HL Deb 10 August 1882 vol 273 cc1328-43

Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and Commons Consequential Amendments, and reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments, considered (according to order).

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)

My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to agree to the first of the Commons Amendments upon the Amendments of this House, and I will state in a few words the effect of that Amendment, and the condition in which it leaves the Bill. My Lords, it has been impossible for the Government or for the other House of Parliament to agree to the introduction of the principle of the absolute veto of the landlord into this Bill. It would have the effect of excluding the tenant in limine from any power of application to the tribunal constituted by the Bill; but as the Bill now stands it certainly does contain greater and more careful precautions for the purpose of obtaining the same end which I understood the noble Lords opposite desired to attain by the absolute veto which they proposed and carried in this House the other day. I do not understand that noble Lords opposite desire that the veto of the landlord should be used for any and every conceivable motive. I do not understand from them that it should be Sic volo sic jubeo stet pro ratione voluntas, but that there was a very strong reason in their minds—namely, the tenant's ability to pay his arrears, upon which the landlord might stand in resisting the attempt of his tenant to obtain the advantages of this Bill. The landlord's interest in this respect is identical with that of the State, and we all agree that everything that can be done ought to be done and must be done to prevent a fraudulent tenant—a deceptive tenant—who is able to make good to the landlord the whole of the debt he has incurred from obtaining the advantages of the composition provided by the Bill. My Lords, if that is so, then I would point out that the Bill, as it now stands, provides a greater security than before for the attainment of that end. The Bill, by the adoption of a portion of the words of the Amendment of the noble Marquess, stands in this way. It presumes and intends, in the first place, that the application to the Land Court or Land Commissioners shall be, if possible, a joint one. That stands now in the first line of the clause. The Bill intends that the application shall be the application of the landlord and the tenant together, and [that is entirely in harmony with another provision which was in the Bill originally—that wherever the landlord and the tenant have united in a joint affidavit to the Court, that in itself should be primâ facie evidence that there was no intention to defraud, a provision which I have no doubt, in 99 cases out of 100—in all cases where there was no ground for grave suspicion upon the face of the matter—would practically settle the matter. This, then, is the construction and presumption of the Bill as it now stands; but, of course, it does not exclude the separate application of the tenant any more than the separate application of the landlord; but where the tenant makes a single application he is bound to give a notice of 10 days to the landlord. That, we think, is a matter of very considerable importance. It will prevent any tenant from fancying that he can rush into Court and take his chance of what he may get, if he does not succeed in inducing the landlord to make a joint application. He will know that the case is one of an exceptional character, which will require exceptional investigation, and he will have to give this ample notice to his landlord. Our belief is that with these precautions there is very little fear of much abuse of the powers given by the Bill. The principle of the Bill, as has been fully explained before, is that of the inability of the tenant to pay, and we have never proposed that this compulsory composition should have effect except in cases where the tenant is really unable to pay. As far as the principle goes, that has always been on the face of the Bill. The difficulty is to carry that principle into practical effect. We believe that the Bill in its present form will go far to secure that that principle shall be practically enforced; and, I may add, in connection with this, that by accepting the Amendment moved by my noble Friend (Viscount Lifford) we have now restricted the adjudication of these cases to legal members of the Sub-Commissions, together with the County Court Judges of Ireland, under the supervision, of course, of the Land Commission itself. My Lords, with these precautions, and subject to such an adjudication, we believe that there will be little danger of the Irish landlord being compelled to accept a composition of the arrears in cases where he can reasonably obtain the whole from the tenant. It is as little our wish as that of noble Lords opposite that that should be so; but while we are unable to agree that the decision of that question should be left absolutely to the landlord himself, without question or inquiry, or that the landlord, for any possible motive, totally distinct from the public interest in the matter, should be able to defeat the operation of this measure, while we cannot agree to admit that principle into the Bill, we are desirous to do everything—and I think we have done everything—which can secure this result—namely, that no Irish landlord shall be compelled to accept the composition under the Bill in cases where an honest tenant ought to pay in full. With that explanation, I confidently recommend the Commons Amendments to your Lordships' acceptance.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken of the alterations made by the Commons in the first Amendment of your Lordships' House as if they were matters of some importance. I cannot follow him into that discussion; but it appears to me that all the Commons have done is simply to disagree with the Amendment on the subject of option that we sent down. My views on this subject are unaltered; and in re-stating my opinion upon it, I wish to say, in the first place, that the grievance which I deprecate is the injury to the landlord who has got good arrears—that is to say, arrears which, if the tenant paid all he possessed, would be discharged. When I used that argument before, I was met by a noble and learned Lord opposite with a reference to the advantages that would result to the landlords who had bad arrears; but with them I have nothing to do. They make no difference as to the treatment of the landlord who has good arrears, and are no sort of consolation to him. I heard one statement of the noble Lord with very great surprise. He said that the principle of the Bill was the tenant's inability to pay.

