§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Clause 4:
§ Extension of principal Act to higher-rented houses.
§ 4. As from the passing of this Act the principal Act and the enactments amending that Act shall extend to houses or parts of houses or rooms subject to separate lettings where such letting does not include any land other than the site of the dwelling-house and a garden or other premises within the curtilage of the dwelling-house, and where—
- (a) in the case of a house situated in the Metropolitan Police district, including the City of London, both the annual amount of the standard rent and the rateable value of the house or part of the house exceed thirty-five pounds, and neither exceeds seventy pounds;
- (b) in the case of a house situated in Scotland both the annual amount of the standard rent and the rateable value of the house or part of the house exceed thirty pounds, and neither exceeds sixty pounds;
- (c) in the case of a house situated elsewhere, both the annual amount of the standard rent and the rateable value of the house or part of the house exceed twenty-six pounds, and neither exceeds fifty-two pounds;
§
(i) for subsection (1) of section one of the principal Act, exclusive of the provisoes of that subsection, the following provisions shall be substituted:—
Where the rent of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies or the rate of interest on a mortgage to which this Act applies has been since the twenty-fifth day of December nineteen hundred and eighteen, or is hereafter increased and such increase would apart from this Act have been recoverable, then, if the increased rent exceeds by more than ten per centum the standard rent, or the increased rate of interest exceeds by more than one half per centum per annum the standard rate, the amount of such excess above the said ten per centum or one half per centum, as the case may be, shall, notwith-standing any agreement to the contrary, be irrecoverable from the tenant or the mortgagor, as the case may be, and if paid may be recovered by the tenant or mortgagor in the manner and subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of section live of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1917;
§ (ii) in proviso (i) to subsection (1) and subsections (2) and (4) of section one of the principal Act the fourth day of March nineteen hundred and nineteen shall be substituted for the twenty-fifth day of November nineteen hundred and fifteen;
§ (iii) in subsection (3) of section one of the principal Act references to the dale of the passing of the principal Act shall be construed as references to the date of passing of this Act;
§ (iv) in subsection (4) of section one of the principal Act for the reference to the standard rate there shall be substituted a reference to the rate permitted by this section.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the first paragraph of Clause 4, to omit "or rooms subject to separate letting" and to substitute "let as separate dwellings." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment and another (on Clause 5) are down in my name. The two are to be read together. They are Amendments which are inserted in order to give effect to an Amendment on this subject which was introduced during the Committee stage. The intention of the proposal made in Committee is more completely carried out by these Amendments.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("or rooms subject to separate lettings") and insert ("let as separate dwellings").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONI accept. The noble and learned Lord has exactly the same object in view as I have.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved the addition of a new paragraph at the end of Clause 4.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 4, line 8, at end insert:
(v) At the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following proviso:
'Provided that if the rateable value of the dwelling-house on the said third day of August exceeds the standard rent as so defined, that rateable value shall, as respects that house, be deemed to be the standard rent.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWe accept that.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved the insertion of a new clause ("Restriction on raising assessment"). The noble Lord said: I hope that this Amendment is also non-controversial. It is to prevent local authorities from raising the annual assessment of houses to which the Act applies. There is great danger, if the assessments are raised and houses come outside the compounding limit, that the rents will be raised to the disadvantage of the tenant. It is the practice of local authorities to compound for rates in respect of houses up to the limit of, say, £20. If the house rises above this limit as regards the assessment for rates, the 5 per cent. is lost and disadvantages would occur. I suppose it is possible that the whole of this Amendment is contrary to privilege. It is quite an academic question, and I have reason to believe that there are many precedents for the other House not insisting on its privileges on a point of this kind.
§
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
§ "Restriction on raising assessment.
§ "5. It shall not be lawful during the period of the operation of the principal Act to raise the assessment (or in Scotland the valuation) for rating purposes of any house to which the principal Act or this Act applies by reason only of any increase of rent permitted by this Act."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
924§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIt is not my intention to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division on this suggested new clause. I pointed out in the Committee stage the reasons which on the whole led the Government and their advisers to take the view that a rating matter could not be conveniently introduced into this Bill. But the view is not strongly held, and I am prepared that the suggested new clause should go to another place in order that its deliberate and final judgment may be applied to it before it comes back to your Lordships.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 5:
§ Minor amendments of the principal Act.
