HL Deb 30 June 1920 vol 40 cc1052-110

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 2:

Permitted increase in rent.

2.—(1) The amount by which the increased rent of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies may exceed the standard rent shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be as follows, that is to say:—

  1. (a) Where the landlord has since the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen incurred, Or hereafter incurs, expenditure on the improvement or structural alteration of the dwelling-house (not including expenditure on decoration or repairs), an amount calculated at a rate per annum not exceeding six, or in the case of such expenditure incurred after the passing of this Act, eight per cent. of the amount so expended:
  2. (b) An amount not exceeding any increase in the amount for the time being payable by the landlord in respect of rates over the corresponding amount paid in respect of the yearly, half-yearly or other period which included the third clay of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, or in the case of a dwelling-house for which no rates were payable in respect of any period which included the said date, the period which included the date on which the rates first became payable thereafter;
  3. (c) In addition to any such amounts as aforesaid, an amount not exceeding fifteen per centum of the net rent:
  4. >(d) In further addition to any such amounts as aforesaid—
    1. (i) where the landlord is responsible for the whole of repairs, an amount not exceeding twenty-five per cent. of the net rent; or
      2. 1053
    2. (ii) where the landlord is responsible for part and not the whole of the repairs, such lesser amount as may be agreed, or as may, on the application of the landlord or the tenant, be determined by the county court to be fair and reasonable having regard to such liability.

(2) At any time or times not being less than three months after the date of any increase permitted by paragraph (d) of the foregoing subsection the tenant or the sanitary authority may apply to the county court for an order suspending such increase, and also any increase under paragraph (e) of that subsection, On the ground that the house is not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation, or is other. wise not in a reasonable state of repair. The court on being satisfied by the production of a certificate of the sanitary authority or otherwise that any such ground as aforesaid is established, and on being further satisfied that the condition of the house is not wholly or partly due to the tenant's neglect or default or breach of express agreement, shall order that the increase be suspended until the court is satisfied, on the report of the sanitary authority or otherwise, that the necessary repairs (other than the repairs, if any, for which the tenant is liable) have been executed, and on the making of such order the increase shall cease to have effect until the court is so satisfied.

(3) Any transfer to a tenant of any burden or liability previously borne by the landlord shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as an alteration of rent, and where, as the result of such a transfer, the terms on which a dwelling-house is held are on the whole less favourable to the tenant than the previous terms, the rent shall be deemed to he increased, whether Or not the sum periodically payable by way of rent is increased, and any increase of rent in respect of any transfer to a landlord of any burden or liability previously borne by the tenant where, as the result of such transfer, the terms on which any dwelling-house is held are on the whole not less favourable to the tenant than the previous to terms, shall be deemed not to be an increase of rent for the purposes of this Act: Provided that for the purposos of this section the rent shall not be deemed to be increased where the liability for rates is transferred from the landlord to the tenant, if a corresponding reduction is made in the rent.

(4) On any application to a sanitary authority for a certificate or report under this section a fee of one shilling shall be payable, but if the authority as the result of such application issues such a certificate as aforesaid, the tenant shall be entitled to deduct the fee from any subsequent payment of rent. For the purposes of this section, the expression "repairs" means any repairs required for the purpose of keeping premises in good and tenantable repair, both structural and decorative, any any premises in such a state shall be deemed to be in a reasonable state of repair, and the landlord shall be deemed to be responsible for any repairs for which the tenant is under no express liability.

(5) Any question arising under subsection (1), (2) or (3) of this section shall be determined on the application either of the landlord or the tenant by the county court, and the decision of the court shall be final and conclusive.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (d), to insert the following new paragraph— (e) In the case of dwelling-houses let by a railway company to persons in the employment of the company, such additional amount, if any, as is required in order to give effect to the agreement dated the first day of March nineteen hundred and twenty, relating to the rates of pay and conditions of employment of certain persons in the employment of railway companies, or any agreement, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, extending or modifying that agreement.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to a matter to which I called attention in Committee. I pointed out that the Bill, as it stands at the moment, would have the effect of destroying an Agreement made by the Ministry of Transport with the railway companies and their servants last March. I pointed out that many of the grades concerned in that Agreement were housed in houses, or apartments, or other accommodation provided by the companies at a nominal cost. The Agreement provides that these men shall in future pay rent, so as to equalise their remuneration with those who are not housed. The Bill, unless suitable provision is made, would prevent that Agreement from being carried out, because under the Bill as it stands the railway companies could not alter the terms of a tenancy, and there was great apprehension on the part of some of us that fresh complications, with a demand for a revision of the scales of pay would be made. The railway companies are not asking for anything for themselves, but only to avoid future trouble and difficulties in a somewhat complicated arrangement.

I did not move the Amendment in the Committee stage, in deference to a request of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, and, if I am rightly informed, a satisfactory conference took place yesterday, and, although the terms of the Amendment first suggested by me are somewhat too wide, I understand that the Clause as it appears on the Paper to-day is satisfactory to the Ministry of Transport and will be accepted by the Ministry of Health. I am satisfied with it, so far as I am concerned. It is a little narrower than the Amendment I first proposed, but it would not have the effect which, I am told, that Amendment would have had, of taking away a protection against eviction for some of these railway employees, which none of us have any desire to remove. I have every hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

Amendment moved— Page 3, after line 10, insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (VISCOUNT ASORT)

I am quite prepared, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I have an Amendment, of which I am afraid I have not given notice, on line 13. I asked the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a Question in Committee as to whether he was satisfied that the word "decorative" was required. I respectfully suggested to him that the words "both structural and decorative" should be left out. I venture to move that now, and to press it upon the Government, because, since the debate on the Second Reading, I have received a communication urging me very strongly to take that course, and for this reason. The practice of the country differs very much locally. In some places a different standard of decorative repair is expected from the landlord from that in other parts, and in some cases, no doubt, a minimum of decorative repair is considered necessary. If these words are left in I think it is likely to cause considerable confusion in places where the custom is that the tenant should do the greater part of the decoration.

That is one of the arguments, and the other is that, after all, this is very drastic legislation, in which the landlords' rights are strictly limited. It seems to me that they should be limited in respect only to what is really essential. No one can hold that decoration is essential. It does not seem that the landlords ought to be deprived of the right of charging a reasonable increase of rent so long as the house is reasonably fit for occupation, and the fact that it lacks a little in decorative effect does not seem to be essential. The words, therefore, seem to be rather too strong. Much the simplest plan would be to leave the phrase out altogether. By leaving it out the Clause would read in this way— For the purposes of this section, the expression 'repairs' means any repairs required for the purpose of keeping the premises in good and tenantable repair. That seems to be all that is really necessary.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 13, after ("repair") leave out ("both structural and decorative").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

At an early stage in our discussions, when the noble Marquess raised this point, I expressed the opinion that the omission of these words would make no difference at all in the meaning of the clause. As I am still of that opinion, in spite of what the noble Marquess has said, I do not see any reason at all why 1 should not accept his Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MIDLETONmoved, after subsection (5), to insert the following new subsection — (6) Any order as to the proportion of wages payable as rent made by the Agricultural Wages Board under the Corn Production Act, 1917, and any Act amending the same, shall be subject to the provisions of this section. The noble Earl said: I want to try and clear up this matter. This is an Amendment which I moved in Committee, and which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack asked me to withdraw for the moment in order that he might confer and see if he could come to some arrangement. Here is a Bill which is designed to deal with the whole of the houses in the country which are the subject of rent up to a certain standard. There have been a very large number of houses, some of which have been the subject of rent, and some of which have been given free as part of wages. The Agricultural Wages Board under the Corn Production Act has taken a vast number of houses, amounting to hundreds of thousands, and have said, "we fix the wages, and as a benefit in lieu of cash we fix the sum of 3s., which may be paid for the house which has been given in lieu of cash." That practically means that the Agricultural Wages Board presume to settle that every house occupied by an agricultural labourer is of the same value; they assign to it the same payment in lieu of rent, and they absolutely preclude the owner from the expenditure of money, which we all desire to see, unless he expends it entirely to his own detriment and without any return.

I have hunted through the Corn Production Act, and, subject to legal opinion, I believe there is nothing in that Act which justifies the Agricultural Wages Board in interfering with rent at all. Indeed, I very much doubt whether the Ministry of Agriculture desire that they should interfere with rent. But the fact remains that we have the opinion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that those cottages which are given as part of wages are not under this Act at all. In other words, that the landlord is free with regard to the employer; or, if you like to put it further.I suppose it would be possible for the employer, if he were willing to do it, to discharge the man and, taking a fresh man, to say to him, "I cannot let you this cottage for 8s. even though only 3s. is taken from your wages." I do not think it is right, when Parliament is doing its best to settle what is fair between employer and employed, to interfere with contracts to such a large extent as to leave this vast body of houses with their whole conditions unsettled owing to the fact that the Agricultural Wages Board have encroached on the intentions of Parliament in this respect. I feel strongly the point that so many of these agricultural cottages require improvement. The Bill before us allows an owner to spend whatever he may have to spend and to get a fair percentage of interest in return, it being recognised that without this encouragement practically no employer can spend fresh money. But apart from that, it is also clear that the price fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board does not enable one cottage to be kept up; therefore the whole system seems to be faulty.

We have to choose between two alternatives. It is possible in this Bill—as I propose by the Amendment I have put down—to provide that any decision of the Agricultural Wages Board should be subject to the provisions of this clause. That, I understand, would have the effect of bringing within the purview of this Bill houses Which, under the ruling of the Lord Chancellor, would not come within the Act. I am bound to say that I would far sooner bring these houses within the purview of the Act—even though that is a further interference with contract—than leave them to be dealt with on a much worse system by an unauthorised body under the Corn Production Act. We have, therefore, either to do that, or to deal with them under the Agriculture Bill when it comes up. I have had the advantage of hearing what the legal advisers of the Government think on the matter and, to my mind—if the Minister for Agriculture were to see his way to tell us that he recognises that this subject must be drastically dealt with in the Act now before Parliament, or that the work of the Wages Board must be confined so that they do not encroach on the intentions of Parliament—the best thing to do would be not to trouble your Lordships further at this stage and to withdraw the Amendment. But unless we get some undertaking from the Government that they will deal with the matter in some form, I am afraid it will be very difficult to avoid asking your Lordships to discuss it further.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 21, after subsection (5), insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Midleton.)

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LEE OF FARE-HAM)

My Lords, I must confess that this question has been rather sprung upon me. I have not had an opportunity of discussing it as fully as I should wish, and certainly not with my technical advisers. But I can certainly say this, that not only as a result of the very strong arguments put forward by my noble friend but from my own feelings on the subject, which I have held quite apart from this particular Bill, I have always felt that it was a mistake—I do not know whether it is a legal error, but, at any rate, that it was undesirable for the Agricultural Wages Board to concern itself at all with these questions of rent.

NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Since I have held my present office I have represented that view to the Wages Board. It may be within the knowledge of Your Lordships that the matter was discussed by them and, I think in November last, they passed a resolution postponing any modification of their existing practice with regard to this matter. But if my noble friend Lord Midleton appeals to me, I may say on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture that we do not favour the Agricultural Wages Board mixing up this question of rent with their estimation of the minimum wage. I may also say that I know that the labourers' unions do not favour it at all; they would sooner that this element were cleared out of the way before negotiations are entered into between the two sides on the Wages Board for fixing the minimum wage. Further, in view of the fact that the Agricultural Wages Board profess that they are not dealing really with the question of rent but with a benefit in lieu of cash, I think the time has obviously come for re-opening the whole question with the Board, and that, perhaps, there is an appropriate opportunity for this in view of that fact that there has been a change recently in the composition of the Wages Board and a new chairman appointed. I will certainly undertake to go into this question very carefully and at once with the new chairman and the new Board with a view, if possible, of cutting out altogether from their purview the question of rent. I think that is as far as I can properly go on the present occasion. If those discussions should lead to no result it will, of course, be open to your Lordships to raise the matter again on another Bill. But I am in general sympathy with the view which has been expressed by my noble friend, and I will certainly do my best to have the matter thoroughly reconsidered and, I hope, changed.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend and of myself and others I can only say that we are extremely grateful to the noble Lord for the speech he has just made. I do not think there is anything which has happened from start to finish in respect of this unfortunate housing policy which was so deleterious as these proceedings of the Wages Board in fixing the imaginary rent of a free cottage at 3s. because what it tended to do was to keep down the economic rents of every other cottage and practically made the solution of the housing problem in the country districts quite impossible. I see that my noble friend, who is extremely expert in these matters and -very acute, fully appreciates the point. He has told your Lordships that the policy of the Ministry of Agriculture under his direction is entirely contrary to the practice which has hitherto prevailed in the Wages Board, and that, under the alteration which has taken place in the personnel of that, Board, the whole matter will be undoubtedly reconsidered. In these circumstances, I have my noble friend's authority for saying that he does not wish to press the matter any further. We are extremely obliged to the Minister of Agriculture.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord will tell the House whether the communication which he proposes to make to the new Chairman of the Wages Board will also, be made to the Chairmen of the Wages Boards in Scotland and Ireland. There, of course, the circumstances are somewhat different. In Ireland, I know, there is not a fixed sum of allowance for houses given to workmen. It varies in different parts of the country according to the wages, they receive. It would give great satisfaction if we heard from the noble Lord that he would also communicate with the Chairmen of the Wages Boards in Scotland and Ireland.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I can only say that the writ of my Ministry does not run in Scotland or Ireland, but I shall be pleased to communicate with the Secretary for Scotland and the Chief Secretary for Ireland with regard to the matter, and I hope that possibly they may take the same view as I do. I have no authority over their proceedings.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3:

Limitation as to permitted increases in rent.

3.—(l) Nothing in this Act shall be taken to authorise any increase of rent except in respect of a period during which but for tins Act the landlord would be entitled to obtain possession, or any increase in the rate of interest on a mortgage except in respect of a period during which, but for this Act, the security could be enforced.

(2) Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, where the rent of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies is increased, no such increase shall be due or recoverable until or in respect of any period prior to the expiry of four clear weeks, or, where such increase is on account of an increase in rates, one clear week, after the landlord has served upon the tenant a valid notice in writing of his intention to increase the rent, which notice shall be in the form contained in the First Schedule to this Act, or in a form substantially to the same effect. If a notice served as aforesaid contains any statement or representation which is false or misleading in any-material respect, the landlord shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds unless he proves that the statement was made innocently and without intent to deceive. Where a notice of an increase of rent which at the time was valid has been served on any tenant the increase may be continued without service of any fresh notice on any subsequent tenant

(3) A notice served before the passing of this Act of an intention to make any increase of rent which is permissible only by virtue of this Act shall not be deemed to be a valid notice for the purpose of this section.

LORD DYNEVORmoved, in subsection (1), after "Act" where that word secondly occurs, to insert "or any other Act passed since the fourth of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen." The noble Lord said: The object of my suggestion of the addition of these new words is that understand that during the war certain Acts of Parliament were passed, such as the Courts Emergency Powers Acts, which are not wholly repealed in the Second Schedule of the Bill, although the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts are repealed. I am given to understand that portions of the 1914 and 1916 Courts Emergency Acts are still in force. I think it is very desirable that people should know exactly where they stand under this Bill and that when they want to discover what their powers are they should be able to turn to this Bill and this Bill alone. If they have to turn to other Acts as well, I am afraid the position of the man in the street will be a very difficult one. If my new words are added to the clause it may be necessary for me to insert as a consequential Amendment the same words again after the word "Act" in line 26 in the same subsection. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to satisfy me that the other Acts are not in force. If they are not my words are not necessary.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 24, after ("Act" insert ("or any other Act passed since the fourth of August nineteen hundred and fourteen)".—(Lord Dynevor.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I am advised that these words are unnecessary. If my noble friend who moved this Amendment will refer to Clause 19, subsection (3), on page 22, he will see that it Says— The enactments mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule. Then, in the Schedule, various clauses and sections which are repealed are set out, so that this Bill will be the only operative Act so far as the clauses which are repealed are concerned, and I am advised that it is unnecessary to add the words suggested by my noble friend.

LORD DYNEVOR

I was under the impression that parts of the 1914 and 1916 War Emergency Acts were in force, but if my noble friend assures me that is not the case I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5:

Restriction on right to possession.

5.—(1) No order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, shall be made or given unless—

  1. (a) any rent lawfully due from the tenant has not been paid, or any other obligation of the tenancy (whether under the contract of tenancy or under this Act) so far as the same is consistent with the provisions of this Act has been broken or not performed; or
  2. (b) the tenant or any person residing with him has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or has been convicted of using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for an immoral or illegal purpose, or the condition of the dwelling-house has in the opinion of the court deteriorated owing to acts of waste by or the neglect or default of the tenant or any such person, or
  3. (c) the tenant has given notice to quit, and in consequence of that notice the landlord has contracted to sell or let the dwelling-house or has taken any other steps as a result of which he would in the opinion of the court be seriously prejudiced if he could not obtain possession; or
  4. (d) the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself, or for any person bona fide residing or to reside with him, or for some person in his whole time employment or in the whole time employment of some tenant from him, and (except as otherwise provided by this subsection) the court is satisfied that alternative accommodation, reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects, is available; or
  5. (e) the landlord is a local authority or a statutory undertaking and the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the purpose of the execution of the statutory duties or powers of the authority or undertaking, and the court is satisfied as aforesaid as respects alternative accommodation; or
  6. (f) the landlord became the landlord after service in any of His Majesty's forces during the war and requires the house for his personal occupation and offers the tenant accommodation on reasonable terms in the same dwelling-house, such accommodation being considered by the court as reasonably sufficient in the circumstances; or
    7. 1063
  7. (g) the dwelling-house is required for occupation as a residence by a former tenant thereof who gave up occupation in consequence of his service in any of His Majesty's forces during the war;
and, in any such case as aforesaid, the court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such judgment.

The existence of alternative accommodation shall not be a condition of an order or judgment on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (d) of this subsection—

  1. (i) where the tenant was in the employment of the landlord or a former landlord, and the dwelling-house was let to him in consequence of that employment and he has ceased to be in that employment; or
  2. (ii) where the court is satisfied by a certificate of the county agricultural committee, or of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries pending the formation of such committee, that the dwelling-house is required by the landlord for the occupation of a person engaged on work necessary for the proper working of an agricultural holding; or
  3. (iii) where the landlord gave up the occupation of the dwelling-house in consequence of his service in any of His Majesty's forces during the war; or
  4. (iv) where the landlord became the landlord before the thirtieth day of September nineteen hundred and seventeen, or, in the case of a dwelling-house to which section four of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1919, applied, became the landlord before the fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or in the case of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies but the enactments repealed by this Act did not apply, became the landlord before the twentieth day of May nineteen hundred and twenty, and in the opinion of the court greater hardship world be caused by refusing an order for possession than by granting it.

(2) At the time of the application for or the making or giving of any order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any such dwelling-house or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, or in the case of any such order or judgment which has been made or given, whether before or after the, passing of this Act, and not executed, at any subsequent time, the court may adjourn the application, or stay or suspend execution on any such order or judgment, or postpone the date of possession, for such period or periods as it thinks fit, and subject to such conditions (if any) in regard to payment by the tenant of arrears of rent, rent, or mesne profits and otherwise as the court thinks fit, and, if such conditions are complied with, the court may, if it thinks fit, discharge or rescind any such order or judgment.

(3) Where any order or judgment has been made or given before the passing of this Act, but not executed, and. in the opinion of the court, the order or judgment would not have been made or given if this Act had been in force at the time when such order or judgment was made or given, the court may, on application by the tenant, rescind or vary such order or judgment in such manner as the court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act.

(4) Notwithstanding anything in section one hundred and forty-three of the County Courts Act, 1888, or in section one of the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, every warrant for delivery of possession of, or to enter and give possession of, any dwelling-house to which this Act applies, shall remain in torce for three months from the day next after the last day named in the judgment or order for delivery of possession or ejectment, or, in the case of a warrant under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, from the date of the issue of the warrant, and in either case for such further period or periods, if any, as the court shall from time to time, whether before or after the expiration of such three months, direct.

(5) An order or judgment against a tenant for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house or ejectment therefrom under this section shall not affect the right of any sub-tenant to whom the premises or any part thereof have been lawfully sublet, before proceedings for recovery of possession were commenced, to retain possession under this section or be in any way operative against any such sub-tenant:

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I have a manuscript Amendment, which is purely drafting, in subsection (5). It is to insert, after the word "possession" where it secondly occurs in that subsection, the words "or ejectment." It is merely to bring the latter part of the clause in line with the first part, where those words are set out.

Amendment moved— Clause 5, page 8, line 20, after ("possession") insert ("or ejectment").—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhad on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (2), after "Court' where that word first occurs, to insert: "May take into consideration all the circumstances of the case including the fact, if such fact be proved, that the income of the tenant through no fault of his own has increased very slightly or not at all since August nineteen hundred and fourteen and."

The noble Marquess said: Your Lordships will remember that the question of very poor tenants gave a good deal of concern to the Departmental Committee of which I was a member. The state of things in respect of them is in a certain number of instances very deplorable. It is not a very widely extended grievance, however. The great mass of tenants, I am convinced, are fully able to pay the increased rents and the increased rates which will fall upon them in consequence of the operation of this Bill. In the majority of cases wages have enormously increased—I am very glad of it —and there is no reason in the world why the mass of tenants should not pay the increased rent. But in a certain number of instances there will be undoubtedly very great hardship. Old people, people with very small fixed incomes, people with very small pensions, widows, and others who have perhaps the same nominal income as they had before the war, but whose income is, as all your Lordships know, less than half the value that it had before the war, are very hard hit; and, whether your Lordships approve of this Amendment or not, I am convinced that they will have from every single one of your Lordships the most profound sympathy.

Under the operation of this Bill there will be an increase of rent permitted, at first of 30 per cent. and later on of 40 per cent., and there will also be an increase of rates which will follow, first of all, because of the increase of rent, and, secondly, because the rates themselves which, though they do not arise under the Bill yet have to be considered at the same time, are going up by leaps and bounds all over the country. Consequently, in a certain number of cases there will be very great hardship. Therefore, I am very glad that the Government have put into then Bill in subsection (2) of this clause, an elastic power which leaves it to the County Court Judge to decide in what form he will enforce the law —whether he will have an adjournment or postpone the enforcement of the law, and so forth—and, provided it is open to the County Court Judge to consider the kind of hardship which. I have ventured to mention to your Lordships, I should have nothing more to say. The Government clause would be then quite sufficient. If that were the interpretation of the words, the County Court Judge would be able to take into consideration the fact that the real income, as apart from the nominal income, of these unfortunate persons, has fallen enormously since before the war, and he would be able, if it were in his power to consider all the circumstances, to mitigate their lot.

