HL Deb 25 April 1933 vol 87 cc597-613

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 2:

Power of Minister to reimburse part of losses sustained under guarantees to building and other societies.

2.—(1) Where a local authority for the purpose of Part III of the Housing Act, 1925, or a county council, submit to the Minister proposals for guaranteeing, in exercise of their powers under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section ninety-two of that Act, the repayment to a society of advances made by the society to any of its members for the purpose of enabling them to build or acquire houses intended to be let to persons of the working classes, if the Minister is satisfied that the guarantee extends only to the principal of, and interest on, the amount by which the sum to be advanced by the society exceeds the sum which would normally be advanced by it without any such guarantee, and that the liability of the local authority or county council under the guarantee cannot be greater than two-thirds of that principal and interest, the Minister, if he approves the proposals, may, with the consent of the Treasury, undertake to reimburse to the local authority or county council not more than one half of any loss sustained by them under the terms of the guarantee:

Provided that any proposals made to the Minister under this section shall—

  1. (a) include such particulars as he may direct as to the number and type of the houses intended to be built or acquired and the approximate size of them measured in superficial feet; and
  2. (b) make provision for securing, except in so far as the Minister may in any particular case dispense with either or both of the requirements of this paragraph, that the number of such houses in relation to the area occupied or intended to be occupied by and in connection with them will not exceed the rate of twelve to the acre and that each of them will be provided with a fixed bath.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved to leave out proviso (b). The noble Marquess said: My Lords, in the first place I owe a very humble apology to your Lordships for not having been in my place when this Amendment was reached in the Committee stage. I can only plead in excuse that I was at that moment engaged upon a very important service, which your Lordships are probably aware of, in connection with the government of India, and although I did come to your Lordships' House I was unfortunately just too late. I hope your Lordships will believe that it was no feeling of want of respect to the House which led me to make that mistake. I am sorry that the result of my failure to be here at that time should be to bring your Lordships together for business at an earlier date than would otherwise have been the case. I cannot quite see, myself, why that was so. It seems to me that the Bill would be just as useful if the Report stage were taken next week, as it is to-day, but it is of course not for me to make any difficulties after what I have failed to do already.

I come to the Amendment which stands in my name. It is to leave out paragraph (b) in subsection (1) of Clause 2 of the Bill. May I remind your Lordships that the object of this Bill is the erection of cheap working-class houses. That is the whole point of the Bill. There have been lots of houses built under previous Housing Acts, of a superior kind, suitable for well-to-do artisans. Hundreds of thousands of such houses have been built since the War, up and down the country, but the houses which have not been built, or at any rate not built in sufficient numbers, are houses for the poorest members of the working classes. Those are the houses which are required. That is quite admitted, and there is nothing controversial about what I am saying. It is with that object that the Government have introduced this Bill—in order to build this cheap class of house.

The method that they have adopted is this. They have said to the building societies: "Will you build these houses? You have got lots of capital; you cannot invest your capital at the present time; will you undertake the building of these houses?" The building societies, of course, are very expert. Nobody in this country understands the method of building houses better than the building societies, and they have been willing to undertake the job, for a consideration of course, but for a relatively small consideration. The consideration is that the Government are binding themselves to guarantee a small part of the expenditure. It is only 10 per cent of the expenditure. The whole object, as I have said, is to build these very cheap houses. I was delighted with this Bill. I thought it admirable, and I thought it quite right to trust the building societies, who well know what their customers want. They are good judges, for it is their business to build houses for their customers, and in the ordinary course of trade they know what houses the very poor working class would wish to have.

But then, when I read Clause 2, I found that notwithstanding this object of building cheap houses, and notwithstanding that they have got the building societies to work for them, the Government were not prepared to give the building societies a free hand. I noticed, further, that the limitation of the free hand of the building societies was not to make the houses cheaper but to make them dearer. That was a most astonishing inconsistency, as I thought, in the policy of the Bill. The object of the Bill was to get cheap houses, and yet the Government have inserted a paragraph of which the object is not to make the houses cheaper but to make them dearer. That provision is contained in paragraph (b) of Clause 2. I cannot think that the Government are well advised in placing this extra pitfall in the way of cheap houses. I recognise, of course, that the Government reserve to themselves the right in any particular case of dispensing with the obligations. As the Bill reached your Lordships' House from another place the Government could dispense with the obligation in respect of the number of houses to the acre, but they could not dispense with the obligation in the matter of baths. As the Bill now stands, after Committee, the Government can dispense with either of the obligations, but so far as the building societies are concerned the obligations are mandatory. They have to come to the Government and say: "Will you let us off in this particular case?"

