§ Lords Amendment: In page 1, leave out the words from the first word "landlord" in line 14 to the word "for" in line 17.
Mr. GREENWOODI beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I do not propose to say more than a word or two upon this Clause, because, 1758 as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) has pointed out, this Amendment is to take out words which were put in after full discussion and with a view to giving what I regarded as an additional safeguard to the tenant. The Government therefore cannot accept the Amendment from another place and it is my duty to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendments." At the same time I wish to move an Amendment. It will be within the recollection of the House that on the Report stage we put in words which were suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) and, on consideration, it was found that they did not express the undoubted intention of the House. I shall, therefore, have to move the omission of the words "owner by purchase of the dwelling-house" and the substitution for them of the words "landlord by purchase of the dwelling-house or any interest therein." That does not alter the sense of the words which it is not proposed by the Lords Amendment to leave out, and it makes clear the intention of the House.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have not been supplied with a copy of the proposed Amendment. The proper procedure will be, I think, first to disagree with the Lords Amendment, and subsequently to move the insertion of the alteration indicated by the hon. Gentleman.
§ Sir JOHN SIMONI am not sure that I have correctly followed the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say, first, that the Government advise the House to reject the Lords Amendment, and that if that is done then, incidentally, he proposes to alter a phrase in the parenthetical sentence. If I am not mistaken, the Lords Amendment took the form of cutting out the parenthesis altogether, and I want to ask in what way, within the rules, we can make a change in the parenthesis which the Lords have struck out?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is always possible to disagree with a Lords Amendment, and to substitute for it some modified form of words. As I have said, I have not yet had a copy of the proposed Amendment handed to me, but it seems to me that the proper plan will be first to deal with 1759 the Question, "That this House cloth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) apparently claims that his party is the one chiefly interested in defending the rights of tenants, but I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House are equally anxious to do that. We are all trying to deal fairly with them, but it so happens that some hon. Members on our side feel that in dealing fairly with the tenants we must be careful not to deal unfairly with landlords. The House has accepted the fundamental motive of this Bill, the guiding principle of which is to be the question of hardship. The County Court Judge is to be left to exercise his discretion in deciding on which side lies the greater hardship, whether it is on the side of the tenant whom it is proposed to turn out of the dwelling, or on the side of the landlord who is seeking to secure possession of it. If this Amendment is put in it will prevent a landlord who has purchased his house after the 5th May having any say whatever before the Court—it will prevent him having a chance to prove that the hardship is on his side. We only ask that the landlord shall be able to submit his case to the Court. We do not suggest that he should be given a preferential position. We want him to have the same right as the landlord who bought his house before the 5th May of convincing the County Court Judge, if he can, that the greater hardship is on his side. It is common ground on all sides that we want to get houses built. We want, in fact, free trade in houses as far as possible; we want to encourage men to build houses and to own them unfettered by the clogs which were an inevitable consequence of the War and which all parties are agreed should be got rid of as soon as possible, without inflicting undue hardship on either the tenant or the landlord. A man may buy a house for investment purposes and may do so perfectly honestly and frankly. It is proposed to bring this Bill to an end in 1926, but who is to say that a Motion may not be brought forward to extend its operation for another two or three years? If a man bought his house for investment purposes on the 3rd May, 1760 and then desired to get possession, he would be entitled to go to the Court on the question of hardship, and to have that question decided by the Judge; but if he bought it after the 5th May for investment purposes, and, in the course of a year or two, owing to a change of circumstances, he wants to have it for his own occupation, he will not, if this Amendment be carried, be permitted to go to the County Court Judge and prove to him that his hardship is greater than that of the tenant.
I confess I cannot quite see on what ground right hon. Gentlemen opposite are basing their present action. They are admitting the fairness of leaving the matter to the decision of the County Court Judge in the case of the man who purchased before the 5th May, and they are refusing to allow the man who purchased after that date the privilege of submitting his claim on the ground of hardship to the County Court Judge. We are only asking that the man who bought after the 5th May may be allowed to convince the County Court Judge, if he can, that the hardship is on his side and not on the side of the tenant. If you insist on striking out these words, you are going to say you will not trust the County Court Judge in the one case while you trust him in the other. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but that is what it really amounts to. Of course, if a man bought a house quite obviously for the purpose of turning out the tenant, no County Court Judge in the world would find that the hardship was on the side of the owner of the house. He would reasonably find that the greater hardship was on the part of the tenant whom it was proposed to turn out. All we are asking for is that the fullest discretion shall be given to the County Court Judge to decide the question of hardship as between landlord and tenant in all cases, and I suggest that, in one class of cases only, to take away the discretion from the County Court Judge would mean transferring it to the House of Commons, which, I think, would be quite improper. Having regard to the fact that the Government themselves accepted this position in the Committee upstairs, although after fuller consideration they changed their mind and voted for the elimination of these words, I do suggest that both the House and the Government may then further consider 1761 the point and agree to leave the discretion entirely with the County Court Judge in all cases.
§ Mr. E. D. SIMONI fully agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) said just now, that we all want the greatest possible fairness as between landlord and tenant. We also want to encourage people to buy houses for investment in such a way as will ensure new houses being built. But the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman subsequently tended in an exactly opposite direction. There has been an extraordinary amount of misunderstanding about this Bill, and there is a good deal of it still existing. I think the House will realise that if this date is inserted in the Bill it will mean that anyone who after the date buys a house will not be able to eject the tenant unless he provides alternative accommodation. It is quite obvious that the insertion of the date is a protection to the tenant, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I think, will not deny that. It is interesting to know that these words were in the original Bill. They were thrown out upstairs under the direction of the Attorney-General, although we tried to persuade him to retain them. It was a rather complicated case of legislation by reference, and in the end the hon. and learned Gentleman agreed, on the Report stage, to the insertion of the words which had been rejected by the Government in Committee. Then the Bill went to another place, and there again the words were rejected, and now the Bill has come back to us. I hope we are going to have the words finally inserted in the Bill. It has been asked, what is the reason for treating a landlord who buys after a given date differently from the landlord who bought before that date? I should think the reason is quite obvious. If the landlord bad already bought the house before the date, he did so subject to certain conditions embodied in the law of the land, and he expected that under certain conditions he would be able to get possession of the house. Having invested his money under these conditions, it is unfair that his position should now be reversed and that he should be refused power to secure possession without providing the tenant with alternative accommodation. This would 1762 be obviously a case where the hardship would be greater on the landlord than on the tenant. There was absolute unanimity on the point that the existing landlord should be allowed to take his case before the County Court. Judge to prove that the hardship is on his side and that the decision should be left to the unfettered discretion of the learned Judge. There is in fact no desire to fetter that discretion, and it is believed that in these cases the County Court Judge will do justice as between landlord and tenant.
But when we conic to the case of the landlord who buys after the date fixed, the position is different. This is the case of a man who has saved a certain amount of money; he has not hitherto been the landlord, but he has decided to lock up his money in some house. He is not tied to any particular house unless, indeed, he comes to the conclusion it is the only house which will suit him. Under the Housing Act of last year the speculative builder is at work building a large number of new houses, and in Manchester, at any rate, I am told, on the highest possible authority, that these houses Can he purchased on such reasonable terms that they are, if anything, cheaper than other houses, and are certainly generally of better value. [An HON. MEMBER: "Applicants do not think so!"] I am speaking of Manchester, and there are a great many Manchester applicants for the new houses that are being built; they are all being snapped up as they are built.
It seems to me that it is most desirable that we should give every possible encouragement to these people who have saved money and are prepared to buy houses. When you have a thrifty artisan prepared to buy a house, you give him a grant of £75, and if he is not prepared to buy a house you propose to give him a grant of £240, and for that reason it may not be as desirable to buy houses as it would have been before we had the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to housing. It seems to me even now to be the general experience that you can buy these new houses at a reasonable price and get reasonable accommodation, and surely it is desirable for us to encourage people, not to go and buy an old house, in the hope of ejecting the tenant, but to buy a new house. That protects the tenant and gets the house 1763 built, and it does another important thing, because it ensures that you get this new money put into houses. If a man buys a house from an existing landlord, that landlord very probably puts the money into Consols or some other investment of that kind, but if a person buys a new house, that is definitely- so much new money put into housing, and is a contribution towards finding the untold millions that the right hon. Gentleman hopes to spend on housing in the next 15 years.
In this matter you have three classes of people to consider: You have the would-be landlord, you have the existing tenant, and you have the community. It seems perfectly clear that, in the interests of all three classes, it is better that the would-be landlord should become the landlord, not of an old house, but of a. new house, and, from the point of view of the tenant, it needs no argument at all. You have millions of tenants throughout the country, and if you insert this date, those tenants will have absolute security that nobody can come along and buy their houses and turn them out into the street. As regards the would-be buyer, he probably gets better value. If you insert the date, it will force him to realise that he can get a new house. It may give him more trouble to get a new house built., but I think it is just and fair that he should be given that amount of trouble, only you must give him whatever grant is necessary to make a new house as advantageous for him to buy as an old house. In Manchester, I think that is already tho case. Thirdly, as regards the community, if you insert this date, you are going to- force these people to build new houses, and they will be doing their bit towards the solution of the housing problem, which 1% ill be a real step in the right direction. I feel that the House should do as it did on the last occasion, and disagree with this Amendment of the Lords, and I appeal specially to hon. Members opposite to agree to the insertion of this date, by which they will be doing something to secure that their own Housing Act of last year will continue to be a success as regards the building of houses for sale.
§ Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSONThere is one good reason that has not been mentioned yet why we should agree with the Lords in this Amendment, which is to leave out the words
not being a landlord who has become owner by purchase of the dwelling-houseafter a certain date. Nothing has been said in this Bill, or in the Amendment, which has been mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, of the case of the mortgagee of a house. As is well known, of the small houses with which we are dealing the vast proportion carry a mortgage, and it would appear that under the original wording of the Bill it is perfectly competent for a mortgagee to foreclose his mortgage and to take possession of the house, not acquiring it by purchase at all. The Bill deals only with houses acquired by purchase, and the Amendment of the Parliamentary Secretary also deals with houses acquired by purchase. In neither case is any provision made for the case of the mortgagee who forecloses his mortgage, and it seems to me that it is symptomatic of the extraordinary carelessness with which these Housing Bills of late years have been drafted.I should be glad to know from the learned Attorney-General what would be the position, supposing a mortgagee with a mortgage on a house wished to have that house for his own occupation or for the occupation of his son or daughter. Under this Bill, is it not the case that that mortgagee could, by foreclosing, avoid the provisions of the Bill and obtain possession of the house? Take a practical case. Supposing a person who wants a house for himself, or for his son or daughter, has not actually at the moment got a mortgage on a house, but supposing an existing owner of a house wishes to sell, it is perfectly competent to those two, by agreement, to come to an arrangement of this sort, that the original owner mortgages his house to the man who wishes to become the owner and occupier of that house, that the new mortgagee promptly forecloses and gets possession of the house, and the whole principle of this Clause falls to the ground. Will the Attorney-General inform us, from his deep legal knowledge, if that is not the case, should these words be left in the Bill, and that they give no protection whatever?
Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONThe hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkin- 1765 son) has imagined a most extraordinary case happening, but how many cases are there where a mortgagee wants to enter into possession of a house? I think we cannot take that argument seriously, and I do not think the hon. Member intended that we should take seriously this extraordinary flight of imagination in which he has indulged.