I am, however, doubtful whether the words as they stand would enable the County Court Judge to consider the kind of circumstances to which my Amendment refers and which I have mentioned to your Lordships. He may say that such con- siderations are not relevant. Other matters might be relevant, but the mere poverty of the tenant might not be relevant. If the Lord Chancellor assures me I am wrong I have nothing more to say, but if I am right I submit that some such words as I propose—I am going to modify them a little—are necessary. I want your Lordships to realise that if these persons cannot pay an increase of rent there is no course open. If there was no house famine it would be quite simple. They would leave their more expensive houses and take less expensive ones. They cannot do that; there are no houses available, there is no resource open to them except the workhouse.

The Committee over which I had the honour to preside were anxious to restore an economic condition of things in regard to house property, and we proposed, and the Government have followed our recommendation, these increases of rent, gradually, up to the economic position. But the present uneconomic situation still continues and we certainly thought it right, while the abnormal conditions continue, to make an exception, an abnormal exception I agree, in favour of these people merely as an emergency measure. There fore I have placed on the Paper an Amendment rendering it possible for the County Court Judge to take into consideration the fact that the tenant's income has not increased at all since the war.

I have been reminded that a few more words are necessary, otherwise the Amendment as it stands might cover the case of a person who was not poor. His income might not have increased but he might have started with a good income. I propose, therefore, that the Amendment should include, after the words "August., 1914," the following words, "and that his means are such that he is unable to pay the increased rent and." I beg to move it in that form. I do so with great diffidence. I know I am asking the House to take a course which is not usual in legislation, but if your Lordships have read all the evidence, as I have done, I am sure you would feel, even if you do not agree with me, that I have touched a very hard case.

May I also add this. There is a threat, I hope it is an illusory threat, in certain parts of the country that when this Bill becomes law there will be a strike against rent; that some of these well-to-do agitators who are quite able to pay the rent will resist it. They will shelter themselves behind the skirts of these widows and produce case after case of great hardship. They will say "This is what Parliament has enacted, and we are striking in order to protect these poor people." I want your Lordships, and Parliament, to put it out of their power to say any such thing. If the Amendment is accepted the County Court Judge would be able to see that no undue hardship is inflicted.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 29, after ("Court") insert ("may take into consideration all the circumstances of the case including the fact, if such fact be proved, that the income of the tenant through no fault of his own has increased very slightly or not at all since August nineteen hundred and fourteen, and that his means are such that he is unable to Pay the increased rent and").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

If the noble Marquess desires to press the principle contained in the Amendment, and if your Lordships decide to support him, I would suggest an alternative drafting. This would be the insertion in the same place of words which would enable the Court to consider all the circumstances of the case including the tenant's means. Before your Lordships decide to accept the principle of this Amendment you should very carefully. consider whether, in fact, it will really be in the interests of the tenants affected. The noble Marquess has dealt sympathetically with the very hard case of the poor tenant whose income and means have not increased We all admit that. But the clause, if amended as suggested, would not give the Court the power of reducing the rent. It would give the Court the power to postpone ejectment, but all the time arrears would be piling up and the poor tenant might find himself with an accumulation of arrears. If the Court went on postponing ejectment month after month, it might even be an extreme case, until the Act ceased to operate, the poor tenant might in fact find himself in an exceedingly hard position; in the position of having to be sold up. That is the case I foresee, and that is the case I desire the noble Marquess seriously to consider. If he desires to press his Amendment I do not propose seriously to oppose it, but we must realise that we do not give the Court fewer to reduce rent but merely to postpone ejectment, and we ought to be very careful not to place the poor tenant in a worse position at some future time.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

We sympathise a great deal with what the noble Marquess has said, but I think the noble Viscount was well advised in pointing out the extremely dangerous path on which we are embarking. This is rather making the County Court Judge deciding a man's means, and whether they are such as justify him living in a particular house. The noble Viscount mentioned that the County Court Judge would have no power to reduce rent; all he could do was to say to the man, "You can go on living there as long as you like, I am not going to turn you out."

I have no sympathy whatever with the attempt to make an extreme rent out of the necessities of these people, but at the same time there are two points we ought to remember. One is that the magistrates and the authorities have been most careful to interpret the old Act in the interests of the tenants to the fullest extent, and of their right to remain in houses for which they are either not paying rent or which they are unwilling to vacate because they cannot find others. The second point is that the law's delays in the case of the really bad tenants, the men who are not attempting to get work and have thrown up their employment and do not mean to vacate the houses, are excessive at present, six to eight weeks, and I suggest, if my noble friend agrees to it, that we should give some outlet without giving such indication as is involved in the words of the noble Viscount.

Would it not be sufficient to say that if a case comes before the County Court Judge in which it was obvious that the tenant's means did not enable him or her to pay the rent required, he would give such a stay of execution as would give real time for the tenants to remove to premises which were more reasonable? I think to go beyond that, and to say that in every case he is to consider the means, is practically to establish a fair rent clause to be administered by the County Court Judge, and to read into the Act what Parliament has deliberately not put into it—namely, discretion as to the amount which should be charged under the Act, which has been most carefully weighed in order to see that the charges are not excessive.

LORD SUMNER

I also would suggest to the noble Marquess that possibly he might be defeating his own object by pressing the insertion of any extra words. Every one must sympathise with his desire, as far as possible, to prevent either the actual occurrence, or the consequent scandal, of such cases as he mentioned; at the same time I think, if he will examine the subsection, he will see that the power which is already given to the County Court Judge is extremely wide. I should doubt if there was any subject upon which any Judge had so wide a discretion as this, and no words are inserted which fetter it or which direct that he shall confine his attention to any particular matters. When he has come to the point of making a judgment, which may be a judgment for payment of the rent or for ejectment, he has then the power to stay or suspend execution—that is to say, the money need not be paid for the time being—to adjourn the application without any limit of time, and to impose conditions which he thinks reasonable, such that if the conditions are complied with he will then be empowered to discharge or rescind his own order.

This Bill appears certainly to be very wide, and without venturing—I hardly think it would be right to do so—to affirm that the meaning of this section is or is not what is claimed for it, it appears to me to be an exceedingly wide clause. On the other hand with the insertion of any such words as the noble Marquess proposes, although they do call particular attention to the needs of the tenant, the County Court Judge would be bound to inquire not only into the question whether the tenant was able to pay the increased rent or not, but also whether in addition to that there had been no increase, or only a very slight increase, of the man's income since August, 1914; and thirdly, if that was the case, whether it had occurred without fault on the part of the tenant. The last two inquiries in many cases might be considered invidious, but the effect would be that although the County Court Judge was satisfied that the tenant was unable to pay the increased rent, still, if he were further satisfied that there had been an increase, and that not a slight one, since 1914, he would be obliged to say in these words, "I cannot give the relief asked for." The View I suggest is that the insertion of these words, as so often happens, may really prove to limit the powers which it is the desire of the noble Marquess should be wide, and should be exercised, and it would be probably better to rely upon the extreme width of the words, and the fact, which we all know to be the case, that there is no indisposition on the part of the County Court Judges to give the fullest, fairest, and most charitable consideration to the hard cases which come before them.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I rose at the same time as my noble and learned friend to urge upon your Lordships precisely the view which he has just indicated, and with which I entirely agree. In those circumstances I do not propose to add any thing to what he has said. I merely wish to assure the noble Marquess that the powers in the section are, as my noble and learned friend said, no, only wide but extremely wide, and I think that the giving of directions in any particular sence would be unsafe drafting:, and might, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, defeat the very purpose of the noble Marquess.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I need hardly say that I am most obliged to your Lordships for the kind way in which you have received my observations, and after the expression of opinion by noble Lords of authority I shall not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection— (6) Where a landlord has obtained an order or judgment for possession or ejectment under this section on the ground that he requires a dwelling-house for his own occupation and it is subsequently made to appear to the court that the order was obtained by misrepresentation or the cencealment of material facts, the court may order the landlord to pay to the former tenant such sum as appears sufficient as compensation for damage or loss sustained by that tenant as the result of the order or judgment. The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is to give effect to a pledge which I gave on an earlier stage of the Bill. I fully explained it on that occasion, and unless further explanation is desired I will now formally move it.

Amendment moved— Page 8, after line 22, insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

As I took it upon myself to call attention to this matter, I wish to say that the new subsection meets entirely the objection taken by the Lord Chief Justice.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12:

Application and interpretation.

12.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, except where the context otherwise requires:—

  1. (a) The expression "standard rent" means the rent at which the dwelling-house was let on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, or, where the dwelling-house was not let on that date, the rent at which it was last let before that date, or, in the csae of a dwelling-house which was first let after the said third day of August, the rent at which it was first let:
  2. (b) The expression "standard rate of interest" means in the case of a mortgage in force on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, the rate of interest payable at that date, or, in the case of a mortgage created since that date, the original rate of interest;
  3. (c) The expression "net rent" means, where the landlord at the time by reference to which the standard rent is calculated paid the rates chargeable on, or which but for the provisions of any Act would be chargeable on the occupier, the standard rent less the amount of such rates, and in any other case the standard rent;
  4. (d) The expression "rates" includes water rents and charges, and any increase in rates payable by a landlord shall be deemed to be payable by him until the rate is next demanded;
  5. (e) The expression "rateable value" means the rateable value on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, or, in the case of a dwelling-house or a part of dwelling-house first assessed after that date, the rateable value at which it was first assessed;
  6. (f) The expressions "landlord," "tenant.," "mortgagee," and "mortgagor" include any person from time to time deriving title under the original landlord, tenant, mortgagee, or mortgagor;
    7. 1072
  7. (g) The expression "landlord" also includes in relation to any dwelling-house any person, other than the tenant, who is or would but for this Act be entitled to possession of the dwelling-house, and the expressions "tenant and tenancy" include sub-tenant and subtenancy, and the expression "let" includes sub-let; and the expression "tenant" includes the widow of a tenant dying intestate who was residing with him at the time of his death, or, where a tenant dying intestate leaves no widow or is a woman, such member of the tenant's family so residing as aforesaid as may be decided in default of agreement by the county court;
  8. (h) The expression "mortgage" includes a land charge under the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897;
  9. (i) The expressions "statutory undertaking" and "statutory duties or powers" include any undertaking, duties or powers, established, imposed or exercised under any order having the force of an Act of Parliament.

(2) This Act shall apply to a house or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling, where either the annual amount of the standard rent or the rateable value does not exceed—

  1. (a) in the metropolitan police district, including therein the City of London. One hundred and five pounds;
  2. (b) in Scotland, ninety pounds; and
  3. (c) elsewhere, seventy-eight pound;
and every such house or part of a house shall be deemed to be a dwelling-house to which this Act applies:

Provided that—

  1. (i) this Act shall not, save as otherwise expressly provided, apply to a dwelling-house bona fide let at a rent which includes payments in respect of board, attendance, or use of furniture; and
  2. (ii) 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 or for business, trade, or professional purposes; and
  3. (iii) for the purposes of this Act any land or premises let together with a house shall, if the rateable value of the land or premises let separately would be less than one eighth of the rateable value of the house, be treated as part of the house, but subject to this provision this Act shall not apply to a house let together with land other than the site of the house.

