HC Deb 20 March 1931 vol 249 cc2289-301

In the Landholders' Acts the word "holding" shall, in addition to the holdings mentioned in section two of the Act of 1911, include as from the date hereinafter mentioned every holding which at the commencement of this Act is held by a statutory small tenant and the word "land-holder" shall be construed accordingly.

Provided that this section shall not apply in the case of any statutory small tenancy unless, not later than one month prior to the expiry of the period of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act or of any subsequent period of tenancy, the tenant serves on the landlord of the holding written notice that he desires that this section shall apply, and the date hereinbefore referred to shall be the expiry of the period of tenancy current when such notice was served.—[Mr. W. Adamson.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time. [13th March, 1931.]


I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out the word "accordingly," and to insert instead thereof the words "as including every such statutory small tenant."

This is really a drafting Amendment, but it is a necessary one, because the Clause we are considering must be read in connection with the other Sections of the Act of 1911, and the Clause, as drafted, has omitted to indicate that Section 2 of the Act of 1911 deals not only with holdings, but with holders. That Section 2 refers to yearly tenants and qualified leaseholders who may be either landholders or statutory small tenants. The end of the first paragraph of the new Clause reads: and the word 'landholder' shall he construed accordingly. My Amendment is to leave out the word "accordingly" and to substitute the words "as including every such statutory small tenant."


I beg to second the Amendment.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson)

I am sure that I shall be interpreting the general wish of the House if I begin our proceedings this morning with a brief reference to the passing of one of our highly respected and esteemed Scottish colleagues whose mortal remains are to be laid to rest to-day. James Stewart, late Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow, was a man greatly beloved by Members in all parts of the House for his great human sympathy and kindness, which was one of his chief characteristics. To everyone with whom he came in contact he endeared himself. His manner and methods were all his own. He had a great fund of pawky Scottish humour peculiar to himself, which gave great pleasure to his friends, and enabled him to overcome the difficulties inseparable from physical weakness. I was associated with him at the Scottish Office in the Labour Administration of 1924, and I shall always treasure the recollections of those days. In the post which he then filled he was a capable and pains-taking Minister. His great knowledge of health and housing, and, indeed, of the whole domain of sanitation, made his service of infinite value both to the Scottish Office and to the Government itself. For that work he was equipped as few men are. He was a man we were all proud to know and to have worked with. He gave his life willingly in the service not only of his people in St. Rollox, but with loyalty, fidelity and devotion to all the great humanitarian causes to which he had pledged himself. Mr. Speaker, he has fought a good fight, and the House is all the poorer for his absence this morning. His life was an inspiration to us all. He was a great Scot, without fear and without reproach, and, on behalf of my Scottish colleagues I want to tender our sincere sympathy and condolence with the family in the great loss which they have sustained.

With regard to the Amendment which has just been moved, I am advised that it is unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Scott) will not spend much time over it, but will agree to withdraw it.


The Secretary of State has begun the proceedings to-day by a reference to our late colleague, Mr. James Stewart, and I would like, on behalf of those with whom I am associated, to join in the tribute which has been paid to his memory. Mr. James Stewart occupied the office which I also have had the honour to occupy, the Under-Secreship for Health for Scotland. I think the Secretary of State struck the most appropriate possible note in the word he used of James Stewart and his character—the word "beloved." He was a singularly attractive character, who endeared himself to all people and to all sections of the House. He fought valiantly for his party and for his cause, but I do not think he ever said a bitter word about anyone. He was able to carry on a long career of public life without ever making an enemy, and without ever compromising the principles which he upheld, and the combination of those qualities is rare indeed in our public life. He not only represented his party and his cause, but he also represented this House, in the Parliamentary mission which went to Australia, and he did that with the utmost acceptance, and those of us who had the privilege of his acquaintance realised what a breadth of vision this public servant was able to bring to bear upon public problems though starting from circumstances which he would have justified a very much narrower and more bitter view than that to which he had attained. He took a broad and statesmanlike view of problems which were presented to him. and there is no one whose counsel, either in public or in private, I myself would more willingly have adopted. I have been indebted to him on more than one occasion for counsel and for advice on questions of the day, and it was given on no narrow lines, but on the broadest possible lines of service to this country. Death has been busy among us in these last few days, and James Stewart, like one of Bunyan's pilgrims, has gone to his rest. He leaves his frail body here as ashes, and he leaves his valiant spirit to those that come after him.