§ Mr. HOPKINSONThe hon. Member has accused me of putting forward, not seriously, a point which is perfectly valid and serious. I deny it absolutely, and anybody who has listened to these hours of talk which we have heard in this House might very well bring the same accusation against other hon. Members.
Mr. THOMSONThe hon. Member is exceedingly serious, as he always is, and the House, I am sure, will give due weight to the advice which he has given. With regard to the point made by the right lion. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), who said he was anxious above all else not to put restrictions in the way of the building of new houses, I submit that nothing in this Bill affects the building of new houses. As has been said very often, the Rent Restrictions Acts do not in any way affect the building of any new houses, as they are all exempt from the provisions of these restrictive Sections, and, therefore, I submit that there is no substance in that part of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman.In fact, I think the contention is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Mr. E. Simon) so well put it, that by encouraging people to spend their money in the building of new houses, and by not encouraging them to invest in the buying of old houses, you will thereby increase the production of these new houses. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman opposite should object to this particular Clause, because it follows the precedent set by himself and by the preceding Government when dealing with rent restriction. In the 1917 Act and in the 1922 Act you had a date put in after which houses purchased should not come within the provisions of those Acts, and if that was sound in 1917 and in 1922, I submit that it is equally sound to-day. I feel sure that the House will disagree with the Lords in this particular matter, in order to relieve that uncertainty and anxiety which would otherwise be brought 1766 home to hundreds of thousands of tenants who do not know what may happen to them if they have not the protection afforded by this Clause. The acceptance of the Lords Amendment would bring consternation to the minds of very many tenants throughout the country.
§ Sir PHILIP PILDITCHI entirely agree with the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) that the point raised by him is a substantial one, and that the inclusion of the words "by purchase" will have a very limiting effect. It is not only a question of obtaining possession of a house by purchase, but it is a question also of persons who may conic into possession of a house by descent, and that point is not dealt with by these words. That is simply by the way, and when the time comes I hope my hon. Friend will move an Amendment to eliminate these words "by purchase." I should like to say one word in reply to what fell from the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. E. Simon). He did not convince me that this was holding the scales quite fairly between landlord and tenant. Why cannot the matter be left absolutely to the County Court Judge to test the issue as to whether the hardship is greater to the landlord or the tenant? Why should the scales be weighted against the landlord by this exceedingly difficult provision of alternative accommodation having to be found? My hon. Friend, with his great experience in housing matters, will know that there is no Section in the 1-lousing Act more difficult to carry out than this one in regard to alternative accommodation. I need not go into the reasons why, as they are obvious, but they represent a very serious difficulty. When, for instance, is alternative accommodation to be provided? That has caused the greatest possible difficulty to County Court Judges. Alternative accommodation is a very elusive thing. If present to-day, when an action is commenced, it may be entirely absent in a fortnight's time, when the action is finished.
I desire to see fair play between landlord and tenant, and I do not think the bringing into play, as my hon. Friend thinks it right to do, of the question of alternative accommodation in this matter would be fair play to a large number of landlords, whose case of hardship may be desperate and out of all kind 1767 of proportion to the hardship on the tenant. I think my hon. Friend shows a certain absence of confidence in the County Court Judges in this matter. We all know that throuthout the country the decisions of the County Court Judges have been most fair, and that if they have ever given consideration, it has been invariably in favour of the tenant. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh"] That is my experience, in any case, and I have never heard anything to the contrary. One has seen case after case in the papers, and one knows many cases personally, and my experience is that if there has been any question of consideration, it has almost invariably been in favour of the tenant and certainly has never been in favour of the landlord. I think the other place has adopted quite a fair and impartial way of dealing with this matter, and a way, moreover, which the Government themselves at first thought was fair and impartial.
§ Mr. FOOTThe hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat complains that we are inserting a principle in asking that a landlord who becomes a landlord after the passing of this Bill, and requires possession, shall prove alternative accommodation. We are not inserting a principle there. We are simply restoring the principle that was in the. Measure to which. I have no doubt, the hon. Member himself was a party.
§ Sir P. PILDITCHI did not say you were inserting a new principle; I said you were applying it, as I thought., somewhat partially in the present case.
§ Mr. FOOTAs I understand the position up to the time when the Act was passed in 1923, a landlord desiring to obtain accommodation for himself had to satisfy the Court that alternative accommodation was available. That principle did give an effective protection to tenants. I have no doubt, in passing the Measure which gave that protection, the hon. Member took his part. It was that principle, which did give effective protection to the tenant, that was broken into by the Act passed in 1923, and, at the time, it was stated that trouble would arise. That trouble did arise. At once, upon the passing of the Measure that was introduced by the right hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain). 1768 thousands of applications were made in the first few weeks. I know, in a great many cases, the County Court Judges refused to evict the tenants, but thousands of orders were made, and I think the hon. Member will appreciate that anxiety is caused, even if the parties have to appear before the Court. Besides the number of actual orders that were made by the judges, very frequently the tenant would come to some sort of arrangement, however unfortunate to himself, rather than incur the anxiety of Court proceedings and the very heavy expense involved. There are some cases where an expense of £10 or £20 has been incurred before the case has been decided. There are very many families that cannot possibly bear that burden, and rather than hear it, or attempt to bear it, and have hang over their heads a prolonged anxiety, very often a settlement is arrived at which is very unfair to the tenant. I do not see where the real hardship does arise if a man now buying a house is made to buy it with the knowledge that if it is occupied by another person—and in buying it occupied he gets it at a very much lower price than if he gets it for occupation—and is buying it with his eyes open, knowing that he cannot turn the tenant out unless he can show that the tenant has got somewhere to go. That seems a reasonable proposition, which puts no hardship on the man who now becomes the owner, and there is every reason for the insertion of the date, seeing that it follows on the lines of the previous Measures. When this matter was discussed on the Report stage the House did not Divide upon this matter. The contentions that were put forward on this side, I suppose, were accepted on that side, and it is difficult to imagine circumstances where a Measure could go up to the other House more generally representing the mind of the Lower House than the one which, I hope, we shall now send up in the original form.
§ Sir K. WOODWe have just heard a very fair statement of the case, with which I am in a large measure of agreement, but I would like. to point out that we are really dealing with a very small number of cases involved in the matter we are discussing. The hon. Member far West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) talked about relief for thousands of 1769 tenants being involved in this Amendment. It is nothing of the sort. I need only quote the words of the Attorney-General, when he dealt with this particular Amendment on the: Report stage. He said that there was an infinitesimal number of cases involved, and, if I may respectfully, for once, agree with him, he was quite right. Members of the House should realise that, in the first place, this does not apply to any purchaser of a house which has been erected after the 2nd April, 1919. It does not apply to any house which has actually come into the possession of the landlord after June, 1923. It does not apply to any owner who gets possession of a house, we will say, owing to non-payment of rent, or breach of covenants. I hope hon. Members opposite realise that the law is actually the same now, and there is no suggestion that it should be altered in this Bill. The Government are making no proposals whatever in that connection, and therefore I think hon. Members will realise what a very small number of cases are involved in this Amendment. The Attorney-General said he thought this was a matter of comparatively little importance, and the only reason why he was disposed to accept the Amendment was
that there appear to he a considerable number of people who fear that unless this date is put in, there will be an immense number of landlords who will buy houses, and who w ill turn out the tonants."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1924; col. 104, Vol. 173.]The Attorney-General only consented to this Amendment. being put in—and I can understand his reason — not on the ground that there were many cases that would arise, but because people would naturally have apprehensions about the matter, and I fully share what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) has said. I know full well, in my own constituency, eviction orders have been issued at the instance of the Government and have, in fact., riot been carried out, but there is the apprehension that the people never know when they may be turned into the street. I agree that matter ought to be considered, but I should not like hon. Members to take it that we are bringing relief one way or the other in connection with this to any appreciable number of people at all. I regard this, therefore, as not being of particular importance one way or the other. The hon. Member used a 1770 rather unfortunate argument in favour of his proposal. He said if we only passed this Amendment it would encourage people to purchase new houses. I venture to think that would be a very unfortunate thing at this moment, because what is happening up and down the country? The difficulty is that people -are so badly in need of houses and few houses are being erected. There is any number of people after a single house that may be erected, and up goes the price, and people are getting, undoubtedly, much bigger prices than they ought to get to-day. What will be the result if this Amendment he passed? I can understand his argument if there are any number of houses to be sold, but he. is merely adding more people to those corning in and bidding for the houses available. I submit that will not, lead to a solution of the housing problem, but may rather retard it.Therefore, my own view of this matter is this—the Attorney-General may agree with me or not—that under the recent decision of Shrimpton vRabbits in the Court of Appeal, it is now laid down that every relative circumstance in a case of this kind has to be considered by a County Court Judge, and the very first thing—I think the hon. Member for Bodmin will agree with me in this—the County Court Judge always asks is, when did the landlord buy the house? I do not know myself of a single County Court Judge who, if he were told that the particular plaintiff had bought the house three or four days ago, would give an order for possession to-morrow. Where that romantic idea prevails I cannot conceive. A very learned County Court Judge, Sir Edward Bray, wrote a public letter to the papers only a few weeks ago, saying that the question of alternative accommodation and all matters, including the date of the purchase of the house, naturally had to be considered by a County Court Judge before he made an order. And, obviously, the question as to whether a man bought on the 5th or 6th May this year would be a matter to which every County Court Judge in the country would fully address himself. My hon. Friend said that if there had been any bias at all, it had been in favour of the tenant. I prefer to say the decisions of the County Court Judges throughout the country have generally been accepted by 1771 plaintiff and defendant without question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Speaking as a rule, that is so, and I think, if you ask most people who go to our County Courts, they will tell you that they are impressed with the fairness and endeavour on the part of the County Court Judges to do justice. Therefore, there is a good deal in the argument, which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed this afternoon, that this matter could be left to the County Court Judge, as, in fact, it is left, under the decision of the Court of Appeal, and that all these matters have to be taken into account. Therefore, I hope the House, whatever decision it may come to on this particular matter, will remember that this Amendment is only directed to an infinitesimal number of people, and, in all probability, the matter covered by this Amendment is covered by the decision in the Court of Appeal. In any event, I think the House can rely upon it, that it is one of the relevant matters that every County Court Judge would take into account.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. MILLSI would like to agree, for once, with the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) and the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). I have had some experience of seeing things administered in County Courts, but I want to put this suggestion to the consideration of the House. If you put in a date, what follows? Thousands of tenants have been before the Judge again and again. The Judge has postponed the order of eviction, hoping that, possibly, the tenant may secure other accommodation. If this particular date be put in, there is a tendency that the County Court Judge will strike the line with any landlord after this particular date, and, as a result of that, give possession to all those who have secured their houses by purchase before this date. I think really that this particular matter is one of substance, and that the original views held by the Attorney-General, and insisted upon by the House of Lords, may not be quite so reactionary as some people imagine. There is a very real danger—[An HON. MEMBER: "It was a Tory speech!"] It might be a very good Tory speech, and one of sound common sense, as judged by hon. Member, 1772 who,like myself, have many people threatened with eviction. It is because the point does occur to me that this may lead the Judge to take the view—in order to dispose of continual appeals by applicants for houses—that here is a date that gives him a definite line of demarcation. There is a real danger that this very Clause may defeat the object we have in view.