(3) Where, for the purpose of determining the standard rent or mateable value of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies, it is necessary to apportion the rent at the date in relation to which the standard rent is to be fixed, or the rateable value of the property in which the dwelling, house is comprised, the county court may, on application by either party, make such apportionment as seems just, and the decision of the court as to the amount to be apportioned to the dwelling-house shall be final and conclusive.

(4) Subject to the provisions of this Act, this Act shall apply to every mortgage where the mortgaged property consists of or comprises one or more dwelling-houses to which this Act applies, or any interest therein, except that it shall not apply—

  1. (a) to any mortgage comprising one or more dwelling-houses to which this Act applies and other land if the rateable value of such dwelling-houses is less than one-tenth of the rateable value of the whole of the land comprised in the mortgage; or
  2. (b) to an equitable charge by deposit of title deeds or otherwise.

(5) When a mortgage comprises one or more dwelling-houses to which this Act applies and other land, and the rateable value of such dwelling-houses is more than one-tenth of the rateable value of the whole of the land comprised in the mortgage, the mortgagee may apportion the principal money secured by the mortgage between such dwelling-houses and such other land by giving one calendar month's notice in writing to the mortgagor, such notice to state the particulars of such apportionment, and at the expiration of the said calendar month's notice this Act shall not apply to the mortgage so far as it relates to such other land, and for all purposes, including the mortgagor's right of redemption, the said mortgage shall operate as if it were a separate mortgage for the respective portions of the said principal money secured by the said dwelling-houses and such other land, respectively, to which such portions were apportioned: Provided that the mortgagor shall before the expiration of the said calendar month's notice be entitled to dispute the amounts so apportioned as aforesaid, and in default of agreement the matter shall be determined by a single arbitrator appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institution.

(6) Where this Act has become applicable to any dwelling-house or any mortgage thereon it shall continue to apply thereto whether or not the dwelling-house continues to be one to which this Act applies.

(7) Where the rent payable in respect of any tenancy of any dwelling-house is less than two-thirds of the rateable value thereof, this Act shall not apply to that rent or tenancy nor to any mortgage by the landlord from whom the tenancy is held of his interest in the dwelling-house, and this Act shall apply in respect of such dwelling-house as if no such tenancy existed or ever had existed.

(8) Any rooms in a dwelling-house subject to a separate letting wholly or partly as a dwelling shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as a part of a dwelling-house let as a separate dwelling.

(9) This Act shall not apply to a dwelling-house erected after or in course of erection on the second day of April nineteen hundred and nineteen, or to any dwelling-house which has been since that date or was at that date being bona fide reconstructed by way of conversion into two or more separate and self-contained flats or tenements; but for the purpose of any enactment relating to rating, the gross estimated rental or gross value of any such house to which this Act would have applied if it had been erected or so reconstructed before the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, and let at that date, shall not exceed—

  1. (a) if the house forms part of a housing scheme to which section seven of the Housing,. Town Planning, etc. Act, 1919, applies, the rent (exclusive of rates) charged by the local authority in respect of that house; and
  2. (b) in any other case the rent (exclusive of rates) which would have been charged by the local authority in respect of a similar house forming part of such a scheme as aforesaid.

(10) Where possession has been taken of any dwelling-houses by a Government department during the war, under the Defence of the Realm regulations, for the purpose of housing workmen. this Act shall apply to such houses as if the workmen in occupation thereof at the passing of this Act were in occupation as tenants of the landlords of such houses.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My first Amendments to this clause on the Paper are unnecessary, and I do not propose to move them. I should like, however, to move the Amendment at line 14, which is to insert at the end of subsection (4) the following new paragraph— (c) to any mortgage comprising one or more dwelling-houses to which any enactment repealed by this Act applies which was executed after the passing of such enactment, nor to any mortgage comprising one or more dwelling-houses to which this Act applies, but the enactments repealed by this Act do not apply which is executed after the passing of this Act. The object of this Amendment is to take out of the protection of the Act mortgages executed after the presage of the several Acts dealing with the particular property with which they are concerned. It may be already covered by the Bill, but it seems to me clear that if a man borrows money with his eyes open, knowing that these Acts are in force, he ought not to be pro- tected but ought to pay whatever interest he engages to pay.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 14, at end, insert the said new paragraph.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

The Amendment, as drafted deals with two points. The latter part of the Amendment would take out mortgages executed after the passing of this Act. If the noble Marquess would limit his Amendment to that I would accept it, but I am afraid I could not accept the first part, as it would be contrary to the provisions of previous Acts.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If the noble Viscount will intimate what he is willing to accept, I will agree.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I will accept an Amendment in the following words:"— (c) Any mortgage which is executed after the passing of this Act."

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I withdraw the Amendment as moved, and will move it in the form suggested by the noble Viscount.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved—

Page 14, line 14, at end insert the following new paragraph: ("(c) to any mortgage which is executed after the passing of this Act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MIDLETONmoved, in subsection (7), to leave out all words after "dwelling-house" where secondly occurring to the end of subsection (7). The noble Earl said: The reason I move to leave out these words is that the first part and the last part of the subsection appear to be contradictory. I may be under a delusion which perhaps the noble and learned Lord will explain, but it seems to me that the two parts do not agree.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 3, leave out from ("dwelling-house") to the end of subsection (7).—(The Earl of Midleton.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

When I read this subsection for the first time I got exactly the same impression as the noble Earl who has just moved the omission of the latter words, and I had to go into it very carefully and discuss it at considerable length before I was able to satisfy myself both as to the meaning and as to the necessity of the words which the noble Earl proposes to omit. The first part of the clause was contained in one of the early Acts. It was found, however, that there were certain cases which were not dealt with. The object of the clause as first passed by Parliament was to take out ground rents, and the words which the noble Earl opposite now proposes to strike out were added to the paragraph as originally drafted in order to deal with certain cases which had arisen. There is nothing new in the clause as now drafted. It is already in the existing Statutes.

As to its meaning, that is a far more difficult matter. Perhaps by giving an illustration I may be able to explain it best to your Lordships. Let us suppose that there was a ground rent at 30s. for a property in Mayfair, and it had been excluded front the operation of the Act. The lease—a long one—comes to an end, and that ground rent might possibly be raised from 30s. to £200. I am giving an extreme figure to illustrate my point. It was felt that it would be better to take ground rents out of the Rents Restriction Acts where they form part of a long-lease and where the rent of the dwelling-house is outside the scope of the Act. But it was found that there were certain dwelling-houses of the rental value of £100, and they would come within the scope of this Act. It was therefore thought that where the dwelling-house would come within the scope of this Act, the Act should apply to the ground rent. If there is a ground rent of 30s.—that is to say, less than two-thirds of the rateable value—it would but for the last words of this subsection be excluded from the operations of the Act. I confess that when I read the subsection I found it very difficult to understand, but I hope I have now made it clear to your Lordships.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The matter is an extremely technical one, but your Lordships may take it from me that the effect of the words is to secure the result which my noble friend has indicated.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13:

Application to business premises.

13.—(1) This Act shall apply to any premises used for business trade or professional purposes as it applies to a dwelling-house, and as though references to "dwelling-house" "house" and "dwelling" included references to any such premises, but this Act in its application to such premises shall have effect subject to the following modifications—

  1. (a) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section five:
    2. 1077
  2. (b) Paragraph (i) Of the same subsection shall not apply;
  3. (c) Sections nine and ten shall not apply.

(2) The application of this Act to such premises as aforesaid shall not extend to a letting or tenancy in any market or fair where the rent or conditions of tenancy are controlled or regulated by or in pursuance of any statute or charter.

VISCOUNT ASTORmoved, in subsection (1), after "purposes," to insert "or for the public service." The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships will notice that I have another Amendment at the bottom of the page containing similar words. Owing to an error this Amendment, which is similar to the one at the bottom of the page, was not included on the Paper. The object is to make it clear that public buildings, such as post offices, would be in the same position as business premises. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 37, after ("purposes") insert ("or for the public service").—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved, in subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph.—

"(a) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section two:— (c) In addition to any such amounts as aforesaid, an amount not exceeding thirty-five per centum of the not, rent.

The noble Marquees said: I must apologise to your Lordships for troubling you so much, but I will be extremely brief upon this matter. The whole case has been argued already upon the other stages of the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that an Amendment something similar to this was on the Paper in Committee, but I did not press it because the Government would not accept it. Thereupon we divided against the clause as a whole, and we were defeated, and of course we accept fully the decision of your Lordships' House. I have brought up the Amendment again on Report stage in a slightly modified form—that is to say, in the direction of meeting the criticism which the spokesman of the Government made on the former occasion. My noble friend Viscount Astor, when I moved the Amendment in Committee, said the amount which landlords of business premises were to be permitted to raise the rent was excessive, or at any rate the words he used were "would appear to be excessive" —rather a different thing. I did not admit that it would be excessive for the reasons I then stated. Certainly 75 per cent. on the net rent, or 50 per cent. on the standard rent looks a big figure.

I have tried to meet the case as well as I can by fixing it at 60 per cent. on the net rent, which is 40 per cent. on the standard rent. In that form I would venture to ask your Lordships' assent.

On a former occasion I quoted a witness for the tenants, who only asked that the rent should not go more than 75 per cent. above the present net rent. I take another witness, and a very important one, because he represented the Council of the Town Tenants' League, which was the organisation which existed to protect these very tenants. He was asked— Do you think it would be any use to you if we recommended that the rents of such properties should not go up more than 60 or 70 per cent.? His answer was— I think it would be a very great help. I admit he did not want it to go so high —it would be hardly human nature if he did—but he said the provision would be a very great help. I have taken the lower of those two figures, 60 per cent., and I have assumed that that 60 per cent. is calculated on the net rent, and not upon the standard rent. As far as the evidence goes it might be on either, but I am interpreting every doubtful point in favour of the tenant, and, as the last reduction, to meet as far as I possibly can the case of the other side, I move it in the form that the rent should be allowed to go up 60 per cent. on the net rent. That is to say, that these tenants who, in a great majority of cases, are able to pass on the extra burden imposed on them to their customers or clients, should not be protected to a greater extent. I feel great confidence that I am asking your Lordships to do nothing but justice, and I hope that the House will assent to the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 2, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Plus Marquess of Salisbury.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

The noble Marquess has made such a very reasonable case that I should like, if I possibly could, to meet him. I still hope that we may find ourselves able to agree on a figure. The increase which the noble Marquess first suggested was 75 per cent. I said then that my right hon. friend felt that he could accept a 50 per cent. increase. The noble Marquess now suggests a 60 per cent. increase. I have discussed this matter at great length and in detail with the Minister of Health, and he has reminded me that this question was very fully discussed in another place. It was not put in hastily or without consideration, and, if the limit now suggested were now incorporated in the Bill, it would be felt in another place that the small shopkeepers were not, in fact, being adequately protected. What we are trying to do is to protect the small shopkeeper, not the big man.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

But you are doing it; you are interfering with the big man too.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

But, in the main, what we are trying to do is to protect the small shopkeeper. If you allow an increase of 60 per cent. to the small men in many cases that will spell eviction That was the feeling, I understand, when it was discussed in another place. I have not had the advantage of the noble Marquess of hearing the evidence. I have only been able to read it. But I am told that there are a large number of small shopkeepers who would not, in fact, be able to pass on to the consumer the additional increase now suggested in the rent. Therefore I regret I am still in the same position as I found myself in the other day, of only being able to accept an increase of 50 per cent. Briefly, the reason is that my right hon. friend feels that in another place it would be thought that the small shopkeeper, who would be evicted if a 60 per cent. increase were allowed, is the man that we ought mainly to consider—not the big man, who has his main business in Glasgow and a subsidiary office here in London.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not agree with my noble friend that the small shopkeeper will not be able to pass it on. Of course, he will increase the price of the goods he sells. My noble friend seems to think that he is not dealing with what he calls the big man, but he is, because a great many of these big men—people who are doing business at the rate of £5,000 or £10,000 a year—occupy offices which will be protected under the limits of rent which are now in the Bill. It is very hard indeed on the landlord that he should not get an increased rent from those persons It will not be anything like an economic rent, even then, nor will it be equal in true value to the rent he got before the war. And yet these very rich people will be protected by the Bill.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

Unfortunately you are bound to have anomalies and hard cases in legislation of this character, but I am only in a position, if the noble Marquess persists, to move an Amendment to his Amendment—namely, to omit the words "thirty-five" and to insert "twenty-five," which would make the increase 50 percent. instead of 60 per cent., as suggested by the-Amendment on the Paper.

