the addition of this clause would be superfluous, but I venture to tell the noble Earl why I think it would be politic to add this clause to the Bill. In the first place, it seems to me that its insertion would have a very reassuring effect on the public mind. There are two classes of persons who need to be reassured. Firstly, among the ratepayers there is a general feeling that their money is very often applied to purposes other than those they would desire it to be applied to. They think that buildings erected ostensibly for the benefit of the working classes are really being devoted to another purpose altogether. Then there comes the case of the working classes themselves. I was much impressed by what was said by my noble friend the Lord Chairman. He told us that one of the results of these buildings being frequently occupied by people who did not belong to the working classes was that the working classes, properly so called, were deterred from inhabiting them, and I believe there is a great deal in that argument. While the words of the new clause would be quite innocuous they would probably have a very reassuring effect in a quarter where some reassurance is really called for.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I am afraid I did not make myself quite clear if the noble Marquess thinks I am disposed to accept the Amendment, because read with the definition of "working classes" it seems to limit to a very undesirable extent the class of person who can inhabit these houses.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Then I think there is a difference of opinion between us, because in my view these houses put up for the working classes should be available for habitation only by people who are members of the working classes. May I suggest that my noble friend should leave out from his Amendment the words "regard shall be had to the requirements of persons of the working classes, and." I think those words are superfluous; the other words are a sufficient instruction to the local authority.

^*THE EARL OF ONSLOW agreed with this suggestion.

^*THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM said that if their Lordships would look at the definition of "working classes" they would see that the persons referred to as occupying these houses—clerks, musicians, policemen, and others—all came under the definition of working for wages. He thought it would be very difficult to give a definition which would be at all practicable for use by any public body.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to add a new subsection in Clause 38 (Appeals to Local Government Board), providing that the decision of the County Court Judge on any appeal should be final.

Amendment moved— In page 20, line 11, after subsection (1) to insert the following new subsection— '(2) The decision of the judge of county courts of the district on any appeal to the court under this part of this Act shall be final.' "—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH moved an Amendment in Clause 47 (Definition of working classes), providing that the expression working classes "in the Housing Acts shall mean" mechanics, artisans, labourers, and others working for wages, and persons whose income did not exceed an average of 30s. a week. As he understood, it was the desire of His Majesty's Government to define working classes by saying "What kind of house do you live in, and what rent do you pay for it?" It was the desire of noble Lords on his side of the House to define working classes by saying "What is your occupation, and how much do you get a week?"

Amendment moved— In page 23, line 1, to leave out from the word 'classes' to the word 'mechanics' in line 4, and to insert the words 'in the Housing Acts shall mean.'"—(The Duke of Marlborough.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

I think the noble Duke will find there is no limit of wages in the words as proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

Yes; 30s. a week.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN pointed out that it was not limited to 30s. a week; it was "persons working for wages."

THE EARL OF CREWE

That does not apply to a mechanic. It is evident, of course, that the substitution of the word "mean" for "include" by the noble Duke entirely alters the sense of the Amendment. We understood that the noble Duke's object was to widen the definition and bring it more into conformity with our view, which is that it is impossible to find any set of words which will cover all the people whom you may desire to describe as the working classes for this particular purpose of housing. The noble Duke spoke of a wage limit, but, as I pointed out at a previous stage, the definition as inserted here admits a mechanic earning, perhaps, £6 or £8 a week, but excludes a typist earning 35s. That seems to me to be an absurd result, and I cannot believe that it is intended by those who support this Amendment. A large number of parallel cases might be found, and there is the whole class of clerks who seem to me to have as perfect a right to be housed as anybody else. The noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, spoke of them as the black-coated working men, and they are excluded. We must therefore oppose the Amendment.

LORD ALVERSTONE pointed out that if the word "mean" was adopted it would have a very narrowing effect, whereas if the word "include" was put in it would be a guide and not so hard-and-fast a line, and he thought it would meet the wishes of those who originally proposed the Amendment.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY could not help thinking that the words proposed by his noble friend behind him would narrow it very inconveniently. If they used the word "mean" the effect in law was to exclude everything else but what was enumerated. That he did not think could be the intention of his noble friend.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH asked leave to reinstate the word "include" and to move his Amendment as it originally stood on the paper.

Amendment moved— In page 23, line 1, to leave out from the word 'classes' to the word 'mechanics' in line 4; and to insert the words 'in the Housing Act shall include.'"—(The Duke of Marlborough.)

^*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN hoped their Lordships would not agree to this Amendment as it seemed to him to get rid of the definition altogether. To his mind the best definition would be earning not more than a certain amount of wages. He therefore could not support the Amendment, and he moved to amend the Amendment by substituting the word "mean" for "include."

THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD pointed out that if the Amendment were adopted wherever the expression "working classes" appeared in the Housing Act it would be absolutely restricted to the persons actually named in this particular section. Whether they tried to define the working classes by reference to wages or occupation, they would fail.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN)

If you say that the working classes shall mean so and so you exclude everything except what you therein state, so that you may omit by this process many whom you desire to include. If, on the other hand, you say that the definition shall include so and so it leaves it still open to add an indefinite number to those who are specified in the clause. I speak with diffidence, knowing what the House has already decided in Committee, but does it not show that there are some things which you cannot define and that you had better use the regular phrase and leave the definition to the Courts? I venture to suggest that that would prove the safest course in the end.

LORD ALVERSTONE thought the simple test of wages would be quite sufficient. Then there would be no objection to the word "mean"—that the working classes shall mean persons in receipt of 30s. a week.

THE EARL OF CREWE

If we accept the limit of wages in some haste, might it not land us in difficulties? A boy grows up and earns 7s. or even 3s. a week. Does that mean that you are to evict the father and mother and the whole family because their joint earnings have thus passed beyond the necessary standard, to say nothing of the ordinary case of a rise of wages which would involve a man breaking up his home and going elsewhere? I have been all through of the opinion that for this particular purpose it is impossible to define working classes, and I maintain that view.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN thought that in view of the objection of the right rev. Prelate it would be advisable not to go further than to say "in this Act" and he would propose to amend it in that way.