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)

One of the principles.

THE MARQUESS Of SALISBURY

It is upon the very surface of the Bill that you exempt from payment the whole of the visible property of the tenant. Following up Amendments moved in this House, the value of the holding has been, under very narrow restrictions, excepted from that exemption; but, as the Bill originally stood, the whole of the visible property of the tenant—that is, the value of the holding, and all that was necessary for the cultivation of his land—was exempted from the necessity of paying his debt to his landlord. It is impossible, therefore, to pretend that the inability of the tenant is the principle of the Bill. The noble Lord sets aside that which is the principal possession of the tenant. He says that the creditor may have lent on the faith of this; but the creditor shall not have this from the tenant. The fact remains that you take from the creditor resources on which he is entitled to count—the resources on the faith of which he lent his money. You have, by a mere act of power, taken from the creditor resources on which he was entitled to count, and on which he lent his money. You have taken from the creditor and given to the debtor—not to debtors throughout the country, but to a particular class only—property which, owing to their turbulence and violence, you were unable to refuse to them, owing, as you say, to such refusal being inconsistent with the maintenance of the public peace. However much you may blink the matter, that is the reality; and these facts, though you may turn your face away from them, will not be forgotten in the future. Tenants and other debtors in the future will remember them; and if the time should ever arrive when any other body of debtors shall be sufficiently powerful to make the Government of this country feel that to require them honestly to pay their debts is inconsistent with the maintenance of the public peace, you may depend upon it that this precedent will be brought up against you, and that you will be compelled again to incorporate in the Statute Book the same pernicious, the same immoral exemption as that which you are about to add to the Statute Book now. My Lords, it is my opinion, and the opinion of noble Lords on this side of the House, that the substantial objects of the Bill could be gained, and these dangers, fruitful in the future, be avoided, if it were required that the landlord should be allowed to dissent from the operation of the Bill if he thought fit. I believe that these terms offered to the landlord would, in the vast majority of cases, reinforced, as they would be, with considerations arising out of the state of things in Ireland, and the pressure of public opinion in that country, practically secure that the large majority of the landlords would have come in and accepted them. If you had accepted the Bill in that form you would have carried out the reform you desire with outlaying down this dangerous precedent of public plunder to mislead future generations. But it may be said that this is an exceptional measure, that it is a final measure, and that if we pass it we shall hear no more of the subject. We heard that argument, however, last year, and we know how marvellously the germ theory has infected politics of recent years. We know how the measures which are pressed upon us in one year as final are, in succeeding years, pointed to as containing the germs of a principle which necessitates some further step in the same direction. What has been in the past will probably recur in the future. I hold it as most probable that this Bill will fail in accomplishing the object which you have in view. I do not believe that it will enable any considerable number of tenants to go into the Land Court. In the first place, the operation of the measure is limited to those tenants whose holdings are below £30 per annum; and, in the next place, it is limited to those who are able to pay a year's rent which is now in arrear. So that the tenant who is to be enabled to take advantage of this Bill must be one who occupies precisely the middle point—that he is not rich enough to occupy a holding of a value of more than £30 per annum, and that he must be rich enough to be able to produce a year's rent at a moment's notice, which he has not previously been able to obtain. In these circumstances, I do not think that any large number of Irish tenants will come under the operation of this Bill, or I think that, at all events, there will be a very considerable and influential number of such tenants who will be left outside of it. The "broken men," of whom the noble Marquess behind me spoke the other night, and the richer men, whom you ostentatiously exclude, will remain excluded from the operation of the Land Act. And what does the Prime Minister tell you will happen if this measure fails, as I think it will? The right hon. Gentleman says— When Parliament has interfered in the face of the very grave objections that are to be justly urged against all legislation of the sort, in providing means of this kind for the discharge or settlement of private engagements—when Parliament has once done this, it appears to me that the argument becomes very strong and very difficult to answer; that it ought to interfere effectually; and that it ought not to be baffled in that purpose."