I suggest that this as it stands, even if we had in this matter complete confidence in the Ministry of Health, is an unworkable provision. How can the Government dispense with the obligation as to baths or the number of houses to the acre in all sorts of tiny cases up and down the country? What opportunity will they have of really ascertaining the facts? The thing is unworkable. If it is to be worked at all it would have to be devolved upon some minor authority, such as the county or district council, and there is no provision for that in the Bill. These matters must go up to Whitehall, and there the question must be put to the Minister: "Will you be good enough to allow this house to be built without a bath?" Could anything be more absurd than that? It is evidently put in at the last moment to placate some opposition, and is not really a welcome provision at all. No, the provision as it stands is a provision which will increase expenditure.

At the same time that the Government are promoting this paragraph (b) they are engaged in a policy of slum clearance, and under the rehousing circular which we have recently read I understand (whether it is in the circular or not I am not quite sure) that there is an aspiration on the part of the Government to let the new houses which are to replace slums at as low a rent as 3s. a week. If paragraph (b) is put into force you will not be able to let at anything like so low a rental as that. The customers for the housing under this clause will be of just the same class as the customers who are to be rehoused from the slums; and yet in one case the Government's object is to produce a rent of 3s. and in the other case their object is to produce a rent much higher than 3s. That is very objectionable on every ground.

There is always a sense of injustice in the working class when they are in two sets of houses, not very far removed from one another, both held under similar conditions, and both new houses, if they are let at two different standards of rent. And it is clear that if you are going to produce houses in the place of slums at 3s. a week, the argument in favour of reducing the cost of these newer houses is enormously increased. It makes what was already a strong argument even stronger. It is evidently for the interest of the people—and, may I say respectfully, for the interest of the Government—that the rent of the houses contemplated in Clause 2 should be reduced to as low a level as possible, having regard to due financial considerations, and having regard to the decent, fit accommodation of the occupants. Therefore there is a strong reason why this mandatory provision should be left out.

I hope your Lordships will understand that I am not saying to the building societies: "You must build more than twelve houses to the acre." I am not saying to the building societies: "You must never put in a bath." But I say you must leave a free hand to them to do what they think best, and, if you are really interested in building houses as cheaply as they can be built, consistently with good housing, then you ought to leave this mandatory paragraph out. I used just now, I hope not indiscreetly, the phrase "if we had complete confidence in the Ministry of Health." It is not because I desire to say one word against my right honourable friend the most distinguished Minister in charge of that Department, or against Government Departments generally, but I will say this, that there is hardly any of these Departments which is really devoted to economy. I have recently been engaged in an effort to analyse the expenditure in my own county. My colleagues there were good enough to entrust me and others with the duty of going through the expenditure, and one of the things we found was that the effort of the central authority was always towards pushing the counties into more expense, and if you wanted really to secure economy you had to convert the Departments at Whitehall in favour of true economy in local government.

Well, now here is a case. Here is a class—I admit very small; please do not think that I want to exalt the importance of this question beyond its merits—here is an example where the Department could have studied economy; but, because they have got this disease of expenditure, they insist on putting in provisions in the direction of extravagance. It is because of that, because of the spirit of want of economy which we see so rife, which is so deplorable and which is heartbreaking, indeed, if we are to have economy at all—it is for these reasons and for the substantial reasons which I submitted on the Second Reading that I hope your Lordships will strike out this paragraph. If building societies think that twelve houses to the acre is proper they will build twelve houses to the acre; if they think twenty houses to the acre is better they will build twenty houses to the acre; and they will build very good houses, very sanitary, very healthy houses in those circumstances. Do not coerce them. Do not force them. Leave them a free hand. Then this Bill, which is already a good Bill, will be still better, and we shall really have done something for the better housing of the poor.