§ Lord EUSTACE PERCYI agree that the insertion of a date is thoroughly reactionary. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Henn), like other hon. Members, are repeating the arguments they used on previous occasions. Seeing, however, they were dealt with on a pre- vious occasion, they need not be replied to now. But I do want to point out one very serious point. The real objection to this date is that it does what no previous date has ever done. It takes away a right which now exists. All the previous dates about which hon. Members opposite have been talking—every time a date was put into a previous Measure it was to confer a new freedom, to relax a restriction imposed. Now you are by this date reimposing a restriction which has been taken off, and for the first time in rent restriction legislation you are subjecting the owners of houses to restrictions greater than they were under a few months before. That is, I understand, the intention of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) to impose additional restriction; to take away a previous right. That is his object.
§ Mr. SIMONThere are no additional restrictions on existing landlords, but additional restrictions on those who shall buy a house in future.
§ Lord E. PERCYThe hon. Member for Withington has a certain confusion of thought in this matter when he talks about the past. Hon, Members ought not to say that the past. is the past and the future the future. What will hon. Members say six months hence? They will look back and say: "What is the difference between the dates before and after the 5th May? Why was the 5th May fixed?
§ Mr. SIMONThe date fixed is the date of the passing of the Act. Why it should be that date is best known to others. The whole point is the date of the passing of the Act. Anyone who buys after that 1773 knows perfectly well that he cannot get possession without providing alternative accommodation. They will know that quite as well 10 years hence as now.
§ Lord E. PERCYWhy should you pass an Act on that particular date, and on no other? The hon. Gentleman is really quite wrong in thinking that a landlord buying a house after that date, with the fact of the Act before him, is in a different position from a landlord before. A year hence you will have the landlord who bought after 5th May say: "Yes, unfortunately, bought after the 5th May, but I bought in the expectation of the lapsing of the Rent Restrictions Act in 1925." Therefore, you have to include, as has always been done, as a privilege the people who bought before 5th May. Does not the hon. Member for Withington see that he is taking a purely artificial line, and the one significance of that line is this, that he is imposing a new restriction. He says: "This will
§ encourage people to buy new houses, will encourage them to invest in new houses." Why? He is imposing a new restriction. How does the investor know, when once you begin to impose new restrictions you will not begin to impose restrictions you new houses? It has already been done once—in 1920. Restrictions were imposed on houses which had been exempted from previous Acts. If you want to create the atmosphere that you are, as time goes on, going to impose new restrictions, and not take off existing ones, you will get no one to supply houses. The real danger of this proposal is that it is reactionary; it reimposes restrictions and is a further blow to that confidence which was beginning to be regained.
§ Question put, "That this House cloth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 127.
1775| Division No. 91.] | AYES. | [5.8 p.m. |
| Ackroyd, T. R. | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon) |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | McEntee, V. L. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Groves, T. | Macfadyen, E. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) | Mackinder, W. |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Asqulth, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. |
| Attlee, Major Clement R. | Hardie, George D. | Marden, H. |
| Ayles, W. H. | Harris, John (Hackney, North) | March, S. |
| Baker, Walter | Harris, Percy A. | Martey, James |
| Barnes, A. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Maxton, James |
| Batcy, Joseph | Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury) | Meyter, Lieut.-Colonel H. M. |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hastings, Sir Patrick | Middleton, G. |
| Birkett, W. N. | Haycock, A. W. | Mills, J. E. |
| Bonwick, A. | Hayes, John Henry | Montague, Frederick |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hemmerde, E. G. | Morris, R. H. |
| Bromfield, William | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) |
| Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby) | Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North) |
| Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) | Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield) | Mosley, Oswald |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Hindle, F. | Muir, John W. |
| Church, Major A. G. | Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston) | Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale) |
| Clarke, A. | Hogbin, Henry Cairns | Naylor, T. E. |
| Climie, R. | Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie | Nichol, Robert |
| Cluse, W. S. | Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton) | O'Grady, Captain James |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Hudson, J. H. | Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley) |
| Cove, W. G. | Isaacs, G. A. | Paling, W. |
| Darbishire, C. W. | Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich) | Palmer, E. T. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Dodds, S. R. | Jewson, Dorothea | Perry, S. F. |
| Dukes, C. | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Pethick- Lawrence, F. W. |
| Duncan, C. | Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East) | Phillipps, Vivian |
| Edwards, C, (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) | Pilkington, R. R. |
| Edwards, John H. (Accrington) | Keens, T. | Pringie, W. M. R. |
| Egan, W. H. | Kennedy, T. | Purcell, A. A. |
| Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) | Kenyon, Barnet | Raffan, P. W. |
| Falconer, J. | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Raffety, F. W. |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Lansbury, George | Rea, W. Russell |
| Fletcher, Lieut-Commander R. T. H | Laverack, F. J. | Richards, R. |
| Foot, Isaac | Law, A. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North) | Lawson, John James. | Ritson, J. |
| George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) | Leach, W. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Gilbert, James Daniel | Lee, F. | Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Gillett, George M. | Livingstone, A. M. | Robertson, T. A. |
| Gosling, Harry | Loverseed, J. F. | Romerll, H. G. |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Lunn, William | Rose, Frank H. |
| Greenall, T. | McCrae, Sir George | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Royle, C. | Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Scrymgeour, E. | Stranger, Innes Harold | Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C. |
| Scurr, John | Sturrock, J. Leng | Weir, L M. |
| Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern) | Terrington, Lady | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Sherwood, George Henry | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) | Whiteley, W. |
| Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withington) | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) | Wignall, James |
| Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) | Williams, David (Swansea, E.) |
| Simpson, J. Hope | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Thornton, Maxwell R. | Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kennington) |
| Smith, T. (Pontefract) | Thurtle, E. | Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks) |
| Snell, Harry | Tinker, John Joseph | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. | Willison, H. |
| Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L. | Turner-Samuels, M. | Windsor, Walter |
| Spence, R. | Viant, S. P. | Wintringham, Margaret |
| Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.) | Vivian, H. | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Spero, Dr. G. E. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen | Wright, W. |
| Stamford, T. W. | Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth) | |
| Starmer, Sir Charles | Warne, G. H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Stephen, Campbell | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) | Mr. Spoor and Mr. Frederick Hall. |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) |
| Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.) | Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James | Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John | Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William |
| Apsley, Lord | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E. | Penny, Frederick George |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Gwynne, Rupert S. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Batfour, George (Hampstead) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Phillipson, Mabel |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Pildlteh, Sir Philip |
| Becker, Harry | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Rawilnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Reid, D. D. (County Down) |
| Berry, Sir George | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Remnant, Sir James |
| Bourne, Captain R. C | Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel | Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S J. G. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hoffman, P. C. | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Briscoe, Captain Richard George | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.) |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northn.) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Huntingfield, Lord | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Hiffe, Sir Edward M. | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Burman, J. B. | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast) |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Cairic, Gordon Hall | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Stanley, Lord |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Eveiyn (Aston) | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Steel, Samuel Strang |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Lamb, J. Q. | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Sutcllffe, T. |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Lord, Walter Greaves. | Titcnfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Lorimer, H. D. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Cope, Major William | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Cowan, sir Win. Henry (Islington, N.) | MacDonald, R. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | McLean, Major A. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Making, Brigadier-General E. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Dlxey, A. C. | Meller, R. J. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Elliot, Walter E. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Faile, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Colonel G. A. Gibbs and Major |
| FitzRoy, Capt. Rt. Hon. Edward A. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Sir Harry Barnston. |
Mr. GREENWOODI beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out the words "owner by purchase of the dwelling-house," and to insert instead thereof the words
landlord by purchasing the dwelling-house or fitly interest therein.
§ Sir P. PILDITCHI cannot understand what is effected by this proposed change of words. I have been looking at this 1776 proposal very carefully and it does not seem to me to make the slightest change. What I want to know is whether or not there is any change in the meaning of the Clause which will be achieved by these words.
Mr. GREENWOODThe purpose of inserting these words is not to alter the meaning but to make the meaning more clear.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSPerhaps the Attorney-General will explain to us the exact meaning of "landlord"and "owner."
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings)I thought the words were reasonably plain. If hon. Members will look at the original words of the Bill they will find they were "become owner by purchase." It is quite conceivable that a difficulty might arise as to what is the meaning of "owner by purchase." An owner of what? I am sure hon. Members do not want me to give a disquisition on the meaning of fee simple, but I think the words which are now suggested are quite plain. They refer to a person who has become a landlord by purchasing the dwelling-house or by purchasing any interest in the dwelling-house. The essential qualification is that the person should be the landlord in fact, and becomes landlord by purchasing the whole of the house or the lease of a house or other interests in the house, and if he becomes a landlord after such purchase then this provision applies to him and no difficulty can arise.
§ Sir DOUGLAS HOGGI am loth to intervene in a discussion of words which I have no doubt the Attorney-General has carefully considered, but they are words which, personally, I only heard for the first time when they were read out at the commencement of the Debate this a fternoon. I wish to ask whether the Government have very carefully considered what is the effect of these words, and what they will cover. For instance, one of my hon. Friends on this side suggested a little earlier in the Debate that it might be possible for somebody, instead of buying a house, to lend money on it and then foreclose. I should like to know whether the Attorney-General and the Minister of Health are satisfied, if that device were adopted, a person who became so entitled had purchased the dwelling-house. Speaking with all the deference due to the Attorney-General, I should have thought. he had not, because he has not purchased anything. If we are to have an alteration in the wording to put that quite clear and beyond all doubt, stating exactly what is meant, and have words inserted to avoid the intricacies as to who is and who is not an owner, I think words might be chosen which would more 1778 definitely explain exactly what is intended to be covered. I am quite in the dark as to whether a person who has obtained possession and becomes an owner by lending money and then forecloses comes within the meaning of the words now proposed. A good many people in the courts might find the same difficulty, and they would not think that this point is reasonably clear. I think we might have a little further explanation before we accept this 59th second of the 59th minute of the 59th hour deathbed repentance in order to give effect to what the Government really wants to do.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALPerhaps hon. Members would permit me to speak again on this point, because I am sure no one desires that my right hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down should remain in the dark about this question. Some observations on this point were made by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) and I did not answer them because it seemed to me that. they could have left nobody in the dark. The device of which be spoke was that a person who was a mortgagor might put his head together with a person who desired to become a mortgagee to go through the device of pretending to effect a mortgage, and then pretend to foreclose in order to get possession of a house. The hon. Member who made that suggestion thought it required a legal answer, but I did not think so, because if a person goes through a fraudulent device like that, it would not hold water for a moment. Supposing a person says, "In order To pretend we are riot purchasing, if you will go through the form of giving me a mortgage so that I may foreclose in order to get possession," my answer is that. that would be held by a County Court Judge to be merely a device to avoid and evade the provisions of this Bill. I can quite understand that. my right hon. Friend opposite has not been devoting himself to that portion of the argument, and he was devoting himself more to the mortgagee, but I think the words are quite plain.
