PAYMENT AND DISPOSAL OF COMPENSATION.

HL Deb 22 June 1938 vol 110 cc179-223

Disposal of compensation as between beneficial interests.

20.—(1)

(2) In the case of a holding that consists of or comprises an estate or other interest subject to a settlement within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1925, or to a trust for sale the proceeds whereof are subject to a settlement by way of succession, the trustees of the settlement or the Court, and in the case of the Court on the application of any beneficiary under the settlement, may require and cause the compensation, or the part thereof attributable to that estate or other interest, as the case may be, to be laid out, invested, accumulated, and paid in such manner as, in the judgment of the trustees or of the Court, as the case may be, will give to the beneficiaries under the settlement the like benefit therefrom as they might lawfully have had from that estate or other interest, or as near thereto as may be, regard being had, when the circumstances so require, to the fact that that estate or other interest was property of a wasting character:

Provided that—

1. (a) where a payment on account of the compensation for the holding has been made under the preceding paragraph before the vesting date, the net income accruing to the trustees before the vesting date from the investment of the sum paid, up to an amount sufficient to make good to the capital of the settlement the interest on that sum brought into account under the last preceding paragraph against the capital of the compensation, shall be set aside as capital of the settlement;
2. (b) subject as aforesaid no part of the income of the compensation shall be required or caused by virtue of this subparagraph to be set aside as capital of the settlement.

(3) In the case of a holding that comprises an estate or other interest subject to a mortgage, the compensation (other than any part thereof that is attributable to an estate or other interest not subject to the mortgage) shall be held and disposed of in like manner as if it had been money arising under a power of sale conferred by the mortgage.

(5) Money representing compensation attributable to an estate or other interest subject to such a settlement as is mentioned in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, or vested in trustees on or for charitable, ecclesiastical or public trusts or purposes, may, notwithstanding anything in the relevant trust instrument, be invested not only as authorised by law or by the trust instrument but also in or on the debentures or debenture stock or the preference or wholly or partially guaranteed stock or shares of any company incorporated by a special Act of, or provisional order confirmed by, or by or under a public general Act of, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or incorporated by Royal Charter, being a company which has paid dividends upon its ordinary capital at the rate of at least three per cent. per annum for at least the five years next before the time of investment (of which fact a letter purporting to be signed by the secretary of the company or by a banker or member of a firm of bankers or by the secretary or manager of a joint stock bank or of any branch thereof shall be sufficient evidence):

VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN moved to insert the following new paragraph: 11.—(1)In the case of any holding in respect of which an apportionment of rent is prescribed under Section ten of this Act the Regional Valuation Board shall make the apportionment as soon as may be after notice of registration in relation to the holding has been given to them under the last preceding paragraph and shall give notice thereof in the prescribed form to the claimant, to any persons intervening and to the lessee (which expression for the purposes of this paragraph means the person who at the valuation date was liable to pay the rent to be apportioned). (2) Within the prescribed period after service upon him of the notice of apportionment the claimant or any person intervening or the lessee may give notice in the prescribed manner to the Board of Trade that he claims to have the apportionment referred to and determined by the High Court and if any such notice be given the apportionment shall be so referred and determined in accordance with rules to be prescribed.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a matter upon which I may hope finally to gain the meed of the Lord Chancellor's favour. It is a matter purely concerned with simplifying procedure. It arises out of the provisions of Clause 10 of the Bill, and I think the House will be glad to find Clause 10 now in the shape in which the Lord Chancellor has put it, rather than in the condition in which it was sent up from another place. Clause 10 provides for the case where there is a severance of interests owing to the fact that the Coal Commission have acquired the coal, but where the interests have been divided, and the Coal Commission have only acquired a part of those interests. In those circumstances it is incumbent upon the Regional Valuation Board to apportion the rent reserved in the lease. My argument starts from that point. It is incumbent upon the Regional Valuation Board to apportion the rent reserved in the lease. Now I come to the question of the procedure which people have to follow who are involved in severance of interest under Clause 10.

The scheme of the Bill seems to be this. First of all, the previous owner has to give notice of a claim within the prescribed time. If he gives a notice of claim he receives the registered particulars of the coal in question. Thereupon he puts in a valuation, an estimate of the value, of the coal which belongs to him. Thereafter the Regional Valuation Board deal with the claimant's estimate and provide a draft valuation of their own. If the owner objects to that valuation, what he then does is to seek an interview or an opportunity of being heard before the Region al Valuation Board. Then comes a final decision by the Regional Valuation Board, and if the claimant is dissatisfied with that he goes to a referee. That I take it is the scheme put forward in the Bill. Keeping in mind that the Regional Valuation Board have to apportion the rent, it is perfectly plain that in the circumstances I have described the claimant may be assessing the value of his coal upon a totally wrong basis, or upon a totally different basis from that of the Regional Valuation Board, who have apportioned the rent reserved in the lease in a totally different fashion. I would like to suggest that it would be only common sense to cut a part of this procedure, and to follow the method advocated in my Amendment.

That method is this, that as soon as the Regional Valuation Board have apportioned the rent reserved in the lease they should give notice to the claimant of the apportionment that they have arrived at, and that thereafter he should put in his claim upon the basis of the rent so apportioned, or otherwise. If he objects to the apportionment of the rent which has been arrived at by the Regional Valuation Board, he should at that stage, at once, if he wishes to dispute the matter, take it before the High Court, where a final decision would be given. That would appear to be, with other circumstances in the Bill, the method which is adopted in Clause 10, and so I do not think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would suggest that this is procedure which had not been contemplated. Accordingly, I venture to move the Amendment which is in my name on the Paper. I have described shortly what is the result of the first paragraph and also of the second paragraph, and then the ordinary procedure would follow.

It would prevent what it seems to me would necessarily follow—namely, a whole lot of appeals to referees, which need never occur if you allow the claimant to know from the beginning the apportionment of rent at which the Regional Valuation Board have already arrived. It is senseless that a claimant should put in a claim, or an estimate of valuation, for himself, when he does not know what it is that he has got to meet. Accordingly, I suggest that you should cut a lot of the procedure by adopting the method which I propose. Then there would follow as a consequential Amendment the words which appear on the Paper providing for the appropriate time w hen these procedures would be followed. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will accept this simplification of the procedure in the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 21, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Home of Slamannan.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, it is with great regret that I cannot on behalf of the Government assent to this Amendment moved by my noble friend in such persuasive accents, but I really cannot. For one thing, if I correctly understand it, it is in conflict with Clause 10, which has already been approved by the House on this stage of the Bill. I am not sure that my noble friend appreciates the fact that under Clause 10 the provision is that where there is not a separate rent reserved of surface and minerals the rent reserved by the lease shall he apportioned, and the parts of that rent to be apportioned to the several parts of the premises shall, in default of agreement between the Commission and any other person entitled in reversion,… be determined by an arbitrator selected by agreement between the parties. Then follows subsection (2) providing that: (2) Where an apportionment of the rent reserved by a lease has been made for the purposes of a valuation of a part of the premises under the Third Schedule to this Act, an arbitrator shall have regard to that apportionment for the purposes of a determination under the preceding subsection. That is quite inconsistent with what the noble Lord proposes in the present Amendment.

In the first place, he requires the Regional Valuation Board to give notice in a certain form to persons intervening and to the lessee and then, after the prescribed period, the claimant or any person intervening or the lessee may give notice to the Board of Trade that he claims to have the apportionment referred to and determined by the High Court. The House has already agreed to a clause under which every question of apportionment is to be determined by an arbitrator, and, if I may say so, I express the opinion that the House very wisely acted in providing for this apportionment to be made by an arbitrator and not by the Court. Because if you go to the Court to value the premises comprised in a certain holding of the surface and the mine underneath that surface for the purposes of an apportionment of rent, the Court does not know anything about it of its own knowledge. The Court knows something, perhaps a great deal, about the law relating to minerals, but nothing about that particular holding, either its surface, or its value, or the minerals. The result is that you have then a conflict of evidence on the two sides, which may be very expensive, and which may of course lead to a further application to another Court. Now if you have got an arbitrator, who is to determine a question of fact, in which there is no law involved, the decision of that arbitrator on the question of fact binds both parties. He makes an award, and you cannot have any of the trouble of an appeal unless there is some question of law, or unless you get him in the course of the arbitration to state a case.

