Lords Sitting of 24 June 1920

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, there are adequate public reasons why your Lordships should suspend the Sessional Order in this case.
Moved, That the Order made on the 29th day of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 17th day of June next," be dispensed with in respect of the Sheffield Corporation Bill; and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a.

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the Salford Corporation Bill [H.L.]; and that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ROCHESTER CHATHAM AND GILLINGHAM GAS BILL.
  TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAMROADS COMPANY BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LIVERPOOL COPPER WHARF COMPANY (DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Road 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendment proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments proposed by the Committee made.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill, and I will give your Lordships a very short explanation of its objects and provisions. It is a Bill to amend and extend the Advertisements Regulation Act, 1907, which I had the honour of presenting to this House, and which was then passed. The experience of the last thirteen years has shown that the provisons of that Act fell short in some respects of important requirements. The main provision of this Bill is to enable by-laws to be made for regulating, restricting, or preventing advertisements in places where they affect injuriously the amenities of a public park or pleasure promenade or disfigure the natural beauty of a landscape. It was originally understood that a difficulty could easily be raised as to what constituted a landscape and whether a particular landscape had natural beauty deserving of protection. And, in addition, the Act of 1907 gives no protection to towns or villages.
The desire for the regulation of advertisements is no new thing, and, as far as I am concerned, I think that advertisements, as now being put forward, are growing in offensiveness, and that it is high time that very considerable restriction was put upon them. The first Act which dealt with this matter and gave any protection against offences of the kind was passed as long ago as 1891 at the instance of the London County Council. The Preamble of that Act stated that it was "for the prevention of unsightly erections." All new sky signs were prohibited, and existing signs were regulated and allowed to be continued only under licence for limited periods. Those periods have all now expired. The same provisions are applicable throughout the country by the Public Health Act, 1907, and this legislation has, I think, been productive of immense good to the community.

787
But for it the aspect of our cities, by displays of advertisements of a competitive kind, would have been far worse than it now is. The advertiser, however—I do not blame him from his own point of view—takes every advantage of his freedom below the sky line. He is ruthless in spoiling the charm of public landscapes and of old country towns and villages, and even in destroying our architectural effects. Edinburgh, Dover, and some other places have obtained by private Acts much more efficient protection than is given either in the Act of 1891 or in the General Act of 1907.
I do not want to go too far. I admit quite frankly that advertising within reason—for example, the names and businesses of traders in the streets—is a necessity of modern life. But I think it should be subject to regulations so as to provide a sufficiency of publicity without offence to the eyes of the majority. No complaint is made of the names of traders and the description of their businesses being exhibited on their premises in legible characters of moderate size, but some of the extravagances which seem, in my humble opinion, to require Parliamentary interference are such as these:—Moving and flashlight advertisements; advertisements in fields along railways; huge motor advertisements at the entrances of towns and villages; large picture or letter advertisements on blank walls; and large letters and devices defacing the architectural aspect of houses and streets. I suggest to your Lordships that moving and flashlight advertisements are universally condemned by public taste, and much electricity, and therefore much coal, is wasted upon their production. They are designed and placed so as not merely to inform but to force attention, whether you want them or not. They abound in all our crowded thoroughfares at night, and, so to speak, every eye is hit as you go along from place to place.
The field advertisements along the side of railways are, in my opinion, especially offensive. You cannot look out of the windows of a railway carriage when you are going through a country, however beautiful, and avoid these advertisements. There are also the advertisements of motors, tyres, and oils, in and near villages, which, it seems to me, are quite unduly offensive, and they must be very expensive to their owners. I have been in communi-
788
cation with an association which tries to regulate these matters, and it has been informed by many important firms that they would much prefer not to have to put up these advertisements, but they must do so in order to keep pace with their rivals. Many of them, I am sure, would welcome reasonable regulation.
Then the use of blank walls in full view of thoroughfares for glaring advertisements seems to me another quite needless offence. I give an instance which you can verify for yourselves on any day. If you stand on the parapet on the north side of Trafalgar-square looking down to Whitehall and Westminster (a prospect which Ruskin thought one of the finest in the country) the eye is met by a flaunting coloured advertisement on a blank wall in the middle distance. It is to my mind quite a needless and offensive advertisement, but I shall not give it any publicity by saying what it is intended to tell—I leave that to your Lordships to go and look at it for yourselves. The following is a quotation from a letter from a resident at Richmond—
"Just at the moment we are much exercised by a dreadful advertisement that has appeared on the side of a house in glaring colours which can be seen by everyone coming down Richmond Hill."
In all this class of cases the advertisements are displayed, not on the premises of the trader himself, but on land or building hired for the occasion, and one question which this Bill raises for the discussion of Parliament is whether a person is justified in letting his premises to enable another to make assaults of this kind on the eyes of an unwilling majority. I contend that the public are entitled to be protected from aggravating assaults of this kind. They ought to be able to enjoy walks and drives in the country without having their thoughts diverted to traders' wares, and to have restored to them the architectural beauties of old towns and villages.
So much on the general question. So far as this Bill is concerned it does not repeal the General Act, but it goes to some extent to supersede it and to give much more general protection than is given now. It must, however, be clearly proclaimed that the whole point of this Bill is to leave the matter to local authorities, as representing local public opinion, and that the powers will not be exercised otherwise than in accordance with that opinion. We believe

789
that public opinion would welcome an Act of the kind, prohibiting moving or flashlight advertisements throughout the whole country, but the Bill leaves even that matter to the taste and discretion of the local authority. It provides that all advertisements on lands and buildings shall be subject to regulation by by-law, except those of the Government and the local authority, and power is given, not only to regulate, but to prohibit those which do not relate to the premises where they are exhibited.
By Clause 1 it is proposed to give five years' grace to advertisements already exhibited at the passing of this Bill, if it passes, and one year's law to those erected after the passing of the Bill, but before the by-laws come into operation. Local authorities, while prohibiting "alien" advertisements, may provide special hoardings for them at suitable places. Clause 4 is important. It deals with repulsive and indecent advertisements. Any one who will read it will see how easy it is to be understood. It is not a simple matter to deal with such cases. To some extent it must depend on the personal opinion of the complainant and of the magistrate. But I can assure your Lordships that considerable difficulty has been experienced in obtaining convictions under the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889, the actual offender often conducting his operations by night; and the idea which underlies Clause 5 of the Bill is that the person under whose presumed authority the thing is done is made liable. I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—
(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the noble Lord's main object in this Bill—namely, to prevent advertisements which are an eye-sore to the general public and interfere with the amenities of a district—cannot fail to have the sympathy of every one. The practical effect, however, of the noble Lord's proposals, as they are set out in this Bill, would be to substitute very much more extensive powers for those conferred on local authorities by the Act of 1907. That Act authorises local authorities to make by-laws for the control of hoardings over 12ft. high, and also to control advertisements affecting the amenities of a public park, or which disfigure a landscape. The number of local authorities who have made by-laws is comparatively small—twenty
790
four counties, twenty-five boroughs, and twenty-four urban districts. I think that much more could be done to deal with disfiguring advertisements if local authorities would make fuller use of their powers, but the noble Lord urges that these powers are too limited.
I may say at once that my right hon. friend would welcome reasonable proposals for extending the existing law in any direction in which it is shown that wider powers are required for preserving the amenities of districts and preventing the disfigurement of objects and scenes of natural beauty. But I think the Bill before your Lordships' House goes rather further than this. Thus: Clause 1 gives a local authority power to regulate all kinds of advertisements on lands and buildings, and to prohibit all kinds of advertisements, except those exhibited wholly for the benefit of the occupier of the building on which they are placed. The power of regulation would include power to prescribe the size of the advertisements, the size, colour, and material of the letters, the size of the hoarding or boards, etc., on which they are exhibited This would probably entail widely varying regulations in different localities. It is true that all regulations would require the approval of the Home Office, but if the Statute gave express power to local authorities to exercise their individual discretion as to size, etc., it would be impossible for the Home Office to bring about any kind of uniformity. Some local authorities might prohibit almost every kind of advertisement; others might make no regulations; and others, again, might make detailed regulations as to size and colour, etc., and these regulations would vary from time to time in different places. The difficulties which such a position would cause to the firms who advertise throughout all parts of the country are I think, apparent.
Moreover, there is nothing in the Bill to indicate the principles on which local authorities are to proceed in framing regulations. Under Section 2 (2) of the Act of 1907 by-laws can only be made with regard to advertisements exhibited in such a manner "as to affect injuriously the amenities of a public park or pleasure promenade or to disfigure the natural beauty of a landscape." There is no such limit to regulations under this Bill, and it would be open to a local authority to use

791
the powers not merely for preventing the disfigurement of their district, but for any other purpose.
The object of Clause 4, which deals with advertisements of a "repulsive or demoralising character," is one which must command general sympathy, but the difficulty of effecting this object by legislative enactment is considerable. The question whether an advertisement is repulsive or not is one on which tastes and opinion may differ widely, and a Court of Law would have great difficulty in determining the meaning of the word "repulsive," for what is repulsive to one man may not be repulsive to another, and there is no common standard which could be applied.
I fear that there are many difficulties involved in the Bill as it stands, and it is bound to excite strong opposition in certain quarters. In these circumstances the Government regret that they are unable to support the Bill in its present form or promise any facilities. But I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are in entire sympathy with the desire to prevent advertisements which are an eyesore to the general public and interfere with the amenities of a district; and if I might venture to make a proposal—a proposal which I think was made to promoters of a similar Bill in 1913—I would with great respect suggest that the noble Lord might confer with my right hon. friend's Department with a view to the drafting of a Bill which it would be possible for His Majesty's Government to support, and to give facilities to the noble Lord to pass into law. If the suggestion I have ventured to make should by chalice find favour with the noble Lord, I should be very glad to place myself entirely at his disposal.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I have, of course, no criticism to make upon the reception which the noble Lord has given to the Bill. He welcomes it by saying that he has no objections on general principle, but his criticisms on the clauses were of some importance. I was glad to hear his suggestion of further conference with an authority on the matter like the Home Office. So far as I personally am concerned I gladly accept that; and if the House will give the Bill a Second Reading to-night—which I think would be the convenient course—I will undertake not to put it down for a further stage until
792
full opportunity has been given to the Government Department concerned for conference with those who are promoting the Bill.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If that course would suit the noble Lord, I think it would be the best one to follow.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MAYOR'S AND CITY OF LONDON COURT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, very few words of explanation are necessary in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. Its object is to amalgamate the two separate Courts which now exist in the City of London, each having Judges, officials, and a Court-house of its own. The first of these is the Court of the Lord Mayor, a Court of immemorial antiquity having a jurisdiction which in point of amount is unlimited, though territorially it is limited to cases arising in the City of London. The second is the City of London Court, also in its origin of great antiquity since it represents two old Sheriffs Courts—the Court of Giltspur Compter and the Court of Poultry Compter. In its modern form the City of London Court is to all intents and purposes a County Court having its regular place in the County Court system. The Judges of the Mayor's Court are the Recorder and the Common Serjeant, and in addition, for some years past, it has been the custom that these should be assisted by another gentleman who is known as the Assistant Judge. The City of London Court, since the retirement of Mr. Commissioner Kerr, has until lately had two Judges—originally Sir Lumley-Smith and Mr. Rentoul, and then Mr. Atherley Jones and Judge Rentoul. Upon the retirement of Judge Rentoul last summer it was thought that the volume of work in this Court was insufficient at the moment to justify the appointment of a new Judge, and since then Judge Atherley Jones alone has discharged the duties of this Court.
The Recorder and the Common Serjeant and the Judge or Judges in the City of London Court are, by virtue of the Central Criminal Court Act, included in the Com-