Further Amendment to the Amendment moved— To leave out the words 'in the Housing Acts,' and to insert the words 'in this Act.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I wish I could suggest any form of words which would meet the case. I am bound to say I was impressed by what was said a moment ago by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when he suggested to us that in this clause it was absolutely necessary there should be some slight measure of elasticity. If we do not allow that modicum of elasticity we may find ourselves in the position of having excluded from the benefits of this Bill persons whom on mature reflection we should desire not to exclude. I should myself have thought that even if the word "include" was substituted for the word "mean" it would have been a valuable indication to those who would have to interpret the section as to the kind of people to who we intended it to apply.

On Question, VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN'S Amendment to the Amendment negatived.

On Question, LORD CAMPERDOWN'S Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

LORD MONK BRETTON moved a proviso in Clause 50, which provided that the expression "cottage" in Part I might in-include a garden of not more than one acre, that "the estimated annual value of such garden shall not exceed £3."

Amendment moved— In page 23, line 29, after the word 'acre' to insert the words 'provided that the estimated annual value of such garden shall not exceed three pounds.'"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendments to Clause 53 agreed to.

LORD HYLTON moved an Amendment to Clause 54 (Preparation and approval of town-planning schemes), providing that a scheme might be made as respects any land which is in course of development "or is required in order to further such development," instead of "or appears likely to be used for building purposes." The latter words he considered too indefinite. In the neighbourhood of a great town all land within twenty miles might be held by many people to be likely to be used at one time or another for building purposes, and he wished to limit the area to such legitimate and reasonable expectations as might fairly and justifiably be put forward.

Amendment moved— In page 28, line 5, to leave out the words 'appears likely to be used for building purposes' and to insert the words 'is required in order to further such development.'"—(Lord Hylton.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP thought the provisions in the Bill were not unreasonable if town planning was to become of practical use. Land likely to be used for building purposes was exactly the kind of land that was wanted to bring into a town-planning scheme, and the noble Lord's Amendment would limit the scheme to land actually in course of development, already laid out for building, or where building was in progress. Their Lordships had inserted a number of safeguards in the clause which would go far to protect the land referred to in the Bill. No man's land would be included in a scheme without his being consulted, and if his property was injuriously affected by the scheme he could get compensation.

LORD STANMORE said the words in the Bill were "appears likely." Who were those to whom it was to appear likely?

EARL BEAUCHAMP

The local authority and the Local Government Board, and I am not quite sure, after the Amendments introduced, that it does not also include Parliament.

LORD BELPER thought some qualifying words were required, because the words might apply to a scheme thirty years hence.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I think the noble Lord is not quite accurate in saying they could apply to any land except land included in the scheme. Subsection (1) de- fines the kind of land to which they apply. I think it is extremely important not to limit the kind of land which could be used, and I confess I do not exactly see, and nobody has explained so far, what are the dangers or hardships which could occur to anybody. A case in which land might be taken under a scheme although it was not absolutely ripe for building would be that where a town was laying out a large area they might say "We shall want to take over such and such a place for the purposes of a public, park." I hope noble Lords will agree to leave the clause as it stands.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Although I like my noble friend's wording better than the wording in the Bill, I do not attach so much importance to the alteration as some of my friends on this side apparently do. The clause says that you are to be at liberty to deal with land which appears likely to be used for building purposes. Appears to whom? I suppose to the local authority or the Local Government Board, or both. My noble friend proposes that you should be allowed to deal with land "required" in order to further such development. But it must be so required in someone's opinion. The two forms do not greatly differ in substance. I am much more inclined to attach importance, not to the wording of this clause but to the ultimate form in which the Bill may pass with regard to the tribunal which may decide these matters. We have asked for a strong and impartial tribunal, and if, as I hope, we get such a tribunal, then I think that the actual form of words used at this point is not a matter of extreme importance; and, therefore, I should suggest to the noble Lord that he should not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved an Amendment to Clause 56 (Contents of town-planning schemes), providing that every scheme should include a schedule showing each parcel of land which it was proposed should be affected, together with a map or plan. There was no place in the enacting part of the Bill where it was specifically directed that those plans were to be prepared as part of the scheme. It was perfectly clear that unless there were plans and specifications of some kind it would be impossible to know what the betterment would be under a scheme, or, if he might use so odious a word, what the worsement would be, and he thought the noble Earl would recognise that some such Amendment was required.

Amendment moved— In page 31, line 20, after the word 'apply' to insert the words 'including a schedule showing each parcel of land which it is proposed shall be affected by the making of the scheme, together with a map or plan'; and after the word 'and' to insert the word specifying.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP thought there was a great deal in what the noble Marquess said as to there being a plan at the office which everybody would be able to inspect, but if the noble Marquess insisted on the plan or the map forming part of the scheme then it would have to be reproduced with every copy of the scheme. That would add very considerably to the cost of printing, and was not necessary. He did not know whether the noble Marquess would think it desirable to insist in some way that these maps should be made. He did not doubt that these maps would be made for the office of the central authority. If the noble Marquess thought it desirable that might be secured.

LORD ALVERSTONE said a map was the one thing wanted. There was no necessity to make it part of the scheme.

EARL BEAUCHAMP thought the noble Marquess required that it should be part of the scheme and that it should be circulated with every copy.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said not necessarily circulated with every copy. If, however, the noble Earl did not like the words of his Amendment he would not press them, but would leave the noble Earl to draft another form of words for the Third Reading. If the noble Earl would not do that he himself would have to press the matter.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I think the noble Marquess had better put it in.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to amend subsection (2) so as to read "Special pro- visions shall in addition be inserted in every town-planning scheme defining the area to which the scheme is to apply and the authority who are to be responsible for enforcing the observance of the scheme and for the execution of any works which under the scheme or this Act are to be executed by a local authority," etc. This was, he said, an Amendment which was discussed by their Lordships at some length and was raised by the noble Viscount with regard to the execution of work by the local or responsible authorities. It never was intended—and he believed he said so in Committee—that these authorities should execute works such as those described by noble Lords opposite, and this Amendment and other Amendments in his name were for the purpose of making the actual intention clearer. The works which the responsible authority would carry out, almost as a matter of course, would be sewage and works of that kind, and there was no idea that they would be given general power to do other work which usually devolved upon landowners and builders. Under those circumstances he moved this Amendment, and if noble Lords desired any further explanation of the subsequent Amendment he would be happy to give it.