On behalf of the party which I represent, I would like to associate myself, by adding a few words, with the exceedingly appropriate speeches which have just been delivered by my two hon. Friends. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) referred to Mr. Stewart's tour with the Empire Delegation round the world. I had the privilege of accompanying him, and I remember well the courage with which he expounded his convictions in every corner of the globe. His body was frail, but his spirit was indomitable, and he had that which it is almost impossible to simulate, a fine and rare sincerity. Nothing pleased him more than to take sojourners from the Dominions and from America round these ancient precincts; and those of us who were present will remember about this time last year the joy which he felt when his life's work ended by the passage of a Bill for which he had struggled and fought manfully for many years, and in my judgment that will be a fitting memorial erected to him in this place which he loved. I associate myself entirely with the message of condolence to his friends. Many of us regret that we shall see his face no more.


On behalf of my hon. Friends, I desire to associate myself with what has already been said. In the earlier years, Mr. Stewart was a fighting pioneer of the Labour and Socialist movement in Glasgow. He was actively associated with the whole development of the Labour movement in that city. He was one of our pioneer workers in local government work, first on the Glasgow Parish Council and then on the Glasgow Town Council. He was a typical representative Glasgow citizen, and we in Glasgow who have been associated with him both in local work and in more recent years in the House of Commons, will miss him very much from our midst. I desire to associate myself wholeheartedly with the remarks which have been made.


After the explanation which has been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


I beg to move, in line 10, at the end, to insert the words: Provided further that this section shall not apply in the case of any statutory small tenancy where the tenant has served on the landlord written notice as aforesaid if the landlord, by an undertaking in writing lodged with the Land Court, consents that the tenant shall be entitled, on the expiry of his tenancy, to compensation for any permanent improvements suitable to the holding which have been executed or paid for by the tenant or his predecessors, including permanent improvements executed in virtue of a specific agreement in writing unless the tenant or his said predecessors have received fair consideration for the same as such compensation, failing agreement, may be determined by the Land Court. I am suggesting that this Clause shall not apply where the statutory small tenant has served on the landlord a notice if the landlord, by an undertaking in writing lodged with the Land Court, consents that the tenant shall be entitled, on the expiry of his tenancy, to compensation for any permanent improvements. As hon. Members are aware, the Statutes dealing with small landholders are difficult to follow. Perhaps Scottish Members will recollect that statutory small tenants are those and the successors of those who held at the commencement of the Act of 1911 holdings not exceeding 50 acres or 50 pounds rental, and who had not provided the whole or the greater part of the permanent improvements. One might say that in nearly all the cases outside the Highland area the permanent improvements had been provided by the landlord, because it is always customary in these tenancies in Scotland for the landlord to put up the buildings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Scott) has more than once made a point that there are cases in which the tenant had himself provided a certain number of the permanent improvements which could not be considered as being the greater part, and in that case he would not become a small landholder but a statutory small tenant. It was suggested that there were cases in which the tenant had provided a substantial part of the permanent improvements and got no compensation. Here we provide that, if when the statutory small tenant exercises his option and gives the landlord notice that he wishes to become a landholder, the landlord can lodge an undertaking with the Land Court consenting to the tenant being paid for any permanent improvements which he or his predecessors have made. If there is a dispute as to the amount, it can be settled by the Land Court. If the landlord takes this step, the Section shall not apply. I think that is reasonable. I think that what was at the back of the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine in moving various Clauses and Amendments was that there were cases where the tenant had provided a substantial part of the improvements. These cases are very few, but, in order to meet them, I am proposing this Amendment which provides that the option given to a statutory small tenant of becoming a landholder shall not apply if the landlord lodges an undertaking with the Land Court consenting that the tenant shall be entitled to payment for any buildings or permanent improvements which he or his predecessors have made.