793
mission for hearing criminal cases at the Central Criminal Court. It is obvious that if the Mayor's Court and the City of London Court are amalgamated—which is my proposal—the Judges who are available for each Court will become available for both Courts, with a consequent saving of judicial time. If the work of the amalgamated Court increases it will be necessary to fill the vacancy caused by the retirement of Judge Rentoul. Meanwhile the official staff of both Courts will assist the Recorder, tie Common Serjeant, the Judge of the City of London Court (Judge Atherley Jones) and the Assistant Judge, at present Mr. Jackson. It is at present anticipated that it may be possible to close one of the two Court-houses and, by an amalgamation of the staffs of the two Courts; to affect a very considerable financial saving.
Incidentally, advantage is taken, of the opportunity to revise the procedure in the Mayor's Court which at present employs for its process the antiquated form of pleadings which in the High Court came to an end many years ago. The Bill makes provision for the interests of those officials of the Courts who will, or may be, displaced in consequence of its provisions. It has been considered and approved by the Council of the Law Society, and it comes before your Lordships with the warm support of the Corporation, who are at present suffering heavy financial loss through the conduct of the two Courts, and I am confident that its passing will result in increased efficiency as well as economy, and, I trust also, in the revival of the ancient glories of the old and famous Courts of the City of London.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I welcome this measure. I think it has long been needed, and I hope that its result will be further to strengthen the administration of justice in the City of London. What the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said is quite true. The jurisdiction of these two Courts is ancient, and, so far as the Mayor's Court is concerned, it is very extensive. The forms of procedure which it adopts are strangely cumbrous and antiquated. I feel sure that any of your Lordships would appreciate this who have ever heard a common action for debt opened to a common jury in the Mayor's Court and
794
heard counsel explain to a patient and, bewildered body of men that the count was a count of concessit solvere, and had seen the expression on their faces, when all they wanted to be told was that it was a case of a common action for debt, the concessit solvere being on the hypothesis that defendant had met tile plaintiff in the parish of St. Botolph and had there genially confessed that he had had the money—the last thing in the world the defendant had dreamed of doing. On that fiction the process is based and the pleadings are drawn in that form. One sees every old form go with some regret, particularly if you are a person like myself who disbelieves in many of them, but, none the less, this form, I think, has served its time and should pass away.
But the alteration proposed here is one to which I desire to direct the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and it is my only excuse for the few observations I wish to make. The jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court being practically unlimited within the area it controls, and the jurisdiction of the City of London Court being strictly limited, this Bill provides that there shall be two distinct species of procedure applicable to cases in the new Court. There shall be the procedure which is applicable to the cases which could not formerly have been brought in the City of London Court but could have been brought in the Mayor's Court and there is the procedure applicable to those cases only that could have been brought within the City of London Court, the procedure for the larger area of cases in the Mayor's Court being that of the High Court of Justice. It seems to me that this is rather a clumsy method of effecting reform, and what I would suggest for the consideration of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is that it would be well to have one common form of procedure applicable to all cases, subject to this, that either party may, if he think it right, apply to have the pleadings in the usual more elaborate procedure of the High Court, if the matter be a matter over the normal County Court limit.
I do not like the clause which provides that the procedure of the High Court is to be adopted and to be enforced in lieu of that which was in use in the Mayor's Court for all purposes and cases within the jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court and not within the jurisdiction of the

795
County Court, as it appears to me that it may well give rise to technical problems as to whether or not the right form of procedure has been adopted in any particular case. And if there is one thing which is more hateful than another to any person who is engaged in the administration of justice, it is, I am certain, a foolish technical quarrel as to whether some form has been complied with disobedience to which would in no way affect the course of the case. Therefore, I invite the noble and learned Lord's attention to what I think is a difficulty in the Bill, and would beg him to give it some careful consideration between now and the Committee stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly do as my noble and learned friend suggests. I will convey his criticisms to those who are directly responsible for the conduct of business in these Courts, and I have no doubt that I shall be able to give him a detailed reply or concession.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

JUVENILE COURTS (METROPOLIS) 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.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Constitution of juvenile courts in the metropolitan police court district, 3 & 4 Viet. c. 84.
1.—(1) An Order in Council made under subsection (5) of section one hundred and eleven of the Children Act, 1908, for the establishment of one or more juvenile courts for the metropolitan police court district may, notwithstanding anything in the Metropolitan Police Act, 1840, provide for any such court being constituted of a police magistrate (who shall be the president of the court) nominated by the Secretary of State, and two justices of the peace for the county of London, of whom one shall be a woman, and both of whom shall be chosen from amongst a panel of such justices nominated for the purpose by the Secretary of State:
Provided that nothing in the Order shall prevent a police magistrate sitting alone in any
796
case where he considers that it would be impracticable for the court to be constituted in manner aforesaid, or that it would be inexpedient in the interests of justice to adjourn the business of the court.
(2) The Order shall provide for the justices who are to sit at the several sittings of the court being chosen by the panel, or, if necessary, by the police magistrate, and in case of the absence of the police magistrate through illness, leave or other cause, for the appointment of a deputy to act in his stead, being either another police magistrate or a justice of the peace approved by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Order may for the purpose of facilitating the establishment of juvenile courts provide for the discontinuance of any of the existing police courts or for the use of an existing police court solely for the purposes of a juvenile court.
The EARL OF DESART The EARL OF DESART had Amendments on the Paper to subsection (1) to make it read as follows—
1.—(1) An Order in Council made under subsection (5) of section one hundred and eleven of the Children Act, 1908, for the establishment of one or more juvenile courts for the metropolitan police court district may, notwithstanding anything in the Metropolitan Police Act, 1840, provide for any such court being constituted of the police magistrate of a metropolitan police district (who shall be the president of the court) sitting with two justices of the peace for the county of London, of whom one shall he a woman, and both of whom shall be chosen from amongst a panel of such justices nominated for the purpose by the Secretary of State:
The noble Earl said: The Amendment that I have ventured to put on the Paper—which will receive, I will not say the favourable consideration, but I am sure it will receive the consideration of the Lord Chancellor—does not touch the principle of the Bill. At any rate it is not intended to do so, as I understand the Bill. The essence of the measure, as I followed it on Second Reading, is that in the metropolis, as in other towns in the country, children should be dealt with by a Court composed, as in some cases, of Stipendiary or Metropolitan Police Magistrates, or two lay magistrates of whom one should be a woman. Nothing in my Amendment touches the establishment of such a Court or the status or position of the lay justices, the woman or the man.
Having entirely accepted the decision of the House on Second Reading, my only object now is to give such assistance as may be possible or to raise any questions which seem to me to be germane which will assist in the working of the Bill in the best way for the children, for the parents, and for general administration of the purposes for which the Courts are to be created.

797
Of course, one of the main questions is as to the test way to utilise the excellent material you have in the Police Magistrates of this metropolis. That is one of the very important elements in it. As regards the whole Bill, I have had a number of communications since the Second Reading, and, as the Lord Chancellor said, it is quite clear that there is a good deal of difference of opinion among magistrates and other people who are competent to judge as to the general provisions of the Bill. I do not wish, however, to touch on that, and I am not entitled to do so on this Amendment. But I think the Lord Chancellor, if I may respectfully say so, has been in some way misled as to the point whether all magistrates have been consulted. He told us that they had been consulted and that some of them differed from the Bill. Not only is there the letter from Mr. Mead which appears in The Times to-day, but I have heard from other magistrates whom I know that they are not of the opinion that they were consulted, though they heard of the Bill. I think the explanation probably is that the Lord Chancellor was quite properly informed that magistrates had been consulted, but that the statement did not mean all of them. It is the fact that there is a considerable difference of opinion on a great many points in this Bill.
The sole object of this Amendment—and it is the only one—is that the Metropolitan Magistrates who are to sit—probably the most important element in these Courts—should not be limited, as they are in the present form of the Bill, to magistrates specially nominated by the Secretary of State, but that all Metropolitan Magistrates should be qualified to sit in their own Courts, or elsewhere, with the two lay magistrates in their own districts, in their own Courts, or in some room near the Court. I understand that many of the Courts have been specially constructed for the purpose of enabling children to enter them by a separate door, and other conveniences added for the purpose of dealing with juveniles. It would be a pity if these conveniences were wasted. It is common ground that the law relating to children only has been very satisfactorily administered up to the present time, and this was really the only ground on which I offered any comment on the Bill on the Second Reading. In my Amendment I am trying to secure that children and their parents should have
798
this form of jurisdiction administered in their immediate neighbourhood, and, if possible, by the magistrate whom they know by sight, with whose decisions they are familiar, and who is in daily communication and well acquainted with the wisdom and discretion of the Court missionary and the lady probationers who advise him.
There are, I think, ten Children's Courts in London now sitting twice a week. I do not know how many magistrates are to be appointed under the Bill, but if it is only one or two I think it would be a very heavy task for them to attend twenty times in the week at these Children's Courts; and I confess I cannot see the necessity for it. I do not know on what principle these magistrates are to be nominated; whether they are to be married or bachelors, or whether they are to be lawyers. But all the material is so good that I should deprecate any discrimination. I should endeavour—and that is the object of my Amendment—to secure that the magistrate should sit as nearly as possible in his own Court (or some place quite near), the lay magistrates sitting with him, and hear cases in his own neighbourhood where he has the advantages to which I have referred.
I am not quite clear what is intended as to Courts. I hope it is not intended that there shall be just two or three Courts selected for this purpose. I gather that this is not the intention, but I should like to be quite clear about it; otherwise it might occasion children having to go long distances. As I have said, I do not think that is the intention, and I only mention it because it is believed by some people; indeed, some believe that there is to be only one Court, one Central Court. That, of course, is clearly not the case if I understood the Lord Chancellor aright, but I should like to know what the plan is. If you are going to have only a limited number of Courts my Amendment would hardly be applicable. The whole point of my Amendment is that the Children's Court should be administered by the existing magistrates in or near the localities where they sit. There would be great advantages in that, for the reasons I have indicated.
I would ask the Lord Chancellor whether any real advantage is to be gained by nominating special magistrates for this purpose when you have a record of good work satisfactorily done over so long a period by the existing magistrates, and

