Lords Sitting of 18 March 1919

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The DUKE OF GRAFTON—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ADVOCATES AND LAW AGENTS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill for the purpose of amending the law by removing disqualification on the ground of sex from acting as advocates and law agents in Scotland.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

COMMONS PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely whether arrangements can be made by which the Estimates, Bills, Votes and Proceedings, and other Papers issued only to members of the House of Commons can be regularly and daily procured for and issued to such Peers as may require and ask for them.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): The suggestion of the noble Viscount will, of course, be accepted, and I will consult with the officers of the House as to the most convenient procedure to be adopted.

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to call your attention to an entry which appears on the Minutes of Proceedings circulated in respect of last Friday. It appears—
"Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill: Brought from the Commons; read 1a."
Your Lordships do not require to be reminded that the House did not sit last Friday except for judicial business, and before I make any observations upon it I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can throw any light upon this entry, and upon whose authority and whose Motion a Bill was read a first time when the House was sitting only for judicial business.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR(who was indistinctly heard): My Lords, the circumstances under which this step was taken may, I think, be quite shortly explained. It was, of course, extremely desirable that as much time should be given to your Lordships as was practicable for the discussion of the Bill, which is of some considerable detail. It was, on the other hand, urgent that the Bill should be passed through all its stages, if possible, and should receive the Royal Assent before Quarter Day. The reason was that very many tenants at this moment have had notice to quit served upon them, and unless this Bill became law before Quarter Day they would have no answer at all to action for eviction. In these circumstances it was really of peremptory importance that, if it could be brought about, the Bill should receive the Royal Assent before Quarter Day.
Those who were responsible for the transaction of business in your Lordships' House were anxious that the maximum of time should be afforded for the discussion of the Bill. It would have been impossible to give your Lordships time to discuss the Bill unless the First Reading was taken on Friday. In these circumstances my noble friend the Leader of the House was consulted, and he being satisfied that we should thus obtain more time for the discussion and should be able to give your Lordships a longer time to read the Bill after it was printed, the course suggested was adopted. I may mention that there is a good deal of precedent for taking the First Reading

709
in such circumstances. I hope the noble Marquess will not think that it was done with any other motive than that of expediting the progress of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am certain that the motives of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack were absolutely above suspicion, and I do not suggest for a moment that there has been any sinister object concealed beneath this procedure. But I think it right to call your Lordships' attention to what happened. There was no reason for this proceeding. The Government had ample knowledge of when the measure was coming from another place, and all they had to do was to ask your Lordships to appoint a sitting of the full House on Friday last if they wished to read a Bill a first time on that day; and I am certain that if they had made such a proposal to your Lordships it would have been readily assented to. But they did not do so because they did not understand what their business was. Their business was to see that the proper regulations of your Lordships' House were obeyed; they did not notice that the time was running out and that they would not be able to do what they wished if they missed this particular Friday.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said that the Bill must be through by a certain day. That depends entirely upon your Lordships' wishes in the matter. I am not at all sure that the Bill can be in any case through by the day the noble and learned. Lord mentions; that must depend upon what your Lordships wish in the subsequent stages of the Bill. But there was a good reason for not delaying the First Reading; and if the Government had had their eyes properly fixed on the business they would have seen that it was necessary to have an ordinary sitting of the House in order to read the measure a first time. I admit that this is a technical matter, but it is one of those technical matters that have to be watched. We do not want the judicial sittings of the House to be used as ordinary sittings. If that is done it would create a precedent which, in the hands of another Government (let us say), might be used in a very adverse way to the liberties of your Lordships' House. If such a course were adopted it might be considered proper when the House is sitting judicially to submit ordinary legislation to it, and we might have
710
Bills passed through without your Lordships knowing anything about it.
I understand why the Government have done this in this particular instance, and I do not propose to take any further notice of it on the present occasion. I think it is only right to give notice that if it happens on a future occasion your Lordships would be perfectly entitled to take whatever steps you thought right in the matter, which would probably take the form of insisting upon a further adjournment when the Second Reading was reached. That is not a course which I suggest the House should take on the present occasion. There is every reason why this Bill should be hastened with all due despatch, but I do not think that the Government ought to have put us in this position. In the future—except where, towards the end of the session, it may be right to do it, with full notice of such a proceeding—I hope that no advantage will be taken of a judicial sitting in order to get through one stage of an ordinary legislative Bill which ought to be taken in the usual sitting of the House.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I have not heard the whole of this discussion, or indeed anything except the concluding sentences of the noble Marquess; therefore I am not. certain that my interposition may be altogether relevant to the point he has raised. I understood the noble Marquess to complain of the procedure by which the First Reading of this Bill was taken at a judicial meeting of your Lordships' House on Friday last, and under which the Second Reading is put down for to-day. I assume the full responsibility for that. At the conclusion of our sitting on Thursday last the print was submitted to me, and I was told that there was an urgent desire on the part of your Lordships' House—felt by nobody more strongly than by the noble Marquess:—that the Bill should be taken on Tuesday of this week.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not at all.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I may have been misinformed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg my noble friend's pardon. He said I expressed an Opinion. I expressed no such opinion.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I did not say you did. I said I was so informed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then you were misinformed.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am only stating my case to the House. I accept full responsibility, and I am stating the grounds upon which I acted. I was informed that there was a desire, shared by the noble Marquess—about whom I put the question—that the Bill should be taken for Second Reading to-day. I inquired whether it was in accordance with precedent that the First Reading should be taken at the judicial meeting on Friday. I was informed that there were precedents to that effect; and it was with the view exclusively of studying the convenience of noble Lords that I gave my consent. Knowing the strong views of the noble Marquess about correct procedure here, I especially inquired whether it was the desire of the noble Marquess that this proceeding should be taken, and whether steps would be taken to ensure his compliance. I was told that would be so. Therefore if we have erred it has not been from any desire either to encroach upon the privileges of your Lordships' House or to do anything displeasing to the Front Bench opposite.

THE SITUATION IN EGYPT.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl who leads the House whether he is able to make any statement on the subject of recent events in Egypt.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I am glad to respond to the Question which has been put to me with private notice by the noble 'Marquess, since the matter is one which naturally attracts a good deal of public interest. The situation is as follows. In November last a deputation of Egyptian Nationalists, under the leadership of Sand Pasha Zaglul, called at the British Residency to advocate a programme of complete autonomy of Egypt which would leave to Great Britain only a right of supervision in regard to the Public Debt and facilities for shipping in the Suez Canal. They demanded that they should be allowed to proceed to London at once in order to put forward their
712
demands. At the same time the Nationalists elected a Committee of fourteen leaders and commenced an agitation throughout the country, collecting signatures to petitions and also subscriptions in support of their programme. Shortly afterwards the Prime Minister, Ruchdi Pasha, suggested that he and Adly Pasha, Minister of Education, should visit London in the immediate future in order to discuss Egyptian affairs. He further urged that the Nationalist leaders should also be allowed a hearing in London.
His Majesty's Government, in reply, stated that while sympathising with the idea of giving the Egyptians an ever increasing share in the government of the country, they could not abandon their responsibilities for order and good government in Egypt, over which a British Protectorate had been formally declared in 1914, and for safeguarding the rights and interests of the native and foreign populations. No useful purpose would be served by allowing the Nationalist Leaders to come to London and advance immoderate demands which could not possibly be entertained. As regards the two Ministers, their visit would be very welcome, but it would be better in the interests of their own convenience and dignity that it should not be timed to coincide with the first weeks of the Peace Conference when Mr. Balfour would be absent in Paris and fully engaged. It was proposed that the visit should be postponed for a short time. The two Ministers tendered their resignations to the Sultan.
At the beginning of January the British High Commissioner, Sir Reginald Wingate, was summoned to London to report upon the situation, and an invitation was addressed to the two Ministers to come here in the middle of February; but they replied that they declined to come unless the Nationalist leaders were also permitted to proceed to London. His Majesty's Government felt unable to accept such a condition, and the resignations of the two Ministers, which had remained in suspense, have been accepted by the Sultan. Steps were then taken for the formation of a new Ministry, but the Nationalists, on hearing of the refusal of their demand, have endeavoured to prevent a Ministry from being formed by intimidating the Sultan and those Ministers or others who were ready to remain in or accept office. His Highness has appealed to the Acting

713
High Commissioner for protection from further insults and intimidations, and authority was given for the arrest and deportation to Malta of Saad Pasha Zaglul and three other Nationalist leaders who have played the most conspicuous part in the present agitation.
There have since been some demonstrations and rioting in Cairo and in one or two provincial centres, chiefly organised by students who have enlisted the help of the town rabble. Collisions have occurred with the Egyptian police and with the British troops engaged in maintaining order, and there have been some casualties, while a few looters have been shot. These manifestations are not approved by the more sober elements of the population. There is every reason to believe, from the latest information, that the situation is well in hand.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (RETURNING OFFICERS' EXPENSES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

CAVENDISH CLARKE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
LORD BUCKMASTER: After Clause 5 I beg to move the insertion of a new clause. It merely provides for the payment of an annuity from the husband to the wife in terms that have been agreed.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 5 insert as a new clause:
".—(1) The said George Fitzroy Cavendish Clarke shall during the joint lives of himself and the said Florence Jean Cavendish Clarke pay to the said Florence Jean Cavendish Clarke until she re-marry solely for the purpose of her maintenance and support an annuity of Seventy-eight pounds free of income tax by equal quarterly instalments as hereinafter provided. The said annuity shall cease and determine if the said Florence Jean Cavendish Clarke do not continue to lead a chaste life.
"(2) The instalments of the said annuity shall be payable quarterly into her proper hands and on her personal receipt the first payment to be made three months after the passing of this Act and thenceforth at intervals of three calendar months.
714
Provided always that three days prior to the date for payment of each instalment the said Florence Jean Cavendish Clarke shall communicate her place of abode and residence to the said George Fitzroy Cavendish Clarke or his agents duly authorised in that behalf and if the said Florence Jean Cavendish Clarke neglect to disclose her residence the said George Fitzroy Cavendish Clarke and his agents may postpone payment of the sum then payable until the said condition shall have been complied with."—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
LORD BIJCKMASTER: Clause 6 is the usual clause to prohibit re-marriage. I beg to move that it be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS (QUALI- FICATION OF WOMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

PUBLIC-HOUSE IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before the Motion to go into Committee is put, I think I ought to make an explanation to your Lordships. This Bill was originally in the hands of Lord Lamington. As your Lordships are aware, he is abroad—I think he has gone to Syria on urgent public business—and he asked me in his absence to take charge of the Bill. The reason why I could not support the Bill in its original form was that in my opinion it interfered much too much with the jurisdiction of the licensing magistrates and the licensing committee; but after consideration among the various persons interested in the Bill, and after considering the criticisms made by, among others, Lord Harris, the Bill has been modified very drastically so far as that part of it is concerned. In fact, there is a proposal now to leave out all the clauses which would have in the initial stages interfered with the licensing committee or the licensing magistrates. The only proposal is that we shall have a certain board or committee from which general orders, which they could be asked