Amendment moved— In page 31, line 21, to leave out 'or for the execution,' and after 'scheme' to insert 'and for the execution of any works which under the scheme or this Act are to be executed by a local authority.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

^*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said that so far as he had been able to study the Amendments placed on the Paper by the noble Earl they did not forbid the local authorities from undertaking the work which the noble Earl said they were not to undertake. Surely some provision of that kind ought to be inserted. The only provision in the words of this Amendment was that the works to be undertaken should be specified in the scheme. He had an Amendment at a later point dealing with this subject.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I think we might discuss it at that point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ALVERSTONE moved the reinsertion of the words "statutory enact- ments" in the subsection. As this was a clause, he said, which dealt with a scheme to be proposed it ought to show if it purported to suspend or affect statutory enactments. As he thought he was wrong in Committee he ventured to ask the noble Earl to accept his apology.

Amendment moved— In page 31, line 29, after 'any' to insert 'statutory enactments.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

Would not this give power to the scheme to suspend statutory enactments?

LORD ALVERSTONE

No; it does not sanction it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved the deletion of the words "made under the authority of the Local Government Board" in the subsection, which were inserted in Committee. The noble Marquess said: I make the same speech as the Lord Chief Justice.

Amendment moved— In page 31, line 30, to leave out 'made under the authority of the Local Government Board.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

^*THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to amend subsection (3)— (3) Where land included in a town planning scheme is in the area of more than one local authority, the responsible authority may be one of those local authorities, or for certain purposes of the scheme one local authority and for certain purposes another local authority, or a joint body constituted specially for the purpose by the scheme, and all necessary provisions may be made by the scheme for constituting the joint body and giving them the necessary powers and duties. by inserting after the first "authority," the words "or is in the area of a local authority by whom the scheme was not prepared."

Amendment moved— In page 32, line 2, after 'authority' to insert 'or is in the area of a local authority by whom the scheme was not prepared.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD BELPER said he would like to ask a question with regard to this part of the clause. He thought it might, perhaps, avoid an amendment at a future stage. He understood that where a scheme was in the area of two authorities, either one authority might make the scheme or they might make a joint scheme. What he would like to ask was, As the Bill stood would not the one authority be able to make the scheme even in the case where the other local authority was perfectly willing to do their share in carrying out the scheme? One did not see why an authority should be able to go into the area of another authority to make a scheme in a case where that other authority was willing to act. It seemed to him that the clause required words to provide that the one authority should only act in respect of any land within the area of another authority if the other authority were not prepared themselves to carry out the town-planning scheme for that area. They could both, of course, act together in a joint scheme; but it did not seem to be proper for the one authority to act in the two areas, although the other was willing to act in its own area.

EARL BEAUCHAMP hoped the noble Lord's fears were not likely to be realised. If the case imagined by the noble Lord arose, he did not think the scheme under such circumstances would go forward, because it would have to be submitted, and it was only after agreement on all these points that the scheme was likely to go through smoothly. Therefore, there was not likely to be the friction which the noble Lord anticipated.

LORD BELPER

But if there is no power under the Bill there might be friction.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendment to Clause 58 agreed to.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved to amend, in Clause 59, the proviso which referred to subsection (2) as a "provision," by the substitution of the word "subsection" for the word "provision."

Amendment moved— In page 33, line 36, to leave out 'provision' and to insert 'subsection.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP thought the word in the Bill was clearer.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND said it was simply a question of style. If the Government thought the word "provision" good style, he was content.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, who had an Amendment on the Paper to subsection (3):— (3) Where, by the making of any town planning scheme, any property is increased in value the responsible authority, if they make a claim for the purpose within the time (if any) limited by the scheme, not being less than three months after the date when notice of the confirmation of the scheme is first published in the manner prescribed by regulations made by the Local Government Board, shall be entitled to recover from any person whose property is so increased in value the amount of that increase. to leave out the words "the amount of that increase," and to insert "such proportion of their expenditure as failing agreement in the opinion of the arbitrator has increased the value of such property." He said the Amendment was a very important one, because it contained a definition of what betterment was to be. But for the sake of clearness he wished to make a verbal alteration in the Amendment, so that it should read: "Such proportion of the expenditure of the authority as failing agreement," and so forth. Their Lordships would remember that on the Committee stage he drew attention to the words in the Bill which provided that in the case of a town-planning scheme any increase of value which arose in any property in consequence of the scheme should belong to the local authority. He thought there was a general agreement that the words as they stood in the Bill could not pass. He did not think that was questioned in any quarter. He did not believe the Government questioned it, and he knew noble Lords behind them did not. Therefore some Amendment was required. The Amendment he had put down contained, he believed, the fairest method of dealing with the matter.

The effect of the Amendment was this. The local authority had been put to certain expenditure in carrying out their town-planning scheme, the result being to benefit certain classes of property. It seemed quite clear that if that were the case the whole of the expenditure should be reimbursed to the local authority by those persons who had benefited by it. The words of the Amendment were drawn so as to give a certain elasticity and to leave it to the arbitrator to assign it between different owners of property as might be thought just; or there might be an occasion when the benefit was so obviously greater to the public than to the owner that only a small portion ought to be charged to the owner; but whatever increase might be said to have accrued to the owner's property, to that extent he must reimburse the local authority for the expenditure to which they had been put. That seemed to him to be perfectly fair. Some members of their Lordships' House might ask, What advantage, then, had the local authority got by making the town-planning scheme? They got two advantages. In the first place, they got the very special advantage, which all administrators ought to desire, that they increased the prosperity of the locality over which they had jurisdiction. That was what they existed for, and that was what they were elected for. The other advantage they got was a substantial pecuniary one—namely, a large increase in the rateable value of the district from which they derived their income. It was quite clear that if the result of a town-planning scheme was to raise the value of a particular owner's property it would not only benefit the owner but would also benefit the authority, because the rating value would increase in exactly the same proportion, and a large pecuniary gain would result to the rating authority.