799
whether they should not continue to exercise their functions when the new Court is constituted, as I hope in their own districts, in their own neighbourhood, where they know the case of the parents and children and know the character of the people who habitually advise them. I now move the first of my Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(The Earl of Desart.)
LORD PARMOOR: Before the Lord Chancellor answers, I should like to say a word or two in support of the Amendment. I have had rather a long experience of magisterial work both on its actual judicial side and also on its administrative side. I quite agree with what I understand is the attitude of the Lord Chancellor. He approaches the Bill entirely from the point of what is the best way of dealing with juvenile offenders. I am very much in favour of the Court proposed to be constituted; and the giving of the assistance of two lay magistrates, one of them being a woman, is a very important reform as regards the constitution of the Court dealing with juvenile offences.
With regard to the question raised by the Amendment I think, in the first place, that there ought to be no limitation in the number of Courts in which these juvenile offences can be entertained and considered. It is extremely important that the children should not be carried further away from their homes than is necessary. I share the doubt expressed by Lord Desart as to what was meant by the constitution of the Central Court, by means of which Courts in various parts of the metropolis might be arranged and distributed. I see no reason whatever for diminishing the number of centres which now exist at which juvenile offences can be entertained. That is an extremely important point. In the second place, I dislike any notion of superseding any Metropolitan Police magistrate particularly within the district where he has exercised his functions and where he is known. A very important part of magisterial jurisdiction is that what I may call the "friendly attitude of knowledge" should come in as well as the judicial attitude. It is very prominent in country Courts, and it is also prominent in the Metropolitan Police Courts with admirable effect.
800
What the noble Lord desires in his Amendment is that there should be no supersession in any sense of the existing Police Magistrate when he is exercising jurisdiction of this kind in his own district now that he has the assistance of a special Court constituted of two lay magistrates, one woman and one man, to sit with him. The Lord Chancellor might say that this is difficult because there are not sufficient Courts constituted. A good many of the existing Courts have been arranged so that juvenile offenders can be dealt with apart from ordinary offenders, and considerable expense has been incurred in that direction. I do not think that objection in any way applies to the present Amendment, because if you are to have what is essential, a sufficient number of these Courts distributed throughout the metropolis, you mast arrange for places where the Court can sit; and having arranged places where the Court can sit, instead of bringing in a man who may be an outsider, you merely say that the existing Police Magistrate is to exercise his jurisdiction with the assistance with which the Bill provides him.
The Lord Chancellor mentioned that there was a good deal of difference of opinion upon this point, and I think said that one of the Police Magistrates who was in favour of the Bill as it stood was the present Chief Magistrate. After all, the present Chief Magistrate has not had a very prolonged experience, because, as we know, he succeeded Sir John Dickinson only a short time ago; but there are to my knowledge a very large number of experienced Police Magistrates who view this proposal with disfavour, not so much because of the constitution of the Court, but as introducing outside jurisdiction within the limits of their own jurisdiction. It is just the same with regard to the probationers. They have done excellent work in the past, and they could go on in the future playing just the same excellent parts as in the past, if you provided as I suggest ought to be provided, for local Courts to be held in the districts where they are held at the present time. I much hope that the Lord Chancellor will see his way to regard this Amendment favourable. It appears to me to be in no way inconsistent with the general principle of the Bill, and I think that if it were adopted the whole scheme would work favourably in the interests of juvenile offenders.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I say a word before the Lord Chancellor replies, as this is a subject on which I have had some experience as Lord Lieutenant of this county, and also in other ways. In one respect I think that the Amendment of the noble Earl meets the case, if he desires—I am not quite sure he does—that there should be complete liberty of action in this matter; that it should not be supposed that in every case the Police Magistrate should as a matter of course sit in these Courts, but that there should be no reason on the other hand why he should be debarred, or feel debarred, from doing so. I think I am right in saying that there is this difference of opinion among the London Police Magistrates, both as regards the education cases and the juvenile cases generally, that a number of the Police Magistrates would resent not taking part in them. They take a special interest in these matters and would be sorry for it to be supposed that they could be or ought to be superseded. But I also believe I am right in saying that there is, and always has been, a certain proportion of the London Magistrates who would prefer to stand aside and would welcome the establishment of a quite different sort of Court, in some cases perhaps without the presence of a Stipendiary Magistrate at all. That, however, is not provided for by the Bill.
In those circumstances I should have thought that the noble Earl's Amendment was scarcely necessary, because, as I comprehend the Bill as it stands, it makes it possible either for the Police Magistrate to act, with the necessary assistance, or for him to stand aside, or in a conceivable case to be asked to stand aside, in order that some magistrate more specially fitted for, the particular work may take his place. Where, however, I am not in complete agreement with the noble Earl is as regards the place where the Juvenile Court should sit. He appeared to conclude that in normal cases there was no reason why the Court should not sit in the ordinary Police Court, provided arrangements were made for a separate access. I confess that I feel strongly that it is highly desirable that invariably the proceedings should take place somewhere else—that the atmosphere of the Police Court, the mere excitement to a child of attending, the possible attraction of feeling that even at that tender age he is attaining the full status of appearing in a Criminal Court—all those things must be radically
802
bad, and the proceedings ought to be, I venture to think, far more conversational in character than they possibly can be in a Police Court. Therefore it is desirable in every case that some other premises should be obtained.
For that reason I am in sympathy with the Amendment which Lord Askwith has on the Paper, in which he desires to make it impossible that a Police Court should be set aside for the purpose. But in saying this I desire to guard myself against the supposition that I am in favour of an extremely limited number of Special Courts. I think it is desirable that there should be multiplication to the necessary extent which will make it possible for those who have to attend them not to travel far. On the whole, therefore, I confess that I do not see, subject to anything which the Lord Chancellor may say, the precise necessity for the noble Earl's Amendment, because it does not seem to me to add to what I think is so desirable— namely, the complete elasticity of the proceedings.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Before the Lord Chancellor answers I should like to say a word in support of the Amendment which is before us, and I also claim to speak from very considerable experience of this kind of business in London. Not so much in the Police Courts, but in enforcing bye-laws, I have had a long experience of this type of case. I am satisfied that you want at least as many places as there are at present Police Courts, and I think it will even be convenient to have more. I am sure that if you are to secure the attendance of parents you must bring the hearing as near as possible to the parents. I cannot help thinking that if the sittings are held twice a week it would be quite possible for the magistrate to announce the sittings, and I think that there are many boroughs which would put a room in the Town Hall, or similar building, at his disposal for that purpose. I do not attach much importance to the atmosphere of the Police Court, because there is no atmosphere in bricks and mortar, and we are told that many Police Courts have separate entrances,
By-and-by we shall come to Lord Askwith's Amendment. I see no objection to facilitating the securing of a different, building, but I think it would be unreasonable to put an absolute veto upon using any Police Court. I feel also that it would be very invidious if you were to

803
disfranchise any magistrate. I quite agree that there are magistrates with local experience. I believe there are fourteen or fifteen Police Courts in London. If you are to say that ten or a dozen of those magistrates are to be recognised you put a distinct slur upon the few that you do not allow to deal with these cases, and that would very much diminish their value in sitting in their Courts. We all know that magistrates differ in quality. Some are more sympathetic and tactful then others. You cannot get a perfect man in every post. It would be invidious to disfranchise any particular Judge because of his way of conducting business, and the same thing, I think, applies to police magistrates. They have judicial functions, and you ought not to throw a slur upon them merely in order to select those that you think most fit.
I rather agree with the noble Marquess. You do not want to violate the law, but these are cases in which the law is not so important as is a very broad sense of human understanding, and I think there is a good deal to be said for the Lord Chancellor's Amendment on page 2, line 2. He contemplates that you should bring in other magistrates, if necessary a barrister-at-law. I am sure in London, with the great developments of local activity, municipal and social, it would not be difficult to find a large number of people, men of experience, with legal training and of social sympathy, who would be very willing to put their services at your disposal once a week, or from time to time as required. I mean the same type of man who acts as Chairman at Petty Sessions in the country. That type of man, I think, is very well suited for this kind of work, and if you took power to extend your Bench of magistrates by having a roster of these other gentlemen, who are quite as fit to deal with these cases as stipendary magistrates, you might multiply your Courts and hold them perhaps more often away from the Police Courts, so bringing the hearing nearer to the parents. In that way you would be able to do what you desire.
It may be said that the number of women who have the necessary experience and judgment is very limited at present, but there will he more of the right type of women available as their work in public affairs extends. If you have twenty to twenty-five Courts sitting, and you call in women, I do not think that it would be desirable to have your professional and
804
technically-skilled woman going round from Court to Court carrying out and enforcing merely one kind of social reform. I would rather have a broad-minded ordinary woman who has had experience of affairs in her home and in ordinary life. You want the genial, liberal, reasonable mind of a trained, experienced woman. If this Amendment is carried, and if the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor on page 2 about bringing in a barrister-at-law is also carried, with perhaps some alteration, I think you will very much improve this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): The noble Earl who moved this Amendment spoke of a statement contained in a letter which appeared in the Press this morning to the effect that my observation was not accurate that the London magistrates had been consulted at every stage. I think it right to say that the practice of judicial personages entering into controversies in the Press in such matters is not usual, and in my humble judgment it is not edifying. To state and enforce one side of a controversy in the public Press by one magistrate is very likely to invite a controversy in reply from another, with results which, if they were extended throughout the judicial world, would be, I think, likely to produce a very undesirable state of affairs.
I make an observation on that not because the learned magistrate thought proper to address a controversial letter to The Times. I should not have thought it right to enter into controversy with him upon any point that was not raised by a noble Lord in debate. But the noble Earl has raised this point, and I gladly make an observation upon it. The chief magistrate, Sir Chartres Biron, has stated since the debate that the observation which I made, not, of course, on my own initiative, was substantially correct. He himself had been consulted at every stage, and all his criticisms had been met by Amendments. He had consulted other magistrates, either collectively, as in the case of the first proposal, or individually; he would not say all of them, but a sufficient number to ascertain their general view as regards subsequent developments. I think that statement will satisfy your Lordships that I was not too sanguine when I made the claim which excited this criticism.

805
The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Desart has a very clear purpose. It is to substitute for the present policy of the Bill—which is that one of the Police Magistrates should he told off for the particular duty of presiding at Children's Courts—an arrangement under which all the existing Metropolitan magistrates would be available for that purpose, and of course their duties would necessarily be discharged at the present Courts. Although a magistrate or magistrates specially assigned for this purpose would feel no inconvenience in resorting to the substituted places, it is plain that the magistrates who have to discharge other functions must discharge those functions in the same spot.
I am quite unable to agree with the view taken by the last speaker to the effect that there is nothing in the atmosphere of a Police Court to winch he objects in the case of children. I take a wholly different view, and I take it more strongly than I can explain. The noble Lord said there is nothing demoralising in bricks and mortar. Of course, there is not. But the question is, what are the surroundings and the associations within the structure which is itself of bricks and mortar? No one who has seen day by day the depravity, the drunkenness, the squalor, uniformed policemen, the dock, or the terrible punitive atmosphere of our minor crimes, can, I think, on reflection share the view which I was taken by the last speaker. I certainly am of opinion that one of the most important reforms of this Bill will be a change that will enable us in many cases, by the kindness of public bodies, to have no Courts at all, but rooms lent to us at the town halls and assembly rooms and so forth, in which the atmosphere, instead of being that of public correction, will be parental, paternal, and partially maternal, in which no policeman in uniform will appear, arid in which the mild corrections will be suited to the tender age of those to whom it is necessary to apply them.
Nor can I in the least agree with the noble Lord who spoke last when he talks of disfranchising magistrates. Language like that ought not to be held by anyone who has given any attention to this matter. The magistrate has no right to consider himself disfranchised because those who are responsible, and to whom he is responsible, take the view that the public purpose is better served if one peculiarity of the work which magistrates sit to try is moved to
806
another magistrate. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice is here, and I have no doubt, if he addresses your Lordships upon this point, that he would say that it is constantly the practice for him to make a selection among his colleagues of puisne Judges. To one, perhaps, bankruptcy is assigned; to another, Inland Revenue; to another, divorce. I have no doubt, among all the able men for whose work my noble friend is responsible, there are some who, for instance, have never tried an Inland Revenue ease, and it is probable that there are others who have never entered the portals of the Divorce Court. But no learned Judge holds himself to be affronted if the decision of those who are in authority is in the sense that a certain part of his work should be subtracted.
The merits of this Amendment make it, I think, both technically and, I am rather inclined to think your Lordships will say also, substantially unacceptable. The Amendment as it stands would not be a possible one at all. There is only one Metropolitan Police District, and that extends many miles on every side beyond the Metropolitan Police Court area. What my noble friend really means, I suppose, is the Metropolitan Police Court District. The object of the Amendment then, if I understand it aright, would be to provide that in each Metropolitan Police Court District there should be a Juvenile Court presided over by one of the Magistrates who usually sit for that district.
THE EARL OF DESART: I should like to explain that I never committed myself to his presiding in that Court. I really think that was not germane to my Amendment. I referred quite incidentally to it, and it has led to a debate. My point was that the existing magistrate should function whether in his Court or in some other room in his own district. I carefully avoided discussing it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But I pointed out to my noble friend that if the magistrate functions, as he calls it, he must function in his existing Court. It would be quite impracticable, as any one who has had experience of this matter will agree, that magistrates all the time should be moving from their own Courts into these substituted premises. Practical convenience would not tolerate it.