—[3 Hansard, cclxix. 1270.] That language is intended to recommend merely the Bill of the present year; but does it not contain a principle which will recommend the Bill of next year? You have interfered once between the landlord and the tenant, you have set a principle aside, and now that you have overcome your first modesty, what should hinder you from going further—it is only the first step that costs—why should you not go on and take more and more effectual measures, and still even more at the expense of the unfortunate landlord? My Lords, I have pointed out to your Lordships over and over again the dangers of this Bill, which I had hoped that we might have escaped from by the adoption of the Amendments I had the honour to propose for your Lordships' consideration. I do not wish my own personal feeling to be misunderstood in this matter. We have often been told—and the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) is very fond of using the argument—that we should cast the responsibility of all this exceptional legislation upon the Government, and that we should take care to do no act that might attach any portion of the censure due to its failure to the House of Lords. But have your Lordships escaped that danger by yielding in the past? Last year we passed a Bill which seemed to many of us to be detestable; but have we been allowed to throw the responsibility for that Bill upon Her Majesty's Government, or are we not continually reminded that we share in that responsibility? The noble Earl the late Viceroy of Ireland (Earl Cowper) used that argument the other night. He told us that, as we had passed the Land Act, and had allowed our Amendments upon it to some extent to be negatived, therefore we were responsible for the principle which was embodied in that Bill. Such an argument, if good as applied to that Bill, must be equally as good as applied to the present measure. What does Mr. Bright say on this point? He says— The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has given us another edition of that general condemnation of the Land Act of last Session, of which we heard so much in that Session from hon. Gentlemen opposite. If that Act was so unjust …., how was it that in the other House of Parliament it was allowed to become law, as it could do only by the consent of that august and ancient Assembly? If I sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and were in sympathy with the other House of Parliament, as hon. Gentlemen opposite are supposed to be, I think I should let alone the question whether the Land Act, in all its parts, was wise or just."—[Ibid., cclxxi. 1636.] That is the way in which you are now told that you cannot throw the responsibility for passing this measure upon the Government. I ventured to censure the Land Act during the Recess, and this is what the Prime Minister said in reference to my observations— My doctrines, Sir, were the doctrines of an Act of Parliament, and no man has ever shown that I have preached any doctrine in advance of the provisions of that Act. They were the doctrines of an Act of Parliament passed by this House, passed by the other House, passed by the vast majority in the other House."—[3 Hansard, cclxvi. 178.] And here the Prime Minister fell into a slight inaccuracy, because he went on to say, "which Lord Salisbury has at his command." The Attorney General, speaking on Colston's Day at Bristol, on the 12th of November, 1881, said— I say that Lord Salisbury is morally answerable for the passing of every line, every word, every letter of that Bill. He could have destroyed it on its second reading; but he bid his forces disperse and declined the contest. He could have struck out every clause; but he contented himself with alterations. The third reading went with his permission, and I say now that he and those who act with him, and even those who acknowledge allegiance to his leadership, are, as lawyers say, estopped from denouncing an Act which they could have stayed in its course, but did not. I have quoted these observations because I now mean to say that I intend to incur no responsibility in respect of one jot or tittle of this Bill. I believe that the Bill would be only permissible with the alteration in it which makes the consent of the landlord necessary before the measure can be put into operation, and that without that alteration I believe it to be a most pernicious Bill; that it is an Act of simple robbery; and that it will bear the gravest fruits as a legislative precedent in the future. Those are my opinions. I have had the opportunity this morning of conferring with the noble Lords who formed the majority of your Lordships' House, by whom the Amendment was carried, which was sent down to the other House, and I found that the overwhelming majority of their Lordships were of opinion that in the present state of affairs, especially those which have recently arisen in Ireland and in Egypt, it is not expedient that the Arrears Bill should be thrown out. I do not share in that opinion. If I had had the power I would have thrown out the Bill. I find myself, however, in a small minority, and, therefore, I shall not divide the House.