Those being the main arguments, he submitted the clause as a perfectly watertight clause to their Lordships' consideration. It went upon a definite, fixed, and comprehensible principle. There was nothing arbitrary about it, and it was perfectly simple. A local authority put to certain expense were reimbursed that expense if it could be fairly charged as an advantage to particular individuals. The noble Earl the Lord Steward had an alternative proposal; he proposed that they should, as it were, cut the Gordian knot by arbitrary division of the increment into two parts, giving one to the owners and the other to the local authority. Of course, the noble Earl would understand him when he said there could be no defence to such a proposal. There could be no defence because there was no particular merit in one half one way or the other. It might be too great in one case and a great deal too little in another. It was evidently a proposition very difficult to defend. It was not the occasion or the time of night to go into elaborate considerations even if he were capable of doing it, but it might, he thought, be easily shown that an arbitrary distinction of that kind could not be made. He still submitted that his proposal was the right solution of this difficult point.

Amendment moved— In page 34, line 8, to leave out from 'value' to the end of the subsection, and to insert 'such proportion of the expenditure of the authority as failing agreement in the opinion of the arbitrator has increased the value of such property.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

I think we all agreed when discussing this question before that it was one of marked difficulty, but the noble Marquess has, if he will forgive me saying so, solved the difficulty by evading it altogether and simply by taking nothing whatever in respect of betterment. Surely it must be that if anything is to be charged in respect of betterment the amount expended by the local authority, which, after all is a pure accident, ought not to be the governing factor in estimating that betterment. You can conceive a great number of cases where a man's property—in fact, everybody's property concerned in the scheme—may be very slightly benefited by a most expensive operation on the part of the local authority. On the other hand, you can imagine cases where a comparatively small expenditure on the part of the local authority would appreciate to a vast extent certain lands belonging to a particular owner. Yet, under the proposition of the noble Marquess, the owner in the first case might have to pay a considerable sum, and in the second case the man whose property was vastly benefited might get off by scarcely paying anything whatever. The noble Marquess and the House must bear in mind what the proposition is. The noble Marquess himself used the word "increment"; we have to bear in mind that it is not the increment in land which is to be charged for this purpose. All you can charge is what is actually due to the scheme. Now what in a case of such a kind is actually due to the scheme? It would be usual, I suppose, when the question was under consideration for an owner of land to go before the tribunal and point out that as a matter of fact, although the scheme had opened up his land, it had been of comparatively little advantage to him. The noble Marquess on the Committee stage mentioned the case of some land near the seaside which had an agricultural value of £100 an acre which value was increased to £500 an acre by a small operation of road-making on the part of a particular local authority, and he inferred from this that the whole of the £400 betterment would be taken by the local authority; but, surely it is hardly conceivable that the whole of the increase could be caused by the act of the local authority in making the scheme. I find it very difficult to conceive such a case. Supposing there was a land-owner whose land was between the site in question and a railway station or a main road, it is evident that unless the intervening landowner was a person of an extraordinary character he could be what is commonly called "squared" by very much less than the amount which the local authority, according to the noble Marquess, would claim under the scheme; and, therefore I think it will be found if you examine closely into all possible cases that the amounts which could be fairly set down by an arbitrator as payable in respect of the scheme would be infinitely less than at first sight one would be disposed to imagine. I confess that when I first looked into the matter I did think that such cases as the noble Marquess indicated would be possible under the clause, but when one considers that the only sum which is chargeable is the difference between what the land would be worth at a particular moment, on the one hand with the scheme and on the other hand without the scheme, the amounts cannot, I think, be very large. The noble Marquess asks why we fixed on one-half as a maximum. It is, of course, always a very easy question to ask why one has fixed on a particular figure for a particular purpose. It does seem to us that there are cases in which the local authority might fairly claim as much as one-half; and in those circumstances, feeling, as I said at first, that the suggestion of the noble Marquess really evades the point at issue because it allows for nothing but, so to speak, the out-of-pocket expenses of the local authority, I am afraid we cannot agree to the Amendment.

^*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH said it was impossible to discuss this Amendment without comparing it with the alternative Amendment proposed on behalf of His Majesty's Government. He thought, with profound deference, that if they were thinking of the owner of a private property he would possibly have to pay more under the Amendment of the noble Marquess than under the alternative proposed by the Government, because under the latter, at all events, what he would have to pay would be limited to half the amount of the increased value. If, for example, a great town-planning scheme cost £20,000 and the effect of that was to raise the value of certain property belonging to A by, say, £800, the arbitrator had to say how much of the £800 ought to be paid back again to reimburse the local authority for the expenditure which had caused the increase in the value. There was an existing practice in the case of county councils when levying an expenditure over a portion of their area which was supposed to be particularly benefited, to say that that particular area was to pay three-fourths of the expenditure and the remainder of the county one-fourth. That, possibly, might be a precedent in the arbitrator's mind for awarding three-fourths of the increased value instead of one-half.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN reminded the noble Lord that what the Government proposed to do was first of all to take half of the improvement and then charge increment duty on the remainder.