807
But what I think your Lordships would be interested to hear is a stage in the history of these proposals. I was originally asked by the Home Office to apply my mind to this question with the object of making a suggestion as to the best method of dealing with it. I will be perfectly frank. The first suggestion that occurred to me was a suggestion which substantially corresponded with the proposal now made by the noble Earl, though I think it was less open to a technical objection. It was the same proposal that the existing magistrates should sit, that it should be a subject of consideration whether they should combine their ordinary work on the existing premises with the new work on substituted premises. But the main proposal was that as they discharged their functions now so they should continue to discharge them, with the association of lay justices, male and female. That proposal made by me, and sanctioned, though I think with more doubt than I had, by the Home Office, was resolutely and unanimously refused by the magistrates. This is the language they used—
"If it means—"
as it did mean, and as the noble Lord's Amendment means—
"that the woman justice is to sit with us with equal powers, we are agreed in offering our strongest opposition to such a proposal."
In other words, the magistrates unanimously objected to women sitting with equal powers, and that was the whole controversy, or rather the whole subject of discussion—because nobody desired a controversy on such a point—between the Home Office and myself on the one hand, and those who were representing the magistrates upon the other. And it was only when I became convinced that there was not a willingness on the part of the whole body of the magistrates that women should possess these powers—they did not object to sit with them in principle, they objected to women having equal power—that I abandoned the first intention. I stated on the Second Reading the grounds on which I and my colleagues were quite clear that, as far as we were concerned, we would not be parties to putting women in London in a position inferior to that occupied by women in other parts of the country. On that matter of principle we were inflexible.
That being so, I had to consider a new plan, and I discussed it with those who are
808
very familiar with these matters. I came to the conclusion that the most promising scheme was that one or more magistrates, known to be most specially competent in these matters—renowned, if I may say so, in this sphere of jurisdiction for their humanity and their experience—should be selected to be what one may call permanent magistrates dealing with this class of work, and that there should be the central office. I fear I must have been greatly lacking in lucidity in my explanation on the Second Reading, because I find that the noble Earl is not alone in having completely failed to understand my meaning. Let me try now, with the utmost possible simplicity, to tell the House how the matter would proceed if this Bill became law.
There will be, as I have said, this Central Court. The Central Court, besides affording the general and central accommodation to which I referred on the Second Reading, will also be the scene of sessions of the Court, consisting of the permanent Judge and his two lay justices for the particular district in which it is situated. In addition to that, and just as the Judges go circuit over the whole Kingdom, so this permanent Judge and these two lay justices—from a panel of course, so that they will be varied—will go to the districts (I do not say every single district in which there is a Police Court, as one noble Lord has said, because that would be impracticable, and, I can assure your Lordships when we coins to that Amendment, wholly unnecessary), but it will go to every single geographical area in which it would cause the slightest hardship to a child to make a longer journey. One speaker asked whether it would be within the power of one panel, so to speak, to discharge this work completely and thoroughly. I am advised that it would. But experience will show that, and the machinery is so elastic that it would be quite easy to vary it if it is found that the work exceeds the powers of a single Court, but those who have had the most experience in this matter and who realise what the difference will be when the Court gives its whole time to this class of work assure me that it would lie within the competence of the Court to deal with it.
I hope I have said enough to show that this is not an Amendment which ought to be accepted, but I am most anxious that

809
it should not be supposed that either I or any of my colleagues came down here with a cut-and-dried scheme which we were desirous of thrusting down the throats of your Lordships. Very deep consideration was given to this proposal, which received the support of almost every child's association with whose work I am acquainted—the Howard Association, the State Children's Association, the Wage-earning Children's Committee, and so forth—and it is, I am persuaded, in the main only opposed by those who have experienced a certain feeling of resentment, with which I largely sympathise, but to which I do not think it is my duty to yield. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be accepted.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I confess some little bewilderment as to how we stand. I certainly am one of those who had failed to understand with clearness exactly what it was the Lord Chancellor proposed on the last occasion. I ventured then to support the Bill, though I had come down with the intention of opposing it, because I believed that this matter of the Central Court had been completely and entirely misunderstood. But it does not seem to me it was so completely misunderstood as I had thought the other night. I had had some knowledge—no very remarkable knowledge, it is true—for many years and more or less experience and intimacy with Police Court Magistrates and their work. If, as I now understand, the centralisation which would be brought about by this Bill, if it became law, meant that there would be one Police Court magistrate for children who would travel about from Court to Court but would retain in his own hand the magisterial part of the work which is to remain, I think we should be losing a very great deal of help, which is at this moment exceedingly valuable, and which is available. It may be perfectly true that not all Police Court Magistrates are particularly suited for doing this work, but some of them are, and, if they are, the fact that a man knows intimately the facts of the neighbourhood in a way the travelling magistrate cannot possibly do would surely be an asset of great importance which ought not to be lightly set aside. If it means there is no longer to be the power to allow the existing magistrate to have any say with regard to the Children's Court within the area over which he has hitherto
810
presided, and that he is always to be superseded by an itinerant magistrate who is going to do it instead, I should feel greatly disappointed as to what I understood the other night to be the intention of the Lord Chancellor. I thought the centralisation, which in some degree must be necessary, would be subject to the power at all events of the jurisdiction being exercised not by one man who is constantly itinerant but by men who know the localities, who are familiar with the people, and who are accustomed constantly to deal with the very group of persons whose lives may be involved, and the kind of little questions which come up about the children. I think we shall lose a great asset if that man is to, be ruled out and the whole power is to be in an itinerant man who comes there from a distance. It is impossible to exaggerate the paternal relationship which seine magistrates have succeeded in establishing in some of the worst streets in London. Their work is beyond praise; and I have again and again marvelled at the amount of knowledge shown by magistrates, not only of the subjects with which they are dealing, but of the very individuals to whom one casually refers. To sacrifice all that would be a very formidable thing indeed. I do not want to say that it should remain necessarily with the local magistrate, but I understand that the local magistrate is to be ruled out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No. The lay justices, of course, would be always drawn from the locality, but the president will be peripatetic.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am speaking of the magistrate who has for years established a kind of paternal relationship in regard to these particular streets and districts. That man would no longer have a say in the matter. The point on which I now feel a difficulty is that a lay justice cannot have the kind of knowledge that the magistrate of the locality has; and the male or female persons may be totally without the kind of qualifications that he has. That seems to me to be sacrificing an asset of rare importance. I should have thought it was possible so to arrange the Bill as to retain that. At all events, I had a little misunderstood the degree of centralisation which I now understand will be insisted upon.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to say a word in connection with what the most rev. Primate has said. I said enough when I last addressed your Lordships to make it quite plain that I had no original prejudices in favour of a travelling magistrate. I should be prepared, if the noble Earl withdraws his Amendment at this stage, to consider sympathetically whether it might not be possible to revive the original proposal made by me, which corresponds closely with that made now by the noble Earl. That would enable the sitting magistrates to continue to do this work, and it would also enable the Government to do what we regard as fundamental—to place the women magistrates in London in the same position as they are in the country.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I did not quite catch what you said was fundamental about the women magistrates.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What the Government consider fundamental is that women who become magistrates shall become magistrates with the same degree of responsibility and power in London as is conceded to them in every other part of the country.
THE EARL OF READING: May I say a word before the noble Earl replies to the invitation of my noble and learned friend? I say it only because of some observations I made on the Second Reading. I do not desire to enter into any discussion upon the subject in view of what the Lord Chancellor has just said, but I confess that the explanation which he has given has rather surprised me. I did not understand on the last occasion that it was proposed that there should be one magistrate, and notwithstanding the explanation as to the building and as to the use that was to be made of the Central Court I certainly never gathered it was intended that there should be what I think I might describe as a Central Magistrate who was to be peripatetic, who was to go round the various districts, and that he was always to be the president of the Court having the assistance of the two lay magistrates. I do not want to discuss it now because of what my noble and learned friend has said, but I hope he will find it possible to give effect to the views which I think are held by most of your Lordships that the assistance to be
812
given by the lay magistrates—by the woman and by the man—should be afforded to every Court so that you preserve what is really of importance, namely, the knowledge which the local magistrate has of the people in his own district, who consequently is in a better position to exercise that parental influence to which reference has been made. You would lose all the benefit of that in the president of your Court if you make him one magistrate to go round to each of the Courts; because he cannot have the knowledge which the sitting magistrate has of the locality and of what may be necessary in that particular locality. But I think my noble and learned friend has given what seems to me, if I may suggest it to the noble Earl who moved, the best possible answer to the debate that has taken place. His proposal seems to meet exactly the kind of objection in the minds of most of your Lordships when we understood what was the proposal which would be made and what is the proposal which the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will put upon the Paper.
THE EARL OF DESART: I gladly respond to the invitation of the Lord Chancellor, and I am sure that, knowing the views which have been expressed tonight, he will give such consideration to them as I hope will enable us to meet him on perfectly even terms on another occasion. I need not say more than that on the general point. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, in his speech imputed to me an opinion which I do not think I ever expressed. I referred absolutely incidentally to the question of the Courts, not in the least saying it was necessary that the magistrate should sit in his own Court but that he should sit in his own district. I did not labour that, and I was not prepared to speak about it because I did not think it was in order on my Amendment. I do not propose to speak about it now, except to explain that I think I really was not justly subject to the criticism I received on that particular point. In the few observations made by the Lord Chancellor in the opening of his speech, I hope he did not think I made any suggestion at all. I really referred to a matter which had come to my knowledge that there was a difference on the point, and I hope he did not attribute to me the suggestion that he had done anything improper. I am obliged to the noble and

813
learned Lord for the way he has met me, and I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the. Amendment.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Before the Amendment is withdrawn I should like to say that I merely referred to the Court as the noble Earl did. I thought it would be more easy, if you multiplied the Courts, to have them in a place like the town hall. The noble and learned Lord seems to have forgotten that in nearly all the Police Courts of London there are two magistrates who sit alternate weeks. It would be possible to arrange that these Children's Courts should be held in the town hall while the other magistrate was holding the ordinary Court in his own district. But as the matter will come up again on Report I will say no more about it now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does that cover all your Amendments?
TILE EARL OF DESART: Yes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR had Amendments on the Paper altering the wording of subsection (2) as follows—
(2) The Order shall provide for the justices who are to sit at the several sittings of the court being chosen by the panel, or, if necessary, by the police magistrate and in the ease of the absence of the police magistrate through illness, leave or other cause, for his place being taken by another police magistrate or by a barrister-at-law in practice for at least seven years appointed or a justice of the peace approved by the Secretary of State. A barrister-at-law so appointed shall have all the powers of a Metropolitan Police Magistrate so sitting in such Juvenile Court as aforesaid.
(3) The Order may for the purpose of facilitating the establishment of juvenile courts provide for the discontinuance of any of the existing police courts or for the use of an existing police court solely for the purpose of a juvenile court.
The noble and learned Lord said: I do not propose to move my Amendments, because they were designed to deal with the state of affairs contemplated in the Present draft of the Bill.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had two Amendments on the Paper the object of which was to make subsection (3) read as follows—
(3) The Order may for the purpose of facilitating the establishment of juvenile courts provide for the holding of a juvenile court in suitable buildings or rooms other than any of the existing police courts or for the use of an existing police court solely fur the purposes of a juvenile court.
814
Provided that all charges against children and young persons for offences committed within a district assigned to a metropolitan police court shall be heard and determined at a juvenile court situate in such district.
The noble Lord said: I think the same remarks as were made by the Lord Chancellor may be made about my Amendments. I therefore do not move them.
LORD SHEFFIELD: If there is no Amendment inserted there can be no Report Stage. I think we must have some Amendment carried.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should have thought that Lord Askwith's Amendments might be inserted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the simplest course is for me to move the adjournment of the debate.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (VISCOUNT ASTOR): My Lords, it is with a considerable degree of diffidence that I move the Second Reading of such a very technical Bill as this in your Lordships' House, where there are so many possessed of legal knowledge on matters connected with it. Your Lordships have already assisted in passing four Acts dealing with the problem of rent restriction, and amendments to those Acts have been contained in two other measures. That is to say, Parliament has passed six Acts on this particular subject. That fact shows how difficult it is to legislate upon it. At the same time I think it will relieve me of the task, which otherwise I would willingly have undertaken, of explaining the reasons why it is necessary to protect tenants against eviction, or against increase of rents on the basis of scarcity value.
We find ourselves in a position of difficulty owing to the fact that we are trying to control, or to interfere with, the ordinary