715
to obey, should be issued. The rest of the Bill, which relates to the constitution of improved public-houses, I understood met with the consent of your Lordships on the last occasion, and it is not necessary for me to say anything more about it; but I thought that the explanation which I have given was due to your Lordships before going into Committee. I hope your Lordships will allow the Bill to go into Committee, and that it may be dealt with.
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Appointment of Commissioners.
1. For the purpose of granting licences for the sale by retail of excisable or intoxicating liquors, and for the exercise of the other powers hereinafter referred to in this Act, it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council from time to time to appoint Commissioners (hereinafter called "County Commissioners") with the powers and duties defined in this Act.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD HARRIS: I am glad to see that the promoter of the Bill and his supporters have drastically altered it, so that it is hardly recognisable as the same Bill. In those circumstances I am almost surprised that the promoters of the Bill proceed with it; but I can raise no possible objection to its proposed new form, because the quite unmerited censure of the licensing justices is, I understand, entirely withdrawn. At present as the Bill is before your Lordships it continues to have with it the explanatory Memorandum, and the Bill was based originally upon that explanatory Memorandum, which contained this very severe censure of the justices, and asserted, as an argument for the introduction of the Bill, that it was necessary to change something which the justices had been doing for many years, which I submitted to your Lordships was entirely untrue. That reason for the introduction of the Bill having been withdrawn, it might, be argued that there remains no basis upon which the Bill could be founded; but, as I said on the first occasion, I entirely agree with the policy put forward in the Bill—namely, to encourage licensees to alter the character of their houses and introduce other attrac-
716
tions to the public besides the consumption of alcohol. I shall have a word to say as regards Clause 11, but I have no objection to the Bill as it now stands; indeed, I think that if a change is to be made at all it is reasonable to get an appeal from the licensing justices to a central body where the licensing justices have refused a licence for an improved public-house.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am very glad that Lord Harris sees his way to support the Bill in its new form. I was not altogether surprised at the criticism he advanced—that the Bill is in fact, strictly speaking, by no means the same Bill as that which we considered on the Second Reading. That is perfectly true. At the same time the principal framework—its structure—made it possible to proceed by eliminating certain clauses altogether, and therefore it was not necessary to go through the process of re-committing the Bill, which might easily have been necessary in certain other cases. I ventured to tell my noble friend Lord Lamington, when he asked that the Bill might be read a second time, that he was taking a very bold step in suggesting the complete destruction of the jurisdiction of the licensing justices without being able to produce, apparently, a large body of evidence showing that their functions had not been properly fulfilled. I have no doubt that other noble Lords made similar representations to Lord Lamington, with the result that he cheerfully consented to alter the form of the Bill in the way which your Lordships now observe. I am very glad that the noble Lord opposite agrees that the invention of a body of Commissioners, who will be able to put pressure upon any quite inert bench of justices who may be indisposed to give any effect to the provisions of the Bill, is a useful one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Areas, &c., of Commissioners' jurisdiction.
2.—(1) The County Commissioners shall exercise their powers within the counties, or groups of counties, to which they shall be appointed, and the delimitation of such county areas shall be made by His Majesty by Order in Council.
(2) To each county area there shall be appointed three Commissioners, of whom one, to act as chairman, shall be judge of one of the county court districts, or a police court or stipendiary magistrate, within the said area.
(3) There shall be paid cut of the Consolidated Fund by the Treasury to each of such Commissioners (except the chairman) remuneration at the rate of one thousand pounds a year, and to the chairman remuneration at the rate of five hundred pounds a year, which said remuneration shall be additional to their salaries as judges or magistrates: Provided that it shall be lawful for the Treasury to allow each Commissioner such sum as the Treasury shall deem needful to defray his travelling expenses.
(4) The appointments of the Commissioners shall be for such time as His Majesty in Council may deter tine, and any Commissioner may be removed by Order of the Council for inability or misbehaviour on the recommendation of the Secretary of State.
(5) There shall be allotted to each group of Commissioners such clerks and other assistants, and such office accommodation, as shall be from time to time determined by the rules to be made under this Act, and such expenses shall be paid by the Treasury in respect thereof as the Treasury, in accordance with such rules, or otherwise where not provided for in the rules, shall determine.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Transfer of licensing authority to Commissioners.
3. The County Commissioners shall exercise all the powers hitherto exercised by licensing justices at, annual and other licensing meetings and by the confirming authorities under the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, in respect to the grant, transfer, and taking away of licences for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, and the grant of protection orders, & c., in respect of the same, subject to such regulations as to procedure as shall be made from time to time in the rules to be framed as hereinafter provided: and on and after a date to be determined by His Majesty by Order in Council, the powers and duties so exercised hitherto by the said justices and authorities shall cease and determine.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 3.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Committee to frame rules.
4.—(1) So soon as convenient after the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall nominate a Rules Committee, consisting of five members, one of whom shall be a. judge of the High Court of Justice, one a county court judge and one a police court or stipendiary magistrate, who shall compile rules for the regulation of the procedure of the County Commissioners and any other matters concerned with the carrying into effect of the provisions of this Act, in so far as they are not specifically provided for in this Act.
(2) The rules referred to in subsection (1) shall, when framed, be submitted to His Majesty in Council, and when approved by Order in Council shall have effect as though their provisions were specifically enacted in this Act.
(3) The Rules Committee shall continue in being subject to any alterations which may be made in its membership from time to time by the Secretary of State, and it shall amend or alter or add to the rules from time to time when required so to do by Order in Council, and subject to the like confirmation and approval as in the case of the original rules.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 4.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
"Improved public-house" certificate.
5. Where licensed premises are not merely places for the consumption of intoxicating liquors, but contain adequate provision, in view of the character of the house and the wants of the neighbourhood, for the supply of other refreshments, and are airy, commodious and comfortable, and have proper seating and sanitary accommodation, and contain provision for suitable recreation to the satisfaction of the County Commissioners, the Commissioners shall, on the application of the licence holder, when the application for the grant or renewal of the licence is heard, issue a certificate to the effect that the premises form an "improved public-house"; and thereupon, until such certificate shall have been lawfully withdrawn, such premises shall enjoy all the privileges and exemptions attaching to an improved public-house under this Act or any Act to be hereafter passed. Such certificates shall not be withdrawn except after reasonable notice to the holder thereof and to the owner of the premises, and alto' reasonable opportunity has been given to the said holder and owner to be heard in opposition to such withdrawal.
LORD PARMOOR: The first two Amendments in Clause 5 are really verbal, involved in omitting the first four clauses. Instead of leaving matters to the satisfaction of the county commissioners, as proposed, they are now left to the satisfaction of the licensing justices.
Amendments moved—
Clause 5, page 3, line 9, leave out ("to the satisfaction of the county commissioners")
Clause 5, page 3, line 10, leave out ("commissioners") and insert ("licensing justices").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved the addition of a new subsection to Clause 5.The noble Lord said: This Amendment is necessary for this reason. As the Bill was originally drafted it left these matters to a central board. Now, as I have pointed out, they are left to the licensing justices. Therefore it is necessary to deal with Section 71 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, in order that the restrictions

719
of that section should not interfere with the proper exercise of their jurisdiction by the licensing justices; and the new subsection, which is the present Amendment, is put in merely for that purpose.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 3, line 20, at end insert as a new subsection:
"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section seventy-one of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, the licensing justices before whom an application for an 'improved public-house' certificate is heard shall not refuse to grant such a certificate merely on the ground that alterations in the premises proposed by the applicant would give increased accommodation or facilities."—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved the insertion of a new clause. The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to appoint a Central Board of Commissioners, and the proposal is that it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council from time to time to appoint five Commissioners, to be called the Central Board of Commissioners for the Control of Public Refreshment Houses, to act as an appellate tribunal on questions of fact and the exercise of judicial discretion, and to make rules for and issue instructions for the guidance of licensing justices in the granting of the improved public house certificates and matters appertaining thereto. The object is to give sufficient powers to the Central Board to enable the general principles of the Bill to be carried through.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 5 insert as a new clause:
"Central Board of Commissioners.
".—(1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council from time to time to appoint five commissioners, to be called the Central Board of Commissioners for the Control of Public Refreshment Houses (hereinafter called the central board') to act as an appellate tribunal on questions of fact, and the exercise of judicial discretion and to make rules for and issue instructions for the guidance of licensing justices in the granting of the 'improved public-house' certificates referred to in the preceding section and matters appertaining thereto.
"(2) Any person aggrieved by a decision of licensing justices or an application made by him to such justices for an improved public-house' certificate or by a decision of such justices withdrawing such a certificate or by a decision of such justices under section three of this Act may appeal to the central board, and the board may confirm or reverse, or vary in any particular, the decision so appealed from, or refer the matter back to the justices for further consideration.
"(3) The central board shall make rules determining the procedure to be followed on appeals to the board from the decisions of licensing justices."—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Entertainments in licensed premises.
6. Notwithstanding anything in any public or private Act contained, every licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors to be sold on the premises, if the holder thereof is also the holder of an "improved public-house" certificate, shall be deemed to comprise all licences which would otherwise be necessary in order that theatrical and musical and similar entertainments might be given, or dancing permitted, upon the licensed premises (including buildings or gardens attached thereto), save that the County Commissioners, if they think that good order or public morals would be endangered by dancing on the premises, may prohibit such dancing; and the Commissioners may in any case impose upon the conduct of dancing, as well as of other entertainments upon licensed premises, such conditions as may appear to them to be required in the interests of order and public safety.
LORD PARMOOR: The two Amendments standing in my name to Clause 6 are merely formal.
Amendments moved—
Clause 6, page 3, line 29, leave out ("county commissioners") and insert ("licensing justices")
Clause 6, page 3, line 31, leave out ("commissioners") and insert ("licensing justices").(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to
Clause 7:
Children on licensed premises.
7. No prohibition of the presence of children upon licensed premises contained in any Act for the time being in force shall apply to premises to which an "improved public-house" certificate is attached.
LORD HARRIS: I think I ought to notice here that this provision is a change in the present law. The law at present is that children below a certain age are not to be admitted to a public-house. These public-houses will have the right to sell spirituous liquors, and children are, apparently, to be admitted to any part of the improved public-house, including that part where the spirituous liquors are to be sold. I do not propose any alteration myself, but this is evidently an evasion of the existing law and of the intention of the country as regards the exclusion of children.
LORD PARMOOR: Let me say, in answer to the noble Lord, that the idea of the improved public-house is that the man and his family might go there, as they do abroad, without any harm happening to them. If the noble Lord wants words to make it clearer, I am sure we could adopt them before the Report stage.
EARL LOREBURN: I would suggest that there should be an alteration, because it cannot be right that children should be admitted.
LORD PARMOOR: I will see that an Amendment is introduced giving effect to the limitation suggested.
EARL RUSSELL: Would it not be possible to meet the wishes of the promoters and also the objections which have been made? What I understand the promoters desire is that, so far as the public-house is not a drinking shop but a tea garden, children and families should go there, and so far as it is a drinking shop that they should be excluded. Could not we allow justices, in granting a public-house licence, to consider that, and to say in what part of the house children should be allowed to go?
LORD PARMOOR: We will consider that and put in limiting words.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Plans of licensed premises.
8. Section seventy-two of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, relating to structural alterations of licensed premises, is hereby repealed, but the County Commissioners may, upon any application to them for the grant or continuance of a licence or an "improved public-house" certificate, demand that the applicant shall produce before them plans of his premises, or of any proposed alteration in them, and may take the nature of the premises as thus indicated into consideration in determining whether they are suitable for the grant of a licence or of a certificate.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 8.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
Appeals.
9. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the County Commissioners may appeal on a question of law (including the question whether judicial discretion had been exercised by the Commissioners) to the High Court of Justice, by way of
722
case stated in like manner as from a court of summary jurisdiction; and the provision of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts relating to the stating of cases for the opinion of the High Court shall apply, mutalis mutandis, to appeals from the County Commissioners.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 9.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Remission of compensation charge.
11. No charge shall be payable lo the compensation authority under section twenty-one of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, in respect to premises by die holder of the licence for which an "improved public-house" certificate has been granted.
LORD HARRIS: I do not understand why the remaining licensees are to pay the whole of the charge for the houses which are de-licensed. As we know, the whole of the cost of extinguishing licences and the compensation paid to the licensee and other persons interested in the licence is contributed pro rata by the other licensees in the area concerned. By this clause the noble Lord proposes to give the holder of the improved public-house licence the advantage of not having to contribute towards that levy. I do not quite understand why. They have still got licences to sell spirituous liquor in perhaps a considerable part of the licensed premises, and I do not quite see why, unless it is to encourage licensees to adopt this improved house idea, they are to be exempted from contributing to the levy. I hold no brief whatever for either breweries or licensees. I have no interest personally in any brewery or public-house. Simply from the point of view of equity I do not understand why they are to be altogether relieved from the contribution. Clause 10 exempts them from one-half the licence fee. I should have thought it would have been fairer that they should contribute to the levy 50 per cent.
LORD PARMOOR: The principle is this, that these improved public-houses are not the houses of which the licences are either likely to be surrendered, and therefore they will not be the houses in respect of which any levy could be made. Therefore it was thought fair in these circumstances to exclude them from the levy, as they had no opportunity of getting