Amendment moved— Page 2 line 33, leave out paragraph (b).—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)


My Lords, any one would hesitate to speak on questions of the housing of the poor in opposition to the noble Marquess. The work that he himself has done is known to many of us, and ought to be known to snore; and every word that he says upon it, one can well believe, is inspired by a sincere desire to do the best that can be done in a very difficult situation. He said, and he said quite truly, that this Bill is designed to provide houses for poor people. I think he might have added, because the public conscience has become so aroused at the disgraceful conditions in which the poor live, that they are satisfied it is impossible to let matters stand as they are. The condition of the housing of the poor has been described in this House again and again, and I do not propose to repeat to your Lordships some of the illustrations and instances that have come under my own special notice, which I have already mentioned, and which must be known to any one of you who has taken the pains to become practically acquainted with this problem. The noble Marquess does not object to that, he naturally would not; he desires that these houses should be provided, and should be liberally provided, for the poor. But he objects to this condition which is imposed upon the provisions, and I cannot help thinking—I may, indeed, be mistaken—that he has to some extent misunderstood what it is that the Bill intends to provide.

It certainly is not within my own experience that building societies build houses. The noble Marquess seemed to think throughout that that was their real purpose and that a building society, with its great knowledge of the district in which it carries on its activities, would have to consider what would be the best class of house for that particular place, and the consequence would be that you would have some directing and controlling intelligence exercised by the building society, with which it would be unwise to interfere. That is certainly what I understood to be the noble Marquess's complaint against this clause. But in truth the building societies, unless they have changed lately, do nothing of the kind. All that a building society does is to advance money to a man who is proposing to build, or to a man who has already bought or intends to buy a house, and provides for its repayment in certain instalments, which enable the man, as we are so often told, to get his house in the end at something not much more than the annual sum he pays for rent. That I understand to be the function of a building society, and it requires no knowledge of the scheme of building, no power of arranging the scheme of building. All that it demands is that there should be an investigation of the quality and character of the man who applies for the advance, and certainly some knowledge of the house that he intends to set up.

It appears to me that the clause contemplates that very form of activity, and not the form of activity which the noble Marquess suggests; because Clause 2 provides for the case of a county council which submits proposals for guaranteeing, in the exercise of its powers under the Act of 1925, the repayment to a society of advances made by the society to any of its members for the purpose of enabling them to build or acquire houses intended to be let to persons of the working classes… From where does the noble Marquess get his idea that the building society is a kind of controlling building power that plots out and schemes and manages the whole building area in the district where it lives? Really I can find nothing about it in the Bill, and, unless same amazing changes have happened to building societies since I was familiar with them, nothing whatever of that kind was ever contemplated by what is known as the building society. I very much doubt whether it is within its powers. Therefore the attitude of the noble Marquess is subject to the criticism I make upon it. I am quite prepared—as I trust I am always prepared—to be corrected, and to be told I have made a mistake, but for the moment I am quite unable to see where my mistake lies. With whom are you interfering? What you are doing is providing that there should be these facilities granted only where a particular class of house is to be built, subject, of course, to the overriding power of the Minister.

As to the provision that the houses should not exceed twelve to the acre I am not qualified to speak, and the noble Marquess most assuredly is, but, with regard to the provision of a bath, it appears to me to be a matter of the highest possible consequence. I assert, quite confidently, that the provision of baths in the homes of poor people engaged in arduous work is more important than it is for ourselves, for the man who comes from the blast furnace or from the mine or from doing work with the dustcart, covered and smothered with filth of every kind, is the very man who should have a bath. I must say I regard with grave apprehension this idea that baths are not fit things for poor people. I say exactly the opposite. I say the poorer the person the more important it is that he should have a bath, because it is certainly more likely that he will live in the same old stale clothes and engage in dirty occupations, and in the interest of health and common human decency he ought to be provided with the means of removing the dirt. It may be that you cannot do it universally, but, where you can do it, in my humble judgment it is essential it should be done. I know we are told that poor people do not care about baths. I I have always received that argument with a considerable amount of distrust. In part it is no doubt true that we have permitted people to live under conditions in which the sense of uncleanness does not offend them as it should, but that is no earthly reason why we should permit them to continue in such conditions, and it seems to be of the highest importance that we should at the earliest possible moment give them an opportunity which, believe me, they will sooner or later avail themselves of, to lead a clean and decent life, which they cannot do if they have not proper bathing facilities in their own house.