815
normal laws of supply and demand. We are trying to stereotype the interest on the capital value of an article which is a perishable article, like most other articles, where there is a great shortage, and where all values are increasing. We are trying to keep down a particular value when almost every other value is going up. In addition to that, we are trying to deal with a subject which is always difficult to handle—namely, the question of rent. Our policy, broadly, is to continue and modify our present scheme of controlling rents, but to do so with the frank and full recognition that this is only a temporary expedient. Our final policy must be to return to normal conditions by withdrawing control and restriction. We realise that it is essential to get back to the ordinary economic basis, and to encourage people to build houses and to invest money in houses. Our policy is to increase public confidence. I realise that, for various reasons into which I do not propose to go, there is, and there has been, a lack of public confidence so far as housing property is concerned. Until we restore that confidence it will not be easy to put housing on a proper footing and to get an adequate number of houses erected by the community. This Bill is a step in the direction of the restoration of normal, uncontrolled conditions.
The Bill is a consolidating measure. It re-enacts many of the existing provisions, and there are certain new points contained in it which are based almost entirely on the recommendations of the Committee which was presided over by my noble friend the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Salisbury. Perhaps I may be allowed, with complete sincerity on behalf of the Government, to express our real appreciation of the work of himself and his Committee, and our gratitude for the thoroughness, skill, and expedition with which they dealt with this extraordinarily difficult subject. We have been able to accept practically the whole of their recommendations. This Bill is virtually based on the recommendations of his Committee, and the Government are truly grateful to them for the work which they did under a high degree of pressure, because he and his Committee appreciated the point which I want to put before your Lordships—namely, [that one of the existing Acts lapses on July].
The Salisbury Committee, as we call it, was appointed in February of this year. It
816
reported at the end of March. The recommendations went before the Cabinet. They were discussed and agreed to in principle by the Cabinet, and then they had to be incorporated in a Bill. That Bill was introduced in another place on May 20. Considering the complicated and technical character of this Bill, I do not think that the Government or the draftsman or the Department with which I am associated can be accused of any unnecessary delay. It was essential to try to get a properly drafted Bill. The Bill was read a second time on June 4. It was very carefully considered in Committee. The Standing Committee which considered this Bill sat three times, morning and afternoon—that is, practically three double sittings—and, in order to get the Bill before your Lordships in good time, realising that one of the existing Acts lapses on July 1, the other House on Monday night sat until after 3.30 a.m. I have gone into this rather fully in order to explain why it was the Leader of the House, when speaking last week, expressed the hope that your Lordships might be willing to take the Committee stage next Monday and the Report and further stages on Tuesday. It is July 1 next Thursday. It is possible—I hope it will not prove to be the case—that there may be some point on which your Lordships are not in entire agreement with another place, and that may possibly involve a certain amount of delay.
Very briefly I wish to put before your Lordships the chief points contained in the Bill. By the previous Acts roughly 8,181,000 houses were covered. In London 611,000 houses, or 88 per cent. of the total number, were included in those Acts. In the rest of England and Wales 97 per cent. of the total number were covered, and in Scotland also 97 per cent. We estimate that the number of dwellings to be brought in for the first time under the Bill now before your Lordships will be 46,000 in London, 261,000 in the rest of England and Wales, and 22,000 in Scotland. That is to say, there will remain approximately only 150,000 dwelling-houses in the country that will not be covered by the Rent Restriction Acts. These figures, of course, are only approximate. They are taken from the Board of Inland Revenue returns for Inhabited House Duty, and are the only figures we have been able to get. I thought it would interest your Lordships to know the number of houses to be included in the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: May I put this question to the noble Viscount—You are not putting in business premises, but merely dwelling-houses?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Yes, dwellighouses. Under the first Rent Restriction Act the houses covered by what is called the standard rent were of the value in London of £35, Scotland £30, and elsewhere £26. These figures were doubled by the Act which was passed last year. We have accepted the figures recommended by the noble Marquess's Committee, and they will now be £105 in London, £90 in Scotland, and £78 elsewhere. That is to say, houses with a rateable value, or standard rent, of the figures I have named will come within the protected limit, within the scope, of this Bill.
We propose to extend the period for another three years. Landlords will be allowed an immediate increase of 30 per cent. or the net rent; that is to say, the rent in August, 1914, excluding rates. This 30 per cent. includes 25 per cent., which I shall deal with presently, for repairs, and after one year an additional increase of 10 per cent. will be authorised. The total increase, therefore, is 40 per cent. on the net rent; that is the rent, exclusive of rates, payable in August, 1914. This is estimated to equal something like 29 per cent. on the standard rent as defined in previous Acts. Mortgagees will be allowed at once an increase of one-half per cent., and after one year another half per cent., subject to a maximum of 6½ per cent. I mentioned just now that an immediate increase of 30 per cent. will be authorised. This includes 25 per cent. of the net rent for repairs. As your Lordships know, the cost of everything has gone up, and during the war it was almost impossible to deal with the repairs of houses. This is an urgent need and we have accepted the figures suggested by the Committee—namely, that 25 per cent. of the net rent should be allowed to landlords to cover repairs. Where the repairs have to be shared between the landlord and tenant there is a provision in the Bill for an apportionment.
The next point I wish to touch upon is the question of alternative accommodation. In this Bill we have tightened up the requirements. We have made it a condition that alternative accommodation
818
should be provided before the landlord is able to obtain possession. We have defined—I will deal with it presently when I go through the Bill in greater detail—alternative accommodation, and we have included a certain number of exceptions, again acting on the recommendation of the Committee.
The only other important question is that of business premises. The Committee presided over by the noble Marquess recommended that business premises should not be included in a Rent Restrictions Bill. They were not out of sympathy with the tenants of business premises, but they rightly pointed out, that it was not so much a question of rent as security of tenure, and that the grievance existed before the war and was not due mainly to the war. The Government took the same view, but the House of Commons took a different view, and the House of Commons overruled the Government and inserted an Amendment including business premises within this Bill. A Select Committee has just been appointed, and perhaps I may read the terms of reference. They are—
"To inquire into the position of leaseholders and tenants of business premises and to advise whither any, and if so what, alterations in the law are required to remove obstacles to the development of their businesses arising out of conditions affecting tenure, undue restrictions on improvements, and unreasonable increases in rents."
Those are the chief provisions in the Bill to which. I desire specially to draw your Lordships' attention.
I will now rapidly go through the Bill, not taking it absolutely subsection by subsection but attempting to draw your attention to the chief points in each clause. Clause 2 deals with authorised increases. An allowance of 8 per cent. is authorised for structural repairs if these are made after the passing of the Bill. For structural repairs made before the passing of the Bill 6 per cent. is allowed. Provision is contained protecting tenants against unnecessary expenditure on structural repairs. In paragraph (b) the landlord is entitled to recover an increase in rates payable by him, and paragraph (c) deals with the 15 per cent. increase in the net rent. Five per cent. is authorised in the first year for houses already included, and in the second year an additional 10 per cent. may be added. Where the landlord is

819
responsible for repairs, another 25 per cent. to the net rent is authorised. If the houses are not in a proper state of repair, not fit for habitation, then the increase which would be authorised may be suspended, but the landlord is given three months in which to put his house into repair. Therefore, the total of 15 per cent. in paragraph (c) and the 25 per cent. to cover repairs amounts to the figure of 40 per cent., which, as I have explained, is the increase authorised over the net rent—that is, the rent, exclusive of rates, payable in August, 1914. We have also a provision that where any differences occur they may be settled by the County Court.
In Clause 3 it is provided that the landlord has to give to the tenant particulars on a prescribed form of the proposed increase, and the prescribed form is set out in the first Schedule of the Bill. I have already explained the increase in the rate of interest on mortgages set out in Clause 4. We consider this is very important in order to encourage the vesting of money in house property.
I should like to go more fully into Clause 5. It deals with the restrictions and obligations on landlords and mortgagees. It provides that there are to be no ejectments unless (a) the conditions of tenancy are broken; (b) there is misconduct on the part of the tenant (and misconduct is explained in the paragraph); (c) the tenant has given notice (there have been recent cases where a tenant has given notice and then has tried to remain on, the landlord meanwhile having made other provision for the occupancy of the house);
(d) the house is needed by the landlord for his own use; (e) the house is needed by a local authority, or a statutory body, for the execution of statutory obligations (for instance, to make a new road involving the pulling down of a house, or a larger number of houses); (f) where a soldier has bought a house during the war; (g) where the house is needed by a previous tenant who gave it up in order to join the Army. In all these cases the approval of the County Court is necessary.
As regards the provision of alternative accommodation, we have on page 6, in paragraph (d), defined alternative accommodation as being "reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects." The clause provides that alternative accommodation is to be provided in every case where the landlord requires the
820
building for his own use, but that it need not be provided in the cases which are set out in subsections (1) to (4) inclusive—firstly, where the occupier of the house was an employee of the landlord, but has ceased to be employed, and occupied the house because of his employment; secondly, where possession of the house is required by the landlord for the working of an agricultural holding; thirdly, where the landlord gave up the occupation in consequence of service in His Majesty's Forces; and, fourthly, where the landlord has bought the house and there would be greater hardship if possession were refused to the landlord. Those are the four cases where alternative accommodation does not have to be provided.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to subclauses (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 5. These reproduce provisions in the Act of 1919. They give the Courts wide discretion for variation and suspension, and it is because of these clauses that we have included Clause 6, which is a necessary corollary. Clause 6 deals with the restriction on levy of distress for rent. It is a corollary to the sub-clauses which I have mentioned—(2), (3) and (4) of Clause 5. Clause 7 deals with the calling in of mortgages. Clause 8 prohibits the extortion which has gone on in a certain number of cases, of what is known as "key money." Clauses 9 and 10 deal with furnished lettings and are intended to stop profiteering in furnished lettings. They do not give security of tenure, but they limit the profit to 25 per cent. over the profit of August, 1914. Clause 12 deals with the application and interpretation of the Act. I have already explained the ground on which the figures have been raised.
Clause 12, subsection (9), paragraphs (a) and (b), I would also like to draw your attention to. The previous Acts have artificially restricted rents, and so also the assessable value of old houses. Subsection (9) (a) and (b) of Clause 12 prevents new houses being unfairly assessed as compared with old houses. Clause 12, subclause (2), proviso (ii), is merely declaratory of the existing law as interpreted—
"The application of this Act to any house or part of a house shall not be excluded by reason only that part of the premises is used as a shop or office for business, trade, or professional purposes."
It is, as I have said, merely declaratory of the existing law as interpreted; that is to

821
say, a dwelling house, although part of it is used for business premises, is still a dwelling house.
I have already explained to your Lordships about business premises. Clause 13 deals with them. Clause 15 gives effect to the recommendations of the Salisbury Committee that the statutory tenant should be defined. Clause 16 deals with certain minor points which were contained in the recommendations of the Committee. As I began by saying, I do not propose to go through every subsection of this Bill at this stage, but I have merely tried to bring out the chief points in the Bill. We are living in exceptional times, and this is an exceptional Bill. It is only a temporary measure, and, as I have explained, it is an attempt to deal with real hardships and to deal fairly with all parties. I do not claim that I have made my explanation interesting, but I hope, my Lords, that I have succeeded in some degree in explaining the main provisions of this Bill, although I confess very frankly to a feeling that for any one to explain this Bill he ought to have both the knowledge and the power of exposition of a Lord Chancellor.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Astor.)
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not propose to trouble you for more than a few moments. This has been a most difficult question, and the fact that at the invitation of the Government, a few months ago, the whole House agreed to put in force for a few months a very drastic measure is the best proof of the urgency of the question with which the Government are confronted. I ant quite sure that none of us desire to put the slightest difficulty in the way of the Government in dealing with the fear, which then existed, of any action on the part of the landlords, particularly the smaller landlords, which might cause embarrassment and suffering, and we fully recognise the spirit in which this Bill has been drawn. I, of course, cannot help feeling that this interference with free contract between man and man is likely to be extremely embarrassing in the future, and the more you get tenants depending on the law the less we shall have the proper discharge of their duties by landlords with regard to the maintenance of these houses.
I am afraid that, with all the trouble
822
taken over this Bill, there are still some points on which it will be necessary for us to ask the Government to give us further assurances. Take the question dealt with in the clause which has to do with, I will not call it eviction of the tenant, but the restoration to the landlord of the house which he has specially reserved for himself. I do not suppose there is anybody who has to deal, or who has had to deal recently, with house holding and letting on arty scale, who has not found himself confronted with the difficulty of having a tenant who refuses to go, and whom it takes many weeks, with a great deal of litigation, to remove, although he has no right whatever to the premises on which he is determined to remain. There are difficulties, but not in every district, in finding further accommodation. In the case of houses which have been let in connection with a certain employment there is a difficulty. The employment conies to an end, perhaps through inefficiency. The tenant is put out of his employment, takes other work, and says, "I cannot find another house." I believe it has been the experience of many of your Lordships—it certainly has been brought to my notice continually—that the unfortunate landlord or owner of the house, who requires to fill the place of the discharged man with another to look after his machinery or to discharge the functions which the previous man has failed to discharge, loses the services of one applicant after another owing to inability to provide them with a roof. I hope that in Committee we may be able to induce the Government to quicken up the machinery by which, in such cases, the premises may be restored to the person who really has serious need of them. In agricultural districts this sometimes becomes a most pressing matter, and the delay interferes very seriously with cultivation.
There is another point upon which I should like to know the intention of, the Government. Every one is acquainted with the fact that a great number of houses in this country have been given to the tenant—the labourer—as part of his wages. Now conies in the public authority and says, "The wages of this man should not be 20s. a week, but under present conditions they must be 42 s. or 44 s. a week, or more." in the agricultural districts the authorities have fixed the sum that has to be paid by that man for these cottages at 3s. a week. Every one knows that 3s. a