All these facts are perfectly well known to my noble friend, and the main result of the Amendment which he has moved is that, instead of having this apportionment question simply determined once for all by an arbitrator agreed between the parties, or if necessary appointed by an independent person, the parties are to be involved in all the trouble and expense of an application to the Courts. It is for these main reasons, and certain other reasons which are not of so much importance, that I am unable to accept this Amendment, and I ask your Lordships to keep the matter as it was left yesterday when Clause 10 was amended by an Amendment of which your Lordships ought to be well aware.

VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN

My Lords, I apologise for my temerity in venturing to aspire to paint the lily of this Bill, and accordingly I beg to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL STANHOPE

My Lords, the next Amendment in my name is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 10, leave out ("the case") and insert ("either of the cases").—(Earl Stanhope.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 14, leave out ("where in the case") and insert ("where in either of the cases").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS had given Notice of an Amendment in sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph II, to leave out "case" and to insert "cases." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that is probably an omission on the part of the Government draftsman.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I suggest that it should be "either of the cases"?

LORD HASTINGS

I agree. I move it in that form.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 24, leave out ("case") and insert ("either of the cases").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS moved, in sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 11, after "Commission," to insert "and (in the second case aforesaid in which notice has to be given to the Commission) to all persons interested in the valuation of all other holdings in the Valuation Region." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will be familiar with the fact that the concession which the Government made in respect of freehold coal created a demand for the insertion in this Schedule of words which would enable the Commission to appear before a person experienced in the valuation of minerals where the Commission had some reason to suppose that the coal in the property of the freehold coalowner had been under-valued. In Committee the Government inserted words, which are to be found in sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph u, to this effect: if the claimant, or in the case aforesaid, the Commission, so require in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period, the Board shall give him or them an opportunity of being heard by a person experienced in the valuation of mineral,… It is quite evident that after the valuer has made his valuation and the Commission are allowed to appear, and appear successfully, before the person appointed to hear the Commission's objections to that valuation, it is only fair and proper that the other persons who would be affected by an alteration in the valuation should similarly have the right to be heard.

The diminution of the valuation, or the increase of the valuation, which is what the Commission would presumably be seeking, would deduct from and diminish the amount of compensation money available to the remainder of the mineral owners in that area. In such cases I feel certain that the noble and learned Lord will sympathise with the view of the mineral owner that such diminution or deduction should not be made unless, and until, these other persons who are affected thereby have the opportunity of representing their view. It would be a valuable view to the arbitrator because they, and they alone, could speak of the values attached to other collieries of the same character in that area. I feel that the noble and learned Lord will agree with the principle I am endeavouring to advocate.

But there is another way out of this which I would like to suggest to the noble and learned Lord as being possibly the better. Yesterday, when we were debating Clause 12, an Amendment was inserted in the Bill by the noble and learned Lord himself on page 14, line 32. It is to be found on page 8 of the First Marshalled List of Amendments in our hands yesterday. The Amendment reads: The right under this section to a grant of a lease of any coal or mine shall be conditional upon the applicant's satisfying the requirements of the Third Schedule to this Act as to the registration of particulars thereof under the Registration Act and the making of a claim for compensation for the fee simple therein, and to his complying with the provisions of that Schedule that impose upon him any duty in connection with the valuation of the fee simple therein. The insertion of that new paragraph in the Bill last night appears to me to make unnecessary the provisions on page 67 of the Bill under which the Commission has the right to appear before a person experienced in the valuation of minerals, for the reason that if the freehold coal-owner has been compelled under this new paragraph to satisfy the requirements of the Third Schedule of this Bill, there cannot in my view be any point on which the Commission could object and desire to appear before an independent person.

If the noble and learned Lord takes the same view, and I am hopeful he may because I expect the reason why he put that paragraph into the Bill last night was to obviate any possibility of an infraction of the rules of valuation, he may be inclined to agree with me that it would be simpler to rely on that new paragraph and to take out of sub-paragraph (4) on page 67 of the Bill the special provisions under which the Commission may appear before a person experienced in the valuation of minerals. In that case the Amendment to which I am now speaking would become redundant and unnecessary. That is my impression, and no doubt the noble and learned Lord will give attention to the point. At the moment I am merely advocating that the power given to the Commission to appear before this person experienced in the valuation of minerals is an authority which should be shared by other persons affected. I hardly think it should be necessary to argue the justice of that any further. If the noble and learned Lord thinks that the new paragraph already meets the case I shall he very glad to withdraw my Amendment, conditional on the withdrawal also of the special Amendment put in on Committee.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 25, after ("commission") insert the said words.—(Lord Hastings.)

EARL STANHOPE

My Lords, I am afraid the Government do not quite see their way to accept this Amendment, and for this reason. My noble friend will remember that we put in the previous Amendments because, as was pointed out on the Committee stage, once you leave the freehold coal owner in the position of being no better or worse off as the result of the Bill there is no reason why he should take any interest in the valuation of his coal property. That is why it was put in that the Coal Commission should have the right to appear. I am not quite sure, in regard to the Amendment put in yesterday, whether that would be quite sufficient without the Amendments which were put in on the former occasion in this particular Schedule which we are discussing, because I am not sure that the Coal Commission would be satisfied that the procedure of Clause 12, on the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord yesterday, could in fact he carried out unless they have the right to appear.

As regards the particular point of my noble friend's Amendment which we are now discussing, of course he will realise that no coalowner has the right to see the valuation of any other coalowner in his particular region. All properties are valued separately and then added up together in the region. It makes an entirely different case if anyone interested can see another valuation. My noble friend's words are very wide indeed—"all persons interested in the valuation of all other holdings." These words are so wide that we could not possibly accept them, apart from anything else. It would mean that the valuation of freehold coal would be inspected by everyone else in the region, because everyone in the region would be interested in that particular valuation. I do not know what the views of freehold coal owners would be on this matter, but I should think there would be considerable objection from their point of view if all the valuations of their properties were to be left open to inspection by anyone interested while all the other valuations were kept from them. For these reasons the Government cannot accept this Amendment.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I find myself in agreement to a certain extent difficulties would arise if this particular with the Leader of the House in this matter. Quite clearly very considerable Amendment were accepted and the valuations became accessible to all persons interested. At the same time there is a point in what I have been endeavouring to explain to the House that it is not really proper that the Commission should have the right to appear and anything they say to go unrefuted. Surely it would be easier and better to establish that subsection in Clause 12 in such a form that the very clumsy method which already appears on page 67 of the Bill, and which would be made even clumsier if my Amendments were accepted, were rendered, both of them, entirely unnecessary. The particular method here, I think it will be admitted by the Leader of the House, is clumsy. It was put in when certain circumstances required that words of that character should be put in, but I am strongly of opinion that the paragraph put in last night has taken away the necessity, and if it has not entirely taken it away, it looks to me as very much easier to strengthen that subsection in Clause 12 than to accept either my Amendments or to insist on the Amendments that now appear on page 67.

I do not intend to press this Amendment, but I would invite the noble Earl, if he would be so good, to consider that particular aspect of the matter with the idea of simplifying this part of the Bill. If he finds it possible to agree that the provision inserted in Clause 12 is sufficient or, if not, to strengthen it in such a way as will enable these clumsy points to be taken out of the Bill that are already there, I shall be grateful to him. I will leave the matter, if I may, in the hands of the noble Earl, hoping he will find that that is the best way out of a very difficult situation.

EARL STANHOPE

I shall be most anxious to consider it again, because the point which my noble friend has just raised, as to whether this is necessary in view of the Amendment which we made yesterday, had not occurred to me, and therefore I should like to think it over.

LORD HASTINGS

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, my Amendment to paragraph 12 is part of the same point, and I do not propose to move it.

LORD HASTINGS moved to insert the following new sub-paragraph: (2) Before any rules are made under this paragraph a draft thereof shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and the rules shall not be made unless both Houses by Resolution approve the draft either without modification or addition, or with modifications and additions to which both Houses agree, but upon such approval being given, the rules may be made in the form in which they have been approved and shall be of full force and effect.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is really an Amendment of very great importance. I am not under the necessity of arguing at any length the need for something of the kind, because already the Government by inserting another form of the same Amendment has admitted its need, and we can shorten the proceedings to that extent. I take it that the Government do recognise that the submission of those valuation rules to both Houses is really absolutely essential—that the rules which the Central Valuation Board may make are quite vital to the interests of the royalty owners, and that it would be grossly improper that a Board of the character which is created under this Bill should have authority to make rules without submission to any superior authority. That is admitted by the Amendment put down in the names of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the Leader of the House. It therefore is only a question between us whether the words of the Amendment which I have on the Paper are preferable to the words of the Amendment which the Government have put on the Paper.