§ 5.—(1) A landlord of a house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies shall, on being so requested by the tenant of the house, furnish to him a statement as to what is the standard rent of the house, and if he fails within fourteen days to do so, or furnishes a statement which is false in any material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
§ (2) Where a person who has, since the thirtieth day of September nineteen hundred and seventeen, purchased a house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies, requires the house for his own occupation or that of some person in his employ, or in the employ of some tenant from him, nothing in the Increase of Rent, &c. (Amendment) Act, 1918, shall be construed as preventing the court from making an order for the recovery of possession of the house, if, after considering all the circumstances of the case, including especially the alternative accommodation available for the tenant, the court considers it reasonable to make such an order.
§ (3) The principal Act, both as originally enacted and as extended by this Act, shall have effect as if in proviso (vi) to subsection (1) of section one of that Act after the word "until" there were inserted the words "or in respect of any period prior to."
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I have already explained the object of the proposed Amendment to Clause 5.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 4, line 33, at end insert as a new subsection:
(4) Any rooms in a dwelling-house the subject of a separate letting shall for the purposes of the principal Act and this Act be treated as a part of a house let as a separate dwelling."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
925
§
VISCOUNT MIDLETONhad the following Amendment on the Paper—
After Clause 5 insert the following new clause:
§ "Limitation on rent of houses let furnished.
§ "6.—(1) Where the occupier of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies, lets, or has before the passing of this Act let the house or any part thereof at a rent which includes payment in respect of the use of furniture, and it is proved to the satisfaction of the county court on the application of the lessee that the rent charged yields to the occupier a profit in excess of the normal profit as hereinafter defined, the court may order that the rent, so far as it exceeds such sum as would yield such normal profit, shall be irrecoverable, and that the amount of any payment of rent in excess of such sum which may have been made in respect of any period after the passing of this Act, shall be repaid to the lessee, and, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, may be recovered by him by means of deductions from any subsequent payments of rent.
§ "(2) For the purpose of this section 'normal profit' means the profit which might reasonably have been obtained from a similar letting in the year ending on the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
§ The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to carry out an Amendment which was, in substance, accepted in Committee, in order to prevent sub-letting of furnished houses at exorbitant rents. It has been suggested to me by the noble, and learned Lord on the Woolsack that after the word "shall" ["shall be irrecoverable"] in line 10 of the Amendment as it appears on the Paper, you should insert the words "in whole or in part", so as to give the County Court Judge an opportunity of deciding whether an amount should be recoverable in whole or in part, and in fact to do justice according to the evidence that may be brought before him. I therefore ask leave to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "in whole or in part" as suggested.
§
Amendment moved to the proposed new clause—
To insert after the word ("shall") ["shall be irrecoverable"] the words ("in whole or in part").—(Viscount Midleton.)
§ LORD PHILLIMOREI have an Amendment which I venture to commend to your Lordships as on the whole perhaps more likely to give satisfaction. We have already carried the principle that, having regard to the great depreciation in money, the landlord should be allowed to get some excess rent. If a landlord is to be allowed to get some excess rent from an ordinary tenant when he lets an unfurnished house, 926 why is not the landlord of a furnished house—the tenant, perhaps, of some other landlord, but himself a landlord as regards the person to whom he lets—to get some excess, something which will put him more in the position in which he would have been before the war, before money had so dropped in value?