Amendment moved to the Amendment— Leave out ("thirty-five") and insert ("twenty-five").—(Viscount Astor.)

LORD LAMINGTON

It was only this afternoon that a member of the other House impressed upon me that this particular clause had not been fully discussed in another place. He assured me it was taken in Committee upstairs during Ascot Week, when most of the Members were absent, and when the clause came down on Report it was taken in the early hours of the morning when there were not one hundred members in the House.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I think it is only fair to those who considered this particular proposal in the other House to say that full notice was given in Committee that it was going to be considered. it was not raised suddenly. The reason it was not discussed on Report was that there was an overwhelming feeling that the clause as then drafted should remain in the Bill. It was not due to the hour at which Clause 13 was taken that it was not altered or amended or taken out of the Bill. Because of this my right hon. friend the Minister of Health feels that he cannot accept anything more than an increase of 50 per cent.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

There is a conflict of opinion between the Office which my noble friend represents and my noble friend behind me who, after all, had the great advantage of hearing the evidence that was given before his Committee. Your Lordships will remember that on another occasion, and again to-night, my noble friend Lord Salisbury supported his arguments exclusively from the evidence of the witnesses for the tenants—and not for the landlords—who, as he told us on a previous occasion, definitely said that in their opinion the landlord was entitled to some Much advantage as my noble friend proposes to give them, and that the tenants could perfectly well safeguard themselves. What is the reply of my noble friend in charge of the Bill? It is that the House of Commons think that, if this Amendment of my noble friend Lord Salisbury were passed, many small shopkeepers would not be protected. But the noble Viscount admits that at the same time a number of

Resolved in the affirmative, and the Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

VISCOUNT ASTOR moved in subsection (1) (a), after "purposes," to insert "or for the public service." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is similar to the one to which your Lordships have just agreed.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 7, after ("purposes") insert ("or for the service").—(Viscount Astor.)

On Amendment agreed to.

men as rich as the landlords will receive a protection which they do not require.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

And for which they do not ask.

THE EARL OF SUBORNE

Yes. If that is the case, why do not the Government try to differentiate between the two? Why, because you want to safeguard the interests of the small man, give this perfectly gratuitous and unfair present to the rich man?

On Question, whether "thirty-five" shall stand part of the Amendment—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS.
Sutherland, D. Devonport, V. Lamington, L.
Wellington, D. Finlay, V. Lawrence, L.
Goschen, V. Monson, L.
Salisbury, M. [Teller.] Knollys, V. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)
Ancaster, E. Askwith, L. Muir Mackenzie, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.). Avebury, L. Newton, L.
Balfour, L. O'Hagan, L.
Malmesbury, E. Chalmers, L. Oranmore and Browne, L.
Midleton, E. [Teller.] Desart, L. (E. Desart.) Rotherham, L.
Selborne, E. Elphinstone, L. St. Levan, L.
Shaftesbury, E. Emmott, L. Sandys, L.
Stanhope, E. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Strachie, L.
Strafford, E. Glenconner, L. Stuart of Wortley, L.
Waldegrave, E. Greville, L. Sydenham, L.
Yarborough, E. Harris, L. Templemore, L.
Islington, L. Treowen, L.
Burnham, V. Joicey, L. Wyfold, L.
Chilston, V. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
NOT-CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.) Astor, V. Hylton, L.
Peel, V. Lee of Fareham, L.
Bradford, E. Ranksborough, L.
Craven, E. Aunesley, L. (V. Valentia.) Riddell, L.
Lucan, E. Armaghdale, L. Sinha, L.
Onslow, E. Clwyd, L. Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. Cochrane of Chlts, L. Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
Colebrooke, L.
Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.) Dewar, L. Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Dynevor, L. Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ASTORmoved, in subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph—

"(b) The following paragraph shall be added after paragraph (g) of the same subsection: (h) The premises are bona fide required for the purpose of scheme of reconstruction or improvement which appears to the Court to be desirable in the public interest.

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is moved in order to carry out an undertaking which I gave in Committee to meet an Amendment which was on the Paper and which I accepted in principle. It was moved by Lord Dynevor and amended by Lord Selborne. The present Amendment carries out the pledge I then gave.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 10, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Astor.)

LORD DYNEVOR

I desire to thank the noble Viscount for his Amendment, which fully meets the case. I think it is, in fact, a very generous one, because it is a little wider than mine. Might I suggest that he should put the word "or" before his new paragraph? I think I am right in suggesting that, because I gather it relates to Clause 5, where each paragraph from (a) to (f) has the word "or" at the end, and if that word were not there it would be difficult to follow the meaning of the clause.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I understand that that will be done automatically if it is found necessary.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Allow me also to express my appreciation of the way in which my noble friend has met us.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DYNEVORmoved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "or to a letting or tenancy or mortgage created or entered into before the sixteenth of June, nineteen hundred and twenty." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to lessen the difficulties that will arise now that the Bill has been extended to business premises. Under Clause 1 the restriction of rent and mortgage interest commenced on March 25 last, but that was intended to apply to dwelling-houses. The Bill as introduced did not allude to business premises, and it was only on June 15 last that a new clause was proposed in Committee in another place bringing business premises under the Bill. This new clause was opposed by Dr. Addison, the Minister of Health, and the Government, but the Government were defeated and the clause was inserted. It was on June 15 that the public first became aware that business premises were to be brought under the Bill.

As dwelling-houses had already been under restrictions, I do not propose to alter the date from March 25 so far as they are concerned, but I think we want a new date as regards business premises. New leases, new lettings, new mortgages, have been quite lately entered into, certainly up to June 15, and nobody had any idea until then that he was doing anything which, in the future, might be considered illegal. The other day a case came to my notice of a company in Scotland which had a large row of vacant shops to let at the beginning of the year. They invited tenders for these. The old rent was £50 per annum. On May 28 last—to take one case as an example—a lease was signed letting one of these shops at a very enhanced rate which was much higher than that which this Bill would allow. It was a perfectly legal and bona, fide transaction. Neither the lessor nor the lessee had any idea that the Government were going to introduce any retrospective legislation, and I do not think Parliament should break contracts and legislate retrospectively as regards these business premises. I think it would be perfectly fair to all concerned if the date June 16, as proposed in my Amendment, were inserted in the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line, 16, insert the said words.—(Lord Dyneror.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, I am afraid the words on the Paper would, in fact, negative Clause 13. The noble Lord proposes, at the end of the clause, to say that "the application of this Act to such premises as aforesaid"—those mentioned in the Clause—shall not extend "to a letting or tenancy or mortgage created or entered into before the sixteenth of June." But Clause 13 does, in fact, apply the Bill to tenancies entered into before that date. That is the whole object of Clause 13. I am afraid the noble Lord has not really seen the effect of his Amendment. Business premises of a particular value—we have decided what the value shall be—are protected by Clause 13. The noble Lord now says that they shall not be protected if they were let before June 16. That would negative the object of Clause 13.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I think that perhaps my noble friend's Amendment will require a little modification. I did not notice that before. His point, and the point which requires to be met, is this. The policy of this Bill, like that of other Bills, has been to ante-date to some extent the effect of the Bill in breaking contracts which have been entered into. That has been done in every Bill. This Bill is ante-dated with regard to contracts which are to be broken after March 25. That is fair enough with regard to ordinary dwellings, because it was known that they were in peril on March 25, since the Committee on which I had the honour to serve was considering their case. It was known very well that they might be interfered with. Therefore, if people entered into bargains then with regard to dwelling-houses they did it at their own peril.

In the case of business premises, however, interference with them was not heard of at that stage, and therefore people might have entered into agreements with no object whatever of evading legislation which was to come afterwards. They might have entered into perfectly legitimate contracts, and my noble friend says that if you bring in business premises for the first time you ought not to ante-date the breaking of the contracts as far back as March 25. You ought to ante-date it to the period—namely, June 16—when the matter was first dealt with in the House of Commons. That appears to be fair. Business premises were not in the Bill as was introduced, and nobody had any reason to think they would be affected. Therefore they went on making their contracts with no object of evading the Statute at all. In the case of ordinary dwellings it ought to be done because they did so with the view of evading the effect of legislation. The argument is quite clear although Lord Astor says the drafting is not right. Perhaps it is not, but it does not modify the effect of the noble Lord's argument which was quite conclusive.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I am advised that it does in fact negative——

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Yes, I think the drafting will not do as it stands.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It might be done by an Amendment at the end of line 12 in subsection (1); but we had better consider it on Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection: (3) "This section shall continue in force until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.

The noble Marquess said: The Government have appointed a Select Committee to deal with the whole subject of business premises. That was one of the reasons why we wanted to strike them out. It is absurd that the provisions should continue when the Select Committee has reported. We are in agreement with the Government that we ought to limit the effect of this clause in point of time very closely. The only thing to decide is the period within which the Select Committee will report and the Government will legislate. if the Government legislates without a moment's delay after the Report has been received it would be much better.

Amendment moved— Page 16, after line 16, insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I must press the point I raised tentatively the other day, that if the noble Marquess desires to put in a date it should be June 24. The date he originally had on the Paper was January, and he has now extended it to April. I suggest it should be June 24, quarter day. No one knows better than he the complicated nature of this sort of legistation. The Select Committee may not report until the autumn, and I suggest June 24 would be much the better date.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI recognise that the Select Committee may have a little more time than we have to discuss the matter, and I accept the suggestion made by the noble Viscount.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 16, after line 16, insert the following new subsection: ("(3) This section shall continue in force until the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15: (3) Whore the interest of a tenant retaining possession as aforesaid is determined, either as the result of an order or judgment for possession or ejectment or for any other reason, any subtenant to whom the premises or any part thereof. have been lawfully sublet shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms as ho would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued.

VISCOUNT ASTORmoved, in subsection (3), to leave out the words "retaining possession as aforesaid," and to insert "of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies." The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Clause 15, page 17, line 33, leave out ("retaining, possession as aforesaid") and insert ("of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies.")—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16:

Minor amendments of law.