723
the advantages which the ordinary licensed house might get out of the levy when the licence is taken away. I agree with the noble Lord that it might to a certain extent encourage improvement. I hope it would; but surely it is quite fair that they should not contribute to the levy when there is no possibility that they could get any advantage from it.
LORD HARRIS: I do not know why they should not get some advantage. If there is a less number of licensed houses in any neighbourhood and an increased demand for liquors, they are likely to get an advantage from it.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Galway.)
On Question, Bill read 3a. Amendments (privilege) made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

WAR CHARITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stantnore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHNIORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power of the Local Government Board for Scotland to sanction schemes.
1. Where in the opinion of the committee or other governing body of any war charity in Scotland within the meaning of the War Charities Act, 1916, the funds or property belonging to such charity can no longer be usefully applied to the purposes or any of them for which such funds or property were subscribed or acquired, such committee or governing body may with the sanction of the Local Government Board for Scot-
724
land provide for the application of such funds or property to purposes as nearly similar as may be to those or any of them for which such funds or property were subscribed or acquired, or to other suitable purposes, and that either in pursuance of a scheme to be administered by such committee or governing body, or by way of transfer to any institution or society or body of persons subject to such conditions as the Board think fit, and such funds or property shall be applied accordingly.
THE EARL OF KINTORE THE EARL OF KINTORE: moved to omit from Clause 1 the words "to purposes as nearly similar as may be to those or any of them for which such funds or property were subscribed or acquired, or." The noble Earl said: My object in putting down this Amendment is to give myself an opportunity of asking my noble friend if he can set at rest a doubt which exists in the minds of some of us as to whether the words that I suggest should come out, particularly the word "similar,' do not needlessly fetter rather than widen the discretion of the Local Government Board for Scotland. Perhaps I can best illustrate my meaning by a reference to a Scottish war charity in which some of us have been greatly interested. I know no county in Scotland which has not raised and splendidly maintained throughout the whole course of the war funds for the provision of food parcels and other comforts for the prisoners of war of the county regiments. The war being now over the objects of the Prisoners of War Fund are achieved, and varying balances remain in hand. Under this Bill, as I read it, these balances might be appropriated to "similar" purposes. I am anxious to be satisfied as to the precise meaning of "similar." If it means "identical," I would ask what identical purposes can possibly be found for a fund to assist prisoners of war, who as such no longer exist. If my noble friend is able to assure me that under the Bill as it stands it will be lawful to apply these balances for regimental objects, such as regimental institutes, and the support of soldiers' widows and orphans, I should be very well content; and as I remember being taught long ago that the word "similar" means the same thing with a difference, I hope that this assurance can easily be given I imagine that here in England no such difficulty can arise, as I think the High Court or the Charity Commissioners, availing themselves of that most convenient doctrine of law called cy-pres, can and do divert moneys devised for one charitable purpose to quite another one; and I think

725
I am not wrong in saying that on one occasion they went so far as summarily to divert funds given for the redemption of captives from the Barbary pirates to the support of English elementary schools. If, therefore, by the use of the word "similar" it is intended to give Scottish authorities the same latitude as cy-pres gives here, well and good; but if on the other hand "similar" means "identical," I suggest that the particular purpose of our fund having now failed its position might become somewhat analogous to there being a resulting trust to the donor, and that his subscription, or a proportion of it, would have to be returned to him.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out from ("property") to ("to") in line 14.—(The Earl of Kintore.)
LORD STANMORE: I think I can assure the noble Earl that in this case the word "similar" does not mean "identical." The Bill goes on to say, "or for suitable purposes," which I think gives a wide field for discretion. At the same time I do not think it is advisable that the word should be omitted, partly because it seems unfair to subscribers that there should not be some similarity in the object, and also because it gives some guidance in regard to alternative schemes which may be put forward. For instance, in the case suggested by the noble Earl—the Prisoners of War Fund—there might be some member of the governing body of the fund who would wish the surplus devoted to some scheme of child-welfare. It obviously ought to be devoted to some military object, such as the regimental fund, as suggested by the noble Earl. I therefore hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

INTESTATE HUSBAND'S ESTATE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

SUMMONS AND PROCESS SERVERS' FEES (IRELAND) BILL.
Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed (according to Order)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, this Bill appears to be somewhat technical in character. It proposes to make a change in the law which I think is probably well justified. Its object is to enable the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to make orders to fix the fees which are payable to petty sessional summons servers and the fees payable to County Court process servers. The fact is that the fees at present are so small that it is impossible to get the work of serving summonses accomplished, and when a vacancy occurs in that important office no successor can be found at the present scale of emoluments. A petty sessional summons server receives 6d. for any summons he serves up to a distance of four miles from the Court, and no allowance is made for his return journey. It must be admitted that that fee is parsimonious. It is the same in the case of the County Court process where the server gets 6d. if only one summons is served, but if there is more than one defendant in the house he gets ls. Under this Bill the fees can be adjusted. No figure is laid down in the clauses of the Bill, the responsibility for choosing a proper sum being left to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford).
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in rising to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill I am conscious that the subject is one which it is difficult to render extremely interesting, and which involves some consideration of previous Bills dealing with this subject which passed through your Lordships' House and in due course became law. It should, I think, be constantly borne in mind—as I know was done in this House in the case of the first Act in 1915—that these are proposals which are recommended under circumstances that are conceded to be wholly exceptional. We are still living under the actual stress of the war situation, and no one would dare to rise and address

727
your Lordships upon this Bill, or upon the earlier Act without making in the fullest possible manner the admission that these are proposals which economically could never be recommended to this House, and which this House would certainly be very unlikely to accept, unless, as I have said, the circumstances were of an abnormal character.
It is obvious to everybody that the healthy state of things which existed between landlord and tenant before the war—the ordinary economic law of supply and demand—could not make its influence felt under the unusual stress of war conditions. Under an ordinary state of things a man who had a house to let was able to obtain the best price from a tenant in the open market, and where a tenant had premises on a tenancy subject to notice or to a definite term the landlord was at liberty to impose such terms as to rent as he thought fit, and could enforce the terms, whatever they might be, by giving or threatening to give a notice to quit. If he did determine the tenancy, or if it expired by fluxion of time, he was at liberty to take proceedings to recover possession of the premises.
Similarly, in dealing with a mortgagor and mortgagee, when land was mortgaged the mortgagee could, in the absence of express agreement, take such steps as he felt would be in his interest to increase the amount of the rent. The protection that was afforded under the Act already passed to tenants of houses was broadly extended for the protection of the mortgagor. In ordinary times under this system, both in respect of rent and in respect of mortgages the tenant and mortgagor were without any protection at all. It is obviously a system which, of all possible systems, is most likely to encourage that building which is so vitally necessary at the present time. It is conceded that, under the conditions which in the opinion of the Government makes this a necessary measure, for a certain time it must exercise an unfavourable influence upon any prospects of a general revival of the building trade, which the prosperity of the community demands.
In ordinary times the tenant, if evicted because the landlord exercised his right, desiring to increase his rent, would almost always, or at any rate in the majority of cases, be able to obtain a dwelling elsewhere,
728
and a mortgagor would be able to obtain a loan from another. It will be in the recollection of the House that a position of the greatest possible difficulty and gravity was brought about at the very beginning of the war. When war broke out it became immediately necessary, as your Lordships know, that large sections of the industrial population should move from one part of the country to another for the purposes of manufacture connected with the war. There was then in many parts of the country a scarcity of houses of a certain class, and the immediate result was that the tenants of all those houses were absolutely at the mercy of the landlords, who suddenly found themselves, at a time of unexampled national crisis, in possession of a complete monopoly. Even if the landlords were not raising the rents, the tenant who could not obtain reasonable accommodation elsewhere found himself in a position of very great seriousness.
It was in these circumstances, and because of the difficulty that arose both in the matter of rents and of mortgage interest, that the Act of 1915 was introduced. It was a temporary measure, and was so recommended to Parliament. The effect of the 1915 Act was, for a limited period, to give the tenant a security and to prevent the landlord from raising the rent. Of course, the objections to that proposal were pointed out; indeed, they were by no means unknown to the Government when they introduced the Bill in the first place. It was then explained that it was not in ignorance of these objections, but because of the necessities of the time that the proposal was introduced. Under the terms of that Act, as some of your Lordships may remember, the landlord was not allowed to raise his rent. It was pointed out, and with great justice, that that involved a big hardship in a case where the landlord was also a mortgagor. This observation will make it clear that the two subjects, rent and mortgages, are intimately connected and could not conveniently be dissociated either in the original or any consequent measure.
The Act of 1915 was passed by this House after it had been fully explained here, and after it had been explained in another place; and it was passed by your Lordships as an emergency measure and with very great speed—I almost think at a single sitting. The general principle of

729
that Act was that a tenant should not pay more than the pre-war rental, or be disturbed in his tenancy as long as he behaved himself in a respectable manner; and the Act applied to dwelling-houses the rent or rateable value of which did not on August 3, 1914, exceed in the City of London and the Metropolitan Police District £35 a year—your Lordships should notice these figures, because they are varied in the present Bill—in Scotland £30 a year, and in other places £26 a year. Where the rent did not amount to two-thirds of the rateable value the Act did not apply.
In those cases the landlords could only lawfully increase the rent for the following purposes which were defined by the Act. First of all, an increase of rent at the rate of 6 per cent. was allowed on the cost of improvements and structural alterations. Increases of rent on a transfer to the landlord of a tenant's obligation were allowed if the terms were on the whole more favourable to the tenant; and, conversely, the landlord's transfer of his obligation to the tenant became unlawful if the position of the tenant thereby was made worse than it was before. No authorised increase could become effective until the expiration of four weeks after notice in writing served by the landlord on the tenant; and the Act forbade the evasion of its provisions by the exaction of a premium or fine. The landlord by a further section was forbidden to compel the tenant to give up possession so long as the tenant paid the standard rent and any authorised increase,
This Act, though it was reasonably contemplated with anxiety by many persons, as a whole was, I was going to say successful, but I should perhaps be employing a juster form of speech if I said it did not fail to secure the objects which led to its introduction, and the worst mischiefs which had been apprehended did not, in fact, follow. But it was soon discovered that there were one or two cases for which the Act did not completely provide. Accordingly an amending Bill—the Increase of Rent (Amendment) Act—was introduced into Parliament in October, 1918, and that equally received your Lordships' assent after some discussion. The effect of this Act was to exclude from the definition of "landlords" in the 1915 Act any person who acquired ownership since September 30, 1917, by any means other than by reason of a settlement made before that date or under a will or an intestacy. Your Lord-
730
ships will recollect the explanation that was given of the object of that provision. It was to prevent the practice of a person buying a house in order to get into the house himself. All kinds of circumstances led to the adoption of this practice. Perhaps one of the most common explanations was that there were persons who were apprehensive of the air raids. There were other cases as well of people who wished to obtain the advantages of the Act of 1915 and were able to do so by the comparatively simple process of buying the tenancy. With the very necessary object of dealing with such cases the Act of 1918 was passed.
We shall soon be able to say that the war is over, and the time is therefore approaching when the Act of 1915 and the amending Act, which I have thought it necessary to explain in order that your Lordships might more closely and clearly follow the present proposals—the time, I say, is coming when unless some further provision is made, temporary mischiefs at least as serious as those which would have arisen if nothing had been done at the outbreak of war will certainly confront the country again. It has been perceived, by the Government for many months past that some proposal must be brought forward for meeting this contingency. Accordingly a very strong Committee was set up under the presidency of a distinguished Scottish Judge Lord Hunter, and that Committee considered the whole situation. It certainly had before it the opinions of many highly competent persons who have studied these matters, and, having given great thought to the matter, it made certain recommendations to the Government. Those recommendations, while they were not adopted in their entirety, form the basis of the proposals which are before your Lordships to-day.
The principal point in which the present Bill does not follow the recommendations of Lord Hunter's Committee lies in these circumstances. Lord Hunter's Committee recommended that the new Bill should be operative for a period of three years after the war. The Government did not accept that proposal, for this reason. It seemed to them that any proposals of this kind, so plainly uneconomic in character, ought not to be adopted or maintained for one moment longer than the evident necessities of the national situation demanded. It is earnestly hoped by those who are responsible in this matter and whose duty it is to give thought and con-