823
week will not keep a cottage in repair, taking one year with another. What, then, is going to happen where no rent at all has been paid? I cannot find any clause in the Bill which enables an owner in such cases to charge anything or to derive an advantage from the Bill in any way. Where no rent has been charged there can, of course, be no standard rent.
Again, take the cases which occur on so many estates where a good cottage and an adequate garden have been let for one shilling or two shillings a week. The increase allowed by the Bill in those cases would work out at 3d. to 4d. and 5d. a week. The whole thing is exiguous. Houses of the same character elsewhere are let at 8s. or 10 s. a week. You will not enable the country landlord adequately to maintain the houses by means of the increased rent which this Bill will permit him to charge. Nor will you increase the rents in proportion to the standard of wages that has been laid down. You will have a man on one side of the road living in a house which was fully rented before the war at 4s. or 6s. a week paying a much larger sum under this Bill, while a man on the other side of the road rented at nothing will not be touched, although his wages have been more than doubled. That seems ridiculous.
We are in a great difficulty in considering these detailed matters. We only received the Bill in the last few hours. We could not tell in what condition it would reach us from another place. I understand that the desire of the Government is to take the Committee stage on Monday next. I would point out that this does not allow us very much time in which to deal with these large questions. I fully realise that the Government have endeavoured to meet the case where genuine large additions have been made by allowing a percentage to be charged upon them. But I should like to be quite clear that this Bill is going to deal with the anomalies in the agricultural districts to which I have referred. Nothing could be more ridiculous than the cases which I can bring to the notice of the noble Viscount—cases where the Agricultural Wages Board fixes the rent of a cottage at 3s. a week notwithstanding that enlargements have been made to the house at great cost in the last three years to enable the agricultural tenant to carry out the duties that have been laid upon him. In many of these cases the landlord has spent £150 to £200 in increasing the accommodation.
824
and while he is not allowed to charge more than 3s. rent the tenant has sub-let the additional room for 10 s. a week. These cases do not seem to me to be dealt with in the Bill. Sub-letting is one of the difficulties which ought to be dealt with. We desire sonic system by which it will be possible for owners to keep houses in a proper sanitary condition, and to make some progress in the direction of improving dwellings. In my view, it will be impossible to do so unless we strengthen the Bill in some respects.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I do not think this ought to be regarded as a Bill merely determining the relationship between landlord and tenant, or between mortgagor and mortgagee. I should like to say a few words presently on the larger aspect of the Bill. In reference to what the noble Earl has just said, I will add my own experience as to the cost of repairs, particularly in country districts. I am quite certain that anyone who in recent years has kept his cottages in respectable repair has been subjected to a considerable loss. I may give an illustration of the ownership of something like 100 cottages. During the war and since the result has been a loss of about £500 a year. That is because the rents, particularly of country cottages, are almost nominal on the one side, and on the other the cost of repairs has been very greatly increased. When this Bill was before the House of Commons the Minister of Health, who was in charge of it, made this statement—
"The cost of repairs has gone up two and a-half times."
That is rather an under-estimate. But it is a very serious matter, and I agree with what the noble Lord said, in commending the Bill to your Lordships' House, that it is at least as important to ensure that repairs are properly carried out as it is that the new houses should be constructed.
I followed the very clear statement that the noble Lord made upon the actual provisions of the Bill, except as to one. I am not quite sure what he said regarding rating. Does he mean that new houses are to be rated on some different principle from old houses, or does he mean that in the case of both old and new houses the same principle is to be followed? The basis of rates now-a-days is upon the rent actually paid. I will not ask the noble Lord for an answer at the present moment, but I did

825
not quite follow him when he referred to that part of the Bill, which is an extremely important part. You cannot alter the relative positions as between different houses without impinging upon the basis of all rating in this country—namely, equality of burdens between rateable premises which, on the rental basis, may be supposed to have the same value.
The noble Viscount said that normal conditions were to be restored as soon as possible. What has been the effect of there being abnormal conditions? Again, may I quote what was said on the Second Reading by the Minister in charge of the Bill—
"Restrictive provisions have had a most desolating effect on the provision of houses in this country."
Every one who has any knowledge of the subject will entirely agree with that. That statement, I would point out, is made by the Minister of Health, whose Department is responsible for providing the new houses which are required as quickly as possible. And yet he comes forward and admits that the restrictive legislation which is now in force has had a most desolating effect on the provision of houses.
If I might apply that to this present Bill, what will the result be? At present there is great difficulty. This Bill affects the security both of the landlord and of the mortgagee, who lends money for the purpose of building new houses. So far as the landlord is concerned the practical security which he has, namely, of getting rid of a bad tenant or of using his house for the purpose for which he probably originally constructed it, are very seriously interfered with am not now going to discuss the extent to which there is interference—and whereas a mortgagee Would ordinarily have the right of calling in his money he is prevented from doing it. And how can you expect that money will be lent when it is lent under such conditions? As far as I understand the Bill, the maximum percentage allowed to the mortgagee is 6½ per cent. Every one knows that a larger percentage than that can be obtained at the present time in other directions. So that not only do you impinge on the security which is one of the reasons why landlords build houses of this kind, but you put a limitation on the rights of a mortgagee which, in my opinion, must have a detrimental effect on he lending of money. I have no doubt
826
the noble Viscount knows quite well that, if these houses are to be provided except on the most extravagant terms, it is of the utmost importance that you should not drive away people who are willing to lay out money for this purpose, but that you should as far as possible guarantee them in their security and encourage them to provide such money.
As regards the desolating effect on the provision of houses in this country of the existing restrictions the Minister in charge in another place said, "Scores of instances are brought to my notice every day." And how does he seek to remedy it? Having found that your legislation, by its restrictive character, has counteracted the very purposes for which you passed it, you introduce further restrictions. What must be the result of that, for that is exactly what is done in this Bill? Scores of instances are brought to the notice of the Minister every day of the evil effect of existing restrictions, and those restrictions are in substance maintained, and additional ones are imposed. How can we wonder, in these circumstances, that there is a difficulty, which has become one of the most serious social difficulties of the time, in the provision of new houses.
Then the Minister went on to say that this was not anticipated. Apparently the evil effects of legislation are never anticipated. You bring in new restrictive measures, and you hold out new hopes, and the hopes are not realised, and the effect of the restrictions is almost always detrimental. That is a point of view from which I desire to consider this Bill. It seems to be forgotten that when you are dealing with rents it is not so much that all other prices have gone up, but that you are estimating rents in money and the money value has depreciated. Therefore, when you talk of not putting up rents it really means that they have naturally depreciated, probably to about one-half what they were worth before the war, estimated in the real value of money. It is a great fallacy to estimate rent in sovereigns, and not to allow for its depreciation. This depreciation in rent has reduced them below a remunerative level. I desire in every way to protect a tenant. I do not think I have ever discharged a tenant in my life, and if you protect the tenant I suppose you must also introduce some protection for the mortgagor as against the mortgagee. But I cannot come myself to any other con-

827
clusion than that the effect of this Bill will be further detrimental to the building of new houses and to the repair of existing houses—two matters of the utmost social importance at the present time. I admit that a Bill of this kind has to he passed, but I anticipate that the ordinary result will follow—namely that further difficulties will be raised by this Bill in the provision of houses.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has shown very clearly by some instances the detrimental effect of this kind of legislation, which, in seeking a remedy, only emphasises and increases the evil. That being so, I should like to ask why it is necessary that this Bill should have three years' operation. The noble Viscount, in his very clear exposition of the Bill, said it was a temporary expedient. Three years is more than a temporary expedient. We all understand how, during the war, legislation of this character was necessary, but I fully agree with Lord Parmoor, and, indeed, with the noble Viscount who introduced the Bill, that the sooner you get rid of this legislation the better.
I presume that when three years was fixed the idea was that a sufficient number of houses would be built by that time to overtake the demand. It does not look like that at the present time. For myself, I believe that these Government Housing Acts are retarding building of every description to a degree that is almost inconceivable except by those who are actually engaged in the building trade. I believe they would fully support my statement. Just as the noble and learned Lord mentioned how legislation of this character produces evil never anticipated by the Government, so, indeed, the whole origin and evil of the shortage of houses is really the Act of 1909–10. It is fully admitted that up to that time houses had been provided, even to a superfluous degree, but that the legislation which was called, I think, the "Poor Man's Budget" has ended in producing the present situation. And, after all, this Bill is not going to produce further accommodation. It will only penalise those who in the past have spent their money by making provision for buildings according to our idea of civilisation. It is in this respect that Bills of this character are so harmful. I would therefore ask he noble Viscount whether some explanation can be given of
828
why it is necessary for the Bill to remain in operation for three years.
As a minor point I would like to ask whether he would make clearer Clause 12 (9) of the Bill. I understand that is with regard to buildings which may be erected at the present time or in the future. I do not understand all the provisions of that subsection, and perhaps later my noble friend will give some explanation upon it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to say a few words upon this subject, of which I have a certain special knowledge. In the first place, may I express my great obligations to my noble friend opposite for the very civil way in which he, speaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government, has been good enough to refer to the labours of the Committee to which I belonged. I should like also to take this my first opportunity of saying how much the Government are indebted, and how much I was indebted, to the co-operation of my colleagues upon that Committee. I do not suppose that any chairman ever had a Committee which worked with such harmony as the one over which I had the honour to preside; and they brought a special knowledge of every aspect of the I question to bear which made, I need not say, the labours of the Committee much more easy and much more fruitful.
I feel in a rather unusual position in speaking on this Bill—I see a sarcastic smile on the face of my noble friend opposite—not merely because I am supporting one of the measures of His Majesty's Government but because I agree with a great deal of the criticism which is levelled against legislation of this kind. In truth, I think that is the universal opinion. None of us would select legislation of this kind as a suitable and wholesome method of making law if there were any other alternative. It is because there is no other alternative that legislation of this nature has been enacted. If my noble friends would look at the evidence which has been laid before Parliament they would see that there was almost universal agreement—not merely the witnesses from the tenants but the witnesses who came forward to plead the interests of the landlords—that a continuance of these Acts for a limited period was absolutely necessary.
LORD PARMOOR: I read that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I say to my noble and learned friend that no one would have judged from the speech he delivered just now that he thought this legislation was necessary.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think it is. However, I only meant, when I interrupted the noble Marquess, that I had read the evidence given before his Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure that my noble and learned friend, who is a most industrious man, has done so. Then he will recognise the accuracy of what I say
LORD PARMOOR: Quite.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:— that there was a general agreement that it was necessary. Then it is no good denouncing this kind of legislation. If every one who is interested in the subject agrees that legislation of this nature is necessary, I think the plain man will assume that it has got to be passed into law. But, of course, that does not prevent the cogency of a great deal of the criticism of my noble and learned friend and of my noble friend Lord Lamington. It is perfectly true that if you outrage economic law, as we were compelled to do, you will not get off. There is an inevitable nemesis, and one of the forms of the nemesis is that you have a system of law which is illogical, a system of compromise which you cannot defend in detail. All you can say is that in a matter of prime necessity like housing the alternative to legislation is that people would be rendered homeless—
LORD LAMINGTON: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is the evidence. Or in the alternative would be charged rents which every one, including the landlords' witnesses, admits would be exorbitant. That being the case, all you can do is to meet in the best way any criticisms which are made. You can mitigate the objections to this kind of legislation, smooth off the corners, and make it quite clear that it is only of a temporary and transitional nature. That I take to be the line which my noble friend
830
the noble Viscount opposite said was the policy of His Majesty's Government. I do not mean to say there is not immense difficulty in arriving at that particular condition of compromise. Any one who has sat on the Committee would have realised that was so, as your Lordships realise it. But you are forced to face that particular dilemma. May I say that I do not admit the criticisms of my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor that this Bill involves further restrictions, except in so far as it prolongs the existence of the Act—
LORD PARMOOR: And extends it to fresh premises.
TUE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I shall have a word or two to say upon that in a moment. But as regards the further restrictions, of course the restrictions are very much mitigated in the Bill, immediately, and in the near future still more so. It is in the nature of a substantial relaxation of the severity of the Acts as they exist at the present moment. But although you must, in consequence of the famine in houses, provide for a fixity of tenure—subject to certain conditions—for those who occupy these houses, that is no reason why you should not at the same time provide that the people who are given this privilege should pay an adequate rent. They ought to pay an adequate rent.
If I may say so with great respect, it makes me very indignant when I see that there are threats in certain parts of the country that, even against the very moderate increase of rent which is suggested by the Committee and by the Bill of His Majesty's Government, there will be resistance in the shape of a strike of tenants against the payment of this very moderate increase. That is a most unreasonable thing, a most unjust thing; because the great majority of occupiers are quite able to pay an increased rent. A certain number of most pitiful cases exist, cases whose existence the Committee recognised, where the occupier has great difficulty in paying an increased rent. We made a recommendation in reference to them. The Government have to a certain extent followed that recommendation, though not entirely. There must be elasticity in dealing with cases of that kind; but in the broad, general case of the well-paid artisan, of the well-paid miner, of the well-paid cotton operative, there is no reason in the world why they should not pay a