LORD ALVERSTONE said that as he had had to deal with this question hundreds of times, might he point out that the only logical course was that suggested by the noble Marquess. They were not considering the taxation of increment value or the putting on of land tax, but how much ought to be paid because a man's property was benefited by a particular improvement called a town-planning scheme. That kind of question had been considered by skilled arbitrators for many years. The Government without giving the slightest reason said that half the increased value was to go into the pocket of the local authority. Why? Nobody could suggest why one-half more than 10 per cent. He turned to the scheme of the noble Marquess. The local authority in the course of a town-planning scheme had made a road at a cost, say, of £1,000. The arbitrator would say, "This road has been made by a paramount authority, and this particular owner has got the benefit of it. He would have made the road if he could, but he could not get the consent of other owners or had not the money to do it. The result is that that particular expenditure has led to the improvement of his property. How much ought he to contribute towards the outlay?" The noble Earl said that was not betterment at all. He (Lord Alverstone) said with great deference, having studied the subject for years, that it was the true and right measure of betterment. Now what would the problem be? The arbitrator would say, "I find an acre of this land has been improved—or it may be three or four acres—because of the particular road, and that so much of the value which has been added ought to be borne by the landowner." But, as the noble Marquess had pointed out, the circumstances might be so various and the amount of land which benefited might be so uncertain that nobody could predict what the increased value would be. The Leader of the House solved the question by saying it would be very small, and that he could not conceive any harm. How could the noble Earl possibly say? It was an injustice to the local authority. If the local authority had spent X pounds and that had improved the property of A, B, C, and D round the planning scheme, the expense of the local authority ought to be borne by the owners in such proportion as the arbitrator thought just. He was quite satisfied that from the point of view of justice both to the local authority and the land owner the scheme of the noble Marquess was the only one that could be accepted.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The question here is whether the charge ought to be measured by the sacrifice made by the local authority or by the advantage derived by the owner. There are precedents for the adoption of the latter standard. If I remember aright, in several private Bills for London there was a provision made for betterment—betterment measured, I think, not by the expenditure, which is quite an unpractical method, but measured by the profit of the owner.

LORD ALVERSTONE

The local authority got nothing.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD pointed out that the clause as it originally stood provided for recovery "where, by the operation of any town-planning scheme, any property is increased in value," but their Lordships substituted the word "making" for the word "operation." He could imagine a scheme causing certain properties to rise immediately in value, and if the Amendment of the noble Marquess were carried it seemed to him that the local authority would get nothing whatever out of any kind of improvements to such property. There was a difference between the making of a scheme and the operation of a scheme. The latter would include improvements on which money was spent, but the very making of a scheme might quite conceivably raise the value of certain kinds of property all round a town.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said the right rev. Prelate would see that if a scheme of that kind were made and there was a large increase of value in consequence the rating authority would profit enormously because the rateable value would go up and they would be gigantic gainers without having paid anything.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD said he did not propose anything; he only called attention to the Amendment on the Paper.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ALVERSTONE moved to insert, after "Act," the words "in accordance with Schedule I of this Act." He said that he only moved the Amendment in order to ensure that the scheme should be in accordance with the Act.

Amendment moved— In page 34, line 18, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'in accordance with Schedule I of this Act.' "—(Lord Alverstone.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to amend Clause 60, subsection (1), by leaving out the words "could be enforced by" and inserting the words "would have been enforceable if they had been contained in." He observed that this was merely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 44, lines 32 and 33, to leave out the words 'could be enforced by' and to insert the words 'would have been enforceable if they had been contained in.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN was afraid he could not agree with the noble Earl in thinking that this was purely a drafting Amendment. The clause read— Where property is alleged to be injuriously affected by reason of any provisions contained in a town-planning scheme no compensation shall be paid in respect thereof if or so far as the provisions are such as could be enforced by bylaws made by the local authority. That meant by-laws actually in existence. The Amendment, however would make the clause read, "if or so far as the provisions are such as would have been enforceable if they had been contained in by-laws made by the local authority." That surely was quite a different thing from the proposal in the Bill.

EARL BEAUCHAMP said the matter was really governed by the words "would have been enforceable if they had been contained in by-laws." The provisions were not enforced by by-laws.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN thought the explanation was not sufficient. He must object to the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND did not think their Lordships should pass the Amendment. What was "enforced" and what was "enforceable" could not be the same thing.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY formally moved an Amendment standing in his name next on the Paper.

Amendment moved— In page 34, line 33, to leave out from the word 'or' to the end of the subsection and to insert the words 'under the provisions of a local Act or Provisional Order in force within the area at the time of the confirmation of the scheme.' "—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP said that noble Lords opposite had objected to his drafting Amendments and they could not expect that he should accept without question all the Amendments they moved with the assurance that they were of a drafting nature. In the case of the present Amendment he was able to point out that it was not strictly a matter of drafting.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY observed that he would be delighted to accept any change which the noble Earl wished to make in the Amendment.

EARL BEAUCHAMP said the Amendment was in substitution of words which Viscount Midleton had inserted in Committee. The object was to prevent compensation being payable in respect of any injury caused by a town-planning scheme in a similar manner to that provided for by the London Building Acts. That was already covered, however, by Clause 59, which governed the matter.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY explained that he had thought the drafting of Viscount Midleton's Amendment might have been improved somewhat. He was aware that his noble friend was not responsible for the actual words inserted in Committee, but if the noble Earl did not like the words of the present Amendment he would not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved to delete from subsection (2) of Clause 60 the words "so as to give rise to any claim for compensation under this part of this Act." He said he had another Amendment on the Paper, and as the two referred to the same matter they should be considered together. The second Amendment was to insert at the end of subsection (2) the following—"provided that if it shall appear to the arbitrator that such provisions are unusual and impose excessive restrictions upon the use of the property, and that under all the circumstances compensation should be awarded he may, notwithstanding anything in this subsection contained, award such compensation as he may think just." If their Lordships referred to the subsection in question they would notice that it sought to impose on owners of land conditions which were burdensome, excessive, and very arbitrary. When the Bill was under consideration in Committee he moved to delete subsection (2) of this clause, but in deference to Viscount St. Aldwyn, as well as to the lateness of the hour, he withdrew the Amendment in order to save the trouble of a Division. Careful examination of the subsection would show their Lordships, however, that the conditions it contained were very dangerous and far-reaching in character. When this clause was brought up in another place, it was passed under the closure resolution proposed by His Majesty's Government and the House had no opportunity of discussing it. Then the clause came up to their Lordships' House, and again by a misfortune it passed through the Committee stage without any discussion upon it. Therefore he felt that before the Report stage was concluded their Lordships should be given an opportunity of expressing an opinion.