731
trivance to the situation to-day, that it will be by no means necessary to maintain this artificial and unhealthy system for so long a period as was suggested by Lord Hunter's Committee.
If I may invite your Lordships to look at the clauses of this Bill I may, I hope, be able with sufficient clearness to inform your Lordships of the actual changes that are made in the law. Section 1 provides that instead of the period of the war and six months afterwards, which was the provision contained in the 1915 Bill, the Act should continue until March 25, 1921, but that after the original date of I expiry the Act shall be applied subject to Sections 2 and 3. Section 2 (1) authorises a 10 per cent. increase during the extended period, provided that the amount does not exceed 10 per cent. of the standard rent. Now, the standard rent was the rent defined by Section 2 (1) of the 1915 Act in the manner I have generally explained to the House. "No increase is allowed"—the words I am reading were inserted as a result of an Amendment in the House of Commons—"if the sanitary authority, on the tenant's application, certifies that the house in question is not reasonably fit for habitation or is not kept in a remediable state of repair." The landlord can only increase the rent at the expiration of four weeks from a written notice of his intention, and this written notice must inform the tenant of his right to apply for such a certificate. The increase under this section is in addition to the increases permitted by Section 1 of the Act of 1915. Section 3 passes on to the connected subject of the mortgage interest. It enables an increase in the mortgage interest during the extended period to the extent of ½ per cent. per annum. The proviso is that the rate when so increased shall not exceed 5 per cent.; and Section 5 (4) of the principal Act is amended to secure this result.
Section 4 extends the operation of the 11 original Act to houses of greater rateable value. I ought to make an observation upon this proposal, because it formed a subject of considerable discussion in the House of Commons. When the modification in the law which is now recommended was being discussed it was, of course, felt very strongly that it was impossible to keep landlords for a longer period in the extremely unfavourable position in which they had been placed by
732
the earlier legislation. In other words, I think most people recognise that, whatever justification there had been during the war for saying to a landlord that he should make a special and exceptional sacrifice, the time has come when it is not possible to call upon a landlord to make this special and exceptional sacrifice without some concession. Then when it was decided that a landlord must be allowed to charge a certain rent, which is one of the principal changes in the law introduced by this Bill, it became necessary to ask the further question, Should the rental value of the houses to which these proposals relate be the same as, or ought they to be different from, the rental values in the Act of 1915? The matters were much discussed, and in the end before the Bill was introduced in the other House a compromise was reached among those who held different views, and certain proposals were submitted. The majority in the other House who considered it did not agree with the proposals as they had been made by the Government. There was considerable discussion as to the amount of the rent, what one might call the standard rent, or the rateable value; and after a long discussion it was decided that the three-fold distinction between the City of London and the Metropolitan Police District, Scotland, and other places, should be maintained, and the amounts in the Bill as it left the House of Commons are as follows: City of London and Metropolitan Police District, where neither the standard rent nor the rateable value exceeds £70 a year; Scotland, £60; and anywhere else, £52. In case your Lordships had forgotten it, I will mention again that standard rent means the rent on August 3, 1914; or, if the premises were not then let, the last preceding rental; or, if the premises had never been previously let, the first available rental.
Now as to mortgages. Mortgages of such properties are brought within the provisions of the 1915 Act. That Act is amended so as to include these premises; but on the terms that this Act shall apply to mortgaged premises as if the extended period which I have explained to your Lordships were now in force. Any increases before March 4, 1919, in the rate, or whatever the subject-matter of the increase may be, are valid except as to rent or interest falling due after this Amending Bill comes into operation. The prohibitions as to recovering possession of

733
premises are now brought into the Act, but apply only as from the date of the passing of this amending Act.
It remains to consider the effect of Section 5, subsections (1) and (2), which may be shortly explained. Section 5 (1) imposes on the landlord an obligation to furnish the tenant on request with a statement of the standard rent; and makes it an offence, punishable by a maximum fine of £10, not to do so, or to furnish a statement which in any material particular is false. Subsection (2) enables the Court to make an Order for possession where the landlord has acquired the premises since September, 1918, in the following circumstances. One, where the house is required for the occupation of the landlord, or some person in his employ or in the employ of a tenant of his. Two, where the Court—after considering all the circumstances, including the alternative accommodation available for the tenant—is of opinion that it is reasonable. I have already told your Lordships that the amending Act of 1918 had effectively put an end to the practice of persons who bought premises since September 30, 1918, getting an Order of eviction against the tenant who pays his rent and behaves himself; and subsection (2) of Section 5 is a relaxation of the amending Act.
It is not altogether easy to present matters—which besides being a little technical are also historical; each Bill developing from and owing something to its predecessor—in a lucid manner, but I hope that I have not been unsuccessful in the main in telling your Lordships what the result of the present Bill is. It gives to landlords a right, in circumstances which are carefully defined, of increasing their rent. It includes mortgages within the spirit of the earlier Act, and prescribes the rate of interest in dealing with mortgages as a whole. It increases the rent and rateable value of the premises to which its provisions apply. It is the hope of the Government that your Lordships will not be unwilling, having regard to the extreme urgency of the question, to deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, somewhat misunderstood an observation which I made in answer to a question he asked of the Government earlier in the sitting to-day. I certainly never meant to give the impression to your Lordships that I was in any way ignorant of the fact
734
that, of course, it was for your Lordships here to determine what length of time should be given to the discussion of these proposals. What I had in my mind, and was certainly hopeful enough to think I had explained clearly, was that the circumstances were such, and the needs of the moment were so grave, that it was hoped your Lordships would realise the circumstances and would be willing, if possible, to deal with the matter in the time suggested. I understand that the difficulty arises in these circumstances, that an enormous number of notices to quit have been given at the present time. If this Bill becomes law before quarter day the whole of those notices will be found void, and all the tenants concerned will know where they are exactly, instead of finding themselves, as they are at this moment, in a position of very considerable uncertainty and doubt. I very much hope that I have said enough to make plain the general nature of these proposals, and I need hardly say that your Lordships will find me most anxious, as far as my powers enable me to do so, in the course of further discussion on this Bill, both on the Second Reading and any later stage, to give any assistance in my power. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think any one who has followed the various Acts which have been passed in connection with the restriction of rents will have had no difficulty in following the very clear exposition which the Lord Chancellor has given on the Second Reading of this Bill, but personally I was most satisfied with the way he emphasised its temporary character. It is quite true, as he has pointed out, that the time during which the Bill will remain in force has been reduced below the suggestion made by Lord Hunter's Committee. I think it is most important that this Bill should be really temporary in character. It is another of those uneconomic Bills which have brought about the existing difficulties, as regards the shortage of cottages and small houses, and no one can doubt that any further restriction of the rights of the landlord as regards rent, and any further difficulty in the raising of money as regards the restrictions on mortgagees, will tend further to discourage what I think is the only remedy for existing difficulties, namely,

735
the building of cottages and small houses on an economic basis.
There are one or two matters which I should have hoped that the Bill might have dealt with, because they are matters which have really created difficulty. For instance, any one interested in the building of cottages, at any rate in country districts—I have no experience of the towns—have felt very strongly that one of the unnecessary impediments which, in many cases, throw unnecessary expense upon a person who is desirous of building cottages, is to be found in the regulations and rules required by various of our local authorities. On many occasions the point has been raised that if these regulations had been more carefully considered they would have had a less deleterious influence as regards the construction of cottages and small houses. I do not say that from any feeling that cottages and small houses should not be built upon a somewhat larger scale than some people would agree with. I think that nothing would be more reactionary than to go back to the worst class of house, merely because it happens to be cheaper. No money can be better spent in social improvement than in building the best class of house you can, having regard to economic considerations.
Another matter which operated harshly against the construction of cottages and small houses is what was known as the taxation of land values. One provision, as your Lordships know, was that site value should be taxed if it had an enhanced value when a sale was brought about. There was a decision in what was known as the Lumley case, which held that although the site value of the land had not been enhanced, yet, if a speculative builder had made a good bargain and the house which he had constructed upon the land turned out a profitable one, he was liable to site value tax. That was obviously unjust in principle. It was throwing a tax upon industry which was intended only to be a tax upon the enhanced site value, and if you want builders to undertake the business of providing small houses a matter of that kind must be rectified. You will not get builders to construct small houses if you subject them to a special tax of this kind, which takes away their profits when they are successful, while they are subject to the ordinary losses in cases where they have chosen a wrong site or have built houses which are not wanted.
736
The speculative builder, although he is sometimes attacked as a jerry-builder, is after all a man who is necessary if you are to have these houses built on economic grounds, and you ought not to discourage him any more than any other object for which there are social requirements.
Another matter which was dealt with in the Report of Lord Hunter is in regard to the position of agricultural cottages. What is the present position? Agricultural cottages in my district, even before the war, if they were properly constructed—that is to say three bedrooms as a minimum and two rooms—cost anything from £300 to £500. I know of some cases where they cost £500, though perhaps they were unduly luxurious, the great object being the saving of fuel. The rent fixed was 3s. a week, because that is the allowance made by the Agricultural Wages Board. The result is that people who provide cottage property do not get more than 1½ to 2 per cent. on the money expended, and even that entirely disappears in the case of people who take a justifiable pride in their cottages and keep them in a thoroughly good condition. Surely you cannot have a greater disadvantage than settling a price of that kind if you really want cottages to be provided on anything like economic grounds. Let me read your Lordships what was said in the Report of Lord Hunter's Committee, dealing with Agricultural Rents—
"The Board [that is, the Agricultural Wages Board] have expressed themselves in favour of eventually fixing a wage sufficiently high to enable agricultural workers to pay economic rents for their cottages—"
That is a perfectly sound principle, and one which Lord Hunter's Committee adopted—
"The Labour representatives on the Cottage Rents Committee of the Board, in their evidence before us, strongly supported this proposal. The Cottage Rents Committee reported that, taking a typical case, the economic rent of a good modern cottage built before the war would, under postwar conditions, be some 7s. per week."
Therefore you see that the very people who are aiming at putting cottages on an economic basis lay down the principle that 7s. a week would be a fair rent; and in their Order—that is the Order of the Agricultural Wages Board of December 6, 1918—it is laid down that, in calculating the benefit which may be reckoned as payment of wages in lieu of cash for the purpose of any minimum rate of wages, the

