HC Deb 17 December 1908 vol 198 cc2164-7

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendment— In pages 1 and 2, to leave out Clauses 1 and 2, and to insert new clauses: (a) Under-tenant or lodger, if distress levied, to make declaration that immediate tenant has no property in goods distrained; (b) penalty; (c) payments by under-tenant or lodger to superior landlord; (d) exclusion of certain goods; (e) exclusion of certain under-tenants; (f) to avoid distress; (g) commencement of Act; (h) repeal of 34 & 35 Viet., c. 79; (i) definitions; (k) Act not to extend to Scotland.

Read a second time.

MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)

on a point of order called attention to the fact that with the exception to the short title clause this was an entirely new Bill. He submitted that it would create a very dangerous precedent for this House to pass an entirely new Bill sent down from another place. This Bill, which came down from another House, was a Bill of ten clauses, the Bill which was sent to another House was one of two clauses.


I have taken the best advice that I have been able to obtain, and I am informed that the substance of the two Bills is identically the same. The method of drafting is wholly different, but I understand it is in order to avoid the system of legislation by reference that the drafting has been altered. The clauses which the Lords desire to have passed, and have sent down to this House in the form of Amendments, are all covered by the principle of the Bill, and could have stood in the Bill at the time of the Second Reading. Therefore, I think it is possible to consider it.

SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)

said he moved on behalf of his hon. and learned friend the Member for Kingston to leave out the word "material" in the new Clause A. He did not think it was desirable that the House should legislate that a person could make a declaration which he knew to be untrue and not be subject to a penalty. It was better to leave out the word "material"; therefore, he trusted that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would accept this small Amendment. He moved.

Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment— In Clause A, line 36, to leave out the word 'material.'"—(Sir F. Banhury.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'material' stand part of the Lords' Amendment."

MR. HERBERT (Buckinghamshire, Wycombe)

said he had so much confidence in the acumen of his hon. and learned friend that he had taken the opportunity of consulting him upon this point. He might say that this was not a word that was now being enacted for the first time. It was a word which had stood in the principal Act, in reference to which they were now legislating, and had stood the test for forty years. No question had arisen about it, and as it had stood the test for so long, he thought it had better be retained.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment— In Clause 3, line 8, after the word 'aforesaid,' to insert the words 'comprised in such inventory.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."


said precisely the same objection applied to this. It was the wording of the principal Statute, and it was not desirable to alter it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR F. BANBURY moved an Amendment to the new Clause E which he said seemed to be necessary because the object of the Bill was to include lodgers who were not mentioned in the clause.

Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment— In Clause E, line 1, after the word 'under-tenant' to insert the words 'or lodger.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."


said it was not possible to accept this because the effect would be to cut down rights which lodgers already possesed. He had discussed this with his hon. and learned friend, and he had not intended to move it. The House of Lords had been very careful not to cut down those rights.

Amendment negatived.


said it was evident to anyone who had looked into the matter that not only the last four lines which he proposed to leave out, made the clause itself very clumsy, but they would be quite impossible to carry out. The first three lines were all that was necessary to cover the inclusion of certain under-tenants which the clause dealt with.

Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment— In Clause E, line 1, to leave out from the word 'tenant,' to end of clause."—(Mr. Courthope.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."


said he should like to accept the Amendment. He thought it was generally agreed that the words proposed to be left out would give rise to a great deal of litigation, and make it really unworkable, and it would be a great improvement if the words were left out.

Amendment agreed to.

Lords' Amendment amended in Clause F, line 4, by leaving out the words "whether by name or not."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)


said it must be evident to everyone that it was undesirable to bring the Act into operation about ten days from the time of its passage, and it would be more convenient in that way that some months should elapse after it was possible for the Act to reach the hands of those who would be affected by it for them to consider its terms.

Lords' Amendment, amended in Clause G, line 2, by leaving out the word "January," and inserting the word "July."—(Mr. Courthope.)

Lords' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Lords' Amendments agreed to.