The person aiiuied at by this l;ill eriginally was the purchaser. r know there was the case of a person who became owner by inheritance, but. the Bill does not provide for that. These words are only to provide against a person who deliberately purchases a house and turns out the tenant. If a purchaser purchases any interest in a house he is also liable to 1779 this provision. If he does not purchase, he is not liable. If a person takes a mortgage and then forecloses, to my mind he is not a purchaser, and I should be very much surprised if my right hon. Friend opposite says that a person who takes a mortgage and forecloses becomes a puechaser. My view is that he does not. I did not think that my right hon. and learned Friend opposite is so much in darkness as he pretends to he, because the only person affected is one who purchases a house, or any interest in a house, or buys a house or any interest in a house. Therefore I do not think there is much doubt about the matter.
§ Viscount WOLMERThe explanation which has been given to the House is that if a man forecloses a mortgage and gets the house he does not become the owner by purchase. Therefore the restrictive words in this Bill would not apply. If the man has gone through that process simply to get possession of the house, and has become able to evict a tenant, then the Attorney-General says the Court would hold that, he had acted in a fraudulent manner.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI really said nothing of the sort. I said that if the person who owned the house went through the form of granting a mortgage to somebody else, merely as a device by pretending to give a mortgage, the County Court Judge might. decide that that was fraudulent.
§ Viscount WOLMERI do riot see much difference between that and the version I have given. The point is that the County Court Judge will have to decide what were the intentions of the parties in regard to the agreement when the mortgage was executed. Surely that is putting the County Court Judge in a very difficult. position. If the transaction has been entered into in the ordinary way of business, then the person who forecloses will not be a purchaser and will not be subject to the restrictive words of this Bill. If, however, it has been done with an ulterior object, then, according to the Attorney-General, he would he within the Act. It seems to me that that leaves the matter in an extraordinarily unsatisfactory condition, and, unless it is more precisely cleared up we are likely to have trouble on this question in the future.
§ Amendment agreed to.
1780§ Lords Amendment:
§
In page 1, line 18, after the word "himself," insert the words
or for any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age.
§ Mr. S. ROBERTSI beg to move, as an Amendment. to the Lords Amendment, after the word "any," to insert the word "married."
This Amendment of the Lords is one which deals with the provision in the Bill that purports to take away from the landlord the right to obtain possession of his house for the purpose of putting in a son or a daughter. We are dealing with something which the Bill is definitely taking away and which the landlord previously had. When this matter was being considered in Committee, I did not at that moment think that it was a matter of very great importance, because I was rather misled by the idea, which I then had, that these cases had practically all been dealt with within six or nine months of the passing of the Act of 1923. I knew that. at that time a:area number of cases were waiting to be heard, and that they were heard and disposed of in one way or another, and I did not think that there were very many outstanding or that it was a matter of very great importance. The mistake that I and some others who thought with me made was, that we did not realise that circumstances are apt to change—that the position of thi landlord is apt to change and that the position of the tenant is apt to change. There are such things as increases in families and decreases in families. The landlord may have a married son or daughter in his house, and he may be able to put up with them very well until there comes an addition to the family. They may then become overcrowded, and the conditions for the landlord would then become hard. In the case of the tenant, also, things may change. Members of his family who are living with him may go away, or members of his family may die, and the position may easily be that you may have a tenant in a house that is much too big for his requirements, and you may have a landlord and his family in another house which is very much overcrowded. It is perfectly feasible that that might happen. The law as it stands at present is that the landlord can obtain possession if he reasonably requires the house for 1781 his son or his daughter who is over the age of 18. The Bill as it left this House took away that right entirely from the landlord, and would only give him the right to possession if alternative accommodation for the tenant could be found; and that, as everyone in practice knows, means not obtaining possession at all. The Lords have put back the provision of the 1923 Act, making it applicable to the case of a son or daughter over the age of 18. The object of my Amendment is to insert the word "married" after the word "any" and after the word "or," and to substitute the age of 25 for 18, so that the Clause would then read:
or for any married son or married daughter of his over twenty-five years of age.What is going to be the position if that is carried? The position would be that the landlord would have to have a married son or daughter over the age of 25, would have reasonably to require possession of the house, and would have to apply to the County Court Judge and show that the hardship on his side was greater than on the side of the tenant. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable proposition to put forward. We are asking here again, as in the other case, that the whole question should be on the basis of greater hardship. If the greater hardship is on the landlord, why should not justice be done to him?
§ Major WHELERI beg to second the Amendment to the Lords. Amendment.
Mr. GREENWOODI had hoped that there would have been no trouble over the proposal to disagree with the Lords Amendment in this case, even from hon. Members opposite. I understood that the opinion of hon. Members opposite was in that direction when the matter was previously before this Horse, and I had, therefore assumed—a little rashly—that they would agree with us in our intention to disagree with the Lords Amendment. We have heard references to fair treatment of landlords and tenants, and I think it was felt on this side of the House and by hon. Members below the Gangway that the effect of the Act of last year was so to open the door to new concessions to the landlord that it tilted the scales on the side of the landlord and against the tenant. The purpose of restricting concessions to the landlord himself was to 1782 redress that balance. If you are going to allow the landlord and a numerous progeny of sons and daughters over 18, as is suggested in the Lords Amendment, to obtain possession of the house, it means that there are odds against the tenant, and that, I submit, is not treating the tenant and the landlord with equal justice. I am sure I am right when I say that the deliberate intention of this House, when we were considering the Bill before, was to remove this unnecessarily generous concession which had been granted to landlords in the Act of last year, and I cannot think that the House will go back on that decision. As regards the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts), it does not help us in the least, and we cannot accept it, because, quite clearly, if you allow the dependants of the landlord to obtain a right equal to that of the landlord, you are prejudicing the position of the tenant.
§ Mr. ROBERTSIt is only if the hardship is greater.
Mr. GREENWOODWe admit the right of the landlord, but one cannot admit the right of his sons and his daughters. On that ground, whatever the age of the sons or daughters may be, we cannot accept the Amendment, and I hope the House will take our view on that matter.
§ Sir K. WOODI do not say that I should support disagreement with the Lords Amendment in the Lobby, but the statement which the Parliamentary Secretary has just made has certainly left me rather shaken in my opinion. He suggested, in the first place, that there was ground for some measure of reproach, because this Amendment had not been thought of in the Committee upstairs. I do not know whether there is really any substance in that, but. at any rate I think is is better not to have thought of it. in Committee than to have changed one's mind so frequently as the Government did in Committee and in the House. I would sooner, at any rate, have the reproach made against me that, after consideration, this Amendment had been brought forward in the House itself, than that, on such a very simple matter as the Government had to consider in the last Amendment, they should say one thing at one moment 1783 and another thing at another moment—that on one occasion we should have the Attorney-General giving certain advice to the Committee, and, when he gets into the House, giving advice quite in the contrary direction. Therefore, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will, at any rate, spare the party on this side of the House from any reproach in that particular connection. Then he made an observation which I certainly think calls for some comment, namely, that he was opposed to this Amendment because the odds would be against the tenant. I do not think he can have read this particular Bill, or the Rent Restriction Act itself, and it should, perhaps, be explained to him that, before the owner of a house can get possession of it for his son or daughter, he has to satisfy the County Court Judge that greater hardship would arise from refusing the order than from granting it. That is not odds against. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is getting confused owing to the imminence of to-morrow's event, hut I should not say that that was odds against. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) knows more about these matters than I do, and knows what the odds are and what they are not.
I leave that to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that he. has failed altogether to deal with the position, because he has ignored the exact matter on which the owner of a house has to satisfy the County Court Judge before he can obtain possession. Most of the hon. Gentleman's argument appears to be based on the assumption that all these proposals are proposals by which the tenant is going to be evicted. but that is not the case at all. All that it means is that the owner of the house has to go to the County Corsrt Judge and has to put forward a very strong case indeed before he can get possession, and the strongest possible directions are laid down to the County Court Judge as to exactly what he has to be satisfied upon before an order can he granted. Tenants are not. left at the mercy of owners of houses in the way which the hon. Gentleman somehow seems vaguely to anticipate. Whether this Amendment be a good one or not, a very strict, scrutiny is applied, as hon. Members opposite know, in every one of these cases, and it is a matter of very great difficulty indeed to 1784 obtain an order. I have heard some observations made in this House, in connection with this Bill and similar Bills, which might lead one to think that one could walk into a County Court and obtain an order for possession with the greatest case, but I know of nothing more difficult to accomplish. The hon. Member for Bodmin has had great experience in the Provinces in This connection, and I guarantee that if any landlord came. into his office and asked him to get an order for possession in a case like this, he, as the honest, sound lawyer that he is, would tell him that, he had better think twice before. he paid my hon. Friend any fees to embark upon the case. The odds—as we are talking about odds—are. 100 to 1 against getting any such order. That has been proved over and over again, because, notwithstanding the fact that there are, I suppose, millions of tenants in this country, actually last year only 15,000 orders were made at all.
§ Sir K. WOODI do not. carry the figure in my mind, but I have just read the statement of the Lord Chancellor that in England and Wales there were only 15,000 orders actually made by the County Court Judges last year, and the Lord Chancellor further stated that only, I think, some 2,700 orders were executed, Let no one, therefore, think that there is some wonderful process going on up and down the country by which owners enter the County Courts and the County Court Judges say, "Very glad to see you; here is your order for possession." Nothing is more difficult to obtain. The only thing I have to say as regards this particular Amendment is that I think it is purely a question of balance of hardship. You probably have an owner who buys a house quite properly and legitimately for his son or daughter who is going to get married, and he wants to get possession of the house; and when one speaks of discomfort to a tenant, one must occasionally, quite properly, think of the discomforts of landlords. I know of very many cases where there is a tremendous amount of discomfort at the present time, where the young couple have to live with parents who have very limited accommodation themselves; and where the father has been able to save a sufficiency of money to buy a house for his son or daughter 1785 who has just got married, there is undoubtedly a hardship if he is not able to obtain possession of the house. On the other hand, there is great hardship where a tenant has' to be turned into the street. I fully realise that, and I hope that members of the Government, and particularly the Secretary of State for War and the First Commissioner of Works, will remember it also. There are hardships in these cases, and the difficulty in which we find ourselves is that owing to the scarcity of houses this House is endeavouring to balance where the greatest hardship lies. If the Government will only get on with their housing policy—
Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Entwistle)The hon. Gentleman must really restrict himself to the Amendment.
§ Sir K. WOODI am sorry I was carried away by what after all is the real solution of the question. I would only say that if the Government would put up as many houses as they have introduced Rent Bills, we should get on much faster.
§ Mr. FOOTThe hon. Gentleman will insist on what we think to be a. miscalculation in the discussion of this matter. He will always insist on the number of orders and he will not attach the proper importance to the number of applications that are made. I think he will agree that the trouble arises when first the solicitors are called into play. The unfortunate tenant receives a letter from the solicitor who is engaged by his land. lord and the trouble and anxiety arise at that time. There are probably four or five times as many tenants who come to an enforced arrangement because of the proceedings that are pending as compared with the actual Orders made by the Judge. Very often the tenant has to go out under circumstances which are extremely harsh, as far as his family needs are concerned. The purpose of the Bill is to limit the door to the proceed. ings and to lessen the number of cases when a solicitor can act. The fact that you give the power here to a youth or young woman of 18 to make an application, means further opportunities for trouble and more occasions for hostility, and it is to lessen those opportunities for trouble as between landlord and tenant that I hope the Government will insist on the stand they have taken.