737
maximum value of a labourer's house shall be 3s. per week. How are you to get good economic cottages, or good cottages at all, provided in these circumstances? You admit that 7s. a week is required, and yet you fix 3s. a week.
I think the worst part of this is that it is a discouragement to people who have a bona fide desire, on social grounds, to put their cottages in the best possible condition; that is to say, those who have not looked on cottages as a source of revenue so much as a means of doing what they can for the improvement of their neighbourhood. If you cut down compulsorily to 3s. a rental which ought to be at 7s., according to the view of the people who have the greatest knowledge of these things, surely you discourage to the utmost the very matter with which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack dealt—namely, the provision of proper cottages. As I say, in my view the shortage has come from the meddling and muddling of officials and Departments interfering on uneconomic grounds in matters which ought to be deals with in an economic way. Although I quite admit this Bill is necessary for temporary reasons, I hope it will be purely temporary. Otherwise, it will be another nail in the coffin, and, as it seems to me, the last hope of providing these houses and homes on economic grounds will be taken away, whereas every man in your Lordships' House regards the provision of proper and wholesome cottages as the first of our social requirements.
There is another matter which I may put to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. It is rather a point of detail and it is in reference to subsection (2) of Clause 5. As the Bill of 1918 stands—I have a note of it; it is Section 1, subsection (3)—a person who has since the 30th day of September, 1917, purchased a house—that man is called the "late purchaser"—is not entitled to use his purchase as a means of ejecting the present tenant. He is prohibited from doing that. The tenant is protected under the conditions of the Bill quite fairly. Whereas a man who has had property for a long time and who wants to live in a particular house himself is well entitled to do it, I think, a man who merely purchases a house in order to put in force a power of that kind—in other words, who purchased the house for the very object of ejectment—ought not to be allowed to do so. In
738
the Act of 1918 there was an absolute prohibition.
As the noble Lord has pointed out, there is no longer a prohibition now. There are certain precautions, but the "late purchaser" can now eject his tenant under certain conditions. I need not go into them now, but they are contained in Clause 5, sub-section (2). I want to know why it is that a man who, in this shortage of accommodation, could purchase merely in order to evict or eject—that is what it comes to—should have a better position under this Bill than he has under the existing law—namely, that section of the Act of 1918 to which I have referred. I believe a Bill of this kind is absolutely necessary for temporary purposes, but I earnestly hope that the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be carried out and that this will be merely a temporary measure so that as soon as possible we shall revert to ordinary economic ideas and get rid of this everlasting principle of official meddling and official interference.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I should be glad if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack could reassure us on one or two points which were not mentioned in the course of the excellent speech which he made to us as to the effect of the Bill. I speak as one who is urgently anxious to see the principle of tin Bill carried out and that no avenue should be left open of undue advantage to any class by the necessities of the war, and more especially that the landlord class should not be in any way open to reprobation in this respect. I am bound to say that I think the Bill is remarkable, not for what it contains but for what it omits. When the measure of 1915 was brought forward it was carried under very great pressure. There were only a few hours in which to make up our minds as to what course to take. I ventured then to address some questions to the noble Lord who was at that time on the Woolsack, Lord Buckmaster, who is now sitting behind me, and I ant quite sure from the answers he gave me that the intentions of the Government were not carried out by the Bill, and I do not believe that the intentions of the promoters of the Bill are carried out by the Bill at this moment.
I submit that the real difficulty we have to meet is two-fold. It is not merely a

739
question of rent, but it is also a question of sub-letting. The point which I put to the noble and learned Lord is this—suppose that in a particular locality, by a large agglomeration of troops or munition works or for other reasons, immense pressure comes, what is to prevent a man who has got an absolute certainty to the end of the war at his old rent from sub-letting at three or four times that amount? The noble and learned Lord at that time took the view that a fresh letting would be the result, and that therefore it could be stopped by the Act. I can assure your Lordships that in practice that has not been the case at all. In that part of the world where I happen to live a camp came suddenly of 22,000 or 25,000 men, and the rent of every house went up to a high premium. It actually happened to me not many months ago that the military officers in command—and I felt it particularly because they were Colonial troops—came and said, "Here are our officers, whose wives have come over here and who have to live somewhere within reach of the camp—can you do nothing? The rents asked for are three and four times what the houses have been let for."
I am not finding fault with those who have let them. They have had a great deal to put up with, if I may say so, and many of them have had great sacrifices to make. But still the fact is that there is nothing to prevent any one who has a furnished house at £20 a year from asking £60 or £80 for it. Such cases have occurred. It has been so in the agricultural cases some of which were mentioned by Lord Parmoor. Only last year when the Agricultural Committee fixed 3s. as the highest price to be fixed for a cottage, an owner came to me and gave me these facts. He said, "I took a carter six weeks ago in the neighbourhood of a town and agreed with him for 30 s. a week. He said, It is near a town' "—(it was in Surrey)—"'You must find me a cottage or I will not come.'" He hired a cottage for him at 7s. a week and had to let it to him, according to the Agricultural Committee's fiat, at 3s. a week, and the man promptly sublet one of the rooms at 10 s. a week. He got his wages raised from 30 s. to 39 s.; he got 3s. off for the cottage, making 36 s., as against what cost his master 37 s. before, and then proceeded to let one room for 10 s. per week.
Take again the question of repairs. I can give an instance from my own estate,
740
and it has occurred to a number of other people. One tenant came to me and asked that as he had to cultivate a much larger acreage and get additional labour, would I add rooms to two of his cottages. I did so. The actual cost of the addition of the rooms was £150. It never occurred to me, following the practice of all landlords in providing cottages, to make an addition for what you have to do for the tenant. The tenant himself got the men, and within a few days of the wages of his labourers having been raised by the State the labourer sublet one of these rooms for 10 s. The whole object of the State was that a man should not pay more than 3s. I find no fault with any man in any class of life, and particularly the labouring class, who does all he can to increase his income, but it really is not carrying out the object of the Bill as the Government put it forward. For this reason I ask the Lord Chancellor to seriously consider whether before going into Committee some clause limiting subletting might not be inserted. I do not want to dwell upon the question of repairs I think in these days it is terrible to reflect upon the insanitary conditions of some habitations which have not been condemned by the local authority. I had a case before me this morning which I think is worth mentioning. It is a case where the owner had some two or three hundred houses, and he kept a large staff to look after them. His rents have never been raised, but the wages of those living in the cottages have been raised 100 per cent., and the wages of those he has to pay have been raised 100 per cent., while the cost of the material he uses has been raised from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. If he continues to employ his present staff and use the materials the cost at this moment considerably exceeds the whole of the rent he still receives. I know there are some of your Lordships who would continue under these circumstances, but it is almost impossible to expect any man, when the State steps in and fixes higher wages and stereotypes lower rents at the same time, to be asked to pay higher wages and not recoup some portion of the cost. The reason I bring these questions before your Lordships is that it really is retarding the improvement in the condition of housing, which it is the whole object of everyone to promote. These are two points on which I hope something may be done.
There is a third point, and it is this. The Bill is not put forward in a hurry. It

741
is the result of long consideration, as the Lord Chancellor his told us, and might we not ask that something which is more than a stop-gap should come forward if the Government at any time, and I hope they may, deal more drastically with this question. Has it ever occurred, it must have occurred to those who sat on the Committee, that you are only dealing piecemeal with this question. Look at what is occurring every day to make it more difficult. I take an instance of what I mean. The City of Cork has had the great advantage, as I think, for the last three years that Mr. Ford, who emigrated from the County of Cork many years ago, has desired quite apart from any profit, genuinely to advance the condition of the neighbourhood from which he came and has established there a very large motor factory. Owing to the circumstances of the war he was unable to complete the whole of the building because the Government could not allow the material to be used. I believe his ambition is ultimately to have 10,000 persons employed. Conceive what that means, Someone will have to find houses for these people to live in. Is it right that anybody who may have come in solely for the purpose of gain and put up a huge factory in an already overcrowded neighbourhood should have no responsibility whatever for finding the houses in which the people are to live? Half the overcrowding, and half the iniquity of the horsing question, arise from the fact that commercial firms limit, or have been accustomed to limit in a great number of instances, their building to the building which will produce exactly the return for which they look. Ought they not to have some larger responsibility in this housing question? Take the case of Mr. Ford, which I mentioned a moment ago. If in the course of this year it is, possible to complete those buildings and bring that large population there the local authority, or in the last resort the Government of this country, will have to do for a commercial undertaking that which surely the commercial undertaking ought to have some responsibility for doing.
These are points which seem to show that this measure is not only uneconomical, but I hat it is rather crudely brought forward seeing that we have had three and a half years' experience. If it is to have the effect the Government desire I earnestly hope they will not insist too much on the date, the 25th of March. In some way the
742
difficulty ought to be got round so that there should be no grievance on the part of those who are affected, and we should then be allowed the necessary time to, consider the points which I have mentioned, which are only put forward with the view of making the Bill as effective as possible.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I am sure that the general acceptance which has been accorded to this Bill will show that we have no desire to do anything except pass the Bill after consideration. At the same time the remark which fell from the Lord Chancellor when he reminded us that the principal Act, of which this is an amendment, was passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House in one day does, I. think, make it necessary for us to give the Bill at least as thorough an examination as we can, and so far all the speeches which have been delivered, and the explanation of the Lord Chancellor himself, have dealt with the need from the occupying tenant's point of view, an end which I freely admit must be paramount. At the same time I think that it would be a very great misfortune if your Lordships gave a Second Reading to this Bill without in any way looking at what it is that we are asking the property owner to do.
Lord Hunter's Committee, in paragraph It, used the following words:—
"To put owners in as good a position as 1914 a 35 per rent. increase in net rental should be permitted."
In a later paragraph they state, in effect, that trade union officials who gave evidence before the committee agreed with that statement. Let us bear that in mind that to put owners in as good a position as in 1914 demands a 35 per cent. increase. Yet what are we offering them? We offer them nothing at all for this year. We offer them, as the Bill has reached us, a contingent 10 per cent., if they get a certificate of good repairs, in 1920; and that remains until March 25, 1920 On the other hand, from the beginning of next year approximately, mortgage owners will be able to raise their interest, where it does not reach 5 per cent., by ½ per cent. When that operates roughly the increased mortgage internet will amount to at least on an average 6 or 7 per cent. on the rent paid, and therefore the increased sum of 10 per cent. which you offer will hardly begin to cover the extra cost of repairs which is put upon the owner.

743
I mention this very striking discrepancy between what Lord Hunter's Committee admitted that they are entitled to and what we are offering them, because I think it ought to be recognised that the property owners, through their spokesman on Lord Hunter's Committee, accepted the recommendations of that Committee. The recommendations of that Committee, which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack claimed as the basis of the Bill, went very much farther than the Bill does. It is true that from one point of view they recommended a period of three years, and that that period has been cut down, but on the other hand they recommended that the initial 10 per cent. should not be contingent upon repairs. It was in point of fact not intended to meet the cost of repairs, but was intended to meet the cost of the extra mortgage and increased insurance. They further recommended that subsequently there should be another increase of 15 per cent., which should be contingent upon the house being kept in repair. Therefore, when the property owners have conceded that for the purpose of the national interest they will accept those terms, which fall so very far short of what Lord Hunter's Committee admitted they were entitled to, we ought to take notice of that, and of the very patriotic altitude which they have adopted.
I think that there is a duty upon your Lordships to see whether there is not some way in which, without seeking to extend the 10 per cent. which is proposed in the Bill, we cannot do something to alleviate the hardship which we are inflicting. One of the recommendations of Lord Hunter's Committee, which perhaps naturally cannot be included in this Bill, was that some relief might be given under Schedule A of the Income Tax. Although I quite recognise that that cannot be included in this Bill, I hope that the Government, before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House, may give us some ground for hoping that perhaps that consideration may be extended to property owners when the Finance Act comes to be dealt with. That would be a real and definite help to the property owner, and it would be a course which would inflict no further charge of any sort upon the occupying tenants. After all it is the occupying tenants that the Government are seeking to assist.
I am very glad indeed that the noble Viscount, Lord Midletor, touched upon
744
the question of sub-letting. The Bill, as introduced in another place, sought to deal with sub-letting, but not in any way upon the terms recommended by Lord Hunter's Committee. Lord Hunter's Committee called attention to the fact that sub-letting was really in its present phase entirely a new phenomenon since the introduction of the original Bill, and although they did not embody it in a specific recommendation, they nevertheless stated in the body of their Report that they were of opinion that sub-letting should not be allowed. I believe that it is quite true—as a point of law it has been decided in the Courts—that any separate letting is entitled to a standard rent, and that any single room let is entitled to a standard rent, but that provision is really not known and is very easily evaded. All you have to do is to put a straw mattress into the room, or 7s. 6d. worth of furniture into it, and you can call it a furnished-letting, and immediately you are able to take that room outside the operations of the Act, furnished rooms not being included in the principal Act or any of its amendments.
Mr. Fisher went out of his way to notice this evil of sub-letting in the speech with which he introduced the Bill, because he said that he knew himself of a case in which a house, the standard rent of which was £18, was sub-let for £80. He further stated that that was typical of a very great number of cases. Therefore the Government admit that the evil exists, but the only attempt that they made to deal with it in their Bill was that where it can be proved to exist the landlord should be entitled to share in the plunder. I am very glad that particular provision was struck out of the Bill in another place, and I should be sorry to see its re-insertion here; because it entirely and, radically departs from the principle of the Bill, which is to give protection to occupying tenants. At the same time I should like to endorse the hope which fell from the noble Viscount who has just sat down that before the Committee Stage is reached the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may devise some method of stopping the sub-letting of furnished rooms, for that is really the principle evil.
There is one other matter that I wish to refer to. We all hope very much that the restrictions will be withdrawn as soon as possible. We cannot help having in mind