The words of my Amendment require an affirmative Resolution of both Houses; the words which the Government have put down require a negative Resolution of both Houses. As very many members of this House know, this is an old bone of contention. I would be sorry to say how many times I and others have argued this particular point in the House. There have been occasions when we have carried our point and affirmative Resolutions have been agreed to, but not often. More frequently the form adopted, the accustomed form, is that which now stands in the names of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I would very greatly prefer the form in which my own Amendment is drawn, but I have to recognise that these rules will be non-recurrent: only once will they come before both Houses; and whereas in some cases rules have a habit of slipping through both Houses because neither House is awake to their importance, in this particular case, with active associations presumably still to be in being and the importance of the rules being as great as it is, there is no very great risk in permitting the negative Resolution, by reason of the fact that those associations will surely not let them go through without examining them very closely. For those reasons and those reasons only—because I do greatly prefer the affirmative Resolution—I do not propose to press my Amendment to a Division and am prepared to accept the Amendment which stands in the names of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the Leader of the House. I am very glad to acknowledge that the Government admit the absolute necessity of these rules being submitted to the supervision of both Houses of Parliament.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 26, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Hastings.)

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, before the noble Lord finally withdraws his Amendment—

LORD HASTINGS

I have not withdrawn it yet.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

—I should like to ask this. As I read the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that provides for the rules being either modified or agreed to as they stand. His Amendment reads: the rules shall not be made unless both Houses by Resolution approve the draft either without modification or addition, or with modifications and additions to which both Houses agree. The Amendment which stands in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, does not provide in any way for the modification or amendment of the rules. As I read that Amendment those rules will be laid before your Lordships' House and if there is no objection to them within thirty days they will automatically come into force. There is nothing in that Amendment to allow for modification. Perhaps I am wrong. I rise merely to put the point before the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack moves his Amendment.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, in reply to the question which has just been asked by the noble Viscount, I understand that you can modify under the procedure which is adopted in our Amendment. As regards what was said by my noble friend opposite, Lord Hastings, we, of course, realise as he does that these rules will be of major importance, but after careful consideration of the Amendment which he has put down we did come to the conclusion that it was better that this matter should be dealt with by negative Resolution rather than by affirmative Resolution. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he proposes to withdraw the Amendment which he has on the Paper and to accept the Government Amendment in place thereof.

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Earl must not assume for a moment that I accept his contention that the Amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, is a better version. It is not; it is definitely worse. All I said was that in the circumstances of which I am very well aware, and having regard to the difficulty of carrying these provisions for affirmative Resolutions, I was prepared reluctantly to withdraw my Amendment in favour of that to be moved by the Lord Chancellor. But I do not like it and I would far prefer my own. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL STANHOPE moved to insert in paragraph 14: (2) Rules made under this paragraph shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of thirty days during the Session of Parliament and, if either House before the expiration of that period resolves that the rules be annulled, the rules shall be of no effect, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously clone thereunder or to the making of new rules: Provided that, in reckoning any such period of thirty days as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. Perhaps the noble Lord opposite will think that this is as near as the Government can get to the Amendment proposed by those who dwell on Olympus.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 26, at end insert the said sub-paragraph.—(Earl Stanhope.)

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

My Lords, my noble friend the Earl of Munster, referring to the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord Lord Hastings, which permitted modifications and additions, said that the Amendment standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble Earl the Leader of the House covered that point.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

May I apologise to your Lordships? I made an error there. I understand that under our Amendment these rules cannot be modified but that they can only be accepted or rejected en bloc.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

That is the whole point. In those circumstances it is necessary to move an Amendment to this Amendment, after the word "annulled" to insert the words "or amended," or something of that sort. Perhaps the noble Earl will accept that. I beg to move it. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, which he has just withdrawn—rather incontinently I thought—provided that an immense mass of rules and regulations is not to be laid before Parliament and accepted or rejected en bloc, as the Government propose, but that it shall be dealt with as circumstances may demand. In some cases additions ought to be made; in other cases modifications or amendments should be made. Under the Amendment which the noble Earl has now moved, the rules are placed before one House of Parliament and the other House in succession and they have got to be taken as a unit, as a whole. That really seems to be quite ridiculous and quite indefensible. If an amendment is necessary, if a blunder is exposed, we are not to be at liberty to amend those rules in either House but we have to reject them or accept them in toto. I am only quoting the noble Earl, Lord Munster. He said that these words in the Government Amendment were as good from that point of view as those of Lord Hastings. I say they are not. I think the Lord Chancellor ought to give us an assurance that Parliament should be allowed that flexibility which it ought to have.

LORD GAINFORD

Surely if there is an error and objection is taken to it by both Houses of Parliament it ought to be amended. There ought to be an opportunity not only for annulling one rule, but also at any rate of retaining those rules which are good, or of amending them. There should be an opportunity of amendment as well as of complete rejection by Parliament.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, I think I am in order in speaking on this Amendment. When I put the question the noble Earl, Lord Munster, stated quite definitely that modifications might be made under the Amendment which is now before your Lordships' House; but now we are told the rules must be taken en bloc. I feel sure that my noble friend Lord Hastings would not have withdrawn his Amendment had he known that. I think the Government should meet us by agreeing to a perfectly reasonable and legitimate suggestion that their Amendment should be amended to include modifications which they themselves might regard as perfectly reasonable. I hope the Government may see their way to do this. I support what the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has said, and if he goes to a Division I shall have great pleasure in going into the Lobby with him.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, may I say a few words about the position with regard to rules of procedure and other similar rules which are put before another place? I am instructed that it is quite impossible, according to the procedure in that place, to amend or alter rules put before it, and for this reason. There is a Resolution either in an affirmative or negative form. There is no Committee stage to deal with it similar to a Committee stage on a Bill, with the result that the Resolution either has to be carried or it has not, and there is an end of it. You may put in what you like, but in the other place, I am instructed by people very well acquainted with this matter, you cannot amend in practice. However, what happens is this. If there is an alternative Resolution in regard to rules somebody makes an objection, and there is a debate, and the rules are ruled out or objected to or not proved or whatever is the right term, and then there is an immediate re-submission of the rules in a new form. Practically the same thing would happen if, on the negative form proposed by the Government, the rules were put before the other place and somebody objected to them on particular grounds. But the notion that in that place you can discuss rules and amend them in detail is impossible owing to the procedure which exists under the rules of the House. That at any rate is my information and understanding about the difficulty, though it is a little unfortunate, I agree. I think noble Lords who object to the Government Amendment on that ground are really objecting on grounds that have no sound basis if what I have stated is correct.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord must allow me to say that we are not governed by procedure in the House of Commons, and if this House cares to insert after the word "annulled" the words "or amended" we are entitled to do so.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It would have no effect.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

If, on the other hand, the House of Commons likes to turn out the Amendment after we have-inserted it we can differ from the House of Commons, and if those words then remain in it will be the duty of the House of Commons so to adjust their procedure that they shall entitle themselves to amend these rules. These are not a few trumpery rules about some Home Office regulation. These are rules which govern a valuation of £60,000,000 to £80,000,000 of property. I have served many years in the House of Commons and I do not believe for a minute that the House of Commons would ever allow itself to let a blunder go through just because its own procedure was ineffective.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

They could object to the lot.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I do not understand. Do the Government realise what a hopeless mess and confusion they are going to put their Commission into in two or three years time? It is said "You make a blunder in the rules, then turn the whole lot out." But weeks and months will have been wasted if that is to be the case, and I propose, if your Lordships will allow me, to see what happens if I can get the words "or amended" put into the Amendment. Let us see then what happens in the other place. From my own knowledge of the House of Commons I believe they will adjust their rules when they see the immense importance of the issue concerned, and will not preclude themselves from amending a rule which is defective. We have had enough blunders in this Bill already to make us a little anxious to see that our rules are right.

VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN

My Lords, I am greatly in sympathy with the noble Earl, but does he realise how this provision would read as he would propose to amend it—"if either House before the expiration of that period resolves that the rules be annulled or amended the rules shall be of no effect." Does the noble Earl see that even the amended rules will be of no effect? I think the words could not remain in that form.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I assumed that Lord Munster was correct in saying that Lord Hastings' Amendment was covered. I just extemporised the words which I have suggested, but at least I have put my grievance before your Lordships. The words would require considerable amendment.