16.—(1) Section three of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, shall, except so far as it relates to the metropolis, have effect as though for the limits of value specified in that section there were substituted limits twenty-five per cent. in excess of the limits so specified, and that section and section four of the same Act shall have effect accordingly.

(2) It shall be deemed to be a condition of the tenancy of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies that the tenant shall afford to the landlord access thereto and all reasonable facilities for executing therein any repairs which the land lord is entitled to execute.

(3) Where the landlord of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies has served a notice to quit on a tenant, the acceptance of rent by the landlord for a period not exceeding three months from the expiration of the notice to quit shall not be deemed to prejudice any right to possession of such premises, and if any order for possession is made any payment of rent so accepted shall be treated as mesne profits.

THE EARL OF MIDLETONmoved to leave out subsection (1): The noble Earl said: I want to make another appeal to the Government with reference to our old enemy the compound householder. Nobody has a good word to say for him. His existence is an anachronism, and it is an anomaly by which a great majority of those on whose behalf the agreement was made in days past are exempt from the payment of rates; they are paid by the landlord. The whole object of the existence of the compound householder is merely to enable the rate collector to have a somewhat easier task. The fact remains that it is impossible for the owner of the house to get rid of this liability, and the Government who know that it is an inexcusable arrangement, are proposing by this clause to extend it for the purposes of this Bill by 25 per cent. I appeal to the Government not to persist with this subsection but to allow the matter to stand as it does at present. No doubt in a subsequent Bill the whole question of the compound householder will be taken up and dealt with. Meantime, in deference to a large body of public opinion on this subject, I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 40, to line 4 on page 18, leave out subsection (1).—(The Earl of Midleton.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

Your Lordships considered this point in Committee and decided, I think quite rightly, to follow the recommendation of the Committee presided over by the noble Marquess and not attempt to deal partially with the compound householder. I suggest we should not discuss the subject now. It has been discussed and your Lordships have decided not to omit this subsection. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed because this is really not the place or the time to deal with what has been described as an anomaly and an anachronism. I do not differ from the mover of the Amendment that it is a question which ought to be dealt with; but this is not the time to do so, and I think we ought to accept the recommendations of the Committee.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

The argument of the noble Viscount is entirely in favour of the Amendment. He says, "Why touch this?" Surely if he follows his own argument the Government are only too pleased and should accept the Amendment. He says that they do not want to tinker with this subject, but that is exactly what the Government are doing. I think the whole of the argument of the noble Viscount is in favour of the Amendment, and I hope the noble Earl will press it to a Division.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Your Lordships are aware that the Committee took a different view from that of my noble friend. I quite agree with him in his objection to the compound householder because the ratepayer does not feel the effect of any rise in rates, but having regard to the special circumstances—this is emergency legislation which is intended to bring things back to an economic level—we ought to mitigate, as far as we can, the burden which is thrown upon the tenant. One of the difficulties we have to consider is the very heavy burden of rates. It is not merely that rents are going up but rates are going up as well, and we want to reduce., the burden of rates thrown on the tenant. I agree that the principle of the compound householder has serious objections, but I think that this particular provision should be left in the Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I hope the noble Earl will be inclined to be content with the full discussion that took place on the Committee stage and with the division which pronounced, not indeed on the merits of the compound householder, but on the much more general issue to which the noble Marquess has referred. My noble friend had the enjoyment of a Division then, and had a very full debate, and I hope he will not think it necessary to persist in his Amendment now.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

I do not wish to trouble your Lordships any further in the matter, but I confess I think it is a very vicious principle.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17:

Rules as procedure.

17.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may make such rules and give such directions as he thinks fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act, and may by those rules or directions provide for any proceedings for the purposes of this Act being conducted so far as desirable in private and for the remission of any fees.

(2) A county court shall have jurisdiction to deal with any claim or other proceedings arising out of this Act or any of the provisions thereof, notwithstanding that by reason of the amount of claim or otherwise the case would not but for this provision be within the jurisdiction of a county court, and if a person takes proceedings under this Act in the High Court which he could have taken in the county court he shall not be entifled to recover any costs.

LORD RIDDELLmoved, in subsection (1), to omit "any proceedings for the purposes of this Act being conducted as far as desirable in private and for." The noble Lord said: This clause as drawn proposes to give the Lord Chancellor power to make rules for the purpose of giving effect to the Bill, and he may by those rules provide for any proceedings for the purposes of this Bill being conducted in private. There is a very strong feeling among newspapers that this is an undesirable provision, and that there is no justification for it. The proceedings under this Bill are to be conducted in the ordinary Courts, and they do not seem to differ in principle from the ordinary litigation between landlord and tenant. There is no special reason for secrecy; on the other hand there are many reasons why the proceedings should be conducted in public. The Lord Chancellor the other day, when speaking on this particular clause, told your Lordships that the County Court Judges complained that they were imposed upon by landlords, and he said he was going to devise some method to give the tenants relief. It is obvious that secrecy lends itself to imposition of that kind. Nothing can be worse than that proceedings of this nature should be carried on in the dungeons of the County Courts.

The provisions of this Bill are extremely complicated. It is difficult even for a lawyer to understand them, and the general public will find great difficulty in doing so. The publication of proceedings under the Act will be valuable for educational purposes. These specific instances which come before the Courts. if studied, will give instruction to the, public regarding the provisions of the Statute which could not be secured in any other way. Then again it is most essential that Parliament should have an opportunity of watching the working of the Act. The legislation is novel, and unless the cases which come before the Courts are published in the Press it will be a matter of impossibility for members of this House and of the House of Commons to form a judgment upon the working of the Act.

There seems to be a strange obsession in the minds of the draftsmen with regard to secrecy. A considerable number of the Bills which come before Parliament contain clauses which provide that the proceedings shall be in camera or held in open Court at the discretion of some high person. That is obviously undesirable in the interest, and Judges have said time after time that it is of the essence of justice that the proceedings of the Courts should be made public. I venture to submit to your Lordships that there is nothing whatever in the proceedings under this Act which renders it necessary that they should be conducted in private. If a man applies for an ejectment order, if he properly applies there is no reason why he should be ashamed, or why a tenant should be ashamed to apply for relief. It may be said that it is undesirable that people should make public what rents they are paying. If a man wants to take advantage of an Act of Parliament he must be prepared to submit to the inconvenience. There is a strong feeling on the part of the Press that the ordinary rules should obtain in this case, and that proceedings under this Statute should be public, so that they may be reported. A resolution to that effect has been passed by the whole of the newspapers in the country. I beg to move my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 19, leave out from ("for") to ("the") in fine 21.—(Lord Riddell.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord who moved has indicated his reasons, and, whatever view your Lordships may take, they are in very small compass and very intelligible. I do not hold strong views one way or the other, but the matter raised is one which deserves a moment's attention. We live in days in which we are perhaps too apt to forget that all our arrangements are not to be made in relation to the Press—not quite all—and its convenience and desires. I agree that in most matters we are very conscious of our due subordination and the subordination of all our institutions and personalities to its great, omnipotent presence; at the same time we must consider for a moment what are the principles which guide us in such a matter. I conceive them to be perfectly clear. It is whether or not on the whole the balance of public convenience—not the balance of Press convenience—is served by the proposal contained in the Bill.

With regard to the Amendment moved by my noble friend, let me say at once that your Lordships have imposed upon me and my predecessors the obligation of making so many Rules that I certainly should not lightly seek for any further obligations of that kind. The considerations involved are these. In the first place there is the admitted point made by the noble Lord, that prima facie you ought to start with a strong bias in favour of the publicity of all proceedings; but experience has shown that there are occasions on which this general rule must, in the interests of that paramount consideration of public convenience to which I have referred, be itself subordinated. Such, for instance, is the case of certain proceedings in the Divorce Court. The cases are different but the broad underlying principles are identical. The provision under discussion in this clause was borrowed from the Courts Emergency Act of 1915, and has since that date been repeated in other measures which have taken its place or supplemented it, and it was inserted in those Bills because it was thought that it was not on the whole fair to oblige absolutely, and in all cases, those who sought relief to come forward and disclose the whole of their circumstances in public. The noble Lord says: "Yes, but if a person seeks relief under an Act of Parliament he ought to be prepared to give the newspapers the advantage of it."

LORD RIDDELL

I should like to say that I made no reference to the newspapers having the benefit of the publicity. My point was the public.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Really, my Lords, we are not quite simple in these matters. When we are told it is the object of these newspapers, whose popularity delights us every day, whose circulation we are informed daily grows on a gigantic scale, to benefit those who are fortunate enough to read them, we are delighted with their generosity, but we warm ourselves with the reflection that the benefit is, after all, mutual. I take as an illustration the case put forward by the noble Marquess. That was the case where a man, having regard to his means as they exist at this moment or as they existed when war broke out, sought relief. We were able to give the noble Marquess the assurances he desired that the clause as it existed gave the necessary power. Are we so sure that any public interest is necessarily served by such a man, whose credit at his bank might perhaps depend upon his circumstances, having to reveal those circumstances in public? He may have had a hard crisis to pass through in the four years of the war; and are we going to lay it down that I, in my discretion and in my experience, which is considerable, should not formulate a rule for consideration by the County Court enabling that Court to decide whether or not this was a case of an ordinary kind?

VISCOUNT BURNHAM

The noble and learned Lord has displayed great skill in dialectic, and has rather taken your Lordships' attention away from the real issue that is now before the House. He has tried to persuade your Lordships that it is a question of the interests of the Press as against the interests of the public. I am the first to say that as a special interest the newspaper Press as no right whatever to make any special claim for legislative favour. It is only so far as the newspaper Press is serving the public interest that it ought to be heard here at all. The question is—and I do not think the noble and learned Lord answered it—why, for the first time in legislation, not for the duration of the war but devised for a special need, should the ordinary rule of publicity be done away with?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Will the noble Viscount let me try to make clear my view? It is this. I say it is war legislation, produced by the same conditions as led to the legislation which was the model of this particular Bill.

VISCOUNT BURNHAM

Your Lordships are aware that there is hardly a Department of State that is not trying on this plea to embody in Statutes the powers that they have been able to exercise under Regulations by virtue of the Defence of the Realm Act. That is the excuse by which the Departments of State try to extend what is, in fact, an arbitrary power in respect to the liberty of the subject or the liberty of the Press, as the case, may be. But the point is, Why should an exception be made to the ordinary rule of publicity for our judicial proceedings in this special case? Because application is made for relief to the Court in this case, why should the circumstances, which may be hard in special instances, be such as to warrant a withdrawal of the general rule which obtains so far as I know—and I speak in these matters as a layman—in every class of case except where there are moral considerations? That applies, of course, to incest especially. In such cases Parliament has given this power of excluding the Press and preventing publication. But there is no such case here, and I warn your Lordships against allowing this precedent to be established. This excuse is given by Department after Department for its own convenience.