§ Sir K. WOODThis does not bar the door to those proceedings. It only takes away one remedy. He can still employ a solicitor to write a letter.
§ Mr. FOOTAs a matter of fact, of course, the daughter of the landlord is not entitled to make the application. The hon. Member who suggested that the age should be raised to 25 showed the necessity for the Bill when he said that if alternative accommodation had to be given it meant that you did not get possession at all. That is because the alternative accommodation is so limited.
§ Mr. S. ROBERTSThat is not what I meant. I meant that the number of possible slips between the time the application is made and the tenant getting alternative accommodation make it impossible.
§ Mr. FOOTThe hon. Member wishes to make some explanation as to what he has said, but it was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lady-wood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) that if alternative accommodation was insisted upon it practically precluded the landlord from obtaining possession, and amounted almost to an absolute bar. It is not a harsh thing that, if a landlord's son is going to marry, before he gets possession of the house he must make some provision for the tenant he intends to turn out. We do not say he shall not have possession of the house, but it is his business to see that he does not start his married life by turning someone else into the street. Perhaps his married life will not start under the best auspices if it is begun by someone else being turned out. hope the Government will stand by their Bill.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI wish to assist the Government in getting through their business so I shall not make a long speech, nor shall T press them very strongly, but I want it put on record that in the discussion of these two Amendments the whole question was governed by the decision of the discretion of the County Court Judge as to hardship. It is unfair of the hon. Member to speak of the effect of a young married couple, beginning their married life by creating an injustice by turning people out of their house. That is impossible under the terms of the Bill because the hon. Member is imagining a case where the County 1787 Court Judge is giving an unfair decision. The very basis of the Bill is that the County Court Judge himself should decide on which side of the fence the greater hardship lies. I put it on the ground of public policy. You may have a tenant who is a bachelor, or an elderly married couple without any children. You may have a landlord with a son or daughter who has been engaged for some time and is waiting to get a house in order to be married. The whole question is not that the landlord should have a right to say to any tenant, "Turn out in order to make way for my married son or daughter," but that he may go to the County Court Judge and say, "In this particular case the hardship lies in keeping this young couple unmarried." The benefit to the State in encouraging early marriage is very considerable indeed. We want to see our young people happily and well married. Everyone who knows anything about our country districts, as I do, knows that there are hundreds of cases up and down the country of young people who cannot get married because they cannot get accommodation. I will not go further into it, but one can imagine the position of affairs that arises from that state of things.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSSome of them are. There are hundreds of thousands of houses owned by the best class of working men, who have saved and bought them. I am going to ask my hon. Friend not to put the House to the trouble of dividing if the Labour and Liberal parties decide, in face of what I am saying, to resist the Amendment, but I want them to realise that the only point is to give the right to the County Court Judge [Interruption].
§ Viscount WOLMERIs the hon. Member in the corner entitled to go on with continuous interruption?
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANIt is strictly parliamentary. I want to draw attention to the fact that the arguments which are now being used have been repeated six or seven times.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to interrupt unless the Member who is speaking give way.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI will not inflict myself further on the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am quite satisfied.
§ Viscount WOLMEROn a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman entitled to shout across the floor "tomfoolery" the moment you have given your ruling?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to make such a remark. He must desist.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANI at once withdraw if there is any objection taken to the remark, but it is nevertheless true.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI think the best attitude is to take no notice of a remark of that kind, which I am sure is not shared by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's colleagues. I leave it to the House and to the country to decide this position between the young married couple and the tenant, who may not reasonably be entitled to remain in these premises. All we ask is that the question of reasonable hardship should be determined by the County Court Judge as between the young married couple and, it may be, an elderly couple who have been in the house for many years. You may say you will not have it, you will not trust the County Court Judge. Then let it he so and take your own course.
§ Mrs. PHILIPSONI had not intended to speak, but I had a distressing letter a few days ago from a British ex-service man's widow who has two girls at school. She managed to buy a little house with the help of a pension and assistance from a building society. The girls are now old enough to come home, and she cannot get the people, who are Norwegians, to vacate the little room she wants in her house, though she was quite willing to find alternative accommodation. She cannot afford to go to the Court.
§ Question, "That the word 'married' be there inserted in the Lords Amendment,"put, and negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Greenwood.]
1789§ Lords Amendment:
§
In page 1, line 24, at end, insert
Provided that in the case of a dwelling-house of which either the tenant or the landlord is an alien who did not serve the British Empire or its Allies in the Great War, if the Court is of opinion that equal hardship would be caused to the tenant by granting as to the landlord by refusing to grant an Order, the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, who is a British subject, or, who being an alien, served the British Empire or its Allies in the Great War, shall he preferred by the Court.
Mr. GREENWOODI beg to move, "That this House dotl. disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Early in the Debate we were accused of a desire to utilise the Bill for electioneering purposes. This is an Amendment which was put forward by hon. Members opposite on the Report stage, and if ever there was an Amendment with an electioneering purpose behind it, think this is it. What purpose does it serve? It is either a piece of pure electioneering or it is a confusion of mind, because hon. Members must have allowed their prejudice to get the better of their judgment. Objection was taken to the Amendment before on what seemed to me to be perfectly good grounds. In the first place, it was a bad principle to attempt to discriminate between one set of residents in the country and another. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If hon. Members cannot see the obvious reason, I will not help them, I think it has been customary in this country to give equal treatment to people before the law, whether they are British citizens or aliens. But what finally disposes of the matter is the argument which I brought before the House when the Bill was under discus- sion before. I submit that the Amendment could be accepted by no party. Hon. Members opposite had their opportunities last year. I believe an Amendment to this effect was on the Paper, but it was never moved, and had it been moved, they could not have accepted it. I mentioned before the Japanese Treaty of Commerce, and there are numerous other Treaties still in existence with which this Amendanent would conflict. It is, therefore, the duty of the Government to oppose an Amendment which would bring us into confict with existing Treaties with other Powers. I hope, and 1790 I am certain, that the House will confirm the view that it took on the last occasion, and refuse to accept this discrimination between British citizens and aliens resident in this country.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Sir K. WOODWe have had a characteristic speech from the Parliamentary Secretary. He suggested that this Amendment, which was moved when the Bill was last. before this House, is an elec- tioneering Amendment. It is a most extraordinary suggestion, coming from the hon. Member, because I recollect that a few weeks ago the Prime Minister—I forget the particular festivity in which he was engaged—said that the proceedings on the Rents Bill, which was then before Standing Committee "A," would be used as a sort of electioneering stunt, or words to that effect. On that occasion the Prime Minister was prepared to use those proceedings for electioneering purposes. Apparently the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that that sort of thing can apply only to his own party. Whatever view the public may take of an Amendment of this kind, electioneering is not its primary object. If he. means that from an electioneering point of view this is an Amendment likely to commend itself to the great majority of the citizens, I think he is right. I have no doubt that is what he meant to say. He meant that the great majority of the people of this country would favour a proposal of this kind, and I hope that he will not accuse them of blindness or ignorance, but that he will credit them with some sane judgment. I hope also that hon. Members opposite will not say that. they are blinded by any particular hatred. Most men and women will agree that if, in connection with the grave housing shortage, an application were made to the Court, and the County Court Judge came to the conclusion that, in the words of the Amendment
equal hardship would bo caused to the tenant. by granting as to the landlord by refusing to grant an order, the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, who is a British subject, or, who being an alien, served the British Empire or its allies in the Great War, shall be preferred by the Court—Nobody could possibly object to this eminently reasonable suggestion, which cuts across no great principle of English law or justice, I cannot conceive. 1791 The country is in a great difficulty owing to the shortage of housing accommodation, and, surely, no one would say that where the balance of hardship is about equal the British-born subject should not be preferred. What possible objection can be taken to such a course? On the last occasion, the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) put forward all sorts of objections, hut neither he nor his friends would face the fundamental principle involved. We heard about the French dressmaker or the Belgian seamstress who would not come within this provision. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any such objection today and he thinks that this Amendment is not drafted in such a way as to cover everybody he would like to cover, we invite Amendments in. order to make it water-tight. I hope we shall Divide on the plain issue that, where the hardship is equal, the person who has been born in this country should, from the point of view of equity alone, he entitled to the first preference.I am precluded from quoting the statements of emiment members of the Government made in another place, and I will content myself by saying that the view of the Government has been put forward in the following terms by one high authority:
It has been a broad principle that when people are allowed to come and live here they should have the rights which are accorded to a British citizen
§ Mr. FINNEYWhose statement is that?
§ Sir K. WOODIi is a statement of the Lord Chancellor.
§ Mr. E. BROWNWhere?
§ Sir K. WOODI will inform the hon. Member privately.
§ Mr. E. BROWNOn a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to read a quotation, and, when challenged, to give the name, and after having given the name, and asked where the statement was made, to say that he will communicate it privately? Supposing that statement were made in another place, would it be in order for the hon. Member to quote the statement?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member is perfectly aware of the Rule. He prefaced his remarks by referring to 1792 it. He knows that if it be a quotation from a statement made in another place, it is out of order.
§ Sir K. WOODI fully realised that. It is a most curious suggestion to set up, that aliens should come to this country and share equally all the privileges of citizenship. That is not done in any other country in the world. It is true that there are certain inalienable rights to which aliens are entitled on coming to reside here, but when it comes to a question of housing, I say that, undoubtedly, the British citizen should be preferred. As a last resort, hon. Members who oppose this Amendment. always bring forward the Japanese Treaty. I can refer to the Japanese Treaty, because the Minister himself has quoted it in this House. Article 4 of the Japanese Treaty says:
The Japanese people shall be permitted to own or hire and occupy houses, manufactories, workshops and premises, and to lease land for residential, commercial, industrial and other lawful purposes, in the same manner as native subjects.How can it be said that this Amendment infringes that portion of the Treaty? On the last occasion that this matter was discussed, the President of the Board of Trade spoke, and I would ask hon. Members to read the speech made by the President of the Board of Trade in which he tried to make out that this Amendment infringed the Treaty. The House is confronted with a- perfectly simple issue. I can understand the hon. and gallant Member for Leith taking up the view, which he is entitled to take, that aliens who came here should he treated in every respect in the same way as British-born subjects, but I totally dissent from that proposition. When there is a scarcity of this kind, and there are a quarter of a million aliens in this country, the very least we can say is that in an equal case of hardship a, British-born subject should be preferred.
Captain BENNThe hon. Member is trying to present our opposition to the Amendment on the lines that. in every respect an alien should be in the same position as a British-born subject. That is not our position. An alien has not a vote in this country, whereas a British subject has a vote. I wonder if the hon. Member has overlooked that fact. Probably that fact accounts to a large extent for an Amendment of this kind. What we 1793 object to is making the nationality of the litigant a consideration in the mind of a Judge. That, we consider, to be hostile, obnoxious and alien to our traditions. The Judge should decide on the merits of the case, and should not ask as to the place of birth of the person who comes before him. The hon. Member asks us to amend the Amendment if we do not like it. He has had sufficient time in which to amend it. It was produced by an ex-Solicitor-General, who was assisted by one of the most distinguished members of the other branch of the law, the hon. Member himself. It went to the other House, where it had the advantage of being framed by those whom we know well, and it was passed there. There is one significant thing to remember, and that is that every Member of the other House who has had judicial experience spoke against the Amendment, irrespective of party. The Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council, Lord Darling and Lord Phillimore all spoke against it. It found no support from those people who know what the law is in practice on the Bench.