Finally, of course, the noble Marquess made an appeal for economy which I have no doubt, had he known I was going to speak, he would have thought would strike a very responsive chord in my heart. I believe strict, rigid economy is the vital necessity of this nation at this hour, but it is not the least use carrying economy to such an extent that you keep the poorer people of this country in a state, I will not say of degradation, but of dirt, uncleanness, and overcrowding. That is the last thing upon which economy should be exercised. You must do what you can to maintain the self-respect and character of the people who form the very poorest stratum of society, and economise where you can otherwise; but to economise and leave these people in the state in which many of them are living now is not true economy. In my opinion it is false economy and worse than extravagance. I hope this Amendment will not be accepted.


My Lords, I rise for a very brief moment in order to express the view of the Opposition with regard to the Amendment tabled by the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess stated very truly and very accurately that the great need of the present time is for houses suitable for the poorest members of the community, and that these houses must be cheap enough for the working class to be able to afford to live in them. We would all associate ourselves with these expressions of opinion by the noble Marquess, and likewise with his very earnest desire, which every one in this House and many people outside recognise, to ameliorate the housing conditions and to improve the lot of the poorest members of the working class. At the same time it would appear that the noble Marquess considers that the provisions to which he is referring would affect the houses built by local authorities under the Greenwood Act of 1930, under which the Government is giving the subsidy and is, to the greatest satisfaction of all of us, intending to make a very large onslaught on the worst of the slums, but that is not the case. These provisions can and do only affect houses financed by building societies under Clause 2 of this measure.

In the second place we are not satisfied—we in common with many others—that the guarantees under the Town Planning Acts and under this measure are sufficient to provide decent and hygienic conditions in these houses which will be erected by private enterprise in the coming years. It is therefore with the gravest concern that we view this particular Amendment, which would deprive the houses to be erected in the coining years of certain amenities that we consider vital. The noble Marquess is, as we should all agree, correct in his desire for cheapness, but at the same time cheapness must not conflict with hygiene. We cannot return to anything approaching the slums of the nineteenth century, and we are very gravely anxious lest the definite progress which has been made in housing conditions during the last fifty years should be stemmed by the removal of all restrictions, or many restrictions, on the enterprise and activity of private builders. For these reasons we are opposed to the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess.


My Lords, it is with the greatest diffidence that I rise to oppose an Amendment of the noble Marquess, even on so domestic a matter as a fixed bath, but I am indeed bound to do so because these words were inserted in another place; not at the instance of an extravagant Department, but at the instance of several private Members, and accepted there by my right honourable friend in deference to the general wishes of that House. The noble Marquess proposes to leave out the words which limit the guarantee to schemes that satisfy certain conditions; nevertheless he proposes to leave to the Minister power under proviso (a) to regulate the type of house submitted under this Bill. But the noble Marquess has explained that it is not his desire so much to leave the hands of the Minister unfettered as to protest against the standards which are laid down in the Bill as it stands. He says that the provision of baths and the density of building are extravagant conditions to attach to Government housing proposals at the present time.

I must remind your Lordships that these two conditions, the bath and the density, originated in the first place in the Wheatley Act of 1924. Indeed, since 1924 no subsidy has been given under that Act unless the houses built had those two conditions attached to them. I have no doubt that one of the reasons that prompted my right honourable friend to accept these conditions was the fact that they had been considered appropriate by various Governments since 1924, and Governments which included such responsible statesmen as Mr. Chamberlain and the noble Marquess himself. And, indeed, while that Act was in operation those two conditions were maintained by the ratepayers' and the taxpayers' money, and at a time when costs of housing generally were much higher than they are to-day. Under this scheme the taxpayer and the ratepayer will not be called upon to maintain these conditions, or if called upon, it will only be in a very minor degree. This clause represents an agreement between the building societies and the Government, and although I will not deny that the questions of the density and the bath were discussed in these negotiations, nevertheless the building societies have accepted the conditions. What they have agreed to do is to go on building the Wheatley type of house. It was not the Wheatley type of house that the Government found so extravagant as the maintenance of the Wheatley type of tenant, or the type of tenant which our experience showed tenanted the Wheatley house.