LORD HASTINGS

There is a very interesting point of procedure arising here. Anybody who has been in this House for any length of time has heard this discussion half a dozen and more times before. I have heard it argued that with the affirmative Resolution power to modify was impossible owing to the rules of another place. I am sure the annals of the House could be searched and that reason would never have been given. Do the rules of another place only refer to negative Resolutions? Because if that is so clearly it is a very strong reason for insisting upon the affirmative Resolution which gives power to amend. I do not know whether the noble Earl the Leader of the House would see fit to answer that particular point. Is there a difference in the power of another place under its rules to deal with an affirmative Resolution in the matter of amendment? Is there a difference under the rules in respect of that and a negative Resolution, which, we are informed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, cannot be touched by way of an amendment? If there is there is an obvious remedy to our difficulty.

EARL STANHOPE

Frankly I do not know. What does surprise me is that both the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and that in the name of my noble and learned friend and myself are common form, both of them. Therefore it appears that with an affirmative Resolution you apparently can make modifications, but in the case of a negative one you cannot. I am afraid it was I who misled my noble friend the Earl of Munster in saying that we could make an alteration under a negative Resolution. I understood at the moment that that was so. I should like to consider the matter again before the next stage and see what can be done in the matter. I quite see the point made by my noble friend the Earl of Crawford, although I do not think if we were to propose an alteration in a common form proviso that that would be the best way to get another place to agree.

LORD HASTINGS

I hope the noble Earl will recognise that I withdraw, and do not permit my Amendment to be negatived, so that I shall have liberty to put it down again.

EARL STANHOPE

I was going to suggect that neither the noble Lord's Amendment nor the Government's Amendment should be put, but that the matter should be raised again on Third Reading.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

In those circumstances I should not ask that the Amendment be put.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CROMWELL moved, in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 20, to leave out "the proceeds whereof are subject to a settlement by way of succession." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am proposing this Amendment because there seems to be no reason for confining the powers of trustees for sale to cases where the proceeds of sale are subject to a settlement by way of succession. There will be cases where compensation will be received by trustees for sale although there may be no settlement by way of succession. In many of such cases if there had been no trust for sale the acquired interest would have been settled land and the powers of this paragraph would be exercisable by the trustees of the settlement.

Amendment moved— Page 74, line 33, leave out ("the proceeds whereof are subject to a settlement by way of succession").—(Lord Cromwell.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the noble Lord, if I may respectfully say so, has dealt very briefly with matters which are highly complex and which require most intimate knowledge of legislation passed in the years 1922 and 1925. I can only say, as the matter has only recently been brought to my notice, that I am not satisfied that it is proper to leave out these words. I should like an opportunity of reconsidering the matter with the assistance of my advisers, and if necessary the clause can be put in proper form at the last stage of the Bill. Perhaps in those circumstances the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment now.

LORD CROMWELL

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph (20), to leave out "the Court" and to insert "any Court having jurisdiction in relation to the execution of the trusts of the settlement." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a short form of one of the Amendments put down on the Paper by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. One of those Amendments in the name of the noble Lord we think distinctly useful in clarifying the Bill and enabling the rights of the parties to be determined in a case where there was a settlement or in some similar circumstances. As your Lordships will see on page 8 of the Marshalled List there is an Amendment in my name and the name of the Leader of the House in which we have borrowed or stolen from the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, some of his suggestions. I had thought that the noble Lord was willing to accept the Amendments which I had suggested to him as being sufficient to carry out the objects—the technical objects, so to speak—which he had in view. He has, however, put down some rather elaborate Amendments which I understand have precisely the same effect as the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, and myself. This Amendment which I am now moving to sub-paragraph (2) is one of those Amendments which carry out, I think, that which the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has in view, and I would suggest that this Amendment in my name be accepted.

Amendment moved— Page 74, line 35, leave out ("the Court") and insert ("any Court having jurisdiction in relation to the execution of the trusts of the settlement").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD CROMWELL

My Lords, I am quite prepared to agree to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 20, to leave out "when the circumstances so require, to the fact that that estate or other interest was property of a wasting character" and insert: to the terms of the settlement and to all relevant circumstances affecting the premises in which the holding subsisted including:—

1. (a) the terms of any subsisting coal-mining lease and the operation of any provision therein contained as to undergettings, short workings, and other like matters;
2. (b) the period within which coal being worked might have been expected to be worked out or coal not being worked might have been expected to come into working and to be worked out; and
3. (c) the extent to which, having regard to those circumstances, the premises ought to be regarded as property of a wasting character:"

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this carries out a suggestion made in a previous Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and I am very happy to propose it.

Amendment moved— Page 74, line 44, leave out from ("had") to the end of line 45 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CROMWELL moved to leave out proviso (b) in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 20. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment covers a rather different point. It is suggested that if the proviso remains it is inconsistent both with the power to direct the compensation to be accumulated and with the direction that regard is to be had to the period within which coal not being worked might have been expected to come into working. It loads the dice in favour of the present tenant for life, who may at the moment be receiving no income or only a very small income from the coal. It does not appear right to fetter the discretion of the trustees and the Court in this way. The question will arise not merely in the simple form of apportionment between income and capital but also in more complicated cases where there are successive tenants for life.

Amendment moved— Page 75, line 12, leave out proviso (b).—(Lord Cromwell.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am not able to agree with this Amendment. Proviso (b) says that subject to a number of interests no part of the income of the compensation shall be required or caused by virtue of this sub-paragraph to be set aside as capital of the settlement. Your Lordships will appreciate that there are complex settlements which relate to the disposal of compensation as between beneficial interests. Particularly they arise where for instance there is a tenant for life of coal from a colliery which has but a short life. So long as it exists he ought to have an interest equivalent to the whole of the income which would be gained from the colliery during its life. All that this proviso is intended to do is to provide that unless the Court has reason to decide that certain of the compensation ought to be set aside as capital, there is nothing in this clause which requires it to be done. The proviso is inserted from abundant precaution it may be, but it is inserted because, as your Lordships know, at the present time the tenant for life plainly is not entitled to the whole of the rent and profits, and in some cases a quarter and even more has to be set aside as capital. I think it is safer that this proviso (b) should be retained.

LORD CROMWELL

As a tenant for life I am glad to hear what has fallen from the lips of the Lord Chancellor, and in the circumstances I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CROMWELL moved, in paragraph 20, to insert the following new sub-paragraph: (3) All applications to the Court under sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph shall be made, in accordance with rules of Court, to the Chancery Division of the High Court: Provided that—

1. (a) the powers of the Court may, as regards compensation payable in respect of an estate or other interest comprised in a holding wholly situate in the County Palatine of Lancaster or the County Palatine 200 of Durham be exercised also by the respective Courts of Chancery of those Counties Palatine;
2. (b) where the amount of the compensation, or the part thereof attributable to such estate or other interest as is referred to in sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, does not exceed the sum of £500, the powers of the Court may be exercised by any County Court within the district whereof is situate any part of the holding;
3. (c) where the Commission makes payment of the compensation to the proper officer of any Court, the powers of the Court shall be exercised by that Court."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships will see I am acting on advice, and I am advised again, on this question, that the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be dealt with in the simple manner proposed by the Amendment moved by the Lord Chancellor in Committee. The question of which Court has jurisdiction to execute the trusts of the settlement will, as between High Court and County Court, depend on the value of the whole of the settled property, realty and personalty. It may very well happen that a settlement of property of great value (the trusts of which could only be executed by the High Court) may include a small parcel of coal, the compensation paid in respect of which is less than £500. It is suggested that the amount of the compensation, not the value of the settled property, should determine the jurisdiction. Moreover, where the compensation is paid into Court that Court alone should have jurisdiction. In any case it is undesirable that there should be room for any doubt on the question of jurisdiction.

Amendment moved— Page 75, line 16, at end, insert the new sub-paragraph (3).—(Lord Cromwell.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the view of the Government is that it is unnecessary to provide that these applications should go to the Chancery Division, because it would be left to the Rules Committee to deal with, and it is not now the practice, as I understand it, to state in Acts of Parliament the Division to which a particular matter should be referred. The Rules Committee is a powerful body, and it may in some circumstances think that a particular matter should go to one Division and sometimes to another. That is the only reason why that part of the Amendment is objected to, because in practice there is no doubt that in effect the rules will provide that these matters should go to the Chancery Division of the High Court. Until the noble Lord spoke I was not aware that one of his objects was to prevent a matter of this kind going to the County Court. I think if it were a very small matter it would be well that it should go to the County Court; but if you left it open I imagine the Rules Committee can easily provide that if a matter is one of complexity there shall he a right of transfer from the County Court to the High Court. The reason why I do not like to assent to it now is this, that although, as the noble Lord justly said, some of the matters would be exceedingly difficult and require great consideration, others may be of the greatest simplicity and quite within the competence of the County Court to determine. I would suggest that we might leave it there, and leave it to the Rules Committee to decide the Court before whom the matter is to go, and if necessary to provide for power to transfer from the County Court to the High Court.