§ Sir K. WOODIn justice to Lord Darling, it should be said that, while he said lie did not understand the Amendment, he also confessed that he did not understand any Rent Restriction Acts at all.
Captain BENNI do not know whether I should be permitted to go into a general discussion on the Rent Restrictions Act, but it is sufficient to say that the acute intellect of Lord Darling was unable to understand this Amendment. It gives no protection to the ex-service man. The profiteering landlord can turn into the street the widow of the ex-service man who did active service. The man who merely donned khaki could turn out the widow of a man who was killed in the War. This Amendment is put forward as the sort of patriotic flandoodle which is to catch votes. But turn to the actual wording of the Amendment. Take the case of the alien who served the Allies in the War. This Amendment goes out of the way to penalise Americans who did considerable service in the War. They were not Allies; they were associated Powers.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe hon. and gallant Member could move an Amendment providing for that.
Captain BENNIt is now suggested that I, should move an Amendment to an Amendment which has been excogitated by right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House. It is too late. If, for example, General Pershing is in litigation with a Chinese laundryman who served in the War, the Chinese laundryman has to win the case. The first point is, who are the Allies? General Pershing did not serve the Allies in the War, whereas the Chinese laundryman worked on the roads in some remote part of the War sphere, and in that way served. This Amendment disqualifies the General and gives the case in favour of the Chinese laundryman. A second question is, what is meant by serving in the War? Does it mean persons who wore the uniform or who belonged to the Allied countries? It would be very interesting to get some definition. For example, there are no doubt many Bolshevik commissars who were conscripted, and in that way served in the War. It is proposed from the Tory benches that they should be put in a position of privilege over other people. Monsieur PoincarC never served in the War—what about hats off to France?—and he is put in the position that a sergeant of militia from Panama who served in the War, as the poet has it,
silent upon a peak in Darien,has a. orivilegea position over him or over any Frenchmen, Belgians or Italians or any of our active intimate Allies who did not happen to serve in the War. If this be the best sort of contribution which right hon. Gentlemen opposite can make it is time for them to devote their attention to some other subject. Why are we, who depend more upon fair treatment in other parts of the world than any other country, who have got the biggest export trade, whose peoples are in closest touch with those of other countries, who have the housing of our own people overseas dependent upon equity in other countries, to be asked, owing to an electioneering stunt of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to jeopardise the position of our people in various parts of the world?
§ Mr. RONALD McNEILLI wish to put an important point before the Minister in charge. It is said that the Government have to resist this Amendment because if carried it would be in conflict with certain Treaties. The Treaty with Japan is 1795 mentioned. I have great diffidence in giving an opinion on such a point, in the presence of the Attorney-General, but I should be surprised if the Attorney-General were to say that the acceptance of this Amendment would in any way conflict with the wording of the Treaty with Japan. It has been said that there were other Treaties, but it was left in the form of a general statement. It is a very serious and important reason to give for the attitude of the Government, and I think that he ought not have left it there, but should have told us what Treaties he had in mind, and given us an opportunity of seeing whether these Treaties would be an obstacle to the acceptance of this Amendment.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has just made an amusing speech, spoke as if this Amendment, if carried, would be a violation of British principles. That is a complete misunderstanding of the whole position. If it were merely a question of general legislation, and of differentiating between British-born subjects and aliens, there might be a great deal to be said for that view, but this legislation, as all the Debate has shown, arises entirely owing to the fact that we have not in this country sufficient accommodation for the number of people who are trying to live in the country. What we are trying to do by this legislation is to discriminate. It is all discrimination. We are discriminating on the one hand between landlord and tenant, and we have Clauses dealing with the rights of the landlord and his family in exceptional circumstances. We have heard a, lot this afternoon of the decision of the County Court Judge, who, in all these cases, has to decide where the balance of hardship lies. In those circumstances, when we cannot find houses for all our people, we have to choose. and it does appear to me to be an outrageous principle for the Government and my hon and gallant Friend to say that, when we are making that discrimination, we are not to be allowed to say that we will choose the Englishman rather than the foreigner. I do not laiow whether my hon. Friend intends to go to a Division. I feel strongly that if, unfortunately, we are obliged to make a choice, we should make a choice in favour of our own people rather than in favour of foreigners, I do 1796 not care to what class they belong. In the discrimination which is going on, and which has to be undertaken whether we like it or not, they are not entitled to eclual treatment.
§ Dr. SPEROI appreciate the patriotic remarks which have been made about ex-service men in reference to this Amendment, but I suggest that this Amendment not only introduces a very difficult complication into the Bill, but marks a definite departure from the traditional practice followed by this country towards foreign nations. Therefore I propose to vote against this Amendment for two reasons, first for the national cause and secondly for what I believe to be the cause of justice. It is true that there are foreign countries which have placed on their Statute books Amendments similar to this, and I am therefore led to believe that the incentive to this Amendment comes from those foreign sources. That is a very serious state of affairs, because we are deliberately attempting to take for our guidance not the British mentality of fairplay and justice but that of the foreigner.
§ Mr. DENNIS HERBERTCan the hon. Member give any reason for the statement as to this being initiated from foreign sources?
§ Dr. SPEROIt is being copied. We have had this afternoon the case of Mexico objecting to the English representative being entitled to a house, because he is a foreigner, and also there is the case of Japan. We are following other countries.
§ Mr. HERBERTThat has nothing to do with this Amendment.
§ Dr. SPEROWe are attempting to follow the laws of other countries. From the day we start following instead of leading, this country will start going on the downward path.
§ Mr. HERBERTThat is not a fact.
§ Mr. HERBERTGive your authorities.
§ Dr. SPEROI have given you Mexico and Japan, and there are various other countries in Europe. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Russia?"] Take the case of an old-established alien who, because 1797 he has been too old or because of some physical disability, was unable to serve in the War, but whose children might have served. That man would be liable to be evicted under this provision by a landlord who was a conscripted British subject, who subsequently deserted, or by a British subject who definitely refused or evaded military service, or by a. British subject who served in the War and who was imprisoned for a severe crime during the War. Where is the justice of that? How can it be fair that a foreigner who, from conviction, has applied to become a British subject many years ago, but who for some unaccountable reason may not have got through—and there are lots of them in that position—should be disqualified in this manner?
A man in my constituency applied seven years ago, and his application has not been granted, yet his son served in the War, and others in a. similar position served in the War. He contributes to the upkeep of hie borough, paying rates and taxes, and contributes to the national fund by paying Income Tax. He may employ people. Yet this man can be turned down by a British subject who was a criminal during the War. This Amendment does not even give discretion to the Court. As I understand the Amendment, preference must be given to a British subject or an alien who has served during the War, however unsatisfactory such service may have been and even although the service may have been later avoided by desertion or some other cause. That is not justice; it is not even fair play. Every place ought to be safe to a person who lives under justice; if it ceases to be safe, justice ceased to exist.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYWe have heard characteristic speeches from hon. Members of the Liberal party, who have been indulging in their usual pastime of depreciating anything British, whether British persons or British goods.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYThe hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) devoted half of his speech to an argument that the Amendment was not sufficiently strong, and, as he could not keep up to the earlier level, devoted the other half to a depreciation of British 1798 people. Hon. Members have not really grasped the essential point of the Amendment. The essential point is to decide in two cases of equal hardship. Hon. Members have been endeavouring to construct imaginary cases, in order to point out how unequal a judgment would be in favour of a British subject, and by their very premises they have suggested that the cases are not equal. The Amendment deals only with cases which are equal in hardship. In such cases, when there is absolute equality of hardship, the British subject should have the advantage us against a foreign-born subject. The Amendment is important in view of the Housing Bill, of which we are likely to hear a great deal shortly, for public money will be devoted to the subsidising of houses. What is going to happen? We are going to pay public money for the provision of houses, and if the Amendment is not carried we are going to allow aliens who have not lived in this country or have not found any of the money which goes to the provision of those houses—
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYIt has a lot to do with this Bill, as I shall show. We on this side of the House look ahead; we do not look at legislation merely from the point of view of day to day consideration. If hon. Members look ahead as to the effect of this Bill, they will realise that they will he subsidising houses for aliens who have not paid in any form for the provision of those houses. Suppose that in 10 years' time there arose the case of a man who was a British subject, who wished to have a house, but was not allowed to have it, although his hardship was equal to that of an alien who was fortunate enough to obtain the house. The relatives of that man would have assisted in the payment of taxes for the provision of the house, but such payment would have no effect whatsoever as against the alien coming in.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYIf the hon. and gallant Member does not accept this Amendment.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYI do not think so. It gives a privileged position only to those persons who have fought in the War on the side of the British.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYThose who have served in the War on the side of the British. Therefore, unless this Amendment be carried, we shall not be discriminating fairly between our own people and those aliens who have not only not assisted in the provision of these houses, but did not assist on our side during the War. For that reason I hone that the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. MILLSI want to draw attention to the inconsistencies of the last speaker. When he speaks of looking ahead, he must surely remember that he and his friends had unlimited opportunities in the years that have gone since 1917 to put their proposal on the Statute Book. Apparently the process of looking ahead has been so far reversed that it is only when they have lost all directing voice in the government of the country that they bring forward such an Amendment as this. It is true that last year they tabled an Amendment, hut they did not press it to a Division, and, I believe, did not even move it. That makes it all the more difficult to understand the mentality of hon. Members opposite. I have here a letter from a Government Department. It concerns a man who is an alien. He was born four months before he came to this country 72 years ago. He served for 26 years in the British Army. Three of his sons fought in the War. He is not a British subject., although he fought in two campaigns with the British Army. If this kind of Amendment be passe ii. one can see what absurdities would result. There is general resentment on this side of the House at the attitude taken up by a party which had an opportunity of placing this proposal on the Statute Book at a time when it was more needed even than now. Having missed its opportunity, obviously deliberately, it ill becomes that party to obstruct the proceedings of the House by bringing forward such a proposal now, and, in doing so, to attribute motives to those who oppose them as being opposed to the best interests of British people.
§ Mr. DENNIS HERBERTI regret that the last speaker did not explain to the House how it was that in the case he referred to an alien served 26 years in the British Army. It is a case which calls for a little explanation before we can attach much weight to it.
§ Mr. HERBERTThat does not answer the point as to how an alien can properly serve in the British Army, and serve for 26 years. We want to know how he managed to do it if he was an alien.
§ Mr. MILLSI can assure the hon. Member that his colleagues on the Front Bench opposite, especially the right hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Bridgeman), who was then Home Secretary, had this case under consideration, and admitted the fact that the man had enlisted under a name which sounded British, but which upon examination was found not to be British. The man then applied to have his real French name put upon the papers of his regiment, and his application was refused. Because of that refusal the man has never yet been allowed the status of a British citizen.