It has occurred to me, and I venture to submit it to your Lordships, that the right thing would be to introduce after the word "profit," where that word first appears, the words "more than 25 per cent." It would then read, "…the rent charged yields to the occupier a profit more than 25 per cent. in excess of the normal profit as hereinafter defined." I have taken 25 per cent. because it is a very unnecessary detail to make 10 per cent. for one year and 25 per cent. for another, and because in my opinion 25 per cent. would be none too little in other cases. Indeed if it had been 33 per cent. for landlords and sub-landlords it would have been, to my mind, much more likely to do justice. I suggest the words "more than 25 per cent." partly for that reason, and partly because a furnished house is subject to depreciation which you cannot exactly estimate in damage. You cannot recover these damages, but after all they are a very serious loss to the owner. I think that if a person letting a furnished house does not get more than 25 per cent. in excess of what he or she (and it will often be she) would have got before the war that person will not be profiteering in any sense. In fact, such person will not be in as good a position as before the war. I presume that the suggestion of the noble Viscount who has tabled this Amendment is to meet that, but it would be very difficult for a County Court Judge to estimate what is the excess which the person letting a furnished house is to get. We have not left it to the County Court Judge to decide in other cases. It is perfectly certain that one County Court Judge will come to one view, and another Judge to another view; anyhow the object could not be attained without litigation; whereas if we put in a definite provision there would be no necessity for any litigation at all. I am not quite sure how I should raise this point, but I desire at the proper time to move the insertion of the words "more than 25 per cent." after the word "profit." Then there would have to be a repetition of this Amendment later in the Clause. I should oppose the 927 proposal of the noble Viscount to insert the words he now proposes, as they would be unnecessary in the circumstances. But perhaps I may have been so fortunate as to convince the noble Viscount that my provision is on the whole the more suitable of the two.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe authority of the noble and learned Lord on a question of construction is so high that I would not for a moment do more than very diffidently make a suggestion to him. The point which he has so clearly expressed to your Lordships was not overlooked by those who were responsible for drafting this Amendment, and in our humble view the word "profit" was intended to cover not merely an actual pecuniary sum but a pecuniary sum taking into account the fact that the money, in which that sum is reckoned, has depreciated since the period before the war. That was intended by the word "profit."
§ LORD PHILLIMOREI am glad to hear the noble Marquess say so, but I am afraid I could not agree that the words "normal profit" would cover that.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIf the noble and learned Lord holds that view, I am quite sure my noble friend would have no objection to such words as he proposes being put in after the word "profit." We do not desire to treat the owner of a furnished house on a different footing from the owner of an unfurnished house. On the contrary, our whole object was to put them on the same footing, and it was because the Bill left them on a different footing that we thought this Amendment requisite. Unless some such Amendment as my noble friend Lord Midleton has now proposed, and which is not regarded unfavourably by the Government, is put in there would be that immense blot on the Bill—namely, that whereas the landlord, the superior landlord, is not allowed to raise the rent as the Bill will stand more than 10 per cent. and ultimately 25 per cent. above the standard rent, the tenant who lets it furnished is able to make whatever profit he likes, and in that way defeat the intentions of Parliament and also acquire a rent far in excess of anything he is entitled to do in fairness and equity. I suggest, therefore, that it should be left to the Lord Chancellor to decide. If the Lord Chancellor is satisfied with the words as they stand we should be quite content. 928 On the other hand, if he thinks it would be better drafting after the word "profit" to add "more than 25 per cent." I am quite sure my noble friend would be ready to accept it.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORPerhaps it would not be inconvenient if I made a short and general observation on the principal Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Viscount. Your Lordships will remember quite clearly how it arose. My noble friend pointed out with unanswerable force that the principal object of this Bill was being defeated by subletting, and in particular by the subletting of furnished rooms. He pointed out also that with the increase of the rental value sanctioned by Parliament the mischief was certain to grow. An attempt had been made, not I think perhaps quite such a sustained attempt as is made by your Lordships, to remove this blemish from the Bill in another place. That attempt did not in fact succeed, and your Lordships endeavoured to see whether it was not possible to devise some means by which this mischief could be arrested or cured. I am by no means certain that that object can be obtained, and I told my noble friend that I and others would be very pleased if he would, in association with the Government draftsman, see whether a clause could be designed which would carry out his object. As to the, first Amendment before us I want to say that before I saw Lord Phillimore's Amendment it occurred to us that it was desirable to introduce some kind of elasticity. I agree entirely with Lord Phillimore's view, and in these circumstances I suggest that it might carry out his purpose if he were to move the words he has now suggested. If we therefore accept Lord Phillimore's Amendment I think it would be a convenient course if the noble Viscount were to withdraw the Amendment at this moment under discussion. I only wish to add, in order that there should be no misunderstanding, that I do not myself believe this Amendment will be in any way disagreeable to those who are responsible for the Bill in another place. What they are doing is this. They are going into it most carefully with persons of practical skill in these matters to see if it is workable. If it is workable I have no doubt that this addition to the Bill will be maintained. Perhaps in these circumstances the noble Viscount will withdraw the Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONI can hardly accept the Lord Chancellor's view and withdraw the whole Amendment.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORNo; I mean that the noble Viscount should withdraw the Amendment which he moved to his proposed new clause.
§ Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD PHILLIMOREI move my Amendment.