Lords Amendment, in page 1, line 11, after ("holding") insert— ("Or of the tenant with the assent of the landlord (such assent to be presumed on the expiration of ten days from the service upon the landlord in the prescribed manner of notice of such application, in the absence of any notice of dissent from such landlord or his agent)"). In the words inserted by the Lords, the Commons propose to leave out from the first ("of") to the end of the insertion, and to insert— ("Either of them after ten days notice in the prescribed manner by the landlord or his agent to the tenant, or by the tenant to the landlord or his agent: Provided that for the purpose of application under the provisions of sections two, ten, and thirteen respectively of this Act, the Land Commission may in respect of such notice extend the periods in the said sections respectively mentioned for any time not exceeding ten days.")

Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)

On question? resolved in the affirmative.

Lords' Amendment, in page 2, line 14, after ("security") insert— ("Provided that in the event of the next subsequent sale of the tenancy, the arrears of rent not satisfied by payment or remission shall be a sum payable to the landlord out of the proceeds of the sale within the meaning of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.")

The Commons propose to leave out ("the next subsequent") and insert ("a"), and after ("tenancy") to insert ("within seven years from the making of such order"), and after ("shall") to insert ("to an amount not exceeding one year of such arrears nor one half of the proceeds of such sale "), and to leave out ("the proceeds of the sale") and insert ("such proceeds").

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL,),

in moving that their Lordships agree with the Commons in the said Amendment, said, this was a well-understood practice in Ulster, where the sale of tenant right had been in regular operation. When an Ulster tenant came to sell his tenant right the landlord did not expect that the whole of the proceeds should be swallowed up in payment of arrears; and it was that practice the Government wished to follow in this matter. He thought the Amendment of the Commons was reasonable, and hoped it would be adopted.

Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)

On question? resolved in the affirmative.

THE DUKE OF ABERCORN

said, he rose to move an Amendment to the said Amendment, in order to render the wording of the clause more definite. It would appear from the Amendment as it stood that the landlord would have no claim upon the tenant right for arrears which might arise hereafter. He, therefore, proposed to limit this provision, giving the landlord a lien to the extent of only half the arrears dealt with by the order of the Court; and with that object he moved to insert, after the words "arrears of rent," the words "dealt with by such order, and."

Moved, To insert in the said Amendment' after the words ("arrears of rent"), the words ("dealt with by such order, and.")—(The Duke of Abercorn.)

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)

said, the noble Duke was evidently right in his intention, and there was no objection to the insertion of the words by which he proposed to give effect to it. It did not seem right that the Land Commissioners should not take into consideration the sale of the land as well as the tenant right security, because it might be that the tenant would have no means of raising the money. It was far more prudent that the Commissioners should take the whole matter into their consideration and deal with it as they thought reasonable.

On question? resolved in the affirmative.

Lords Amendment in page 2, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("may, if the commissioners think it reasonable"), and insert ("shall").

The Commons propose after ("shall") to insert ("so far as the commissioners think it reasonable").

On the Motion of The LORD PRIVY SEAL, the said Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment in page 2, line 24, leave out from ("where") to end of the sub-section and insert— ("According to the ordinary course of dealing between the landlord and tenant of a holding, the rent of such holding has actually been paid at some time after the day on which it became legally due, the rent which according to such usual course of dealing ought to be paid in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed the rent payable in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid.")