§ Mr. HERBERTNow we have the whole point. The hon. Member is trying to base his case on the single, specific instance of a man who did a thing which be had no business to do by serving under false pretences. He is trying to influence the House by such a case. That is only a slightly exaggerated sample of the other speeches against the Amendment from the opposite side. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Henn) made a most amusing speech, and put up a most ridiculous case that might result from the passing of the Amendment. He entirely overlooked the fact that the alien who had served with Great Britain or Britain's Allies was in this particular case brought, in as a sort of addition to, and given the same privileges which we want to give to, British subjects. In this matter dealing with the alien is a very small point indeed compared with what we want. to do for our own British subjects. If in trying to do that for British subjects we are prepared to give the same privileges to a certain class of people who have fought with us or with our Allies in the War, the fact that the 1801 arrangement is not absolutely perfect and that it might possibly result in some hardship in the case of General Pershing, if he came here and lived in a house which came within this Bill—that is hardly a reason for saying that, because there might be ridiculous cases, the Briton must not have the first chance in such cases. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke Newington (Dr. Spero) is not present. He has accused those who were responsible for this Amendment of putting forward a proposal which has been inspired from abroad. I protest strongly against an accusation of that sort being made without the slightest shadow of truth in it. When the hon. Member was challenged, all that he could say was that in some cases foreign countries had done things which have been hard on British subjects. To suggest for a moment that. this Amendment, calculated in cases of equal hardship to give a choice to our own people, is initiated from abroad, is one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Amendment by showing the weakness of the arguments adduced against it. I hope that the House will insist on the Amendment.
§ Sir J. SIMONIt is very easy to make a strong case by taking extreme instances in this matter on one side or the other, but I think there is a prevailing opinion—a very natural and proper opinion—in the House that, as long as we preserve the established principles of British law, it is perfectly proper to have regard to the fact that you may have the case of someone before you who has served the country well, while on the other hand you may have before you someone who has no such claim. That is perfectly natural, but what is surprising to me is that those who have taken part in this Debate hitherto do not appear to realise—I do not think the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government showed the slightest appreciation of the fact—that if we adopt and place on the Statute Book a provision of this sort, we are as a matter of fact completely departing from an established British principle. It may be quite Tight to do so, but if that ne the real character of this proposal, it has to be considered not by reference to special cases but from a much wider point of view. The House will excuse me for pointing out what has not yet been pointed out in this Debate, 1802 that ever since 1870 there has existed in our Statute law, as one of the fundamental principles of British institutions, a provision that real and personal property of every description may be taken, acquired, held and disposed of by an alien in the same manner in all respects as by a natural-born British subject. That has been a fundamental principle of British law during the whole of my lifetime.
Of course, a British subject may have a vote while aliens have not votes, and that, no doubt, is calculated to influence the judgments of people sometimes, but when we come to enjeyment of private rights in this country, with one single statutory exception the alien stands in exactly the same position as the British subject. The one exception is that an alien cannot own a British ship, and that is expressly provided for by statute. Is it to he said at this time of day to the British House of Commons, the custodian of British institutions and privileges, that, notwithstanding this law, which we have, applied in good times and bad times—I quite agree very generously—that in matters of private property and private rights the alien stands in the same position as the British subject, we should adopt this proposal? If we do so, we depart from a tradition which has existed for 50 years and that is rather a serious thing. I think this particular Amendment can he riddled with criticism as regards its terms. In the first place, its actual effect would be of the most trifling character. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) began his speech by lecturing an hon. Member on this side of the House who did not, he said, understand what the Amendment was about. The hon. and gallant Member will excuse me for saying that I did not perceive, in the course of his speech, any clear indication that Ine himself understood it. May I suggest in all humility and subject to correction that, if this Amendment be not introduced, there will be a question of comparing hardships as between A and B, and the problem for the County Court Judge will be whether greater hardship may be caused to one side or to the other.
For all practical purposes that will always be the question to be solved, 1803 whether we carry the Amendment or not. This Amendment, however, proceeds to introduce a metaphysical subtlety which I should like to see the Judges dealing with in practice. The Judges are asked to assume that the scale is evenly balanced, so nicely balanced that no one can determine which is the heavier and which is the lighter side, and the County Court Judge, with 50 or 60 other things to do on the same day, has to address his mind to this nice metaphysical calculation, and when he has done so he is asked to enter into a further inquiry—on which, I suppose, he will be allowed to call evidence—as to whether or not a gentleman who has a suspicious name is or is not an alien. Such a person naturally will not say that he is an alien. How, then, is it to be proved? Is it proposed that the Judge should adjourn the Court and that a question should be put in the House of Commons to the Home Secretary? English law knows nothing whatever in a Court of Justice about the difference between A and B, if one is a British subject and the other is not. No litigant in a British Court, thank Heavens, has to begin by saying, "I am a British subject and the other fellow is an alien." No Judge would allow such a declaration to be made. The Judge would tell the British subject who made such a declaration that if he were a real British subject he ought to know that he belonged to a country Which did not draw such distinctions. [Laughter.]An hon. Gentleman opposite laughs, but surely he knows enough about the law to know that in a British Court of Law it does not matter twopence whether a litigant is an alien or a British subject; Tic will get the same law, whichever he is. The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge said that we who sit in this part of the House were engaged in our characteristic exercise of depreciating British institutions.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYI said hon. Members there depreciated everything British.
§ Sir J. SIMONPossibly the hon. and gallant Member does not regard the glorious tradition of British law—which is the admiration of the whole world as to the way in which we endeavour to do equal justice to all—as any portion of the British traditions of which he is proud 1804 I am not ashamed to say that I should require to have a very plain case made out before I should think it right to depart from a principle which has been affirmed and applauded by people of all parties in this House for generations in order to introduce this pettifogging Amendment. It is easy to show that the actual application of it would be trumpery and ridiculous to a degree. It is perfectly legitimate to say that some people are enthusiastic for it because they think it has electioneering value. I am quite prepared to take the risk in that respect, and, for my part, I urge the House of Commons in all seriousness, apart altogether from questions of party and of electioneering, not to accept this proposal. Do not let us make an exhibition of ourselves by pretending we do not value and rely upon a principle which has stood on the Statute Book since 1870, the principle that an alien who is behaving himself in this country is assured under the British law in any court of justice of exactly the same treatment as a British subject.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThere have been two speeches of outstanding importance from the benches opposite during this Debate, but the Government have been rather silent on the point. The two speeches to which I refer, and which doubtless influenced the House greatly, were made by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) and they presented very different arguments. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith seemed to hope to get rid of the Amendment by pouring ridicule upon it, and he quoted every hard case imaginable. I am not sure whether we had the cases of the French dressmaker or the Bolshevik commissar, but I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman had probably been studying the speech made by Lord Haldane, in another place and had found some such useful references there. Whether it is the Bolshevik commissar or the French dressmaker or the Chinese laundryman, I wish to get at the main principle involved in this Amendment. Anybody even half as clever as the hon. and gallant Gentleman could riddle an Amendment of this kind in that manner—that is probably why the Government allowed the hon. and gallant Member to 1805 do their work for them—and after all, one does not need to be very clever to be able to make out exceptions, ridiculous exceptions if you like, but the real point concerns the principle which we are defending.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last based his speech on much broader grounds than the niggling points put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith which do not matter if the principle of the Amendment is right. if it is right that we should make an alteration here and now in the public law which Britain has enjoyed for many years, then the proper plan is to help us to make that Amendment rather than to pour ridicule upon the proposal as the hon. and gallant Member for Leith did. General Pershing is not likely to inhabit a house affected by the Rent Restrictions Act, but I am not at, all sure that for many purposes Americans cannot be regarded as Allies, and if the hon. and gallant Mem ber is so particular the words "associated powers" could be put in. The hon. and gallant Gentleman omitted one important fact. He quoted a Noble Lord who spoke against the Amendment in another place (Lord Darling), but omitted to mention that Lord Darling did Lot, vote against the Amendment in the other place.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSFor two reasons.
§ Sir J. SIMONThere was no division!
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSHe did not divide against it. I will tell the House the reason why, and I have the greatest sympathy with the Noble Lord. It was because he would not be associated with the people who would be voting against it.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThat is why I am in sympathy with the Noble Lord, who would not be seen in the Lobby with the people voting against this Amendment. I would not be seen in the. Lobby with them either. A much more important case against the Amendment is that which has been put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last. He dealt with the questions on the broad principles of English law and raised the whole tone of the 1806 Debate by his speech. He did not quote the Japanese Treaty as I expected him to do, but I am going to submit that the Japanese Treaty which was quoted in another place is no argument against the Amendment. The Japanese Treaty is governed by the laws of this country. The Japanese Treaty or any other Treaty—because they are all the same in this respect—are all subject to the law of Great Britain for the time being. Any Japanese or any other subject of a foreign power who comes here is bound to abide by such laws as we in our wisdom make for the regulation of this country.
§ Sir J. SIMONIf the right hon. Gentleman has a copy of the Treaty there. he can tell me whether I am right in saying that we covenanted that Japanese subjects in this country should enjoy a certain standard of privilege.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe Treaty is quite clear, and was quoted by Lord Haldane in another place. This does not apply to the Japanese alone and I am not singling them out but it applies to all Treaties. It says that Japanese
shall be permitted to own or hire and occupy houses, manufactories, warehouses, shops and premises which may be necessary for them and to lease land for residential, commercial, industrial and other lawful purposes in the same manner as a native subject.The important point is that, if we look at another Article, we find that they are all subject to the laws of the country:The subjects or citizens of each of the high contracting parties who shall conform themselves to the laws of the country, etc.We are here now making laws. Parliament is sovereign, and we are entitled to make laws for the regulation of our own country. T am not running away from the position put before us by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley. The time has come to amend the law with regard to aliens in this country. They have increased so enormously Everybody knows that there are certain districts in the central parts of London and the East. End of London—
§ Mr. LANSBURYAlso Park Lane and Windsor.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS—where the competition for working-class houses is made very severe by the enormous number 1807 of aliens swarming in. I am prepared to say, in spite of the Act referred to by the right. hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), which has been in existence since 1870, the time has come to reconsider the whole position of this country in regard to aliens. We cannot deal with the whole question here and now in this Bill. We are, however, dealing with a Bill where hardship on somebody is presupposed because there are not enough houses to go round. Either an English tenant is to be turned out by an alien landlord, or an alien tenant is to be turned ont by an English landlord. When the County Court, Judge is deciding on which side is the greater hardship, the question of whether a man is an alien or not will not first of all arise. It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley to talk about making metaphysical calculations. If he were a County Court Judge he would have no difficulty in arriving at a decision.
§ Sir J. SIMONIs it then the considered view of the right hon. Member, now speaking for his party, that if there were greater hardship in excluding the alien, the alien ought to have the house?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI do not say that. The. right hon. and learned Member is trying to confuse me with metaphysical subtleties. I have known him too long to fall into that trap. If he will excuse my saying so, perhaps I have more experience of County Court work than he has. The question of hardship is very difficult to decide. A County Court Judge might very well say, "After all, there is hardship whichever way I decide. I think, on the whole, if Parliament gave me permission, I should just tip the balance in favour of the Englishman who has fought in the War rather than in favour of the alien who did not fight." That is a principle which I am prepared to support on any platform. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) brought forward ridiculous arguments. Let me put one case of possible hardship. An Englishman, say, fought in the War, was very badly wounded and earned the V.C. He has got a wife and family dependent on him. An alien landlord tries to turn him out. There is equal hardship in the mind of the County Court. Judge, and in consider 1808 ing the case, the Judge says, "Yes, the landlord is quite a good alien. True he did not fight in the War—"
§ Mr. LEIF JONESThe County Court Judge does not know up to that point that the landlord is an alien.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSLet us take it that he does know. The Judge would consider it hard lines to turn out the Englishman, and he would take into account that the other man, the landlord, has no War service.