§
Amendment moved to the proposed new clause—
After "profit," where that word first occurs, insert "more thin 25 per cent."—(Lord Phillimore.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI think it is undoubtedly true that the ingenuity of my noble and learned friend had suggested to him a point which had escaped both the very accomplished draftsman of this measure and myself. I think on principle, if this Bill is to be amended as the noble and learned Lord wishes to amend it, it is desirable that the sub-tenants should be protected to the same degree, whatever that degree ultimately may be, as the landlord was protected either in the original Bill or in the Bill as it left your Lordships' House. In these circumstances I should recommend your Lordships to accept the Amendment to the Amendment moved by Lord Phillimore.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD PHILLIMOREI move the consequential Amendment, after "normal profit," where those words secondly occur, to insert "and 25 per cent."
§ Amendment to the proposed new clause moved accordingly, and on Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question, Viscount Midleton's proposed new clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 7:
§ Exception of new houses.
§ 7. Neither the principal Act nor this Act shall apply to houses erected alter or in course of erection at the passing of this Act.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved the addition at the end of Clause 7 of the following words: "nor shall it apply to a house in Scotland assessed at over thirty pounds per annum which has been prior to 930 the fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, sold or purchased for occupancy at Whitsun nineteen hundred and nineteen."
§ The noble Lord said: The only other Amendment stands in my name, and with regard to it I find myself in an extremely difficult position. It chiefly affects Scotland, and it is an important Amendment which ought to have been moved in Committee, and which, if we had had reasonable time between the printing of the Bill and the Committee stage in this House, I would have put on the Paper. But owing to the shortness of the time given I had only the possibility of getting it arranged from Scotland by telegram, and although I had it in manuscript on the day of the Committee stage, by agreement with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack I postponed it until this day. We are now in this position. I am aware that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack does not intend to accept it, and after a sitting of the House arranged specially to take this Bill in good time, by the Standing Orders another important Question has intervened, and we are in a difficulty, having hardly a quorum of the House to discuss what really is a most important matter in Scotland.
§ The idea of the Amendment is to go back to the original date in the Bill as it was introduced and drafted by the Government. The departure from that date will cause in Scotland an enormous amount of grievance and difficulty, and taking it all round the departure from that date, I have no hesitation in saying, is the grossest breach of faith that I have ever known in the whole of my Parliamentary experience. When the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons a question was asked of the Leader of the House, "Will it be retrospective?"—that is, retrospective from the 4th of March. It is bad enough to have given such short notice for changes which were to come into operation in England at Lady Day, which will arrive to-morrow, but far worse to make the Bill retrospective beyond the date at which it was announced in the House of Commons that it would be introduced. People knew, if they pay attention to Parliamentary debates—or those skilled persons who do so would know—that after the 4th of March this Bill was to be introduced; and on the 4th of March the Leader of the House was distinctly asked, "will it be retrospective?" and he answered em- 931 phatically, "No." That distinct promise has been departed from, and the Bill has been made retrospective till the month of December. I say that this is not fair and it is particularly hard in the case of Scotland.
§
After what happened in Committee stage I have had thirty or forty letters from many towns in Scotland—from Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Greenock, and many other places—all complaining of what they describe as a distinct breach of faith. I am not going into all these cases—I know it to be useless—but in justice to myself I must state one illustration of the badness of this clause as it stands. The case has been supplied to me of a security holder for a number of self-contained houses in Glasgow. There are six rooms and a kitchen in each, and the rent is £50. The security holder has had to enter into possession in consequence of the bankruptcy of the builder, and not being able to realise his security, he on the 11th December last made an offer to each of the tenants to sell the houses at £750. That is obviously a fair price, beng only fifteen years' purchase of the rent. A fortnight was given to each of the tenants in order that they might give their answer. Some accepted and some refused. I think I had better give the result of this Bill in the words of the firm—a large firm of house agents. They say—
Acting all through according to the law of Scotland as it stood, we gave intimation to the various bondholders where the purchasers did not wish a bond, that payment of these bonds would be made at Whitsunday. The discharges have been drawn, revised, and ready to be carried through, and we are in a similar position in connection with two covering bonds over the properties. The serious matter is the complications that will arise should this new Bill be passed into law, making it retrospective to December, 1918. The new purchasers of these houses (who are not the tenant purchasers) having bought their houses, have in many cases sold their own houses or given up the houses they presently occupy, expecting to get into their new house, and if they are now to be debarred by this new retrospective legislation from getting possession of their new house they will be thrown entirely out of a house. There is bound to be very serious litigation among sellers and purchasers as to whether the purchases are to be carried out, and between tenants who have given up their houses and new tenants taking these, as to whether the old tenants are still to retain their occupancy or give them up to the new tenants. These were all carried out in good faith according to the law of Scotland as it then stood, and it seems to be altogether harsh and unjust that the law should be made retrospective to a date so far back as 25th December without one word of warning being given of such a drastic change in the law of property holding.