The noble Marquess says the poor will never be properly housed while the Government insist on such standards. That is an expression of opinion of great importance, but I do suggest with great respect that it is only indirectly germane to this particular Bill. Surely, there are two distinct problems. There is the question of providing houses for what I might describe as the economic tenant, the man who can pay for them himself if the houses are there. That problem is primarily a matter for private enterprise, stimulated if you like by the action of the Government, and by this clause of this Bill we believe we can cater for that class of tenant, which is the same class as was catered for previously by the Wheatley Act, only under this Bill we shall cater for that class of tenant far more cheaply than was done under the Wheatley Act. All I claimed on the Second Reading of this Bill was that it would fill the gap left open by the removal of the Wheatley subsidy. There is a second category. There is the category of people who work in what I might describe as expensive districts, who are very impoverished, and who cannot possibly rehouse themselves, or pay the economic rents of new houses in the same district, without Government assistance. However a housing Bill may be limited in its scope it is impossible to avoid discussing that category of person. They represent, after all, the crucial problem in housing, and it is only natural that your Lordships should desire to discuss their condition, but they are the people who, we believe, can only properly be rehoused under the 1930 Act, and they are the people who, we believe, are affected by this Bill only indirectly.

It is quite true that there may be a limited class of person who could be transferred from the uneconomic category to the economic category if the house rents were reduced by a few pence. I think the noble Marquess mentioned that this clause put on £30 to a house built on a site value of £500 to the acre. The weekly rent represented by a capital value of £30 is only a matter of a few pence.


Oh no, a shilling, I think.


I understand that £50 represents a weekly rent of 6d.; anyhow, for £30 it is something below 6d. The point is that though there may be a class of person who might be transferred from the uneconomic class of tenant to the economic class of tenant by this difference of say, 6d., I would ask your Lordships if it is worth abandoning the standards of the great majority all over the country for the sake of this small minority. Surely, their case would be better met by giving the Minister discretion to abandon the general rule in that limited class.

That is what we have done in the Bill. As a general rule we want to build a good type of house which we hope will survive this unprecedented depression.

The noble Marquess mentioned the anomalies which might exist between the subsidised and the unsubsidised houses. I am sure that that is a perfectly correct view. It seems to me that such anomalies must exist if, on the one hand, you are to subsidise rents—I think in the case of a family of five it means over 5s. a week—and, in the other case, you do nothing at all. Surely, you can never really reduce the difference between the subsidised house built under the 1930 Act and the house with a very minor subsidy built under the building societies' scheme by insisting on a standard in the one case and abandoning that standard in the other? If 6d., as I think I am correct in saying, does represent a capital value of £50 it would be quite evident that the jump of 5s., which is the amount of the subsidy, would be represented by a very much larger capital figure—certainly far larger than the £30 which the noble Marquess gave as the extra cost of housing imposed by these provisions.

I am sure that the figures which the noble Marquess gave on Second Reading were correct as to the houses built under conditions with which he is familiar, but I must point out that they are not figures which the Government accept as being of universal application. The Ministry say, for instance, that a bath with one cold tap and a waste pipe can be fitted at a cost of £6. I am not prepared to say what cultural value attaches to a bath with one cold tap—I presume that is a matter of opinion—but as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, pointed out, there are certain classes of people, miners, mechanics and so forth, to whom this bath would hardly appear as a mere extravagance.

Then in regard to density I think the noble Marquess quoted a figure of £500 an acre. The Ministry say that with land up to £400 an acre—which, of course, is a considerably higher value than the value of the land on which we anticipate the majority of building schemes will take place—the capital cost per house is not appreciably affected by a density of twelve as compared with twenty houses to the acre. The expensive part of the site is the frontage and the amount of frontage required for the two densities certainly would not differ to the extent suggested by the noble Marquess as being applicable to the extra cost on the more valuable sites. These are rather technical questions, but the experts at the Ministry of Health do not believe that on the cheaper sites on which we anticipate the greater part of building will take place the extra cost incurred by a density of twelve as compared with twenty houses to the acre would affect the cost per house very appreciably. Even if you accept the figure given by the noble Marquess of £30 per house it is obvious that you could never charge an economic rent comparable to that which you could charge with the subsidy under the 1930 Act. I suggest that too much is expected of this Bill. The primary object of it is to continue the construction of Wheatley type houses.


To begin the construction of cheap houses.


I think I had better quote the actual statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Health in another place as to the object of this Bill. This is what my right honourable friend said on Second Reading: The House will observe that I have not put this building society scheme forward as an essential or vital part of the scheme. I have put it forward as a most useful aid, one about which we may have hopes, but which is in no way essential to those prospects to which I have referred. Obviously, on the present terms the house which can be built with building society money and let at a rental, inclusive, of, say, 12s. a week, is not the very smallest and cheapest class of house which we, perhaps, most want. Nevertheless, it is a house for the working class which will cover a very wide area of demand and which will be a most important addition to the supply of houses. Further, as regards the future, one may hope that those forces which make for the reduction of costs will operate with respect to building society houses as much as in respect of any other houses. That is as far as my right honourable friend went, and when I moved the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House I did not intend at any rate to give any other impression. What we hope and believe is that this scheme, which will continue the building of these Wheatley houses, will hare further indirect results and will tend towards the cheaper housing of the poor. That is really a separate question, and when the Government consider again this separate question no doubt they will examine the very authoritative remarks of the noble Marquess with the greatest possible care.