§ Mr. TURNER-SAMUELSWhere does it say that in the Amendment?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKSThe Amendment refers to the tenant or the landlord
who did not serve the British Empire or its Allies in the Great War.
§ Mr. TURNER-SAMUELSThe right hon. Gentleman said "fought" in the War.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSMay not a British subject fight in the War?
§ Mr. TURNER-SAMUELSA British subject may stick to the point. You have said "an Englishman who has fought in the War." I say the Amendment says nothing of that sort.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am taking the case of an Englislunan who has fought in the War, who is going to be turned out by an alien landlord.
§ Mr. TURNER-SAMUELSYou are adopting a metaphysical subtlety.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am taking the hypothetical case of a summons to turn an Englishman out of a house. He proves that he has served in the War. I am prepared quite definitely to give to the County Court Judge the right, in a case of that kind, to say. "After all, it is a case of hardship on either side. Matters are about equal. It is difficult to make up my mind, but I will give the house tit) the man who fought in the War, rather than to an alien who did not fight." That is the principle embodied in this Clause. It may need some amendment, but that can easily be made in another place. When it was being debated in another place, an offer was made to the Government to make the Amendment clear, and I, repeat that offer to the Government now.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSA special constable is an Englishman.
§ Mr. LANSBURYOr a Welshman.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSA special constable is a British subject. There the County Court Judge should have the right to tilt the scales in favour of the British subject rather than in favour of the alien. That is the principle I am not ashamed of advocating. I do not mind making an inroad of this nature on the law of the land, and I should like to see it carried. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley referred to the equality of treatment received by aliens and British-born subjects under the law. He has forgotten that in criminal law, a man who is an alien is in a much worse position than the British subject, for if he be found guilty he can be kicked out of the country at. the discretion of the magistrate. That is a distinct difference which is already made between the alien and the British subject. We do impose penalties on the alien which we do not impose on the British subject. That is a change made in the law of the last few years which I strongly support. I have not the slightest doubt whatever that we are taking the right course in supporting this Amendment., and I hope it will be carried.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI really did not intend to say anything more about this Amendment, and I should not have done so if we on these benches had not been rather twitted with not having taken up a greater proportion of the time of the House in discussing this Amendment. I did not believe, and could not believe, that the Opposition really thought there was the slightest intention on the part. of this House to pass this Amendment. I could not believe that the Front Opposition Bench would allow that Amendment to come before the House again in that form, if they had the slightest hope or belief that this House would ever pass it. We often hear criticisms of Amendments introduced from this side of the House. I propose to take this one home as an example of what our worst critics put forward as a suitable Amendment, to alter the whole law of this country. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for 1810 Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks)— and no doubt he speaks full authority—that hon. Members opposite think it is time that the law of this country should be altered in a most vital particular. In my view, and in the view, I believe, of the majority of this House, this is not the way to alter one of the most fundamental principles of our law. The right hon. Gentleman is a Member of the same profession as that to which I belong, and I am sure lie will agree with me that un to this moment no self-respecting advocate in any court of justice would refer to any distinction at all between an alien and an Englishman, and if he were to do so, no Judge on the Bench would allow him to proceed. It would be not only illegitimate to allow this Amendment to miss, but a County Court Judge would refuse to take such a point into consideration. There is not a member of the legal profession who would not be ashamed, even if this Amendment were passed, to get up in Court and make the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman desires should be made.
I do venture to hope, naw my right hon. Friend has asked some one from the Front Bench to express a view, that the House will really pronounce a decision on this. For nearly 50 years a Conservative Government has had the power of altering this law. It has been sitting on these benches for years and years, but it has never dared to alter that law. It would never dream of doing it. Now, when we are in power for the first time, they put forward an Amendment which is not English, which means nothing. which conveys nothing to a single mind in this House. It is slipped in as a fundamental alteration in our law, and then some hon. Gentlemen are surprised because criticism is made that it is merely for electioneering purposes. What else could it have been? Is there any hon. Member who could explain what it means? I should have thought it was clear to the whole House that this was the result of a consultation which took place on the benches opposite. They no doubt said: "We will divide on this; it will be defeated, but it will look well, and we shall be able to say that we stood up for the Britisher against the alien."[Interruption. ] I thought, so. That was the whole motive. They said: "We will not take the trouble to alter it; we will not put it in intelligible language. There is not a 1811 chance of it passing. But it will look very well." One hon. Member—I forget who it was—asked me a question about the treaties. There is a whole series of treaties, -which must have been known to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. I have extracts from them here. Treaties with Greece, Rumania, and a great many other countries, all contain a Clause, the substance of which I will read:
The subjects or citizens of each of the high contracting parties who shall conform themselves to the laws of the country…shall not be subject in respect of their persons, or property…I leave out the words which do not matter—nor in respect of their commerce or industry to any taxes, whether general or local, or to imposts or obligations of any kind whatever other or greater than those which are or may be imposed upon native subjects or citizens.Is it any good anyone asking me whether in law this Amendment may or may not impinge upon that? I know perfectly well that the countries who are parties to these treaties would say that it did.
§ Surely one does not want to have legal arguments and discussions with every country in the world as to whether we have wronged them or not, There is not a single man who would not say that the Treaty had given him a right which had been interfered with by what is proposed by the Amendment. I will go further, and say with confidence that I do not believe any British Government would dare to put that Amendment on the Statute Book. I do not believe anyone would do it. They would know that it must cause endless trouble. It would strike at the very root of the fundamental law of this country. I protest that sce much time should have been taken up with this discussion and that the Government should have been twitted because it did not take up more time, when everyone knew there was not the faintest chance of this being allowed to be inserted in the Bill.
§ Question put, "That this House cloth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 135.
1815| Division No. 92.] | AYES. | [7.16 p.m. |
| Ackroyd, T. R. | Duncan, C. | Hindle, F. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity) | Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Edwards, John H. (Accrington) | Hoffman, P. C. |
| Alden, Percy | Egan, W. H. | Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) | Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.) | England, Colonel A. | Hudson, J. H. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Falconer, J. | Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich) |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Attlee, Major Clement R. | Fletcher, Lieut.-Commander R. T. H. | Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Ayles, W. H, | Foot, Isaac | Jewson, Dorothea |
| Baker, Walter | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North) | Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East) |
| Barnes, A. | George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff) | Gibbins, Joseph | Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) |
| Batey, Joseph | Gilbert, James Daniel | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Gillett, George M. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd). |
| Birkett, W. N. | Gorman, William | Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools) |
| Black, J. W. | Gosling, Harry | Kay, Sir R. Newbald |
| Bonwick, A. | Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome) | Keens, T. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Kennedy, T. |
| Briant, Frank | Greenall, T. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. |
| Broad, F. A. | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine) | Kenyon, Barnet |
| Bromfield, William | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Kirkwood, D. |
| Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby) | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Lansbury, George |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Groves, T. | Laverack, F. J. |
| Brunner, Sir J. | Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) | Law, A. |
| Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Lawson, John James |
| Church, Major A. G. | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Leach, W. |
| Clarke, A. | Hardie, George D. | Lee, F. |
| Climie, R. | Harney, E. A. | Lessing, E. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Harris, John (Hackney, North) | Livingstone, A. M. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Harris, Percy A. | Lcverseed, J. F. |
| Costello, L. W. J. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Lowth, T. |
| Cove, W. G. | Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury) | Lunn, William |
| Crittall, V. G. | Hastings, Sir Patrick | McCrae, Sir George |
| Darbishire, C. W. | Hastings, Somerville (Reading) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) |
| Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Haycock, A. W. | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Hayes, John Henry | McEntee, V. L. |
| Dickson, T. | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Macfadyen, E. |
| Dodds, S. R. | Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South) | Mackinder, W. |
| Dukes C. | Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Maden, H. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| March, S. | Ritson, J. | Thornton, Maxwell R. |
| Marks, Sir George Croydon | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich) | Thurtle, E. |
| Marley, James | Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton) | Robertson, T. A. | Tout, W. J. |
| Maxton, James | Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M. | Romeril, H. G. | Turner-Samuels, M. |
| Middleton, G. | Royce, William Stapleton | Viant, S. P. |
| Mills, J. E. | Royle, C. | Vivian, H. |
| Mond, H. | Scrymgeour, E. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Montague, Frederick | Scurr, John | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Morris, R. H. | Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern) | Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth) |
| Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Sexton, James | Warne, G. H. |
| Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Moslay, Oswald | Sherwood, George Henry | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Moulton, Major Fletcher | Simon, E. D.(Manchester,Withington) | Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.) |
| Naylor, T. E. | Simon, lit. Hon. Sir John | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Nichol, Robert | Simpson, J. Hope | Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C. |
| O'Grady, Captain James | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) | Weir, L. M. |
| Oliver, George Harold | Smillie, Robert | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Whiteley, W. |
| Owen, Major G. | Smith, T. (Pontefract) | Wignall, James |
| Paling, W. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Williams, David (Swansea, E.) |
| Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Snell, Harry | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Perry, S. F. | Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L. | Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kennington) |
| Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Spence, R. | Williams, Maj. A.S. (Kent, Sevenoaks) |
| Phillipps, Vivian | Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur | Stamford, T. W. | Willison, H. |
| Potts, John S. | Starmer, Sir Charles | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Pringle, W. M. R. | Stephen, Campbell | Windsor, Walter |
| Purcell, A. A. | Stewart, Maj. R. S.(Stockton-on-Tees) | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Raffan, P. W. | Stranger, Innes Harold | Wintringham, Margaret |
| Raffety, F. W. | Sturrock, J. Leng | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Raynes, W. R. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) | Wright, W. |
| Rea, W. Russell | Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay) | |
| Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Richards, R. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) | Mr. spoor and Mr. Frederick Hall. |
| NOES. | ||
| Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.) | Foreatier-Walker, L. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Gates, Percy | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. | Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Becker, Harry | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Pennefather, Sir John |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Penny, Frederick George |
| Bellairt, Commander Carlyon W. | Guinness, Lieut. Col. Rt. Hon. W. E. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Berry, Sir George | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Perring, William George |
| Bourne, Captain R. C. | Harland, A. | Phillipson, Mabel |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Raine, W. |
| Briscoe, Captain Richard George | Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel | Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Rawson, Alfred Cooper |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Reid, D. D. (County Down) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.) | Remnant, Sir James |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Burman, J. B. | Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) |
| Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northn.) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Caine, Gordon Hall | Hughes, Collingwood | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Huntingfield, Lord | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester. City) | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dtworth, Putney) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunei | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Savery, S. S. |
| Cope, Major William | Kindersley, Major G. M | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. | Lamb. J. Q. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | MacDonald, R. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Deans, Richard Storry | McLean, Major A. | Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Dixey, A. C. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Stanley, Lord |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Steel, Samuel Strang |
| Edmondson, Major A. J | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Elliot, Walter E. | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Elveden, Viscount | Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Meller, R. J. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| FitzRoy, Capt. Rt. Hon. Edward A. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Whelar, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H. | Wolmer, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) | Major Hennessy and Captain |
| Wise, Sir Fredric | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. | Douglas King. |
Question put, and agreed to.