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 2, line 24, for the following reasons:—

  1. "(1.)Because the amendment is doubtful and uncertain in its meaning.
  2. "(2.)Because if under the amendment the rent, which according to the usual course of 1338 dealing ought to be paid in the year 1881, does not for all purposes satisfy the rent of that year the amendment is inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, while if it satisfies the rent of that year for all purposes the amendment is unnecessary."

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)

said, the next Amendment dealt with the phantom which had haunted that House under the name of the "hanging gale," as to which the Commons had inserted in the Bill a Proviso to the effect that where it appeared that according to the ordinary course of dealing between the landlord and tenant of a holding, the rent of such holding had usually been paid on some day after the day on which it became legally due, the usual day of the payment should be deemed for the purposes of the subsection to be the day at which the rent accrued due. Their Lordships had omitted that Proviso, and inserted the following words:— Where according to the ordinary course of dealing between the landlord and tenant of a holding the rent of such holding has actually been paid at some time after the day on which it became legally due, the rent which according to such usual course of dealing ought to be paid in the year 1881, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed the rent payable in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid. The Commons had disagreed with their Lordships' Amendment on the ground that it was inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. When the Bill first came before their Lordships, he was under the belief that it was not intended to touch the hanging gale; but he now frankly confessed that he was mistaken. He had since found that the intention of the Bill, as it left the House of Commons, and as it now returned to their Lordships, was that the tenants who were to come under its operation should, at the end of the year 1881, be absolutely clear from all arrears, whether under the name of ordinary arrears or of hanging gale. It was believed that the operation of the Bill would be imperfect unless it were so provided, it being felt that it would be quite possible for an unscrupulous landlord, after he had obtained all the advantages of the Bill, to evict a tenant from his holding by exacting a half-year's or a year's rent postponed under the custom of the hanging gale. He would move that their Lordships do not insist on their Amendment.

Moved, "That this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

said, he was very glad his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal had admitted that the clause was intended to sweep away the hanging gale. During the passage of the Bill through the House they had heard many conflicting statements as to how the Commissioners would deal with the hanging gale; but he (the Marquess of Waterford) had held from the beginning that this clause would have the effect of doing away with it. Therefore, he was all the more pleased to have a definite statement on the part of the Government that it was to be taken away, because they now knew the worst that could happen.

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)

That it was to be treated as an arrear.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

said, that the Law Officers of the Crown had put into the Bill provisions which covered each other; and when the question came before the High Court of Appeal in Ireland the words in this clause would be found to mean nothing as regarded the hanging gale, because they did not refer to it in any way whatsoever. As Her Majesty's Government had now declared their intention of sweeping away the hanging gale, the position of the landlords would be that they would be unable to collect their rents due in May, as they would have to wait until the end of the year before they could serve ejectments. He thought that was a course extremely unfair to the Irish landlords. The Prime Minister had given three different meanings of his (the Marquess of Waterford's) words in the Amendment. With two of these meanings he entirely disagreed. He meant to save the hanging gale in the only way it could be saved—by clearing the tenant up to May, 1881, instead of up to December, 1881, as was the case in the clause as it stood. He was very sorry for the sake of landlords in Ireland that the banging gale would be taken away, and he thought it another injustice of a most unjust Bill.

THE EARL OF LIMERICK

said, he was sorry that the Government had determined to pass the Amendment, as he thought its effect would be to cause the landlords to press for their rent when it was due without leaving a hanging gale. The tenants, having been used to a hanging gale, would resist the attempt to do away with it. On the other hand, when it had been swept away, the landlords would object to its revival; and the result would be to create an endless amount of litigation and bad feeling between landlords and tenants, and a constant friction wherever the hanging gale had been the custom.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