LORD CROMWELL

After what has fallen from the Lord Chancellor as to the practice I am not prepared to press the Amendment. Whether my advisers will agree I do not know, but I now ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CROMWELL moved, in subparagraph (3) of paragraph 20, after "shall," to insert ",if paid to the mortgagee." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment and I will listen to the Lord Chancellor explain the Government's view of it.

Amendment moved— Page 75, line 19, after ("shall") insert (", if paid to the mortgagee").—(Lord Cromwell.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is one which the Government think is unnecessary, and may have a. result which is not intended. The proposal is in effect that where a mortgagee permits payment to the borrower instead of compensation to himself nothing should be said as to the rights in the compensation money. It is thought that the better course is to provide that the money shall in every case be treated as if it had arisen from an exercise of the mortgagee's power of sale and to leave any subsequent arrangement to be made between the mortgagee and the borrower. The Government must oppose the Amedment.

LORD CROMWELL

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HASTINGS moved, in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 20, to leave out "like manner as if it had been money arising under a power of sale conferred by the mortgage" and insert: such manner as (in default of agreement between the mortgagee and the mortgagor) on an application made to the High Court by the mortgagor within one month alter the compensation has been paid, the Court may direct. In dealing with an application under this paragraph the Court shall have regard to the amount ascertained and certified by the Regional Valuation Board as the value of the holding as compared with the sum paid under this Act as compensation for the holding and to the fact (unless proved to the contrary to the satisfaction of the Court) that the passing of this Act was not within the contemplation of the parties to the mortgage when it was entered into, and shall make such order or give such directions as appear to the Court to be requisite to secure that where the estate or other interest subject to the mortgage is shown to the satisfaction of the Court to have been depreciated in value directly owing to the operation of this Act the loss arising from that depreciation shall be borne as nearly as may be in equal proportions between the mortgagee and the mortgagor, taking into account the amount of the mortgage debt in relation to the amounts of the certified valuation and the compensation respectively under this Act.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is one which touches neither the finances, nor the framework, nor the machinery of this Bill. It is an economic question of course, a legal question no doubt, but more particularly a big social question. The effect of the method of valuation adopted by the Government will be to cause a scaling down as between the amount of the valuation and the amount of the compensation paid. That is inevitable. I have protested, and many another has protested, against this particular method of valuation, and here is one of the most unfortunate consequences which must arise from the adoption of this method. If an individual is to have his property compulsorily acquired and to be paid the value of that property as ascertained by competent persons, and that value falls short of the sums required to meet that owner's commitments, there is of course no one to blame. He has to bear that loss himself as best he may, or, if his property falls short of the charges made upon it, automatically the chargee loses a certain amount of the money which he has either invested or loaned because his security fails to meet the charge.

But here is a totally different set of circumstances. The value of the property may be in fact ample to meet all charges. But, having been ascertained, it is then subjected to a scaling down process to enable it to be fitted in with the properties of other owners to a figure previously fixed, and by so much as the value of the properties of other owners in that region may be high, by so much will each individual be scaled down, so that in fact the compensation moneys received by any individual, although they may be fair as between individual and individual in the region, will not bear any relation to real value. That is a really appalling principle to have permitted to creep into an Act of Parliament. It is going to establish a precedent dangerous to every form of property in this country, but here and now is not the opportunity or the moment for discussing that again. I have already said a great deal upon that subject, and we still have the Third Reading before us upon which no doubt much more can be said. But not now. All I desire to say to the House now is that the effect of adopting this method of valuation will be to scale down the property of certain individuals to a figure which will disable them from meeting the charges upon that particular form bf property.

Now how is that to be dealt with? I have suggested that it be dealt with in the way in which my Amendment is drawn. It is not to be supposed that I, any more than any other noble Lord, contemplates with equanimity interference with debt—a thoroughly dangerous principle in itself, and not one which I would care to advocate, unless necessity drove me so to do. But what exactly are you going to do with an individual who at the moment is reasonably affluent by reason of the fact that his income from mineral royalties is sufficiently in excess of that proportion of the income which is required to meet commitments, or interest on commitments, that is, when there is a sufficient balance for himself to be living in reasonably affluent circumstances—what are you going to do when the principal is so greatly reduced in amount that the share of it which is taken by the chargee absorbs the whole, and the royalty owner, now reasonably affluent upon the balance of the income from these royalties, after the passage of this Bill and the occurrence of the vesting date, is left not only penurious but conceivably bankrupt? What exactly do you do in a case of that kind?

His Majesty's Government have the responsibility, not I, and it is a very unpleasant responsibility which faces them. I cannot bring myself to believe that if they can find any way or means out of such an impasse they will not be ready to take it, because the mere circumstance of a previously reasonably affluent individual appearing before the Court and pleading bankruptcy or inability to meet his commitments, owing to an action of the Government, is not the kind of circumstance which this or any other Government would care to face, neither is it proper that Parliament should allow such a condition of affairs to occur, if it can prevent it. My Amendment, somewhat crudely perhaps, proposes in effect that the charges of an estate of that character should share pari passu in the loss occasioned by the action of the Government to the royalty owner. That is to say, if the royalty owner should have the valuation made of his property scaled down by, say, twenty-five per cent., the charges on that property should also be scaled down by the same amount.

And there is a good deal of authority for advocating such a solution. I have here a note on this subject which I will take the liberty of reading to the House, because it will be almost impossible to make it understandable if I were not so to do, it being largely extracts from legal decisions: It will be argued that a reduction by Statute of a mortgage debt is without precedent, but this Bill is without precedent in its provisions that after a fair valuation of market value has been made compensation may be scaled down to an undefined and uncertain extent. It is an accepted rule of English law that where performance of contract has been rendered impossible by Act of Parliament the contract becomes unenforceable. This principle is very clearly set out in Lord Halsbury's 'Laws of England,' in the second edition of which, edited by Lord Hailsham, the following passage appears in Volume 7, page 218 (Article on Contract):— 'Where performance of a contract has been rendered impossible by Act of Parliament passed after the contract was made, the promisor is excused from performing his promise unless it appears that he intended to bind himself with reference to the future state of the law, for the presumption is that the parties intend to contract with reference to the law as existing at the time the contract is made.' On the same page there follows a long list of cases to support this statement of the law. One which is of particular interest in the present connection may be quoted. It is Brown versus London Corporation, and is reported in 13 C.B. (N.S.) page 828. This is a very interesting point, and I think the House will be glad to hear of this because it does largely substantiate the case I am trying to make: The Corporation of London were conservators of the Thames from Staines Bridge and levied tolls upon vessels navigating the river between Staines and London Bridge. The Corporation borrowed money for river improvement and raised large sums on bonds secured by the tolls and duties payable as annuities until the repayment of the principal money. Then the Thames Conservancy Act was passed transferring to that body the control of the tolls upon the security of which the bonds had been entered into. The Corporation ceased to make payments upon their bonds. They were sued in the year 1862 on ten bonds of £2,000 each. The Court held that no action would lie: and on appeal this decision was upheld. This case was made stronger by the fact that the Thames Conservancy Act was a private Act to which the Corporation of London was a party, and it was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the general rule of law releasing the makers of the bonds does not apply where the impossibility of fulfilment arises from some act superinduced by the party himself, as in this case from the provisions of an Act of Parliament which was passed at the instance of the defendants in the action, the Corporation of London. Chief Justice Cockburn in delivering the judgment of the Court said that the Act in question dealt with public rights and matters of great public interest and could hardly be looked upon as a private agreement and he added, 'The Act of Parliament therefore having transferred the tolls out of which the bonds in question are made payable from the Corporation to the Conservators appointed by the Act, we are of opinion that the Corporation are no longer liable to be called upon to satisfy the claim arising therefrom.'

There is apparently considerable legal justification for suggesting, what is no more than a suggestion, that amelioration should be given to those royalty owners who find themselves unable, not by any default or causation of their own, but unable through Act of Parliament to meet their liabilities. That is exactly what happened in the case I have quoted to your Lordships. It is exactly what must happen in a number of cases after the passage of the Coal Pill into law. There must inevitably be cases where the charges upon income, when capitalised, must absorb the whole, and in some cases more than the whole, of the compensation moneys payable under the system of valuation which His Majesty's Government have thought fit to adopt—because in fact it is no system of valuation. It is compelling actuality of valuation to relate itself to a figure previously fixed, and whereas we had in the earlier part of this debate the happy optimism of some who spoke of scaling up, long since we have all realised there can be nothing but scaling down, scaling down which will be veritably destructive of some.