745
that the shortage of houses is not entirely due to the war, but is very largely due to the feeling of nervousness which followed upon what happened in 1909. The Attorney-General, in discussing in another place how long this would last, used these words—
"We are now engaged in discussing not how long this shall last, but what is the immediate period in which it shall in any event last."
He therefore particularly invites tenants to anticipate that when the tenant's period which we are incorporating in this Bill is drawing to a close they should have another chance and the subject will again be reviewed. And if the outcry is sufficiently loud no doubt they will again get their way. That, I think, would be a serious statement if this was a Bill merely to extend the time of the principal Act.
But you are not only extending the time, you are extending the principle of the Act to a new class of houses. At the same time that you discourage the building of smallest houses, the Government is preparing a great building scheme which will, I hope, do a great deal to remedy the shortage which is the whole basis of the ills from which we suffer. And therefore at the end of this period we may hope that the feeling which has made this extension necessary will disappear. But when you come to deal with the middle classes the Government have not the slightest intention, as far as we know, of building that class of houses, and if you couple up the discouragement of the building of middle-class houses with an Act of this nature you are taking a short cut to the position where the Government will be called upon to provide not only houses for the working classes but houses for the middle classes too. I should view that position—and I am sure all your Lordships will—with the very greatest misgiving.
I have had the benefit of hearing the views of several gentlemen whose business it has been in the past to build middle-class houses. They say that it will be impossible for private enterprise to build middle-class houses to let in future because there will be no sale. They take it for granted that this Bill will go through and if you create this uncertainty as to the future of the building trade it is quite obvious, as they only build to sell, that there will not be anything like such an amount of capital subscribed for building to sell as there would be for building to
746
let, because you can only build to sell if you find your customer first.
Therefore I hope that the Government will bear in mind that the uncertainty which they are creating in middle class houses is far more serious than anything which concerns the working class houses; because, whereas in the one case they are themselves providing a remedy, in the other case they have no intention of providing a remedy, and they are frightening off the only people who can do so. They are coming into that vicious circle of perpetuating the scarcity which roakes the introduction of this Bill necessary.
There is one other matter in which I should like to suggest that it might be possible to give a little further relief. The principal Act lays it down that the extended period will begin six months after peace has ken declared, and peace has been defined to be the time when Treaties ratifying the terms are exchanged. No doubt it was necessary when the principal Act was passed to introduce a vague term like that. But would it not be more satisfactory now to substitute a definite date when this very limited increase allowed to landowners should be allowed to operate? I suggest that a date such as six months hence might be fair to the landlords and not unfair to the tenants. Because, supposing the Treaty ratifying peace was postponed for a good many months—as we hope it will not be, but it obviously is possible—then you are very rapidly eating into the time during which you are willing to give sonic relief to the property owners. In view of the Hunter Committee Report this dole which you are offering to the property owners is very much less than what they are entitled to. In equity, they are entitled to it now and we do not suggest that anything should be given till next year. I hope that the Government, before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House, will recognise the very patriotic part which the property owners have taken in agreeing to a compromise.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, referred to an incident that took place when the measure which is known as the principal Act was passing through your Lordships' House. My recollection of what occurred is in entire agreement with his own. And the point which he then made is one which is of importance, and I desire to emphasise

747
it. It seems to me important to consider for a moment what it is that lies behind this Bill. I understand it to be this, that owing to Government action during the course of the war, building has been impossible, and the result is that there is a shortage of house accommodation, and the landlords in several districts have got a monopoly of a valuable commodity, which they could use for the purpose—of raising the rent most harshly and unjustly against the tenants. It is to avoid that obvious injustice that, as I understand it, the Government have introduced this Bill.
It is quite obvious that, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, the terms of the Bill are in flat defiance of all economic law. And they can only be justified because the Government, having broken the economic laws to begin with, must continue to break them in order to prevent the full mischief which results from their own act. I think it is well for us to consider, as we pass this measure, what the inevitable results must be if economic law is in the future to be continually set aside. Take for example this very question with regard to the building of houses. Owing to the circumstances that have raised the price of food, it has become only just and necessary that wages should rise too. The cost of all materials has risen as well, and the result is that if to-day a house were to be built, to be let at the same rent as a house of the same character would have commanded before the war, it would cost anything from, I suppose, 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. more than it did four years ago.
A NOBLE LORD: More than that.
LORD BUCKMASTER: More than 100 per cent. See what the result of that is. The result of that must be that, if it is to be undertaken as a commercial enterprise, the man must demand double the rent; and side by side with that you find a Bill which says that no man who owns a house in this position can at the moment increase the rent more than the amount permitted by the Statute. The matter does not end there; because the Government, realising that this is the result, have now undertaken to meet a limited section of the demands for housing accommodation by pledging the national credit to make good the deficiency that would undoubtedly arise were economic laws to maintain their
748
unrestricted course. The result from that, of course, will be that greater demands will be made upon the produce of other industries for the purpose of financing and of supplementing the building industry so as to keep the rents down. Do not let us be under any misapprehension about that. Some other industries will have to pay. At the same time, while this demand is going to be made on other industries, you find that all these other industries are being attacked in a variety of ways. They themselves are being the subject of demands made for increased wages based upon the fact that prices have risen during the last four years and that life has become much more hard. The satisfaction of those demands reduces, again, their profit; and little by little you find, as these laws are one by one interfered with, that the net result of it all is that there is a less and less amount of money which can represent the national wealth, and that we are day by day rendered less competent to meet the ever growing burdens which the war has thrown upon our resources.
I want to call attention to that for the purpose of bearing in mind how urgent must be the need of the people in these houses to justify the Government in the measure they have introduced. But if it be true, as the noble Viscount says, that a man who is in occupation of one of these houses is at liberty to sub-let it so that he may get by virtue of his tenancy the full benefit of the very shortage and necessity which the Government has declared shall not be used as a lever in the hands of the landlord for raising the rent—if that be the position, then I can only say it ought in common justice to be remedied before this Bill passes from its Committee stage. When the matter was before the House on a previous occasion I remember taking a strong view—the matter came suddenly before me in Committee—that there should be no difference between landlord and tenant, and between tenant and sub-tenant. It seemed to me that they must stand on the same footing; and I so assured him. I greatly regret if it be the case that it is found that my assurance was of no avail, and that I made a mistake. But if I did, I feel satisfied that the noble and, learned Lord on the Woolsack would agree with me that it is of the utmost importance that the mistake should be remedied; because I was never informed by the Government I had made any statement except a statement in

749
complete agreement with their views; and I think nothing reflect more to the discredit of our Legislature than that statements should be made as to the meaning of a Bill, when it is passing through either House of Parliament, which should be found, on the interpretation of the Law Courts, not to be the actual meaning which the language has conveyed. Therefore if there were a mistake I am sure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would be as anxious as I am that it should be remedied without delay.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: My Lords, I have no intention of making a speech on the general provisions of this Bill, with which under the necessities of the case I am in full sympathy. But some friends of mine in the country have asked me to endeavour by a question in this House to clear up a doubt which exists in their minds as to the operation of this Bill on the letting and the rent of smaller cottages in certain parts of England. I propose therefore to put a question to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, not with a view to its being answered to-day but with a hope that some elucidation will be given by the Government or by the noble and learned Lord at a later stage of this Bill.
Some of your Lordships will know that in the Southern counties it has been the habit—an unwise and uneconomic habit, think—to let many cottages at a nominal rent, very often 1s a week, to employees either of the owner or of the farmer. That is and has been, in feet, merely a subsidy towards the low rate of wages which existed before recent legislation was passed. The point that has arisen on which my friends wish to have some light, is whether, if an employee occupying a cottage at ls. a week were to leave his employment though remaining in that cottage, it would be permissible of the owner or the farmer to raise the rent to what may be called the normal, say 3s. a week, the owner or the farmer having no longer any interest in subsidising his wages? The other point is one which arises especially out of the war. There have been men occupying cottages—eat either 1s. a week, or what I have called the normal, 3s. a week—who have gone to the war. Whilst they have been away the landlord or the farmer has very properly allowed the wife to occupy the cottage rent free for the whole of that period. The question which arises is whether, when the man returns to his work
750
and occupies that cottage—whether it is his old work or new work—it will be permissible under this Bill for the landlord or the farmer to charge what I have already called the normal rent for the cottage? I think it is a point which wants clearing up; and I only express the hope that some explanation on these two small points may be given at a later stage of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR(who was indistinctly heard): My Lords, several observations have been made by a number of your Lordships about which, perhaps, it would be expected that I should say a word. No sponsor of this Bill in either House has introduced it with any particular pride; in fact, the atmosphere in both Houses has been very apologetic; and certainly in the circumstances I have found myself fortunate in the reception which the Bill has met with among your Lordships.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said that the uneconomic vices of this Bill were to be traced to the uneconomic vices of the first Bill. I admired rather the somewhat graceful manner in which the noble and learned Lord divorced himself front any association with the first Bill; I gathered that he made an accidental acquaintance with it and happened to read it in a railway carriage. Yet I think that the noble and learned Lord was in charge of that Bill in this House. However, the lesson I think is this—that if a country finds itself involved in grave and incalculable conditions the necessity arises, even for the most economically minded, to recommend steps to be taken which outrage every canon of economics, and of which it is exceptionally disagreeable to become the sponsor. I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord that not only the House of Commons, but your Lordships, were stampeded into passing a thoroughly bad Bill. But if both Houses had not passed the Bill there might have been disturbances in this country which would have rendered it difficult, if not impossible, to win the war. The pressure was recognised by every one as extreme. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, asked me a question as to Section 5, subsection (2). As my noble and learned friend has not waited for the answer, and as the matter relates more conveniently to the Committee stage, perhaps I may be forgiven if I postpone any answer.