932
Those are the words of a firm which I know to be one of the highest respectability and I believe them to be absolutely true.
§ I am speaking to an audience the majority of whom are Englishmen, and I would say that the period of letting and selling is different in Scotland from England, and the hardship in these cases is infinitely greater. I believe that I am right in saying that the letting and selling of houses is largely done in England at three months' notice, but the first intimation of the changes in the law was given in the House of Commons on March 4. and it was then distinctly stated that beyond that date this new Bill would not be retrospective. Now, without a word of explanation—I have read the proceedings in the other place, and there was hardly a word in the debate about it—it is suddenly made retrospective till December. That seems to me absolutely unjust, and there can be no defence for such a practice. I have done my best to state the case of those who have relied upon me to do so. The thing seems to me to be an absolute scandal in legislation—the way this House has been hurried, the impossibility of communicating with Scotland; and altogether I say that it is the gravest injustice, and the grossest breach of faith that I have ever known in forty-five years of Parliamentary experience.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 3, after ("Act") insert ("nor shall it apply to a house in Scotland assessed at over thirty pounds per annum which has been prior to the fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, sold or purchased for occupancy at Whitsun nineteen hundred and nineteen").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe noble Lord has spoken with a great deal of heat on a subject that is not primarily or very directly connected with this particular Amendment, but that would not prevent me from giving him a reply or any assurance that is within my power if I were in a position to do so. But I am really quite honestly unaware of what he referred to when he said that a gross breach of faith had been committed. I have not in my mind the pledge which he is good enough to tell you has been broken, but if he will raise it on what I hope will prove the short stage of the Third Reading I will make myself better able to understand what is in the mind of the noble Lord.
933 As far as this Amendment is concerned, I think it is very much wider in its terms than the noble Lord intended or than could be possible. Supposing the Amendment was now adopted, what would the consequences be? Its effect would be to take a house of this class altogether out of the scope of the present Bill. What would be the effect of that. The purchaser would be free after May 28 to let the house at any rent he could get, and his tenant would be in the enjoyment of none of the advantages which the principal Act and the Bill are designed to confer on the tenant. It must be evident to anybody that no good reason can be found for showing this special favour to this particular class of householder. The truth is that, in attempting to secure his object, the noble Lord has been led so to draft his Amendment as to make it include very many cases which, I have no doubt, he would not have desired to include.
In reference to the particular grievance raised by the noble Lord let me say quite plainly I think he has established a hard case. There may be cases where a man will find that he has to vacate his present-house on May 28 and may not be able to persuade the tenant of the new house to leave. In these circumstances he is undoubtedly in a very unfortunate position, but one of two hard cases must be adopted here. I do not believe that human ingenuity can think of a manner of dealing with it. I have failed to do so myself, and cithers whom I have consulted have failed. The real truth goes much more deeply. There are three people and only two Louses. Either the landlord, the man who has purchased the house, must go without a house, or the tenant must go without a house. In these circumstances there is no reason why the tenant should go, and you have in one case or the other to do some injustice. I find great difficulty in deciding how it ought to be done, but the only observation one can make which is relevant to the immediate purpose of the Bill is that it is to help tenants and in the interests of tenants that the Bill had its origin in the old Act, and that that is the moving consideration still. This Amendment, in any event, goes very much too far, and I am sorry that it is not possible for it to be adopted by the Government.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI am not surprised to hear the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He 934 has repeated in an amplified form the remarks that he made in reference to an Amendment against the retrospective character of this Bill which was discussed in Committee. I confess I think the reasoning of the noble and learned Lord is singularly unconvincing. It is an absolutely new departure in British legislation that we should have an Act of Parliament which not only breaks contracts but breaks contracts to the great disadvantage of perfectly innocent persons, and persons not affluent, but poor, who are not in a position to defend themselves, and may be placed in a situation of very great difficulty in consequence.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack says that there is a hardship any way. I think there is some truth in that observation. But I think the Government would have been far better advised had. they adhered to the old rule, which was not to make legislation retrospective except to the extent of going back to the time when the persons interested at any rate ought to have known that this legislation was probably impending. You could have gone back, that is to say, to the first moment of the mention of this amending Statute. People would have known that if, after that period, they entered into these contracts they did it with the peril over them that Parliament might afterwards break those contracts. But the Government have gone much further than that. They have gone back to a period when no one could have imagined that there was going to be such legislation, and people who entered into perfectly genuine contracts at that time will now by this Bill be placed in a most difficult position. I believe I have seen the case of a soldier who had returned from the front and had acquired for himself a house exactly in this way; he will be placed in a very difficult position.