He would add a word in explanation of the object of the Amendment. He did not say it would be necessary on all occasions to pay compensation to the landowner, but if certain circumstances arose which, in the opinion of the arbitrator, demanded that compensation should be given, the Bill should provide for it to be given. When their Lordships reflected that the subsection gave power to prescribe the space about buildings, and to limit the number, or height, or character of buildings, he felt sure they would say that it should not be passed without some promise from His Majesty's Government that it would be modified either now or on the Third Reading. It appeared to him that under the Bill they might very easily deprive an owner of the whole or the greater part of his property without giving him a chance of getting one penny of compensation. They had not heard the view of the Government on the question, and he hoped the noble Earl would be able to give an assurance that this very drastic subsection would be modified.

Amendment moved— In page 34, line 37, to leave out from 'affected' to 'by' in line 39."—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP was sure noble Lords opposite would be as much surprised as he had been to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, that a landowner might have his property taken from him under the provisions of the Bill without compensation being awarded. The various provisions introduced into the Bill by noble Lords opposite, quite apart from provisions which His Majesty's Government had always intended should be in the Bill, he was sure, made such a state of things impossible. He thought the Amendment of the noble Earl would go rather further than the mover himself expected, because power would be given to an arbitrator to vary a scheme to which no objection had been taken by the authority or the person interested, and which had been confirmed by the Local Government Board. The adoption of the noble Earl's proposal might have curious results. An owner might not have asked for compensation, and might not even think that he was deserving of compensation, and yet if in the opinion of the arbitrator it was a case in which compensation should be paid the arbitrator might give the owner compensation. Again, if a scheme had been confirmed by Parliament after a full consideration of all the facts by a Select Committee, the arbitrator might, despite the fact that the Select Committee had said nothing about compensation, go behind the Act of Parliament and award compensation. Their Lordships, he thought, were hardly likely to adopt a course which would give an arbitrator power to go behind an Act of Parliament or a Select Committee. To embark on such a course would be dangerous and they had better avoid it altogether.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND wished to know whether what the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, had said was quite the case. The clause said, "Property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected so as to give rise to any claim for compensation under this Part of this Act." Therefore the compensation must be under the provisions of the Bill, and the Bill said that Parliament by means of a Provisional Order, or the Local Government Board, as the case might be, was to decide the claim. He did not think it was true to say, therefore, that under the Amendment of his noble friend it would be possible for an arbitrator to give compensation in spite of no compensation having been awarded by a Provisional Order. He would like to hear a legal opinion on that point.

EARL BEAUCHAMP thought their Lordships must read both Amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, together. If they did so they would see that what he had said respecting the power that would be given to the arbitrator became quite possible.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY said he would not proceed with his second Amendment.

Drafting Amendments to Clause 61 agreed to.

^*THE EARL OF ONSLOW, for the MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, moved the insertion of a new subsection in Clause 62. He said the noble Marquess, having to leave the House, had asked him to take charge of this Amendment, the object of which was plain on the face of it. Perhaps noble Lords on the Government bench might feel some surprise that such an Amendment should be brought forward I on that side of the House. The Amendment was a form of applying "ginger," because it provided that where a local authority had refused to proceed with an order the Local Government Board might act in place of the authority and do all that was necessary. It was further provided that a Committee of either House of Parliament might award costs against the local authority or to the local authority. Without this new subsection the Amendment of Earl Cawdor might be rendered absolutely nugatory if a local authority refused to proceed with an order.

Amendment moved— In page 36, line 23, after the words 'authority' to insert as a new subsection— '(2) Where a local authority refuse or neglect to proceed with an order made by the Local Government Board in pursuance of their powers under this section sanctioning a town-planning scheme, the Local Government Board may act in the place of the local authority and do all things necessary for the promotion of the scheme with a view to its confirmation in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act, and in the case of an order referred to a Committee of either House of Parliament, that Committee, in the exercise of their powers as to costs, may award costs to the Board against the local authority or to the local authority against the Board in respect of all such costs, charges, and expenses as, in the opinion of the Committee, have been reasonably incurred at any stage of the proceedings by the Board or by the local authority respectively, and all costs so awarded shall be recoverable by the Board or by the local authority as the case may be in accordance with the provisions relating to costs awarded by a Committee of either House of Parliament under this Part of this Act.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP confessed that he had not expected the Amendments on Report would take so long as they had proved to do. He felt bound to consult the convenience of the House as a whole and to ask whether they should proceed with the rest of the Amendments that night in the absence of the noble Marquess who possessed a knowledge of the Bill which had been of great use to the House and who had proved a courteous opponent to noble Lords on the Government side. As to proceeding further with the Amendments, he would point out that they had now dealt with most of the matters of importance and there was very little remaining to be done. Under the circumstances they might, if noble Lords opposite agreed to it, take the exceptional course of deferring any Amendments of substance till the Third Reading of the Bill and deal now only with the drafting Amendments, which would take off the Paper a large number of the Amendments still remaining to be gone through. With regard to the new subsection now under consideration, he might say that noble Lords on the Government side were naturally rather surprised that such an Amendment should come from the Opposition. He was informed that the Local Government Board did not desire the power which would be conferred upon it by the Amendment. The preparation of a scheme involving repeated conferences with landowners and others in a locality could be properly undertaken only by an authority on the spot. If the Local Government Board were to undertake the work they would require to have a special staff whose duty it would be to investigate all the local circumstances and to consult with people regarding the promotion of town-planning schemes. Procedure of that kind would be very expensive and probably much less satisfactory than if the matter were carried out by the local authority. Therefore he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL BEAUCHAMP moved an Amendment in page 36, line 26, after "enforce," to insert "effectively." He said that this was one of a number of Amendments to which he had already referred and to which Viscount St. Aldwyn called attention on the Committee stage. The noble Viscount had put down a series of alternative Amendments, but in the opinion of the Local Government Board they would go too far as they would leave the Board without power to compel the responsible authority to execute any part of a scheme.

^*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said it was not his intention to move the Amendments down in his name.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The remaining Amendments standing in the name of EARL BEAUCHAMP were also agreed to.

^*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved the addition of a proviso to Clause 62. He moved this Amendment, he said, in order to make clear what, he thought, the Government desired—namely, that houses should not be built under these schemes by the local authority except in so far as they were bound to build houses under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts.