I think that will meet the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine, and it ought to meet with the approval of the Government, because they cannot be anxious for a large number of statutory small tenants to become landholders for they would be faced immediately by demands from them for loans to pay for their buildings. For these reasons, I think the Amendment ought to appeal to the Government. My Amendment also restricts to some extent a further extension of this system, under which buildings which, for the most part, have been provided by the landlord are handed over to the care of the tenant who must continue their maintenance. The tenant has not paid for them, and has no incentive to keep them up, while the landlord has no duty in regard to maintenance. I think that is an unsatisfactory system. If there are cases where the tenant has provided a certain amount of buildings, we say that compensation for such improvements as he has provided should be paid. I think this is an entirely reasonable Amendment, and the Government ought favourably to consider it, because it will save them from further demands for loans for buildings.


I beg to second the Amendment.


I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will see his way not to press this Amendment. May I draw his attention to the extraordinary set of circumstances that would arise if it were carried? According to the proposal in the Government's new Clause, which was moved last Friday, a statutory small tenant is given the option of becoming a small landholder if he so desires. This was our compromise—our view of the best way of meeting an admitted difficulty. Hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal benches sought to make it compulsory on the statutory small tenant to become a, landholder; hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative benches sought to prevent that; and we seek a middle course, namely, to give an option. The hon. and learned Gentleman says by his Amendment that he will only agree that this option should be offered in cases where the landlord is willing to pay for any improvements that the statutory small tenant or his predecessors may have created. I think that roughly that is his proposal.


That it should not apply.


That is the same thing—that it shall not apply in cases in which the landlord has offered to pay for the improvements. Let us observe what would happen. If a statutory small tenant has in fact made improvements and the landlord offers to pay for them, then he does not get the option. That is to say, the statutory small tenant who has been an efficient tenant gets no option, but the statutory small tenant who has made no improvements at all is, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, not prohibited from getting his option. Therefore, you arrive at this curious position, that, in a case where there has been an efficient statutory small tenant, he may have his option refused, but where there is an unefficient statutory small tenant, who has made no improvements, the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends do not seek to prevent him from getting his option. I hope that that ludicrous effect will be sufficient to induce them not to press the Amendment.

I have been advised that there are only about 2,000 statutory small tenants left. They are a diminishing class. We do not know how many of them desire this option; nobody knows; but we do know that there is a demand in certain circumstances that these tenants should not be compelled to become landholders, so that the number who may exercise this option is very small. The hon. and learned Gentleman seeks further to lessen that small number by saying that, if they or their predecessors have been efficient and have provided buildings and so on, they may be barred from the option. There will be opportunities later on in the proceedings on the Bill for fighting on things that matter, and I do hope that this Amendment will not be pressed.


The Government, by their proposed new Clause, have endeavoured to find some compromise which will be acceptable to the House, and they have made a considerable improvement upon the original proposal. I think, however, that hon. Members are still rather in the dark as to how widely the Clause would apply. From what was said in Committee, I was led to believe that in the South of Scotland it might not apply at all, or at any rate only in very exceptional cases, and if possible I would like to know whether that is so. I understand that the object of the Clause is to enable a number of statutory small tenants in the North of Scotland to claim compensation for permanent improvements which they have provided for themselves, in the event of their giving up their holdings. If it were only to meet such claims, there would be less opposition to the Clause, but, as it is drafted, it goes very considerably further, and there would in many cases be a serious and unnecessary disadvantage to the landlord as well. I consider that it would be reasonable and wiser if the Clause were so worded as to remove any unfair handicap or liability from the owner.

It was shown in Committee that the disadvantages to the owner as a result of this form of conversion must be serious. Various points have already been raised showing that there must be depreciation in selling value and in capital value, and that the value of capital improvements already executed by the landlord would be lost to him. There must also in future be a greater loss to the landowner in other ways, and there is, moreover, the possibility that, if this Clause be passed as it stands, all statutory small tenants in Scotland might be encouraged and persuaded to apply for this conversion. Therefore, I consider that the owner should have the opportunity of compensating the tenant himself, without being forced to resort to and accept this form of conversion. I hope that the Government intend to act justly, and not to favour one side at the expense of the other, but certainly, as the Clause stands, the landowner has no option but to accept disadvantages by conversion which could be avoided without any harm to the tenant. The addition of the words of this Amendment would settle the issue in a manner favourable to both sides. The statutory small tenant would secure his claim either to compensation or to conversion, and the landlord would be obliged to meet his claim one way or the other. I think the Amendment does justice to both landlord and tenant, and I hope also that it meets the claims of the Liberals and of the Government. Therefore, I support the Amendment.