There are cases with which Parliament and public are almost too familiar where no hardship of so gross a kind will arise, because there will be other resources enabling the borrower or mortagee to meet all commitments, but there are very many cases of which Parliament, Press, and public do not seem to realise the existence—small royalty owners, men whose resources, when deprived of their royalty income, are practically non-existent. It is these persons who will have borrowed money for one purpose or another, good or bad, whose predecessors in title were induced to put charges upon their royalty income for the benefit of members of the family, and whose mortgages and charges together are going to absorb the whole or more of any compensation which this Bill is going to give to them. It is undeniable that these cases are bound to arise. It is very difficult to quote to this House individual cases without giving a clear indication of where they come from and it is a rather delicate matter to do; but I would never be guilty of venturing to mislead the House in any way, and I feel sure I would be credited with no such desire. I can assure the House that a number of cases have been presented to me which fully justify me in saying to the House that these cases of hardship will arise in considerable numbers, cases of the gravest hardship.

How are we to deal with them? I have suggested that chargees should have their charges reduced pari passu with the amount of the reduction which is to be applied to the royalty owner himself as between the valuation and the amount of compensation payable. It may not be the best way. I readily acknowledge that since I first raised this matter, which was on the Second Reading, I have had discussions outside this House with persons qualified to advise in the matter, and I have submitted it to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack himself. I acknowledge with the greatest readiness the extreme difficulty that arises in dealing with matters of this kind. I do not even suggest that my particular method is the best. All I do wish to do is to inform the House that these cases must arise, and at least to divest myself of responsibility of causing them to arise. If the House thinks nothing can be done in the matter, then the House must take its own responsibility, but that responsibility rests veritably on His Majesty's Government.

They are, by advocating this Bill and presenting it to your Lordships and to Parliament, going to create a condition of affairs which is cruel. The hardships which this Bill will cause to some at the instance of His Majesty's Government are gross, and the responsibility is theirs. I have this Amendment on the Paper, and although in many ways I regret very much having put it down, because I should be as sorry as any man to see any portion of a debt repudiated, I have put it down because I can find no alternative method of dealing with the particular hardship which is to be created. If His Majesty's Government can find a better way I shall be most glad to welcome it. Inasmuch as hitherto they have not met me in any way in regard to this point, I have put this Amendment on the Paper, and I now beg to move it.

Amendment moved— Page 75, line 19, leave out from ("in") to end of line 2r, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD CRANWORTH

My Lords, I would venture to appeal to His Majesty's Government to give some consideration at all events to what my noble friend has said. The reason why I specially do so is this. I believe I am typical of a great many members of your Lordships' House. I am not a royalty owner in any sense or form, but before the last Election I was persuaded that it was a right and proper course for His Majesty's Government to acquire these royalties for the nation, and in accordance with that persuasion I appeared on the platform and advocated that course. But it was never put to me by any soul, nor do I believe it was the intention of His Majesty's Government, that the royalty owner should be paid out otherwise than on a full and fair scale, and I feel that in that matter, not only have I let other people down, but that I have some extent been let down myself. I feel a certain responsibility in the matter. I do not suppose that there are five per cent. of the members of your Lordships' House who believe that these royalty owners have received a full and fair deal. Outside the Front Bench I have heard only one speech which said so, and that was a speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel; and those of you who were present will, I think, agree with me that it was very far indeed from being a convincing one. I know it may be said that to a certain extent in the early stages this was the fault of the royalty owners. All I can say is that I am not concerned with that, nor is this the place to go into it. I have been concerned, and I think your Lordships will be concerned, that a full and fair deal should be given to the royalty owners, as I believed was the intention of His Majesty's Government when they went to the country.

The particular Amendment which is now before the House is one which it is probably almost impossible to accept as to its letter, but I think something might be done to meet its spirit. After all, what have these men done who have mortgaged their property in this way? They have done nothing that was not perfectly legitimate, and, it may be, more than legitimate; it may have been an absolute necessity for them. After all, I should think that half the businesses in this country must at one time or another have mortgaged some portion or the whole of their assets in order to maintain or extend their works and to provide work for the population. Have these men done more than that, that they should be singled out in this way to suffer ruin in some cases, as I know that in some cases it will be? Those cases may be few—I hope indeed that they are very few—but that there are some I am well assured. In all earnestness and, may I say, on behalf of those many people who like myself on the platform at the General Election advocated this measure and who are after all supporters of His Majesty's Government, I ask for their sake that His Majesty's Government will give really serious attention to the Amendment of my noble friend.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, this Amendment is one which the Government cannot possibly accept, and if they were to accept it here it is quite impossible that it would be accepted in another place. I must begin by saying this, that the Government do not accept the view that the compensation payable to the royalty owners is other than right and proper compensation. I am not going to argue that again, but I do not agree with the view that because their income is no doubt going to be substantially diminished it follows that the capital value which they receive is other than the fair capital value of their interest in the coal. I have argued that before and I will not argue it again. But assume, against my submission and against the submission of His Majesty's Government, that in fact as a result of the compulsory sale to the Coal Commission, the amount to be received by a particular royalty owner or by a number of royalty owners is less than the real value of the property, and assume that in some past era those royalty owners have mortgaged their property and that the result is that the margin upon which the mortgagee relied disappears owing to the apparent reduction in the value of the property forming the security for the mortgage; then the contention is that in every case the rights of the mortgagees should be reduced, and the argument is supported by certain views of the subject of contract law.

The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has cited some cases which to me at any rate, with all respect to him, appear to have nothing in the world to do with this case. A man who has property which he has mortgaged is still liable to comply with his contract if for any reason the security turns out to be worth much less than he supposed, or if as the result of a fire and, it may be, the default of the insurer the value of the property sinks to nothing, or if as the result of a compulsory purchase the amount payable by the authority which purchases the property is no longer enough to discharge the mortgage. It certainly cannot be suggested that there is in those circumstances any ground for saying that it is impossible for him to comply with his covenant for payment. A man has mortgaged his coal royalties, we will say, for £10,000, and he has covenanted to pay to the mortgagee the principal of £10,000 and interest it may be at 5 per cent. There is nothing in the circumstance that the security has diminished to make it impossible for him to comply with his covenant.

And, moreover, we are dealing here with all sorts of cases. For all I know the mortgage in question is one for which there is not only the security of the royalty but there may be the security of other property as well. Again there are cases where the mortgagor is known to be a man of great means and the mortgagee has never bothered to consider the precise value of the coal in question. He has not employed a valuer; he has shrugged his shoulders and has said to himself, "I know perfectly well that if as the result of the agitation which has been going on for forty years this property is taken away for less than its real value, or if it is entirely confiscated" (as some persons have contended is the fair thing to do) "yet there will be the covenant of the noble Lord who happens to be the mortgagor," or whoever else it may be—some humble but wealthy commoner; and the mortgagee has thought to himself, "Well, that is enough for me, and I do not care two straws what happens to the security in question."

Cases of that sort have to be borne in mind if you put before the Legislature the argument that a contract entered into in a perfectly formal way by a mortgagor with a mortgagee should be altered, and that in a sense, as the noble Lord fairly said, it should be repudiated under the guise of assistance by the Legislature on the ground that the security has been unfortunately diminished, which is the assumption that I am making for this purpose. I cannot conceive the justice of that; and I would add that this particular form of property has been threatened for forty years, and that if the mortgagor has only this sort of property to rely upon for his support and for the payment of the mortgagee, it is a most unfortunate circumstance, one which I agree is exceedingly hard and one which I on behalf of the Government would bitterly regret, but I cannot help saying that this property has always been property which was liable to be purchased either by the Government or by a Coal Commission, These are circumstances which must have been known to any prudent person, and should have been considered in relation to the financial obligations which the mortgagor undertook when he mortgaged the property to some third party. At any rate I do not propose to argue it any further. I can only say it is quite impossible for this Government, and I believe for any Government, to consent to the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord is no less and no more than I expected, but it does not alter the facts of the case one little bit. The facts remain as I stated them, and when the noble and learned Lord tells us that for forty years and more this property has been under threat of compulsory purchase, I can only tell him that until a year or two ago the people of this country, both the lenders and the borrowers of money, were content to rely upon the strength and integrity of the Conservative Party, and they never expected that the Party which they supported all their lives would let them down in the way it has. That is the reason why the mortgagors and the mortgagees have not paid regard to the conditions to which the noble and learned Lord referred from his place just now.