Amendment moved— In page 36, line 30, after the word 'effectively,' to insert the words 'Provided that no Order made under this section shall compel the responsible authority to undertake the erection of houses which they could not be ordered to erect under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts as amended by Part I of this Act.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP said the Government's objection to the Amendment was that the word "houses" which the noble Viscount had put in was thought to be so wide as to prevent the responsible authority being compelled to erect a town hall, or even an office for the surveyor or inspector under the scheme. While the Amendment was open to the objection he had indicated, he realised that it was undesirable for the provisions of the Bill to be so interpreted that there would be no work which the responsible authority might not be compelled to undertake. He felt at a disadvantage in discussing the Amendment at that late hour, and if the noble Viscount thought there was some substance in it perhaps he would raise the matter again on the Third Reading. The word "houses" was, however, too broad an expression for the purpose.

^*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN was much obliged to the noble Earl. He would bring up the matter on Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ALVERSTONE moved to leave out Clause 63, which ran— 63. Where the Local Government Board are authorised by this Part of this Act or any scheme made thereunder to determine any matter, it shall be at their option to determine the matter as arbitrators or otherwise, and if they elect to determine the matter as arbitrators, the provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, respecting arbitrations by the Board of Trade, and the enactments amending those provisions, shall apply as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to the Local Government Board and the determination of the matters aforesaid: Provided that where the question to be determined is a question whether property is injuriously affected or increased in value, or as to the amount or manner of payment of the sum which is to be paid as compensation or which the responsible authority are entitled to recover from the person whose property is increased in value, the Local Government Board shall not determine the question otherwise than as arbitrators except with the consent of the parties interested.

He thought the Government would agree that the clause was no longer wanted.

Amendment moved— To leave out Clause 63."—(Lord Alverstone.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

^*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH moved to insert a new clause in place of the clause just omitted.

Amendment moved— To insert the following new clause: '63. The procedure of the Local Government Board upon an application in respect of any matter which they are authorised by this Part of this Act or by any scheme made thereunder to determine shall be such as the Board may by rules determine, and on any such application the Board may make such order in the matter as they think equitable, and any order so made shall be binding and conclusive on all parties.'"—(Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLINTON moved the addition of a proviso to Clause 66.

Amendment moved— In page 37, line 29, after 'Acts' to insert the words 'provided that in the case of a rural authority such expenses shall be levied in such manner and by such separate rate and subject to the same exceptions and provisions as are applicable under the said Acts to special expenses.'"—(Lord Clinton.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP said the Government accepted the Amendment as consequential, but not in principle.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved to amend Clause 67, sub section (1)— 67.—(1) This Part of this Act shall apply to the administrative county of London, and, as respects that county, the London County Council shall be the local authority. by inserting, after the first "shall," the words "except as otherwise expressly provided." He thought the Government would agree that these words were necessary.

Amendment moved— In page 38, line 1, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'except as otherwise expressly provided.' "—(The Duke of Northumberland.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP said his Amendment to Clause 68 was a Scottish Amendment and was moved to make it clear that the order referred to was the order under Clause 62 of the Bill and not under any of the other clauses of Part 2 of the Bill.

Amendment moved— In page 38, line 31, to leave out the words 'this Part' and to insert the words 'section sixty-two.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP thought their Lordships would see that his next Amendment was also a very proper one.

Amendment moved— In page 39, line 9, after 'Scotland' to insert the words 'with the substitution of the Edinburgh Gazette for the London Gazette.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY moved to amend Clause 69 by the addition of the following new subsection, "A medical officer of health of a district who is not in private practice shall not be appointed for a limited period only and shall be removable by the electing authority with the consent of the Local Government Board and not otherwise." He said that this subsection dealt with the district medical officers of health who were whole-timers and not with those who only gave half their time. The county medical officers of health were put on quite a different footing from the district medical officers. The Government inserted a clause giving security of tenure to county medical officers, and in his remarks on the Second Reading of the Bill he thought the noble Earl made out a very good case why the district medical officers of health should have the protection which they asked for. He could imagine that the noble Earl would express sympathy with the Amendment, but would say that it was impossible to accept it because it was out of order, If their Lordships looked at subsections (2), (3), and (4), however, they would see that references were made there to district medical officers of health. He was told that the Government proposed to bring in a Bill next session to deal with the whole question, but the present President of the Local Government Board might not be in office next year and even if he were there might not be time available to pass a Bill. He therefore urged the noble Earl to accept this subsection which met with the approval of the Opposition. He had hoped that his noble friend, Lord Belper, the representative of the Association of County Councils, would have supported him that night. Though he had not that assistance, as noble Lords on the Opposition side were ready to afford district medical officers of health the protection which they sought, not only in their own interests but in the public interest, he hoped the Government might be able to see their way to accept the subsection.

Amendment moved— In page 39, line 27, after subsection (3) to insert the following new subsection— '(4) A medical officer of health of a district who is not in private practice shall not be appointed for a limited period only and shall be removable by the electing authority with the consent of the Local Government Board and not otherwise.'"—(The Earl of Harrowby.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP could assure the noble Earl that he was not less in sympathy with the objects of the Amendment now than he was when he spoke on the Second Reading. He had heard, however, that a similar Amendment was put down at various stages when the Bill was under discussion in another place, and it was ruled out of order on the ground that it hardly carne fairly within the scope of the Bill. Though it did not in anyway bind their Lordships' House, it was desirable, under the circumstances, that they should follow that ruling and await the introduction of the Public Health Bill next session, when he hoped this, or a similar section, would be passed without opposition.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved to leave out from subsection (1) of Clause 72 the words "establish a public health and housing" ["every county council shall establish a public health and housing committee"] and to insert the words "appoint a." The clause as it stood obliged a county council to appoint a special committee for the purposes of the Act. Of course all were agreed that a committee must be appointed, but in the case of many county councils a committee took up two branches of work. For instance, in the county council over which he had the honour to preside they had for years had a Property and Sanitation Committee. The sanitation duties of that committee were such as' were described under this Bill and would doubtless be accepted as satisfying its provisions, but it combined the business of looking after the property of the county as well. It had been found convenient to refer both subjects to one committee and he could not think there was any object to be gained in binding a county council to appoint a special committee for the single purpose of exercising their duties under the provisions of this Bill. Under the old Small Holdings Act and Allotments Act a county council had to appoint two committees, one for small holdings and another for allotments. That was found to be a very inconvenient procedure, and in the same way he believed it would be found very inconvenient were the county councils compelled to appoint a special committee to carry out the proposals of this Bill alone. The Amendment would enable power to be given to county councils to appoint a committee to carry out this work, but it would not bind them down so that the work in question would be all that the committee would be able to undertake.