No one suggests that the Lord Chancellor is going to make a rule to operate unfairly, but why should he have the power to make it at all? Why, if this is to be laid down under the Restriction of Rent Act, should it not apply to every Statute which establishes procedure for the benefit of any special class of persons in this Realm? No doubt there will be hard cases. It is undesirable that anybody should have to disclose their private feelings and their special circumstances in a Court of Law. There is nothing I should have liked less in days gone by than to be cross-examined by the Lord Chancellor as to my private affairs. I do not care to meet him in debate here, and I certainly should not have cared to stand in the witness box and be subjected to the play of his wit and the operation of his strong intellect. Nobody wants to disclose in a Court of Law their private circumstances. But why in this special case should you give this immunity because it is a Restriction of Rent Act—an Act which is to be continued after peace has been signed with our principal enemies, and which will have to be continued for an unlimited time? For many years it will not be possible to allow the ordinary law to operate in the case of landlord and tenant. It would almost amount to a social revolution to allow suddenly all restrictions on rent to vanish. Therefore if you admit this now you will have to continue it, and you will establish an evil precedent, against which every jurist has protested, of having secrecy in hard cases, not as against the Press—what does the Press matter!—but as against the public, whom the Press represents in this respect.

On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.) Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.) Faringdon, L.
Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Hylton, L.
Salisbury, M. Astor, V. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Anoaster, E. Chilston, V. Knaresborough, L.
Bradford, E. Finlay, V. Lamington, L.
Craven, E. Goschen, V. Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Milner, V. Ranksborough, L.
Peel, V. St. Levan, L.
Lucan, E. Sinha, L.
Malmesbury, E. Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Mount Edgecumbe, E. Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.) Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Onslow, E. Colebrooke, L. Stuart of Wortley, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. Desart, L. (E. Desart.) Sydenham, L.
Selborne, E. Dewar, L. Templemore, L.
Stanhope, E. Dynevor, L. Treowen, L.
Strafford, E. Elphinstone, L. Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
NOT-CONTENTS.
Wellington, D. Askwith, L. Lawrence, L.
Avebury, L. Muir Mackenzie, L.
Midleton, E. Balfour, L. O' Hagan, L.
Emmott, L. Oranmore and Browne, L.
Burnham, V. [Teller.] Fairfax of Cameron, L. Riddell, L. [Teller.]
Churchill, V. Glenconner, L. Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
Devonport, V. Harris, L.
Knollys, V. Joicey, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 18:

Application to Scotland and Ireland.

18.—(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:—

  1. (a) "Mortgage" and "incumbrance" means a heritable security including a security constituted by absolute disposition qualified by back bond or letter; "mortgagor" and "mortgagee" mean respectively the debtor and the creditor in a heritable security; "covenant" means obligation; "mortgaged property" means the heritable subject or subjects included in a heritable security; "rateable value" means yearly value according to the valuation roll; "rateable value on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen" means yearly value according to the valuation roll for the year ending fifteenth day of May nineteen hundred and fifteen; "assessed" means entered in the valuation roll; "land" means lands and heritages; "rates" means assessments as defined in the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911; "Lord Chancellor" and "High Court" mean the Court of Session; "rules" means act of sederunt; "county court" means the sheriff court; "sanitary authority" means the local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; "mesne profits" means profits; the Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries; the twenty-eighth day of May shall be substituted for the twenty-fourth day of June; the reference to the county agricultural committee shall be construed as a reference to the body of persons constituted with respect to any area by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland under subsection (2) of section eleven of the Corn Production Act, 1917; references to levying distress shall be construed as references to doing diligence; the reference to the President of the Surveyors' Institution shall be construed as a reference to the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Surveyor's Institution; a reference to section five of the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919, shall be substituted for a reference to section seven of the Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act, 1919; and a 1096 reference to section one of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, shall be substituted for a reference to section three of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869:
  2. (b) Nothing in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the section of this Act relating to permitted increases in rent shall permit any increase in rent in respect of any increase after the year ending Whitsunday nineteen hundred and twenty in the amount of the rates payable by the landlord other than rates for which he is responsible under the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911:
  3. (c) Paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of the section of this Act relating to application and interpretation shall not apply:
  4. (d) Where any dwelling - house, to which the Acts repealed by this Act applied, is subject to a right of tenancy arising from a yearly contract or from tacit relocation, and ending at Whit Sunday, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, the year ending at the said term of Whit Sunday shall be deemed to be a period during which, but for this Act, the landlord would be entitled to obtain possession of such dwelling-house.

(2) This Act shall apply to Ireland subject to the following modifications:—

  1. (a) A reference to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland shall be substituted for the reference to the Lord Chancellor:
  2. (b) A reference to section fifteen of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851, shall be substituted for the reference to section one of the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838; and a reference to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland shall be substituted for the reference to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and references to the County Agricultural Committee shall not apply:
  3. (c) The expression "mortgage" includes a charge by registered disposition under the Local Reigstration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891:
  4. (d) The expression "rateable valve" means the annual rateable value under the Irish Valuation Acts: Provided that where part of a house let as a separate dwelling is not separately valued under those Acts, the Commissioner of Valuation and Boundary Surveyor may on the application of the land 1097 lord or tenant make such apportionment of the rateable value of the whole house as seems just, and his decision as to the amount to be apportioned to the part of the house shall be final and conclusive, and that amount shall be taken to be the rateable value of the part of the house for the purposes of this Act but not further or otherwise:
  5. (e) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (9) of section twelve of this Act:
  6. (f) The medical officer of health of a dispensary district shall be substituted for the sanitary authority in section two of this Act and in the First Schedule thereto, and the issue of certificates and the payment of fees in connection with applications by tenants under the said section shall be subject to regulations to be made by the Local Government Board for Ireland:
  7. (g) This Act shall not apply to any dwelling-house provided by a local authority under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1919, or under any of those Acts.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved in subsection (1)(b), to substitute "1921" for "1920." The noble Lord said: The clause in the Bill which we have now reached is, as your Lordships will see, one which applies the Act, as it will be, to Scotland, and the point that I want to put before the House is one which very seriously affects the landlord interests in Scotland, especially in respect to small houses,and puts the landlords north of the Tweed at a very serious disadvantage compared with those in the south. Speaking generally, there are no owners' rates in England, but in the great majority of cases the rates in Scotland are divided equally between owners and occupiers, and therefore to give the owner in Scotland the same financial position as the Act otherwise gives to the owner in England you have to make provision for rates, owing to the different method of payment. It is absolutely essential to do this simple act of justice to give to the owner in Scotland over and above the rental increase, which is agreed upon for England, the owners' rates, in addition to what rates were Paid in the year 1914–15.

This principle was admitted to be equitable in March, 1919, by the Secretary for Scotland, and it was embodied in the Rent Act of that year. It was actually in the Bill as introduced this year in another place, and the essential arguments for its retention were so ably put by the Secretary for Scotland that I think I must quote what he said: On June 15 he said in Committee in another place— If the restricted rent be paid to the landlord in Scotland, and the landlord be precluded from any relief in the matter, his position would be worse obviously than that of the landlord who is separated from him by the Tweed. The justification for the proposal in the Bill of 1919 was ample and complete, and absolutely to undo what Parliament deliberately did in 1919 is a large proposition, and I do not think it would be, equitable or desirable. About a week ago, on the Report stage of the Bill, the Secretary for Scotland said— The argument which prevailed with me in 1919 was this, that if the landlord was precluded by the Act of 1919 from raising the rent, then that rent should not be further reduced in his hands by a rise in the rates. If that rise took place in England it would have fallen upon the occupier. If the restricted rent paid to the landlord in Scotland were reduced by an increase in the rates, that would operate more hardly against him than against the landlord in England.

I cannot put the point better or more concisely. But, a little later in the same debate, in the small hours of the morning, and without, so far as I can tell, giving the faintest shadow of a reason for the change of opinion, an Amendment against what he had been arguing for earlier in the passage of the Bill was accepted. What I want to know is what are the reasons which actuated the Government in making this change in the Bill which they themselves introduced. The reasons for the original form of the Bill were so ably stated that it is not too much to ask for some statement of the reason which caused the change of opinion. So far as I have been able to ascertain from Parliamentary reports absolutely none has been given in public. Those who have interests in Scotland are being dealt with in the same Bill, but are being deliberately put in a worse position than the landlords south of the Tweed. Even if my Amendment is accepted all increases of rates after this year will fall upon the landlord, and I do not suppose there is any way of getting out of it after this Bill is passed. If this Amendment is not passed, you will actually be taking away from the small landlords in Scotland things that were given to them in the Act of last year. I think that a gross piece of injustice.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line:38, leave out "(twenty") and insert ("twenty-one").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

LORD STANMORE

As my noble friend has pointed out, the Bill as originally introduced would have allowed the landlord to increase his rent in respect to all increases in rates payable by him as owner. An Amendment was moved in Committee in the House of Commons to prevent any increase of rent at all on this ground. This Amendment the Secretary for Scotland refused to support, but he undertook to consider a compromise limiting increases of rent to the amount of any increases in such rates which were already effective, that is to say, up to Whitsuntide, 1921. Clause 18, paragraph (b), gives effect to that compromise, which was moved in the House by Major Henderson and accepted by my right hon. friend. In these circumstances the Government are not prepared to consent to any further alteration. My noble friend quoted the speech of the Secretary for Scotland on June 15, but on the same occasion my right hon. friend said— I am quite willing to do what I ventured to suggest in the course of my opening observations I would do—namely, to consider before the Report stage whether; by way of stereotyping these rates and preventing any subsequent rise being laid on the tenant, or by some other means, the situation can be met. Further than that I cannot go at the present moment; but I hope that my right hon. friends who are interested in this matter will accept that assurance, which I undertake in all sincerity to carry out. It was following this that the compromise was effected. Therefore the Bill as it stands adopts a middle course between the two extreme views; and, although it cannot be regarded as a compromise in the sense of a bargain between the opposing interests, it seems inexpedient to disturb it.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The argument against it which I quoted was on the same evening as it was afterwards accepted.

LORD STANMORE

Yes. The effect of any alteration may be to arouse again strong opposition to any increase of rent at all on the ground of such increase of rates. Moreover, if the Bill remains as at present the amount of the permitted increase of rent on this ground is immediately ascertainable. If the Amendment is carried the total increase of rent permissible on this ground will not be ascertainable until the rates for the current year are fixed and announced, and that does not take place until September or October at the earliest. Under the Act of 1915 no increases of rent were allowed on the ground of increases of rates payable by the landlord as owner. The first Act of 1919, however, by Section 9, proposed to allow such increase of rent as from six months after the termination of the war. Such increases are thus, according to existing law, not yet permissible, and the present Bill as it stands therefore gives the landlord some advantage over that offered by the existing law.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORDmoved, in subsection (2)(b), to leave out from "1838" to the end of paragraph (b). The noble Earl said: I have three Amendments to propose relating to the application of the clauses to Ireland. Generally speaking, I may say that these Amendments are consequent upon Amendments put in by your Lordships to the earlier clauses of the Bill. The first Amendment omits words in order to insert a paragraph that is down in my third Amendment. It is probably more convenient that I should briefly outline, therefore, what the third Amendment involves. Your Lordships will remember that in Clause 5 the landlord who desires to recover possession of a dwelling-house to which this Bill applies has to prove, inter alia, the existence of alternative accommodation. In England the County Agricultural Committees, which are in process of formation, will give advice upon the subject, and pending their formation the certificate of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries replaces them. In Ireland no agricultural committees in that sense of the word exists; no bodies corresponding to the English bodies could therefore be entrusted with the work; and it is obvious that the central authority sitting in Dublin cannot possibly be a tribunal to deal with local matters of this character. It is therefore submitted that the best course is to leave this to the Judge of the Court before whom proceedings under these sections have to be taken. He will determine if the house is required for the purposes indicated, and whether proof of alternative accommodation ought to be dispensed with. I will now move the first Amendment.