831
reasonable increase of rent considering that their wages have enormously increased, and also considering that the owner of the premises—very often a much poorer man than themselves—is entitled to have something resembling the true value of his property represented in the rent. The only limitation I would put upon that statement is that the change from the existing state of things to what I call a much more healthy state of things must not be too cheap. I am convinced that it would he a mistake in public policy if Parliament were to enact legislation under which the rent would rise very rapidly from its present condition to the full reasonable rent. Therefore I think the Government have been well advised in allowing the rent to be raised gradually.
My noble friend Lord Lamington (who is not now in his place) is of opinion that this gradual rise in the rent ought to be completed in less than three years. I do not think I agree with him. I believe that if you are to have a gradual rise of rent in stages, three years is not too long a period over which to spread it. That, of course, is a matter of detail and a matter of opinion, but it is the view I form from the evidence. I wish to make it quite clear that in my opinion, and in that I believe of most of my colleagues, the limitations of rent which were proposed by the Committee and which have been accepted by the Government were only transitional. What we hope is that within a certain limited period—we suggest for the present three years—a normal state of things will he restored.
I have spoken up to now in full approval of what has been proposed by His Majesty's Government. There remain, however, one small point and one big point on which I should like to offer something in the nature of criticism. In the first place there is the point which was submitted to the Government by my noble friend, Lord Midleton. That is the case of agricultural cottages let at unduly low rents. I do not ask the Government to make any reply on it for the moment, but I should like them to consider whether some provision is not required in this case. If you have what is nowadays really very little more than a nominal rent of, say, 2s. or 3s. a week for a house in the country—such things do not happen in towns—then 25 per cent. upon the net rent for repairs will amount to a very small sum indeed. I doubt whether a landlord would be able to do much in
832
respect of repairs with that 25 per cent. At any rate, I suggest that the Government should consider the point, which, however, is a small one.
There is a much more important point and one upon which I believe, although I am going to criticise the Bill, that I really possess the complete agreement of His Majesty's Government. It is with regard to business premises. The noble Viscount has told your Lordships very fairly what has been done about those premises. He has said truly that the Committee, while sympathising very greatly with those who stiffer certain hardships which exist in the case of business premises and recognising that in many cases there is an attempt to impose extortionate rents, were unable to recommend that these premises should he included in these Acts. The Government shared that view and, so far as I know, share it still, but they were overridden by the House of Commons. I cannot help thinking that the House of Commons considered this matter under very difficult circumstances very late at night, and did not fully realise the difficulties in the way of including business premises—at any rate, of including them in the manner in which they have included them.
I would ask any of your Lordships who take an interest in this question to look at the evidence on pages 145 to 147 of the Blue-book. It is quite short and I am sure that they would be very much impressed with that evidence, because it contains within it both the strength and the weakness of the case for the inclusion of business premises. It is the evidence of a witness who came before us as representing the interests of tenants of business premises in the City of London. He asked that he should remain anonymous, because he was afraid of the consequences which might follow when his evidence became public, if it were known who had given it. The only relevance of the fact to my present observations is that it was impossible for us therefore to check his evidence, but that really does not affect its cogency. He was a man labouring under a very real and well-founded grievance. The rent which he was asked to pay was extortionate. It was an enormous increase upon the previous rent, because of the power which the landlord no doubt possessed owing to the famine in houses. That was the strength of his case. He was entitled to consideration and your Lordships will

833
find in the Report which we signed and presented to the Department that we recognise that these extortionate rents require to be dealt with.
But do not let your Lordships think that this was a poor, friendless man, who came, under the pressure of his poverty, for relief from Parliament. He was the representative of a company which was paying £4,000 or £5,000 a year in dividend, at the rate of from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. on its capital. It was very well off. Even the extortionate amount of money which he was asked to pay was trivial in comparison with the profits which his company was making. There was no question of poverty, or of great, unendurable hardship. That is the first point. What is the next point? He admitted that it was in the power of his company to pass on much of this extra burden to the public. Of course it is. That is where business premises differ essentially from dwellinghouses. The tenant of business premises, either through the commodity which he sells, by raising the price, or in the fees which he charges—if he is a professional man he raises his fees—is able to pass on to the public a large part of the burden, and he does so. That is no reason why he should be treated with injustice, of course; but it is a reason why he should be treated on a totally different footing from the tenant of a dwellinghouse, because, otherwise, be will be paid twice over for his grievance—paid in the increase of price or in the increase of fees, and paid also by the action of Parliament in restricting his rent. I say that is not just. It is quite right to prevent him being charged extortionate rents, but it is not right, that he should be treated on the same footing as the tenant of a dwellinghouse, and I ant convinced that if the House of Commons were to reconsider this point they would agree that that is not fair.
The effect of the Amendment which they have inserted in the Government Bill is not merely to prevent extortion, but it is to reduce the rent which a man should pay far below what he ought to pay. Why do I say that? I say it because the witness himself said so. If you look at the evidence you will see that this witness who came to us for relief asked that his rent should not be allowed to be increased more than 50 per cent, and the House of Commons says it is not to be increased more than 40 per cent. Is it likely that this man, who
834
appeared to plead his own case, would have under-stated his case? Of course not. Yet the House of Commons has positively suggested—I am sure they did not realise it—that this particular man, and there are an enormous number of others in a like case, should have a lower rent than he himself asked for. This man's rent before it was raised was £45 per year. If a business paying to its shareholders £4,000 or £5,000 a year can be carried on in premises in the City of London paying an old rent of £45 a year it means that there is an enormous number of such businesses whose premises will come within the terms of the Bill (which as your Lordships know is £105 a year) under the Amendment of the House of Commons. They have put business premises on exactly the same footing as dwelling houses; and what is proposed is to include an enormous number of these rich businesses paying £5,000, £10,000 and £20,000 a year, and give them relief not merely from an extortionate rent but from a reasonable rent, and even give them more relief than they actually ask for. I am quite certain that this matter was not considered by the House of Commons, and if your Lordships think fit to alter it and resubmit it to them I feel sure they will see that the proposal they have made is not defensible. I must apologise to the House for dwelling so long on this particular point, but owing to the arrangement of business we shall have but a short time in which to deal with this Bill, and I was very anxious at the first possible opportunity to press upon the Government the cogency of this case so that they might consider it before the Committee stage, and then we might, perhaps, be able to arrive at some amicable agreement as to what ought to be done.
From what I have said I am sure your Lordships will see that the Committee were anxious to do justice. We were not in the least "retained" on the one side or the other. We were there to arrive, in difficult circumstances, at the best conclusion we could. We are gratified that in the main the Government have accepted our recommendations, and we are still more gratified that the House of Commons, except in the one particular I have mentioned, followed their example.
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, I do not intend to enter upon the wider questions which naturally arise under this Bill, but I wish to direct the attention of the Government, and also of the noble Viscount

835
who introduced the Bill, to a difficulty which I think will arise unless it is corrected. In one way it is a point to be considered in Committee, but it is also a question of principle, and, I think, ought to be mentioned now. The provisions of Clause 5 have been explained fully by the noble Lord except in the particular respect to which I ask his attention.
Clause 5 says that no order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house to which this Bill applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, "shall be made or given unless …" Now the word "unless" is covered by no fewer than five paragraphs. The five pargraphs seem to be complete in themselves. They deal with certain settled facts which have to be considered and on which the County Court Judge is to give a determination. Then the subsection continues—
"and in any such case as aforesaid, the Court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such judgment."
These last words are exclusive of what has gone before or they are in some way to be read in connection with them. I am sure it is my fault, but I have failed in the short time I have had to read the Bill to reconcile completely the subsection. If you read it in this way, "No order or judgment for recovery of possession shall be made unless the Court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such judgment" that is complete in itself, but it gives no help or guidance. The difficulty is that if you are to read it at all as containing reasons which are reasonable it is not very easy to find them, and if they do exist there is nothing on which the last words of the subsection can operate.
My attention was attracted to it when I came to read the paragraph dealing with local authorities exercising statutory undertakings, who are compelled to establish that the premises are reasonably required for the purposes of the undertaking. Some cases were represented to me as not coming within that section, and as being quite as important. There are many charitable bodies and associations controlling large sums of money which are not technically local authorities and which cannot be said to be acting under statutory provisions. In consequence, they are to be quite at large. A particular case mentioned to me was one in which merely for the symmetry of their buildings and more accommodation for their staff they proposed a large
836
clearance, dispossessing tenants who had been in occupation for many Years. I thought at first that the clause might cover this case, but I do not think it does.
This Bill gives no right of appeal, but in Ireland the right of appeal will unquestionably exist owing to the peculiar constitution of the County Court there. But when you have a number of County Court Judges deciding what is reasonable you will have no certainty; and what is reasonable on one side of the fence, as we say in Ireland, will be unreasonable on the other. I suggest that this is a matter which might be dealt with by an alteration in Committee, and if I put down an Amendment I wish it to be clearly understood that it is for the purpose of enabling the point to be dealt with and not in any hostile spirit to the Bill.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I dislike legislation of this character as cordially as I fancy the noble Marquess in his heart of hearts dislikes it, but I cannot help recognising that in the abnormal conditions under which we live, and in order to avoid serious social and industrial unrest, it is necessary, at any rate for the present, to perpetuate this artificial interference with economic laws. This Bill in my judgment is full of illogicalities and inconsistencies, and my experience of the last few years leads me to believe that when you commit serious breaches of the economic laws logic and consistency become impossible.
I am a little disturbed by the condition of the owners of agricultural property, and particularly cottages, under the operation of this Bill. I am not quite sure whether Lord Midleton was right in suggesting that under the Bill it would not be possible in every case to resume occupation of a cottage where it was really necessary for the working of the farm to which it was attached. As I read Clause 5, subsection (1), the case is fully covered, assuming that you have in existence a county agricultural committee, such as is referred to in that clause. As a matter of fact there are only three counties in England and Wales where such a body exists, and I would venture to ask the noble Viscount to consider whether some provision should not be made to fill the lacuna which will exist until, under the Ministry of Agriculture Act, county committees are set up all over the country.