My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend who has just spoken and to other noble Lords for their great courtesy in the way they have spoken about me. I am also very much obliged to my noble friend who has just sat down for the very full statement he has made dealing, as he did, with very technical matters. May I say a very few words in reply? First, as regards cost, I took the trouble on this question of baths of going to the housing exhibition which was then open in Grosvenor Place and I asked the experts there how much they thought it would cost to put a bath into a new house when it was being built. They made some inquiry and they came to the conclusion that it would be £15. It would cost more to put a bath into a house already existing, because there would have to be other adjustments. That is the genesis of that figure. As regards density, my noble friend says that the Government do not anticipate that houses will be built upon sites costing £500 an acre. I was a little afraid when I gave my figure that I was understating it. A great many houses even of this class would have to be built, I imagine, on sites of far higher value than £500 an acre, so I am afraid I cannot admit the figure given by my noble friend.

Let me say a word also with regard to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, who, as usual, made an admirable speech. I do not know quite what I am to say to him about baths, because it seems to be taken that if one speaks against baths one is defending dirt. I certainly do not desire to do that. But may I say to the noble and learned Viscount, very humbly, that I have had considerable experience in this matter? I do not merely mean experience of baths, because I suppose all your Lordships have that, but I mean experience in providing baths for the working classes. I have built hundreds of houses without baths, and although I admit that in Hertfordshire quite recently the standard has risen and there is a demand there—I am very glad of it—until recently there never has been a demand for baths. There is no demand in Dorset now. That may shock the noble and learned Viscount, but it is the case. May I say to him when he talks about degradation that I repudiate such a phrase. There is no degradation in the working classes, in the ones I know. On the contrary. He has a wholly exaggerated view of the subject.


May I ask, is there no degradation in dirt?


It does not follow that there would be dirt. The noble and learned Viscount is entirely wrong. I have just reconditioned a number of houses in Liverpool. I offered to put baths in every one of them if the tenants liked. In only 10 per cent. of the houses did they ask for baths. I do not want to be misunderstood, and I must say that in that case they would have had to pay extra rent. It does, however, show the degree of demand. In only 10 per cent. of the houses was there any demand. But it does not follow in the least that because you do not have a fixed bath you are necessarily dirty. That is a ridiculous supposition. We all of us know, both from our own experience in old days and also by experience all over Europe, that that is absurd. It is not true that the working classes are degraded. I entirely repudiate such a phrase. Yet masses of them have no baths. The whole point really is whether you can build houses which are decently fit to live in as cheaply as possible. That is the object of this Bill and that is the reason why I have ventured with great diffidence to move this Amendment. Please do not let the House think that I mean that these houses should be completely uncontrolled—there is paragraph (a) which gives a sort of general control—but that there should be a mandatory provision in this respect is, I believe, a profound mistake not in the direction of economy, and I ask your Lornships to strike it out.

On Question, Whether proviso (b) shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 15.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.) St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, L. Bp. Hindlip, L.
Howard of Glossop, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Addington, L. Irwin, L.
Munster, E. Ampthill, L. Jessel, L.
Radnor, E. Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.) Marley, L.
Stamford, E. Melchett, L.
Stanhope, E. Carnock, L. Merrivale, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Dickinson, L. Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)
Buckmaster, V. Ernle, L. Noel-Buxton, L.
Elibank, V. Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.] Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Exmouth, V. Greenwood, L. Remnant, L.
FitzAlan of Derwent, V. Greville, L. Rochester, L.
Hailsham, V. Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) Stonehaven, L.
Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) Templemore, L.
Rutland, D. Midleton, E. Chesham, L.
Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]
Salisbury, M. Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]
Cecil of Chelwood, V. Hanworth, L.
Iddesleigh, E. Knutsford, V. Kilmaine, L.
Lindsay, E. Sumner, V. Rankeillour, L.
Strachie, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.