Amendment moved. Page 20, line 19, leave out from ("1838") to the end of line 23.—(The Earl of Cranford.)

THE EARL OF CRAWFORDmoved, in subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (c), to insert "and any notice of the apportionment of the principal money secured by a mortgage, if and when the notice becomes operative under this Act, and the award of any arbitrator with reference to any such apportionment may be registered under the enactments relative to the registration of deeds or titles as the case requires."

The noble Earl said: This second Amendment deals with the apportionment and the registration of title. In Ireland the registration of title is widely employed and more extensively used than in this country. The object in this case is to fix definitely the proportion of the Mortgage money on the increase of the interest of which there is a restriction under the Bill. The subsection also provides that any dispute as to the figures in the notices can be determined by arbitration. It is necessary in Ireland that notices and awards should likewise be registerable. This empowers the registration in that manner.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 20, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Crawford.)

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I have already outlined to your Lordships my third Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 20, after line 38, insert the following new paragraph: ("(e) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) of section five of this Act: (ii) Where the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required, by the landlord for the occupation of a person engaged on work necessary for the proper working of an agricultural holding; or").—(The Earl of Crawford.)

Clause 19:

Short title, duration, and repeal.

19.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920.

(2) This Act shall continue in force until the twenty-fourth day of June nineteen hundred and twenty-three:

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Salisbury I beg to move the consequential Amendment, in subsection (2), standing in his name.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I consent.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 36, at the beginning insert ("Except as otherwise expressly provided").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I desire to move a consequential Amendment which is not on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 38, after ("Act") insert ("or any part thereof").—(Viscount Astor.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

My Lords, I am sorry to oppose anything put forward by my noble friend who is in charge of this Bill, and who has met us with such unfailing courtesy as well as with a complete knowledge of the subject; but he has made this Motion, the object of which is to enable this Bill to be read a third time to-night, without any explanation of the necessity for it or of the reasons which induce the Government to make this extraordinary demand upon your Lordships. I say "extraordinary," because this is a Bill which occupied many weeks in the House of Commons; we have had it here only a few days, and we dealt with the Committee Stage only 48 hours ago. We are nowhere near the end of the session or even of this part of the session, and I cannot conceive any valid grounds of argument or of public necessity to induce your Lordships to take the extraordinary and in my experience unusual course of, in such circumstances, reading a Bill of this kind a third time immediately after dealing with the Report stage. As your Lordships are aware, it is a common and very advantageous practice in this House to move amendments after the Third Reading and before the Motion "That this Bill do now pass" is put. I do not know whether we shall or shall not want to make any such Motion at that stage if your Lordships decline to suspend the Standing Order; but I submit that it is more consistent with the dignity and reputation of this House not to hurry such a piece of legislation as this in the manner proposed by my noble friend. I would ask your Lordships, though, as I have said, I am sorry to oppose anything my noble friend asks, to refuse a request by the Government which does not seem to be reasonable.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Before the noble Viscount replies, may I supplement what the noble Earl has said? In the course of the Report stage the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said he would consider a Motion which would be brought up on the Third Reading. No notice can be given of that Motion, and I understand it is the almost universal custom that although we make Amendments on the Third Reading Notice must always be given of those Amendments.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lord, I ventured to suggest that we should now take the Third Reading, because I understood that your Lordships were prepared to do so "if," in the words of the noble Earl opposite, Lord Midleton," the outstanding points were settled." We have had a very full discussion of the Bill, and I believe that all the outstanding points are settled so far as this House is concerned. I understand that there is only one small Amendment left.

THE EARL OF SELBOBNE

We do not know.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

So far as I have any knowledge, there is only one Amendment which has to be moved. The points of principle have been decided by your Lordships. That is, so far as we are concerned. It is quite possible that there may be a difference of opinion as between ourselves and another place. The Increase of Rent Act of 1919, which deals with orders for ejectment, lapses on July 1, so that, unless we get the Royal Assent for this Bill by July 1, there will be a hiatus. I understand that applications are daily received by the Courts, and I do not see that the Courts will have any alternative but to grant applications for ejectment if the Act prohibiting such orders has lapsed. I do suggest that it would be very undesirable to have such a hiatus, and it is because of that, and only because of that, that I venture to urge upon your Lordships that we should now take the Third Reading.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, it is of course, very unpleasant to have to oppose the Government in a matter of this kind. My noble friend, who has conducted this discussion with admirable temper right through, is not perhaps, owing to no fault of his own, so familiar with the practice of the House as some of us are. It is the fact that by the ordinary practice of the House of Lords we cannot make Amendments upon Third Reading except with Notice. Therefore, no Amendment, excepting drafting Amendments, call properly be put in on Third Reading unless there is an adjournment from to-day. There is an Amendment of substance, which the Lord Chancellor, after a speech by my noble friend Lord Dynevor, suggested should be moved on Third Reading. That is one, but it is not all. Probably the Government themselves, when they look through the Bill, will find a lot of things to put right, and the Third Reading is the great opportunity for doing it. That can be done then if proper Notice is given. As to the hiatus we are not at all alarmed about the hiatus. Nothing can happen in the few days which may elapse between the lapse of one Act and the enactment of the other. The whole process by which ejectments are enforced takes a long time and, of course, it is possible, if the Government feel nervous, to insert words on the Third Reading which will protect anybody who is any way damaged by the hiatus. I do not think your Lordships need be afraid that there will be any difficulty on that point.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD)

My Lords, I hope that Lord Salisbury is correct about the hiatus, because I am afraid it looks very much as if there were going to be one. Lord Salisbury says that proper Notice must be given. Of course, everyone would desire to give ample Notice, but I think my noble friend Lord Selborne forgot that your Lordships have received Notice that a course of this character would be required, because a week or ten days ago, when general business was discussed, Lord Curzon set out the very difficulty with which we are faced.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I stated at once that we could not accept that view.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Yes, but Lord Curzon said we were going to be faced by the very difficulty, and now we are faced by it, and if ample and proper Notice must be given I suppose the Bill must be put down for Monday or Tuesday next. I submit to your Lordships that that is a very serious hiatus. The existing Act lapses and there will then be probably a week or perhaps ten days—there might perfectly well be such an interval—between the new Act coming into operation and the old Act expiring. And I further submit to your Lordships——

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

There was a hiatus between the Profiteering Acts.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Yes, there was, of 24 hours.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It does not matter a bit.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

One may say lightly that it does not matter. It may matter a great deal. At least, I can conceive that it may, and whether our convenience and the practice of our House demand that the private interests of the parties concerned should be submitted to the inconvenience of the hiatus which will not affect us, is a question which I should press upon your Lordships' consideration. So far as I remember only two points are outstanding now. One is that raised by Lord Dynevor about which the Lord Chancellor is prepared——

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It cannot be put in without Notice. It is contrary to the practice of our House to do so.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

There is no such Standing Order. It is unusual, but it has been done. I admit that it is not common. There is no Standing Order against it, and our record shows that it has been done, and not infrequently done, because quite clearly your Lordships are prepared to do it where the deferring of the Third Reading until due notice on the Paper has been given can readily be waived. There is no dispute about Lord Dynevor's Amendment. The only other one was in the nature of a drafting Amendment which, by common agreement, is inserted without Notice. Therefore, no really important question is at issue between us. On the other hand, there may be very important questions at issue between the two Houses. Several Amendments of very wide scope have been inserted which will, perhaps, prove highly contentious. In those circumstances, I cannot help thinking that the sooner the Bill gets back to the House of Commons the more our mutual convenience will be met and, still more, the danger to the people who are watching the passage of this Bill with great anxiety will be reduced.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

My Lords, I venture to observe to the noble Earl that the House is very thin and that a number of members have gone away without the least idea that this Motion would be pressed at this hour. I confess I think it is a very strong measure indeed.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I hope the noble Earl does not mean that there is any breach of faith? Notice was given last night.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

There is no breach of faith.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, to pursue, for a moment the point about Notice, it would therefore appear that every member who read his Parliamentary Papers this morning had occasion to note that this Motion would be made, and if he left the precincts of the House with that knowledge and did not remain to give a vote upon it, one can hardly suppose that his mind was seriously exercised about the proposal. I rise merely to deal with the point of the Amendment. The noble Marquess says, with perfect truth, that an Amendment stands in my name for the Third Reading stage. But what has happened? The noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, made a proposal. That proposal recommended itself to both sides of the House. Nobody spoke against it, but it was suggested that the form in which it was expressed at that moment was not very happily conceived, and I thereupon suggested a variation. I was prepared to move it there and then, but I suggested that I should reserve it till the Third Reading. Therefore, you have an agreed Amendment of which the form has been already stated to the House upon the Report stage, and that is the only point, apart from two small

Resolved in the affirmative, and Standing Order No. XXXIX suspended accordingly.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Viscount Astor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I have an Amendment to move which I indicated during the Report stage. It is in Clause 13, page 16, line 12, to insert at the end a new paragraph— "References to the sixteenth day of June shall be substituted for references to the twenty-fifth day of March." There is a consequential consequential Amendments which are a matter of form. The noble Earl, Lord Midleton, said most plainly— We should wish to meet the Government in any way we can, and, if the outstanding points are settled, I have no doubt it will be possible to go ahead. There is not one single outstanding point to be considered. A great deal of it is due to the noble Marquess and the help and knowledge he has given, and to the great skill with which the noble Viscount has conducted the Bill. There being no really outstanding point, I think it would be an agreeable compliment if we were to give him his Third Reading.

On Question, whether Standing Order No. XXXIX shall be dispensed with?—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, D. (L. Chancellor.) Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.) Elphinstone, L.
Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Faringdon, L.
Wellington, D. Astor, V. Hylton, L.
Bradford, E. Milner, V. Riddell, L.
Craven, E. Peel, V. Sinha, L.
Lucan, E. Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Malmesbury, E. Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.) Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Onslow, E. Clwyd, L. Treowen, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. Colebrooke, L. Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
Strafford, E. Dewar, L. Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
NOT-CONTENTS.
Salisbury, M. Goschen, V. Harris, L.
Lamington, L. [Teller.]
Anoaster, E. Askwith, L. Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Balfour, L. [Teller.] O'Hagan, L.
Chalmers, L. Oranmore and Browne, L.
Midleton, E. Desart, L. (E. Desart.) Rotherham, L.
Mount Edgoumbe, E. Dynevor, L. St. Levan, L.
Selborne, E. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Sydenham, L.
Stanhope, E, Glenconner, L.
Chilston, V.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Amendment which perhaps I ought to mention on Clause 13. No, that is not so. The Amendment I have moved is the only one.

Amendment moved— Clause 13, page 16, line 12, at end insert ("(d) References to the sixteenth day of June shall be substituted for references to the twenty-fifth day of March").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I hope the noble and learned Lord is quite sure. It is a singular illustration of the inconvenience of the practice now adopted. The last opportunity of discussing this Bill is disappearing, and when we ought to have had proper notice of an Amendment we are deprived of it by the action of the Government. It appears that the Lord Chancellor is not quite sure how many Amendments should be moved.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Marquess is quite incorrect, and I will explain the apparent error. I had put down an Amendment in the hope that it might have cured the mischief of a proposal which the noble Marquess had made, had that proposal been accepted, and I inadvertently took it up as though it was a consequential Amendment. The Amendment I have moved is the only one to be moved. It is perfectly plain, and it carries out the undertaking that I gave.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.