But I am not surprised, as I say, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has taken this line, because he took the same line in Committee. It would be almost too much to hope that he would be content to give relief to Scotland which he has refused to give in the case of the rest of Great Britain. I can only repeat that I regret it. I think the Government would do much better to have adhered to the old rule—the rule for the respect of contracts. In that case they would not have been, as they will now be, the target of a 935 great deal of abuse from many persons who will have been very unjustly treated by the operation of the Bill.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, spoke of bad faith, and if there is an answer to these things it is desirable that it should be given. I see that the noble Lord founded himself upon certain observations made in another place, and he has been good enough to hand to me the marked OFFICIAL REPORT—
MR. KENNEDY JOKES: Will it be retrospective?MR. BONAR LAW: No.MR. KENNEDY JONES: Is the right hon. gentleman aware that there are a great many tenants awaiting eviction in March?MR. BONAR LAW: The answer I gave shows that they will not be able to ask a higher rent than that which is now being charged,If one reads back to the earlier passages of Mr. Bonar Law's speech one sees that he has been dealing both with the case of the rents and with the case of the tenants, and I think it must be obvious, if the noble Lord will read it, that when Mr. Bonar Law was asked the question by Mr. Kennedy Jones "Will it be retrospective?" he at least understood that particular question to mean "Will the right of the landlord (which he had just been dealing with) to raise his rents, be retrospective; because otherwise the next question asked would have had no meaning at all, for the next question is, "Is the right hon. gentleman aware that there are a great many tenants awaiting eviction in March?" All the notices were out, and if the Bill were not made retrospective every one of these tenants whom it was the object of the Bill to safeguard could have been turned out. If the Bill had not been understood by everybody to be retrospective, not one of the notices, which the noble Lord knows have been sent out wholesale all over the place, would have been affected by the Bill.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI can speak again only by the indulgence of the House. I do not think that the interpretation given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is correct, because the Bill when introduced had the date March 4, and my Amendment was only proposing to put the Bill back in that position. It is a very different thing to make a Bill retrospective before the time when it was announced and to take it 936 back three months in a case where the transactions have been completed in good faith and in ignorance that any such proposal was going to be made. I must say one word more, because I am in this position—namely, that if I run the risk of dividing the House I may put the House and Parliament to great inconvenience. If there are not thirty members present the discussion would be postponed until to-morrow, and to-morrow is Lady Day. If one went to extremities, look at the inconvenience that would be caused, which only shows the extremely unfair way in which this House has been treated with regard to the matter.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORDoes the noble Lord move?
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORYour Lordships will remember that when I was asked at the end of the Committee stage on what day it was proposed to take the Report stage, I expressed the hope—to which your Lordships were good enough to assent—that it would be possible to take the remaining stages of the Bill to-night. I now move the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX to enable that to be done.
§ Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI hope it will be clearly understood that I did not divide the House on the last Amendment purely out of consideration for the whole circumstances. I should like to ask now whether any forecast can be given of when this Bill will return, with whatever treatment our Amendments may be given in another place?
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEOn a point of order. I do not wish in any way to oppose the Motion which has just been made by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, but ought not that Motion to have been made at the. beginning of business?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDNo; at the stage subsequent to that which was normally in order on our Paper, I am sure that the House, and the Government too, 937 are much obliged to the noble Lord for the way in which he dealt with his last Amendment. I am afraid I am not in a position to state when we shall have this Bill back again, whether the House of Commons will be able to take it at their evening sitting to-night or whether they will take it to-morrow. For the moment I am uncertain. They will probably not be able to take it this evening.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.