I know that it is no use my attempting to press this Amendment to a Division. Frankly, I do not like the Amendment myself for the reasons that I gave. It is just as distasteful to me to repudiate debt as to any other noble Lord in this House, but I am glad that the Government and not myself have the responsibility for the hardship which is going to be inflicted upon some of their own supporters. I am glad that it is they and not I who are going to have to listen to what will be said of them when the first of these bankrupt mortgagees goes into the Court and has the opportunity of expressing his views upon the act of State which has forced him there. All that he says will be no less than the truth, and there will not be found any noble Lord able to deny what I have stated here, that it is the action of this Government which has forced him into penury. I hold that that is unjustifiable. I have done my best to prevent it. I recognise that I have failed, and I once more repeat that I am glad it is not my responsibility. I beg to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved, in subparagraph (5) of paragraph 20, after "on" ["on the debentures"] to insert "the stock or other securities of any local authority in the United Kingdom, or the stock, shares or other securities of any statutory undertakers within the meaning of Section thirty-two of this Act." The noble Earl said: My Lords, on the Committee stage of the Bill, when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack inserted this long provision in the Bill, I sought to widen the powers of trustees in regard to the investment of the compensation money in order that those tenants for life who were suffering the loss of income might be able to acquire as large a dividend as possible to recoup them for their losses. At that time I moved an Amendment which was unacceptable to the Government. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that he would examine the question between then and this stage of the Bill. Since then he has been kind enough to receive me and those who advise me legally on this subject, and I hope that the words in this Amendment of mine are acceptable to him. The first part, as your Lordships will see, refers to stock or other securities of any local authority in the United Kingdom, or the stock, shares or other securities of any statutory undertakers as those words are defined in an earlier portion of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 76, line 5, after ("on") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Dudley.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am glad to acknowledge that the noble Earl has been of great assistance in this matter. I think there is no real objection to this Amendment and on behalf of the Government I accept it.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor for the courtesy he has shown in this matter, and for having accepted this Amendment on behalf of the Government.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved, in subparagraph (5) of paragraph 20, to insert immediately before the proviso: or the ordinary or other stock or shares of any company incorporated as aforesaid, being a company which has paid dividends upon its ordinary capital at the rate of at least four per cent. per annum for at least the ten years next before the time of investment (of which fact such a letter as aforesaid shall be sufficient evidence): The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the previous one, and amplifies it in regard to other stocks or shares of any company incorporated as aforesaid, being a company which has paid dividends upon its ordinary capital at the rate of at least four per cent. per annum for at least the ten years next before the time of investment. I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will not object to this which is consequential on the other Amendment already agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 76, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Dudley.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, this Amendment also is one which the Government accept.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to insert the following new paragraph:

"Expenses of Surface Damage Claims.

22. The Commission shall pay the costs and expenses reasonably incurred by any person after the vesting date in connection with a claim for compensation in respect of damage arising from the working of coal to the land buildings or other property of such person and to which he may be entitled under the provisions of paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Second Schedule to this Act."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the exception of the small concession which my noble friend obtained from the Government a moment ago my noble friends and I on this stage of the Bill have been like the fishers of old who toiled all the night and took nothing. This is the last occasion on this stage of the Bill when an Amendment will be moved from this side of the House, and in spite of the lateness of the hour I am afraid I must detain your Lordships for a few moments while I explain what the purpose of this Amendment is. It is the same Amendment that was on the Paper in my name on the Committee stage, and on that occasion the Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that the Government would give careful consideration to it before this stage, and that they would endeavour to meet the point on the Report stage. I need not, therefore, tell your Lordships what a very bitter disappointment it has been to me to find the Government now saying that they can do nothing whatever to meet the grievance which I was under the impression even they were unable to deny existed in this matter.

Let me remind your Lordships of what actually happens. I am afraid it is elementary to most of your Lordships who know about these things, but, as the Government do not seem to know what happens, I am afraid it is necessary to explain. When a coalowner lets his coal with the right to let down the surface given to the lessee he generally protects himself by a provision that that lessee shall pay compensation. There are three parties. There is the owner of the coal, who is also the surface owner at the present time; there is the mineral lessee; and there are the agricultural tenants. It is a matter of day to day management that there is co-operation between these three parties to keep the surface right in respect of the subsidence which is going on. There are ditches to be kept clean, walls to be repaired, and all the minor damages which are going on all the time. There are also other matters. There is a possibility that water on which the landlord or the tenant depends for his cattle may disappear as the result of mineral workings. There is the possibility that ditches may be silted up by water which the mineral tenant pumps out and which may carry silt and mud with it. There is a constant succession of questions which raise points of divided liability and which are entirely due to the working of the minerals underneath.

The royalty owner, at present the owner of the surface, has of course his mineral agent who makes regular reports, and the owner is kept constantly in touch with day-to-day circumstances. That is no longer going to happen. He is not going to have the regular reports, and to that extent he will be saved the expense of his mineral agent's report as to the amount of coal which has been taken out and reports on other matters affecting the surface which he receives regularly from time to time; but everything will go on just as before. The transference of the coal to the Commission will not prevent all these matters continuing to happen. These are expenses which have in part or in whole been capitalised and deducted from the compensation which this owner is going to receive. It is a very difficult thing to distinguish between the expenses which have been paid to the mineral adviser in respect of the routine examination underground and in respect of the surface matters which are going to continue. The extent to which these expenses will continue in the future will vary in proportion as the mineral lessee is a good or a bad one. Even if he is a good tenant ready to stand up to all his obligations these expenses will continue, and competent estimates which I have received from firms who manage clients' affairs of this kind tell me that probably in the case of a good mineral lessee twenty-five per cent. of expenses which have hitherto been borne will continue. In the case of a mineral lessee who is not so good, and who is only too ready to evade his obligations if he can, it is estimated that no less than fifty per cent. of these expenses will be continued. There will also be occasions when there will be special expenses, as for instance at the end of a lease, when the lease provides that there shall be compensation paid for surface damage which has accrued during the lease.

All these expenses will still have to be borne by the former coalowner, who is still the surface owner, and I cannot see how anybody can deny that expenses will continue which have in fact been capitalised and deducted. I am afraid it will not console me in the least if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack tells me that the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee who gave evidence in regard to these matters before the Greene Committee must have been aware of that and accepted the figure of 4.47. I do not recognise, as your Lordships know, that Committee as representing me in any way, and moreover I question their competence. I think this is a point which was overlooked. I do not think that anything like a ratio of 4.47 for management ought to have been deducted, and I feel quite confident that it includes expenses of a kind which will continue. There are solicitors' fees, surveyors' fees and fees for mining engineers who may have to be specially employed to go underground. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, still has not been able to tell us whether or not we shall have the right to send mining engineers underground. I feel myself that it is quite evident that where we formerly had reports from mining engineers regularly keeping us informed, we shall have to pay someone regularly to keep watch on the surface. We did not have to watch the surface in the same way before, because we knew automatically what was going on. Now we shall have to keep watch on the surface to see as early as we can subsidences and other things which are the consequence of mineral working of which we shall have no means of getting warning. The Coal Commission will let coal under the surface to people we do not know, and we shall have no means such as we used to have of finding out what is going on and securing protection.

I hope the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will not talk as he did on a previous occasion about Court actions. This is not a question of going into Court and winning a case and receiving damages. Even if it were, the damages would be insufficient. You can only get taxed costs and costs up to the moment when the late tenant made an offer. But the main burden is not any action that may go into Court, it is the day-to-day management of the surface due to the minerals being taken out. If the noble and learned Lord says that is surface management which was not deducted, I can only ask him where surface management ends and where mineral management begins. Take the case of coal which is being taken out at a shallow depth—ten or fifteen fathoms. Every time coal is taken out the surface above moves quite extensively. I do not know whether there is yet any definition of what is surface and what is not, but quite clearly coal ten or fifteen fathoms below the actual surface of the ground must be included in any sort of definition of surface.