Amendment moved— In page 40, line 28, to leave out the words `establish a public health and housing' and to insert the words 'appoint a.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP was sorry that the Government could not accept the Amendment. One of the main principles of this part of the Bill was to call attention to the importance of this subject, and it was thought that to set up a statutory committee of the kind proposed dealing with this special subject was the best way to set about the matter. There was also the question of public convenience to be considered, and it was believed that if every county had a special committee dealing with the subject it would greatly facilitate the working of the Bill, while at the same time ensuring that information would be readily accessible to everybody, because there would be no confusion as to the source to which to apply for it. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent other duties being put on the committee if that were desired by any particular county council, and he hoped their Lordships would agree to the terms of the Bill, especially as this proposal was based on the recommendations of the Select Committee.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND desired to know if he might take the noble Earl's speech as an authoritative statement that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent other duties being placed on the committee.

EARL BEAUCHAMP promised that if it were not the case under the Bill that this could be done, the matter should be put right on Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

LORD ALVERSTONE moved to omit from the First Schedule paragraph 5, which, he said, could not possibly stand in the Bill because it prohibited counsel and expert witnesses. In this particular case there could not possibly be a stronger instance of the injustice of not allowing counsel to be heard. The local authority would be the other party in the appeal. The local authorities had town clerks and expert officers who were constantly dealing with this kind of matter. The result would be that there would be on the side of the local authority an expert adviser. He had himself more than once been engaged in these cases and met men who were more than a match for any counsel. The prohibition of counsel would certainly be depriving the landowner, whose solicitor had very likely not had any experience of these cases, of having the assistance to which he was entitled. The family solicitor could not employ another solicitor. He must either go himself or he must employ counsel, and to suggest that a local authority, who had their expert adviser in the person of their town clerk or solicitor constantly dealing with these kinds of questions, was to be allowed to have such officers appearing and that the land owner should be prohibited from having counsel was nothing short of a monstrous injustice. The provision that counsel should be allowed to appear in cases in which the Local Government Board decided was an extraordinary one. He could not imagine a greater misuse of power than that the Local Government Board, in many cases directly interested under this Bill, should be allowed to say whether a person who had a claim was to be represented by counsel. There were questions of injurious affection, questions of how much the land was to contribute, and questions of closing orders, and to say that no counsel should be allowed was, in his opinion, a great injustice and one which could not possibly be allowed to remain in the Bill.

With regard to expert witnesses, he would only say that equally in this case the local authority always had their expert witnesses. The town clerk and the borough surveyor were always experts. They knew all about the value of the land. The poor, unfortunate man who was having, perhaps, his six or seven acre field taken was to be at the mercy of the local authority because he was not to be allowed to have anybody come in and say what the value of his land was. He agreed that in interests of economy there should be a limit—that was dealt with in a subsequent Amendment—but to prohibit it altogether would again be giving to the local authority preference and privilege to which they were certainly not entitled. The earlier part of the paragraph meant nothing. To say that a man was to act on his own experience as to whether a house ought to be closed, and his own experience as to whether land was injuriously affected, was simply to say that a man was to disregard evidence that might be brought before him. He supposed they would be told that this was taken from the Small Holdings Act. If that were so, all he could say was that the experience of that Act did not encourage in them the belief that that Act ought to be perpetuated. The injustice that had been caused under that Act in cases before the Courts would not have occurred had a man been able to have proper representation. But he put the matter forward net on those grounds but as a point of principle. There was nothing in the procedure of this Bill, nothing in regard to questions of improved town-planning, of pulling down houses or of taking a man's property for the purposes of erecting working-class dwellings—there was nothing in those questions which ought to induce their Lordships to deprive a man of having proper representation. If they did not allow that right to the landowner they were conferring a great preference and privilege on the local authority such as they ought not to confer. This was a most important Amendment, and he had received representations respecting it from many parts and from representatives of many professions other than that of his own, the Bar.

Amendment moved— In page 44, lines 17 to 23, to leave out paragraph (5)."—(Lord Alverstone.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP said the noble and learned Lord had prophesied quite correctly that the defence of His Majesty's Government would be that a similar procedure had been allowed by their Lordships with regard to the Small Holdings Act, and therefore it might have been thought that it would have been allowed in the present Bill. The object of the proposal, both in the Act and in the Bill, was to save time and expense, but their Lordships had not seen their way to adopt proposals which the Government made with regard to procedure under the Bill. Therefore they would not offer any opposition to the alteration which the noble and learned Lord suggested. The same remarks applied to subsequent Amendments. The Government recognised that strength of numbers prevented them opposing the Amendments with any hope of success, and, therefore, although they could not be held responsible for the Amendments, they did not propose to go to a Division.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON) said the noble and learned Lord had made a very serious statement in saying that injustice had occurred under the Small Holdings Act. He did not suggest going into the matter now, but if the noble and learned Lord would permit he would lay the whole case before him and show him that no injustice had occurred of any sort, shape, description, or kind.

^*THE EARL OF ONSLOW hoped the noble Earl would fulfil this promise, because it would be a most interesting subject of discussion.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— In page 44, line 31, after the word 'unnecessarily' to insert the words 'except with the leave of the arbitrator not more than one expert witness shall be called by any party appearing on an arbitration under this schedule.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendments to the Second and Sixth Schedules agreed to.

Bill to be read 3^a on Monday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 188.)