751
The most substantial criticism made upon these proposals was that indicated in the first instance by the noble Viscount, and insisted upon in a greater degree by Lord Grey, and also referred to by my noble and learned friend who spoke last. I confess that, had I been asked on the first occasion on which this matter arose, to offer an opinion as to the legal position of sub-tenants, I should have given the answer which he gave. I still suspect that that answer is true. I was, I confess, a little astonished when your Lordships were informed by Lord Midleton of the extent to which this practice has prevailed, and I am not at all sure that the explanation of the circumstances may not possibly be found in what was said by Lord Grey. I think it might possibly be true that the abuse was confined, or almost confined, to the cases of the sub-lettings of furnished tenements. I do not know whether it is true, but I will have the matter inquired into between now and the Committee stage. I will consider with those who are more competent than myself whether the abuse is as grave as we have been told it is, and whether, if so, it admits on the Committee stage of a remedy.
My noble and learned friend spoke with great weight on the general economic conditions in which to-day we move and have our being. He raised topics wider than those dealt with by the present proposal, and I say frankly that I agree with most of what fell from my noble and learned friend. The difficulty in which we all find ourselves is that the Government as a whole, those in another place, your Lordships here, in different degrees and in a variety of functions, are called upon to assume responsibility for the tremendous effort of restoring the conditions of peace after the tremendous upheaval which has taken place. The task with which we are all confronted at this moment is to determine, of proposals none of them in themselves attractive, most of them in themselves distasteful, which is the most necessary and the least mischievous. I fear it will be my task during the next few months to recommend many proposals, in relation to which I can apply the term "recommend" only, because I cannot say "approve"; and I hope I hat my noble and learned friend will repeat both in this House and outside the eloquent warning, most of which has my entire sympathy.
I was asked two questions by the noble Lord who spoke last, the subject-matter of
752
which is entirely novel to me. He was considerate enough to say that an answer during the committee stage would be sufficient, and I will not lose sight of the feint to which he was good enough to call attention. I hope I have, to the complete satisfaction of your Lordships, answered most of the points which have been raised by your Lords-hips, and I cannot at this stage usefully add more.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the very considerate manner in which he has met the speeches that have been delivered during this debate, but I confess that I thought he opened a rather formidable vista to your Lordships when he told us he was going to be responsible during the next few years—or was it months? let us hope it was only months—for a number of measures of which he could not say he approved, but which he would be prepared to recommend to your Lordships. I hope it is not so bad as all that; and for my own part, although I am not in any sense responsible either for the principal Act or for this Bill, I am not prepared to adopt altogether an apologetic vein. On the contrary, the conditions of the war prescribed the Act and this Bill, and we have nothing to be ashamed of in passing its Second Reading. The fact that there is a shortage of houses owing to the suspension of building operations during the war has got to be met by legislation, and there is no need for any apology.
If the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had said that although he did not apologise for the principle of the Bill he did apologise for some of its provisions then I should better understand his attitude. There are certain provisions which are open to criticism. The provision as to sub-letting, which has been the subject of debate, even if it should turn out that this opportunity of evading the plain intention of the Statute only exists in the case of furnished tenements, will I think require very careful consideration as to whether some amendment is required. It may be impossible to insert an Amendment applying to furnished tenements which does not do more harm than good, but let us have the matter very carefully looked into. As regards the rest of the Bill, all I can say is that as the Government found themselves upon this very admirable report of Lord Hunter's Committee, I am a little surprised

753
that they have not adopted the recommendations of Lord Hunter's Committee throughout. That is a subject of criticism. Lord Hunter's Committee recommended ninny provisions which do not appear in the Bill. That is a matter which we shall require to investigate in committee.
I confess I think that this House is bound to try and do justice to, and they are immensely sympathetic towards, the occupying tenant, and do not desire that he should be held to ransom because of the shortage of houses; but at the same time some consideration must be had for the owner, who in numerous cases is quite as poor as the occupier, and whose living to a large extent depends upon the rent he can get. It is, therefore, surprising that the Government, having adopted the proposal of Lord Hunter's Committee up to a certain point, suddenly stopped. They allowed 10 per cent. They have not allowed anything more, although at a particular period, as the House is well aware, Lord Hunter's Committee proposed to go further. I do not desire to prejudge any of these questions. I earnestly hope that by the time we have finished with this Bill the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will not only be able to recommend it but be able to approve of it as well, and I hope we shall assist him in the operation.
TRE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, what I said was that, in relation to the subsisting crisis, I both recommended it and approved of it. If we were living in a perfect world I should neither recommend it nor approve of it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
LORD HINDLIP LORD HINDLIP rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the shortage of agricultural labour, and to move a Resolution.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in raising the Question which I have on the Paper I do not wish it to be understood that there is a very serious shortage of agricultural labour in all parts of the country, because, so far as I can gather, that is not the case. The shortage appears to be patchy and local; but in this respect, as in a good many other respects in regard to the agricultural world, as your Lord
754
ships know, there is a considerable amount of unrest and dissatisfaction. I think that-a statement from the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture would do a great deal to ventilate the subject and probably to allay much of the unrest.
There seems to be, in the minds of the Board of Agriculture, no possible doubt that there is not only a very serious shortage of labour now but that there will be-later on in the year. One of the officials of the Food Production Department, Miss Talbot, the head of the Land Army, quoted the President of the Board of Agriculture the other day at Oxford as saying that it would be quite impossible to provide sufficient male labour this year for the harvest, and she also said that she was asked to find another 5,000 women this year to meet the shortage. We are a very long way from the harvest, and the shortage of labour is with us now. The ploughing is not done, leave alone the spring, sowing, and I am afraid it is very doubtful, whether it all will be done. All the evidence I can find points to a serious short—age in many parts of the country. In 1914, before the war, I believe the number of men employed on the land was something like 700,000. We know how many of those men were taken during the war, and we unfortunately know also that many thousands of them will never return Since 1914, I believe. 1,600,000 acres have been ploughed up, and the requirements of the industry, with that addition of arable land, means another 150.000 men, making over 800,000 men.
I should be very glad if the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture can give us some idea where this extra 150,000 men, in addition to those to replace the losses from the 700,000, are to, come from. We have four sources of supply. First of all, I will take the women; next, the German prisoners. I think the action of the Government in withdrawing German prisoners from the land is causing more dissatisfaction than anything else with regard to the agricultural labour situation. No one seems, to know why they are being withdrawn. All we know is that the men are taken, from the farms and no substitutes are provided. I imagine that when the various. Treaties are exchanged and we are back once more to that desirable state of things called Peace, naturally these men will have to go; but, till they are sent back to

755
Germany, I cannot for the life of me understand why they are not allowed to be used on the farms doing useful work, instead of being sent to concentration camps, where, I gather, they have very little or nothing to do. About ten days ago the agricultural correspondent of the Morning Post—who, as many of your Lordships know, is as well acquainted as anyone else with matters appertaining to the state of the industry—said:
"From most parts of the country farmers are complaining bitterly of the stripping of farms of labour through the withdrawal of prisoners. One hears of large farms with one or two men left."
There seems to be no sense and no reason in this action.
I am quite sure that the fault does not lie with the Food Production Department or with the Board of Agriculture. It lies with some other Government Department which is interfering and tinkering with the business, probably knowing absolutely nothing about it. That is the way a great many of our troubles arise. The other day I had a letter from an agriculturist who farms a great deal of his own land. He is very well known to many of your Lordships, and he says, "I am suffering acutely from the withdrawal of the aliens." That man has not been able to replace his aliens, and, as he says, his cultivation is suffering very acutely. There is another class of alien, the Austrians and Hungarians. About ten days ago the Home Office—I do not know if they wanted to play a practical joke on the wretched agriculturists—but they exploded a bomb. They said that every Hungarian and every Austrian was to be withdrawn from the farm immediately. No reason was given. In many cases, I believe, men were taken away at about twenty-four hours' notice and no substitutes were provided. There was no regard for the consequences of this arbitrary and sudden action.
What is going to be done with these men? Are they simply going to be sent back to concentration camps to catch influenza and do nothing, or are they to be repatriated? I know that a considerable number of these men want to go back to their own country, and I should be the last person to suggest that any obstacle should be placed in the way of their going back, although I employ some myself and if they go at the present moment I see no way of replacing them. Then there are other Austrians and Hungarians who have certain ties in this
756
country, who have married English wives and have been in the country for a long time. Until the fate of these men is decided by the Bill which I understand the Government are bringing in, what on earth is the use of taking these men away from the farms and locking them up? If they are to be repatriated later on, well and good; but until we have some law on the subject why cannot they be left in peace doing the work for which I can assure your Lordships, after three years' experience, it would be very hard to get better men. When legislation dealing with men with English wives is brought in I hope nothing will be done to force them into the hands of Germany, but that it will leave them as friendly to us as they are to-day.
Then we come to the supply of English labour. I suppose that as regards them the farmers' worst enemy is either the War Office or the Ministry of National Service—if that Department exists now—who have always seemed to regard a farm hand as absolutely indispensable to the Army. I do not know how many were taken for the Army, but we do know that in the dangerous days of 1918, after the Government had promised not to take any more men from the land, they swept down and took 30,000. It was necessary at the time, but those days are gone. They were probably the oldest of agricultural labourers and a great many of them were "key men." I should like to know—I do not suppose the President of the Board of Agriculture can tell us, and there is no one in the House representing the War Office to-night—what has happened to those 30,000 men, and how many of these pivotal or key men, the War Office still have. In addition to that the age for agricultural labourers surely might be reduced. I believe it is now about thirty-seven years. I cannot for the life of me see why the age limit should not be reduced to thirty-five or thirty-four years, and men of that age demobilised. The requirements of the Army to-day surely cannot be so imperative that they want to keep men who are urgently needed on the land.
I am afraid there is another side to the question. There is alleged unemployment. I dare say there is some unemployment, but what can anyone expect when men can get 29 s. a week by doing nothing and only a 1s. more by doing a great deal. Then the Wage Committee say that a great many of the men who come back are not

757
to be taken on. That may be true in places. What I think is a great deal more true is that they are not going back. They are drifting into the towns where there is more attractive employment and higher wages, or they are refusing to work for the minimum wage, or doing nothing on 29 s. a week. There is no doubt that all the men are not going back to the land, and that in certain Places farmers are not employing more labour than they can help. They are reckoning, I think, on getting casual labour at odd times, at higher prices during the harvest and at the times when more men are wanted on the farms than in the ordinary every day work. I think that this may account for some of the allegations of unemployment, but on the whole the evidence available goes to prove that there is in a great many parts of the country a very serious shortage of labour for agriculture; the situation seems to be very unsatisfactory, and I am quite sure that the agricultural community would very much welcome a statement from the noble Lord the President of the Board. I beg to move the following Resolution—
That in view of the shortage of labour and the serious prospects occasioned by the wet season, this House considers that His Majesty's Government should make every endeavour to assist the Board of Agriculture to meet the necessities of the farming industry.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My. Lords, I only desire to say a few words in support of what has been stated by the noble Lord in his very interesting, and, as I think, exhaustive speech. It is no doubt not quite easy for anybody, however good the means of information at his disposal may be, to know precisely what the rights of this matter are, largely owing to the fact that there is no doubt that the shortage is very local, sporadic, and due to a great number of different causes. I have no doubt that it can in fact and beyond dispute be attributed in varying degrees to all the causes which my noble friend has mentioned. There evidently has been some mismanagement of the unemployment benefit. One has heard of cases, backed by first-hand knowledge, of farmers who have found their men after a period of some employment actually leaving them to go on the unemployed list. How numerous those cases have been one cannot say, but in counties where the agricultural
758
wage is not very much above the authorised unemployment benefit it seems almost inevitable that at any rate some such cases would occur. I have also heard of cases where girls employed on the land have taken precisely the same course. At the last meeting of the Central Chamber of Agriculture a farmer told a story of two girls who had been earning 27 s. 6d. per week and who went to London where they obtained 25 s., under no doubt far more agreeable and easy conditions. There, again, it is impossible to say whether those cases are numerous, but that they should occur certainly shows some kind of mismanagement.
Then there have been other complaints of men being lured away by high wages paid for Government contract work. I have known of complaints of that kind in my own neighbourhood, and I have also heard of them from other parts of England. One has heard of cases where unskilled labour has been paid as much as 75 s. a week. One of the special allegations made was that in the hurried construction of aerodromes and in Air Force work generally some enormous wages of that kind had been paid for unskilled labour, and that thereby agricultural labour had been abstracted from its usual work.
My noble friend mentioned what are called "key" or "pivotal" men. It is no doubt true that a certain proportion of these, having been quite fairly released by the military authorities, have preferred to take up some other employment. Some of them may have been, as I mentioned just now, tempted away, but to others the general shortening of hours in some other forms of employment may have proved an irresistible attraction. The one thing that we cannot do for an agricultural labourer, particularly in some forms of farming where stock has to be looked after, is to shorten his hours to any very great extent. Nor has it ever been found so far as I know possible, if farming is to be made in the slightest degree remunerative to the farmer, to work agriculture by means of shifts. That being so, there always will be a certain number of workers of both sexes who are likely to prefer more highly-paid employment where work is for fewer hours, even if the actual physical conditions may not be so agreeable as they are, at any rate at times, for the agricultural worker.
In these cases, of course, nobody can be blamed, and certainly no one would think