837
With regard to the other point raised by the noble Earl, to which the noble Marquess more recently referred, I think it is a very serious omission from the Bill that no provision is made for the case where agricultural labourers' cottages are let either at no rent at all or at a rent which is very far below the economic rent of such a house. Of course, as I have just been reminded, the standard of 3s. at which the value of an ordinary labourer's house has been put by the Agricultural Wages Board is, under existing conditions, quite ridiculous as representing the real value to the tenant of such accommodation, and of course it creates no inducement whatever to the landlord to execute such repairs as are reasonably necessary in order to put and maintain such buildings in a state fit for human occupation. I see there is a provision in subsection (1) of Clause 12 that the rateable value can in certain cases be substituted for the standard rent. I wonder whether to meet such a case as this you could substitute the words "annual value" for "rateable value," because it is quite certain that the annual value, as distinct from the rateable value, generally based upon the rent, must in the case of such cottages be considerably greater than that at which the Central Wages Board have fixed it.
I should like to call the noble Viscount's attention to Clause 12, subsection (2) and the position of what are known at the Ministry of Agriculture as cottage holdings under that clause. I am inclined to think that cottage holdings, which after all are intended to be economic units and worked at a profit by the occupants, ought to be included in that clause and thereby excluded from the general operation of this Bill. There is no particular reason why those persons, if they are earning their livelihood out of cottage holdings, should not pay a reasonable amount of rent as representing the full occupancy and accommodation which they are enjoying. I regret sincerely that under Clause 16 of the Bill that noxious institution the compound householder is perpetuated. I should like to see the compound householder cease to exist henceforward by Act of Parliament. When you have—and I can point out to the noble Viscount cases of the kind—when you have in mining and in semi-industrial districts persons occupying cottages of which the rents are 3s. per week, or £8 per year, and enjoying wages of anything from £4 to £6 per week, while the landlord is expected in
838
addition under the compounding system to pay the rates, it seems to me that it is an anomaly that ought to be swept away for ever.
I should like to refer to the abolition, under Clause 8, of the premium on letting houses, and I believe also flats as parts of houses. This provision is confined, as I understand, to premises having an annua value of not more than £105. Throughout London, and to some extent in provincial towns, to-day, enormous premiums are being charged prior to the letting of premises to people of very moderate means, before those unfortunate persons can enter the premises at all, and I do not see why, now that you have an opportunity of penalising the imposition of such premiums, you cannot extend the limit beyond the very low figure of £105 per annum.
I entirely agree with Lord Parmoor in his criticism of Clause 4 of the Bill, which restricts the interest on mortgages to no more than from to 1½ per cent. above the standard interest which was in fact paid in 1914. A large number of persons in this country, quite poor persons, depend for their whole income upon mortgage interest, at no more than 4 to 4½cent., and it seems very hard that in these days, when the Bank rate is up to 7 per cent. and, Government securities yield 6 to 7 per cent., these unfortunate persons alone in the community are not to get the benefit which is obtainable as interest on Government stock. I confess that I think some provision ought to be inserted so as to enable the mortgage interest in such cases to be somewhat advanced.
There is only one other point to which I wish to refer. Under Clause 2, 8 per cent. is allowed on the expenditure on what are called improvements or structural alterations. I do not think that those words are sufficiently comprehensive. Surely it ought to be allowed in certain cases of replacement and reconstruction. There are cases very familiar to me, living in a mining district, where subsidences occur, and it would not be sufficient either to seek to improve a cottage which has suffered in this respect or to make structural alterations. The whole place has to be rebuilt, reconstructed or partially replaced, and indeed in f many rural districts to-day cottages are being, at very considerable expense, reconstructed so as to make them fit for human habitation because it is wholly impossible to get new houses put up at anything like a reasonable cost. I venture to hope, in

839
spite of the pressure of time, that the noble Viscount will allow reasonable Amendments to be made in order to make this Bill as fair as it can be made, under this unfortunate uneconomic system under which we live, for many persons who are in fact poor but whose income depends largely or wholly upon agricultural or other real estate.
THE EARL OF READING: My Lords, I desire to call attention only for one moment to certain provisions of this Bill for the purpose of directing the noble Viscount's attention to them in order that they may be considered before we come to the Committee stage. I would desire also that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, would give his attention to Clause 17. This clause in this rather voluminous Bill introduces one principle which is totally novel, and which I do not remember to have seen in any Bill that has found its way to the Statute Book. Under subclause (3) power is given to the Lord Chancellor to make Rules enabling a Court to revoke or vary any former decision of the Court if it appears just to do so in view of subsequent circumstances or material facts having been concealed. notwithstanding anything in the Act proving that the decision of the Court is to be final and conclusive. That may introduce a very important and novel procedure n our administration of justice. If it is intended to reform the administration of justice it ought not to be done in a clause of this kind in a Bill of this character. It caused me surprise when my attention was called to it. Hitherto a decision of the Court, once pronounced, has been final and conclusive. There are, of course, appeals to the Court of Appeal in the High Court, or to the House of Lords, but there is no means by Rules of enabling a Court to revoke a decision which it has once given. There would be no finality in a decision if Rules are to be made to this effect. I do not want to discuss it at this particular stage of the Bill, but I desire to call the noble Viscounts attention to it, because I cannot but conceive that there must be some misapprehension in the minds of the draftsmen, or of those responsible for the Bill, in introducing a clause of this character. It not only destroys the finality of the judgment which is to be pronounced; it also enables Rules to be made which do not give the ordinary safeguard. Rules of Court have to be laid on the Table of your Lordships'
840
House and of the other House, but Rules made by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack do not stand in that category. It does seem a remarkable procedure to provide that the learned Lord Chancellor—however eminent and fair-minded he is, as he assuredly will be—should have power to make Rules which destroy the finality of the judgment of the Court, or at least provide that the Court may revoke its own decision if by reason of subsequent circumstances it finds it expedient to do so. I cannot really think that this matter has been seriously considered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I shall follow the example of my noble and learned friend by not at this stage debating the point which he himself has not fully debated. This subclause was inserted by the House of Commons. It was not in the original draft of the Bill, and I agree with my noble and learned friend that it may properly be a subject of discussion in the Committee stage. I think, however, that my noble and learned friend will himself agree that even if the condition be an unusual one it is not to be completely dismissed for that reason, or because of apparent prima face extravagance.
The circumstances are, of course, of a wholly unusual and unprecedented character. We have found ourselves in Parliament chasing fugitive conditions. Over and over again we have thought and hoped that there might be some degree of finality in the difficulties for which we were attempting to find a solution. A few months ago it became necessary to re-constitute the whole method of dealing with the matter. It was thought in another place, I understand—I have not read the debate—that there would be many cases in which any Court which had dealt with the matter on an earlier occasion would itself wish to correct and vary its decision in view of circumstances that had notoriously changed. In other words the object, I understand, of those who inserted this subclause was to enable steps to be taken which would produce the same result as occurs to-day when a Court gives liberty to apply, or in a workmen's compensation case where the fact that a decision has been given does not dismiss the matter for all time, but, if the situation changes, the applicant is at liberty to go to the Court and ask for a variation of the Order. The true analogy is not that of ordinary litigation, but the Awards given in those matters to which I have referred. I will content myself now merely

841
with expressing the hope that your Lordships will not prematurely reach a conclusion upon a provision which is no doubt singular, but which deals with a very singular and indeed unprecedented state of affairs.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I do not propose to reply at any length, but I desire to express again my gratitude to the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) not only for the assistance that he has given us in framing the Bill, but for relieving me of the task of dealing with such criticisms as have been directed against it. He has explained to your Lordships quite clearly that the abnomal time through which we are now passing must exist, for at least three years. I sincerely trust, although I do not say so with absolute confidence, that at the end of the three years we may be back in normal times.
With reference to some of the queries put to me, I may say that I do not propose to deal with them all now, because some of them can be better dealt with in Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Shandon, raised a question regarding Clause 5. As to that I would point out that two conditions have to be fulfilled before an order for ejectment can be made. The first condition is set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), etc., and the second is contained in the paragraph to which the noble and learned Lord referred—namely, where the Court considers it reasonable to make such an Order. The Court would probably not consider it reasonable that a man should be evicted for the technical reason, for example, that he was one day late in paying his rent. I think that the noble and learned Lord, if he reads the clause again, will find that it is quite clear.
As to the query put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, regarding Clause 12, I desire to say that, this clause is intended to see that new houses are not put in a less favourable or more unfavourable position than old houses in the matter of assessments. In the present state of the housing shortage it is difficult for an Assessment Committee to determine the rent at which a house might reasonably he expected to let, and in order to help them in their assessment, and at the same time to prevent new houses from being unfairly rated as compared with old ones, the clause defines
842
strictly what should be taken as the estimated rental or gross value.
LORD LAMINGTON: It has nothing to do with the rent?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: No, it is merely to arrive at the assessment. My noble friend Lord Bledisloe raised a point on Clause 12—I think subsection (1). It allows a reasonable amount of land to go with the house but excludes a small farm. That is to say, it allows a paddock, perhaps surrounded by a fence, to be included, but would not include within the scope of the Bill a small farm. The points which were raised by certain noble Lords connected with the agricultural labourer raise very big issues, which I am sure your Lordships would not now expect me to go into—namely, whether the Agricultural Wages Board was right or not in fixing 3s. as the maximum amount, which may be deducted from an agricultural labourer's wages, and so on.
I should like to say this about the point raised by the noble Marquess in regard to business premises. I do not believe that the House of Commons inserted this clause in order to deal with exceptional cases. I think that they were probably impressed by the amount of real hardship which existed in a large number of cases, and it was probably because of this that they put in this clause. The Government feel that this clause, having been put in and meeting real grievances, ought to remain in the Bill perhaps with a slight amendment.
I think this debate has shown that it would be quite impossible at this moment to remove all restrictions; that it would lead to a great deal of social unrest, and would not assist in the provision of houses; that something was necessary, and that on the whole the proposals which have been incorporated in this Bill, which were contained in the Report of the Committee, have dealt fairly with what is admittedly a most delicate position.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AIR NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, the noble Marquess

843
(Lord Salisbury), who was here a moment ago, raised a point the other day in Committee in regard to the insertion of a clause for imposing penalties on those who flew aeroplanes to the danger of the public. He was satisfied on the Committee stage that the clause in the Bill answered the question which he put on that occasion. I will now simply ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Third Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Amendments (privilege) made Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Third Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported inter alia—
REFRESHMENT COMMITTEE.
The Duke of Rutland, on behalf of the Sub-Committee appointed on the 26th of February, 1920, made a short statement with regard to the new catering arrangements which have been made for the House of Lords. The Committee approved the new arrangements and resolved, on the recommendation of the Chairman of Committees, that the following Lords, with the Clerk of the Parliaments, be appointed a Sub-Committee to consider all matters concerning the Refreshment Department of the House of Lords, viz.:—The Marquess of Lincolnshire, Lord Lambourne, and Lord Muir Mackenzie.
The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.
WAR BONUS.
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the new War Bonus sanctioned by the Treasury for the Civil Service (Treasury Letter 21284/20 of the 14th of May, 1920), and
844
the Committee approved its application to the House of Lords staff.
The Committee recommend that the payments made to the Clerks in the Parliament Office for calendaring and indexing the Historical MSS. of the House of Lords and for indexing Reports from Select Committees be assessed for War Bonus.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be received and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of June 23.]

DUPLICANDS OF FEU-DUTIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
To be read 2a on Wednesday next (Viscount Haldane).
PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION WATERWORKS BILL.
  Committees to meet on Tuesday next.
EXMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

A FRIDAY SITTING.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I suggest that the House should meet at 4 p.m. to-morrow.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock until to-morrow, four o'clock.