I hope that the Government will resist this Amendment. It is notable for two admissions by the Conservative party, which they make for the first time, namely, that a tenant is entitled to compensation for his improvements, and that he should not be debarred if there is any specific agreement in writing to make such improvements. The intention of the Amendment, however, is to whittle down the Clause altogether. The desire is that the tenant shall remain a statutory small tenant, and that, after the end of his tenancy, his holding shall drop out of the Acts. That is what we wish to prevent; and the salient point in connection with this matter is that, if a tenant has put improvements on the holding, no matter whether they are of greater or less amount than one-half, he ought to be paid for them.


It has been admitted by the Government that this form of holding in the Lowlands of Scotland is not a good thing. If it is not admitted by the Government, it is certainly admitted by the authorities in Scotland, with the exception, perhaps, of the Liberals that it is a bad thing. The first proposal was that all statutory small tenants should be allowed to become landholders. Then the Government departed from that, and brought forward this Clause as representing a reasonable agreement. The Under-Secretary asked why the unfortunate tenant who has been a good tenant and has made improve- ments himself should be debarred from becoming a small landholder. We consider that the landholding tenure in the Lowlands of Scotland is not good for agriculture, and therefore we say that it should not be instituted if it can possibly be avoided. We are out to protect the tenant, and we desire to protect the tenant by this Amendment. We say that we disapprove of the landholding tenure in the Lowlands of Scotland, but we do not want to bring hardship on tenants who happen to be statutory small tenants. Therefore we propose that the tenant shall suffer no loss by what he has done as a statutory small tenant in the way of improvements, and he will not lose anything if the landlord is willing to pay for the improvements as if he had made them himself. The landlord could perfectly well have made these permanent improvements himself, and then there would never have been any talk of the holding being made a statutory small holding. Therefore, provided that the tenant is not going to suffer, and in our Amendment we make provision that he shall not suffer, any pecuniary loss, we think that our proposal is very reasonable, and I would ask the Government to accept the Amendment.


I hope the Government will not persist in opposing the Amendment. We have been most rational on this side from the beginning to the end in connection with the Bill. Without the Amendment, it is a thoroughly bad Bill from the point of view of the taxpayers. I am not concerned as regards tenants, landholders or landowners, but without the Amendment it is almost certain that a Lumber of people will have money advanced to them at a very low rate of interest. It is a most unholy alliance between certain parties below the Gangway and the Government. Up to date, the Government has tried to run straight in connection with the Clause, but, unless they accept the Amendment, they will be entirely off the lines of righteousness. We were told by the Under-Secretary that there were about 2,000 of these statutory small tenants. As far as I can remember, it has taken a good deal to extract those figures from him. He has told us that he has not the least idea how many are likely to come under the Act. It is acknowledged on all hands that, to turn these occupiers into statutory small tenants, a certain amount of money must be advanced from the State.


You cannot create new statutory small tenants at all.


I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but he has mentioned 2,000 people, and I fail to see what else they are but statutory small tenants. I realise that it is almost impossible to find out the exact position, but, at the same time, unless the Clause is absolutely valueless and has no meaning, you must presume that some of these people will be put into such a position that, for the work they have carried out on their tenancies, they shall receive a certain amount of loan, and that is what I am objecting to. I realise that hon. Members opposite do not like that point being brought out, but it is my job on this occasion to see that the money of the taxpayers is well spent, and, without the Amendment, I do not think it is being adequately guarded, and that there will be a laxity of administration which is not justified in any way.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I do not think the interpretation that the Under-Secretary gave of the wording of the Amendment is quite correct. He seemed to think it could be of no value to the statutory small tenants who have not made any improvement, but it proposes to give the tenant an entitlement, on the expiry of his tenancy, to compensation for any improvement that he has made, and therefore, if there were certain statutory small tenants who at the passing of the Act had not made any improvements, they could remain on their holdings as statutory small tenants happy in the