(who was indistinctly heard) said, he had been under the impression that by the Bill, as proposed by the Government, the hanging gale was to have been retained; and, had he thought that it would not be retained, he should have felt himself obliged to modify his general opinion as to the Bill. To do away with the hanging gale would be so unjust and so injurious, without doing the smallest possible good, that if he had known that it was to be taken away he should have felt himself unable to support the Bill, as he had done on the second reading. He thought it would be seen that, with such a provision in the measure, those tenants who had paid their rents would be in a much worse position than those who had refused to pay their rent, and waited to take advantage of this measure. There was no doubt that a great many of the Irish tenants had fallen into arrears through bad harvests; but it was equally true that many were in arrears with their rent through disinclination to pay. The tenants who had paid their rents would now be in a worse position than those who had not paid, as they would have this hanging gale still over their heads, while other tenants who had withheld their rents, taking advantage of the Bill, would, by the sweeping away of the hanging gale, have half-a-year's rent, and in some cases a whole year's rent, deliberately given them, while landlords whose estates were now subject to the hanging gale would, from no fault of their own, have either six months' or a year's income taken from them. He thought that most unjust to the honest tenants of Ireland, and also most unjust to the landlords. It was well known that in many cases money was raised upon the hanging gale, and in such cases the landlords would find what they regarded as an asset taken away from them. He was under the impression that when the measure was before their Lordships on a previous occasion, the Lord Privy Seal had given an assurance that the hanging gale would be retained; and he, therefore, could not support the Amendment.

Question put.

A division being challenged,

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he wished to point out that if a division were pressed for, and it resulted in their Lordships insisting on their Amendment, it might be fatal to the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

said, he had no wish to divide, and was content with having made his protest.

Resolved in the affirmative.

Lords Amendment, in page 3, line 7, after ("money") insert— ("Provided always, that where two or more parties are entitled to the arrears, the Land Commission shall have power to decide the rights of the parties, and the proportion in which the said arrears shall he divided amongst them.")

The Commons propose to leave out ("said arrears") and insert ("sums so ordered to be paid to or for the benefit of the landlord.")

Amendment agreed to.

Page 4, the Commons propose as a consequential Amendment in page 4, line 30, after ("or") to insert ("any member.")

Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment in page 4, line 30, after ("Sub-commission") insert ("being a barrister-at-law.")

The Commons propose to add ("or solicitor.")

Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment in line 33, after ("shall") insert— ("Subject to an appeal to the Land Commission, on and in such conditions and circumstances as may he prescribed.")

The Commons propose before ("subject") to insert ("in reference thereto and"), and after (appeal") to insert ("on matter of law.")

The Commons propose as a consequential Amendment to the Bill in line 33, to leave out ("in reference thereto.")

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)

said, that the next Amendment of the Commons related to the matter of appeal. The Commons concurred with their Lordships as to the right of appeal on matters of law, but not as to the right of appeal on matters of fact; and he submitted that there were very strong reasons indeed against giving an appeal from the original inquiry before the County Court Judge or the legal Assistant Commissioner to the Land Commission in Dublin. Those matters of fact might be safely intrusted to that inquiry; and it was evident that in the case of very small questions, involving only a few pounds, if they were carried before the Court of Appeal on a matter of fact—for example, as to whether the tenant had or had not the means of paying his arrears in full—the effect in point of expense and delay on the small cottier tenant might be ruinous. Such a power of appeal in the hands of an unscrupulous man might be used totally to defeat the object of the Bill. He believed the advantage to the landlord would be very slight indeed, but that the Amendment would place in the hands of unscrupulous men a power that would be a very dangerous weapon. On these grounds he asked their Lordships to agree to the Amendment of the House of Commons.

Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, in page 10, leave out Clause 17.

The Commons propose to insert an amended clause in lieu of the one struck out.

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)

said, the next and last Amendment related to the clause to be substituted for Clause 17. In that clause the power to the landlords of deducting local rates had been omitted. The clause, as it stood at first, was not in the original Bill, but was introduced by an eminent legal Member of the other House, and in its first form it included both local rates and public taxes; but it had appeared on further examination that there would be the greatest difficulty and embarrassment in applying the clause to local rates; and the author of the clause himself had since become a party to the Amendment as it now stood. The clause, as now proposed, was a very important one, but it was confined entirely to public taxes; and he hoped their Lordships would pass it in that form.

Amended clause agreed to.

Bill returned to the Commons.