759
of imputing any blame to His Majesty's Government so far as those elements of choice are present to the minds of the workers. But the noble Lord opposite will no doubt see that, so far as the other causes of shortage enumerated by my noble friend are concerned, it is possible that some steps might be taken by his Department or by other Departments concerned to alleviate what is undoubtedly a real, though not probably a universal, grievance. So far as my present experience goes, there is hardly anything which is troubling farmers more than the question of shortage of labour. They are naturally deeply concerned about the dark hints which are thrown out in different parts of England, sometimes taking the form of threats, with regard to large demands for increased wages. But I think that this particular matter of shortage is puzzling and occupying the minds of the farming community almost more than anything else, because they certainly did suppose that when military operations were over agricultural labour would return to something like a normal condition, plus, as they hoped, the possibility of securing the services of a good many of the women who had not been on the land before the war, and who had proved themselves capable workers, and in many cases had taken a liking to the occupation. Therefore there is an acute sense of disappointment, and I trust that my noble friend opposite will be able to say something to reduce it.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD ERNLE): My Lords, I am much obliged to the two noble Lords for calling attention to what is a very important question, and one which at the present moment, owing to the weather we have had, is both pressing and urgent. I think that perhaps I can best explain the situation if I give, as far as I can, the actual figures of the labourers employed on the land. The noble Lord who proposed the Resolution started with 1914, and quite correctly stated that the number of male workers permanently employed upon the land was then 714,000. When the Armistice was proclaimed the number of male workers permanently employed on the land was 412,000, a shortage therefore of 300,000. The numbers I have given, of course, included the men who had joined one or other of the combatant Services and the men who had entered munitions or quarries or
760
timber or similar employment. We had to try and meet that very grave shortage. We collected 72,000 soldiers, who were formed into agricultural companies. We had 30,000 prisoners, and we had some 4,000 or 5,000 licensed aliens—that is to say, aliens who were interned and whose voluntary help on the land was accepted and who were duly licensed We also increased the number of women working on the land from something like 91,000 at the last census of 1911 to upwards of 300,000. Therefore we had to a certain degree made good the shortage. We had done it at all events as far as we possibly could, and I think that your Lordships will find that the shortage remained at something like 100,000. We must also remember, as the noble Lord pointed out, that we had increased the arable acreage by something like 1,600,000 acres, and therefore instead of only 718,000 we ought to have 850,000 workers. There is, therefore, a very grave shortage.
The women who are now working on the land are either part-time women, or they are women of the Land Army. We are endeavouring to increase the number of women of the Land Army by getting them to enlist for a period up to the end of the harvest. I did not see the extracts from the newspaper to which the noble Lord alluded, but I think that what I said was that we ought to keep the women over the harvest—in which I included the potato harvest—and therefore that we wanted to recruit them until at least October 30.
The real seriousness of the position lies in this, that we are obliged to demobilise the war agricultural companies of soldiers. That process is going on. We have lost 42,000 of them; therefore the deficit is increasing from that point of view. On the other hand we have not, I am glad to say, as yet given up a single German combatant prisoner. All the German combatant prisoners are still on the land. What has happened has been that we have had to move them from place to place as there have been complaints of unemployment by native-born agriculturists in the particular neighbourhood.
As to the licensed aliens, non-combatants, the Austrians and Hungarians and other nationalities, they are called in by the Home Office. There are not very many of them—4,000 is probably the total number. They have worked most excellently, and they are a great loss. But what happens

761
is that, if anybody has lost a German prisoner and appealed to us we could get him a fortnight's respite and meanwhile examine into the case. But I think you may take it that all the men of that class who are really taken from the land are taken for immediate repatriation.
Then as to the source of English labour to which the noble Lord alluded. It is a very small point, and I only mention it because the same mistake has sometimes been made before. It is quite true that the War Office had liberty to take 30,000 men, but as a matter of fact they took only 20,000, and I am not quite sure whether they got all those. At all events, those 20,000 men were the very cream of the agricultural labour; they were all men under thirty, and they were probably the best lot of men that agriculture sent out at any time during the war. The position is that we are getting the agricultural labourers demobilised far more rapidly than we are disbanding either aliens or agricultural companies. When I mention the fact that we have got demobilised 154,000 soldiers who were agricultural labourers and that we have only demobilised 42,000 of the agricultural companies, it is obvious that there is a balance in favour of agriculture on that figure—and on paper—of 112,000 men. Therefore the position is slightly better, when you take into consideration all that large returned number, than it has been at any time during the last two years.
I have to say "on paper," and to lay stress on that fact, because we really do not know whether all those 154,000 men have gone back on the land. The evidence, such as we have been able to collect it, rather points to a considerable number not having gone hack to the land. It is just there that I think careful inquiries should be made, and we are making them to the best of our ability. The average wage to-day of agricultural labourers is 33 s. a week. But the unemployment benefit is, for the first thirteen weeks, 29 s., with allowances for dependants besides, which, in the case of two children, would be 9s.
THE MARQUESS OF CREIVE: It is 6s. for the first child, and 3s. for each subsequent child.
LORD ELINLE: Yes; and if there were two children it would amount to 38 s.
762
Therefore an agricultural labourer who is able to get, unemployment benefit is very likely to take it. And, though in the second period of thirteen weeks the payment is reduced, it is only reduced to 20 s., and the dependants' allowance continues, so that there is still a chance that a man, if he is an agriculturist, may prefer to remain unemployed for six months. Strictly speaking, we ought to be able to prevent his having unemployment benefit, because unemployment benefit is not given to a man who has been offered a better place than that which he left before the war in the industry to which he is specially adapted, and which he followed previous to the war. But our difficulty is to trace these men after four years. Many of them have perhaps in the interval passed into munitions, or quarry working, or timber working, and it is very difficult to establish the fact that the man was previously an agricultural labourer. We are, however, trying to do our best to have that matter carefully investigated by the Ministry of Labour. That point was strongly dwelt upon by the noble Marquess.
Then there is the competition with Government contract work. We all agree that the moment the war is over every man is bound to be allowed to sell his labour in the best market that he can. During the war we were able to establish a sort of arrangement with the Government Departments and with the contractors that men should not be taken out of agriculture and employed. It was very difficult to enforce, but on the whole the number of men was restricted in that way. Now we have no means of doing that, and the wages are very high, and though the system of Government contracts has been altered so that a contractor no longer gets a commission on the height of the wages which he pays, it is still quite to his interest to pay very high wages in order to get his work done.
There is also the question of the key, or pivotal, men, which was also raised by the noble Marquess. I am afraid there have been a good many cases in which pivotal men have been applied for by agriculturists to go home and do work on the farms, and when they have arrived they have gone off into some other industry. I have a case here which was brought to my notice this evening where that has happened in the

763
county of Bedford. We think that it is almost in the nature of a false pretence for a man to be taken out of the Army for a specific purpose on the application of an employer, and when he comes home to throw over the employer and adapt himself to another purpose. We are asking the labour exchanges to deal with that class whenever they find it.
I am afraid that we shall continue to be short of labour, but I think we shall be better off than we were last year or the year before in most parts of the country. There will not be anything like the number of men we want, anything like the number of men who can be profitably employed upon the land; but with the aid of the machinery which we now have I hope very much that we may be able to pull through this ploughing season, because it is obvious that the next six weeks is the all-important time, and we can get no immediate relief from the situation. There are only two sources from which I think we can get relief. One is if the War Office would, as the noble Lord suggested, reduce the age from thirty-seven to thirty or thirty-two, we should then get a large number of very valuable agriculturists. We are trying to bring that about, and I am sure the fact that the matter has been brought before the notice of this House will help us in our representations to the War Office. The difficulty, of course, is that the War Office say that thirty-seven is the age, whatever their industry, at which men are to be demobilised, and that it is very hard upon all other industries if agriculture gets a priority. That is, of course, an argument which it is rather difficult to combat.
The next point would be this. I believe that the farmers are quite willing to employ inexperienced, unskilled men who are cut of employment. They would like to do it; and if they were allowed to pay them less than they have to pay their skilled labourers, that would be a way out of the difficulty. But unfortunately they have to pay them on the same scale; and your Lordships will, I am sure, understand the ding among agricultural labourers, who are themselves skilled and experienced, if they see men brought in who hardly know one end of a plough from another but receive the same wages as themselves. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that the difficulty is very great, and unless we get relief through the War Office I do not know to what source to look.
764
I am hoping, however, that we may get a considerable number of soldiers who intend to settle upon the land, and who have had no experience in farming, to volunteer their services upon the land. They will have to be paid, of course, the district rate; but I do not think that their coming in, as they are going eventually to take to the agricultural industry as their profession, will be regarded with the same sort of feeling by agricultural labourers generally. We shall have no doubt to face a considerable deficit on the figures. As long as the Army of Occupation is retained, I fear that is inevitable. There are probably in the Army of Occupation something like 100,000 agriculturists; and we have also to remember that among the 300,000 who joined one or other of the combatant Services there have been heavy casualties. Consequently, though I do not regard the situation as hopeless, I admit it is very difficult.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, the noble Lord has expressed Ids gratitude to the two Peers who preceded him, and I should like to begin by expressing my gratitude to him for the full statement he has been good enough to make to us to-night. I cannot say that I think it was encouraging, nor, I am afraid, will the farmers feel it to be so. I was very much struck by what the noble Lord said about inexperienced labourers. I have had absolute confirmation of that from a leading farmer in the country—the chairman of the Farmers' Union—who said, speaking for himself and his district, that he knew that in spite of the high wages given at present it took three men to do what two men used to do formerly. In those circumstances it is not surprising that what my noble friend Lord Crewe said just now is absolutely true—namely, that the great trouble of the farmers is the shortage of labour. If, therefore, we fall far short of the high hopes that have been held out to us of the greatly increased production which was said to be necessary for the safety of this country by the Prime Minister and other leading members of the Government, I earnestly hope that the blame will not be laid on the farmers, as has been the ease, in the past, because no men have worked more patriotically, and few men have received less gratitude for it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDIIIE OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in the name of the Lord President. If your Lordships approve, it is suggested by several members of the House that the name of Lord Kintore should be added as a Peer who has had experience in these matters. I merely wish to say that if any members of your Lordships' House desire to make proposals to this Committee I am assured that the Lord Chairman of Committees and the Lord President, and I doubt not other members of the Committee, will be most happy to receive those, proposals and to give them careful attention.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon proposals that have been made for improvement in the Procedure of this House, and to report whether the Standing Orders do or do not require to be altered for the purpose; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee, viz.:—

L. President (E. Curzon of Kedleston)

M. Lansdowne.

M. Salisbury.

M. Crewe.

E. Russell.

E. Kintore.

L. Willoughby de Broke.

L. Stuart of Wortley.

—(The Earl of Cranford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of March 13.]
BLYTH HARBOUR BILL.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL.
NEWPORT HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS BILL.
SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL.
BELFAST HARBOUR BILL.
CORK HARBOUR BILL.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lolls be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee to join with the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the said Bills, viz:

E. Onslow,

L. Erskine,

L. Ebury,

L. Monk Bretton;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: Ordered, that such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman: Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons in answer to their Message of the 6th instant to inform them of the appointment of the said Committee by this House, and to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in the Royal Gallery on Thursday the 27th instant, at eleven o'clock.

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Thursday next.

MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Petition for additional Provision of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Middlesbrough Borough under their Common Seal, together with the proposed clauses and amendments annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.