knowledge that the landlord had offered them this option and that, therefore, they would get compensation for such improvements as they might make. Our purpose is that they shall remain statutory small tenants with the assurance of compensation for their improvements, which we understood from the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Scott) was the reason he wished statutory small tenants to become smallholders. He said there were a good many tenants who had made improvements for which they did not get compensation. We put down the Amendment to meet those cases, in order to give the statutory small tenants, whether they are 2,000 as stated by the Government or 17,000 as stated by the hon. Member, the assurance that they will get full compensation for all suitable improvements which they have made or may make in the future. The hon. Gentleman is very fond of saying that it is a, small class and that the option will only be exercised in a few cases, but people very often think they are better off under another régime than the present, and we cannot assume that they will be a small class, though probably few who exercise the option will feel that they benefited themselves. I agree that, in putting forward this Clause as an alternative to that of the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine, the hon. Gentleman certainly shows a desire to tread in the middle way, but I am not sure that he has quite reached the middle road. The option can only be exercised by the tenant, and it may be exercised very prejudicially to the interests of the landlord. What we ask is an option which shall be two-sided.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause":

The House divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 148.

Division No. 199.] AYES [11.44 a.m.
Atholl, Duchess of[...] Ferguson, Sir John Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Beaumont, M. W. Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Bellalrs, Commander Carlyon Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Brown, Brlg.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Warrender, Sir Victor
Campbell, E. T. Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Wells, Sydney R.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Colv[...]lle, Major D. J. Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'[...]) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Dalkelth, Earl of Macquisten, F. A. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Dawson, Sir Philip Marjoribanks, Edward Womersley, W. J.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Eden, Captain Anthony Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Elliot, Major Walter E. Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & K[...]nc'd[...]ne, C.) Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Sir George Bowyer.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Pethick-Lawrence. F. W.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Grundy, Thomas W. Pole, Major D. G.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Potts, John S.
Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. Hall, J. H (Whitechapel) Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Richards, R.
Alpass, J. H. Hardie, George D. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Angell, Sir Norman Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Romeril, H. G.
Aske, Sir Robert Henderson, W. w. (Middx., Enfield) Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Attlee, Clement Richard Herriotts, J. Rowson, Guy
Barnes, Alfred John Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Hoffman, P. C. Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Sanders, W. S.
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Hunter, Dr. Joseph Sandham, E.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Johnston, Thomas Sawyer, G. F.
Brooke, W. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Scott, James
Brothers, M. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Scrymgeour, E.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Buchanan, G. Law, Albert (Bolton) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Law, A. (Rossendale) Shield, George William
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Lawrence, Susan Shillaker, J. F.
Chater, Daniel Lawson, John James Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Church, Major A. G. Lawther W. (Barnard Castle) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Clarke, J. S. Leach, W. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Compton, Joseph Lloyd, C. Ellis Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Cove, William G. Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Stamford, Thomas W.
Cripps, Sir Stafford Lunn, William Stephen, Campbell
Daggar, George Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Strauss, G. R.
Dallas, George MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Sutton, J. E.
Davles, Rhys John (Westhoughton) McElwee, A. Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Day, Harry McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston) Taylor, w. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Dudgeon, Major C. R. McShane, John James Tinker, John Joseph
Dukes, C. Manning, E. L. Walkden, A. G.
Duncan, Charles Marshall, Fred Watkins, F. C.
Ede, James Chuter Mathers, George Wellock, Wilfred
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwel[...]ty Maxton, James Welsh, James (Paisley)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Messer, Fred Westwood, Joseph
Elmley, Viscount Montague, Frederick Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Freeman, Peter Morley, Ralph Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Muggeridge, H. T. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Gillett, George M. Newman, Sir [...]. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Glassey, A. E. Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gossling, A. G. Palin, John Henry Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)
Gould, F. Paling, Wilfrid Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Perry, S. F. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.