I venture to hope, in spite of the fact that the Government have not put any Amendment on the Paper, that they still intend to try and do justice in this matter. I was interested to hear, in reply to the mover of the last Amendment, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack compare the action of the Government to that of a fire. I thought it was an extremely apposite comparison. I am not quite sure that the noble and learned Lord realised quite how apposite it was. This fire will consume our property and take away 40 per cent. of it. I will not press the matter further, because I hope that the noble and learned Lord will realise that here is a case which really must be met, and I still cling to the hope, which I expressed at a very early stage in these debates, that the Government intend to be fair. My faith in that intention has been shaken, I am bound to admit, during the course of our debates. There is here an opportunity for the Government to restore the faith in their integrity and in their desire to be fair, and I hope that they will take it with both hands. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 20, at end insert the said new paragraph.——(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I quite understand one thing, and that is that this Amendment relates entirely to expenses for surface management. It is the same Amendment which the noble Lord moved on a previous occasion, when the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, suggested that he thought there might be something in the criticisms that Lord Balfour had made. Since that time we have been very carefully, with our advisers, into the whole question of the costs which were deducted from the original figure to make the global figure of £4,430,000. The noble Lord will remember that they were the Mineral Rights Duties, the Miners' Welfare Levy, the rates in Scotland, and the cost of management. Having deducted all these figures the total figure was reached of £4,430,000. I mention that figure of £4,430,000 because I thought it was a figure which was generally accepted by nearly everybody who has been taking part in the discussion over this Bill, but the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, in the interesting letter which they wrote to The Times, to-day, misquoted that global figure as £4,300,000 It was nothing of the sort.

The deduction to which I have referred as management expenses was a percentage agreed to represent the deduction normally claimed and allowed on that account for the assessment of tax on income from coal ownership, as being the cost of management of coal properties exclusive of surface. If we had, as I said on a previous occasion, been quite certain that we were in the wrong and that the deductions for surface management had been made, then it would have been our duty to put something back in the Bill to meet noble Lords, but I have not the slightest hesitation in my own mind, from the advice given to me by those who attended the meetings between the mineral owners' representatives and the officials of the Treasury and of the Mines Department, that there was no deduction made which was for the expenses of the surface. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has asked me to remind Lord Balfour to look at Clause 51 of the Bill in which he will see that permission to inspect the plan of working, which will give the necessary information, can be obtained. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment because I am perfectly certain that there has been no manifest unfairness to the mineral owners.

LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH)

My Lords, really I think we have got down to a position where largely we are arguing about words. I think, with great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Munster, that his reply has thoroughly begged the question. These are expenses attributed directly to underground operations, and are hardly to be attributed to the continued expenses of royalty owners on the surface. I would give an analogous case. Supposing it were not an underground operation, but an operation on the highway. Supposing a person were run into by a motor car and his leg were broken. Could it then be said that the cost of his surgeon's bill in setting that leg is not a cost of an accident on the highway but merely a cost of continuing his expenses in bed? That there are twelve people in this country who would accept such a theory I very much doubt. My principle is simply this, that these figures were included in the global figure, and the Amendment merely requires that the fund should be properly applied.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, it did not surprise me that Lord Munster told the House that he had been advised in certain terms, in respect of what had or had not been done in the negotiations which proceeded between the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee and the officials of the Treasury and the Department of Mines, because all through this Bill, and the preparation of this Bill, and the negotiations thereon, these advisers have not been in any way reluctant to seize the opportunity which the Government gave to them at the same time of despoiling the royalty owners and of laying hands upon the industry itself. It does not surprise me that the advice they have given to the noble Earl should be as biased at the end as their advice was at the beginning. So much for their advice. I tell your Lordships here and now that it is grossly inaccurate, and bears no relation to the actual fact.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Can the noble Lord prove that it was inaccurate? It would be interesting to have his observations.

LORD HASTINGS

I will tell the noble Earl now that the figure of 4.47 was mentioned in the negotiations and was finally agreed as being the figure at which mineral agents' expenses should be fixed, that is to say, the expenses of management. That figure of 4.47 was taken to include the whole expenses of management attachable to the ownership of minerals. There was no other qualification. It is a certain fact that a part, and a particular part, of the duties of a mineral agent is to examine the plans of a colliery company's workings, so as to establish, or fail to establish, a case for his employer against the coal company in respect of surface damage. No surface land agent is competent to check up those plans, and it is only the surface agents who in the future will be employed unless funds are placed at the disposal of the mineral owner with which to pay persons competent to check up the plans. It is quite purposeless to endeavour to secure compensation from a colliery company in respect of surface damage, unless you have some person available who can go through the underground working plans with the colliery manager, and agree or disagree with him as to whether or no that damage has been caused by colliery workings. Only a mineral agent is competent to do that.

Those mineral agents' salaries have in the gross been deducted from the amount allotted to the royalty owners under the global figure of £4,430,000. No provision has been made by which these mineral agents can in future be paid and it is absolutely inevitable that the mineral agents must be paid a retaining fee by the mineral owners, otherwise they cannot substantiate any claim for damage. Why tell the House that you have been advised that such and such a thing was done, and such and such an expense deducted, when on the face of it it cannot have been? These expenses have got to continue, and no money is allowed out of which they can be met. This Amendment is absolutely essential to the creation of a state of affairs which will be just. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, will unquestionably press the Amendment, and I beg the House to support him in this, for it would be grossly improper and most unfair that the owners should be mulcted twice over in the same expenses and then be put off by being told by the noble Earl that his advisers tell him that these expenses have already been discounted and provided for, when it is not in accordance with the facts.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, before the Question is put I must say a word in reply to the noble Earl. I am glad to know that at least he read my letter in The Times this morning. I am sorry if there was a small slip in it, but perhaps now he is a little more seised of the justice of our case than he was before. He says that surface management expenses were not deducted and therefore there is no hardship in allowing them to continue. Does not that just show what a disadvantage it is that the Greene Committee's Report has not been published?

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

With great respect this has nothing to do with the Report of the Greene Committee. This £4,430,000 was arrived at long before the Greene Committee was set up.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Then let me suggest what the 4.47 per cent. was, and I am inclined to suggest to the noble Earl that the 4.47 per cent. which was deducted for expenses was the average of expenses of management of minerals which were deducted by owners for claims for repayment of Income Tax. Is that so? The noble Earl assents. Then the case is made, because that 4.47 per cent. for mineral management includes the very expenses I have described, and the case for a double deduction is made. I am much obliged to the noble Earl, and I ish to press the Amendment to a Division.

On Question, Whether the proposed new paragraph shall be there inserted?

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

EARL STANHOPE

My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 78, line 13, leave out ("of this Schedule").—(Earl Stanhope.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved—

Page 80, line 7, insert: ("(v) Paragraph 20 shall have effect as if for any reference to an estate or other interest subject to a settlement within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1925, there were substituted a reference to an estate or other interest subject to a trust within the meaning of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921, or to an entail or to a liferent.").—(The Earl of Munster.)

Fourth Schedule [Lease Consolidation Schemes]:

EARL STANHOPE

My Lords, the first Amendment on this Schedule is drafting.

Amendment moved—

Page 82, line 21, leave out from the beginning to ("any") in line 22 and insert— ("The said lease shall, notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of Section eleven of this Act, not include").—(Earl Stanhope.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next Amendment is also drafting.

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 19.

CONTENTS.
Wellington, D.	Elibank, V.	Gainford, L.
	Hereford, V.	Gerard, L.
Dudley, E. [Teller.]		Hastings, L.
Fitzwilliam, E.	Addington, L.	Heneage, L.
Grey, E.	Balfour of Burleigh, L. [Teller.]	Mowbray, L.
Lindsay, E.		Redesdale, L.
Wicklow, E.	Cranworth, L.	Saltoun, L.
	Darcy (de Knayth), L.	Sandhurst, L.
Bertie of Thame, V.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Teynham, L.
		Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
	Munster, E.	Holden, L.
Bath, M.	Spencer, E.	Jessel, L.
Dufferin and Ava, M.	Stanhope, E.	Kenilworth, L.
		Lamington, L.
Feversham, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Iddesleigh, E.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)	Windlesham, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 83, line 26, leave out ("who is competent to grant a lease in the terms of a draft") and insert ("whose grant or concurrence is requisite to the taking effect of a lease").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 83, line 28, leave out ("of any premises to which the draft relates") and insert ("as respects any premises comprised therein").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, the last Amendment on this Schedule is also drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 83, line 29, leave out ("a lease in the terms of that draft") and insert ("the lease").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Fifth Schedule [Grant of leases to freeholders in possession of coal, immediately before the vesting date]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the two Amendments on this Schedule are to remedy a drafting omission. In the original drafting we omitted the fact that the parties concerned had to execute a lease security, I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 86, line 11, leave out ("and") and insert ("or") Page 86, line 13, leave out paragraph 4 and insert— ("4. Subject to any agreement between the parties named in the draft of a lease substituted security or other instrument settled under this Schedule, it shall be the duty of each of those parties, on being required by any other of them so to do, to execute a lease security or other instrument in the terms of the draft.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Sixth Schedule: